The political consequences of society becoming post-racial would benefit the GOP

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

In another thread,  “Beet” said:

Racial patterns in voting is evidence we still haven't reached a "post racial society." In a true post racial society, you would see Hispanics about 55% Dem, blacks about 65% Dem, and whites about 45% Dem.

So I decided to see what the result in 2008 would have been in a truly post racial society.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
The above link shows the way each demographic group voted and the percentage of the electorate they represented. It is thus possible to determine how much each party would gain if voters voted the way “Beet” says they should have voted.

Based on this, Republicans gained about 1.5% from the racial voting disparity amongst whites. Democrats gained 4% from the racial voting disparity amongst blacks, 1..1% from the voting disparity amongst Hispanics and(assuming the "natural" voting rate for Asians would be 42% R, given their being wealthier then whites)0.4% from the voting disparity amongst Asians. So the results in the general election would have been 49.7% for John McCain and 48.9% for Obama in a post racial society.

That's right- in a society without racism, the Republicans would have been better off, they would have won.

Well, they would have won the popular vote. But probably not the electoral college. The Republicans would have won Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Indiana- but the Democrats would have held Nebraska's 2nd congressional district and actually won Montana because their's so few non-whites there that Dem losses from their readjustment would have been outweighed numerically by the smaller percentage gain amongst whites. So we'd have a 282/256 EV count in the Dem's favor, despite the Reps winning the PV by 0.8%- karma for 2000!


*I suspect the Dem's would have won West Virginia as well, though the statistical method I used to predict the election result suggests otherwise, simply because West Virginian's are so disproportionately racist and their's no large black population there to provide a buffer for the Republicans(as there is in other highly racist areas like Mississippi). So 287/251 in the D's favor!

With this borne in mind, why are the Republicans such racial sh**t-stirrers contrary to their interests, and why are the Dem’s the party of racial reconciliation contrary to the their self interest?

Well the simplest answer is that this stereotype is false. The congressman who most readily and blatantly invoke race are not white Republicans but Black Democrats. This really isn’t debatable, racial populism is alive, well and in the open in black politics, whilst veiled to the extent it exists at all in white politics. Even white Democratic politicians invoke race more often then white Republican politicians do, because it is after all to their advantage as my above statistical argument demonstrated. This is true even if we concede that the more heated elements of anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric, anti-Muslim rhetoric and anti-Obama rhetoric  represent veiled racism- even with these taken into account, open invocation of racial populism amongst Democrats is more common then both open and veiled invocations amongst Republicans- that’s not just true among politicians, but the mainstream voters as well. Especially if we include white guilt as a form of left-wing racial populism.

That’s not to say the R’s aren’t deliberately exploiting race in a veiled fashion- because they know that ceasing to engage in racial populism won’t stop the Democrats from doing so. But it’s in their interest to try to minimize the emphasis on race and so they do, while the opposite is true for Democrats.


FULL DISCLAIMER: Though you might think otherwise given the argument I just made, I lean left and would have voted for Obama in 2008. I think I can say my judgement in this post wasn't distorted by ideology, in other words, since my intent is obviously not to demonize the Democrats(they're just doing what's in their best interest politically, as the Republicans would if their positions were reversed). My only intent was to properly analyze racial populism, because undermining or eliminating requires the  political benefits of racial populism to be offset by the consequences.

This is certainly the case for white racial populism from the Republicans- whenever they engage in it(except very subtly) it is called out as what it is by the media and party as a whole(and often the candidate in  question) suffers for it. Therefore they refrain or veil it as much as possible.

The Democrats on the other hand do not typically suffer much when they engage in racial populism, even white racial populism(as the White Democratic candidate for governor in Louisiana did against Bobby Jindal, for example, without serious rebuke from the national media or fellow Democrats). Therefore undermining racial populism in politics is best served not by putting more focus on the mostly subdued Republican white racial populism, but pushing similar treatment onto Democratic politicians whom presently get away with it with minimal political consequences. In particular purging it requires that African American voters develop internally(for it will be rejected if pushed on them by whites) an inclination to punish racial populism from black politicians, amongst whom such tendencies are presently strongest.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Even if race were not a factor, minorities would still vote democrat pretty solidly due to economic inequalities. In order to determine what a post-racial society would look like, you have to make a kind of multi-variable analysis, using for example income, education level, religion, etc...

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Even if race were not a factor, minorities would still vote democrat pretty solidly due to economic inequalities. In order to determine what a post-racial society would look like, you have to make a kind of multi-variable analysis, using for example income, education level, religion, etc...

I assume Beet did that, and his estimates looked pretty solid to me.

[homelycooking]

I don't think society will ever become post-racial unless the cultural, familial and pigment differences between the races are effectively demolished. This could, but certainly might not ever, occur. By then our politics would have surely realigned to some partisan arrangement unbeknownst to us today.

[Napoleon]

Even if race were not a factor, minorities would still vote democrat pretty solidly due to economic inequalities. In order to determine what a post-racial society would look like, you have to make a kind of multi-variable analysis, using for example income, education level, religion, etc...

I'd think that a post-racial society would have poor minorities and poor whites voting very similarly. Oh, and by then there would only be a white plurality presumably.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Even if race were not a factor, minorities would still vote democrat pretty solidly due to economic inequalities. In order to determine what a post-racial society would look like, you have to make a kind of multi-variable analysis, using for example income, education level, religion, etc...

I'd think that a post-racial society would have poor minorities and poor whites voting very similarly. Oh, and by then there would only be a white plurality presumably.

Indeed, but we have to know to what extent this would mean poor whites voting more dem or poor blacks/latino voting more rep. It would probably be a mix of the two.

My personal guess is that a post-racial society would eventually have neutral effects on politics. Vote for parties would be less lopsided but overall no party would benefit it.

[phk]

Voters would reach an equilibrium.

Many people would be "relieved" of some issues and than repriortize to others.