Liberals more racist, natch

Richard Morin of the Washington Post revisits a study (scroll past the Jon Stewart stuff) about Republican and Democratic attitudes on race and welfare in the light of Katrina.

Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.

But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."

The fundamental issue, as I mentioned many times, is that the essence of liberal dogma is to identify people into groups (gender, race), and to build social policy based on these identifications. I believe I am accurate in calling this a broader dogma, as opposed to the personal predisposition of certain liberals.

Concepts like affirmative action, “gay rights” (which, for the life of me I can’t distinguish from human rights) and even “the poor” fundamentally downplay the plight of the individual and his/her choices. It is an ideological train wreck, and is the heart of traditional Democratic politics.

We can argue the merits of the above — and I don’t dispute that there are beneficiaries of such policies — but downsides are greater than the very limited upsides. Too easily, such ideas cross the line into bigotry.

------

Update: James Taranto warns us not to read too much into it, but asks:

Also, we take issue with the characterization of Democrats as "generous" because they are willing to "give" more money to the hypothetical victims. Participants were not asked how much of their own money they were willing to contribute, but rather how much "government aid" they thought the victims should receive.

If Democrats are more eager to spend "government" money than Republicans are--and, with the possible exception of members of Congress, it is a commonplace that they are--does this mean that Democrats are more "generous"? Or does it mean that Republicans are more apt to think of government as spending their money, while Democrats think of it as other people's?

Comments

[Jim Lippard]

"Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine."

When I first read this, I thought to myself, wow, those are some wealthy donors to be able to individually give $1,500/mo to Katrina victims. Then I read the Taranto remark.

It really isn't generosity if it's not being done with your own money.

[Jeremiah]

ORISF, you are positively rising to new heights with your recent posts.

I think Democrats gave more out of liberal guilt for Led Zeppelin making so much money off of "When the Levee Breaks" on Led Zepp IV.