The Just Grievances of Trump Supporters

The Democratic Party aims to "care for the harmed", especially those harmed by the government itself. Trump appeals to those who believe that they have been harmed by the government because the government helps those who have been harmed by previous government policies. The Trump people - working class white men, in particular - believe they were in line for the American Dream, and that Democratic "care for the harmed" policies amount to letting other people - women, people of color, gays and lesbians, the handicapped, immigrants - jump the line ahead of them for no good reason. The Trump people are right that they are losing a benefit (a privilege) they used to have. But on this point I think the Democratic Party policy is fundamentally right.

The best Democrats can do to address this real grievance is the plan to reduce the cost of college, especially community college, for the ambitious part of the white working class. I would trumpet that policy right at the Trump supporters.

The harder issue to address is about the effects of globalization. The leaders of both parties are internationalists, for good reason. The world is safer with a free-trade regimen, our national economy benefits, all consumers benefit, and many workers benefit. But not all. Here the Trump supporters have a real grievance, which cannot be easily addressed by either party. Low-skilled manufacturing jobs are not going to come back in sufficient number to re-employ them at family-supporting wages. They refuse to take farmworker jobs, which can fill that gap for people willing to do very hard work (as the immigrants show).

Sovereign Immunity Protects the United States the Most

Congress passed a law to allow U.S. citizens to sue foreign governments - specifically, Saudia Arabia, for their possible role in the 9/11 attacks.

President Obama vetoed that bill, on the grounds that the doctrine of "sovereign immunity" - foreign governments are immune from suit in our courts for their government actions - protects us.  If we allow U.S. citizens to sue foreign governments for their acts, that opens the door for foreign citizens to sue the U.S. government.

The United States invades, bombs, and intervenes in more countries than any other - probably more, these days, than all others combined.

Congress overrode President Obama's veto - the first time they have done so.  And immediately the Republican leadership regretted what they had done.

The President is right.  Our self-interest, rightly understood, should lead us to preserve sovereign immunity.

The Irony of Suburban "Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions" Is That Private Government Is More Intrusive Than Real Government

Many suburban subdivisions are minutely regulated by Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions.  These can cover just about anything that is visible from outside your house.  Legally, it is like living in a shopping mall.

Suburban homeowners give up a great deal of their freedom in the interests of keeping up the property values of the whole neighborhood. The task, and bane, of Homeowners Associations is enforcing these rules.

The irony is that these same suburbs are also more likely to be home to the kind of conservatives who resent government regulation of their lives and property.

There is no logical contradiction here - choosing to enter into a private contract to give up your liberty is different from being subject to regulation whether you personally chose it or not.  But in practice the homeowners association restricts many "small government" conservatives much more than the government does.

And the people who live in the super-liberal bohemian neighborhoods in the city have, in practice, much more freedom about what they do with their property.

A Revealing Dialogue About What Trump Supporters Think is Not Great About America

A friend posted a Statista poll on Facebook. The lead finding was in response to this question: "Compared to 50 years ago, life in America today is ...".  Clinton supporters said "better" by a margin of 59 - 19%; Trump supporters said "worse" by a margin of 81 to 11%.

In the comment thread, I asked "What is it that Trump supporters think is worse today?" My friend, humorously, responded "Apparently everything and it is all Obama's fault?" 

The dialogue that interests me today is what happened next.  A guy I don't know, who uses the "Don't Tread on Me" flag as his profile picture, entered the discussion.  I will call him "Tread".  I have edited the discussion that followed for concision, but not changed Tread's responses.

Tread: it actually isn't ALL Obama's fault. He had help. LOTS of help

Me: To do what, exactly?

Tread: nothing good

Me: But, specifically, what is worse now than in the early '60s? By nearly every measure of social development, with a couple of exceptions, things are much better now, especially for black people, women, handicapped people, gay and lesbian people, immigrants, youth, and educated people. The core Trump constituency - less educated white men - seems to think that making America better for all of those people (the majority of Americans) somehow has made America as a whole worse. Is that what you think?

Tread: and you are blue and I am not. there's no use arguing with you or trying to proove ANY point that is contrary to your view. So now, I stop. ... I do not want to go down the rabbit hole "to do what" 

Buck [another friend who uses "Buck the NRA" as a profile picture]:  I will venture a few guesses for you on what Trump supporters believe was better before:
1) Jobs for those who are uneducated paid a living wage ... 2) Women were more likely to stay home with kids ... 3) Being white was not a liability in any sense. ... 4) More children were born within wedlock and more of those who weren't were put up for adoption into heterosexual married homes.

Tread:  "Family Values" was a thing & so was being raised. Respect for others....and things. Traditions. [Note: the ellipses were in the original.]

Buck: I consider "political correctness" respect for others. That was most definitely NOT a thing in the 1950s.  I consider family values, valuing all families of all shapes sizes, religions, and make-ups. Not judging children on the perceived sins of their parents- in fact not judging others sinners at all.

Tread: "political correctness"... in my opinion, the single largest detriment to the continued existance to this country. It allows an encroachment of values which are opposite to the good order and continued existance of this country. That encroachment will not cease until this country mirrors certain other less desirable locales.

Buck: When I hear you complain about "encroachment", I hear equality. You are unhappy with being required to treat people you look down your nose at as if they are worthy of equal respect.

Tread: if "equal respect" means changing the values this country has held since long before you and I were born, then yes. I live in Christian country. We can coexist peacefully together, untill you try to change the values of this country from that of a Christian view to that of a value set that is directly contrary to the Christian founding principles, then yes, absolutely I find fault in it.

America's Mottoes Unite Liberal and Conservative Views of Hierarchy

I previously wrote about the finding that conservatives tend to see difference as hierarchical (better or worse), whereas liberals tend to see difference as equally valuable diversity.

I think the original motto of the United States starts from this more liberal view, then tends toward the  center.  E Pluribus Unum - Out of Many, One - starts from the great positive value of diversity.  It heads toward unity, true.  But it is not a unity of an imagined purity of the nation, but rather the hybrid vigor that comes from joining different, but equally valuable, components.

The new motto of the United States, by contrast, draws from a more hierarchical view.  In God We Trust names the most important thing.  It does not even name the alternatives.  They are not worth exploring.

The actual United States believes both.  At the human level, we are diverse and equally valuable in our origins.  At the transcendent level, we trust the one who really is hierarchically better - and Other - than the rest.

This unity, I believe, is a good centrist point.

Math is Not Racist, But Big Data Cannot Predict Individuals

Under the provocative title "Math is Racist," CNN Money reports on the work of mathematician Cathy O'Neil.  She is distressed with the way mathematical models about groups are then used to hurt individuals.  For example, the fact that the relatives of prisoners are themselves more likely to commit crimes can be used in sentencing a specific relative of a prisoner.

O'Neil is right that this is wrong, and is an injustice spurred by the increasing availability of Big Data.

The problem is one we face in sociology all the time.  I have for years made my students repeat Rule #1 of Sociology (according to me):  We make generalizations about groups, which do not necessarily apply to each individual in the group.  So, for example, it is true that the relatives of prisoners are more likely to commit crimes.  Finding that fact has been a great and important achievement of sociology.  But it would be wrong to conclude that this particular relative of a prisoner is, therefore, more likely to commit crimes.  Sociology cannot provide that fine-grained a solution.

Or, to use the simplified rule that I now teach students, sociologists are the people who understand the difference between most and all.

Is "Alt Right" the Same as "Fascist"?

I am using the term fascist advisedly, not as a general term of political abuse.

Wikipedia says alt right is "associated with white nationalism,^[1][2][7] white supremacism,^[3][8][9] antisemitism,^[1][2][10] right-wing populism,^[7] nativism,^[11] and the neoreactionary movement.^[8][12]"

Is that not the summary of fascism?

I do not think Donald Trump is a fascist, because I do not think he has many specific ideological convictions.  But he certainly has mobilized and encouraged white nationalist nativists in a way they have not had a public voice since the George Wallace campaign.

Republicans See Difference As Hierarchical

Republicans see the world as Hierarchical - that difference entails ranking into better and worse.  Democrats, by contrast, are more likely to see difference as just -- difference.

This is the finding of Jer Clifton, a doctoral student in positive psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.

This is very helpful in addressing a puzzle in my own research on why people choose the neighborhoods that they do.  People who live in the dense, walkable, mixed-use streetcar suburbs close to the city love to talk about why they chose to live there, and are curious about why others choose otherwise.  They value the vibrant diversity of their neighborhoods.

Following Clifton's finding, it is not surprising that such places tend to be strongly Democratic.  But I have found that even the Republicans in the streetcar suburbs like to talk about and think about why they live there. They are usually conservative on one or two issues - pro-life Catholics predominating in the place I study - but otherwise they are like their neighbors in appreciating difference.

Likewise, Democrats in the spread-out, car-based, residential-only, one-class outer suburbs are an easy interview to get and conduct.

The bottleneck has been in getting Republicans in the car suburbs to even agree to an interview.  When they do agree, these interviews tend to be a little more tense than the others.  The clue that Clifton's finding gives is helpful:  suburban Republicans regard the question "why do you choose to Iive where you do, while others choose to live in a different kind of place?" as implicitly a question of whether their place, and their choice, is better or worse than the choices that other people make.

Right-Wing Media Are Now the "Useful Idiots" of Russian Disinformation

Lenin described pro-Soviet liberals of his day as "useful idiots".

The Soviet Union is gone, but the Russian policy of using disinformation to unsettle democratic governments continues in full force.

Today, though, it is the right-wing media who are the most useful, and most credulous, spreaders of Russian falsehoods. In the words of Patrick Oksanen, a Swedish editorial writer after an especially virulent campaign against the Western alliance, the central idea is that “liberal democracy is corrupt, inefficient, chaotic and, ultimately, not democratic.”

The Trump campaign could not be more useful to the Kremlin if they tried.

Religious People Give More - To All Causes

The annual Burk Survey of philanthropy has come out, and once again religious involvement is one of the biggest factors in who gives to all causes, religious and otherwise.  Likewise, religious people are more likely to volunteer.

The survey did not ask how involved in a religious community the givers were, but it is a reasonable guess (and conforms to previous research) that people people who give to religious institutions and volunteer their time to one are active in that community.

The survey also has some interesting comparisons of givers and non-givers to their undergraduate college. This, recall, is a survey of donors, so these non-givers do give to some other causes, just not to their own colleges if they have one.  The main reason for non-giving:  they didn't think the college needed it as much as other causes did.

Which Entangle You - People, or Things?

I am studying cultural differences among different fractions of the middle class.  This is a class that has some choice about how it interacts with the world, and what kind of things it buys to live with.

I think one subculture regards other people, especially acquaintances and strangers who live nearby, as potential sources of unwanted entanglement.  They prefer if people keep to themselves.  The places we live and the things we own, by contrast, are valued because they enable us to do what we want.

Another subculture, though, sees other people, including acquaintances and neighbors, as the greatest source of interest and action in life.  The things we must own, by contrast, are a constant source of upkeep and a necessary burden.

I would welcome thoughts on this contrast, and what else it might map on to in social life.

Westboro Baptist Church is Like the Joker - They Just Want to Watch It Burn

I just read an interesting book, God Hates, about Westboro Baptist Church.  WBC has a hyper-Calvinist, double-predestination, antelapsarian theology.  This means that they think God damns - even hates - all sinners, and saves only a few for God's own inscrutable reason.

Westboro is not trying to change the world.  They are, at most, trying to convince the damned that they are damned, but should repent anyway.

Like the Joker in Batman, they are not trying to save the world.  Some churches just like to watch it burn.

My "Thank You, Lord, I Don't Have to ..." List Begins with "Drink"

For years I have had a mental list of things I am grateful that I do not have to do.  I always begin it with "Thank you, Lord, I don't have to own a boat" or "go skiing."

I do not think those things are bad.  I just don't want to do them, and am grateful that I do not have to.

My wife and I just read J.D. Vance's Hillbilly Elegy, about escaping his Appalachian upbringing of drinking, yelling, fighting, and running away - even while he appreciated the virtues of the fierce family loyalties of Appalachian honor culture.  I know many family trees with branches ruined by heavy drinking - my own included.

From my teen years I have been grateful for the freedom to not take part in drinking culture.  Don't get me wrong, I am not against alcohol as such.  Jesus made wine - it can't be all bad.

But I have realized that the invisible first item on my "Thank you, Lord, I don't have to ..." list has always been "drink or take drugs."

This is a great freedom of a free society.

Good News: Federal Court Invalidates NC Voter Suppression Law

As soon as the Supreme Court ended the federal supervision of voting laws enacted in the Voting Rights Act in states that used to prevent voting by African Americans, North Carolina proposed a raft of voter suppression provisions.

A federal panel reviewed the history of how the law was made, and concluded that the legislature blatantly sought to suppress those, and only those, methods of voting and voter identification most favored by African Americans.

Before enacting that law, moreover, “the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices.” After receiving that data, “the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.” Indeed, this data appears to have guided the state’s lawmakers in drafting a law that would have maximal impact on African-Americans.

This decision is good for democracy in itself.  It is also a good step in restoring the wisdom behind the Voting Rights Act that our country has had a pernicious pattern of suppressing black voting.

Strongmen Want a Conflagration

Howe and Strauss' theory of generations has long predicted the "Crisis of 2020."  The cycle of generations is now ripe for aging Baby Boomers to launch a crusade about something, which compliant Millennials will fight.

The theory does not predict that a bad thing will automatically happen in 2020.  Rather, it says that bad things happen all the time, but only when we have leaders looking for a fight and young people willing to take orders do we have the conditions that, time and again, have led to the major crises of U.S. history.

The rise of strongmen around the world is the first precondition.  Putin is the scariest, but Erdogan follows the pattern, too.  And Trump is the most likely American strongman - long on aggressive rhetoric, short on any actual plan to do something.  And to each provocation, his response is bellicose.  In response to a single man driving a truck through a crowd in France, Trump said he would declare world war.

The strongmen, and the angry base behind them, want a big fight - whether it actually addresses their problem or not.

Super Delegates are a Good Idea. The Republicans Wish They Had Had Some This Time.

Political parties in a democratic society do not themselves have to be democratic.

There is no contradiction in this claim.  The party is a private membership organization designed to win elections and pass legislation.  Anyone can join.  But only those who have joined have a legitimate claim to voice in its choices, especially of candidates.  And the wise leaders of that private organization sometimes need to overrule the choice of many voters if that choice would lose elections or make it impossible to pass legislation.

Democrats learned this the hard way in 1972.

Republicans have been so establishment-driven for, well, forever, that it never occurred to them than an insurgent could come in from outside the party to take over their under-protected candidate-selection procedure.

The same thing might have happened to Democrats this year, but the wise and timely invention of super-delegates kept a non-Democrat from seriously threatening to take the party's nomination.

The Methodist Social Creed and the Catholic Social Teaching

The choice of Tim Kaine to be Hillary Clinton's vice-president joins two active proponents of two of mainstream Christendom's most active social uplift doctrines.

The Methodist Church has always been active against social evils, from the days of John and Charles Wesley's opposition to slavery.  A core principle of the current United Methodist Social Creed is

We believe in the right and duty of persons to work for the glory of God and the good of themselves and others and in the protection of their welfare in so doing; in the rights to property as a trust from God, collective bargaining, and responsible consumption; and in the elimination of economic and social distress.

Catholic Social Teaching is an even more developed theory and practice of the just order of society, organized around a "preferential option for the poor."

Using the power of government to lift up "the least of these" is what Methodist and Catholic politicians have been doing for all of American history.

The Ban on Non-Profits Endorsing Candidates is Good for the Church

Donald Trump says that "an amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson, many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocated their political views."

Trump's claim is mostly false - religious institutions often advocate their political views.  What they can't do is advocate voting for specific candidates. Moreover, the law that Johnson pushed was not aimed at religious institutions, but rather at red-baiting McCarthyite organizations.  Since the law covered all tax-exempt non-profits, it also covered religious institutions. 

I think this law is actually very good for the churches.  I expect my church and pastor to promote decency and justice, which sometimes mean taking a side in a political argument.  However, that is different from endorsing or opposing specific candidates.  Candidates are people with a mix of vices and virtues - some of which will only be revealed in the future.  The potential for corruption in the short run, and embarrassment in the long run, of allying the church with specific candidates, is very great.  

The current law, which was not made for or about religious institutions, has worked to our advantage.

The Diseases of Aging Are Declining - Not Sure Why, But We'll Take It

I often lift up improvements in the world which are the result of deliberate efforts at betterment.

But there are also things that are improving for unclear reasons.  Several of the diseases of aging - colon cancer, broken hips, dementia - are all down.  Researchers don't really know why.

They conclude that it is probably the result of everything - deliberate effort, unintended consequences, cause X.

I will believe that we should keep doing the right thing, and we will probably be helped by Providence, too.

The Gun-Obsessed Got Their Way In Dallas

The gun-obsessed want everyone to be able to have heavy weapons for two reasons.

First, to defend themselves if the government becomes oppressive.

Second, to defend themselves against a bad guy with a gun.

The Dallas gunman who shot police did so because he believed that the police had become oppressive to black men like him.

The peaceful Black Lives Matter event that he shot up was faced with some twenty open-carry protesters who had their assault weapons on full display.  When the shooting started, they did nothing to stop the bad guy with a gun.  Instead they ran away, like everyone else.

Everyone, that is, except the actual "well-regulated militia," the police force.

Worse, the guys running around with their big guns showing interfered with the police figuring out which guy with a big gun was the bad guy that day.

Brexit Leaders Quit When They Realize What a Mess They Have Made

Boris Johnson and Nicholas Farage led the effort to vote Britain out of the European Union. They won.

Then the economic costs started coming in.

Boris Johnson, who was poised to become Prime Minister after driving out his own party leader, decided he didn't want to preside over the mess he created.

And Nicholas Farage, the head of the United Kingdom Independence Party which exists entirely to win the Brexit fight, has also quit.

The news is full of Brits who voted for Brexit as a protest against "elites" and "bureaucrats telling us what to do" who now regret it.

The lesson for Americans?  Voting for Trump as a protest could have actual disastrous consequences. Elections are not a game.  And we don't get a do-over.

Brexit and Superorganisms

The glory of human beings is that we create super-organisms of non-kin who work together for common purposes.  These super-organisms must create loyalty to their shared community.  The bigger the community, the harder the work of imagination this loyalty requires.

The European Union is one of the most ambitious acts of imagination ever attempted.  Unlike nation-states or multinational empires, the idea of the EU was not backed by force.  Rather, it used the softer powers of capitalism to create ties, and the even softer - but deeper - power of a common cosmopolitan culture to create a feeling of Europeanness.  The EU has been a great force for peace, especially in Europe, for which it was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2012.

The surprising British vote to leave the European Union is a step back from the great experiment of a super-organism held together by soft power.  I believe this is a loss for the world.

With Flexible Policies, There is No "Happiness Penalty" for Parents

A study by sociologists Jennifer Glass, Robin Simon, and Matthew Andersson compared the happiness levels of parents and non-parents in 22 countries.  In the U.S., parents pay a happiness penalty in several ways.

In other countries, though, there was no gap.  What those countries, such as Norway and Hungary, offer are flexible policies, such as paid sick leave, which help parents make work/family balance work better.

Moreover, the policies that helped most were not the big-ticket items that some countries have tried.  Direct subsidies to parents, for example, were less effective than leave policies that were available to parents and non-parents alike.

Another Small Step to One United America: Southern Baptist Convention Urges Members to Remove the Rebel Flag from Church

The Southern Baptist Convention, which was born to preserve slavery and only apologized for that position in 1995, has taken another step toward the national mainstream: proposing to ban the rebel flag from its sanctuaries.

The SBC is a congregational polity, so it lacks the authority to require its member congregations to do anything.  But the convention as a whole has taken a stand, and urges its thousands of local branches to follow suit.

Good News: Support for Assault Weapons Ban Grows

Very few countries in the world allow civilians to own assault weapons, and only one does so with practically no restrictions (that one would be the world leader in mass shootings).  Guns and Ammo made a list of the "10 Best Countries for Gun Owners," and even in that list only five readily allow semiautomatic weapon ownership at all.

Most Americans support a ban on assault weapons.  That proportion ticked up to 58%, as it does after each mass shooting.

The experience of Australia in effectively ending mass shooters gives all countries hope.

Cosmopolitanism May Solve Group Bias, But at the Risk of Meaninglessness

We all live in groups and take part of our identity from them.  We tend to identify with our groups.  And, as a result, we tend to be biased toward our group, and against out-groups.

Being biased against other groups is a problem of alienation. The Other stands over-against us.  Marxism is centrally concerned with problems of alienation.

Liberalism is centrally concerned with overcoming bias against other groups by treating others (and oneself) as individuals. The liberal solution to the problem of parochial attachment only to my group is to become a cosmopolitan, a citizen of the world, not bound by any group.

However, if we are not tied to any group, we face another problem: anomie. Anomie is the sense that there is no law (nomos), no order, no meaning, no "there" there.  We look into the abyss of meaninglessness.  Durkheimianism is centrally concerned with anomie.

What Does It Mean to Say "I Do Not Have to Be Politically Correct?" It Means "I Have No Duty to Care for the Harmed"

I have been puzzling over what people who object to "political correctness" are objecting to.  Donald Trump says he "doesn't have time" to be politically correct.  This seems to be the trait that his supporters most admire.

Jonathan Haidt's research on liberals and conservatives found that the moral foundation that most resonates with liberals is caring for those who have been harmed.  Liberals feel a special duty to  those who have been harmed by powers and privileges that liberals themselves have benefited from.  This, I believe, is the heart of what it means to be politically correct.

So what is it that Mr. Trump and his followers get out of rejecting political correctness?  They reject any ethical duty to care for the harmed.

They reach this conclusion by two routes.

The first is to deny that anyone has been harmed.  If everyone is an individual who can succeed by his or her own efforts, then whatever condition people find themselves in is just.  They deny that there are structures of power or privilege which benefit some groups and harm others.

The second is to claim that they, the privileged, have also been harmed - especially due to "reverse discrimination" by liberals trying to help those previously harmed by power and privilege.

The Best Way to Fight the Demagogues? Know, and Say, The World is Getting Better

What makes reactionaries, reactionaries is that they view all change as decline.  It is not surprising that they are doomsayers - that is their slogan and recruiting strategy.

But it is a contradiction when progressive don't believe in progress.  They should be the most devoted to seeing hope in change.

In this moment it is left to centrists to see that, in a thousand important ways, the world is getting better.

As Greg Easterbrook said in a recent well-named piece, "When Did Optimism Become Uncool?", the problem is that "the lack of optimism in contemporary liberal and centrist thinking opens the door to Trump-style demagogy."

Silver Lining: Trump Nomination Leads to Huge Increases in Hispanic Naturalization and Voter Registration

The rate at which Hispanic immigrants are becoming naturalized citizens has picked up dramatically this year, doubling rates seen even last year.

And the rate of Hispanic registration to vote, both among recent and long-time citizens, is also way up, tripling in some places.

All of which is an unexpected benefit of Donald Trump's likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president.

There is almost always a silver lining, even in dark events.

The World Is Drinking A Bit Less Booze

For the first time in ten years, worldwide alcohol consumption went down.  The drop, about 1.7% compared to last year, includes Eastern Europe, notorious for its high rates of alcoholism.

Unfortunately, drinking rates in the U.S. continue to rise.

Still, a worldwide decrease in the use of the most damaging drug is good news.

Longer Living Through Sociology: The Oldest American is a Sociologist

From the American Sociological Association Newsletter

The oldest person in the U.S., 113-year-old Goldie Michelson, received a master's degree in sociology from Clark University in Worcester. Her thesis was titled "A Citizenship Survey of Worcester Jewry" and examined why many of the city's older Jewish-immigrant residents did not pursue American citizenship or learn English.

The Ironic Effect of the Gay Marriage Debate Has Been to Make Liberals More Pro-Marriage

A decade ago it was common for liberals to consider whether all "personal relationships" should be considered not only equally valid choices, but equally good in their effects on the adults and their children.

At the same time, though, the most successful argument for same-sex marriage touted the importance of marriage for the couple, their children, and society as a whole.

As a result, liberals, who almost by definition opposed the ban on same-sex marriage, came to talk less about the irrelevance of marriage, and more about marriage as a right for all and a benefit to society.

Sociology Understands the Difference Between "Most People" and "Each Person"

The hardest part of teaching sociology is getting students to see how we can make generalizations about groups which are true of the group in general, without being true of each in individual in the group.

One teachable aphorism I came up with this year is "Sociology Understands the Difference Between 'Most' and 'All'".

Today a refinement of that aphorism came to me, which appears in the title of this post.

White resentment of African Americans is a strong predictor of support for Donald Trump.

This survey found that, on a 17-point scale, a majority of white Republicans fell into the top four levels of racial resentment, and fully a quarter took the most extreme position.

If you can't see the whole chart in your browser, please follow the link to the original article.

White Against Black 

Whites were surveyed and placed on a 17-point scale that gauges the racial resentment they feel toward African-Americans. Here is the percentage of Democrats, independents and Republicans who fell into the least resentful (having a positive view of blacks) and most resentful ends of the scale. 

24%

of white Republicans were at the extreme end of the resentment scale.

20%

Democrats

Independents

Republicans

15

10

5

LEVEL OF RESENTMENT:

Most

Most

Most

Least

Least

Least

22

42

58

23%

10%

0.4%

of Democrats

Source: Analysis of American National Election Studies survey data, collected by YouGov, by Drew Engelhardt and Marc Hetherington, Vanderbilt University 

By The New York Times 

Why Powerful Women Might Stay After His Affair

I was not surprised that Hillary Clinton stayed with Bill Clinton after his affair with Monica Lewinsky was exposed (nor the affairs before that).  I read her, then and now, as an equal player in a power couple.  I am sure she was mad as hell, and with ample justification.  I don't know how, exactly, they reconciled, though I believe their reconciliation is real.

Josie Pickens makes a similar argument in The Daily Beast about why Beyoncé would stay with her husband after he cheated on her - as she seems to be saying in the album/film Lemonade. She is an equal player in a power couple. They still have things to do together.

Pickens writes:

A woman can now choose to stay in a marriage after partner's affair because it's good for business and her whole life trajectory.

The Rich Live Longer and Marry Better Because They Act on Knowledge

The rich live longer than the poor.  But they didn't always. It seems to be that knowledge of how to live in a healthier way - and, especially, to not take up self-destructive habits - is the key.  The rich got that knowledge sooner, and acted on it more effectively.

Knowledge-as-power is a two way street.  People who act on knowledge that helps you live longer are also likely to get richer and gain higher status, regardless of where they started.  And their kids start out with the advantage of parents who set a good example.

I think the same is true of marriage.  The rich are more likely to be married, to marry before they have kids, and to stay married, than are the poor.  I believe this is because they are more likely to have better knowledge of how to be married and how advantageous marriage is to the couple and their kids.  Most importantly, the rich are more likely to act on the knowledge they have.

And the same two-way street analogy applies.  The knowledgeable live longer and marry better.

The Non-Marital Birth Rate is Falling in Eastern Europe

The different regions of Europe have long had different marriage and marital birth rates.  The Scandinavians had more non-marital births before the welfare state and secularization.  The Eastern Europeans had fewer even before communism.

In general, the non-marital birth rate has been rising in Europe.  The Nordic countries may have peaked, with just over half of children now born out of wedlock.

The really interesting development, though, is that the non-marital birth rate is falling in Eastern Europe.  As the weight of communist anti-religion is lifting and new generations rebuild old traditions of the region, Eastern Europe bucks the trend of the rest of Europe.