http://www.ocregister.com/articles/obama-51165-ocprint-health-racism.html
According to Professor Eric Knowles of UC-Irvine, who worked with two Stanford University social psychologists (whatever that is) came to this conclusion from interviewing 285 whites, Hispanics and Asians to determine their bias against blacks.
Two hundred and eighty-five people out of a nation of 300 million. Pretty conclusive, don't you think?
"Yeah. Us and 283 other guys!"
Conclusion? Obama won the election in spite of racial prejudice against blacks. The subsequent resistance to his policies is driven by racial prejudice against blacks.
Noteworthy in the article is that the professors apparently didn't bother to interview African-Americans as to why they voted or didn't vote for Obama or why they support or oppose his policies.
In the interest of full disclosure, I teach part time at UC-Irvine, but I don't know Professor Knowles.
So what is the message here? Is it that we Obama critics should shut our mouths lest we not be accused of being racists? Well, I abandoned that idea quite a while back. Besides, I have no desire to abandon black conservatives who have exhibited courage in going against Obama, his gang, and his philosophy.
6 comments:
We have some friends who
are black and they are quite conservative. They never did
buy a ticket onto the Obama
express to oblivion. Average
working folks, with four kids
and struggling like so many of
us. They have confided in us
that many of their friends quit
having anything to do with them
when it was disclosed they DID
not support Obama or the
Democratic platform and agenda.
They were actually called the
'n' word,(I hesitate to use it)
racist and prejudice against
Obama because he is black!
Wow, is all I could say for a
few moments.
Like you, I refuse to be quiet
or stop supporting those who
are against Obama just because
we will be called racists or
worse. Sure, some people do not
like Obama because he is black
BUT the majority of those we know
dislike Obama because of who
he is, and his policies. It has
never been about race. It has
always been about Obama and what
he represents.
Well said, Patriot. We need to stand up and support black conservatives. God knows how much abuse they take for their positions.
Dear Gary,
Thank you for your interest in our article. If I might, I'd like to clear up a misconception about the research. In the paper, we state the following:
"In sum, while our findings do not corroborate the view that opposition to the President is motivated primarily by racial prejudice, they clearly rebut those who argue that opposition to Obama and his policies has nothing to do with race—or that we should 'get over' the idea that it might (Greenberg et al., 2009)."
As is clear from this quotation, we do not agree with Jimmy Carter that the "overwhelming portion" of opposition to Obama is prejudice-driven. Based on our data, however, we also disagree with Michael Steele, John Boehner, Stan Greenberg, and James Carville, all of whom have claimed that racial prejudice has no role in making opposition to Obama more likely.
Our point here is that prejudice is one factor -- of many -- that contributes to views about Obama. Our data clearly support this notion. Nowhere in the paper do we claim that opposition to Obama entails prejudice. Nothing in our work disputes that idea that many, even most, people oppose Obama simply because they don't like his policies.
Taking the claim "if x, then y" (if prejudiced, then against Obama) and inferring from it that "if y, then x" (if against Obama, then prejudiced) is a logical mistake called the converse error, or "affirming the consequent" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent). I worry that the title of your entry encourages just this misreading of our findings. The same error is apparent when you attribute to us the claim that "most people who are opposed to Obama are prejudiced." We don't make this claim, nor do we agree with it.
You correctly point out that our sample was not nationally representative. That is precisely why never speculate as to prevalence of race-based opposition to Obama in the larger population -- but rather just that it exists. However, I would direct your attention to an excellent article that reports results similar to ours in a nationally representative data set:
Payne, B. K., Krosnick, J. A., Pasek, J., Lelkes, Y., Akhtar, O., Tompson, T. (2009). Implicit and explicit prejudice in the 2008 American presidential election. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
Best regards,
Eric Knowles
Dear Eric,
Thank you for your response, and I hope you didn't take my pictorial humor personally. I am glad that you clarified the point that most people who oppose Obama do not do so for racial reasons. That is a vicious canard that has been made against conservatives (like me) by irresponsible far-left characters like Jeanine Garofalo and Keith Olbermann. Jimmy Carter's statement is ridiculous, but perfectly in tune with what I have come to expect from him.
From what I saw in the newspaper, you do ascribe some of Obama's opposition to racial reasons. That may be a point that is impossible to measure especially delving into people's minds, but I would venture that most of those voters who voted against Obama for racial reasons are not even up to date on the issues of the day to begin with.
As to the article you quoted, all I could pull up is the abstract. Apparently, I would have to pay for the full pdf article. (I'm not going to do that.)
I am in my 60s, so I grew up in a nation that I admit was racist. I don't think this is a racist country today. A country with racial issues and divisions? Sure. But not racist. There is a difference.
I also question why African-Awericans were not included in the study-both those who voted for him BECAUSE he was black-and those who voted against him and oppose his policies. I would venture that more blacks voted for Obama because he was black than whites or other groups who voted against him because he was black. Maybe I should add per capita-since blacks only make up about 12% of the population.
All in all, I still question the value of using 285 people and drawing conclusions about 300 million. (BTW Were all of your subjects from California?)
Ultimately, President Obama is going to have to be judged on his ability in office and the policies he pursues. I would venture that most of the people, the overwhelming majority who voted against him (like me), in fact, did so because they perceived him a a socialist and a radical.
Thus far, he is proving us right.
So, Gary: Having received this clarification from one of the study's authors, you still haven't really responded to what the study suggests: that race apparently has something--not nothing, not everything--to do with some opposition to Obama. It's a subtle but important observation.
Will,
The problem is that a lot of people will jump on this study-as it was reported in the newspapers- to say, "see-we told you so."
I accept Prof Knowles explanation that the study was not meant to paint all Obama opponents with the same brush. You have to admit however, that a lot of people are doing just that-people in responsible news positions like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. Just go back and listen to their words. You can view the videos on this blog. We are getting a little sick of it.
I have also acknowledged that there are racists out there who oppose Obama because of his race. They do not represent us, however, and as I pointed out, they probably don't even keep up with the issues all that much.
Post a Comment