MISSISSIPPI: 46% Of Polled Republicans are racists.

[Jawawithagun]

There is also the possibility that many of this 46% are stupid rather than racist. I would not be surprised if many of the people who responded did not understand the question.

I find that extremely difficult to believe. It is a very simple question.

I wish I could believe you. But then I go over to notalwaysright.com and see all this anecdotal evidence that, yes, people ARE that stupid.

[Simon_Jester]

Oh. I'm a little... well, I'm trying to put this into perspective. How does a country progress so much and so fast - the US has been a driver on many fronts since the last century - with a non-insignificant amount of backward, bigoted and hateful people?

Grey, I'm going to say something about Alabama, and the Alabama Republicans who filled out this poll. It is extremely uncharitable, and unfair, but I feel it is the best way to explain this.

I want you to make an appropriate deduction for regional biases, for the fact that there are always exceptions to rules about societies and regions, for everything else; I know what I say is biased, but it illustrates the point far better as a biased statement which exaggerates the truth than it would if I filled it with disclaimers and "sort of" and "tends to."

Here goes:
_________

GreySky, very little of the progress that made America what it is happened in Alabama, and none of the progress happened because of Alabama Republicans. This is important to understand. Alabama is a historical backwater, and most of the positive change that has come to the US in the 200 years since we won independence was imposed on them against their will. Starting with the abolition of chattel slavery, which quite literally had to be imposed on them at gunpoint.

Think of Alabama as being the equivalent of, say, Pakistan culturally and psychologically- complete with religious-fanatic tribes of hillmen. But unlike Pakistan, it just happens to be incorporated into the territory of a more modern nation, and to have been so since its creation; the reason it's a backwater is that it was settled by agriculturalists during the early phases of the Industrial Revolution. As such, a lot of that revolution, and the associated changes in attitude, completely passed them by, and they came to despise it as the practice of 'foreigners' from out of state: "damnyankees."

There are, of course, progressive people in Alabama- most of them blacks who know perfectly well what their place would be under the order Alabama Republicans would like to establish here. They do not run the state.

In large part because of this, Alabama is an economic backwater. They receive roughly 1.6$ in money from the federal government (economic aid, government spending on facilities in their state, and so on) for every dollar they pay in taxes. They come in near last place on most lists of states in terms of economic and social indicators.

While Alabamans are indisputably "Americans," they are not the Americans who built this country. If all Americans were like Alabama Republicans, the US would, in economic and social terms, be a much poorer place.

There. That is my biased statement. It exaggerates the truth, except for the part about "1.6 dollars," because that's a real fact I can cite. Now, deduct from that for my frustration with Southern politics and the prominent role of Southern politicians in what I see as the despoiling of my nation by a pack of oligarchs.

Something my dad mentioned a while back might make sense now: "The reason Americans are successful is because they know how to follow orders properly. This means only the 5% making the decisions have to be smart, the remaining 95% will execute the smart plans to perfection."

It's more complicated than that. Alabama is a mostly-rural province that was passed by in turn by the Industrial Revolution and everything that came after it. In large parts of the state, the prevailing idea of democracy is still that of 1800-vintage Anglophones: rich white men should run everything, poor white people have rights, and everyone else is supposed to sit down, shut up, and keep their nose to the grindstone.

India's been on the receiving end of this kind of "democracy;" you know what I'm talking about.

This is not a representative sample of the American people, though people like this do make up a large enough fraction of the population to have considerable demographic clout. Go elsewhere in the country, and you will find far more people who are educated in a more modern tradition.

[Edi]

Let's not forget that this thread is about Mississippi Republicans, who from the sound of the comments about the state in general are even worse than the Alabama Republicans. Alabama was the example of the attitudes having been documented elsewhere in the US recently that came to mind.

[Zaune]

To put Simon's example into simpler terms, you know how every county has one or two really crappy towns that everyone else looks down their noses at, and whose inhabitants are the butt of prejudice and cruel jokes? Alabama and Mississippi are the equivalents of those crappy towns for the entire United States.

(I could do a very culture- and location-specific metaphor here, but I'm the only regular poster from Northamptonshire so nobody would get it.)

[Simon_Jester]

Let's not forget that this thread is about Mississippi Republicans, who from the sound of the comments about the state in general are even worse than the Alabama Republicans. Alabama was the example of the attitudes having been documented elsewhere in the US recently that came to mind.

...Crap. I got it wrong. God that is so embarrassing- I should have been writing "Mississippi," not "Alabama."

Anyone who's feeling generous can blame it on my working on my tax return today- a disproportionate amount of which would go to Alabama and Mississippi... *wanders off, grumbling incoherently*

EDIT: Everything I said about Alabama, I believe about Mississippi. Except that Mississippi doesn't get 1.6 dollars in federal spending per dollar it pays in taxes. It gets 1.8 dollars per.

[Duckie]

Mississippi and Alabama are essentially the same state anyhow- their culture is significantly shared, and any sensible redraw of boundaries to reduce the number of states we had and fix the pro-rural unbalance in the senate would combine them right after it got done fixing North and South Dakota and at least half of New England together.

(And probably, for that matter, Oregon and Washington, perhaps combining them but then sell their over-mountain parts to Idaho, and almost all the Midwest into a single one, but now I'm not on the same subject)

[Simon_Jester]

Well, I'm not sure how "sensible" it would be to demand one state per cultural bloc, no more and no less.

But I take your meaning. The basic issues I talk about- it's a region where settlers were overwhelmingly interested in agriculture, often slave-based agriculture, which was largely bypassed by the Industrial Revolution and the civilizing growth of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and in which virtually every major improvement in social conditions has been imposed from without, often at bayonet-point*. And that stretches through pretty much the entire Deep South; Alabama and Mississippi are among the deepest of the South, but that's about it.

There are localized exceptions to that rules; the cities are more civilized than the countryside, and not all parts of the countryside are equally savage. But for purposes of trying to explain how this can happen to someone from India, I think it really is the best way to describe it: while they may have more electricity and a stronger military protecting them, in terms of the way the people think and their attitudes toward religion, social organization, and the like... it's as if the US had a clone of Afghanistan somehow dropped within its borders, complete with religious fanatics and medieval holdover customs. We have to govern the place, but it can't be said to be representative of what made us a First World country.

*Racial integration of southern schools, for instance, was literally imposed at bayonet-point; the first black students to attend Little Rock High School in Arkansas were escorted in on the first day they were allowed into the school by a detachment of paratroopers.

[Duckie]

Well, I'm not sure how "sensible" it would be to demand one state per cultural bloc, no more and no less.

By this I meant mostly that the US has a massive rural advantage in the Senate because the midwestern and southern states are far less populous than the few urbanised atlantic states. Any 'sensible' redraw of state borders to make each state approximately the same size of people and thus address the Senate's massive bias would combine relatively pointlessly separated states, such as Mississippi-Alabama or North Dakota-South Dakota or New England*, since it'd be best for the new states to at least make a modicum of sense.

(Granted any sensible revision of the US would just do away with the original state lines entirely, redraw all the federal components of the US, and switch the system away from the ridiculous states' rights votes-per-state thing the senate has going on, but again I'm meandering).

*As a new englander I could ramble forever about how different each area's culture is and how there's multiple ones even within the same state, but if you wanted to make the states all have equal population you'd want to merge them all into one or maybe two anyhow as together they're still smaller than california or new york or whatnot.

But nonethelss the point I was trying to make was outside of obvious things like North-Dakota/South-Dakota > "Dakota", Mississippi and Alabama are pretty high on the level of "places that'd be up near the top on the list of places to look for combining states because they're basically identical anyhow".

[Simon_Jester]

I see your point; if we wanted fifty states, mean population roughly six million each, with some standard deviation of reasonable size... yeah.

Actually, we'd do better to split to thirty (ten million on average) or twenty (fifteen million), because, hell, some metropolitan areas have more than six million people.

Which is sobering; there are cities with a population ten times the size of a state like Wyoming, and yet which have vastly inferior representation in the US.

Stupid Blackpowder Age-vintage governmental structure...

[Zaune]

Just as an aside, discussing how to redraw the state boundaries strikes me as somewhat pointless. My feeling is that you'd be better off splitting state-level powers equally between county and Federal level and switching to something closer to the Westminster model, which for all its faults is at least adapted for an urbanised, industrialised society with rapid communications.

[Duckie]

Just as an aside, discussing how to redraw the state boundaries strikes me as somewhat pointless. My feeling is that you'd be better off splitting state-level powers equally between county and Federal level and switching to something closer to the Westminster model, which for all its faults is at least adapted for an urbanised, industrialised society with rapid communications.

Well, yes, of course. I said as much. If it were my choice I'd switch to a mixed member proportional parliamentary system. Granted if I had such absolute power, I'd also kick new england out of america, appoint myself governor-general of it, join the commonwealth, and make some nice friendship and economic partnership treaties with europe, but apparently nobody else regrets the US not being a nice, well adjusted former dominion like canada.

But 'redrawing state lines to be fairer to urban inhabitants' is a really good thought experiment that shows just how biased the country's senate is towards rural inhabitants of areas such as wyoming and south dakota against places like chicago and boswash and whatnot. It's not a realistic proposal since it would have to be okayed by the very rural powers that would stand to lose their votes and influence to happen, whether it be by states' consent or by congressional constitutional amendment.

Oh dear, I fear I made the discussion off-topic. Needless to say, to bring it slightly back more on topic, the reason why my idle flight of fancy singapores* new england out of the country is because it often feels vaguely icky to be a resident of a country that includes places like oklahoma or alabama or whatnot.

*singapore is the only country ever given independence by being forcibly ejected without its consent from a nation, so I know of no other way to call such a thing.

[UnderAGreySky]

This has been highly educational. Thanks, everyone and especially Simon.

Not that I'm any less repulsed by the poll results though.

[bobalot]

Usually there is some Republican talking point to explain away something like this (Quick! Where is Count Chocula!). I'm curious what it is.

However in this case, it maybe a difficult. It was a very simple question.

[Simon_Jester]

This has been highly educational. Thanks, everyone and especially Simon.

Not that I'm any less repulsed by the poll results though.

This is in no way, shape, or form an attack or jab of any kind, but I would be interested to find out:

What would happen if you took members of the more conservative political parties in India and polled them on whether the legal system should enforce caste divisions?

[ArmorPierce]

Not that surprised but still shocking. 46% being for making interracial marriage illegal is very extreme racism playing. I bet the vast majority of the rest of the population has some other varying degrees of racism.

[Duckie]

We probably shouldn't read 46% as 46%. If gay marriage polls are anything, about 10% of the 'legal' vote was out of desire to seem open-minded and politically correct, and about 90% or more of the "Undecided" means "Don't want to tell you I'm opposed" when it actually comes to vote. In regular polling, only about 2% of americans are ever truly undecided, even if they don't understand the question or don't know what they'll do in all honesty. Americans almost always answer 'I support this/agree' or 'I disagree/don't support this'- it's a cultural trait that scorns the idea that someone might not know something.

If it were possible politically/constitutionally and a demagogue actually mustered people to the polls, I'd estimate something closer to 64% vote for illegalising it and 36% to keep it allowed.

although granted, that's only republicans. The black vote and the democratic vote (which are basically synonymous in most of the south with the exception of the old loyal democrats who for still some reason don't realise their party is no longer (as) racist or are southern democrats (read: republicans who don't like the republicans).

But I'd be surprised if you let deep south republicans make anonymous secret ballot votes on it and got less than a supermajority on it.

[Lonestar]

I wonder what the results are for Democrats in that poll.

The firm also conducted a separate poll of non-Republican voters, asking them the same question about interracial marriage. Those results are expected to be released in the coming weeks, along with those from another PPP poll asking Mississippi voters whether they think the right side -- the North or South -- won the Civil War.

Hmmm...if the poll was taken at the same time, why only release part of the results?

Lol aol

[Gurachn]

...or Japan where the government actively supports neo-imperalist revanchism against Dokdo...

You mean 'Takeshima', don't you?

[UnderAGreySky]

On a barely related note, this says a lot:



Note the last two on the list.

This is in no way, shape, or form an attack or jab of any kind, but I would be interested to find out:

What would happen if you took members of the more conservative political parties in India and polled them on whether the legal system should enforce caste divisions?

If you're saying official parties, they would NEVER say it in public, whether they believed it or not. Because the moment word got out, they would be hung out to dry by the media. En masse.

An anonymous poll of the right wing folks.... I really don't know. A mid point between what I would like the results to be and what I believe would be the worst-case scenario would be 20% supporting such divisions.

[Simon_Jester]

Party politicians could never support such a position, I'm sure- but no Republican has run in Mississippi promising to ban interracial marriage for decades, even if half the Republican voters would support such a position. Even if that very Republican privately believes interracial marriage is wrong, he would never, ever admit to it anywhere the national news media might hear.

And yet 46% of the people who voted that man into office do believe that interracial marriage should be illegal.

So, pick whichever major political party in India has (in your view) the worst position on the subject of caste.

The question is: how many of those people, if polled semi-anonymously (someone asking their opinion on a poll where their name is not recorded) would check boxes along the lines of "yes, caste restrictions should be observed more carefully." Or something along those lines- I'm even less familiar with public discourse on caste in India than you are with public discourse on race in the US.

[UnderAGreySky]

Twenty percent then, worst-case scenario. We're looking at the BJP and its parent (and officially non-political) organisations the VHP and Bajrang Dal. These guys are more Hindu-oriented - religion - than caste. If your question was phrased from a religious point of view, there's a distinct case for the numbers to reach Alabama/Mississippi levels. The scars of partition run deep amongst a lot of second (i.e. those born in the 40s and 50s) Hindus and Muslims.

As for caste, there will be a distinct split between urban and rural areas. Some villages? You may as well not bother polling because you'll get a unanimous disapproval of inter-caste marriage. In the cities and towns, you'll get people disapproving of them but (IMO) not calling for laws into such.

Some of this is probably wishful thinking on my part. I really, really want my countrymen and women to move on from bigoted views based on antiquated religious teachings. One thing I am comforted about is that my family (and not just immediate relations) are incredibly secular. We have Muslims, Christians and Sikhs married into our family and unlike some communities it's not always "it's okay if it's a girl marrying into the family as long as she converts". The same goes for castes - I have no idea what caste most of my relatives belong to.

[Simon_Jester]

Some of this is probably wishful thinking on my part. I really, really want my countrymen and women to move on from bigoted views based on antiquated religious teachings.

Me too, friend. Me too...

[paladin]

Any know what those percentages look like for Democrats in Mississippi? I wouldn't expected a number as high as the Republicans but within 10 to 15 percentage points.

[Count Chocula]

According to this Gallup Poll from 2007, 77% of those polled nationwide approved of interracial marriages and 17% disapproved. The graph is interesting:



So, looking at the crossing lines on the graph, Mississippi Republicans appear to be 20 years behind the rest of the country, as represented by Gallup. I can't say that's a surprise. Actually I can, because Missisippi has a governor of Indian (the subcontinent) descent. Maybe he passes because his wife is also of Indian descent [/sarcasm]. I'm interested to see what the Dem voters in the same survey (to be released later, as Lonestar notes) have to say. PPP may not be the most neutral polling group out there, either; it'd be nice to see a one-question poll on the subject from, say, Gallup among the same group of voters.

[Phantasee]

Haley Barbour isn't Indian? I think you confused Mississippi with Louisiana or South Carolina.