I noticed something funny over red lentils

Earlier this week I was sitting in one of my favorite local Bangladeshi restaurants, enjoying the red lentils.  For whatever reason, when the talk switched to politics, the Bangladeshis on the adjacent table switched to English.  Five of them were debating heatedly, and with considerable sophistication, whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton was the better candidate.  From their dress, language, and accents, there was strong evidence they all were Muslim and recent arrivals to this country.  I didn’t come away with the feeling that a majority of them would vote for Trump, but not one of them seemed completely sold on Hillary Clinton as the superior choice.  At that moment I wondered what was going on.

Comments

Selection effect?

Indian sub-continent immigrants to the US tend to be in the upper percentiles of their home countries & ergo conservative leaning.

Because working class and rural Bengalis are so much more relaxed about gay wedding cakes and transgender bathrooms?

Economically conservative. Hard on crime. Bomb the terrorists. etc.

"there was strong evidence they all were Muslim": well yes. The Hindus were largely ethnically cleansed after the end of the Bangladesh war of independence vs Pakistan.

Is this really true? Genuinely asking for information here. I thought that ethnic cleansing of Hindus occurred during the 1947 Partition and then by anti-independence West Pakistani forces during the independence war, but that the pro-independence (East Pakistani aka Bangladeshi) side that won the war favored some ostensibly secular Bengali identity. It would seem odd for them to then turn around and ethnically cleanse Hindus. Not saying it didn't happen. (Wikipedia says that Bangladesh is still 12% Hindu, btw.)

Fair question. I'll try to find the source where I read it.

The Muslim-Hindu ratio in Bangladesh has risen from 79% : 22% in 1951 to 90% : 9% today, but that still means over 14 million Hindus in the country.

I think you may be confusing the Pakistan-induced genocide of Bengalis in Bangladesh with the anti-Hindu violence that occurred in Pakistan - that is, *WEST* Pakistan - after the Partition. Just speculating here.

No, I don't think so. My search for the source continues.

I can't find my original source but a google search implies to me I was right: there has been ongoing ethnic cleansing of Hindus.

I used ethnic+cleansing+of+Hindus+bangladesh

Not true, at least not according to the best Bengali history book on the topic I've found, A History of Bangladesh by Willem van Schendel. The Pakistanis engaged in an ethnic cleansing of the Bangla-speaking Bengalis, but it was an ethnic-based genocide, not a religious-based genocide. The majority of Hindus that left Bangladesh did so around the time of the Partition, i.e. earlier than the Bangladeshi War of Independence. It is worth noting that India AKA Hindustan supported the Bangladeshi cause during the war in terms of military and political support.

All that is to say, no, the Bangladeshi Muslims most certainly DID NOT ethnically cleanse the Hindus.

By the way, was the mention of "red" lentils an amusing allusion to Red States, or just a bit of foodie one-upmanship?

The traditional literary allusion of red lentils is to the origin story of the faithless Edomites whose patriarch, Esau, lacking faith in God's promises, sold his birthright as heir to the promises which God gave to Abraham for red lentil stew.

Ge 25:29 Once when Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the open country, famished. 30 He said to Jacob, "Quick, let me have some of that red stew! I'm famished!" (That is why he was also called Edom.) 31 Jacob replied, "First sell me your birthright."
32 "Look, I am about to die," Esau said. "What good is the birthright to me?"
33 But Jacob said, "Swear to me first." So he swore an oath to him, selling his birthright to Jacob.

Heb 12:16 See that no one is ... is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.

You left out verse 34, which specifies that it was indeed lentil stew. I also immediately connected the title to this story.

Ah well, I'd remembered that it was potage, but not that it was lentils. Anyway, if Mr Cowen is making sly biblical references it must mean that the Republicans won. Is that what happened?

Esau seems to make a fair point

Jacob made a good deal; he saw weakness in the counterparty and exploited it. Clearly a Straussian pro-Trump parable.

A mess of pottage. America has exchange its uture for a mess of pottage.

This is really only confusing to those who avoid ideas from outside their ideological cocoon. The left narrative is that Trump is hostile to Muslims and immigrants. Are their other narratives? Perhaps these folks have observed the lack of actual anti-Muslim oppression and are considering their economic class interests.

What anti-Muslim oppression should there be before his inauguration? And this is also Trump's voters' narrative (this is the whole reason he adopt that rhetoric.

Let's hope Trump's kinder gentler post-election persona holds and he let's this idea fall away: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/09/being-a-muslim-in-trumps-america-is-frightening-heres-how-we-can-survive/

Like I've said, he's a total wild card. The biggest surprise of all my be that he governs pretty well and not like an anti-American clown. We'll see.

Either he governs fairly competently and pragmatically, and we perhaps even end up with some bipartisan reforms, or he is the bogeyman he has been made out to be, and we rediscover a balance of powers and a curtailed executive branch.

It is still early in the post-election adjustment so I guess a little hysteria and angst is to be expected but . . . please. There won't be any anti-Muslim oppression in the USA under Trump and no sensible person thinks otherwise. This is just stuff that was made up for the election. Four years ago Biden claimed that Romney was planning to re-institute slavery and Reid claimed Romney never paid taxes. That's all well and good (as Reid points out it worked) but the longer you keep that up after the election the more ridiculous you appear. Trump won't be demanding to see Obama's birth certificate anymore or claim that Ted Cruz' dad killed Kennedy.

If Trump is caught, for example, using the IRS to against his political enemies THEN it would make sense to become hysterical.

Perhaps we are under disagreement of what anti-muslim oppression looks like:

"FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting."

Although the second part of that does sound quite tautological.

Indeed, perhaps there is some disagreement. Does limiting immigration when, for practical reasons, it is impossible to reach an informed conclusion about whether a prospective immigrant intends to commit mass murder once they arrive, seem to you like the kind of thing many people think of when they hear the word "oppression"? Or do you mean that attempting to prevent mass murder of Americans is itself oppression of Muslims?

I mean that creating scapegoats out of entire populations populations helps to create anti-muslim oppression. No significant attacks in the United States have so far been caused by immigrants from those countries, so it makes no sense to argue against their immigration.

By making scapegoats out of those populations, you help to create this sort of thing:
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656?m=1

Or would you suggest that oppression can only be directly caused by the state?

I don't know what you have in mind for "making scapegoats" but this kind of statement is inevitably just a characterization; it can never be substantial enough, regardless of its basis, to support the charge of "oppression" per se. In fact, you are forced to move the goal post to "helps to create" to make the whole thing plausible.

I wasn't able to view the the example of "oppression" I suppose you found on Twitter (it wouldn't load and I wasn't interested enough to figure out why) but I assume it was some mean tweet or other breach of the rigid standards of decorum which SJW impose on everyone else. By your reasoning then, I suppose Twitter must also "help to create" the "oppression" by enabling whatever mean or rude thing somebody did. Again, this kind of thing just is not going to make it into the category of oppression without bringing the whole notion of "oppression" into the realm of travesty. But go right ahead, work yourself into a frenzy making scapegoats of the entire population of Trump supporters, you won't oppress anyone; you will only make yourself look ridiculous to normal people.

And you are misinformed regarding the history of Muslim terrorist acts in the US. Among others, the Boston Marathon bombers and some of the original World Trade Center bombers, including the "blind sheik" himself, were admitted to the US as refugees. Many more unsuccessful terror plots have been attempted by people admitted as refugees from Muslim countries.

From IAB data for 2010, qualifications of subcontinent immigrants to US,

EduLow EduMed EduHigh Country

14 24 62 Bangladesh

7 11 82 India

11 22 67 Pakistan

Trump's reality show had higher ratings among nonwhites than among whites.

Please, that was just a 'reality show.' Now, watch how the ratings are likely to be for Trump, president. Buying the fantasy that something on TV is called 'reality' is one thing - living in Trump's America is likely to be something different.

Nicely played.

But why did he do so badly amongst African-Americans? Trump is a white version of a black rap star. Any other successful white businessman might endow a professorship, but Trump builds massive towers in his name. He owns fast cars, a private jet, lots of houses where every room is decorated with gold. He apparently gets along well with Kim Kardiashian. In short he likes his bling. Yet only 13% of black male voters chose Trump (according to the CNN exit poll); and only 4% of black female voters. What gives?

"Only?" That's a huge improvement on what Romney or McCain got. Black vote generally goes democrat at 95%+. To get double digits of black males makes him the most popular republican among black Americans in fifty years.

Actually, Romney got exactly the same 13% / 4% share of male / female black voters (link: CNN 2012 exit poll, scroll down to Vote by Gender and Race).

Trump should have been way ahead of Romney amongst black males: he wasn't up against Obama this time. Again, what gives?

Sorry, I mis-read the graph. Looking at the tables, only 11% of black males voted for Romney in 2012. That's still not far off the 13% that Trump got.

Maybe megalomania and ostentatious displays of wealth and sexual prowess are just a hip hop show business trope with limited connection to the actual values of the African American community. Like a lot of Norwegians like black metal but their head of state doesn't bit bats' heads off. These are emotionally complex communities that are capable of a separation between escapist fantasy and reality.

@Yog Sothoth

In a thread filled with overt acceptance of stereotypes, yours is the most mature description of reality to be found.

Thank you.

The black vote is 'owned' by the Democrats. They were bought years ago for promises of 'free stuff'. That is why the Democrats must always make every election a racist election.

No the black vote is owned by Dems because the Reps decided in the 60s to get the South by going racist. The Reps used to own the black vote. White people like free stuff too, but a lot of white people have problems with black people.

Why does that tired trope get repeated endlessly despite the obvious silliness of it. I grew up in the South, my grandparents were devout Democrats and very racist by today's standards. They were Democrats till the day they died. One of the reasons I broke from the ranks and became Republican in the 1980's was a specific rejection of that racism.

The South was solidly Democratic under Carter and that didn't change until Reagan and then a large chunk went back to voting Democratic when Clinton came into office. Were the Democrats voting for Reagan racist? Were the same ones that then voted for Clinton racist? Did they flip back and forth in their 'racism' on a whim?

http://electoralmap.net/PastElections/past_elections.php?year=1976

The biggest change during this time was the economy of the south went from poor in the 1970's to middle class by the 1990's. The change in partisanship was driven by economic realities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

"In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats.
...
To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

You'll note that poor Southerns went from voting 43% Republican to voting 53% Republican over a 30 year period.

How is it silly? After the Civil War the Republicans were the party overwhelmingly supported by blacks, for obvious reasons. The Democrats were the party of Southern whites (like your grandparents) and ethnic Northeners like the Irish and Jews. In the Civil Rights era it was Democrats like Kennedy and especially LBJ fighting for black people, which made many Southern whites switch to the Reps and most blacks switch to the Dems. This isn't particularly controversial.

"In the Civil Rights era it was Democrats like Kennedy and especially LBJ fighting for black people, "

LBJ was fighting other Democrats to pass the Civil Rights act, Republicans were overwhelmingly for it!

"When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays). When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, -- nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history -- the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays)."

"

JWatts is right on the history. The idea of Republicans "going racist" to get the South in the 1960s is just factually wrong. The idea is nonsense if you really look at who supported civil rights legislation and how people voted at the time.

The real truth is that for 100 years following the Civil War Republicans advocated racial equality before the law and received African-American support (and "solid South" opposition from Whites) as a result. After the 1960s, however, Republicans continued to support equality and Democrats "raised the ante" by offering "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination" in employment and, especially, education. It turned out blacks liked the practical benefits of special rights better than the abstract principles of equal rights. Besides, it turned out that you could get your special rights and still call them "equal" rights.

I grew up in the rural south too. Jwatt is full of it. I heard the n word plenty of times growing up and it was usually from Republicans (specifically voters for Newt Gingrich, who represented our district).

A family member once said he would never vote for a Democrat because "the want to give all my money to the n****ers."

The KKK endorsed Trump for a reason.

"debating...with considerable sophistication"

Do tell. What arguments were they putting forth?

This doesn't surprise me. In my company, the common language is Russian, but everyone speaks English fluently. For the most part, people speak Russian, but they switch to English when the topic turns to subjects where most of the discussions have been with English speaking partners, or whose documentation is in English.

So your Bengladeshis speak about American politics in English probably because most of the inputs they receive on the topic are in English. It's easier than translating the inputs into Bengali.

either this is very very droll or....

.. something very close to reality when living in a multilingual environment.

It is quite difficult to talk about German politics to an English using group in Germany without actually using German vocabulary and expressions, for example. Whereas the reverse is true when speaking to Germans about American politics.

Prior_test2, I think you didn't understand what tjamesjones found droll... or are yourself exceptionally droll... hard to read on the internet

This is my experience learning French. It's easier to use French on job related conversations because I got acquainted with the terminology pretty fast. It's harder to use it in other conversations.

That is one reason. There is also another reason (which as a Bangladeshi I would rather not admit to). Many middle-class and upper-class Bangladeshis consider speaking fluently in English as a sign of social status and prestige. When they are talking about politics and want to sound intelligent and sophisticated, they will switch to English. The thing that Tyler mentioned "For whatever reason, when the talk switched to politics, the Bangladeshis on the adjacent table switched to English.": this happens not just when we talk about American politics, but also when we talk about Bangladeshi politics.

I do not know exactly why this is so. Partly it might be a leftover from colonial times, when only the elite would get educated, and all the education was in English. Our schools only switched to Bengali after the 1971 independence, and even now many "elite" schools offer most of their curriculum in English.

If Sri Lanka is any guide, then I suspect policies to favour the native language officially only resulting in favouring the unofficial English-speaking elite unofficially. They result in fewer poor people learning English, and in a bunch of second-class qualifications in the native language. The elites continue to chatter in English.

Even in Germany, I found the quality of English was taken as a proxy for social class. The difference there is that they are doing a decent job of equalising that proxy.

Yes, this is the most intriguing part of it. Are they signaling to each other, to nearby tables, or merely processing in the most appropriate code?

My wife sometimes does better in Spanish. When I realize that she is searching for a word in English, I ask her to just tell me in Spanish. This is the more remarkable because she is a native speaker of English, but sometimes we're talking about subjects related to Latin America, or simply things that were relevant to her life when she developed her Spanish. It's also partly related to her Aspergers (hence, the native fluency in Spanish). And yet we're both aware in social situations that native Spanish speakers may prefer English or Spanish situationally.

The muslim world is understandly unimpressed with Clinton/obama foreign policy so their skepticism shouldn't be suprising. Here in Malawi a Trump presidency is not regarded with horror either. His comments really only piss off a very defined social strata globally that isn't that big. Outside that group people tend to be much more pragmatic in their approach to Trump and American foreign policy in general.

This will be empirically testable by surveys of public opinion about America's standing in foreign countries, right?

No, not really. But it'll give the new york times something to write about I guess.

You can be on the lookout for GMF's Transatlantic Trends yearly report on NATO countries and what they think about US, Russia, China and various other issues. I think it's out in December?

Sure. I suspect there are lots of capable and semi competent pollsters looking for work. Their resume's are all about work they did a decade ago.

Someone gave a data point. The original post is a data point. Both challenge the pushed notion that was disproven tuesday night.

Make Bangladesh Great Again?

Bangladesh is already Great!..... which is why so many Bangladeshis don't want to live there?

Plenty of Asian Muslims I know detest Obama and Clinton because of the ongoing drone war in Pakistan. Americans seem clueless about this.

And plenty of Indian Hindus are 'supporters Obama and Clinton because of the ongoing drone war in Pakistan. Americans seem clueless about this.'

To sum up, the world is a place of contrasts.

Well, full of humans, innit?

"And plenty of Indian Hindus are ‘supporters Obama and Clinton because of the ongoing drone war in Pakistan. Americans seem clueless about this.’"

Regardless of whether or not Indian Hindus are supporters of the "ongoing drone war in Pakistan," it's a very bad idea. It's a very bad idea to think that it's appropriate--even laudable--for presidents to murder people in foreign countries.

Yes, murder. We're literally murdering random people. That's what we do. We sit back and plan to murder people. Tin foil is on sale, friend. I'm sure you can block out the signals with it.

This hyperbolic idiocy has got to stop. Yes, we target combatants and kill them. Grow up.

And yes, I know what I'm talking about. Armed Drones have been a part of my professional life for years. They're called Predators and Reapers, And they're carrying hellfire missiles. I know! Mean people use mean names ! Trigger warning!! Hurry, the safe space and therapy dog are calling your name! And you're so far out of the realm of the real world it makes Trump supporters look like Nobel prize winners.

Where the hell is Art Deco?

Haidt in his interview said that he can see the world view from both liberal and conservative side and thinks both are right!
What is going on is review of immigration vs. jobs. The white male majority did not object to getting immigrants to fill jobs in a controlled manner - Indian/pakistani doctors where imported decades ago when there was shortage and gate closed there after - it was pragmatic solution, and was acceptable.
Now "globalization", "multi-culturalism" ideologies are taking root and these forces are not in control. Liberal party has been unable to show that control - for two terms.They can offer solutions limited by their ideology and support base.
So people have turned to conservative world view for solution, though there is a majority support for overall liberal views.
It is as if democracy summed up all the minds with different view and pushed out a solution to problem - that all intellectuals, politicians and other elite cannot go for - strong leader, not bound by ideologies, pragmatic - to work out a deal so that globalization can go forward in a controlled manner.
What is wrong with that now?

But you forget Timur Kuran's "Private truths, public lies" about preference falsification at public levels through political correctness, taboos etc. The Americans didn't turn to conservatives, they went for Trump, who had simply hijacked the Republican party infrastructure by fomenting a revolution within the ranks which Bernie proved was impossible inside the Democrats, because of the superdelegates.

So, this is an across the board repudiation of the elites and their one globalist ideology, which was simply dressed up differently for consumption by the two parties' supporters.

Bernie lost with regular delegates, not super delegates. It's seemed likely that if he won a plurality of regular delegates that the super delegates may have come to his side.

Bernie was facing a unified opposition (Hillary) who had the entire Democratic apparatus locked up tight. To the point that she had a strong and vocal supporter as head of the DNC. Hillary had completely stacked the deck in her favor. The superdelegates was just one card in a stacked deck.

Observations that come to mind about 1st and 2nd generation South Asians immigrants to the USA that could explain support for Trump and lack of support for Clinton:

1) South Asians are fiscally conservative. Also, skilled people who move to the USA tend to be the type of people who like to make lots of money. You know who else likes to make money? Donald Trump.
2) They respect authority. It's something that is instilled in their strict upbringing. They exhibit what could be called an almost neo-reactionary view on liberty, freedom, and hierarchy.
3) They generally do not like Blacks and especially hate the disorder that they cause in protests and riots (see point 2). My highly educated, 2nd generation Indian friends, all in their 20s, say mildly offensive things about African Americans to me at a much higher rate than my White friends. It even makes me a bit uncomfortable. Perhaps, they are just trying to appease me because they assume I would agree. Here's a funny related story: I was once in a large Indian mall complex in a major US city with my friend in the food court when the building's fire alarm went off. As we make our way toward the exit, this FOB Indian woman runs by us in a panic as she yells "Run! Run! There is a Black man robbing the mall!". It turned out to be nothing but it was ridiculous and hilarious.
4) The South Asian immigrants who come here legally jumped through many hoops to do so. They do not like it when an illegal immigrant skips the line, especially when their family members are stuck in citizenship limbo.
5) They are harmed by affirmative action.
6) South Asian 1st generation immigrants could care less about LGBT rights. Female rights are not top priority either, especially in the South Asian Muslim community. Thus the anti-Trump memes that carry so much emotional weight among native born US citizen (especially Whites) do not resonate with South Asians. This observation probably holds true across other immigrant communities.

Ok, but it's really weird that people were being told that immigrant were being imported to vote left (when, really, they were happy to vote right). Were immigrants just being used as code for someone else?

Well, most do vote left, as polls show. I am merely citing possible reasons for lower support for Clinton at the margin.

Not disagreeing with you on this.

You've got to look at the split at "Hindu-Americans" vs "Indian-Americans" vs "South Asian Americans" and then look at 1st or 2nd generation status. Let's not even throw in the "Sikh Americans" and their turban issues.

Off topic, I see one Indian-American judge being on the short list for a Supreme Court appointment already.

"Hindu-Americans" hate muslims and pakistan. So does trump! This is great!

"Indian Americans" liked Clinton for access. Ask Vin Gupta! But some like Bobby Jindal too! Tough call!

"South Asian Americans" really believe they are minorities and that Donald Trump supporters will sucker punch them.

The first two are deathly afraid of black people. South Asian Americans think black people=vibrant.We all have code words for them.

Kamala Harris is a very tough choice. Sleeping with a black man is pretty taboo. I know this girl who fucked Michael Jordan and no dude would go near her again. Then again Kamala is pretty hot. And she's a senator. I do know when I took her around 10 years ago fellow desi did not want anything to do with her.

The female PM of Bangladesh (145 million Muslims), sheikh hasina, sent a nice letter to trump inviting him to Bangladesh.

“Excellency,

On behalf of the Government and the people of Bangladesh, I convey our congratulations to you on your election as the 45th President of the United States of America.

Your victory is certainly a testimony to your extraordinary leadership quality to serving the American people and also global humanity."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-wins-us-presidential-election-muslims-muslim-world-response-global-bangladesh-prime-a7408436.html

the local color,the condescension,the self absorption,the somewhat unlikely scenario

was this a Thomas Friedman parody?

That was my first thought

+1 of course an ethnic restaurant would be Tyler's version of a cab.

I didn't make the Thomas Friedman connection, but it did seem like a parody -- of TC.

The Tom Friedman Column Generator is fond of relating how he/it gets in a cab in Washington/Boston/Paris/London and his Bengali/Nigerian/Somali/Laotian driver comes up with this remarkable insight on foreign relations/e-commerce/education/welfare.

I recall reading somewhere how the NYT's ossified columns section was becoming a subject of criticism by some of the brighter lights on the reporting side.

Brazilian moral superiority has become even more obvious than it was previously.

It would be hard not to, considering....

"I was sitting in one of my favorite local Bangladeshi restaurants"

Was it your second, third, fourth of lower favorite local Bangladeshi restaurants? If it were your favorite you'd probably leave of "one of".

Is Bangladeshi cuisine so magical that the market supports several in your neighborhood?

I'm now curious about your comprehensive local Bangladeshi restaurant guide.

All worthy questions.

https://tylercowensethnicdiningguide.com/?s=bangladeshi

Short answer: Yes, Bangladeshi food is wonderful and to the extent that the local population won't get it confused with Indian food, any smallish city can support multiple Bangladeshi restaurants. Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto have several each. There are a few in the Dallas area, but they are ambiguously named, probably in hopes of attracting people who want Indian food.

I suspect you are going to be surprised a lot in the next 8 years, Tyler.

It's almost as if nonwhites don't take seriously white women's contention that they are Oppressed.

And since Trump won white women overall you should amend that to "some white women's contention".

Are you saying they were plants to make you doubtful of who was the better candidate?

Beans have that effect on some people. Those in the upper income class in developing countries tend to favor autocrats and are suspicious of liberal democracy. One of the many ironies of this election is that we have been warned that liberal democracy (universal suffrage) would result in the election of politicians (liberals?) promising "free stuff" to the lower and middle class, leading to a decline in the economy and reduction in the standard of living, but instead resulted in the election of a strong man promising "free stuff" to the wealthy (in the form of tax and regulatory cuts) and an authoritarian response to anyone who resists. Like so many warnings from the right, this one too proved to be nonsense.

Consider what Trump can deliver for his supporters: For the wealthy, substantive gestures like large tax cuts (including taxes that funded Obamacare) and cuts in regulations (including environmental regulations). For the not wealthy, symbolic gestures like jailing Mrs. Clinton, harsh treatment of immigrants, and name-calling of trading partners such as China. That's the libertarian-authoritarian alliance.

There was an article the other day in, I want to say the Washington Post, about Chinese-Americans for Trump. The basic gist was that to the extent Trump was popular with that group, it was disproportionately among first-generation immigrants. The children and grand-children of immigrants had strongly assimilated to white educated upper-class culture. Predominately in blue metro areas, since that's where most Chinese-Americans live.

I suspect the same effect is at work with South Asians. Those who are fresh-off-the-boat are less likely to have gotten the memo about how supporting Trump is socially deplorable. He might say some ambiguously bigoted things, but compared to tribal politics in most of the third world, he's pretty tame.

Agreed about tribal politics of the third world , but at least as far as the Muslims are concerned, his rants are not "ambiguously bigoted."

I have Chinese-American friends who've expressed serious concerns about advancing corruption in this country, when part of the reason they left China was to get away from people like Clinton.

I realize this is a minority opinion there, but heck, even Hispanics went 29% for Trump. It's a mistake to conclude immigrant populations are uniform. Or for that matter, especially disadvantaged by a move to more rational immigration policies.

Have to back out the typically pro-R Cubans in FL and compute for the rest of the Hispanics. But true that populations are not uniform. And thats what put Trump over the top.

I thought about that. Cubans are only 3.6% of American Hispanics.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/06/19/hispanics-of-cuban-origin-in-the-united-states-2011/

Obviously you you "have to" back them out, because no *true* Hispanic would ever...

Unless the diners had beards but not mustaches or wore skull caps, it would be impossible to tell if they were Muslim or Bangladeshi as opposed to West Bengali. Indeed, a lot of Indians and Pakistanis patronize Bangladeshi restaurants and it isn't easy to tell them apart. Still, assuming the diners were Bangladeshi Muslims, why would they not condemn Trump who has demonized Islam? Why did they not support Hillary? Obama's passion for drone strikes? No. They don't affect Bangladesh. Misogyny? No. Bangladesh's two main politicians are both women.
Perhaps, they were simply being fair minded 'argumentative Indians' (the title of a book by the Bangladeshi origin Amartya Sen) and debating the matter for the pure pleasure of intellectual argument. The fact that they switched to English to do so suggests that it might have been an intellectual exercise rather than a matter of visceral importance.
Still this explanation raises yet further questions. Surely, the intellectual argument for Clinton and against Trump- at least for recent migrants from a former British colony- would be wholly one-sided? Why would Bangladeshis give Trump the time of day?
One answer may be that people from the sub-continent are tired of 'dynastic' politicians who represent continuity not change. The Bangladeshi economist, Mushtaq Khan, has a penetrating analysis of contested rent-seeking in a 'segmentary' society, which explains a type of pendulum politics in which nothing changes even though the rhetoric of the contenders may be highly polarized.
The US, of course, has a far more sophisticated political culture and it is not a 'segmentary society' at all. Still, even if heritable client/patron ties have no salience in the U.S, the fact is that K-street does bind long serving politicians in similar ways such that feasible trajectories in policy space are highly constrained. Perhaps, like Narendra Modi in India, Trump is seen as an outsider untrammeled by a calculus of inherited obligation and reciprocity which militates against change as opposed to more of the same.

From Omar Kamel, in Aeon, "I’m Arab and Many of Us Are Glad That Trump Won" –

There’s a bit of fatality involved here to be sure, and a deep level of cynicism. Many of us feel that if America could not choose the best option, then it deserved the worst. Also, there’s a harsh desire for rough truth, rather than hypocritical garnish. In a sense, most Americans are Trump, but many of them like to think of themselves as closer in character to who Clinton (falsely) claims to be; liberal, democratic, leftist, humane, charitable, kind. There are some who faced the facts honestly, and admitted that, for all intents and purposes, Clinton was a criminal and a manipulator, who plays ball with the worst human rights offenders on the planet (Saudi Arabia and Israel, for example) and relies on their financial and political support, that she, when promising to continue Obama’s legacy, is in fact, promising to kill another 4,000 innocent Pakistanis by drone strikes in an illegal attempt to murder untried ‘terrorists’. That this is a woman for whom Madeline Albright is a role model, and Kissinger is an icon, a woman who started out Republican before swapping sides and acting as though she were a Democrat, most likely because she realized that, as a woman, she could go farther as a Democrat. This is a liar who claims to have been dodging sniper fire in a foreign land when she was being greeted with flowers. [...] We do not think Trump is any better, but we think a Trump victory would force the USA to admit to what it has become, and would allow other countries around the world to react appropriately now that the cover has been blown.

Whoops! Here's the link: https://medium.com/@omarkamel/im-arab-and-many-of-us-are-glad-that-trump-won-c98e1c6ae891#.nxsgqu2fr

Note that Mr. Kamel thinks in explicit terms about his ethno-cultural group's interest in the outcome of the election. It's only racist when American whites do the same thing. I agree with his basic point though. The rest of the world should be relieved at an America that is more national than international in focus.

Also, I don't think a good case can be made that Trump is "racist." He is a civic, not an ethnic, nationalist based on words and deeds over the course of his very public life. At least the author didn't use the wildly inapt "fascist."

Nah he's probably racist, as his very public 'no contest' plea regarding his behavior in renting to black people shows. He's not David Duke level, he's just typical old white guy racist.

"typical old white guy racist"

Pretty racist description.

Oh yeah I forgot. And he marries white women.

You really need to get that chip off your shoulder.

At least you heard some people who weren't totally in the tank for Clinton. That's more than the entire New York Times building combined.

>At that moment I wondered what was going on.

That's what happens when you get a glimpse of the outside world.

While you were sitting in your office for two years listening to the NYT/NPR guys tell you that Trump loathes all Muslims and that's all you need to know.... real-live Muslims suspected that might be more to consider.

We are of Indian origin and were stunned by the huge amount of Trump advertising on the Hindi TV channels. The advertisements constantly harped on the prime Minster Modi , and using his slogan . In general people of Indian origin go democratic but Trump was trying to capture the extreme right-wing leaning vote . Probably may not have made much of a difference since people of Idian origin mostly live in non-swing States : NY,NJ,IL, TX, CA etc but could have helped a little in states like PA say.

There's a good chance they were Hindus.

Many Indians do dine at Bdeshi restaurants.

Over the last six months Tyler, you appear to be going more and more into an intellectual bubble. Go back to your travelling days and see if you can get a different perspective.

Maybe instead of another academic / policy wonk, you ask somebody onto Conversations with Tyler like @Chris_arnade.

He should do deadlifting with Nasim Taleb, followed by a dish of pasta al nero di seppia.

Cowen is at the age where mental faculties begin to erode dramatically. A consequence of that erosion is that a lot of people seek out bubbles which have the effect of simplifying life and lessening the congnitive strain.

TC is still a sharp knife but you don't find a lot of interesting ideas coming from people who are comfortable and have an interest in maintaining a reputation. For creative ideas, you must look toward the people who aren't invited to the cocktail parties e.g. Steve Sailer.

Minority here.

No minority is truly afraid Trump will deport them.

Boy, they're doing a great job putting on a show on Facebook, though

They sure do.

If you were truly afraid of being found out, would you post it on Facebook for all to see?

Sounds like the beginning of a William Carlos Williams poem updated to the 21st century.

I took an airport shuttle from a hotel in Portland yesterday, and the first thing the driver started talking about to the passengers was her sadness about Trump winning the election.

At first I attributed this to a lack of self-awareness and relative incompetence, as I think it's generally understood to be a bad idea, especially in a service profession, to talk politics with customers. But then I wondered if it was instead a profit-maximizing choice, as those riding a Portland airport shuttle will tend to skew anti-Trump, and any loss in tips from Trump supporters will be more than made up for by increased tips from Trump haters.

She was playing 9 dimensional chess!

Hillary Clinton was a pretty awful candidate, and the email thing was transparent evidence of corruption. I imagine a bunch of Bangladeshis would be familiar with political corruption and recognize it instantly when they see it, unlike a lot of white people who simply dismiss the idea that Clinton might be that corrupt - choosing not to see it. A group of Bangladeshis would have no illusions about it.

How's furnishing your attic coming along?

I have an excellent windowless room that will do nicely for a live-in nanny of questionable paperwork status.

Seriously, if Trump actually attempts to round people up and deport them, I'm serious that I would help hide anyone who asked for help.

If you were truly sincere about this and weren't just virtue signaling, why would you post your plans on a public forum? Oh wait...but you are virtue signaling.

When I met a former colleague for lunch the Friday before the election (an immigrant from Haiti), he confessed that he had contemplated voting for Trump before deciding to vote third-party. Who knows what he actually voted, but it did make it clearer for me just how weak both candidates really were.

I think it's easy to take it as true that all men are cool with a female leader, because that's generally true among educated/cosmopolitan/academic/professional men.

My own perception is if you go back 30 years, both either in our time, or the equivalent mapping to another culture, lots of men really respect the masculine features. At the end of the day my own hypothesis, and hell maybe I'm wrong, but I truly don't believe an old women can naturally command the sort of leadership that makes the male of our species, incredibly excited.

Margaret Thatcher

QE I

Grace Hopper

Seeing a white guy in their midst, thet switched to English when saying things that they were ok with him hearing. When saying things that the white guy would be offended by, they spoke their native language. Common strategy of bilingual people.

(in English) Isn't it a tragedy that the lack of open borders prevents people from the Northeast from coming here and opening up Northeastern Bangladeshi restauarants? The food is so different from this! How I long for a bowl of ghurna phal!!!!

(in Bengali) Look at that white guy guzzling down the slop here! You'd think he didn't know the first thing about real food!

Why Clinton Lost:

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/

Money quote:

"Just think about who they nominated: someone who — when she wasn’t dining with Saudi monarchs and being feted in Davos by tyrants who gave million-dollar checks — spent the last several years piggishly running around to Wall Street banks and major corporations cashing in with $250,000 fees for 45-minute secret speeches even though she had already become unimaginably rich with book advances while her husband already made tens of millions playing these same games. She did all that without the slightest apparent concern for how that would feed into all the perceptions and resentments of her and the Democratic Party as corrupt, status quo-protecting, aristocratic tools of the rich and powerful: exactly the worst possible behavior for this post-2008-economic-crisis era of globalism and destroyed industries."

Meh. This kind of trivializes the opposition.

If Clinton had just been a little more conscious of her appearance, she would have won? Weren't people concerned she would govern without their interests in mind? Not that she'd appear to but secretly be doing the right thing?

At least half of the Trump supporters I met pre-election were non-white. Many were female. I never bought into the "it's all racism and white privilege" explanation for the Trump phenomenon, and I hope with more experiences like this TC can finally put it to rest in his own mind.

Even intelligent and well-educated people tend to round to 0% and 100% when dealing with human proclivities. 20-25% seems like such a tiny minority when we're used to 51-49% election results. It's easy to forget that even if a certain group goes 75-80% for a particular candidate, that still means 1 out of every 4 or 5 people you see who belong to that group won't fit your stereotype.

hmm, meant this to be in reply to RPLong

Right, we're also talking about an election where one candidate won the popular vote and the other barely squeaked out a victory in a few key swing states.
Basically a coin toss.

"Basically a coin toss."

With regards to the Presidential election it was close to a tie.

However, the Republican's kept Congress and picked up an additional 3 governorships. Now 34 out of 50 and more than they've had in nearly 100 years. Tuesday night was a shift in favor of Republicans, even if you ignore the Presidential race. Democrats are doing poorly. Obama being a decent President and the Media leaning largely Democratic have masked that fact for years.

I think you're forgetting that demographics are destiny, and non-whites carry the dominant "Democrat" gene at high rates.

Obama being a decent President

Lois Lerner took the 5th for a reason. Douglas Shulman was at the White House dozens of times when his predecessor visited precisely once.

On a related note I have also pondered over why the immigrants from India would become Republicans. Observations of a number of close relatives has led me to a simple explanation. The Indians, especially those with higher 'social status' in India, view the Democratic party as a party of the masses (this view was cemented with a black man as the President), and the status conscious that they are, they identify more with the GOP which they view as comprising of members with higher social status.

Comments for this post are closed