The Perception Gap

Back on Monday, though Ross saw no hope for the GOP in efforts to pick up black voters in 2008, he was fairly optimistic about their longer-term prospects, citing in particular this result from a recent Pew survey on racial attitudes:

A 53% majority of African Americans say that blacks who don't get ahead are mainly responsible for their situation, while just three-in-ten say discrimination is mainly to blame. As recently as the mid-1990s, black opinion on this question tilted in the opposite direction, with a majority of African Americans saying then that discrimination is the main reason for a lack of black progress.

It's intriguing, but also a somewhat ill-posed question in my view as it excludes a large middle ground of possibilities. I'd say, for example, that the legacy of discrimination as manifest in things like the large black-white hap in asset ownership plays a large role. What's more telling, I think, is the persistence of giant racial gaps in perception of the existence of racist discrimination. Pew asked if blacks face discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, college admissions, and day-to-day retail and you see a huge split between the number of blacks who feel there is "frequently" or "almost always" discrimination, and the number of whites who feel this way:

In short, though relatively few blacks see racist discrimination as "mainly responsible" for the condition of "blacks who don't get ahead," most African-Americans think African-Americans get discriminated against a lot. Adding the numbers up presents an even starker image:

Blacks see an America where there's pervasive discrimination. Most whites, by contrast, hardly see any discrimination at all. People who feel like they're the victims of frequent discrimination in many walks of life are going to be drawn toward political leaders who seem to share their concerns and show some inclination to do something about it. Democratic Party politicians are good at doing that. Republican Party politicians, almost all of whom are white people who've spent their entire careers securing the votes of other white people and then caucusing with all-white groups of colleagues, are really, really bad at it.

Comments

But, of course, except for an enlightened few like John McWhorter and Clarence Thomas and their ilk, us black folks are just too dumb to realize that Republicans really have our best interests at heart. We're just so stupid and emotionally tied to those carpetbaggin' Dems that we just can't help ourselves and keep voting for them, over and over again.
One of these days, I guess, us black folks will finally see the light and follow JC Watts, a latter day Moses, over to the Promised Land of the GOP.

Posted by frankie d | November 29, 2007 2:35 PM

40% of blacks think they face discrimination when applying to college?!?!

should the question have specified *adverse* discrimination?

Posted by Chris | November 29, 2007 2:38 PM

Douthat's post could be lifted up as example number one of how horribly indifferent 'well-intentioned' conservatives sound when it comes to race.

Personally, I don't know what's stupider--the generic confidence that a shift from victim culture to one of personal responsibility will result in gains for the GOP, because, you know, they're the party for responsibility, or the thinking that African-Americans, having concluded that discrimination is no big deal, will start voting for the people who did nothing to counter this discrimination, because that was, like, ten years ago.

Posted by Thomas | November 29, 2007 2:42 PM

Thomas basically says what i was going to say, so i'll just add that i find it hard to believe (i don't have the time to link through) that douhat fails to understand that a huge problem the gop faces in getting black votes is the legacy of the southern strategy....

Posted by howard | November 29, 2007 2:45 PM

Any conservative who believes that the Republicans are ever going to get anything more than a small portion of the black vote must be smoking the same crack that Karl Rove smoked to convinced himself that open borders and amnesty would be good for the Republican Party.

In the long run the growth of the black and Hispanic populations relative to the white population is going to make the Republican party irrelevant. Then the only question is going to be how will politics work in a one party state.

Posted by superdestroyer | November 29, 2007 2:50 PM

"I'd say, for example, that the legacy of discrimination as manifest in things like the large black-white hap in asset ownership plays a large role."

This reflexive habit of liberals to blame things on "a legacy of discrimination" is harmful to blacks, because it obscures the real problems of black attitudes and behaviors. For years, no one would study this out of political correctness, but fortunately, a black-owned mutual fund company (Ariel Funds) did. What they found was that even affluent blacks were:

1) Less likely to save for retirement than whites of similar incomes.

2) Saving less on average than their white peers.

3) Less likely to invest in stocks, which, historically, have produced the highest returns.

Posted by Fred | November 29, 2007 2:59 PM

Interestingly, if you hop over to Douthat's sight you can find him throwing a hail-mary on the IQ debate.

The urge to keep the flame burning for White Power G is amazing, but not surprising. What does puzzle me that people who go out of their way to embrace all of the pseudo-scientific garbage on race will at the same time pretend to care about African-Americans and act as if they aren't racists. Is it cynicism? Or is it genuine? Does someone who so clearly hopes that there is something lurking beneath the slime, really consider himself not to be a racist?

Incidentally, conservatives are always mocking the stereotype of guilty liberals wondering if they're racist or not. It's probably worth mocking, sure, but compared to assholes like Douthat, having the ability to think about what you are doing when you talk about race is five-hundred times more human.

Posted by Thomas | November 29, 2007 3:13 PM

It doesn't matter. As long as there's even *1* black person anywhere who says *anything* is racist, the vast majority of white folks will say "oversensitive lazy excuse-making reverse-racist" to themselves.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | November 29, 2007 3:39 PM

The Democratic Party has also been very good at fueling black resentment and convincing blacks that white society is against them, and they need the government to help them succeed.

Posted by dissent | November 29, 2007 3:43 PM

Of course, we should always take accusations and perceptions of discrimination at face value.

Posted by cyrus | November 29, 2007 3:43 PM

"Of course, we should always take accusations and perceptions of discrimination at face value."

Of course we shouldn't, but there's a huge gap between whites and blacks over whether discrimination is an important impediment in black lives. One can't simply assume that the white view, being, perhaps, more "detached," is correct. Maybe black people see more than there is because they're looking for it, but there is no obvious reason to think the false positive error rate is any greater than the false negative rate among those white folk who are not looking for it, or are looking for it not to be there.

Posted by CJColucci | November 29, 2007 4:06 PM

"This reflexive habit of liberals to blame things on "a legacy of discrimination" is harmful to blacks, because it obscures the real problems of black attitudes and behaviors."

Fred,

Conversely, the reflexive habit of conservatives to blame things solely on either dysfunctional or simply imprudent black attitudes and behaviors is harmful to blacks, because the obscures the damage done to the Black community by a legacy of discrimination.

The reality is that the Black community is best off pursuing both a Booker T Washington route (a route focused on the self-improvement of the habits, skills, & knowledge of the Black community) and a WEB Dubois route (identifying the institutional means by which racial discrimination against Blacks is perpetuated, either consciously or unconsciously, and devising the solutions necessary to overcome and destroy these institutional means of perpetuating racial discrimination against Blacks). Improving skills, habits, and knowledge by itself won't make Blacks immune to the adverse effects of institutionalized racial discrimination, and removing institutional barriers to Black advancement by itself won't improve the lot of African-Americans, if they lack the habits, skills, and knowledge to take advantage of opportunities for self-advancement.

Posted by eltoro | November 29, 2007 4:19 PM

Eltoro,

Can you give me some examples of "institutionalized racial discrimination" that are holding blacks down today? If anything, there is institutionalized discrimination in favor of blacks in higher education and employment (i.e., affirmative action). The only marginally plausible example I could think of of institutionalized racial discrimination against blacks might be the vehement opposition of teachers unions to school choice.

Posted by Fred | November 29, 2007 4:27 PM

"If anything, there is institutionalized discrimination in favor of blacks in higher education and employment (i.e., affirmative action)."

I do employment discrimination defense work. I win a lot. But I've also lost plenty, and not always because the judge or jury were idiots -- though there is more than enough of that to go around. Far more often than it is comfortable to admit, we lose because we should -- even with clients that have official affirmative action and nondiscrimination policies. Anyone who thinks that, on the whole, minorities are favored in the job market lives on a different planet from the one my clients live on.

Posted by CJColucci | November 29, 2007 4:36 PM

Maybe black people are more likely to have read the Fryer and Levitt papers on racial discrimination?

Posted by Julian Elson | November 29, 2007 4:38 PM

That's an easy one Fred. Lending and employment practices. There are a lot of good studies out there demonstrating that black and whites with equal qualifications are not treated equally by banks or employers as a general rule.

Posted by idabw | November 29, 2007 4:38 PM

The elephant in the room in this discussion is so-called "rational discrimination". If people are aware, say, that blacks are more likely to commit crime, then they are probably more likely to discriminate them in certain ways, such as not wanting them to move into their neighborhood, not wanting to hire them, etc.

This doesn't mean that they are racist per se, just that their commitment to fairness is not strong enough to overcome their commitment to their narrow self interest.

Obviously, it becomes a chicken and egg problem, because as blacks as a group perform better socioeconomically, then they will be less likely to be perceived as threats. However, the existing discrimination and the resentment it breeds might play a significant role in preventing this from happening.

Posted by Jim W | November 29, 2007 4:41 PM

Fred, try this.

It shows that between African-Americans and whites with equal credentials, whites with criminal backgrounds are more likely to be hired than African-Americans without.

Posted by Thomas | November 29, 2007 4:48 PM

So the "reality based community" of which Yglesias claims to be a member thinks there is discrimination against blacks in college admissions? I'm going to keep this factoid in mind forever when Yglesias claims that someone else's politics are not based on accurate factual premises.

Posted by y81 | November 29, 2007 4:53 PM

Instead of accusing white people of being exceptionally racist, why don't we stipulate that racism is a fact of human nature and move on to the meat of the problem: how do we mitigate the adverse social effects of in-group out-group valuations?

Because, uh, seriously. Black people are just as racist as white people, as whole. So are Asians, and Hispanics. You can't tell me otherwise. Entrenched racism is more pernicious -- and as such white racism was a larger, institutional problem (though it's questionable how much that's true today) -- but racism itself is as human as greed.

However, rather than sucking it up and advancing to a narrative of inclusiveness (Dr. King's message) -- which as a centripetal force counteracts the baser, centrifugal instinct of prevalued distinction -- we broadcast and magnify intergroup accusations, reinforcing the wall between us and giving the charlatans on both sides a perch from which to harangue their constituents.

It's a Hobbesian trap that we need to defuse. Of course, telling whites they are racists will not make them racists -- to a certain extent they are already programmed to categorize and valuate according to visual cues, a mental process which gives rise to racism. No, instead it will make their racism more intractable and more consequential, which will then make black racism more intractable and consequential, and on and on.

So if you want to worsen the problem, continue telling whites how racist they are, and continue telling blacks how aggrieved they should be. But if you want to actually address the problem (which is human-universal), perhaps you should drop the race-baiting and learn the art of civic dialogue.

Posted by JA | November 29, 2007 5:01 PM

I'd say, for example, that the legacy of discrimination as manifest in things like the large black-white hap in asset ownership plays a large role.

Well, this is easy to fix. Let's change the lending standards so that previously discriminated against minorities will be able to qualify for home loans. In fact, we should start these programs off with a lower introductory interest rate so that first time home-owners can get in the habit of paying a mortgage, then, when settled in, raise the rate to market clearing levels. In other cases, we can also structure it so that the homebuyers will only be paying the interest for the first few years to enable the payments to be at a level that is within their monthly income level. One last alternative, for the truly cash strapped, is to allow a small monthly payment, and let the additional interest owed to accrue be payed back later when the homeowner is a little more flush.

I can't think of anything going wrong with the above plan.

But, if it still doesn't work, we could always take over some assets, such as farms, by eminent domain and hand them over the minority owned businesses, especially if they are also war veterans.

Posted by Kolohe | November 29, 2007 5:07 PM

"Can you give me some examples of "institutionalized racial discrimination" that are holding blacks down today?"

How about racial profiling in law enforcement, which leads to blacks having to endure the heavy hand of the government far more often than whites ever have to? Then there's disparities between how white and black offenders are treated for the same crimes (particularly drug crimes), where blacks are more likely to be incarcerated than whites, who are more likely to get probation and have their records expunged. Heck, there's even disparities in how black and white criminals are charged for the same criminal behavior (particularly drug crimes), with Blacks more likely to be charged as felons than whites are.

On top of that, Blacks are more likely to charged and convicted for crimes they didn't commit, particularly for offenses with the death penalty. Finally, blacks are more likely to be victims of wrongful shootings or even torture by law enforcement officials than whites are. (Do you think your buddy Giuliani would have defended his cops so viciously if they had killed white people, or stuck a plunger in a white man's rectum?)

To add insult to injury, a felony record for a Black individual closes opportunities for employment, voting, financial aid, etc. far more than it does their white counterparts. In fact, studies have shown that a white felon has a better chance of being hired than a black applicant with a clean record, even when their resumes are otherwise identical.

Speaking of employment, Fred, we would have far more employment of unskilled African-Americans if American employers doesn't possess such an irrational antipathy toward hiring African-Americans. It speaks volumes about the animus against Blacks in this country, that so many employers are willing to break the law and hire illegals who speak little to no English, when there is such a large pool of native-born African-Americans who are fluent in English.

Posted by eltoro | November 29, 2007 5:15 PM

"Of course, we should always take accusations and perceptions of discrimination at face value."

Of course we shouldn't, but there's a huge gap between whites and blacks over whether discrimination is an important impediment in black lives. One can't simply assume that the white view, being, perhaps, more "detached," is correct. Maybe black people see more than there is because they're looking for it, but there is no obvious reason to think the false positive error rate is any greater than the false negative rate among those white folk who are not looking for it, or are looking for it not to be there.

Indeed. There's no "there," there in those important-looking graphs. Just a record of perceptions reported by acutely interested parties, which as such ought to be viewed with a great deal of scepticism as evidence of anything other than the mental states of the poll subjects. It's the sort of thing that's important to pollsters and politicians, but tells us nothing about the reality or effect of racism.

Posted by cyrus | November 29, 2007 5:39 PM

This reflexive habit of liberals to blame things on "a legacy of discrimination" is harmful to blacks, because it obscures the real problems of black attitudes and behaviors. For years, no one would study this out of political correctness, but fortunately, a black-owned mutual fund company (Ariel Funds) did. What they found was that even affluent blacks were:

1) Less likely to save for retirement than whites of similar incomes.
2) Saving less on average than their white peers.
3) Less likely to invest in stocks, which, historically, have produced the highest returns.

Yes, but...

"Ariel and Schwab's surveys suggest it's not just investing laziness or fear of the stock market that accounts for the percentage difference in total amount invested for retirement.

In the 1999 survey, Ariel and Schwab found that African American household incomes must stretch further to support more people, including more school-aged children and extended family members.

In that year's survey, 27 percent of black respondents said they were financially supporting friends or family beyond those living in their own home. That's compared with 12 percent of white households. That percentage was consistent in subsequent surveys."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/20/AR2007102000110_2.html

Posted by Peter H | November 29, 2007 5:52 PM

"The elephant in the room in this discussion is so-called "rational discrimination". If people are aware, say, that blacks are more likely to commit crime, then they are probably more likely to discriminate them in certain ways, such as not wanting them to move into their neighborhood, not wanting to hire them, etc.

This doesn't mean that they are racist per se, just that their commitment to fairness is not strong enough to overcome their commitment to their narrow self interest."

Jim W,

It does mean that they are unfair in their application of standards, and that the people who are hurt by this uneven treatment are Blacks. Even though blacks are more likely to commit crime than whites, the overwhelming majority of Blacks, just like the overwhelming majority of whites, are not criminals. Since Blacks are far more likely to be law abiding citizens than criminals, it doesn't make rational sense to treat a Black individual BY DEFAULT as being a potential criminals any more than it does to treat a White individual as being one by default. Therefore, just as whites give white strangers the benefit of the doubt and don't treat white strangers as potential criminals by default, they should do the same with Black strangers.

As a side note, if you are a white victim of a violent crime, the perpetrator is most likely to be white. If you are a black victim of a violent crime, the perpetrator is most likely to Black. In fact, Blacks are more likely than Whites to be VICTIMS of crime. Therefore, since whites have far more to fear from their fellow whites than from blacks, even so-called "rational discrimination" due to crime rates doesn't hold up under logical analysis.

BTW, Fred, this is another example of institutionalized racial discrimination that harms Blacks.

Posted by eltoro | November 29, 2007 5:52 PM

By the way, Fred, if your point is that civil rights leaders don't try to do anything to change African-American behavior in regards to financial planning, then you're wrong:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081293296X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Posted by Peter H | November 29, 2007 5:59 PM

"the legacy of discrimination as manifest in things like the large black-white hap in asset ownership plays a large role."

As a matter of what is true, as opposed to what people think, the case of the legacy of discrimination is pretty clear. The median black household in the U.S. has less than 7% the net worth of the average white household. You can see the numbers here: http://radicalnegative.blogspot.com/2007/11/financial-reality-of-race.html.

But it's wrong to imply, as you do Matt, that the "legacy of discrimination" is the most important fact. People with black names still get callbacks for job interviews less than people with white names. And in the case of subprime lending, hispanics and blacks are disproportionately represented--and not just because they are poor: more of these loans to black and hispanics have gone to middle and upper income borrowers than lower income. Whether this happened because a banker intentionally discriminated against minorities, or whether they were discriminated against indirectly by institutions, it is discrimination nonetheless. Because of this, blacks and hispanics will be hit much harder than whites by the subprime crisis, and their wealth will evaporate further. The legacy of discrimination is therefore only the beginning of the story. And outcomes won't get better with time.

Posted by Blake Emerson | November 29, 2007 6:21 PM

I think what Ross is looking for, if he wants that black surge into the GOP, is a poll showing black preference for being on the masochistic end of a sado-masochistic relationship. Barring that, Ross' own attitude that blacks are inferior, the comic notion that black attitudes are to blame for the black economic outcomes (an opinion usually held by people who strongly, strongly long for the days of Jim Crow), and of course the nonsensical idea that black kids face no discrimination in college will keep the African-American segment voting Democratic. That doesn't mean that the democrats will do a lot to repair the pernicious system of racism, but at least they might appoint more activist members of federal boards that are supposed to do intervene when organizations and states engage in racism. That would be nice. For a start, they could actually come through on awarding the black farmers who proved that the Agricultural department systematically discriminated against them in the 70s and 80s in Court are actually awarded the damages the court assessed against the agriculture department. That would be nice.

Posted by roger | November 29, 2007 7:03 PM

Speaking of employment, Fred, we would have far more employment of unskilled African-Americans if American employers doesn't possess such an irrational antipathy toward hiring African-Americans. It speaks volumes about the animus against Blacks in this country, that so many employers are willing to break the law and hire illegals who speak little to no English, when there is such a large pool of native-born African-Americans who are fluent in English.

Yes, let's get African-Americans back out in the fields picking crops. That's both good politics and good business. It's win-win!

Posted by Kolohe | November 29, 2007 7:42 PM

Pursuing the black vote is a waste of time for the GOP. Bob Dole picked the most pro-black white GOP politician, Jack Kemp, as his VP candidate in 1996, and together they got 12% of the black vote.

The media like to go on and on about the importance of minority voting blocs, but, at least so far, there's no affirmative action in counting votes -- each vote still counts the same even if it's cast by a member of the racial majority.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 29, 2007 7:59 PM

Kolohe writes:
"Yes, let's get African-Americans back out in the fields picking crops. That's both good politics and good business. It's win-win!"

You are very mistaken if you think all illegal aliens do is pick crops. They quickly move into much better paying trades like construction, for instance. That is one of the reasons the farmers want a never-ending flow of poor immigrants. Soon they find higher paying jobs, so there has to be plenty more poor immigrants in the pipeline.

Posted by pjgoober | November 29, 2007 10:25 PM

Mr Goober(?)

You are very mistaken if you thought my post had a point.

But, seriously, if I have to have a point, I guess it is that I think Mr. The Bull that I quoted above is mistaken if he thinks American Employers (TM) care if people are black, brown, white, yellow, or purple. They *care* to pay people as little as possible. That is why they want to hire illegals, because unlike black, white, yellow, purple, or (legal) brown people, (illegal) brown people can't bitch.

Posted by Kolohe | November 30, 2007 1:02 AM

Oh, sorry Mr Goober. Please put one of these:
:) ;) :P
after my first sentence as you prefer.

[:)]

Posted by Kolohe | November 30, 2007 1:11 AM

"the comic notion that black attitudes are to blame for the black economic outcomes (an opinion usually held by people who strongly, strongly long for the days of Jim Crow)"

And Bill Cosby...

Hyperbole undermines your credibility.

"and of course the nonsensical idea that black kids face no discrimination in college will keep the African-American segment voting Democratic."

The poll cited above stated applying to college, not anything about being in college.

You call it nonsensical, but you're so obviously incorrect to anyone with direct experience with college admissions that I must conclude you are a troll. Or maybe, you are someone with a big fat chip on your shoulder that makes you come to stupid conclusions, i.e. your attitude is getting in the way of your outcome.

Posted by ScottS | November 30, 2007 2:00 AM

"But, seriously, if I have to have a point, I guess it is that I think Mr. The Bull that I quoted above is mistaken if he thinks American Employers (TM) care if people are black, brown, white, yellow, or purple."

Mr Kolobe,

But according to studies that have been referred to by previous posters, American employers did care if applicants were Black; the studies showed that white felons had better chances of being hired than Blacks with clean criminal records, even when their resumes were otherwise identical.

Therefore, it is naive of you to think that racial animosity towards Blacks plays no role in the illegal immigration issue. You are right that greed on the part of employers plays a far greater role than antipathy towards blacks, but the latter is still part of the equation.

Posted by eltoro | November 30, 2007 2:46 PM

"Pursuing the black vote is a waste of time for the GOP. Bob Dole picked the most pro-black white GOP politician, Jack Kemp, as his VP candidate in 1996, and together they got 12% of the black vote."

On a national level, pursuing a majority of the black and Hispanic vote is a waste of time for the GOP. However, pursuing a sufficient quantity of the conservative-leaning Black and Hispanic vote is definitely worth the time of the GOP, especially under our winner take-all electoral college system. Whites nationally favor the GOP 60% to 40%, but that is not uniform throughout the states, and in swing states like New Mexico, a small portion of minority voters can determine if a state goes red or blue.

Moreover, the GOP cannot win with conservative voters, white & minority, alone; it must gain the support of enough conservative-leaning moderates to put it over the top. Expressly pursuing black and Hispanic voters looks good in the eyes of these conservative-leaning moderates, particularly your suburban soccer moms. These voters are not very fond of the Jacksons and the Sharptons in the Democratic Party, but they are not enamoured of the Thurmonds and the Sailers in the Republican Party either. Republicans who make the effort to pursue minority voters allay the concerns of soccer-mom voters that a vote for the GOP might be a vote for a racist party.

On a state level, it can be very fruitful for a Republican to pursue the Black or Hispanic vote, particularly in states like Illinois where the white vote tends to more or less evenly split between Dems and Repubs. Republicans in those states need to gain just enough Black or Hispanic votes to put them over the top.

Posted by eltoro | November 30, 2007 5:10 PM