The New Republic has come up with a new way to drag conservatism through the mud---Simply describe racists as "racially conservative." Get it? They are implying that if you are a conservative then you must somehow be a racist. Your humble correspondent caught them using this term in a story headlined on The New Republic front page as: "Are People Who Hang Up On Pollsters More Racist Than Those Who Don't?" The story itself pretty much goes nowhere since no voting trend by people who refuse to talk to pollsters can be discerned. However, the story does link conservatism with racism (emphasis mine):
Scott Keeter, director of survey research at Pew, added that while there was evidence a decade ago that people with racially conservative views were likely to put their receivers down, that trend has diminished. "In 1997, the first time we did [an experiment], we did find a small--I emphasize small--degree of potential bias in under-representing racial conservatism, but we are talking about a percentage point or two, barely statistically significant," he said. "This problem, if it was a serious problem in the 1980s or early 1990s, is not a problem any longer." He said the inaccurate polling in New Hampshire was probably the result "a collection of intense political forces unlikely to be repeated anytime soon," ranging from Obama's victory in Iowa to Clinton's infamous misty eyes just before the New Hampshire vote.
In the first instance of the term, the author of this story, Seyward Darby, was supposedly paraphrasing Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center. The second instance using "racial conservatism" seems to be a direct quote from Scott Keeter. I did a Google search on Keeter and, if he did indeed use this term, then it is the only time he did so. In any case, this is yet another attempt, whether by Keeter or The New Republic, to link conservatism with racism.
As for the premise of the story, it pretty much fizzles out from the get-go:
In a January op-ed in The New York Times, Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, warned that the disparity between polls and the outcome in the New Hampshire Democratic primary--Clinton beat Obama despite polls showing him with an advantageous margin--could have been due, in part, to the fact that less affluent whites are more likely to hang up on pollsters. "These whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews," Kohut wrote.
So with the media now reviving questions about how race affects voters' decision-making, should we be worried that polling numbers under-represent racists (or anyone else, for that matter)? Several pollsters I spoke to this week said there isn't a notable disparity between the types of people who answer questions and those who do not. John Zogby, president and CEO of Zogby International, told me that over the past few decades, there has been a "democratization of refusals" and that there is a 95-percent confidence rate in polls' accuracy. "In the early days--this was before answering machines and all of the other screening devices--the refusal... used to be the purview of the affluent, and now the blocked call that comes in just runs across the board demographically," Zogby said. Similarly, Charles Franklin, co-founder of Pollster.com, said there isn't a notable partisan divide between people who agree to polls and those who refuse. "If every Republican hung up and every Democrat did an interview, the profession would be in a crisis," he said.
So despite the sensationalist headline on the front page of The New Republic, here is the final conclusion in the story:
So, whether refusals are hard (the receiver slam), soft (the polite decline), or forced (the non-answer, or the midway interruption), pollsters agree they are unlikely to affect survey numbers adversely.
Hopefully the term "racially conservative" will die as quick a death as the premise of this story.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"Conservative" now is a
September 26, 2008 - 08:49 ET by motherbelt"Conservative" now is a code word for anything the left wants it to be.
Since what liberals think is always the correct side of any issue, the wrong side of that issue has to be the "conservative" view.
Haven't you noticed that any repressive entity abroad, be it a dictator or religious leader, is always decribed as "conservative"?
You and Humpty Dumpty have it right, MB...
September 26, 2008 - 11:52 ET by ThalpyYou and Humpty Dumpty have it right, MB, "When I use a word, "Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." "The question is, "said Alice, "whether you can make words mean do many different things." "The question is, "said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all"
I think back at the time of the immigration legislation "hearings" to the word amnesty. We were told that the legislation did not constitute amnesty. Yes it did. The Left and the Right must not be allowed to define what it is that they're trying to do to us. As you said MB, the Left must not be allowed to label us or define the terms.
With friends like these, who needs they?
September 26, 2008 - 09:03 ET by CrashWow! What an insane and inappropriate choice of words.
From my life experience I have met more people who claim to be liberal democrat's with a foundation based on bigotry than I have ever encountered from conservatives. My sister-in-laws father told her that, "Ain't no daughter of mine gonna' marry a white boy ... if god intended on us mixing we'd be zebras (whatever the hell that means)."
A liberal dem who works at the state department told me that, "Rice is a black african guerilla niggar bitch from Mississippi who can barely speak a whole sentance!!!"
Then there are the lefty cartoonist, editorialists, and bloggers who use these choice phrases to describe those who disagree with them, "Brother Lite" ... "Oriel Cookie" ... "Uncle Tom" ... "Redneck" ... "Hayseed" ... "Big Fat Idiot". They even threaten to "cut his nuts off" and that's their homeboy.
On The Other Side
September 26, 2008 - 09:18 ET by JDWPAC member, ACORN, environmentalist...
JDW
DAILY WAVE
'Hey Chuck, Stand Up!'
Oops!
September 26, 2008 - 11:51 ET by CrashCORRECTION: That's "Oreo Cookie."
It all boils down to a
September 26, 2008 - 09:22 ET by HockeyKidIt all boils down to a simple anagram:
Obama Biden = Nabob Media
"Nabob" means "elitist". Explains everything, doesn't it?
This is tricky. And subtle,
September 26, 2008 - 09:29 ET by Indiana JoeThis is tricky. And subtle, for a change.
What does "racially conservative" mean? Well, what would you take "racially liberal" to mean? Yeah, we understand it's code-speak, but what meaning would the average person take from these terms? I think it's pretty clear.
This is even defensible, since they didn't say "conservative racism." Yes, of course, that's the idea they're trying to plant, but in a deniable way when the term is actually parsed.
These folks might be getting the idea that the full-blown, "damn the torpedoes," Kos-style attacks are backfiring on them, and they're trying to slip back into the more "stealthy" type of bias that served them so well in the past.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
codeword
September 26, 2008 - 09:35 ET by AgnosticMy 'codeword' for the liberal media would not be apt for a site such as this. Needless to say my codeword for the liberal media is generally mumbled discretely while I try to fathom what little bit of truth might be hidden behind their agenda.
Where they looking in a mirror?
September 26, 2008 - 09:50 ET by Spinningplates2The Right and especially the Christian Right has done more for all minorities then all other groups combined. All Liberals have to be proud of is their tireless effort to rid the world of what the founder of Planned Parenthood called "Human Weeds." The Left in this country is trying to abort the Black Race out of America and if the Right says even something as obvious as, "Don't wear your pants between your butt and your knees," the Right is told we're the Racist.
I am one of those people
September 26, 2008 - 09:57 ET by Kenny BunkportI am one of those people who hang up or refuse to participate in polls. That's all polls, political or non. Surprisingly, Keeler's observation "less affluent whites are more likely to hang up on pollsters" applies to me. So score one for the pollsters.
And from watching the news and reality TV, it seems that poor trashy welfare type people LOVE to talk to anyone that gives them the time of day. Since they will unquestionably be Democrat, and a working White stiff will be more likely to be Republican by comparison, my guess that non-responders skew polls in the liberal or Democrat direction.
My question is how much do pollsters compensate for this? How could they accurately guestimate the responses of those who don't respond? After all, he said that you can't assume they're all of one party.
He claims that non-responders are statistically unimportant, within the margin of error. That's probably ok if someone has a 10 point lead. But often in these contests the difference IS the margin of error.
It seems to me that the pollsters consistently give close races to the Democrat, only to have the voters prove them wrong on election day. I find it hard to believe that the accuracy rate is anything near 95% in close races (separated by 2-3 points). I would say closer to 50%, or a coin toss. I think there is a bias to give the poll to the Democrat when it is really impossible to make an accurate call.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
The first morsel
September 26, 2008 - 10:42 ET by needleIt is quite possible that this dippy New Republic article was created to launch a new smear term. After all somebody has to do something like this in order for terms like “swiftboating” and “racially conservative” to get started. Right?
This could easily be the first morsel of a new batch of red meat for the BDS/PDS afflicted readership of the New Republic.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Wasn't it the Democrats in
September 26, 2008 - 12:14 ET by wiwfWasn't it the Democrats in the '60s that were against integration and civil rights?
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Well, sure, wiwf
September 26, 2008 - 12:35 ET by Indiana JoeEven though the Dems controlled Congress, the 1965 Civil Rights Act wouldn't have passed without Republican votes. And the KKK was a Democrat organization. The segregated South was a Democrat stronghold during and after the Civil War, pretty much until the Reagan years. Alabama Governor George Wallace, who stood on school steps with the state police to block integration, was a Democrat presidential candidate in 1968, I believe. And Lincoln and the Reconstructionists were Republicans.
What's your point? You don't really think these facts matter to anyone on the left, especially the race-baiters, do you?
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
At least we don't flaunt our racial credentials...
September 26, 2008 - 21:17 ET by SRPwrdWait, the Republicans supported--- NO, NO, NO, NO..... *buries head in sand, again*.
When was the last time you
September 26, 2008 - 22:05 ET by Kenny BunkportWhen was the last time you heard the term "Dixiecrat"?
Like all embarassments, current Dems and the media pretend they never existed. How often do you think the media would drop the term "Dixiecrat" into the news if they had been Republicans? Compare to the name "McCarthy", which never disappears.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
My stomping grounds
September 26, 2008 - 12:51 ET by MexNobamaEse tipo de mierda no debe tener un lugar en cosas politicas.
Translation:
This type of crap should not have a place in things political.
But it does. And who keeps putting it there? The democrats.
Black people aren't black unless they are liberal.
Mexicans are sell outs if they keep conservative principles.
Powell, Rice, Gonzales? feed 'em to the wolves, they aren't real people of color.
Those of us who are proud of our ethnicity, but even prouder of our country, are sick to death of this double standard.
Ever notice that Comedian George Lopez only speaks about ten words of Spanish? Why? Because he was born and raised in the United States of America. Most of his "Spanish" is really Spanglish and he is the first to admit it.
But he's a "real Mexican" because he's liberal.
My father came to this country an 1954 and spoke with an accent that was as thick as you please. But he spoke English, because he wanted us to speak English.
Sure we used the odd phrase in Spanish, we all studied it formally in high school, and we spoke to our Mexican relatives when they came to visit. Nevertheless English was the official language in our household.
Now I have all sorts of dialogues with Spanish speaking people throughout the world, and they all assure me that my Spanish is very good. I know that if I were to speak Spanish only for about a month it would be up to speed with any native speaker.
I speak better Spanish than George Lopez, but ...
I'm a small government Libertarian and thus...
not a real Mexican.
Hogwash.
Rice and Powell are "Blacker" than Barack Obama in terms of genetics. They are however not as "Black" as Barry-O because they are conservatives.
Also Hogwash.
Yes, the left are the true racists. It is a subtle, hate-filled, controlling kind of racism that does not allow for individuality.
I fear that this election is slipping away from our side and we will be stuck with a Mocha colored Jimmy Carter who hides behind his ethnicity to protect himself from objective criticism.
Alberto Gonzales was not offered such protection, nor should he have been.
Race has nothing to do with leadership skills, effective policies, or common sense.
But then liberalism has nothing to do with common sense either.
Libs The Real Racists
September 26, 2008 - 13:27 ET by deerjerkydaveThe black community has been voting for Dems for decades. What has it gotten them? Dependency upon the white liberal man for success and ideological slavery. The truth is that neither leads to success or prosperity, regardless of race.
I'm spatially conservative.
September 27, 2008 - 03:27 ET by JWFI have a 6 foot bubble. Don't get near me! Bubble! Bubble!
I'm also glacially conservative. I enjoy free flowing glaciars.
Also facially conservative. I don't like ugly people.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
My Bubble is MUCH bigger
September 27, 2008 - 03:38 ET by general companyYou gonna be OK?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Forman Only ?..........we need leaders?
September 27, 2008 - 03:48 ET by general companyOnly get his,,, I have been working getting laid,, my wifes Bday. RR Thanks
Only"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I thought about it some more
September 27, 2008 - 06:58 ET by JWFI am a post racial conservative - I don't care what race you are, you're going to have to take care of yourself. I have my own problems to take care of. First among them is keeping that little marxist out of the white house.