I will explain:

1. The South’s growing demographic weight, tempered though it is by a growing ethnic and cultural diversity, especially outside of the Deep South states.
   .
2. The South’s unique political “culture,” a blend of good, bad, and, in many but certainly NOT all respects, a bit ugly.  I think a sophisticated (i.e., not simplistic) understanding of what drives Southern politics is vital to predicting what direction the region will take itself and the rest of us in the future.
   .
3. The importance of the (now completed) Republicans’ takeover of the South, and, just as important, the South’s takeover of the GOP.  I’ll also explain why some people think the “GOP is now just a Southern reactionary party” idea is overstated.
   .

The South is probably changing faster than the any other part of the country.  I will briefly preview why, and then, during discussion, I hope we can focus less on history lessons and more on different visions of the South’s future and how it will affect the rest of us.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –

1. How important is the South in national politics?  Is that influence waxing or waning?
2. How do the South’s political culture and preferences differ from the rest of the country?  Are those differences narrowing or growing?
3. How “southern” is the Republican Party?  Does that strengthen the South’s influence or weaken it?  Does the South anchor the GOP or will it ultimately sink it as a national majority party? .
4. Can the Democrats afford to write off the South?
5. What does the future hold?

LINKS –

• The South is growing in size and therefore in influence.  But, it’s also growing more diverse and less exceptional.
  .
• Lest we forget, southerners are not just right-wing or left-wing.  Like every other region, they are a mix of different political “types.”
  .
• The South is a waning force in national politics (2008 article).  Do the 2010 election results and 2012 results so far make this prediction wrong?
  .
• The GOP is a Southern reactionary party.
• No, the Tea Party is not just a regional phenomenon.
  .
• FWIW, my view is that Fox News, talk radio, etc., have nationalized right-wing political philosophy to the point where it no longer matters if it began as a southern thing.  It’s now a national thing.
  .
• But – and this is key – it now exists in one party only, which is a sea change of enormous consequence.  The open question is whether the new GOP will appeal to enough Americans when there’s no giant recession to be a national majority party.  The Southern-origin ultra-conservatism may be a dead end nationally.

• 23 mind-blowing charts about inequality in America.
  .
• 22 statistics (22 charts) that show the middle class is being “systematically wiped out” in America.

Fun times.

The chart requires some explanation.  It does not show how much inequality exists in the nine countries, either before or after government.  Rather, it measures how much inequality governments take away, measured in terms of a reduction in each country’s GINI coefficient.  The GINI coefficient measures inequality on a scale from 0.0 to 1.0, with 0.0 being perfect income equality (everyone has the exact same income) and 1.0 being where a single person has it all and everyone else has zero income.  (Neither pole can exist in the real world, of course.)

Most rich countries, BTW, are in the .25 – .40 range, after accounting for government taxes/spending.  Our post-government GINI score is .40-.45, depending on the year, meaning that we have the highest level of inequality in the OECD, except for Mexico.  Our inequality level is slightly better than Cambodia’s and slightly worse than Ghana’s!  (Source)

Back to the chart .  It shows that U.S. government policies do less to mitigate inequality than governments of the other nine countries listed – including Canada, Germany, and the U.K.  Eyeballing the chart, USG taxes (the unfilled-in circle) only reduce that GINI coefficient by about 0.05, and USG spending (the solid diamond) only reduces market inequality by a little more, maybe 0.06 or so.  Compare that to the other countries by adding the distance each of the country’s tax and transfer diamonds are from the vertical axis, about .25, in Norway’s case.

So…the next time someone tells you that our evil federal government redistributes vast amounts of wealth to the poor and/or undeserving, you can now tell them we do it less than any other major country.

• Explanation of the new government poverty measure that takes into account all sources of income.  This is a much more sophisticated way to measure poverty than the old way, although it is not above criticism.  A much more detailed explanation of differences between new and old measure is here.
  .
• The return of “culture” as a cause of poverty.  A controversial notion, but one that must be wrestled with, especially since so many non-poor Americans believe so strongly in its explanatory power.
  .
• A conservative doubts how poor the people in poverty really are.  A rebuttal.

One reason dictatorship has had staying  power is that those that existed in the 20^th century cast long shadows on their countries, making transitions to democracy difficult.   Examples:  The former USSR, Iraq,  Libya.  Second, dictators often obtain power because a country has deep-seated problems, such as poverty and ethnic divisions, and these still exist in many, many places.   Think Egypt, most of sub-Saharan Africa, or Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan.

Beyond all of this, an authoritarian form of government really doesn’t need a single strongman.  Many countries are democratic in name only and are really run by the military or bureaucratic elite, or by one tribe or ethnic group.   This phenomenon has been called, “illiberal democracy.”  Russia.  Nigeria.  (China, IMO is in a category of it own.)

I won’t lecture on Thursday.  (Pause for applause.)  It’s too broad a subject and you folks are pretty knowledgeable.  I’ll just summarize the number and “types” of dictatorships in the world today (hint: More and more varied than you think), and then tick off 1-2 brief analytic points.  During discussion, I’ll try to ask the following questions:

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –

1. Is dictatorship more likely to appear in some countries than in others?  Why?  More likely to endure?
   .
2. What brings them down?  People power?  International pressure?  Elites just switching sides and little changes?
   .
3. What is “illiberal democracy?”  How long can this form of authoritarianism continue, since these regimes can have many supporters, such as the military and secret police, or even a favored ethnic group?
   .
4. Should we be in the business of supporting dictators?  Never?  Really – is that practical?  What should we do to speed or help with transitions?

 LINKS –

I had trouble finding short articles directly on-point.  People have been debating how to end authoritarian regimes and nurture democracy for decades.

• There are about 40 – that’s 40! – dictators in the world today.  Here’s a list of the world’s worst.  Almost 2 billion people live under their rule.
  .
• A “dictators’ survival guide:” Seven lessons the remaining ones should have learned from the last 2 years.
  .
• Elections aren’t enough to make a democracy.  Just one example among dozens of “illiberal democracies:”  Ukraine’s orange revolution has fallen into oligarchy and authoritarianism.
  .
• Will the Arab Spring turn into an Arab Winter? (good WashPost article)
  –  Yeah, elections will bring Islamist radicals to power.
  –  No, Middle East democracy is inevitable.

Here’s what we agreed to do, as I heard it.

1. Order Something:  It’s a business.  Moreover, we do not have a Starbucks-like relationship with Filter.  Transactions don’t take 30 seconds and then we leave.  We take up a lot of space for over two hours, so we need to support the coffeehouse.  We don’t have to order as a condition of coming, of course.  But, try to get something if you’re going to stay the whole meeting.
   .
2. Tip:  We are a special customer given special treatment.  So, we need to tip the young baristas/wait staff more than the typical leave-them-a-few-cents thing at…well, Starbucks again.
   .
3. Clean up after ourselves.  They want us to do this, so we will.  Please bus yourself.  This includes your own chair if you took it from another part of the coffeehouse.
   .
4. Be Nice:  They believe we are too brusque and unfriendly.  Regardless of how true this is, they believe it, so it must be somewhat true at least.  This is an EASY one to do.  Being friendly goes in long way.

I am going to talk to Steve periodically in the future, so resentments don’t have time to build up again.  He does not seem to want to deal with the group through me, so I will be the initiator.

We have a great gig here, guys.  Space like this free-of-formal-charge is rare.  Let’s not screw it up!

DavidG

This last post I’ll just use to link to a few articles that try to explain some of the consequences of racism for our contemporary politics.

• The Tea Parties are NOT mainly motivated by racism.
• Yeah, they are.  (More radical website than I usually link to)
• Maybe/maybe not.  But, if they’re not, then why are so many of the appeals made to them made using such obviously racialized language?
  .
• The problem of liberal racism.
• Libertaranism and racism (a great point)

They’ll be a quiz.  Okay, there won’t be.  But, please come to this one.  Where else would a topic liked this be discussed in plain language?  

I’ve been reading a fair amount on racism lately (including these three books) and a host of very interesting civil rights-oriented blogs (such as this one and this fairly radical one).  I think I’m starting to get the idea of what they mean by racism.  A good working definition of the term might be that racism involves believing that:

1. Differences in personality, intelligence, and so forth between people are the result of innate differences that sort themselves neatly by group based on physical characteristics.  And, these differences are unchangeable, rather than being culturally- or socially-determined; i.e., physical characteristics go together with personality traits necessarily and cannot be changed by culture or socialization.
   .
2. These differences between groups are large enough and important enough that a hierarchy of racial/ethnic classification can be constructed using them.  One group is morally or intellectually better than another group by nature.
   .
3. Institutions in society should reflect these inherent differences between the races/ethnicities and need not treat groups as equal because they are not equal.

A more detailed and slightly different definition of racism is here.  (BTW, I love this academic sociologist’s blog.)  It emphasizes the role of POWER.  For any prejudice to matter, someone must have the power to enforce it through institutions, either formal or informal.  Racial bigotry is a character flaw; racISM requires a dominant group to have power over (an)other group(s).

So, what?  Nobody believes this stuff anymore, right?  You never hear anyone express these views, and didn’t we leave institutionalized racism behind us?  Well, the problem comes in the way the human mind consciously and unconsciously categorizes people.  As the author of book #2, above, says:

[A]ll of us whether we think of ourselves as prejudiced or not, hold in our heads schemas that classify people into categories based on age, gender, race, and ethnicity. We cannot help it. It is part of the human condition, and these schemas generally include implicit memories that yield subconscious dispositions toward people and objects, leading to stereotypes.”

From what I’ve gathered, it is the power of these racial categorical stereotypes that give racism in the modern world its force.  And, it’s a special problem in 21^st century America, where a now formally colorblind society exists side-by-side with huge racial gaps in socio-economic status and achievement that are the results of a long racist legacy that we’re all trying to forget.  When this reality collides with the American credo that we are now an equal opportunity society, most white Americans –like people everywhere – find a way to explain away the cognitive dissonance.  They do it by subconsciously blaming minority status on a lack of merit and leave unstated the racist stereotypes on which it’s based.  Those stereotpyes can even be unthought-of on a conscious level!  By this indifference mechanism, once a racist society is built, it needs only our racial indifference to thrive – even when its legal foundation has been dismantled..

On Thursday, I’ll give a brief explanation of this modern American form of underground racism, and a little bit on its impacts.

Tomorrow, I’ll do one final post that will be mainly links to articles that try to explain the racial politics of the last few years.  One you should all read is titled, “Liberal Racism.”

Don’t miss this one!

In this post, a few links to illustrate the gap in (1) economic circumstances between blacks and whites as a group, and (2) the chasm between perceptions in white and black Americans in their perceptions of how much racism there is in America.

• The Browning of America and its enormous political implications.
  .
• White households have 20 times the wealth of black and Latino households. FYI, black household wealth has been virtually destroyed by the housing collapse and recession.
  .
• White Americans think anti-black discrimination is way down and anti-white discrimination is way up. One study finds that whites believe that the decline in anti-black racism has come at their expense!
  .
• A larger survey finds that 40% of Americans believe that racial conflict is still a major problem in America.  Yet, the gap between what blacks and whites believe is not as large as you might think (about 50% versus 35%), and both groups tend to believe that racial conflict has been eclipsed as the most pressing problem in America by class and native/immigrant conflicts.  The deep recession may be driving these one-time survey results.
  .
• The myth of the persecuted white guy (highly recommended).  One view of why so many whites feel that they’re the victims.

Tomorrow’s post:  A working definition of racism, plus the problem of talking about racism in a post-racial (i.e., where it’s now taboo to be racist) society.

On the other hand, it’s easy to exaggerate religion’s influence.  For one thing, national interests (like national security, resource access, and business interests) usually trump anything else in foreign policy.  Also, those policies are generally made by elites, who have little interest in following public religious sentiments.

However, undeniably Americans’ religion beliefs matter in foreign policy in at least a few ways:

• Religion has reinforced the American missionary impulse, to spread (impose?) our values abroad.  This impulse has waxed and waned, but it’s always there, ready to be activated by events, such as the Cold War or 9/11.
  .
• Religious interest groups have had a major impact on certain areas of foreign relations.  These include, again, the Cold War, but also these days Israel and the Middle East generally and humanitarian policies in Africa.

The group is pretty well versed in stuff like this, so on Thursday I’ll be brief.  I’ll just note a few of the ways American religious belief and interest groups impact our foreign policy in today’s world.  I’ll leave the history to you guys.  As several of the articles linked to below explain, the growth of evangelicals groups has begun to have a pretty big impact in some areas of foreign affairs.

Whether this is good or bad, or could become good or bad, is the topic, I suppose.  I know people will be loaded for bear on this one, eager to condemn the impact that religion has had on foreign policy.  I think, though, that the record has been more mixed, and I’m optimistic that fundamentalism’s influence, at least in this area of policy, can be tamed.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –

1. In what ways have religious values infused U.S. foreign policy, especially since the end of the Cold War?
   .
2. What kind of influence do religious interest groups have in this area, now that so much of organized religion is actively involved in American politics?
   .
3. Are there any particular areas of foreign policy that are being improved or ruined by religious influence?
   .
4. What does the future hold for us, in a world that is growing more divided between the religious and the secular?  Do we need to increase our religious voices in foreign policy, as some of the articles below want to, or go the other way?

LINKS –

• Evangelicals in U.S. Foreign Policy, from Foreign Affairs magazine.  A bit long, but very good.
  .
• Bush, 9/11, and the reinfusion of national security with religious purpose.
  .
• Our foreign policy SHOULD emphasize religion more.
  .
• No, it shouldn’t.
  .
• Yes, it should, because the foreign conflicts we deal with are so much so religious in nature.  (from a prominent American Muslim)

Tell a friend to take a week off and join us!  Copies of the new schedule will be available again, too, and please let me know if you want to do an opening presentation or run the meeting on any of the new topics.