The coalition for diversity whose diversity did diversity just win?

There are many types of diversity.  Diversity of occupation, diversity of musical taste, diversity of outlook, diversity of residence, and of course varying kinds of racial and ethnic diversity.  You could list thousands of kinds of diversity.

The original thinking behind the Electoral College was that geographic diversity was important.  The Founding Fathers were not majoritarian, but rather they believed in placing special weight on diversity of this kind.  The prevailing view was “if too many (geographically) diverse voices veto you, you can’t get elected, not even with a majority of the votes.”  That view was a strange and perhaps unlikely precursor of today’s veto rights/PC approach on campus, but there you go.

Democrats now control at least one legislative house in only 17 states, and the reach of the party is shrinking dramatically.  So by the 18th century standards of diversity, emphasizing geography, the Democratic coalition is remarkably non-diverse.  You can see how much of Hillary Clinton’s majority came from the two states of New York and California.  That also means the Republicans are not just a “Southern rump party,” as some commentators used to suggest.

If you think of education as serving a smoothing function, the less educated are in some ways considerably more diverse than the educated.

The Democratic Party today is more likely to stress the relevance of ethnic and racial diversity, if the talk is about diversity.  (Gender diversity too, but that requires its own post, maybe later to come.)  Non-Democrats are more likely to count other forms of diversity for more than the Democrats do.  I see Democrats as somewhat concentrated in particular cities and also in particular occupations, more than Republicans are.  There is nothing wrong with that, but it is another way in which Democrats are less diverse.

When it comes to views about the relevant forms of diversity, the views of non-Democrats are more diverse than the views of Democrats, I would hazard to guess.  A non-Democrat is more likely to focus on something other than racial and ethnic diversity, compared to a Democrat.

Correctly or not, many Americans do not think racial and ethnic diversity is the diversity that should command so much attention.  That is one place to start for understanding why so many 2012 Obama voters switched to Trump this time around, or maybe just stayed home.

A few days ago I saw figures that 29 percent of Latinos voted for Trump (possibly that number has been revised).  I suspect many of those voters do not see Latino vs. non-Latino as the diversity line that interests them most strongly.

I haven’t offered any criticism of the Democratic point of view on diversity, even though you may feel that my description of it is trying to lower its status.  (You are right, noting I don’t wish to defend the R. point of view, but the R view does not need as much status-lowering either.)  It may well be correct to have a less diverse view of diversity.  If you were to start with an argument for that view, you could cite the long history of American slavery and segregation, plus continuing racial wealth inequality, as reasons for focusing so much on one kind of diversity rather than others.

Still, when I speak with Democrats, and with Progressives in particular, they view themselves, as a kind of assumption, as the people concerned with diversity.  That is a significant cognitive mistake.

When Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, it was the forces of diversity — some diversities, many diversities — that won.

It was the people less concerned with diversity overall that lost.  Again noting that some important notions of diversity do cut the other way, most of all racial diversity.  And I do wish to stress that the presumptive argument for “diversity” simply isn’t there, although that conclusion is hard to swallow that if you have imbibed too much contemporary political rhetoric.

In fact, I view the amazing diversity of the election and the electorate as having gotten the better of us.  It is an example of how diversity can go wrong.

I believe that until Democrats and Progressives can grasp their lack of diversity intuitively, they will struggle to make their way forward in the new political climate of the United States.  They will not understand how anyone could view them as divisive, since they automatically think of diversity as being on their side, rather than something they oppose.

7.18-16
7.18-16

Comments

OK interesting, but what kind(s) of diversity do you think were most important here? You don't really spell it out, except to say that the kinds of diversity that liberals focus on are not most important.

Different races are essentially genetically identical (although obviously genders aren't). Usually a diversity of ideas helps adaptation, but parties are unified by ideas so a healthy party might look for different income levels and professions. However, Trump tries to hold all ideas in his head at once.

"Different races are essentially genetically identical": and yet when Harvard professors adopt, they tend to go for Chinese children rather than products of the ghetto. What do they know that you don't?

That whites are doomed, as people like Benjamin Franklin predicted centuries ago?

Out of morbid interest, what is your thinking behind unfailingly mentioning the racial theories of Benjamin Franklin in almost every post? What is the meta point that you are aiming to express here?

All races are doomed if you define racial purity as necessary for membership. How many Blacks do you think there would be in the US. If one drop of white or Asian blood meant you were not Black.

That might be a function of adoption agencies. (I don't actually know.) Perhaps they focus on countries where it's easier to get children from, or more profitable.

Or maybe it's a function of supply because abortion is relatively common in the the US. I assume it's common in China too, but the population is three times larger.

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Sadly, it's very easy to adopt a black baby in America. Single mothers and fathers can adopt one because there is a crisis. To adopt a Chinese baby is more difficult and expensive, much more so than in the past as the Chinese government has clamped down on this.

Different races are so genetically identical that racial minorities are endangered by the domination of White organs available for transplant:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3671391/Lack-ethnic-minority-organ-donors-means-m-sentenced-die-race-says-soul-singer.html

You would think that if race was only skin deep, well, it would only be skin deep. And not vital for finding a matching liver.

Western civilization has always done well in non-diverse regions and periods. Not so well in highly diverse places. There is no reason to think diversity is a plus.

"Western civilization has always done well in non-diverse regions and periods. Not so well in highly diverse places. There is no reason to think diversity is a plus."

I think your statement is correct but I don't necessarily think it's the correct framing. All civilizations tend to do better with high cohesion and during periods of stability. Ethnic, cultural and racial diversity tend to be inversely correlated with that type of stability. Western civilization probably handles periods of stress reasonably well compared to other governing philosophies.

'Western civilization has always done well in non-diverse regions and periods.'

With America being the proof, right? Why, it is almost as if America was hewn from pure Anglo-Saxon stock, without any inferior mixing (per Benjamin Franklin, not to mention all the following authorities on racial purity into the 20th century) of Celtic or Germanic, much less Italian or Jewish, blood during its rise to global dominance. As for slaves? A mere piffle, right?

Your reading comprehension continues to underwhelm.

That's really interesting, actually. I had no idea some organs have to be matched on race (or, if you think of race as a surrogate, some specific genetic markers).

I do think it is silly to assume that because races are genetically very similar (which is true) race should not be a major consideration when considering "diversity".

"Western civilization has always done well in non-diverse regions and periods."
When was it?

Black USAers invented the worlds most popular styles of music; gospel. blues, jazz, rock, rop and hop-hop. People do as well in the USA as in the less diverse countries.

Black USAers invented the worlds most popular styles of music; gospel. blues, jazz, rock, rop and hop-ho

Er, how many of these are really contenders for "most popular styles of music globally"? Does gospel even exist internationally?

Yes.

Just like humans and neanderthals are essentially genetically identical (some modern humans are even part-neanderthal), or humans and erectus, or humans and chimpanzees...

So black people are all just really tan?

Nope, white people are missing the final coat of UV protection .

It should be noted that whatever the reason for whites having evolved being white, it started introgressing into Africa thousands of years ago. It ain't just about not needing the UV protection

"It ain’t just about not needing the UV protection"

Isn't it about needing to metabolize vitamin D at upper latitudes?

.|

Every person on Earth shares 99.9% of the same genetic code

Mouse and Man share 99%

Pumpkin and Man share 75%

Rodents & vegetables are woefully unrepresented in our "diverse" American democracy

More than enough rats to go around, in DC and elsewhere.

>Different races are essentially genetically identical

It's truly a tribute to the absolute and total corruption of our academic institutions that people *actually believe this*.

The diversity division being contrasted is between the color of skin and content of character.

When the Left/Progs speak of Hispanic/Latino they, from their context are speaking of those with brown skin, even though the largest Hispanic/Latino racial group, especially in the US and northern Mexico is White. Nor do they tend to include Hispanics of African heritage, such as Black Cubans and Brazilians when speaking of Hispanics.

even though the largest Hispanic/Latino racial group, especially in the US and northern Mexico is White

Ok, it's conceivably possible that most Latinos in the US are white, but ridiculously false in every part of the country I'm familiar with (Chicago, East Coast, Colorado), and I'm aware of no data that remotely supports this. Yeah, there are a bunch of white people in Florida whose parents and grandparents are white Cubans, but that's not the average in the US these days.

The striking thing to me was that the States with the highest personal incomes voted Democratic... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
I do not what that means, but it's as valid as throwing geography into the mix I should think.

Income is correlated with education. Unfortunately, education has been taken over by liberalism, it is the vehicle by which liberalism is now spread. Bunch of cross correlations.

Let me put it this way...If it is true that the wealthier states vote for one party, and the less wealthy states vote for another, I do not see this as healthy, but I'm not sure.

In this election, Trump narrowly won among those earning more than $50,000 per year and narrowly lost among those earning less. Usually the gap is larger with Republicans winning larger share of the >$50,000 vote and decisively losing among the <$50,000 voters. Looking at average incomes by states can give a spurious impression of voting patterns.

My sense is that age skews this figure.

I believe that if you're going to group by income, you ought to also group by age.

Specifically, if a large amount of voters aged 18-26 turned out for Clinton, this skews the income numbers.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that in voters age 45-54, $50K+ went for Clinton vs. Trump at higher margins.

The crowding into cities, especially for those who seek social status promotes conformity of thought. This is only enhanced by the continuing specter of violence against those who voted against the prevailing mindset as illustrated by several suspected Trump voters being beaten in urban districts.

"Freedom of speech and freedom of thought are catchpenny phrases. There is much of the former, but very little of the latter. Speech is generally the result of automatic thought rather than of ratiocination. Independent thought is of all mental processes the most difficult and the most rare; habit, tradition, and reverence for antiquity unite to forbid it, and these combined influences are strengthened by the law of heredity. The tendency to automatic action of the mind is still further promoted by the environment of modern life. The crowding of populations into cities, and the division and subdivision of labor in the factory and the shop, and even in the so-called learned professions, have a tendency to increase the dependence of the individual upon the mass of society. And this interdependence of the units of society renders them more and more imitative, and hence more and more automatic both mentally and physically."—Charles H. Ham, Mind and Hand: manual training, the chief factor in education (1900)

A point well illustrated in the recent divergence between the college-(credentialed) and the non-college educated in the Mankiw link in the post (hyperlink: "the less educated").

Quick question, Engineer. Why is the spread of liberalism so much of a problem when as Tyler points out: "Democrats now control at least one legislative house in only 17 states, and the reach of the party is shrinking dramatically"

Seems as if liberals aren't exactly running things. Yes certain social issues like gay marriage and marijuana legalization have tipped or are tipping, but those are more libertarian, or classical liberal changes. I just don't see liberal domination of the country.

Democrats are the Urban Party, and the cities make the money. So its correlated with geography. Further the Democrats aren't just clustered into a few states, within those states they're clustered into cities. Their platforms today are a (unstable?) composite built to appeal to the urban rich and urban poor.

While it would be a slightly meaningless exercise, if you were curious and adjusted for urbanisation-wealth correlation, you might even find Dems to be the party of poorer states.

"Democrats are the Urban Party, and the cities make the money."

That depends on what you mean by cities. If you mean 'metro areas' including suburbs and exurbs, then your statement about money is true. But if you mean only core cities, then no -- most of the money is made outside and residents of core cities are poorer on average than their suburban and exurban counterparts. And while core cities are dominated by Democrats, surrounding suburbs and exurbs are much more evenly balanced. Trump could never have won mainly on the strength of rural voters -- there simply aren't enough of them (over 80% of the U.S. population is in urban areas).

No, 85% of the population lives within conventionally-defined commuter belts. Large swaths of those living in those commuter belts live in what any ordinary person would define as 'countryside' or in discrete small towns. The commuter belt ('SMSA" or "MSA") encompassing where I grew up used to be defined such as to include five surrounding counties and townships in Monroe County, NY which had farms all over the place and hardly a crossroads. The Census Bureau introduced a new measure, 'Urbanized Area' to attempt to capture something of the popular understanding of a city, then set the density threshhold so low (average lot sizes over 3 acres) you were still adding globs of people not attached to municipal water and sewer systems.

In the metro areas with the highest incomes, the rich live in the city and most cities have neighborhoods where the average income is higher than any of its suburbs. Both cities and suburban neighborhoods are segregated by income with both the richest and poorest neighborhoods in the cities. Urban areas have more diversity in income than most rural areas but People who live in them are more likely have a social encounter with someone of a different race or ethic grouping than they are someone either much richer or poorer than they are. However in rural areas the reverse is true. The rich go to same schools and churches,shop at the same stores,etc

"most cities have neighborhoods where the average income is higher than any of its suburbs."

Are you sure? There appear to be suburban neighborhoods with higher household incomes than any of the city neighborhoods listed here:

http://higley1000.com/about-this-site/methodology/top-urban-neighborhoods-by-mean-household-income

For example:

http://observer.com/2014/12/where-billionaires-live-ranking-new-yorks-platinum-plated-suburbs/

I think it depends on the metropolis in question. In greater New York, mean income levels in Manhattan are astonishing and well exceed those of any of the suburban counties (even though you have slums in Manhattan as well). About 9% of greater New York's population lives in Manhattan. Where I grew up, the most affluent suburban township had (30 years ago) income levels shy of 70% higher than the mean. That town had about 23,000 residents at the time. You could likely find city blocks with that level of affluence, but if any contiguous configuration had a population more than 10,000, I'd be surprised. It is true that central city housing stock tends to be more handsome and conveniently situated than suburban housing stock. The thing is, the city schools are so disorderly (and the slum neighborhoods sufficiently proximate) that the city's for people without dependent children (or people who can spare the tuition).

You also have half the apartments in Manhattan under rent control. No easy way to make assumptions based on average incomes.

Yes, I was including suburbs and exurbs within cities, though thanks for the clarification. I don't generally really have a strong impression on how US economic activity is heavily based on commuting to core cities and on high value economic activity within suburbs and exurbs, as opposed to people working and living in core cities. More vs less urban states, and that correlating with wealth and explaining the rich Dem states pattern, might be a better characterisation than urban vs rural.

"I don’t generally really have a strong impression on how US economic activity is heavily based on commuting to core cities and on high value economic activity within suburbs and exurbs"

It varies. In the New York metro area, the highest value activity is in the city. In San Francisco, it's in Silicon Valley (hence the 'Google buses' operated by tech companies to transport their workers from SF to the corporate campuses). In other places, core cities have only a fraction of their mid-century peak populations (and even less of the regional population 'market share') and most economic activity has moved with the people to the suburbs and exurbs.

North of 40% of the population lives in tract suburbs. These people are commuters. About 20% live in exurbs - small towns and countryside within commuter belts. Some commute, some dont. About 15% live outside commuter belts. Core cities have shy of 25% of the population, of which shy of half is slum (on average).

"These people are commuters."

Many are -- but don't assume that they're commuting to jobs in the central city vs elsewhere in the region.

"Trump could never have won mainly on the strength of rural voters..." There is a corrolary here. Many Democrats like to point to their better performance in the popular vote totals. But the current rules of the game for the presidential race require winning the electoral college. Thus, if the popular vote had been decisive, the game would have been played differently. It's likely that Mrs. Clinton won about as many urban voters as she could. If popular vote had mattered, Trump would have adjusted his appeal accordingly. It's possible that for whatever reason the Republcans are simply better at playing the electoral game under any set of rules, although the Democrats do consistently prevail in a handful of states.

Those figures should be adjusted for differences in purchasing power. Blue states are generally high-cost and red states low cost: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/rpp/2016/_images/rpp0716_chart_01.png

The US Census lists California as the state with the highest poverty rate after adjusting for costs of living.Think about that for a moment. California has a higher poverty rate than Mississippi once you adjust for the costs of living.

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-251.pdf?eml=gd&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Granted, that's only one measure.

>Think about that for a moment. California has a higher poverty rate than Mississippi once you adjust for the costs of living.

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/health-care/homelessness-u-s-trends-demographics

According to this source I found, there are 137K homeless people in California versus 2,400 in Mississippi. Adjusted for population size, homelessness is over five times more common in California.

They always vote Democratic, you need to look at the book Red State Blue State to understand this.

The states with the highest income are Democratic, but within each state, the higher your income, the more likely you were to vote Republican.

This is a brilliant post.

In the Obama era, academic politics has broken out of the academy, I believe because Obama himself was an academic.

Right now, the "racism, sexism, homophobic" critical thinking dominates the academy. But it has not always, and it probably will not always. If nothing else, Marxism was dominant before at the academy. Something else may take over someday.

Looking at everything through the lens of "racism, sexism, homophobia" is not the only way to look at things. But a certain segment of the Democratic party does so, and does so with a sense that there is no other way to do so. But there are other lenses.

Many of us who have gone to college have had a taste of academic politics and rejected it. In my case, I think it's just so silly, I can't see why it has taken over.

Others, being subject to it in college, have embraced it. Or maybe they don't know that there are other lenses to view things with.

I don't think that it is a coincidence that those who have more college are more likely to hold these views, i.e. the Millennials.

Most people in the Academy are trying to do research. Most of that research has nothing to do with these issues. Medical research, physical science, engineering, alongside arts and humanities.

Yes, but those people are, as it were, occasional conformists, who step forward at appropriate occasions to recite the expected platitudes about diversity and inclusion, denounce the Elena Christakises of the world, etc. before going back to their work. Tyler is an excellent example of this phenomenon. Alex is more of a dissenter.

Most faculty members are not engaging in these denunciations. The Mercatus crew is notable for refusing even to acknowledge institutional pathologies (something Jonathan Haidt and KC Johnson are willing to do). You'd be hard put to find any faculty anywhere doing anything about those pathologies. Academe is sociologically corrupt, and can only be repaired through outside intervention.

Here's a nice little turd from the Admissions apparat at GMU itself. Please recall GMU is a public institution:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/11/donald-trump-win-sparks-gmu-admissions-directors-r/

Now, Andrew Bunting really ought to have a letter of dismissal on his desk come Monday afternoon. Of course, nothing will happen and the Mercatus crew will pretend this did not happen.

Wow, just wow! If a conservative had made a comparable comment after Obama's win in 2012, he'd probably be brought up for a review and then fired.

"GMU’s Senior Assistant Director of Admissions, Andrew Bunting, used his Facebook page to send a clear message to potential students: Supporters of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which said Wednesday that it wants to “work with President Trump to nominate conservative justices to the U.S. Supreme Court,” have zero human value.
“If you agree with them then that is your opinion. Just know that to the rest of us, you are a piece of worthless trash,” Mr. Bunting said Thursday, the conservative nonprofit organization Media Research Center first reported Friday."

This is an Assistant Director of Admissions.

Was it his personal Facebook page?

Jan it probably was his personal page. But JWatts has a point, what would happen to a conservative with the same job posting something similar on his Facebook page?

We know what would happen if he simply said that he sides with trump: he would be dismissed. See Brendan Eich for what the brown shirts would do.

Disgusting.

Americans, as a whole, are full-time conformists as German Nobel Prize winner Thomas Mann (wrote The Magic Mountain, Joseph and His Brothers and Death in Venice among other famous books) famously pointed out. As Brazilian writer Erico Verissimo pointed out in the 1960s, phariseeism is the chief characteristic of the American way of life.

There are few things more low status than trying to advertise your intelligence by cramming someone's achievements into brackets like Thiago (wrote many painfully boring and long posts on Marginal Revolution).

It is avery old idea that American are conformists. Before Mann, it was proposed and discussed at length by Tocqueville. After 12 years here, I begin to admit that there is some truth in it, at least in the academia, though americans can also offer some of the most beautiful example of anti-conformism.

I see. Listing them outside brackets as in "Nobel Prize winner" must be high status, then. What about putting them between commas as in "Thomas Mann, a German Nobel Prize winner"? It seems classy to me.
American conformism includes following useless punctuation rules, it seems.

Yes, so national stereotypes are obvs a thing for Thiago, so let's see where this takesus, we've got a German calling Americans conformists, OK, I guess that works, those boho Germans, just one crazy surprise after another. And, quoted by a Brazilian. Nope, I've got nothing there sorry, soccer perhaps? Beaches?

"Yes, so national stereotypes are obvs a thing for Thiago, so let’s see where this takesus, we’ve got a German calling Americans conformists, OK, I guess that works, those boho Germans, just one crazy surprise after another. And, quoted by a Brazilian. Nope, I’ve got nothing there sorry, soccer perhaps? Beaches?"
It is not a stereotype, it is just true. This is the reason I quoted a Nobel Prize winner, not Mr. Trump and his comments about Mexican rapists. and judges. The American democracy has been shown a farse for all the world to see. A desperate and impoverished populace has risen against their masters, particularly Wall Steet and its malefactors of great wealth, and elected a man who speaks like the Increible Hulk. This election was a plebiscite vote on Wall Street, its candidate and the hold it has on America's political system..
Brazilians discovered the pion, discovered the Urca Effect, unlocking the secret of the stars, invented the airplane and basically invented the telecommunications industry. Before the Walkman, a Brazilian researcher had already invented a deviice witht he same capabilities, but the Fascist Japanese stole it from us.
Brazilian moral superiority is unmistakable.

"Yes, so national stereotypes are obvs a thing for Thiago, so let’s see where this takesus, we’ve got a German calling Americans conformists, OK, I guess that works, those boho Germans, just one crazy surprise after another. And, quoted by a Brazilian. Nope, I’ve got nothing there sorry, soccer perhaps? Beaches?"
It is not a stereotype, it is just true. This is the reason I quoted a Nobel Prize winner, not Mr. Trump and his comments about Mexican rapists. and judges. The American democracy has been shown a farse for all the world to see. A desperate and impoverished populace has risen against their masters, particularly Wall Steet and its malefactors of great wealth, and elected a man who speaks like the Increible Hulk. This election was a plebiscite vote on Wall Street, its candidate and the hold it has on America's political system..
Brazilians discovered the pion, discovered the Urca Effect, unlocking the secret of the stars, invented the airplane and basically invented the telecommunications industry. Before the Walkman, a Brazilian researcher had already invented a device witht he same capabilities, but the Fascist Japanese stole it from us.
Brazilian moral superiority is unmistakable.

Moral superiority because a Brazilian 'invented the telecommunications industry'? Okay sure. But military superiority eludes your kind, as the Southern War of 1891 proved.

"Moral superiority because a Brazilian ‘invented the telecommunications industry’? Okay sure. But military superiority eludes your kind, as the Southern War of 1891 proved."
There was no such war! Brazil is the only nation that has never been defeated in war. We are God's Sword.

How is the research framed, and where do you see slippage?

I don't think Obama's that powerful. I think its more ethnic demographic change combining with the loss of the last generations with low university participation. You've lost the moderating influence of intelligent but uneducated "common sense" folk from the pre-WwII birth cohorts.

All through the Boomers, to X, to Millennial you have about the same high rate of university participation. No real great increase in any given generation, but the accumulated total of graduates in the public sphere is high. Eventually that has "academised" public debate and led to the current "clever silly" quality of discussion.

Liberals have simply become religious and class bigots. This election was all about rejecting that bigotry.

Especially the part where Trump has explicitly promised to keep all Muslims from entering the U.S.

Thus finally ending the unholy discrimination against American Christians, who finally have seemingly found a champion able to go beyond the sort of bigotry represented by the Constitution and its oppression of the righteous, right?

Especially the part where Trump has explicitly promised to keep all Muslims from entering the U.S.

What he actually said was that we should have a moratorium on Muslim immigration until we could craft a sensible set of screens. Love how written and oral comprehension is optional in Kruatland.

No, what the Trump campaign promised is this - 'Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump called Monday for barring all Muslims from entering the United States.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said.
--------------------------------------------------
Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told CNN on Monday that the ban would apply not just to Muslim foreigners looking to immigrate to the U.S., but also to Muslims looking to visit the U.S. as tourists.

"Everyone," Lewandowski said when asked if the ban would also apply to Muslim tourists.' http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/

I realize that some of us are relishing living in a post-factual age, but I'm still stuck in the past, where documentary evidence counts for more than someone saying something that directly contradicts what was actually said.

Whether such a campaign promise will be met is another subject, of course. Like this sort of statement - '"Great surveillance and vigilance must be adhered to," said Trump in an additional statement Lewandowski provided to CNN. "We want to be very fair but too many bad things are happening and the percentage of true hatred is too great. People that are looking to destroy our country must be reported and turned in by the good people who love our country and want America to be great again."' I wonder if anyone in the future Trump adminstration will be looking to the past for the best way to accomplish such a goal.

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,”

The meaning of this statement is fairly plain....except to you.

'What he actually said was that we should have a moratorium on Muslim immigration'

Somehow, that part of the campaign promising to ban all Muslims - '“Everyone,” Lewandowski said when asked if the ban would also apply to Muslim tourists.’ - continues to be the sort of thing that people living in a post-factual world can just expect to get away with denying, isn't it? Almost as if a certain political media theorist from Krautland is being rediscovered in the U.S., but with admiration this time around, instead of the well-earned contempt he earned the first time round.

I can explain something to you. I cannot comprehend it for you., especially when your amour propre is dependent on not comprehending it.

"I can explain something to you. I cannot comprehend it for you."

I'm always struck wondering if prior_approval (who occasionally makes decent points) really has a significant reading comprehension disability or if he just uses it as a rhetorical tactic. I lean towards the latter, but I've never been sure.

What happens if they won the next one or the one that follows that? Will the election have been all about accepting that bigotry?
Was it what the last six elections they won were all about?

Using "Liberal" as a label and not descriptive of their beliefs, except ironically.

The simplest [& fastest] way to convert university professors to conservativism/libertarianism

raise the avg salary of a professor to $0.5M pa

problem solved @ a stroke

;)

"..a certain segment of the Democratic party does so, and does so with a sense that there is no other way to do so."

"One-third of Clinton Supporters Say Trump Election is not Legitimate, Poll Finds"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/13/one-third-of-clinton-supporters-say-trump-election-is-not-legitimate-poll-finds/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_fix-poll-708am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

I hope your theorizing here helps you to justify to yourself the increasing attacks on ethnic and religious minorities. Because that is what's really serving the goal of diversity.

Staged, faked incidents don't count.

Liberals acting horribly and assuming that their MSM friends will bail them out? Shocking.

Yup, keep telling yourself that they're all fake.

By the way, will you be attending? http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-updates-trail-guide-kkk-trump-north-carolina-1478822255-htmlstory.html

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/11/election-night-hijab-attack-false/amp

Ya mean like the one on that white Trump supporter in Chicago?

Trump denounces them, thankfully. I can't help but think the cries of "racist" repeated about Trump over and over and over again had something to do with making such people feel "empowered".

Two theories of diversity: as a remedy of past injustice, or to break through self-reinforcing assortativity. I don't think the diversity of diversities TC mentions have had the same problems with: enslavement, systematic disenfranchisement, Jim Crow, Pigford, etc to name just a few that apply to African-Americans from recent history. Rural white diversity, or occupation diversity, or the others just don't have the same salience. Diversity is the shadow on the cave wall; the thing itself is the injustice -- or perhaps the ability to remedy injustice going forward.

Again, the lens of social justice is not the only lens, nor the correct one. It is just the one that has conquered the academy and the Democratic party.

I think diversity is the wrong frame, even though that's what Tyler's post is about. It's an election, so the right frame is # of (electoral) votes. The election is only about diversity insofar as it relates to the policy outcomes of the election, or perhaps the broader cultural and historical outcomes as well. I think the collection of diversities who expanded power with this election are generally more homogenous with respect to disparities of how the power will be applied.

Ah, good, we are getting to the heart of the matter. Stop beating around the bush with this 'diversity' nonsense and run on the platform that you really want: reparations. At least be honest with people, if you continually move the goalposts due to hidden motives then people will not trust you.

When will we be able to answer Sandra Day O'Conner's question? She asked if 20 years (a generation? ) was enough over 20 years ago.

I was the only applicant for a state accounting job to score 100% on all exams yet did not get the job because I didn't have enough "points" (minority, disabled, military).

A crew I was driving to a worksite some time ago saw two or three young black men driving Mercedes and the subject of jobs, advantages, and ultimately, affirmative action came up. The discussion did not have an angry or racist tone to it. But they were exasperated that they (poor, low education, job searching, hard working) would not be treated the same as the black guys.

Diversity? Restorative justice? They just want a job. Being who you are seems to carry little weight these days. It's all about the categories you are in.

I doubt AA benefits rank-and-file black wage earners much at all. The benefits are going to people in the salaried class, especially public employees and licensed professionals. The one exception are wage earners who land public sector jobs, but that's about 20% of the black workforce.

Wait, so seeing some black guys in a Mercedes made you question whether there was any systematic or institutional racism left in the country?

Its incredible how little this country is able to see each other. (And I do mean that for both sides.)

Not me, the guys. My point is that their opinions matter - particularly in this election.

This short essay will fall on deaf ears of those who most need to hear it, but this was one of Cowen's best posts of the year.

Certainly one of his most amusing, especially in the way he completely dances around the fact that Sanders, for example, did not campaign on diversity, and yet came very close to winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

It isn't as if the people who supported Sanders need nor want Prof. Cowen's advice on what needs to be done to win elections.

The dirty little secret of the Democratic nominating process is that because it's based on proportional allocation of delegates you can almost win the nomination just by running up your vote count in lily white states. This is exactly what Bernie Sanders did.

I think he just read the New York Times article about how a Trump supporter was outed and shunned in an esteemed place of learning.

These are the shameful acts of narrow minded fools. If I were Tyler I would want to distance myself from that stupidity.

Anyone who has followed the science fiction fights and the gaming fights recognize the same ugly tactics being applied, and are about to see the same vigorous and overwhelming response. Starts with accusations of racism and sexism, then media pressure, people driven from jobs and opportunities. Then the response that overwhelms these idiots who wonder why they are hated. We stand for diversity, why are you mean to us?

This is the New Left that despises the working class. They despise free speech. They are totalitarians and define diversity as everyone marching in lockstep. Orwell saw them destroy the left in his time and wrote books describing what they did and how they thought.

Canada saw the right maintain power for a bit more than a decade because of the divisions in the left. I think the same thing will happen in the US. Obama managed to keep both the moderate working class left and the academic left reasonably content, but Clinton couldn't bridge the difference and lost.

I guess I wasn't the only one who thought this was a reply to the NYTimes oped.

'You could list thousands of kinds of diversity.'

Or billions, if you believe everyone is an individual, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Not this website is apparently onboard with such radically revolutionary thinking.

'A non-Democrat is more likely to focus on something other than racial and ethnic diversity'

Many Trump supporters, however, are looking forward to ensuring that America reduces its racial and ethnic (vis-a-vis religion) diversity to the extent of building a wall, deporting millions, and banning Muslims from entering the U.S., assuming that Trump will live up to his numerous public promises to do so.

'It was the people less concerned with diversity overall that lost.'

Well, from a certain perspective - Trump supporters, to a major degree, are very concerned about diversity, and expressed their desire to reduce it, assuming Trump will follow through on his numerous campaign promises.

'In fact, I view the amazing diversity of the election and the electorate as having gotten the better of us. It is an example of how diversity can go wrong.'

Come on, no need to go on and on - the term you are so clearly trying to avoid when describing what won is 'reactionary.'

'They will not understand how anyone could view them as divisive, since they automatically think of diversity as being on their side, rather than something they oppose.'

Though one can feel your pain - it is really hard to paint people like Sanders or Warren as reactionaries, isn't it?

Trump supporters just want to reduce the domestic labor supply. Any connection with race is incidental, and you won't convince anyone by harping on it. Even as a white person, it is difficult to get permission to move to and work in PC countries like Canada (which is probably why their site crashed) because they think it will reduce unemployment. If Democrats really cared about worldwide diversity, they would move to the country with the least number of their race, but they obviously don't do that very often. They are mostly just proposing to enforce existing law, which is a promise Hillary would have had to make if inaugurated, by faithfully executing immigration laws.

There are counterarguments of course, such as that capital will go to labor in other countries and that we could accept more people if we ended the welfare state. But Democrats don't make those arguments, and oppose them when pushing for a greater minimum wage and more entitlements. So basically immigration restrictions are their fault.

'Trump supporters just want to reduce the domestic labor supply.'
An interesting way to phrase it, though essentially accurate.

'Any connection with race is incidental, and you won’t convince anyone by harping on it.'
Strangely, back when the Irish were a significant amount of the illegal workers in construction in cities like SF, Chicago, and NYC, no one seemed concerned at large numbers of illegal workers that could not be easily identified on site/sight. Just another one of those strange coincidences, along with the fact that many Americans are seemingly deeply disturbed by hearing people speak a language other than English, though again, when it is people from France or Germany doing it, no one seems to be concerned (leaving Benjamin Fraklin's fears of America turning into a non-white nation speaking German out of the discussion, of course).

'Even as a white person'
I'm sorry, what? Do you think that being white adds to your points in the Canadian system?

'If Democrats really cared about worldwide diversity'
This is truly strange - why would American citizens feel some sort of obligation to leave the U.S. to satisfy your projections? (See above concerning Canada.)

'by faithfully executing immigration laws'
It has been decades - literally - since American immigration laws have been faithfully executed, a reality noted by your very first sentence.

'So basically immigration restrictions are their fault.'
Wow - the U.S. started first restricting immigration more than century and a quarter ago, and the restrictions grew truly notable following the aftermath of WWI. I'm pretty sure that desire to keep out all those inferior southern and eastern Europeans back then (using the best scientific knowledge, of course) was quite bipartisan using any definition of partisanship desired.

Diversity, Liberty, or Equality. Choose one.

I have been harboring the idea that liberals have lost the ability to discuss politics and policy in the terms of virtue ethics - which are also the religious ethics of (early) Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other religions. Suppose the language of the cardinal virtues and vices - let us say, prudence, temperance, justice and courage; or pride, gluttony, greed, envy, and wrath - had been used in discussing our new dear leader. Not by Clinton, but by liberal writers and thinkers. Use of such language is considered old, dangerous, and most certainly non-secular, although it fits with the virtue ethics of Aristotle and Confucius. Would not changing the language of discussion change some conservative perspectives on politics and policy? Does language not affect how we think about issues?

The defecting evangelicals used those words quite publicly, and probably the reason they didn't sway all evangelicals is more important than why they didn't sway liberals.

Concentrate on the yes voters. They told us, it became a surprising mainstream meme, that all virtue was signalling.

Leaving aside Harold Pollack, liberals have lost the ability to discuss public policy at all. Everything consists of status games.

It is such a simple ward. If anyone tells you any altruistic belief you can just say "you don't believe that, you are just signalling, trying to improve your status."

Soon we will end free Thanksgiving dinners. They are just so cucks can spoon the potatoes and take selfies.

I encounter very little altruism anywhere, and almost none of it has a political cast at all. Altruistic people grab a ladle at the local soup kitchen or cut a check to the International Rescue Committee. Really altruistic people take in foster children (or add to the joy of the world by having large families). Their opinions on other topics are not stereotyped.

But we know soup kitchen are a standard photo op. Surely they are pure signalling.

Photo op for whom? A newspaper reporter shows up at an urban mission once a year, if that.

https://youtu.be/RwesS-9OGdo

If you are truly worried that this is a growing phenomenon my advice to you would be to stop posting here.

You are a poster child for status seeking virtue signaling. You are bitter, overly aggressive, intellectually uncharitable, and clearly relying on second hand arguments over which you have little rhetorical control (it's why when your points get dismantled you lapse into whining as opposed to reformulating new ideas). Clearly success has eluded you in life and lashing out at others in the name of diversity is your way of compensating for a low status life. Now maybe you are unique in the depths of your virtue signaling in which case by ceasing to post you'd remove at least one data point from the leftism as status seeking argument.

This is the new anti-moral message. And when that doesn't work, attack he individual who attempts morality. "Clearly success has eluded you" etc.

All those people who work every week in soup kitchens, and not just photo ops, are losers. If they could be a Kardashian they would be, right Sam?

Stop repeating status seeking virtue signalling. Tell us why you actually deserve higher status or to be considered relatively virtuous.

Not sure who you are asking, Millian. I am saying that people who have values are shouted down as signalling, and that is a woeful development in American society.

Say you think people should not be homeless or hungry .. should "stop your virtue signalling" be the right answer?

Excellent Sam.

+1

Certainly Democrats are not too interested in diversity within the white population. That means losing the basket of deplorables and also many others in the name of identity politics. That's a losing strategy, or at least one that doesn't seem to create anything but perhaps a slim majority of support in the electorate. That's the point, and it's true.

I agree that diversity of white musical taste was not a big driver in the election, but class was. Sanders emphasized it more than Clinton, and the (wrong) decision was made to go with Her.

Sanders initially went with his New Deal-style trade unionist politics, forged over years of living in extremely non-diverse Vermont. There were several hilarious instances of blacks shouting him down or elbowing him away from his own microphone. After all, black street warriors like their socialism nationalist, like everybody else.

Clinton, over the advice of her politically successful husband, targeted her friends and people who look like her friends, but there are still enough rural and suburban married whites with children that she lost the Electoral College. Now that the nice old white lady in the pantsuit is gone, the Democrats are set to double down on socialism and ethnic/gender grievance. (Whites are doing the same thing albeit in a much more toned-down form.)

Trump, despite hysterical denunciations otherwise, is a civic nationalist, not an ethnic one. He is actually well-positioned to form a civic-minded, bourgeois majority in opposition to Democrats who increasingly act like spoiled children. That's what happens when you have a society wealthy enough to keep people like Rachel Dolezal gainfully employed.

Sanders initially went with his New Deal-style trade unionist politics,

?? Sanders was a successful small city mayor. He got to be mayor by rallying people fed up with the corruption and slipshod administration of Gordon Paquette. His previous involvements had been with the Liberty Union Party, which is a peacenik outfit. As late as 1983, he was an aficionado of Trotskyist literature (it could be found in plain view in his office in Burlington) and was dismissive of Michael Harrington and other Socialist Party alumni attempting to work within the Democratic Party. He remained apart from the Democratic Party until quite recently. I don't think he's ever been a union member.

Sanders was also explicitly anti-immigration in the early days of his campaign, then suddenly seemed to realize it was crimethink in the Democratic Party zeitgeist and quickly toed the line on near-open borders. An interesting counterfactual would be what would have happened if Bernie hadn't given up on his original position.

"Sanders was also explicitly anti-immigration in the early days of his campaign"

This is more of an internet meme than a reality.

"It is no great secret that undocumented workers perform a critical role in our economy. Undocumented workers build many of our homes, cook our meals, maintain our landscapes. We even entrust undocumented workers with that which we hold most dear--our children. Despite the central role they play in our economy and in our daily lives, undocumented workers are reviled by many for political gain and shunted into the shadows. It is time for this disgraceful situation to end. It is time to end the politics of division on this country, of politicians playing one group of people against another: white against black, male against female, straight against gay, native born against immigrant. That is why I supported the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform legislation. We cannot and we should not even be talking about sweeping up millions of men, women, and children--many of whom have been here for years--and throwing them out of the country. That's wrong and that type of discussion has got to end." -- from a speech on June 19, 2015

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation

Ezra Klein
You said being a democratic socialist means a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing ...

Bernie Sanders
Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.

Ezra Klein
Really?

Bernie Sanders
Of course. That's a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. ...

Ezra Klein
But it would make ...

Bernie Sanders
Excuse me ...

Ezra Klein
It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn't it?

Bernie Sanders
It would make everybody in America poorer —you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

The two competing quotes are internally consistent--Sanders didn't want to deport a bunch of illegal immigrants who'd been here for a long time, but also didn't think open borders would be a good idea.

What's even more interesting is that if you drill down into the county or precinct level, much of the geographic area of the "Blue" states is Republican including the more interesting areas of California like Lake Tahoe and Death Valley. Democrats seem to want to move the majority of the population into a single square block and govern the rest of it from there even though they have few common life experiences with non-urban inhabitants. And they are about one earthquake away from losing the areas they do control.

America, like most developed countries, has most of its people living in metropolitan areas including suburbs. It is pretty well-known that white people living in rural areas lean Republican but this group is vastly outnumbered. Of course, when you drill down, you also start to see plenty of highly populated blue districts in red states. I noticed a couple of days ago that Texas will be sending more Democratic representatives to the House than Massachusetts.

About 35% of the population lives in exurban, rural, or small town settings. They're not 'vastly outnumbered. About 10% live in slums. Bourgeois central city neighborhoods incorporate a single-digit percentage.

You seem to want to haggle over how the U.S. Census Bureau defines urban v. rural areas -- hence your 35% figure offered without any citation -- but that's really another topic for another day. We are talking about voting preferences, "diversity", and "drilling down" past the state level to examine voting patterns and the reality is that many communities outside of "slums" and "bourgeois central city neighborhoods" in blue states vote for Democrats.

To give a few clear examples, Greensboro, NC; Davis, CA and their respective surrounding communities may not strike you as "urban" but the counties containing these cities voted decisively for Hillary Clinton as well as Obama in 2012. Likewise, Yazoo County, Mississippi is a majority black county in a red state that went for Clinton, as did many other localities in the Deep South and the Southwest. You might have missed it but I did say it was white, rural America that is vastly outnumbered. Even rural America has a lot more ethnic diversity than a lot of people appreciate and white people who do not live in what the Census Bureau calls rural areas turn out to be a fairly ideologically diverse, somewhat unpredictable bunch.

Davis, CA is home to the University of California at Davis; a university town - especially a UC town where said UC is large compared to the overall size of the town - will tend to vote very liberal.

"Davis, CA is home to the University of California at Davis"

Which, of course, is part of my point. Davis, CA and its surroundings are considered an urban area by the U.S. Census. If Art Deco accepts that it counts as "urban," his 35% figure doesn't hold up (71.2% live in "urbanized areas" including the aforementioned David, CA and Greensboro, NC and another 9.5% live in "urban clusters"). If he wants to argue and call it a rural area instead, he is welcome to do so but the point is then that these "rural" areas are fairly diverse and include places like college towns, sleepy state capitals, and third-tier cities that have enough economic activity to draw in a diverse group of migrants who are likely to change the voting patterns if not the demographic make-up of the area. Colorado and Nevada both went from blue to red to back to blue within the past 20 years and I wouldn't be surprised if some of this is due to migration.

Davis is a satellite of metropolitan Sacramento, and a small city in and of itself. Greensboro and adjacent tracts make a third-tier city with about 380,000 people in its dense settlement. The addition of exurban territory is not necessary to push either community over the 50,000 threshold.

his 35% figure doesn’t hold up (71.2% live in “urbanized areas” including the

The 'urbanized area' figure is also padded, just less padded than the MSA figure. The degree of padding is more severe the smaller the community. The supposed 'urbanized area' where I grew up has a population of 720,000. The concatenation of census block groups with densities over 1,000 person per square mile has a population of 600,000.

"the long history of American slavery and segregation": ooh, another unkind dig at the Dems. Keep it up, Mr Cowen.

This post might be even better directed at campus diversity rather than the election, even if the election is more topical. The rationale for trying to achieve racial and gender diversity on campus is that it is supposed to bring a diversity of viewpoints, which all students benefit from. However, as Haidt and his colleagues at Heterodox Academy [http://www.heterodoxacademy.org] document, viewpoint diversity has instead almost disappeared completely. Speech codes and safe spaces have more than offset the viewpoint diversity gains from racial and gender diversity. Lack of (viewpoint) diversity has indeed harmed students' education as we now see from their "stressed" reaction to election results: not only is hearing viewpoints they disagree with labeled as "unsafe", so is the election of a candidate that they didn't vote for.

We didn't realize how unprepared these students are for American democratic life until now because, for voters under 29, this may well be the first election in which their preferred candidate lost. (In 2004, these voters would have been under 18, too young to vote.) Before the election, we feared that the losing side might not accept the results, become enamored with conspiracy theories that the system is rigged, and would take to the streets. These fears now appear to have been realized, although not quite in the way that was expected.

Seems to me absentees played a important part in all this. Donald Trump did not have less votes than Hillary only, he had less votes than both McCain and Romney! Looks like many Republicans chose not to vote but Dems who decided to stay home probably were even more...

Trump got substantially more votes than McCain though he'll likely fall short of Romney's vote total. Of course, Hillary Clinton didn't get as many votes as Romney did either.

It may be different by the time counting is completed.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Hillary-Clinton-popular-vote-lead-2-million-10611489.php

Just last month we were discussing how the Republican party was dying out, and now TC informs us it's the Democratic party, controlling only 17 states...what a difference a month and a close election makes!? Or shall we simply tune out this kind of talk altogether?

It depends on who he's having lunch with on campus or in Fairfax City. And, of course, some of them have their moods.

The Republicans air their differences and fight them out. Democrats see that through their own prism and know that if that happened within their party there would be bloodshed. Since the media is almost all Democrat, they portray the differences as deep divisions that cannot be repaired.

In other words, far more Sanders voters didn't vote than NeverTrumpers. But it is the Republicans who are dysfunctional.

I read a Democrat saying that they need to follow the Tea Party strategies within the Democratic party to shake it up. It should be fun to watch. The Tea Party was a constraining influence on the stupidity of Washington republicans. I doubt that the movement left would be a restraining influence on Washington Democrats, but rather a way to drive them to more extreme positions. In other words the Republican establishment needs to be burnt down to be rational, but the Democrats need a strong establishment to keep a lid on the irrationality.

Two Cowens: the one who explains things in the books you buy, and the one who vaguebooks on the internet. So why bother looking for gnostic messages in the latter? Is a CEA nomination coming?

Please, people like Prof. Cowen contain multitudes, not just a piddling one or two or three personas.

This is an essential trait in the sort of world where Prof. Cowen exists, after all.

I would agree with the idea that rural-urban diversity is the reason why the Dems lost. Rural white people perceived themselves as being under-represented in the political sphere. I don't agree that they were, but I do think that was the perception of reality in rural America. Most liberals (myself included) saw Trump's ideas as highly antiquated and regressive, and Democrats could not incorporate any of his supposedly "pro-rural" ideas into their platform because the liberal base categorically rejected them. So in that sense, yes, we failed on diversity of viewpoints.

That said, I think it's clear that the Millennial generation cares vastly more about racial/ethnic diversity than the urban-rural divide. And the Democrats are in a much, much better position in that sense after this election, precisely because they did not try to reach out to Trump voters. I think the GOP are going to end up losing big in the long term without a major course correction to show that they have some regard for ethnic diversity.

RHDB

RHDP,

I think the issue may be that the Democrats are trying to push a storyline that the US is uniquely hateful and that racism, misogeny, and xenophobia were practically invented here.

In that regard, at the margin, the voters that swung to Trump may have been people who do indeed value tolerance, but just don't think that portraying this as a "Hitler" moment is realistic.

In my view, the move among American to overwhelmingly accept and support gay marriage may well be the most positive societal change that has occurred recently in the world. So, why do the Democrats try to pretend that we live in a hate culture?

I don't think a majority of Americans can be cobbled together that rejects tis form of progress, just the self-righteous, patronising and it turns out profitable approach that the Democrat party took to it.

I agree with you that "the GOP are going to end up losing big in the long term without a major course correction to show that they have some regard for ethnic diversity", but think you may find that is not a bridge too far.

I think the issue may be that the Democrats are trying to push a storyline that the US is uniquely hateful and that racism, misogeny, and xenophobia were practically invented here.

Hillary and John Podesta aren't that stupid. The problem is that the Democratic Party draws on constituencies who take that for granted, and those constituencies form the social matrix within which Democratic politicians live. You've got a lot of people with fancy education in this country who talk rot. I've got a pair of those talking on my Facebook wall. One's an in-law and one's a first degree relation between this pair and their respective spouses are three doctoral degrees, three or four practice licenses, and two board certifications. I've got others whose idea of political discourse consists of memes and John Oliver clips. One of the worst offenders is carrying degrees from Bowdoin College and Columbia University. How did this happen?

Well, I certainly hope you are correct on that last point, Jack. I lean Democrat, but I think we all have an interest in a balanced system. The GOP would have to do a lot to win back the liberal millenial vote at this point, but a lot can happen over the next few years.
I live in a "liberal bubble" and I can assure you that most of us on the left do not think America has a "hate culture". Most of us think of America as a great but flawed country. It's disappointing that that's how the Dem. message came across.
I also would ask that you consider how well you really understand racism in the U.S. I don't know your background, but I am a white man from a small town with a 95%+ white population. I moved to a major city 10 years ago and in the past 10 years I have gotten a much better understanding of how race dynamics function. Again, I don't presume to know your background, but I would just ask that you think about your life experiences and how they have shaped the way you think about race and why people from different backgrounds may think differently than you. As we all should do.

When the Democratic nominee for President openly calls half of her opponent's support "deplorable", unworthy of being American, that sounds like she's accusing a significant chunk of the population as being uniquely hateful and bigoted. Since I'm sure that you're being completely accurate when you state that you and those like you don't think that America has a hate culture, maybe you can tell us the steps you took to condemn Ms. Clinton's blood libel of one-fourth of the voting population - you must have posted on Facebook, written letters to the editor of major newspapers, posted about this shocking denigration of you fellow citizens on blog comments sections, after all.

saw Trump’s ideas as highly antiquated and regressive,

Betwixt and between in his garbled syntax and off-the-cuff throwaway remarks were about two ideas: enforcing the immigration laws and taking a more antagonistic stance in trade negotiations. Makes no sense to call either 'antiquated' or 'regressive'. That's just rhetorical gamesmanship.

Fair enough. My overall point wasn't meant to be about the suitability of Trump as a candidate, my comment was more about the role of diversity in this and future elections.
That said, I would argue that characterizing his immigration policy as simply "enforcing the immigration laws" is also not quite fair, given that he was talking about completely shutting out an entire religious group and building a 1000 mile long wall on the Mexican border.

Consider this.

I posit that Muslim immigration in numbers implies a police state.

I don't want a police state.

In Canada there is a desperation among Liberals to make even discussing this issue a crime. That tells me all I need to know about the accusations of racism; it is a political bludgeon to put issues past discussion. As this election showed, they aren't.

And the left should be thankful, otherwise they would blindly walk into something similar to Merkel's blitheringly stupid decision to welcome millions of refugees. The Canadian Liberals were ready to do the same thing, but had to prove that they were sensible, and brought in a small number carefully vetted. Oddly enough that racist and non diverse policy actually has worked pretty well.

Exactly right. "Racism" and, hilariously, "fascism" are just rhetorical bludgeons to silence debate.

Ethnically diverse societies have a poor track record. They seem to work best where there is frank acknowledgment that one group is the market-dominant majority and should stay that way, like Israel or the Singapore city-state. They also work with highly centralized governments with despotic powers to keep everybody in line. Pre-Arab Spring Syria actually worked pretty well because the government would just kill or imprison Muslim militants and their families. Then everybody figured out the ruling class Alawites and Christians were outnumbered 5 to 1.

Now that the Syrians have gotten the chance to observe Sunni governance, more of them are re-discovering their pan-Syrian nationalism and maybe the Assad family wasn't doing so bad a job. But putting all your governance eggs in the basket of a single nuclear family doesn't seem to work very well either.

A third way which only a few forward-thinking souls like Mark Krikorian will mention is to de-racialize the State. The government should shrink in order to restore people's communal safe harbors from which they may interact as they choose or choose not. Nobody seems particularly upset by the presence of insular Amish, Sikhs, or Hasidim, and these groups actually seem to skew Republican. Of course this will not be done because, as we are all taught from birth to grave, equality of inputs yields equality of outcomes and contrary results are solely due to white racism and sexism.

I guess I'm just a little unclear on how Muslim immigration=descent into police state. Because we would need to be surveilling Muslims all the time? Hasn't the proportion of Muslim immigrants who have actually committed terrorism been incredibly low? It only makes sense if you're operating under the assumption that a Muslim immigrant is more dangerous than a native born US citizen, and I really don't think the evidence bears that out. Vetting is one thing, but an outright ban on Muslims is a direct provocation to the Muslim world. Hard to see how that would make us safer.

Pre-Arab spring Syria never worked well. Syria's history since 1946 has been a history of declining relative economic prosperity and declining social competence manifest in the sophistication of its political institutions. There isn't a better example of a society in the Arab world which has done less with more, bar, perhaps Iraq next door.

It only makes sense if you’re operating under the assumption that a Muslim immigrant is more dangerous than a native born US citizen, and I really don’t think the evidence bears that out. V

The evidence bears that out. Your problem is one alluded to by Anti-Gnostic. Israel's governing class (despite some squawking from Ha'aretz and Tel Aviv University faculty, favors it's own over the rest of the world, and, when push comes to shove, over domestic minorities. Teddy Roosevelt did too. We live in a world where analogous social stratum despise the non-exotic working class and petit bourgeois cultural minorities (e.g. evangelicals) and engage in systematic efforts to dilute their influence and hit them with legal sanctions. The problem with immigration is derived in large measure from the repulsive attitudes in the elite and in the professional-managerial class.

It's 1,900 miles and it's perfectly reasonable to build a wall. Hundreds of thousands of people are crossing that border in defiance of the law every year. We build 38,000 miles worth of Interstates. We can surely manage a 1,900 mile long wall.

We build 38,000 miles worth of Interstates.

LOL. "Walls? IMPOSSIBLE!" Of course, stable regimes all over the Middle East are building them as fast as they can, and Hungary is quite effective using fences and their military in its classic role of protecting the State's territorial integrity. India does the same with Bangladesh.

It always cracks me up how liberals think of Mexico as this prison! built by white people to inter Mexicans in an intolerable hellhole. It's actually a fairly advanced place, with architects, dentists, high-rises, airlines, etc. Same with more of Africa than people would have you believe.

Maybe a Trump foreign policy will do more to encourage institutional reforms in net-emigrant countries rather than just giving their toxic elite a safety valve to here.

Aye. If you bracket out the natural resource rents and the excess accruing to the most affluent decile, real income per capita in Mexico is similar to that in the U.S. just after the Depression, i.e. what my uncle (still alive and well and living on the Florida Space Coast) grew up with. It's the same deal re Columbia and Brazil. Their real problem is street crime. That's not an argument for transferring impecunious Mexicans to the United States.

Of course, Trump offered a diversity of ideas, conflicting ideas mostly, such as tax cuts for the wealthy and increased spending on infrastructure together with a balanced budget. You can't get there from here, to quote an American proverb. People believe what they want to believe. If some people believe Trump is an honest and successful businessman who pays his taxes, that's what they will believe, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. If some people believe Trump will bring manufacturing jobs back to America, that's what they will believe, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. If some people believe Trump won't jeopardize social security and Medicare with budget deficits in the trillions, that's what they will believe, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. On so on. The diversity to which Cowen refers, all things to all people, reminds me of the right's explanation for the anemic economic recovery following the greatest financial crisis since 1929: uncertainty. Cowen has now written a book in which he says the way to make America great again is, well, uncertainty: America needs uncertainty to avoid complacency. Up is down, down is up. People believe what they want to believe, whether it's the conflicting ideas of a demagogue or the conflicting ideas of an academic.

Diversity: "Mr. Zuckerberg has defended Facebook as a place where people can share all opinions. When employees objected in October to the stance of Peter Thiel, a Facebook board member, in supporting Mr. Trump, Mr. Zuckerberg said, “We care deeply about diversity” and reiterated that the social network gave everyone the power to share their experiences. More recently, issues with fake news on the site have mushroomed. Multiple Facebook employees were particularly disturbed last week when a fake news site called The Denver Guardian spread across the social network with negative and false messages about Mrs. Clinton, including a claim that an F.B.I. agent connected to Mrs. Clinton’s email disclosures had murdered his wife and shot himself." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/technology/facebook-is-said-to-question-its-influence-in-election.html?ref=business

More diversity at Facebook: “A fake story claiming Pope Francis — actually a refugee advocate — endorsed Mr. Trump was shared almost a million times, likely visible to tens of millions,” Zeynep Tufekci, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina who studies the social impact of technology, said of a recent post on Facebook. “Its correction was barely heard. Of course Facebook had significant influence in this last election’s outcome.”

Do you believe in the marketplace of ideas or not? Do you really want to live in a world where central gatekeepers determine what people can read?

The marketplace of ideas that cost money, versus low-quality memes that are free, has worked out as one could have predicted. A rhetorician more interested in self-aggrandisement and the protection the Presidency confers to his family's wealth, than ideas either true or false.

Really, only people who pay for New York Times subscriptions should be allowed to vote.

Your crew has no problem with rabble-rousing as long as it's only cops getting shot or urban businesses getting vandalized.

Anti-Gnostic: Nice strawman, but nobody is proposing such a thing.

If someone complains that the mainstream media is often lazy and biased and cares a lot more about telling a compelling story than about getting the facts right, I wouldn't assume that they're proposing censoring the press.

Similarly, if someone complains that a side-effect of Facebook's attempt to spend as little as possible on overseeing the news stories it recommends is that lots of fake news is being promoted, I don't assume that they're proposing to censor Facebook. I think what they're doing is criticizing a mechanism by which lots of people are fed lies or made-up crap.

If Cowen is right, that what's needed is uncertainty, here's an article in the business section of today's NYT, titled "Sea of Uncertainty", which includes charts and graphs to assist investors in this time of uncertainty: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/13/your-money/wealth-cartoon.html?rref=collection%2Fspotlightcollection%2Fwealth-special-section&action=click&contentCollection=your-money&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection

Hillary Clinton won a popular plurality, not a majority.

Well, that was a pointless meander. The 'diversity' discourse is humbug. The Democratic Party is not the electoral vehicle of advocates of any sort of diversity. They're the advocates of monovox among the haut bourgeois, the production and reproduction of patron-client relations with mascot groups, and petty abuse and disrespect directed at everyone else.

Your man Trump is the very embodiment of patron-client relations! The alt-right Spartans looking up to Daddy.

In your asinine little head.

This is a bit of a nitpick, but the emphasis the Founding Fathers put on state autonomy and power was not just about embracing one kind of diversity. It was also a recognition that the states were ready-made political organisations.

A fear that New York might dominate Connecticut wasn't just about the kinds opinions held in NY dominating. Was as the possibility that the actual state of New York would ride roughshod over its neighbours, using the US govt. as a force multiplier.

Cowen should have written two books, one to be published if the Chicago Cubs won the World Series and the other to be published if the Cleveland Indians won. Unfortunately, he wrote (thus far) only one, the latter, understandable given Cleveland's seemingly insurmountable lead and the Cubs' losing history. Maybe Cowen is only a casual baseball fan and didn't appreciate that uncertainty is the essence of the game. Pitchers and catchers don't report to Spring training until February, so Cowen has ample time to revise his book. He will be busy over the holidays so I won't bother to invite him over for Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner.

Tyler mentions the word coalition twice, once in the title. None of the comments so far have used the word. Politics is, to a very large degree, the art of building coalitions. Almost by definition coalitions are diverse. If Trump is thought of by some as being against 'diversity' and yet he won the election, then how do those people think that is possible? -- People need to rethink what is meant by diversity.

If you were to start with an argument for that view, you could cite the long history of American slavery and segregation,

The slaves were manumitted in 1865. Hereditary subjection was abolished in the Hapsburg realms in 1848 and in Russia during the period running from 1861 to 1906. Awful lot of peasant serfs in the pedigree of American Slavs, and at about the same distance in generations.

As for segregation, it was an insult and a source of petty conflict. It impinged on the material interests of two segments: a small corps of blacks who had the chops to handle sophisticated higher education (Alex Haley's father got his graduate education at Cornell, not at state schools in Tennessee) and blacks living in areas where they were thin on the ground, like western Virginia. A parallel school system is one thing in a locality where a third of the population is black (as it commonly is in the Deep South, even today), quite another when 3% of the population is black. The more pressing problem in the South wasn't segregation, but the wretched state of the police forces, the court system, and the penal system. Negro disfranchisement, the denial of public employment, and the insult incorporated into caste regulations written into law were secondary problems. Segregated schools were a tertiary problem, most places.

You are saying that segregation was materially harmless to the overwhelming majority of blacks, because they are stupid and concentrated. Cowen publishes racial hatred on his website by allowing these comments, but of course the snowflakes squeal and whine about their safe spaces for hatred if you point this out. Well, they are in charge now. Soon they will get theirs.

They do have lower IQs, that's science not racial hatred. They get AA now, how many are in elite universities?

No, I'm not say that, and that's perfectly obvious. You pulled that out of your rear end and imputed it to me.

This post is interesting and has some horse sense in it, but it is also wrong in the conventional sense of wrong in many ways:

Democratic voters are more diverse in almost every dimension, not just race/ethnicity: income, education, religion, national origin. Almost certainly occupation and industry as well. Democrats may be overly impressed with how diverse they are and how important that is, but Cowan does not have any operationalized concept of diversity except geographic spread.

Cowan confuses "states they won" with geographic diversity in the parties. There are democrats and republicans everywhere. They differ across states in their ability to put together winning coalitions but Cowan is being fooled by big patches of red and blue.

Speaking of confused by big patches of red and blue, even the urban/rural divide has less in it than it appears at first glance because of where the population is concentrated.

Last Cowan says ridiculously that the founding fathers sought diverse geographic rule through the electoral college, senate, etc. The only diversity they sought to accommodate was the division on slavery (ok that's a form of diversity) but it was in large part an effort to cement elite rule by elites of similar background (although varying in the wealth generation mechanism of slavery) everywhere in the new United States. That's not diversity, that's class solidarity.

Regarding the horse sense in the piece I'll write more if I have a moment. It's not all nonsense even if it does not really construct its argument from coherent or accurate parts.

E pluribus unum.

Another extremely diverse Democrat with identical opinions as every other one.

Read of this Y-Combinator who flamed out. The money quotes:

"All of you: fuck off. Take your morally superior, elitist, virtue signaling bullshit and shove it.

I call it like I see it, and I helped meme a President into office, cucks.

Y Combinator clearly has chosen their side,” he said. “They’re pandering to immigrants [rather than] American entrepreneurs. They clearly do not welcome Trump supporters.”

https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/12/pro-trump-ceo-gets-booted-from-y-combinator/

I think that really shows what this wave was, and a search for a new diversity it was not.

Okay, we'll take this on your terms: whites are racially conscious and voting in their collective group interest, like everybody else. Eight percent of blacks and thirty percent of Hispanics agree with them, as do lots of Amish, Hasidim and Hindus.

It's the future you chose. You should have thought about this when the white share of the electorate began being reduced from an 85% super-majority to 60% (and shrinking). The former was the world people like Bernie Sanders grew up in, back when we debated each other over collective bargaining vs. right-to-work, and marginal tax rates.

The future is identity politics. Enjoy.

There have been many postmortems for this election, but one style is "I am a white person living in a diverse city, and I think I've got the future right here." That is not at all the same as "everyone votes racial interest."

But leaving that aside, you have a bigger problem. Your complaint is very last month. Back then Republicans were out of power and only had to name things that they hated. That worked. Enough people hated enough things that they won.

It just doesn't work anymore. Republicans are now the ones with problems. They have to perform. I think Trump is manifestly unfit for office, but this is bigger than him. I think the Republican coalition (it is now a new coalition) is in an impossible position.

Republican voters somehow contain people who want to repeal Obamacare and people who depend on Obamacare in the same voting block.

How will that work out?

That wasn't your point, and it wasn't my point in response. You think the outcome was steered by white anti-immigrant bias. Well, there may be a reason for that, similar to what you'd expect would happen if you tried to convince Israelis, Hans, Lithuanians, Persians et al. to pare down their super-majorities.

Diverse societies are extremely problematic. They require either a broad consensus on which group will dominate, or an expensive and near-despotic central government to keep a lid on things. The third way out of this pickle (I hope and pray) is to shrink the government and let the private sector manage its own inter-personal relations. Failing that, it's going to be identity politics. It's the future you chose.

No, I think I had it. Torba works in a fiercely competitive environment where ideas and effort drive success. Most people on Y-Combinator are fine with that. They want their seed money. They want to find the next unicorn. For some crazy reason Torba tried to play resentment in that group. It didn't fly.

You are too when you say "whites are racially conscious and voting in their collective group interest, like everybody else"

Torba is not reacting to a racial block, he is reacting to a performance oriented group.

Or, the Trump coalition includes people who have 401ks, and people who want 35% tariffs, for real, on Mexico. How do you solve that one?

Trump already shed off some educated, elite Republicans and still won. The ones who stayed with him (like myself) are probably going to be okay with a 35% tariff on goods from Mexico. Sure shit at Wal-Mart is more expensive, but it's way less expensive than the 70% tax rates Progressive like Paul Krugman want to impose on me. My 401k will be damaged, but at least I will have a 401k, whereas folk like Matt Yglesias will eventually Voxsplain why my 401k needs to be seized to save Social Security.

I am fine paying more for my steel if it means lower-class Americans go back to work and are not welfare-dependent Democrat voters.

I am fine taxing corporations more and even empowering labor if we can force companies to invest more in their workforces, Germany- and Japan-style, again keeping lower-class Americans from becoming welfare-dependent Democrat voters.

I also think the Trump coalition is going to get more voters back when educated Republicans realize that the can actually win: I think some Republicans deserted and voted Johnson because who wants to be part of a loser coalition? But Trump is a winner now: I expect he will get some Republican voters back.

I am skeptical, but perhaps other Trump voters will agree that they too are ready for actual 35% tariffs.

Canada just imposed tariffs on drywall under anti-dumping rules.

Interesting to see the inclination towards anti-trust that Trump has as well. The left of the Democrats are right, the Democrats have become the Corporatist party.

That may be the pragmatic policy choice. You can pay welfare at the cash register, or you can let the government divvy it out. The former seems way less dysfunctional. Hopefully we can make Americans more affordable employees even as we enhance their bargaining power with borders and tariffs.

If they require government intervention to keep their wages up, those steelworkers are on welfare, just the same as overpaid city schoolteachers or 1970s Newcastle coalminers. And just like everyone else who gets a taste of government cheese, their appetite for protection, for subsidies, and for unearned praise will be insatiable.

There is a reason that cartelized labor is a traditional Democratic stronghold.

If they require government intervention to keep their wages up, those steelworkers are on welfare, just the same as overpaid city schoolteachers or 1970s Newcastle coalminers. And just like everyone else who gets a taste of government cheese, their appetite for protection, for subsidies, and for unearned praise will be insatiable.

It's looking like we either pay them to work and marry and have kids, or we pay them not to work and get addicted to meth and electronic entertainment.

Interesting points. Put another way, the positive externalities of work, mostly moral benefits, outweigh the smaller gains from trade. This seems right to me. But what happens when the market replaces expensive American workers with robots? Do we regulate that too?

Basically, I think you under-estimate the number of Republican Americans who are okay with paying a bit more to "Make America Great Again." It's a lot different than paying more taxes because you are a racist and other people need your money more than you.

Everyone is happy to pay a bit more until they are asked to pay a bit more. Then the guy who asks them to pay more becomes a Muslim atheist Kenyan demon, or nowadays, well, Trump and the left have already co-written the script for the next part of the story.

This seems obvious but diversity coalitions are formed because the identified element matters in some way e.g. diversity of race is important as there is systemic oppression regarding this item, that's why people care. Diversity of musical taste is interesting, and gets a good write up in Rolling Stone but does not matter in the same way to as many people.

Race, class, gender. These are the diversity elements that have have bubbled to the top - they matter to a great deal of people, for very good reasons.

The 'diversities of diversities' argument seems like a White Male Pivot.

Of course your argument completely falls apart if that holy triumvirate didn't bubble up to the top but was instead disseminated in top down self serving fashion by elites. I get why really really resllly want it to be your way, but Gramsci cuts both ways.

The age of your cultural homogeneity dominating is over. It's going to be painful, but I think you'll find it will make you a better person.

What do you mean by this?

"If you think of education as serving a smoothing function, the less educated are in some ways considerably more diverse than the educated."

Higher education tends to enforce a similar cultural point of view. And colleges have become far less tolerant places over the last 20 years. It would have been unthinkable 20 years ago for a college to provide "official" guidance on appropriate Halloween costumes. Though if you were to go back 70 years ago (to the 1950's) I'm sure you could fine examples of that type of behavior.

What you'd have found 70 years ago was a set of rules which functioned to keep young men and young women from having ill-thought-out sexual encounters and functioned to contain the degree to which they would be distracted by drink and socializing. I doubt anyone gave a rip about Halloween costumes. The PC nonsense began quite abruptly around about 1988 (though you had features of it earlier at a few loci like Brown University). It's a reasonable wager that the reason for this was that it was around that time that the majority of the tenured faculty came to be composed of people who had encountered campus disorders ca. 1966 as students and not as institutional employees. These same people have seen to it that faculty hires and grants of tenure after a certain date pointedly excluded people who had anything to say contra the program.

What does Tyler mean by "smoothing function" in this context?

Isn't it obvious?

Engineers aren't diverse in their thinking. They apply the same principles to problems and usually come up with similar solutions. This is a good thing, we don't want structures to collapse because of some flight of fancy.

Education has become more and more narrow and specializes; by necessity in most cases because to master the field requires years of study and focus. So people are specialists in a very very narrow slice of knowledge. The opposite of diverse.

Even the way subjects are approached. You can come out of a course of study in economics with less understanding of how the economy actually functions than someone who runs a business. I often read of some economic thesis, and once I grasp the verbiage recognize the pattern that I have either experienced or seen.

And if you get into some of the social sciences you may very well come out with a flawed understanding of reality, or a view that is strained through an extremely narrow lens; race theory, feminist theory.

The smart people come out of that with tools to understand the world. The dumb, which unfortunately is more the case than not, come out thinking they understand the world and desperately try to put reality into all the nice tidy boxes they learned in school.

Hence the word diversity. It is either a reality, someone experienced with and comfortable with a very wide variety of people and opinions, or a box which has check marks to limit the need for actual diversity of experience.

Then the "more educated" are diverse in their qualifications, and it doesn't explain why they are less diverse overall. Obviously any sub-group of graduates is less diverse than the population, being perhaps 1 per cent of the population.

This is a splendid post, but it would be even more splendid if it included the Pauline Kael quote from a speech Kael delivered in 1972 at the MLA:

“I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.”

And don't forget the magazine Newsweek printing and distributing the Madame President cover.

"A national recall went out Wednesday for the special “Madame President” issue of Newsweek that was prematurely shipped to stores and newsstands across the country.

At the same time, the publisher of the magazine will rush the “President Trump” version of the commemorative issue to press on Thursday — so it will get to stores next week."

So what ? Remember " Dewey defeats Truman ? "

Yes, which has generally been the classic example of a tone deaf newspaper.

"That said, I think it’s clear that the Millennial generation cares vastly more about racial/ethnic diversity than the urban-rural divide. "

Except Trump won white millennials by five points.

Right... but Clinton won the overall millennial vote 55% to 37%. So I'm not sure how the fact that he won a subgroup by 5% is more meaningful than the fact that she won the whole group by 18%? Are you arguing that the millennial electorate is going to somehow skew whiter in future elections?

I found this article/interview quite enlightening: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar

Seems the Electoral College was established to protect the states who owned lots of slaves. Instead of "one man, one vote," which would have benefited the large Northeastern States, the College gave Southern slaves states a bigger voice. Sadly ironic that a mechanism designed as a sop to the slaveholders, comes back to haunt us in 2016. It's not all about racism, but much of our political culture is locked on the horns of that reality. I suppose true diversity is open to racists and the retrograde thinkers too.

In 1790, the national population was evenly divided between free states (and territories) and slave states (and territories).

How easily one can glide over the reality of the significance of a segment of the population of the slave states being slaves. Who were only considered something other than property when determining Congressional representation based on population.

A quick refresher from wikipedia - 'The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free persons had been counted equally, allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

What's pathetic about you is that you feel the need to make statements which are simply non-responsive or non sequitur in a weird self-aggrandizing exercise. I'd tell you to read his original remark and understand the point he was trying to make and understand why his point is in error, but if you were inclined and able to do that, you'd have done it.

Look, if you consider slaves to have been considered citizens in the slave states when writing - 'the national population was evenly divided between free states (and territories) and slave states (and territories)' - that is one thing. A truly ignorant thing, which is the reason for providing that little demographic reminder that the property owned by slaveholders was only considered worth counting when attempting to ensure that the slave states had political influence including a 'population' that was actually not considered property in all other contexts.

But if you honestly believe that the free population of the slave states was equal to the population of the free population, you are simply and provably wrong. I do recognize that in our brave new post-factual world, this seemingly does not concern you in the least.

And really, this statement is completely supported by what you were asked to actually read as a refresher - 'Instead of “one man, one vote,” which would have benefited the large Northeastern States, the College gave Southern slaves states a bigger voice.' That is a completely accurate statement, by the way - the Electoral College being determined by population as determined by the Census, including at the time the property granted the right to be counted at a discounted rate in determining political representation, which as property they had no voice in electing.

'was equal to the population of the free population' - well, actually 'was equal to the population of the free states.'

But if you honestly believe that the free population of the slave states was equal to the population of the free population, you are simply and provably wrong. I

No one ever suggested there was no slave population in Virginia. You impute that to them for your own stupid reasons.

Prior,

Really bizarre for you to harp on and on about how the people you are replying to are factually incorrect, when in fact they are 100% correct and only by twisting their words in an obvious way would their statement be incorrect

So Canada, which has a first past the post system, and a strong federal system with most of the powers accruing to the provinces, is the result of Racism!

Provinces have fixed percentages or numbers of seats in Parliament that doesn't change with population. Obviously RACISM!

I challenge you to think of the world and situations without falling into the lazy trope of racism. I think you will find that the world is far more complex, even interesting. Yes there is racism, always has been, as well as economic interest, distrust of centralized power, as well as a give and take for mutual benefit.

This post is an interesting and useful academic argument and one I will.work hard to think through over the coming weeks.

But.

But I find a useful and productive definition of diversity to be in terms of the violent prejudice too many Americans experience.

There are far more white victims of black criminal violence than black victims of white criminal violence. Is that the violent prejudice you were talking about?

Hispanics are now more numerous than blacks and vote with their feet to be here, so they don't seem to be laboring under violent prejudice. Or maybe you are referring to Hispanics' tendency to ethnically cleanse blacks from their neighborhoods?

Brown-skinned Hindus enjoy higher mean income than any other ethnic group, so I doubt you're referring to them.

What is this "violent prejudice" against "too many Americans?"

There are more white Americans than black Americans. Imbecilic troll, your man just used you to protect his family wealth.

Uh, Professor Gauss, if all else really is equal, then rates of criminality should reflect the white majority: there should be more black victims of white crime than white victims of black crime.

So what's the answer? The word "Gauss" does not itself mean that your prior assumptions are true.

If blacks and non-blacks selected their victims at random and had similar criminal propensities, the number of black-on-other crimes would equal the number of other-on-black crimes. (.13 x .87) = (.87 x .13). Except for robbery, serious crime tends to be intra-racial, so you're only looking at a modest fraction of incidents when you talk about this. IIRC, about 60% of all inter-racial homicides have black perpetrators.

Do the stats you're looking at on inter-racial homicides includes those by police?

Also, this can be balanced against a situation where many indicators of access to basic services which prevent death explain results of much higher health and economic status related outcomes. Which obviously is not a morally equivalent sort of situation, unless perhaps you're statistically literate and you know that the second type of cause of death can involve much more suffering than a few minutes gone wrong at the hands of whoever.

Nathan,

Yes, they do. Police shootings do not appear to be racially motivated. Black policemen are more likely to shoot black perpetrators and vice versa. Blacks and whites are shot by police in about proportion to their criminality. More whites are shot by police than blacks.

No they do not, nor should they. Police killings account for 2% of all homicides in the United States and very few are questionable. You've been told that. You do not hear.

Many Latinos in Florida are of Cuban heritage. They have tended to vote for whoever was more anti-Castro--generally Republicans.

Much of this goes under the heading "not even wrong"

We should probably remember that "better together" was the proposition on the table.

It failed. Inventing a new secret diversity may assuage feelings, but why would any diversity reject the together meme? The flip side was walls, bans, black lists, pens, and a "new" human biodiversity movement.

All those make (double?) secret diversity suspect.

Unfortunately the author of that proposition had a tendency to call as much as 40 percent of the electorate deplorable. Which simply underscores how correct Cowen's point is-though I would argue it's petty trivial. If you are going to write of 25-40% of the people in the US as deplorable you are writing of a ton of diversity.

"The original thinking behind the Electoral College was that geographic diversity was important."
That is an incredibly misleading way of describing the Framer's own thinking. The Electoral College exists to help increase the voting power of the slave states.
"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."
Records of the Federal Convention, p. 57 Farrand's Records, Volume 2, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875, Library of Congress http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=002/llfr002.db&recNum=60&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00218%29%29%230020061&linkText=1

The Electoral College exists to help increase the voting power of the slave states.

Again, the total population was evenly divided between slave states and free states in 1790. What differed was the extent of the suffrage. What the apportionment rules provided for was that Southern states would not be penalized for more restrictive suffrage re free persons and would only face a truncated penalty for their large population of slaves.

The salient architectural curios of the Constitution (bicameralism, apportionment rules, the Electoral College) act to split the difference between competing interests. You're not going to find pristine political principles behind them.

Virginia was the most populous state in 1790.

The biggest winners from the electoral college were the small states like Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshrie and Georgia. Combined these states were smaller than Virginia.

Only in Georgia was the slave population so numerous as to significantly increae their representation in Congress.

Maine had zero slaves. Vermont had 16. Rhode Island had 948 out of a population of nearly 70K.

One of my favorite things about Tyler:

On the rare occasion that he glimpses the world outside his Democrat bubble, and he finds something non-horrific about the outside world... he cannot bring himself to say so without 47 disclaimers first.

Still, he's more worldly than, say, Krugman. Baby steps, I guess.

This is truly beyond parody when referring to anyone associated with the GMU econ dept. - 'outside his Democrat bubble.'

He understands them and you are under the illusion you understand them.

Cowen's bubble is the D.C.-NYC axis. Last seen voting about 85 to 15 for Democrats.

"That also means the Republicans are not just a “Southern rump party,”

Clearly not or they wouldn't have just won a presidential election. That said, the dominance of the GOP in the South among white people can't be understated. Similarly, the dominance of the Democrats among brown people, even in the south.

Without running the numbers, I would guess that in the heavily blue states, e.g. New York, California, you have 1. a lot of brown people that break 80/20 for the Democrats, and 2. white people that break 55/45 for the Democrats. Put those two together and you get a solidly blue state. Then you've got states like Vermont where it's all white people but they're just extremely blue. Even there, though, I suspect the white population is not as heavily "blue" as white Southern populations are "red". The only reason states like Alabama and Mississippi aren't 80/20 or 90/10 for the Republican every year is the presence of lots of African Americans who're voting 80/20 or 90/10 for the Democrat.

But it's not just white southerners; you've also got states like Wyoming, Montana, etc. So it's probably actually rural whites, not southern white per se, with rural whites just happening to be over-represented in the south.

I'd like to see numbers broken out along two axes: urban/rural and white/non-white. It may end up that the only group of the four that isn't heavily in the camp of one political party is "urban whites".

And when it comes to urban/rural it may not actually be urban/rural that matters; with respect to whites, there may be significant correlation between "urban" and "educated". Urban/rural, for whites, could end up being a proxy for college/no-college.

Regression analysis. It's great stuff.

Yeah, seems like we should be able to come up with what the salient factor (for whites) actually is. Is lack of data the problem?

I'd like to see an analysis that considers income level, degree/no-degree, rural/urban, south/not-south, and evangelical/not-evangelical.

It may turn out that when all the others are taken into account, some of these don't actually matter.

The answer is in academic journals that TC never reads. He does read columns by Daniel Drezner, but Drezner does not make use of quantitative methods.

So what's the answer?

Trump won white voters in New York.

This surprised me, so I looked it up and you're correct. At least, according to CNN's exit polls. Trump won whites 51/45 and Clinton won non-whites 85/13. That's surprising, though, since Clinton won the state 59/37, and New York is 75% white. Turns out non-whites voted at a higher rate than whites; they made up 35% of voters in NY while only having 25% of the population.

I'm unsure that Tyler's thesis is correct. The states that turned on the Democrats are the ones where there is significant outflow of manufacturing jobs. In some cases such as small Ford cars, these have gone to Mexico (and it's not just Ford; my new Honda H-RV was made in a plant just outside of Mexico City rather than one of the Honda lines here in the US). In other cases manufacturing is moving to another US state with more lenient labor laws such as GE's relocation of railroad engine manufacturing from Erie PA to Texas (though I think this has as much to do with tax abatements as the cost of labor). It's not just the international trade agreements that have caused problems for certain states but the internal competition within the US for manufacturing plant location/relocation. President-Elect Trump can perhaps do something about the first and nothing about the second.

I have been reading Marginal Revolution every day for about two years, think Tyler is one of the smartest guys around, but this is the dumbest post of his I've read.

First off, the post begins with an incredible historical misstatement. The electoral college was created to protect the interest of slave states, and more specifically slave owners. The consequence of this compromise boosting slave owners' power was an emphasis on geographical diversity. But it was a consequence, not the reason behind the action.
http://people.uncw.edu/lowery/pls101/wilson_chapter_outlines/The%20Proslavery%20Origins%20of%20the%20Electoral%20College.pdf

Then the rest of the post is pure nonsense: What about religious diversity? Surely, Democrats did much better here. What about national origin diversity? Democrats surely did much better here. What about sexual orientation diversity? Come on now. What about education diversity? HRC did very well with those with postgraduate degrees (won all 18 states with an above average number of people with postgraduate degrees) and fine with the least educated.

Moreover, this election showed that in the end, race is the real dividing line. The white working class decided to vote like an ethnic group, as Nate Cohn wrote. And Nate Silver has already shown why that Latino exit poll figure is surely wrong.

This is a pathetic attempt to be contrarian.

Diversity of national origin meaning what exactly? We are told ad naseum that America is a nation of immigrants so how are you measuring this metric. Do we break the population out into 192 points of origins and then add up how many from each county voted for each candidate? Or is what you mean that a bunch of Hispanics voted for Hillary.

The polling industry is complicit in the identity politics mania as well....you get what you measure and what is measured is support by race and gender.

Reporting that, say, white men tend to favour Trump may reasonably be supposed to tilt some undecided white men towards voting that way. Has anyone tried to measure the size of such effects?

The definition of diversity in liberal's dictionary only means skin color. It was never about diverse ideas. Just look at the ideologies in elite colleges, less and less diverse. The liberals only want to surround themselves with someone who thinks alike.

Exactly. As Tyler says there is no room for liberals in our diversity. That's their problem.

What I loved was when one of the guys would go down to the press pen and just shout some stuff. And then, this is the best part, the press would spend days trying to understand it. Cucks.

How many angels danced on the head of a pin? What is this discussion meant to resolve? "The white working class decided to vote like an ethnic group...." Nobody can prove that. The US has a secret ballot. If a poll of voters is taken there's no reason why it should be any more accurate than all the erroneous pre-election polls. The true make-up of the two voting blocs can't be determined by the results. So, what's the point of this verbiage? Diversity? There's lots of diversity but casting it in racial terms has always been the modus operandi of the liberal/progressive/Democrat political machinery. That's why anyone that objects to even a part of their world view is derided as "racist". The lpD coalition that began using racism to corral black voters, not particularly noted for being highly educated, by the way, has since added the gays and transgenders to their group but there aren't enough of them to swing an election. Latinos, as oppressed minorities, are taken to be a natural fit for the lpD but it turns out that they're generally practicing Catholics and socially conservative machos with zero in common with university faculty and public employees. What percentage of the government work force voted for Trump? Haven't heard any speculation on that. Blue collar workers, the object manipulators, resent being told what to do by pseudo-elites that can't change the oil in their own car and hire Latinos to mow their lawn.

The saying always was that Democrats were a coalition party, and Republicans were an ideological party.

Trump jettisoned the conservative ideology and just made the Republican party anti-coalition. That was the campaign.

35 percent tariffs and white lives matter.

Northern Virginia, whose major industry can't be outsourced to India, ie. federal government, lobbying and influence peddling, gave its vote to Mrs. Bill Clinton: http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/jeff-schapiro/article_0a644cd2-0024-5fb6-a102-b9ac21d048c0.html

I infer from Prof. Cowen's post that the host of antigay laws pending and proposed is just put forward to make America less diverse in good, non-divisive ways. President-elect Trump framed a campaign theme that way, promising that, while he will sign whatever his party sends him to restore me to second-class status, he will even-handedly protect me from antigay radical Muslim extremists. I suppose that's the ultimate expression of the Cowan thesis: being alive in any social status is better than truly equal and dead.

Draaaaaaaaaammmaaaa.

Why do you fancy you deserve the status the courts have conferred on you (and stuffed down everyone else's throats)?

Trump is the most pro-LGBTQ candidate ever put forth by the Republican party and more pro-LGBTQ than any Democratic candidate up until maybe Obama. He was waving a rainbow flag around on stage for God's sake. He just said that marriage equality is the law of the land and he has no intention of changing that. He supports the right of transgendered to use whatever bathrooms they want. Don't believe the lies!

That's not what MSNBC said.

Politics is a dirty business. Prior to the early 60's the Democrats depended on the Deep South for their power and to do this they embraced racism. After that all collapsed in the 60's the Democrats embraced the various special interest groups and created a coalition of agitators and rent seekers. This IS diversity it just happens to by design exclude the middle class and white men. It excludes them for the simple reason that all the free stuff has to be paid for by someone and the middle class is the target for those higher taxes. What we are seeing recently is the middle class waking up to this fact. The "affordable" care act was perhaps the catalyst but not the only significant factor. Now, the Democrat party is leaving all the diverse 'free stuff' seekers too. The Democrat party is being taken over by foreign actors and communist groups. This is not your fathers Democrat party.

Well, Obamacare has certainly gone from being a Democrat problem to being a Trump problem.

Is there any solution that will please his base? On the surface they want to keep the preexisting conditions rule but kill the mandate. That is adverse selection x 10.

There are ways to keep pre-existing condition clauses and not lead to adverse selection, at least for particular plans. Particularly back-door kickbacks to insurance companies. Insurance companies with "sick" populations can apply to the federal government for kickbacks because they have a higher than expected amount of sick people and the federal government puts in the difference. Not ideal, but not insurmountable. The elimination of subsidies will pay for it.

I guess my problem is that I believed every "free market" argument from the right in these pages for the last 5 years. If they were actually, secretly, flexible on government paying for health care ... interesting.

Just to be clear, you are saying health care "by the back door" but from the general fund?

Yes, it'd be paid out from the general fund, I imagine. I am not saying this is good policy, but sometimes you are stuck with second-best nonsense. This would be highly damaging to the individual market, I expect many plans would be destroyed and the products left will be shit, but there might be a way to get it done. It's certainly cheaper to subsidize insurance companies losses on the 1.5 million people with pre-existing conditions on the individual market as opposed to tens of millions who simply get free health care.

It always contained a poison pill. Yes they will try to keep some of the favorite 'free stuff' and yes that is the poison pill that will destroy whatever they replace it with right along with the worlds best health care. Obama and the Democrats always intended to destroy it. The only right way and the only constitutional way is to end it, period. The states can choose to dabble in this but the federal government is not allowed to by the constitution. But of course the politicians will pick the worst possible solution because that's what committees and compromises always produce.

Respectfully: Up to this point, I've mostly read that whites, males, the uneducated, white workers, and the elderly were DT's best demographics. I have mostly seen that the cities voted for HRC and rural areas voted for DT.

Anecdotally, I've found that there's a greater diversity of ideas and experiences in cities and among the highly educated than there is in the countryside and suburbs and among the less educated. I'm not sure how to prove or disprove this impression.

Constructively: I hate to say this to an economist, but numbers, statistics, and specific examples would improve this post. The general claims are interesting, but I remain skeptical. I recognize that the main numbers we're seeing come from the exit polls, which do not appear to be reliable.

I think Tyler's last paragraph is directed to you, then.

You may see great diversity of ideas and experiences in cities, but how about when it comes to politics? Think hard on that one.

Here's an anecdote for you. I live in the 'burbs and work in the city. I exercise over lunch sometimes with a trainer (in the city). On Friday, he first said I was the first person he had met 'around here who didn't need to see a counselor about Trump winning.' Then he revised that statement. There was one other couple who lives in the building, but "they are in hiding from the rest of the residents, they try to keep a low profile around here when it comes to politics."

Incidentally, my training partner -- and good friend -- wasn't happy with Trump's win, either. Our trainer asked, how can you guys be such good friends? We both said, because we are adults and realize we don't have to agree on everything to like each other.

Based on my anecdotes, I'd say political diversity is greatest in the burbs and about the same in the city as it is in rural areas, but in polar opposites. The main reason it is mixed in the burbs is because that's where the rural meets city.

Two of Trump's top cronies, Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie got their claim to fame by being elected to run very diverse Blue cities and states. Come to think of it, Trump himself is a creature of NYC's media/political/hype culture and has been a fixture on the scene in NYC for decades now.

Now show me how diverse Red States are?

@Seth. Thank you for your clarifying example. I will consider what you've said.

First, I'm not at all clear the electoral college was created because the Founders didn't trust popular votes. I do agree, however, they wanted to ensure geographical diversity. The original union was a union of states and the population lacked mass media and popular culture. The sea fearing communities of Massacheusettes and New York were radically different from the plantation centered South.

Today we have a different world. The electoral college causes the population to be ignored. It's often said if you live in NY or CA and voted for Trump, your vote was wasted and likewise Clinton voters in TX wasted their votes too. But in reality lots of Trump voters in TX wasted their votes. The moment Trump got 51% in TX and Clinton got 51% in NY and CA, every additional vote counted for nothing. As a result only states with that split 50-50 are considered 'in play' and get attention.

If we switched to a popular vote system, it wouldn't be as simple as saying Hillary would have own the last election. In a popular vote system Trump might have pushed harder to increase his votes in CA and NY. Granted he wouldn't have won a majority but if he had won 45% instead of 40%, say, that would have been millions of votes for him, all votes not courted because there was no incentive for him to do so. Ditto for Hillary in the South. Rather than promoting representation the college has IMO become a force for partisanship. If there's no hope of you getting 51% in a state, you might as well consider the state worthless. How is partisanship to be modified if Democrats see no point in even trying to listen to the concerns of the South or if Republicans write off the coasts, where most of Americans live!, as elitist and less American as Sarah Palin once said? Barring a switch to a Parliamentary system, this is probably the easiest fix to our political system.

"The electoral college causes the population to be ignored."

Sure, for President. But, their votes aren't ignored in other parts of government -- Congress, Senate and state politics. Just for President. The President has both a geographic (the two 'senatorial' electoral votes) and population component (the 'house' electoral votes).

Our country is named The United STATES of America rather than the United PEOPLE of America because it is a group of states.

The states in the US would continue to enjoy 'geographic diversity' due to the Senate.

What a crazy post. Alt Right distortion zone.

Look at the post critically: " ,,,the Democratic coalition is remarkably non-diverse. You can see how much of Hillary Clinton’s majority came from the two states of New York and California. That also means the Republicans are not just a “Southern rump party,” as some commentators used to suggest."

I just took a vacation trip in Appalachia a few weeks ago...Northern Tenn and SWVirginia, attending the National Story Telling Conference. The signs read: No more N***ers for 4 More Years; Jhadi's For Hillary; Lock Her Up; many, many Trump Pence signs with a confederate flag and American flag cross like swords over the top of the sign.

To say that the Republican Party is not a Southern Slave States Party is to be color blind when you look at an election map. All you need to know is 1) what states were slave states and 2) what northern rural states voted Republican in the 1860's; and 3) what western states have significant Mormon populations. You can color all of that map red, without even considering the evangelicals.

Your tears taste like candy. Charleston Chews to be exact.

Just stating the facts. Maybe you don't like them. You are free to come back and say that the red states were not the former slave states, you are free to challenge the observation about republican rural states dating back to the Civil war, and you are free to discount the observation on Western Mormonism.

You are the one who cannot respond.

Dare you to challenge the observation.

What the hell does "northern rural states voted Republican in the 1860’s" have to do with anything?? All the great plains states vote Republican because of Mormons?

Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin were the strongest bastions of the Confederacy. The Montana Regiment was pretty devastating too.

Yes, and the margin in those states was near !%, whereas the margins in the Red states were much higher. Furthermore, you seem to miss the fact that two of these purported blue states have Republican governors (casting in doubt the traditional redness you ascribe to them) and one state had a republican senator who was re-elected in the same race. Some states are not a constant blue, particularly if they have a large rural component and evangelicals.

Nice try at a fraud illustration. The conference is in Jonesborough, Tennessee (I went last year), in a part of the state with hardly any blacks. You'll notice the bevy of local college students who traffick-cop the parking haven't a Southern accent between them. (Nice kids. They just sound like they grew up in Ohio).

Art, I have a collection of pictures of what I saw in my trip through the region. Evidently you just confined yourself to Jonesboro, and limited your belief about the existence of racism to having the presence of black persons in Jonesboro. To be a racist you do not have to have a black person as a neighbor, you just have to have the belief.

I stayed in Rogersville and in Kingsport. I heard not one rude remark from anyone there on any topic, and I saw no signs. The hotel desk clerk in Rogersville was VietNamese (with a slight Southern drawl). There are hardly any blacks in Rogersville and never were; the agrarian system there was incongruent with the employment of agricultural slave labor and the slaves there were household slaves. The Tri-Cities MSA is 2% black as we speak.

To be a racist you do not have to have a black person as a neighbor, you just have to have the belief.

So what? You're dumpster diving into people's idle and inconsequential attitudes. Ordinary people have lots of throwaway opinions. You wouldn't give a rip if the attitude in question weren't a status marker.

I won't repeat myself but you might want to look at the article on Appalachian racial attitudes and the George Wallace voting patterns that I referred to.

I looked at the raw descriptive statistics on East Tennessee's election results in 1968. Wallace garnered about 20% of the vote and came in 3d in most counties. Wallace got about 10% of the vote in West Virginia and failed to win one county. He collared about 18% of the vote in Kentucky, but carried not one county on the Cumberland Plateau, only broke 20% in a scatter of them and was below 15% in most. In the Shenandoah Valley and Southwest Virginia, Wallace carried not a single county. In western North Carolina, same deal. He carried a few counties in north Georgia and in the Ozarks but otherwise struck out in the upland South. Hubert Humphrey won a large slice of West Virginia and a scatter of counties elsewhere. Otherwise, Nixon carried the day.

Art, I don't know how you pasted your counties, but let me point out that George Wallace garnered 8.6% of the total US vote,

Tenn: 34.2% Wallace
North Carolina: 31.2% Wallace
Ky: 18.29% Wallace
Va: 23.6% Wallace

Source was in the earlier post.

Art, I direct you to the JSTOR article on Black Invisibility and Racism in Appalachia: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40932362?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

I love this. "I have pictures proving I'm right errrrrr maybe not here's a jstor article"

I guess you have problems with the facts and the JSTOR article on racial attitudes in Appalachia. So, maybe you would like to look at the voting patterns for George Wallace in 1968 and Art's claim about the Appalachian region as not harboring racial attitude because there are no blacks and my additional claim about the Slave states: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1968

Art's actual claim is that race relations take up little rent free space in the heads of upland Southerners, not that upland Southerners are incapable of badthink.

Richard Nixon carried every single county in East Tennessee in 1968, bar two (there are 30-odd). Hubert Humphrey outpolled George Wallace in about 2/3 of the counties in East Tennessee.

LOL. I bet the National Storytelling Conference in Appalachia was pretty white. Was Garrison Keillor there?

Very white in the audience, but some black storytellers who drew good crowds. By the way, I am not saying that because you are white in the south you are racists, but I think people wish to ignore those who are in their midst who are.

Let me be more specific.

I take a good number of trips a year and always look at the demographic composition of the area I'm visiting. So, I'm in southern georgia on the coast, sitting next to a retired chemical engineer, as plant manager of a paper company, included hiring employees. I mentioned to him how was it that, given that the area had a 40% black population, the hotel staff, the librarians and clerical staff at the public library, the police persons I had seen, etc. were all white. Since I'm white, he responded: Well, the blacks are unreliable. They dont show up to work, etc. etc.

This matched another experience I had in California where I was speaking at a conference and sat next to a white guy from Kansas City. I always ask questions, never telling my opinion, about the area he is from so I asked about race relations where he was. Man, did I get an earful of racial comments that shocked me.

Unless you choose to ignore what others say to you thinking you are on their side you will be shocked to discover the existence of some very serious problems. Go ahead. Choose to ignore it. Or say something about it.

I mentioned to him how was it that, given that the area had a 40% black population, the hotel staff, the librarians and clerical staff at the public library, the police persons I had seen, etc. were all white. Since I’m white, he responded: Well, the blacks are unreliable. They dont show up to work, etc. etc.

The ratio of employed persons to total population in the Savannah, Ga. MSA was in August 2015 0.456. The national mean at the time was 0.465. The local blacks are working, you just didn't notice them, and, evidently, he didn't either.

Once again you are wrong. It is not Savanah, but rather the resort community ofSt. Simons Island, Georgia. Brunswick Georgia, in the same SMSA, and 7minutes away St. Simons, has the following demographics: "As of the 2010 United States Census, there were 15,383 people residing in the city. The racial makeup of the city was 58.9% Black, 27.5% White, 0.1% Native American, 0.5% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 0.2% from some other race and 1.5% from two or more races. 11.3% were Hispanic or Latino of any race."

Go figure.

You fancy there's a dramatically different regime in the labor market two counties away?

The ratio of employed persons to total population in Glynn County, Ga. is....0.463 (as assessed in December 2015).

Bill, just to clarify. If you have a county that's 40% black and the employment to population ration is precisely the national mean, it's a reasonable wager the local black population is employed at rates similar (if not identical) to the non-black population. You're just not noticing them.

Art, Brunswick is 7 minutes away. I know what I saw. Go look for yourself. Be your own experimenter: look at census data on the places you visit; get in talks with the locals; and form your own opinion from the experience.

I looked at the data, Bill. It tells me residents of Glynn County, Ga. are as likely to be employed as the average American, and that 26% of Glynn County, Ga. residents are black. You weren't paying attention, which is your problem.

Art, I don't know what you are talking about. I am sourcing to Wikipedia on the demographics on Brunswick, 7 min away from St. Simons. If you have segregated communities in the same county, and the county population is higher than a part of it (St. Simons) you dilute to come to a county average. Why don't you look up the the demographics of St. Simons (I think it is 2% white) and Brunswick is 7 minutes away with 40% black.

Art, I don’t know what you are talking about. I

That's very evident. And that's your problem.

It's an NPR crowd, albeit with the edges worn off. I don't have the impression that the performers make a living off it, or much of a living. Not enough candy in it for Keillor.

Actually yea it is a crazy post. First, there is a limit on how much diversity you can get in a political party. While a party is not always 100% united on any issue, it will be generally united on many issues. So what type of diversity is he talking about? Geographic diversity....

But hey look we have an electoral college system so whoever wins will by definition have more geographic diversity than the loser. Trump's election looks less impressive when you look at recent Democratic victories. The last impressive geographic victory for the GOP was 1988 when Bush scored 426. Since then Republicans have been losing the college and when they win they win by small margins (and both times have lost the popular vote).

Tyler's thesis is that Dems lack geographic diversity because Republicans have a hold on down ballot seats in the Senate, House and governorships. However the Senate is only slightly Republican and the House has been heavily and masterfully gerrymandered by Republicans (how would the House look if it was populated by the National popular vote?)

Pics or it didn't happen.

Tyler, it's true that there are different types of diversity and I don't know whether you are right or wrong about which diversity is more important and which party has more of it. But what is true is that diversity has nothing to do with Trump's victory. He won because almost half of American voters were OK with the person who mocks various groups of the population, brags about grabbing women by the genitals, makes all kinds of promises without backing them up with any specifics (or promises that he clearly will not be able to keep), and is demonstrably ignorant of all kinds of important policy issues facing the country. Now, he did lose popular vote and won by a rather slim margin under the Electoral College rules, and so we should not blame the entire electorate for that. Still, this is a sad, sad state of affairs for the country.

Or those people voted against a corrupt, dynastic statist, who dismissed half the country as "deplorables", demonstrated extreme carelessness with classified intelligence, and planned to gut the First and Second Amendments at her earliest opportunity.

Both candidates were pretty deplorable, which is why I voted for Johnson.

Thank you, Tyler, for drawing attention to the "significant cognitive mistake" that dominates the thinking of a certain segment.

Your timing could not have been better. Will anyone learn anything? I wouldn't bet on it. Learning from experience has never been the left's strong suit, and since their domination of the academy, the media and the entertainment industry remains intact, they will more likely double down on their mistake. It's the Bernie/Warren party now, and the main question is who will be their new McGovern.

Sorry, but I neglected to mention Trump's racism, which is also apparently OK with tens of millions of American voters. But I guess that goes without saying...

"Trump's racism" is a fiction that haut bourgeois Democratic Party voters have concocted to help feel better about themselves.

Scotti: Bring up the Alt Right distortion protection blinders.

The hard left distortion field- tears. Stop crying and wipe those tears away Billy boy and you start seeing a little clearly.

Sam, See my factual description of encounters with southerners who describe their racial attitudes to me thinking I might be agreeing with them. It is in response to Anti-Agnostic. If you care to share your evidence of Trump's racial inclusiveness message please post below. You cannot include: Where is my black guy.

Trump is no more "racist" than the rest of the people on the planet who generally marry and socialize within their continental racial group and are otherwise happy to live and let live. I bet you think he's anti-Semitic too.

Most Marginal Revolution commenters agree with white supremacy. Sad!

Brown-skinned Hindus enjoy the highest mean income in the US, and Ashkenazi Jews and Koreans have higher mean IQs than whites, all facts which white "supremacists" like Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire are happy to point out.

Hitler believed, at least implicitly, that Jews had higher IQs than Bio-Germans. His extermination criteria were not IQ based, but based on a more broad superiority of Aryans.

But will the country ever elect a brown-skinned Hindu as President ?

Probably at least 32 years before it even elects a white woman.

Does it trouble you that India will probably never elect a white man? Or that the Prime Minister of Israel is Jewish? Or the President of the Palestinian Authority is Arab?

Where do you even imagine "diversity" comes from?

Both Louisiana and South Carolina have had East Indian governors.

Both of whom converted to Christianity ( though not for political reasons) and one of whom does not like to even use his Indian first name.
Unlikely they would have won contesting as Hindus,
Sure , there is progress. We have had a Catholic president, a Jewish vice-presidential candidate (I think) and a Mormon who didn't do badly , but it will be a longtime when candidates are not judged by these .

Why is that 'progress'?

Progress is when any American can qualify for being a President irrespective of race, religion , gender or sexual orientation.

The meaning of 'why' seems to elude you.

Why? Because we hold some truth to be self-evident.

Does even one commenter agree with white supremacy?

Convoluted thinking: Many diversities are deeply correlated and in terms of their impact on societal well-being very unequal. Trump just vowed to expel 3 million "criminal" immigrants. When he goes after someone for his or her tastes in cereals let me know

So in other words our laws are as inconsequential as ones choice in breakfast cereal.

You mean like laws against sexual assault or bribery

Agreed it's a damn shame Bill Clinton hasn't been made someone's prison wife yet. I dream of a day and age when Democratic presidents are held responsible for their law breaking. We aren't there yet. But I have a dream some day we will.

Actually we are there right now. You have all branches of gov't and a President who ran on 'draining the swamp'. If two years from now there haven't been any charges filed against Hillary, no convictions, no earth shattering revelations now that 'truthers' have full access to all the records and resources of the executive branch we can safely conclude the various 'corruption charges' were bullshit from the get go.

I mean afterall sooner or later people like you have to get to a point where you put up or shut up. If your case isn't made with the resources you have now then it will never be made. If two years from now you're telling us Hillary hasn't been indicted because 'Trump is part of the system'....well you should just stop talking about politics entirely.

It always puzzles me when people make arguments like this. Is your point that you agree that laws don't matter but you think Sam must also and that therefore you have common ground?

Of course, in the slightly alternative universe:

1. The FBI didn't plant and then retract a fake newsstory at the 11th hour.
2. Hillary, instead of playing offense played defense, by putting offices early on in rust belt states rather than long shots like Texas.
3. Hit harder on a few talking points more favorable to older, Rust Belt type Dems such as protecting Social Security.

There Tyler is wondering whether the election proves the Republican Party has forever forfeited its ability to win the White House.

Maybe but the Republicans would still dominate state government which over the long term is the best sign of health for a political party.

I get it you were riding high Boonton you thought the lefts time in power would never end and you demonstrated as such with a pretty obnoxious online personality. Maybe Trumps victory will provide some much needed introspection. Who knows when you look back maybe you will even appreciate it.

Since 1988 the Republicans have been unable to win the Presidency without losing the popular vote and electoral college margins have been smaller than Democratic wins. The 'health of the party' seems suspect here despite Trump's win, esp. as his win was clearly centered around a cult of personality rather than policy, it was easy to see lower level Republicans pour themselves into a mold of Reagan, it isn't so easy to see them try to become mini-Trumps.

Are those obnoxious observations? I guess I could instead spend a few years spinning stories that Trump never produced his real birth certificate and wonder of Russian hackers change vote tallies.

Actually they did win a majority in 2004. The only occasions the Democratic candidate won a majority were in 2008 and 2012. It required an absolute perfect storm for Barack Obama in 2008 to do as well as George Bush the elder had in 1988.

You're right on Bush in 2004, though his margin was super thin and his electoral college votes were only 286. Bush in '04 was a 'perfect storm' in itself of 'mission accomplished' in Iraq and a little bit of residual 'we're in this all together' patriotism from 9/11.

No. Iraq was experiencing wretched security problems from April 2004 onward.

You had 8 major financial institutions careering into insolvency in September 2008 atop two major failures in March 2008, severe anxiety about 1 other institution, and disquieting incidents re money market funds and European banks. And the Republican administration got blamed for it. That is a perfect storm.

A colleague asked earlier today what would have been the impact if electoral votes were apportioned based on the % of vote each candidate won rather than all or nothing. Being a political science minor in college I took up the challenge and did a rough calculation with some minor assumptions. It's very hard to model the impact of the minor candidates other than McMullin in Utah and Idaho. You cannot go by a simple % of the vote as these candidates are then disadvantaged in small states where 4% nets them nothing but it would net them something in CA. FWI, I come up with Trump ahead of Clinton 267 - 265 despite Clinton' s big margins in CA and NY. Trump's narrow wins in WI and FL keep things close. Gary Johnson gets 4 EV and McMullin 2EV and we wait for the diverse House of Representatives to make the decision in January. So Clinton's popular vote victory doesn't mean much under this scenario either.

The only issue I have is perspective. Popular vote doesn't count so both candidates choose to forgo easy votes to concentrate on states they could win. For example, Clinton probably could have scored more votes in Texas and Trump more in NY and CA if they had campaigned there. For the most part they didn't because there was no hope to flip any of those states.

Your analysis is valid if we were going to change the rules of the game *after* the election was done. If this rule change was done before it would have resulted in different types of campaigns and the outcome may or may not have been the same.

I do favor switching over to a popular vote system because winner take all appears to be driving extremism. If Dems had a shot at Texas and Republicans a shot at CA/NY, they both would have an incentive to be a bit more inclusive and moderate. Instead there's no point. No Dem could ever be right wing enough to take Texas and no Republican left enough to take NY/CA. So primaries are becoming more about exciting the base without really considering the general population.

Agree with everything you said. Of course if they do away with the electoral college you wouldn't see much campaigning in the middle part of the country at all.

Guess thats why its called fly-over country. Though may be we should rename it as campaign-in country.

Possibly although national ad purchases and online ad purchases could impact the middle part of the country. Also think in terms of marginal costs. If both candidates are spending a billion on the coasts what would be the least expensive way to acquire another vote? The middle might be a great realm of untapped easy to score votes while overplayed Florida, TX, NY, CA etc. would be an uphill battle.

"Earlier this week CNN.com listed 24 different theories that pundits have provided for why Trump won. And the list isn’t even complete. I’ve heard other explanations as well. What does it tell you when there are 24 different explanations for a thing?

It tells you that someone just dropped a cognitive dissonance cluster bomb on the public."

"There are two ways for an anti-Trumper to interpret that reality [ie Trump's victory]. One option is to accept that if half the public doesn’t see Trump as a dangerous monster, perhaps he isn’t. But that would conflict with a person’s self-image as being smart and well-informed in the first place. When you violate a person’s self-image, it triggers cognitive dissonance to explain-away the discrepancy.

So how do you explain-away Trump’s election if you think you are smart and you think you are well-informed and you think Trump is OBVIOUSLY a monster?

You solve for that incongruity by hallucinating – literally – that Trump supporters KNOW Trump is a monster and they PREFER the monster. In this hallucination, the KKK is not a nutty fringe group but rather a symbol of how all Trump supporters must feel."

Sound familiar?
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153080448451/the-cognitive-dissonance-cluster-bomb

Or, as Tyler put it, "Still, when I speak with Democrats, and with Progressives in particular, they view themselves, as a kind of assumption, as the people concerned with diversity. That is a significant cognitive mistake."

The diversity mantra is really about conformity. It is double-think in progressive terms. True diversity comes in ideas and progress not conforming to a political ideology. If we had lived in the Soviet Union I think we would understand this better.

Additionally, this is supported by the fact that the diversity obsession can be adapted to any issue you like. It is like foam that can be molded for any argument.

I agree with you but then how does that apply to our parties?

"diversity in ideas and progress not conforming to a political ideology"

OK so consider Obamacare. Essentially a republican idea (essentially school vouchers for health insurance).

Now name me a Republican idea that likewise incorporates left wing ideas or ideology? Is the GOP controlled congress best described as lots of different ideas or a handful of ideas that almost every member has to agree to no matter what? It remains to be seen if 'progress' (meaning, I suppose, ideas actually implemented by the GOP) are going to not conform to a political ideology.

Of course someone could ask you what is the point of a political party that has a 'diversity of ideas' and no conforming political ideology?

OK so consider Obamacare. Essentially a republican idea (

Partisan Democrats found a working paper by Robert Rector written in 1993 wherein he floated the idea of coverage mandates. Ergo, 'Obamacare' is the Republican Party's baby. Do serial frauds like this bother any part of you, or are you completely without a conscience?

When Romney gave his hour plus speech explaining how Romneycare was not the same thing as Obamacare, I guess you were the one one person in the audience with a tear in his eye. Everyone else was gagging.

Fact is if you proposed Obamacare to late 1980's Democrats, they'd accuse you of being a tool for insurance companies. Even today Sanders types buckle at a health system based on pushing people to purchase private insurance rather than straight Medicare or Medicaid.

Newsflash, politics have changed over the last 30 years

Fact is if you proposed Obamacare to late 1980’s Democrats,

Improvised counter-factuals are not facts.

As for Romney, he was working with a Democratic legislature to attempt to repair the market for household medical insurance, which was in the processes of evaporating because of previous misconceived regulatory efforts. The measure of his plan is the degree to which it corrected already existing pathologies and what kind of deal it was given the constraints. BO wasn't working with his opposition and the plan Jonathan Gruber generated introduced new pathologies. You don't wish to take responsibility for that, because you're dishonest.

Perhaps overlooked is how **centralized** the Democrat Party Oligarchy had become, following Robert Michels' "Iron Law of Oligarchy," compared to the more Regional GOP Oligarchy (the "Establishment").

It is possible we have seen the beginning of a tide of public resurgence against the political oligarchies that have come to exist.

It was evidenced by the fracture (but not fragmentation) of the GOP "Establishment" (and actual displacement of oligarchs) by the 2009 Tea Party Movement.

The more centralized Democrat Party Oligarchy appear to be adrift and fragmented, as it various constituencies have moved into the breach created in the GOP in 2009. It may have to rebuild regionally.

Sorry, meant to preface that with Tyler's:

"Democrats now control at least one legislative house in only 17 states, and the reach of the party is shrinking dramatically. So by the 18th century standards of diversity, emphasizing geography, the Democratic coalition is remarkably non-diverse. You can see how much of Hillary Clinton’s majority came from the two states of New York and California. That also means the Republicans are not just a “Southern rump party,” as some commentators used to suggest."

Diversity is a very vague term. It has different meaning with different
people and thus it can be used to prove or disprove any ideas. The
components of diversity do not have monotonal effects and the nonlinear
effects make it confusing to describe other effects.

There are clearer factors that can simply explain the result of the
presidential election. It is pointless to determine which factors favour
Republican or Demoncrat respectively. A factor can improve both the Rep
and Dem votes but the extent of improvement could be different. It is
the percentage vote margin margin16=RepPct16-DemPct16 between Republican
and Demoncrat that count.

Diversity Div15 makes a very poor factor and it is statistically not
significant at p=0.1213, very very much larger than the 0.05 critical
value used in social science.

margin16 = -35.0046*Div15 +21.5876; n=51; R=0.2197; Rsq=0.04828; p=0.1213

The per capita state income PCInc (value in 000s) is a very good factor
to consider

margin16 = -3.40373*PCInc +102.021; n=51; R=0.6929; Rsq=0.4802; p=1.752e-08

at Rsq=0.4802; p=1.752e-08 it is statistically very significant. Factoring
in price parity actually decrease the significant level.

An even better factor is the state percentage of degree holders PctDeg,

margin16 = -3.46118*PctDeg +99.5345; n=51; R=0.8112; Rsq=0.6581; p=5.269e-13

at Rsq=0.6581; p=5.269e-13 it is a very much better predictor than PCInc, it
is able to explain 66% of the result variation. The lower the value of
PctDeg the more the states turn to Republican. Though PctHS and PctPGrad
can also enter into the equation but the coeffs are not significant at p=0.05.

It is even stranger that the states that flipped to the Republican are
tightly clustered around PctDeg=25% and that Dem failed to concentrate
their effects in those states.

Intuitively it is assumed that PctDeg should correlate with the stat's
average SAT scores SAT14 but it is incorrect to assume that those in Rep
states are less intellegent. In fact states with smarter students tend to
be more pro Rep.

margin16 = +0.0896419*SAT14 -90.6377; n=50; R=0.4138; Rsq=0.1712; p=0.002817

There is a disconnect that SAT score tends to be where the person
was from and PctDeg tends to be associated to where the person goes to
university or work. The slope of the equation turns out to be the reverse
and the data points are a bit more scattered (Rsq is low), though still
significant at p=0.002817.

However, although a negative slope equation can be forced for SAT14 and
PctDeg, it is not satistically significant at p=0.05.

These three opposing trends might be setting up an interesting weak population
circulation pattern, i.e. Republican states tend to have less degree holders
(less knowledge based jobs) which might (weakly) incentivize a few of the
students to study harder and to achieve better SAT scores and they tend to
move to universities in the Democrat states (e.g. California, Massachusetts
and NewYork) and work there (in the more knowledge based jobs), and the
too liberal high schools there might not equip some of the students to work
in the knowledge based jobs there and they might end up in the Republican
states.

Concentration of degree holders (high Dem margins) in the Dem states gives
less electoral votes overall. Gaining EVs by 15 points are useless when
losing EVs by less than 2 points elsewhere.

The states that flipped to the Republican are tightly clustered wrt PctDeg
in the sense that the range of margins involved is 0.27~9.5 whereas the range
of PctDeg involved is 24.1~26.4

when one discusses diversity, it is to assert inclusion not exclusion. Our history is replete with periods of exclusion and one is hard to intérpret mr trump's words as anything other exclusion. I agree that both political strands do not address us all. Trust in our institutions and the political class to address the concerns of the majority and the minority of citizens in fair equitable way is we ask. Diversity is always with us and acceptance this fact is simply a way of saying recognize this and be fully aware that any political decision will have adverse consequences for some group. To that adversely affected group one has to offer a palliative. The concept of a 'Pareto optimum" solution should be sought by our political class to ensure the greatest benefit to all our citizens. No more, but no less. 'Fly-over" country is where a great deal of suffering is concentrated, but all the country suffers from the great inequalities that day-to-day is growing. Greater concentration of wealth, greater corporate concentration of power, and a political class that see its way to dealing fairly with these problems. So diversity is not a pejorative, but recognition of the need to solve problems in inclusive manner.

Tyler Cowen neglects to mention that the red vs. blue distribution on the voting map looks quite different when broken down by county. I suspect he does this deliberately.

I wanted to take this post as a lesson but as I thought about it it simply confused me.

These are the areas where I think liberals celebrate diversity:
* race and ethnicity (you mention that)
* gender (women's rights are human rights)
* religion (i.e. protect the Muslims, the atheists, etc.)
* nationality (Mexicans are humans too)
* legal status (criminals are humans too)
* disability (i.e. protect the old people, the handicapped, etc.)
* educational attainment (the camp includes high-school drop outs thru PhDs and Nobel Laureates)
* to some extent, income (basically you're OK if you make less than $250k)
* to some extent, occupation (basically you're OK if you're not in banking or energy)

I might be missing some. Now let's look at conservatives:
* to some extent, income (basically you're OK if you make a decent living and up)
* to some extent, occupation (banking and energy sectors are OK, but not so much education / academia, social work, arts and entertainment)

What am I missing here? Maybe conservatives think they are more pro farmer / rural person, but I'm not sure liberals really poo-poo across geography like that. Otherwise it looks to me that liberals are the ones who value diversity more.

And this makes sense to me, given my understanding of politics coming from you. Because I think conservatism is about valorizing traditional status hierarchies, and liberalism is about opening that up. The traditional status hierarchies are very closed -- that's why liberals want to open them.

The idea that non democrats have more diverse views than Democrats is empirically false. There is literature that shows Conservatives are far more ideological- which is fine. Democrats are more a collection of a number of different groups with lots of different policy preferences.

This entire post is nonsensical.

The founders got a number of things wrong that we've since corrected- one we haven't undone from the slave owners is the electoral college and senate. The Supreme Court sets the law of the land and impacts everyone and yet its picked in an entirely undemocrati way with white rural voters having disproportionately more representation for no reason.

Comments for this post are closed