Detailed Abstractions

In news that shouldn’t be necessary, but probably is, a Democratic group ran a focus group to see if racism was involved in the conservative opposition to President Obama’s policies (@Politico.com):

Racism is not a factor driving conservative opposition to President Barack Obama, according to the results of focus groups conducted by Democracy Corps, a Democratic organization, released on Friday….

It’s amazing they had to study that specifically as if studying the fact thirsty humans like water, but it’s a very good thing it was done and publicly reported.

Of course are this  is a political focus group, they continue:

…Nevertheless, members of the conservative base of the GOP said they believe the president is pursuing a “secret agenda” designed to push the country toward socialism.

“This is a pretty dominant view in the Republican Party,” said Democratic strategist James Carville, who worked on the report.

Rather than attributing their dislike of Obama to race, participants in the focus groups, which were a project of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, said that their disaffection was borne out of a sense that the president was orchestrating an effort to steer the country away from its “founding principles.”…

Notice how they seemingly conflate “socialism” with moving away from “founding principles”, but overall they are stating what most knew – the opposition is honestly and truly focused on ideas.

But it can’t stop there.  It goes on to say things like the GOP wants Mr. Obama to fail, which differs from Independents in that the GOP seems to have an ethical imperative to prevent the move away from the founding principles.   Because of this, the report states:

…“On virtually every point of discussion around President Obama and the major issues facing our country, these two audiences simply saw the world in fundamentally different ways — underscoring the extreme disconnect of the conservative Republican base voters,” the report’s authors wrote….

The idea there is an extreme disconnect is an interesting conclusion, but it’s not presented by any facts in the report. This doesn’t mean this conclusion is false, but from the data they are allowing us to see, it doesn’t prove it true.  In fact, over 1/2 the country is against the current health care reforms being pushed by the White House which seems to contradict their conclusion on at least one topic.

Additionally the comparison they are using between GOP voters and Independents seems week.  Not only do I need to understand more about the the specifics in relationship to answers & questions to properly analyze, but also need to understand what they define as “Independent” as self-described Independent voters aren’t a monolithic organization which can be easily used to make an easy comparison.

Not only that, but my understanding from political insiders, there aren’t near as many independent voters as there are people who tell us they are independent.  Most independents vote like everyone else.  They follow a pretty tight party line vote on their representatives because one party is closer to their beliefs than the other.   They might be more likely to switch, but they are almost as consistent as party members.

& honestly, being consistent shouldn’t be a true issue.  A true “independent” would seem to be a description of a wishy-washy kind of way of dealing with politics in general.  I’ll grant for those truly in this category, it’s much easier to watch the winds blow and point yourself in that appropriate direction than to honestly question the philosophical underpinnings of any administration or policy and stick to your beliefs, but it shouldn’t be held up as some standard of centric thought.

When talking to some of these people one gets the idea that they are simply conflict avoidant.  That some have a strange belief that having a specific philosophy only ends with a close-minded person incapable of compromise.

It’s the opposite though – having a philosophy doesn’t mean you have to be dogmatic in every single thing.  It does mean you have to work for logically consistent beliefs which agree with your values.  It also means, that if new facts are shown to prove one of your beliefs incorrect, you have to honestly rethink that position. & most importantly it means, you hold not only your opposition to those standards, but also your leaders.

With our society today however, it’s seems many of us are more comfortable simply saying “I’m for X and against Y, regardless of inconsistencies” than they are in doing the work required to build a true foundation of beliefs from which to work from.

What they miss, is that they have a philosophy by their very actions.  Observers will view others’ actions & decisions over time and can make true statements as to their basic set of beliefs, consistent or not.

The question therefore isn’t, what philosophy will I have, but will that philosophy be contained within a consistent framework based upon my values and views on morality, or will that philosophy only be based upon prevailing thoughts?

But I digress – there is still great news in the report.  The fact the Democratic leadership is learning what most of us already understood can only help current public debates.

This has been written about all over the place and discussed ad infinitum, most of it conjecture based on prior opinions or potential political gain/loss.

& of course, since most humans seem to have this weird thing where our focus can move from the important to the seemingly mundane, we’re not discussing the SCOTUS nominee committee vote,  the pending health care bill, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russian’s & Germany’s resurgence in Europe, or any of the other things that should weigh on our thoughts.

Nope – the number one story seems to be about President Obama and the Gates situation.

Nothing can tell us more about race relations in the US than our own President injecting race along side a Harvard professor, Jesse Jackson, and others.

As most have figured out, it was a mistake for Mr. Obama to disucss a situation with which he was obviously unfamiliar.  The only exceptions of course, from those who believe Mr. Obama can do no wrong (here, here, etc, etc)  & those who use race to judge most other things (see confirmation bias).

What do we know?

Gates has said he returned from an overseas trip, found the door jammed, and that he and his driver attempted to force it open. Gates went through the back door and was inside the house on the phone with the property’s management company when police arrived.

Police said he flew into a verbal rage after Sgt. James Crowley, who is white, asked him to show identification to prove he should be in the home. Police say Gates accused Crowley of racial bias, refused to calm down and was arrested. The charge was dropped Tuesday, but Gates has demanded an apology, calling his arrest a case of racial profiling.

Gates, 58, maintains he turned over identification when asked to do so by the police. He said Crowley arrested him after the professor followed him to the porch, repeatedly demanding the sergeant’s name and badge number because he was unhappy over his treatment.

Crowley has refused to apologize, saying he followed protocol.

As is clear through the discrepancy of stories, either the police are colluding to lie, or Mr. Gates is lying.

Depending upon several factors in your personal life, most people will likely lean towards a “belief” decision on who’s lying (not a rational one). This decision will be based on our experiences with both race and police, as well as our current world view.

If one expects cops to act in racist ways because they believe in institutional racism, they will see this as further proof they are correct.

If one has had direct negative type contact with police, they will likely be more than willing to believe the cops are lying.

The question we must ask ourselves if what is the most likely answer (Occam’s Razor)?

Is it more likely that officer Crowley, a decorated officer who trains others in racial profiling:

Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley, the cop at the center of a firestorm over the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., has taught a racial profiling class at the Lowell Police Academy for five years….

Who enjoys the benefit of having an eye witness, a fellow cop to be sure, but since race apparently matters:

A black police officer who was at Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s home when the black Harvard scholar was arrested says he fully supports how his white fellow officer handled the situation.

Sgt. Leon Lashley says Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as officers investigated a report of a burglary. Lashley says Gates’ reaction to Crowley was “a little bit stranger than it should have been.”

Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said supported Crowley “100 percent.”…

Or, one other person, the Harvard professor Mr. Gates.

It seems logical to give two people’s story more weight than that of one person without additional evidence to prove otherwise, but most people will decide based upon miscellaneous factors described above.

Another non-event blow-up due to our irrational racial biases.

As you’ve undoubtedly heard from several sources, one of the problems with the sub-prime lending crisis was the scourge of racism.  Several studies showed that sub-prime borrowing occurred mostly in poorer metropolitan communities.

In March of 2007 USA Today (article):

…But Hispanics and African-Americans were far more likely to leverage the American dream with subprime loans — higher-cost products for buyers with impaired credit — that are now going bad at an alarming rate….

In March of 2007 on NPR (article):

…says Mary Moore, a spokeswoman from the Center for Responsible Lending…

…They’re less likely to have a college education and more likely to be a minority, especially black or Hispanic…

In July of 2007, the NAACP filed suit (here):

The NAACP filed suit in Los Angeles federal court against 14 of the country’s largest lenders, alleging systematic, institutionalized racism in sub-prime home mortgage lending.

December 2007 from Senator  Cardin (here):

…This is because statistics show that nationwide in 2005, more than 54 percent of loans to African Americans and 46 percent of loans to Latinos were subprime loans.

But minorities did not necessarily receive subprime loans because of lower credit scores or lower incomes.  Five years ago, the Center for Community Change, a non-profit consumer advocacy group, issued a report entitled, “Risk or Race?”  It demonstrated that subprime lenders target minority communities and that African-Americans and Latinos pay higher loan rates than whites with similar incomes.

This entire reaction was based upon faulty logic.  Some people and organizations had a certain belief and took some correlative studies to prove their preconceptions.  So they safely ignored that when you take things out of context such as “49% of subprime loans go to minorities” without asking further questions such as:

1. Was there a difference between minority buyers and white buyers with similar credit scores?
2. What percentage of total buyers where minorities at the time the studies were taken?

You are not really answering the question you think you are.

Not that this will stop some, but to actually find the truth, the NY Fed conducted their own study.

New York Fed report (WSJ here):

The paper addresses concerns regarding lenders that may have targeted minority borrowers, enticing them into costlier loans between 2004 and 2006, the peak period of subprime lending.

Based on a sample of 75,000 adjustable-rate mortgages, researchers at the New York Fed say they find “no evidence of adverse pricing by race, ethnicity, or gender in either the initial rate or the reset margin.”

“If any pricing differential exists, minority borrowers appear to pay slightly lower rates, as do those borrowers in Zip codes with a larger percentage of black or Hispanic residents or a higher unemployment rate,” the paper added.

However,  when people are already convinced about their preconceived notions and race-baters now having a monetary reason to continue the myth, I doubt any of those organizations or people will recognize the reality of the situation.

As much as they don’t want to admit it – the United States does not have the institutional racism they continue to claim.

Please note:  This doesn’t mean there isn’t any racism at all, because there obviously is.  Real racists should be mocked and ridiculed and shunned by normal society.  I can’t think of anything dumber than a racist.  Of course when you’re paying attention to made up racism – it’s very easy to lose sight of real racism.