The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
 TeasersiSteve Blog
/
2004 Election

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

[The Sailer Election 2004 Series: Sailer Strategy Wins Another For GOP—But How Much Longer?; Bush Didn't Win 44% of Hispanic Vote —The Smoking Exit Poll; Another Nail In The Coffin Of Bush's “44% Hispanic Share”; I Told You So Department: Only Bush Boosters NowBelieve 44% Hispanic Vote Myth]

It may not be as flashy as Powerlineblog.com‘s rout of Dan Rather. But I really have to congratulate me (and VDARE.COM) for routing the exit poll-fuelled media myth that George Bush made a big breakthrough among Hispanics this year.

The internet rules!

Edison-Mitofsky, the firm that conducted the troubled 2004 National Exit Poll (NEP), has now issued a long report (PDF) reviewing its own performance. It offers some important nuggets about what really happened last November.

  • E-M’s analysis of the exaggerated Bush share of the Hispanic vote (pp. 59-62) confirms my diagnosis of what went wrong, as I elaborated in VDARE.com, see above).

As I’d discerned, Bush did better among Hispanics on the long form questionnaire that Edison-Mitosfsky had given out at 250 polling stations (total sample size of 12,219) than on the short form questionnaire distributed at 1,469 locations (sample size of 75,537).

The long form exaggerated the national and regional Bush share of the Hispanic vote—especially the bizarrely high figure in the South region, where Bush supposedly won 64% of the Hispanic vote, even though he carried only 56 percent in Florida and 49 percent in Texas. (Which was reduced from the initial announcement of 59 percent).

Nationally, Bush supposedly lost among Hispanics only by 53-44 on the long questionnaire, but got whipped 58-40 on the larger sample size short form.

Back on November 7, I wrote: “The big difficulty with an exit poll is coming up with a representative sample of polling places. Apparently, the NEP failed to do this.” That’s exactly what went wrong with the National/Regional exit poll’s Hispanic share, as Edison-Mitofsky now admit.

  • The Edison-Mitofsky report also contains an interesting table (p. 59) showing six more demographic groups where the widelypublicized National figure for Bush’s share disagreedsubstantially with the sum of the State exit polls.

Here’s Bush’s share for each:

National States
(Small Sample) (Large Sample)
Hispanic 44% 40%
Asian 44% 39%
Age 75+ 45% 48%
Jewish 25% 22%
Mormon 80% 76%
Muslim 6% 13%
Income >$200,000 63% 60%

All of these are small and geographically-clustered groups. So the sum of the State exit polls is inherently more trustworthy and than the smaller sample size National poll.

My comments:

  • The Asian mirage. The news, reduced Asian share is worth noting in the context of the President’s plan to increase immigration. Here’s a largely prosperous, law-abiding, and socially conservative “model minority.” Yet Asian-Americans apparently can’t stand Mr. Bush. They gave him only 39percent of their votes, compared to 58 percent among non-Hispanic whites.
  • The Neoconservative Mirage. Bush’s 22 percent share of the Jewish vote, although reduced from the small sample estimate, is of course slightly better than the 19 percent he achieved in 2000. But then, John Edwards had replaced JoeLieberman as the Democrat’s VP nominee. So you’d expect a Republican to win back some conservative and moderate Jews who liked Lieberman. Compared to how well Republicans didfrom 1976 through 1988, when their share of the Jewish vote ranged from 31 percent to 39 percent, 22 percent is very bad.

And, when you consider how much of the neoconservative invade-the-world-invite-the world foreign and immigration policies Bush adopted as his own—well, 22 percent is unbelievably awful.

What this shows is that neoconservatives can make a big noise, but they can’t deliver the vote. With Jews casting only 3 percent of all votes, the neoconservative vote comes out to only 2/3rds of one percent of the electorate.

To put in Texan terms the President ought to understand, the neoconservatives are all hat and no cattle.

  • The Muslim Mirage: It’s not surprising that there’s a big difference between the small sample and large sample figures for Bush’s share of the Muslim vote (6 percent vs. 13 percent), because the total quite tiny—only 1 percent (compared to 3 percent for Jews). And of course, that’s rounded. It would be useful to learn whether the unrounded Muslim proportion of the total vote was actually closer to 0.5 percent or 1.4 percent—in the 2002 election, it was only 0.3 percent.

Either way, it’s not worth Grover Norquist’s time.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2004 Election 
🔊 Listen RSS

Right after my VDARE.COM article “Democrats Recoil From GOP’s Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children” came out last Sunday, VDARE.COM contributor Randall Burns pointed out to me an amazing online resource for anyone interested in differences between Red (Republican) and Blue (Democratic) states:LaboratoryoftheStates.com.

This database contains 377 different measures per state, from Alcohol Consumption per Capita to Welsh per Capita. And it will calculate thecorrelations among them.

At Randall’s suggestion, the editors of the website added the demographic measures—marriage and fertility—that I had showed correlated closely with Bush’s 2004 performance. This allowed me to see how they stacked up against all the other measures the websitehad accumulated.

I was enthralled to hear about this new toy, but a little worried. With that many different variables, surely there would be several that correlated with GOP performance better than the factor I had trumpeted in my last article.

As you may recall, I had announced that the average years married between ages 18 through 44 among white women correlated remarkably with Bush’s share of the vote.

When combined in a multiple regression model with the numbers of babies per white woman, the fit with the election results was astonishing.

Well, much to my relief, my Years Married measure came in first out of all 377 as the variable that best correlates with Bush’s performance by state, and by a wide margin.

The Laboratory of the States website came up with an incredible correlation coefficient of r = 0.95, even higher than the r = 0.91 correlation I reported on Sunday.

(The difference is that they took the logarithm of the Years Married, a standard statistical technique.)

Here’s their scatterplot. (You’ll find Washington D.C. way down in the lower left corner, but right on the best fit line through the 50 states.)

I know this will make me sound like a total stat geek. (I guess I am, so I won’t try to hide it.) But to find a correlation coefficient of 0.95between measures as distinctive as Bush’s Share and Years Married is absurdly exciting. Professional social scientists can go their whole careers without coming close to uncovering a correlation of 0.95 between nontrivial variables.

The other demographic factor that I have emphasized, as in my earlier American Conservative article Baby Gap—the average number of babies per white woman — came in third out of 377. By taking the log of it, they found it correlated at an r = 0.89. (Here’s their scatterplot.)

Now I should point out that one reason these correlation coefficients are so bogglingly high is that they include Washington D.C. along with the 50 states.

Statistically, D.C. is an extreme outlier (Bush won only 9% of the vote there) because it’s not a state, combining blue cities and red rural expanses, but a pure true-blue city.

Because D.C. is such an anomaly compared to the states, it is weighted very heavily in calculating the correlation coefficients. This leads to some strange findings.

For example, the percentage of immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa delivers the tenth strongest correlation with Bush’s share at r = -0.78. (More African immigrants, the worse Bush did.) That is mostly a product of heavily-weighted D.C. having the nation’s largest African immigrant community. But, even there, they still make up a relatively significant fraction of the population of the nation’s capital. It’s unlikely that the causal connection between having many Africanimmigrants and voting against Bush is truly so strong.

So it’s also worth looking at the correlation rankings among just the 50 states excluding Washington D.C. This makes the percentage of African immigrants fall to a more plausible 84th out of 377 correlations, at -0.51.

In contrast, even without D.C. in the database, my two measures still come in first and third. That shows that my model of voting behavior is robust. Years Married leads by a wide margin, at r = 0.87, while TotalFertility is third at 0.81.

Remember, those are still almost stratospheric correlation coefficients. It’s common to describe correlations of 0.20 as “low,” 0.40 as “medium,” and 0.60 as “high.”

What’s cause and what’s effect? The arrow of causality probably points in both directions.

Being conservative seems to increase Americans’ desire for marriage and children. Conversely, being married and having children makes people more likely to be politically conservative, because they have more that’s worth conserving.

From the GOP’s perspective, it’s a virtuous circle.

Which makes it all the odder that the Bush Administration wants to open the borders, which would reduce wages and drive up housing prices, punishing those voters who would like to get married and startfamilies if they can afford it.

Note that, tellingly, in second place as an indicator of GOP predilection, in between Years Married and Total Fertility, is

  • the growth in housing prices between 1980 and 2004. The coefficient is -0.82.

The negative sign means that the more housing prices have risen, the more Democratic the state was.

For example, housing prices in Massachusetts, the most Democratic state in the 2004 election, rose 516%, the highest home inflation in the country.

In Utah, the most Republican state, house prices were up only 162%.

Expensive housing retards family formation, which helps the Democrats. Rising housing prices transfer wealth from young people to old people.

Importing more foreigners, as the Bush Administration suicidally wants to do, drives up the price of homes by increasing demand.

That makes it harder for young voters to start down the road to homeownership, marriage, babies—and committed Republicanism.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2004 Election 
🔊 Listen RSS

There is a little-known movement sweeping across the United States.The movement is “maritalism.”

Okay—that’s pretty silly.

But if demographic trend impresario David Brooks can use my number-crunching in his Dec. 7th New York Times op-ed “The New Red-Diaper Babies” to claim:

“There is a little-known movement sweeping across the United States. The movement is ‘natalism’”

then can’t I cash in with my own buzzword too?

Brooks declared “natalism” to be A New Trend in part because of me. He wrote:

“So there are significant fertility inequalities across regions… You can see surprising political correlations. As Steve Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative,George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest whitefertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates.”

Of course, in reality, there’s no organized “natalist movement.” But it’s a marketable catchphrase on which Brooks can hang articles and lucrative lectures.

So, needing the money more than he does, I’m going to coin the term “maritalist movement” even though there’s no Movement with a capital M either—just people who are married.

This article is a sequel to my cover story, “Baby Gap: How Birthrates Color the Electoral Map” in the Dec. 20, 2004 American Conservative. I can now reveal on VDARE.COM some new and improved insights into the two underlying demographic factors that molded, to a quiteastonishing degree, the last two Presidential elections.

Two factors, because being married turns out to be even more important than having babies.

Let me fill in the recent history. My AmCon piece has been getting a lot of attention because it’s the first major conceptual breakthrough in understanding the much-discussed divide between “red states”(Republican) and “blue states” (Democrat).

Here’s a scatter plot illustrating my original correlation in “Baby Gap” between voting by state and the expected number of babies per white woman over her lifetime. Red dots represent the red states and blue dots the blue states. The correlation coefficient of Bush’s share of the total vote in a state and the number of babies per white woman is r = 0.86, meaning that this relationship “accounts for” 74 percent of variance (r-squared = 74 percent).

(Here is a fairly simple explanation of what “correlation” means, in the statistical sense. Also, to help you visualize the geography of my 2004 correlation, Ethan Herdrick has graciously constructed a nifty map.)

This is an extraordinarily close connection. But it’s no one-time fluke. As I pointed out on VDARE.COM back in 2001, Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility in 2000.

And the strength of the relationship has been growing with time. Back in 1988, the correlation between white fertility and George H.W. Bush’s share of the vote by state was r = 0.71 (r-squared = 51%). That was only about 70 percent as powerful as the correlation withGeorge W. Bush’s share in 2004. [Here's the data for the data hounds]

Why do voters follow these patterns? Because blue regions tend to be more densely populated and racially diverse—which raises the cost of both capacious housing and safe schooling. This makes children harder to afford. Bigger families make red staters more open to voting on the GOP’s “family values” issues. (My American Conservative article explains the mechanisms in detail.)

Do Democrats want to learn the secrets underlying voter behavior and figure out how to beat the Republicans?

Or do they just want to congratulate themselves on their morally superior ignorance…and keep losing?

Answer: the latter, judging by liberals’ reaction to my discovery so far. A frenzy of Democrats’ denunciations of my finding have rained down, all predicated on the assumption that they can ignore what I discovered because … I’m evil.

There’s a classic example of anti-Sailerism over at TAPPED, the blog of the liberal American Prospect, by Garance Franke-Ruta. She is in a tizzy that Brooks defiled the pages of the New York Times by citingme.

The defining characteristic of anti-Sailerist diatribes like Franke-Ruta’s is multitudinous quotations from my writings with no attempt at refutation of their truth. The reader is simply supposed to be shocked, SHOCKED that anyone would dare write such politically incorrectthings.

A few times, Franke-Ruta gets so worked up she can’t even be bothered to quote me out of context. I was particularly amused that she included my AmCon article’s concluding paragraph in full:

“Nobody noticed that the famous blue-red gap was a white baby gap because the subject of white fertility is considered disreputable. But I believe the truth is better for us than ignorance, lies, or wishful thinking. At least,it’s certainly more interesting.”

Apparently, by revealing that I believe that the truth is better for usthan ignorance, lies, or wishful thinking, I’ve condemned myself in the eyes of all of polite society.

No refutation of my shocking faux pas is needed. All bien-pensants can instantly see how much better it is to bask in reputable ignorance.

In 1942, George Orwell famously observed of this manner of thinking:

“Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as ‘the truth’ exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as ‘Science.’ There is only ‘German Science,’ ‘JewishScience,’ etc… This prospect frightens me much more than bombs—and after our experiences of the last few years that is not such a frivolous statement.”

Democrats, of course are not Nazis—they are the only organized American opposition to the Bush dynasty. But if they prefer to wallow in self-congratulatory bigotry, they simply won’t be able to provide the effective competition our country needs.

Enough of the past. Here’s what I’ve found that’s brand new.

There is another demographic factor that correlates at the state leveleven more tightly than white fertility with Bush’s share: being married.

And, when years married is teamed with fertility in a two-factormultiple regression model, the correlation becomes stratospheric.

The more years of their young adulthoods that the white people in a state spend in wedlock on average, the more Republican the state is overall.

I figured out how to estimate by state the expected number of yearsbetween the ages of 18 and 44 that a woman will be married (to be precise, married with her husband present).

For example, white women in Utah, where Bush had his best showing with 71 percent of the total vote, led the nation by being married an average of 17.0 years during those 27 years from age 18 through 44.

In contrast, in Washington D.C., where Bush only took 9 percent, theaverage white woman is married only 7.4 years. In Massachusetts, where Bush won merely 37 percent, her years married average just 12.2.

California is next at 12.5. That coincides with my observations: four of my seven best friends from my Los Angeles high school’s class of 1976 did not get married for the first time until this millennium, when they were in their forties.

Marriage in L.A. is increasingly reverting to what it was in Jane Austen’s novels: a luxury that many cannot currently—and some maynever—afford.

(For The Onion’s satirical views on the increasing age of marriage, click here.)

Indeed, there is much more diversity among states in years of marriage than in years of education—a factor that is frequently discussed although it is less politically significant.

Leaving anomalous Washington D.C. aside, the range between the state with the most-educated whites (Hawaii with 14.2 years ofschooling on average) and the worst (West Virginia with 12.2) is only 42% as large as the Utah-Massachusetts gap in years married.

Overall, Bush carried the top 25 states ranked on years married for white women. The correlation coefficient with Bush’s share of the vote is 0.91, or 83 percent of the variation “explained.” That’s extremely high. Years married also correlates with the 2000 election results at the 0.89 level (80 percent). So it’s no fluke.

The r-squared when years married and fertility are combined in a multiple regression model is improves to 88 percent. (Small-sounding change, perhaps, but actually an important (30%) reduction in the unaccounted variation – from 17 percent to 12 percent.)

In other words, both years married and fertility play statisticallysignificant roles, with years married somewhat more important.

Not surprisingly, years married and number of babies per woman is highly correlated (r = 0.80, r-squared = 65 percent). On bothmeasures, Utah is first and D.C. last.

However, there are some differences.

Southern states tend to have quite early marriage, but only somewhat above average fertility. That’s probably because years married is negatively correlated with years of schooling (-0.72, 52 percent), and the Southern states tend to be a little below average in white educational level.

In case you are wondering, five out of the ten states with the most-educated white populations gave their Electoral Votes to Bush. Strikingly, the most socially conservative state, Utah, has the seventh most-educated whites, ahead of even educationally haughty archliberalMassachusetts.

However, nine out of the bottom ten least-educated white populations are in red states—mostly in the South.

Despite the notorious Red State-Blue State IQ Hoax with which so many millions of Democrats consoled themselves after November’s election, exit poll data shows that, across all races, the two parties’ voters are virtually identical in years of schooling. They were tied in 2000, the GOP was slightly ahead in 2002, and the Democrats were up in 2004, but only by only about 0.15 years of classwork per voter.

However, white Democrats tend to be somewhat more educated than white Republicans (who are what white Democrats are thinking about when they obsess about their superiority).

In contrast, black and Hispanic Republicans average more years of schooling than their Democratic co-ethnics.

While limited schooling correlates clearly with early marriage, thenegative correlation between years of education and babies per woman is surprisingly weak (-0.38, 14 percent). The states that have relatively late marriage combined with relatively high fertility are led byArizona, Nevada, and New Mexico.

My guess is that these states receive many educated refugees from California looking for a place where they can afford to raise several children.

What lessons can the GOP learn from this trove of information?

The most obvious: Republicans do best when younger adults can afford to get married and have children. (Women are especially likely to be converted from Democrat to Republican by marriage and children.)

Young white people are most inclined to marry and procreate if housing is cheap because of low population density and if the publicschools are undamaged by ethnic diversity.

That may sound shockingly blunt to see in writing. But, let’s behonest, that’s how everybody talks in private when buying a home.

In increasingly expensive and diverse California, white fertility fell 14 percent from 1990 to 2002.

Not surprisingly, although George H.W. Bush carried California by four points in 1988, his son lost it by nine points in 2004.

What is the single most effective way Republicans can avoid Californicating the rest of the county?

What is the simplest way to keep population density under control and public school quality up—thus allowing more young people to afford the Republicanizing blessings of marriage and children?

Cut back on immigration.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2004 Election 
🔊 Listen RSS

Here’s the data for the data hounds:

Sailer-Dec. 12, 2004 Bush Pop. Vote %: All Races 2004 Years married 18-44: NonHisp. Whites 2000 Total Fertility Rate: NH Whites 2002 Years of schooling: NH Whites 2000  
Utah 71.1% 17.0 2.45 13.7  
Wyoming 69.0% 15.5 1.99 13.3  
Idaho 68.5% 16.3 2.20 13.3  
Nebraska 66.0% 15.3 2.02 13.3  
Oklahoma 65.6% 15.8 2.01 13.0  
North Dakota 62.9% 15.5 1.78 13.0  
Alabama 62.5% 16.6 1.84 12.7  
Kansas 62.2% 15.7 2.06 13.4  
Alaska 61.8% 15.3 2.28 13.8  
Texas 61.2% 15.2 1.93 13.5  
Indiana 60.0% 15.1 1.94 12.9  
South Dakota 59.9% 15.7 2.02 13.0  
Mississippi 59.6% 16.5 1.92 12.7  
Kentucky 59.5% 15.7 1.85 12.2  
Montana 59.1% 15.0 1.87 13.3  
Georgia 58.1% 15.6 1.90 13.1  
South Carolina 58.0% 15.4 1.80 13.0  
Tennessee 56.8% 15.7 1.83 12.5  
Louisiana 56.7% 15.4 1.88 12.7  
North Carolina 56.1% 15.5 1.84 13.0  
West Virginia 56.0% 15.3 1.80 12.2  
Arizona 54.9% 13.7 1.92 13.6  
Arkansas 54.3% 16.5 1.94 12.5  
Virginia 54.0% 14.7 1.82 13.4  
Missouri 53.4% 15.0 1.89 12.9  
Florida 52.1% 13.6 1.78 13.3  
Colorado 52.0% 14.1 1.86 14.0  
Ohio 51.0% 14.5 1.89 13.0  
Nevada 50.5% 13.4 1.85 13.3  
Iowa 50.1% 15.1 1.89 13.0  
New Mexico 49.8% 14.1 1.90 13.9  
Wisconsin 49.4% 14.6 1.78 13.1  
New Hampshire 49.0% 14.0 1.69 13.4  
Pennsylvania 48.6% 13.9 1.72 12.9  
Michigan 47.8% 14.5 1.88 13.1  
Minnesota 47.6% 14.4 1.83 13.5  
Oregon 47.6% 13.9 1.76 13.4  
New Jersey 46.4% 13.5 1.83 13.4  
Delaware 45.8% 13.9 1.71 13.3  
Washington 45.6% 13.9 1.72 13.6  
Hawaii 45.3% 14.1 1.59 14.2  
Maine 44.6% 13.8 1.65 13.0  
Illinois 44.6% 14.2 1.80 13.4  
California 44.5% 12.5 1.65 13.9  
Connecticut 44.0% 13.4 1.75 13.6  
Maryland 43.3% 14.0 1.81 13.7  
New York 40.5% 12.7 1.72 13.5  
Rhode Island 38.9% 12.6 1.50 13.0  
Vermont 38.9% 13.4 1.63 13.4  
Massachusetts 37.0% 12.2 1.60 13.6  
District of Columbia 9.3% 7.4 1.11 16.2  
           
Sailer 2004          

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2004 Election 
🔊 Listen RSS

National Review Online ran an article yesterday (Dec. 8th, 2004) by Richard Nadler entitled “Bush’s ‘Real’ Hispanic Numbers: Debunking the debunkers.”

It’s supposed to be an attack on my interpretation of the 2004 presidential election results. But a close reading shows that it largely supports my contention: the President’s unlimited open borders plan would both be bad for the Republican Party (by importing more future Democrats than Republicans) and would not make the GOP more popular with current Hispanic voters.

Nadler’s final estimate of the Hispanic results appears to be Kerry 60% – Bush 38%. That’s awfully close to my best estimate (60-39).Nadler’s number suggests that Bush’s share of the Hispanic vote increased by three percentage points over 2000, equal to Bush’s growth in the overall vote, and one point less than his growth in the non-Hispanic white vote (from 54% to 58%).

Nadler tries to debunk my claim that the Republicans’ share of the Hispanic vote generally goes up and down in sync with the white vote(just skewed way to the left).

But he presents a table of numbers showing that, just as I’ve argued, in six of the last seven elections, the GOP’s share of the Hispanic andwhite votes have moved in the same direction. (For statheads: the correlation coefficient of the white and Hispanic shares Nadler presents is a high 0.75, But I noticed that he made a typo in my favor. The realcorrelation is a lower but still strong 0.64. And that correlation is probably artificially lowered by the random errors in the reported Hispanic figures caused by small Hispanic sample sizes, especially in the past.)

In sharp contrast, there is essentially zero correlation (-0.08) between the movement of the GOP’s share of the black and white votes—they’ve only gone up or down together in three of the last seven elections.

This distinction between the behavior of black and Hispanic voters has led to the common characterization of Hispanics as “swing voters,”when a better characterization would be “flow voters,” since on the whole they go with the overall national flow, just far more toward theDemocratic side.

The simplest model of white, Hispanic, and black voting behavior is that voters (at least those who are less than well-to-do and are family-oriented) are on average torn between the Democrats’ tax-and-spend policies and the Republicans’ family values stances. The poorest ethnic group of voters, blacks, feels they can’t afford to waste theirvote on semi-symbolic family values issues when they need direct help on bread-and-butter issues. In contrast, the wealthiest ethnic group of voters, whites, can afford to vote for Republicans—both because some are so wealthy that GOP policies like eliminating the inheritance tax are in their self-interest; and because, for the majority, they can afford to vote for family values.

Hispanic voters fall in the middle. Hispanics, overall, are quite poor. But those who are citizens and regular voters tend to be a little better off than blacks, and somewhat more upwardly mobile. They are tempted by the GOP’s family values rhetoric. But a large majority feel their pocketbooks demand they vote Democratic.

This suggests that Hispanics are most likely to become Republican voters when, on average, they aren’t so poor. The most straightforward way to raise Hispanic average incomes is to stoptaking in so many extremely poor Hispanics from south of the border.

(This also has the secondary effect of cutting out the depressing effect on Hispanic wages of the constant arrival of what Marx called “thereserve army of the unemployed” from Mexico.)

But we don’t get that kind of broad analysis from Nadler because he has one fish to fry: getting Republicans to spend more money on ads on minority radio and TV stations.

This NRO article, like Nadler’s effort in our Insight debate last spring on minority outreach (here is his essay and here is mine) reads like a sales pitch for why Republicans should spend more cash at his old advertising agency, Access Communications Group, an Overland Park, KS firm specializing in producing Republican ads for Hispanic and black radio stations.

In Insight, Nadler was forthright about admitting that he was the former president and a current consultant at Access, but NRO doesn’t seem to mention this.

Knowing Nadler’s business background makes it much easier to understand his otherwise inexplicably narrow focus on spending more on Hispanic advertising—which amusingly resembles Univisionanchorman Jorge Ramos’ recent book with its recurrent plugs for advertising on, well, Univision.

So, let me propose a Grand Compromise. I will support the Republican Party spending more money on ads on Hispanic and black radiostations—if Nadler will support a serious tightening up on immigration.

Nadler seems more interested in the quantity than the content of the radio ads, so I don’t think he’d mind deep-sixing the President’s open borders plan. (Unless he favors it as a way to boost the ratings of Hispanic radio stations.)

Indeed, Nadler actually points out that Republican advertisers have found that amnesty and guest worker programs are not a hot selling point with Hispanic voters.

In the 2002 and 2004 campaigns, only two of the GOP’s 47 radio ad scripts aimed at Hispanics even mentioned immigration.

There’s a reason for this. America’s immigration crisis tends to hurtHispanic-American citizens most directly (in terms of lower wages, crowding, and overstressed schools). So they tend to have sensibly mixed feelings about additional immigration—witness their 47% vote in favor of Arizona’s Proposition 200 cracking down on illegal immigration.

Practical men like Nadler and I can do business on this issue.

The problem is that on this topic, there is a lone extremist. And his views are close to irrational.

He happens to be the President of the United States.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2004 Election 
🔊 Listen RSS

Despite the efforts of Bush backers like Patrick Ruffini (see below), this was the week that the rest of the world caught up with what VDARE.com readers have known all along: that Bush didn’t win 44% of the Hispanic vote.

For example, Michael Doyle reported in the Sacramento Bee (Pollsterslower estimate of Bush’s Latino support, December 3):

“Sampling errors exaggerated Latino voter support for President Bush, pollsters now agree. Sharply revising the postelection conventional wisdom, different pollsters now believe Bush received between 33 percent and 40 percent of the Latino vote nationwide. The most commonly citedpostelection poll previously asserted Bush had received a remarkable 44 percent of the Latino vote, losing only 53-44 to Kerry.

“The rollback seems to undercut an argument that had been gathering steam since the Nov. 2 election, and which has been repeatedly invoked with Bush’s recent appointment of two Latino men to Cabinet positions. It also forces Democrats and Republicans alike to re-examine their political presumptions about the nation’s fastest growing population. ‘Immediately after Election Day, there was an enormous rush to judgment,’ said Adam Siegel, director of the Hispanic Voter Project at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.”

Last week, the Associated Press, one of the six main financial backers of the National Election Pool exit poll, issued an official correction of the exit poll’s ridiculous claim that Bush had won 59 percent of Texas Hispanics. I had debunked this claim immediately after the election.

AP changed the result from Bush winning 59-40 in the state with the second-largest number of Hispanics to Kerry winning 50-49.

The Sacramento Bee’s Doyle also reported that, at a conference hosted by the National Association of Hispanic Journalist, “Looking at the larger national sample, the numbers turn out to be 58 percent for [Democrat John] Kerry and 40 percent for Bush, said NBC elections manager Ana Maria Arumi.” (NBC is another one of the six sponsors of the exit poll.)

“For the revised figures the networks combined 50 state exitpolls, which reflected more than 70,000 interviews, Arumi said,”reported James W. Brosnan for Scripps Howard.

As I pointed out in my last VDARE.COM column, Bush did significantly worse among the approximately 3200 Hispanics who filled out the shorter questionnaire, which was originally only used for reporting results at the state level, than he did among the 1100 Hispanics who completed the long questionnaire, which was used for the inflated regional and national numbers.

NBC’s Arumi also noted out that the pollsters had failed to avoid the single most obvious problem in sampling Hispanics: Miami’s Cubans aren’t representative of the overall ethnic group.

Arumi said, as reported by the Bee’s Doyle:

“There were too many precincts that had a large Hispanicmajority in South Florida, where (Cuban Americans) don’t look (politically) like Hispanics in the rest of thecountry.”

As Ruy Teixeira points out, it’s not even clear whether Arumi’s 40percent figure represents a final estimate incorporating all the known problems with the poll, such as the inflated Texas number, or whether it could fall a few more points.

My best guess: the real number is a little lower, but not too much lower.

Overall, Bush probably improved his standing among Hispanics, just as he improved his performance with almost every demographic group and state in the country.

As I’ve been pointing out for over a year, the GOP’s share of theHispanic vote tends to go up and down in synchrony with the GOP’s share of the white vote.

For example, the GOP candidates for the House did their best among Hispanics in 1994—which was also the same year they did their best among whites.

But pundits almost never look at the white vote. So they get over-excited about ebbs and flows in the massively less important Hispanic vote.

Journalists always label Hispanics a crucial “swing vote.” But in truth they are more of a “flow vote” that fluctuates with the overall tide.

But no matter what the point in the cycle, Hispanics vote consistently far to the left of the white vote.

For example, the GOP House candidates’ share of the Hispanic vote in 2002 was 38% (according to the long lost exit poll data I bought from the Roper Center). That was up 3 points from 2000.

A historic breakthrough? Not really. The GOP’s share of the white vote went up four points from 55% to 59%. So the overall white-Hispanic gap actually grew one point, from 19 to 20 points.

The change in Presidential results from 2000 to 2004 was probably quite similar.

Now that the facts are finally coming out, some voices are calling for Republicans to ignore them and to continue believing in the Bush Administration’s pretty story.

The last four years have seen numerous Bush supporters develop a postmodern attitude toward reality, as if they intend to prove correct Foucault’s and Derrida’s contention that there is no truth, justwhatever the power structure proclaims.

And, hey, the GOP has the power in Washington (at the moment). So, who needs truth, when you’ve got power?

For example, the talented young voting analyst Patrick Ruffini, who ran the official blog for the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, has issued a call for conservatives to embracethe inflated number.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve always had this feeling that conservatives should embrace the truth.

(I also think that’s a good approach for moderates, liberals,monarchists, and anarchists.)

The problem with the 44% Hispanic share figure, whatever itsadvantages and disadvantages in terms of political spin, was always that it was clearly not true.

Ruffini criticizes me for “employing all manner of hairsplitting and technical minutiae,” which is funny coming from him, because the whole reason to read his personal blog is that he’s very good at thehairsplitting and technical minutiae that voting analysis entails.

For example, here is his admirably technical essay delving into the minutiae of vote swing in the Northeast.

But he has happy news to report there—Bush did very well in counties in the shadow of the World Trade Center. The real test comes when the news is not what you want to hear.

Republicans in Congress need to know the unspun facts, because thereis one extremist in this debate – the President of the United States.

And he has a history of getting his way with bad ideas.

Last January, Mr. Bush proposed his all-time worst stinkeroo, an immigration policy so beyond belief that he got away with it because nobody, except those of us who have followed his thinking onimmigration closely over the years, could believe he meant what he said.

Forget the amnesty part (which of course he lied about not being an amnesty), and focus on his guest worker plan.

As his spokesmen made clear, it is unlimited in scope. Any number of the six billion foreigners on Earth could move to the U.S. as long as they received a $5.15/hour job offer, assuming it had been firstadvertised in America for two weeks at the minimum wage.

This is likely the most radically transformative proposal any President has made in at least the last century.

Knowing that 1/4th of Puerto Ricans legally immigrated to America and 1/6th of Mexicans are now here, largely illegally, it’s interesting to estimate what fraction of the 6 billion foreigners would legally move here in a decade or two under the Bush plan. I really can’t begin to guess, but if Ruffini is looking for a “starting estimate,” 100 million would be a nice round number and plausible estimates would climbrapidly from there.

(The methodological problem is figuring out what proportion of the Third World has to move here before America becomes so like the Third World that life is no better here than there, so they stop coming.)

The Republican Congress quickly hushed the Bush plan up, and the Bush campaign dropped it during the campaign. Bush even had the gall to claim to be to the right of Kerry on amnesty, when they were both for amnesty for current illegal aliens. Bush justified this by concocting awholly novel definition of amnesty as being for citizenship for illegal aliens—as you can see, Bush knows that immigrants becoming citizens is bad for the GOP, so his plan called for mass helotry.

Now, Ruffini does make some good points. As he says, Hispanic voters—in contrast to the Hispanic campaign consultants and the Hispanic politicians who have Mr. Bush’s ear—have rationally ambivalent feelings about illegal immigration, and there’s little evidence that they want more immigration.

As I pointed out in my important cover story in the December 20, 2004 issue of The American Conservative, “The Baby Gap: Explaining Red vs. Blue” (see here for supporting data and graphs), the most important thing the Republicans have going for them is that married voters with children feel that Republicans are supportive of people like themselves. The correlations between the white fertility and marriage rates by state and Bush’s share of the state’s vote are extraordinarilyhigh.

The flip side is that the GOP doesn’t, at present, have much to offer working families economically.

Among whites, that’s less important, because they tend to be better off and thus more focused on raising their children right. But Hispanic married couples on average are more strapped financially, so the GOP’s quasi-symbolic family values cultural issues are less often able to persuade them to vote against their economic interests.

The GOP is likely to be able to continue to win a minority of Hispanic votes, especially among the more comfortable. But to win a majority, the average Hispanic’s economic situation would have to improve dramatically. And the only way that will happen is if immigration is cut way back. The constant arrival from south of the border of new enlistees in what Marx called “the reserve army of the unemployed” depresses Hispanic voters’ wages most of all.

As Ruffini himself notes, there’s little evidence that Hispandering wins Hispanic votes. And by keeping Hispanic workers on the edge of poverty, mass immigration makes them more susceptible to Democratic appeals.

The political problem for the GOP simply is that Hispanics are a lot more Democratic than non-Hispanics, and have been since JFK.

And even Republican Hispanics are quite liberal. As the Pew Poll showed, on the basic question—Should the government tax and spend more or less?—Hispanic Republicans are more liberal than white Democrats.

Opening the immigration floodgates is exactly the wrong political tack for the Republicans to take, since it doesn’t attract current Hispanic votes, but it does generate a net surplus of Democrats down the road.

Yet there’s no evidence that Mr. Bush understands any of this. Immediately after the election, among the very first of the many changes that he had prudently postponed until after the election, such as dumping Secretary of State Powell, was the relaunch of his lunatic immigration plan. White House spokesman are now calling it a reward to Hispanics…for giving Bush 44% of their votes.

Republicans in Congress should know the facts, rather than rely on wishful thinking.

Bush dodged a bullet because Kerry refused to make illegal immigration an issue.

But plenty more bullets are on the way. One ominous sign: Hillary Clinton, a smarter politician than Kerry, has already started to position herself to run against illegal immigration.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2004 Election 
🔊 Listen RSS

Friday’s Washington Post finally caught up with what we’ve been talking about here at VDARE.COM since the election: the National Election Pool’s exit poll claim that 44% of Hispanics voted for George W. Bush is implausible. It is now being viewed skeptically by professional pollsters. [Pollsters Debate Hispanics' Presidential Voting, by Darryl Fears, November 26, 2004]

I’ve previously noted the external evidence for this claim (here) and the internal evidence from inconsistencies in the exit polls (here).

Now I can explain why the exit poll results were internally inconsistent.

Of course, this won’t make any difference to the Bushies. They will believe what they want to believe.

But it might interest any Republicans wondering if their party really needs to be taken over the immigration cliff.

The problem with the exit polls: Bush’s reported shares of the national and regional Hispanic vote were inflated compared to the sum of the state-by-state numbers.

As you may recall:

  • The regional figure for Bush’s Hispanic share in the South was an extraordinary 64 percent. But the weighted average of the “broken-out states” (the ones with enough Hispanics to report their partisan breakdown) in the region (Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Oklahoma) was only 58 percent. It’s utterly unlikely that the unlisted states in the South could have madeup the difference. Florida is home to the most traditionally rock-ribbed Republican Hispanics, the anti-Communist Cubans. Texas is Bush’s home state. Yet he didn’t get 60 percent in either state. He would have had to win more than 100 percent of the votes in the states that weren’t broken out to reach 64 percent for the South as a region.

 

  • Similarly, Bush’s regional share in the West was reported as 39percent. But the broken-out states (which account for 97 percent of the West’s Hispanics) summed up to only 34 percent.

 

  • In the Midwest, the regional share was 32 percent—againhigher than the broken-out states’ 29 percent.

 

  • Only in the East did the regional share and the broken out states equate, at 28 percent.

The cause of this internal discrepancy is that the national and regional numbers are based on

  • A much smaller sample size than the state numbers

 

  • A much longer questionnaire

Across the 50 states plus Washington D.C., a total of 76,298 voters filled in exit poll questionnaires. Of these, 62,638 respondents (82 percent) answered the short form questionnaire, which contained only about two dozen questions. These 62,638 responses were used incalculating the state results—but not the regional and national results.

The regional and national results came from just the 13,660respondents who filled in the long form (about 60 questions).

Clearly, this methodology is just asking for trouble.

One obvious source of error: there might not have been a large enough sample size of Hispanics among people who filled in the long form and thus got included in the national/regional results. The sample size of “national” Hispanics would have been around 1,100—bad, but not as good as the 3,700 Hispanics in the broken-out states.

Edison-Mitofsky, who conducted the NEP exit poll have a Frequently Asked Question list that includes this answer:

“The margin of error for a 95% confidence interval is about +/- 3% for a typical characteristic from the national exit poll and +/-4% for a typical state exit poll. Characteristics that are more concentrated in a few polling places, such as race, have larger sampling errors.”

While telephone pollsters generally use random dialing to get a representative sample, exit pollsters have to guess ahead of time on the sample of voting stations they’ll send their pollsters to.

Race/ethnicity poses a particular technical problem for exit pollsters—as opposed to, say, gender. Minorities are distributed in a lumpy fashion across the landscape. This increases the chances of coming up with an unrepresentative sample of that minority. For instance, if they send a worker out to measure voting at a military base, they are likely to come up with a lot of minorities, but also more conservative minorities than in the overall population.

The Edison-Mitofsky FAQ offers an additional warning: “Othernonsampling factors may increase the total error.”

For example, the difference between the lengths of the questionnaires could have caused the skewing of the results.

We know that Hispanics who are well-educated and work in white-collar jobs tend to vote Republican more than Hispanic manual laborers. Perhaps GOP-voting Hispanic office workers breezed through the long form while Democratic-voting laborers found it more intimidating, and thus were less likely to turn it in.

That’s pure speculation on my part. But it could explain why Bush was more popular among the “national” Hispanics who filled in the long form than among the “state” Hispanics who only finished the short form.

Skepticism about Bush’s share of the Hispanic vote is spreading. Pollster John Zogby, for example, told the Washington Post’s Darryl Fears in the article I mentioned above that he believes Bush’s true share of the Hispanic vote was only 33 to 38 percent. As Fears reported, that’s also in line with Bush’s share of 34 percent in the Velasquez Institute exit poll. (For comparison, the 2000 VNS poll showed Bush with a 35 percent share of Hispanics.)

Zogby’s estimate sounds a little low to me. I suspect Bush gained among Latinos in 2004—but only by about what he picked up among everybody else, i.e. about three or four percentage points.

For example, Robert David Sullivan of Massachusetts’s Commonwealth magazine put together an interesting map of the U.S. divided into ten regions based on county-level voting patterns.

His “El Norte” region consists of most of the heavily Hispanic counties in the U.S. In this sprawling region along the Mexican border, where one-third of the population is Hispanic, Bush won 44.10%, up 3.33 points versus 2000. In the whole country, he won 51.03%, up 3.15 points (all results as of a few days after the election).

So Bush ran 0.18 points better in El Norte than in the nation as a whole—i.e., virtually the same, suggesting there was no Hispanic surge toward Bush.

(Or, possibly, a hypothetical boost among Hispanics might have been balanced by a drop among non-Hispanics.)

Similarly, veteran voting analyst Ruy Teixeira took a long look at the actual voting results in heavily Hispanic counties and concluded:

“… if 44 percent is the wrong level for Bush’s support among Hispanics, what is the right level? Of course, we’ll never really know for sure, but I am persuaded, by playing with the numbers and making some reasonable assumptions to correct the anomalies in the NEP that it is somewhere around 39 percent.”

That would be up four points over 2000′s 35 percent, the samegrowth as in the non-Hispanic white vote (from 54 percent to 58 percent). It would confirm the general pattern that the Hispanic vote for Republicans rises and falls in the same cycles as the white vote—just consistently much more Democratic.

And, of course, as the Hispanic vote is swelled by immigration, narrowing the relative gap could still leave the GOP deeper in the hole in absolute numbers of votes.

But since journalists are typically innumerate, and don’t pay attention to the much larger white vote, they get over-excited by the ups and downs of the Hispanic vote.

Here at VDARE.com, we don’t.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His websitewww.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2004 Election 
🔊 Listen RSS

The tenth anniversary of The Bell Curve has passed almost unnoticed by the media (except on VDARE.COM—click here for my thoughts and here for Peter Brimelow’s).

But the topic of IQ is hotter than ever—largely because liberals, no matter how much they publicly denounce the concept as discredited racist nonsense, just can’t stop privately obsessing over how much higher their IQs must be than the IQ of those cretinous conservatives.

Tom Brokaw asked Senator John Kerry (who, after watching a Bush press conference, had grumbled to an aide: “I can’t believe I’m losing to this idiot”) about my investigative report in VDARE.COM “This Just In—Kerry’s IQ Likely Lower than Bush’s!”

My findings bothered Kerry so much that, after the cameras were turned off, the candidate rationalized to Brokaw: “I must have been drinking the night before I took that military aptitude test.”

(The whole story is in my new American Conservative essay Bush’sBrain.”)

Since the election, the Internet has been swamped by that phony-baloney table of average IQs by state that I debunked in VDARE.COM way back in May—you know, the one where blue states have average IQs as high as 113 and red states have average IQs as low as 85.

Last spring, I rather regretted that I had shot it down so quickly. Its popularity proved my longstanding contention that liberals are utter hypocrites about IQ.

Well, I shouldn’t have underestimated the shamelessness of Democrats. The week of the election, one website received 540,000 visitors the first day it put up the hoax chart. It must have achieved several million hits since.

Because a lie travels around the world before the truth can get its boots on, my debunking has been somewhat less popular.[VDARE.COM note: But they're reading Sailer in Japan!]

But even my site received 100,000 visitors in a week. I even made theU.K.’s Guardianwhich back in 2001, by the way, fell for the ludicrous Lovenstein Institute hoax that Jimmy Carter’s IQ was 175 while George H. W. Bush’s was 98.

The Establishment press won’t print scientific discussions of IQ. So lies and nonsense about this inherently fascinating topic flourish on the Internet.

Everyone familiar with IQ testing scoffed at the validity of the hoax data that claiming the average IQ in Connecticut was 113 and in Utah was 87. To see why, it’s important to understand how IQ tests are scored.

The mean is typically set at 100 and the standard deviation is 15. This implies that Utah’s average person would fall 26/15ths (or 1.73) standard deviations lower than the average person in Connecticut.

Using the Normdist function in Microsoft Excel, you can easily put this on a percentile basis. This hoax data therefore implies that a Utah resident of average intelligence (50th percentile) would be only at the 4th percentile in Connecticut. The average person in Connecticut (50th percentile) would suddenly be at the 96th percentile if he moved to Utah.

When phrased like that, the numbers appear obviously wrong. But the public is kept in such ignorance about IQ by the politically-correct media that most people can’t tell when their chain is being yanked.

Further, the whole notion of determining which party’s voters are smarter by looking at state averages is ridiculous. You need to look at the individual voter data, and for that, you need exit poll numbers. I’m not the most trusting consumer of exit polls, but for all their flaws, they are much better than looking at state averages.

For example, Georgia, which voted Republican, is a fairly low IQ state. But that doesn’t mean its Republicans are dumber than its Democrats. The main drags on Georgia’s average IQ are its Democrats—bluntly, its blacks, given the long-established fact that blacks score systematically lower than whites.

Two questions on exit polls are known to correlate positively with IQ:

  • Income; and

Income. Not surprisingly, given Bush’s tax-cut agenda, voters with incomes over $100,000 went for Bush over Kerry 58-41.

Education. In 2000, the self-reported educational level of the average Bush and Gore voters was virtually identical. In the 2002 House races, Republican voters did quite a bit better with the well-educated, winning 58-40 among college graduates and even winning a majority amongthose who had undertaken some graduate study. (The latter’s ranks are inflated by Democratic-voting public school teachers who have done post-grad work in the easy field of Education.)

But in 2004, as you may have noticed, Bush ran a pretty dumbscale campaign. The Democrats normally win by a landslide among high school dropouts. This time, however, Bush wrestled Kerry to a draw among that segment. Bush ended up with an average voter with only a month and a half less schooling overall than Kerry’s typical supporter.

Yet for Bush to do worse than Kerry on the education level of his voters is a poor performance for a Republican candidate. According to the massive General Social Surveys, Republicans generally tend to have more schooling and more verbal intelligence than Democrats.Professor James Lindgren of Northwestern writes:

“In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats. Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree. Further, Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in the GSS—a short vocabulary test and a modified analogies test.

“If one breaks down the data by party affiliation and political orientation, the most highly educated group isconservative Republicans, who also score highest on thevocabulary and analogical reasoning tests. LiberalDemocrats score only insignificantly lower thanconservative Republicans.

“The least educated subgroups are moderate and conservative Democrats, who also score at the bottom (or very near the bottom) on vocabulary and analogy tests.”

Of course, this higher education level would imply that Republicans on average are more intelligent than Democrats.

Personally, I suspect that this year Bush lost a lot of support among extremely well-informed and intelligent conservatives, such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff and VDARE.COM readers.

But they apparently are in the minority…for now.

Although trying to answer the question of who has smarter voters based on state averages is the wrong way to approach the problem, the data still have intrinsic interest.

So, as an antidote to the hoax, I’ve found two sets of honest average IQ data by state.

  • Thanks to Professor Henry Harpending of the University of Utah’s famed anthropology department, I have obtained the state means from what might be the closest thing to a national sample of IQ scores ever: the post-Sputnik 1960 Project Talent study of 366,000 9th-12th grade students. (Washington D.C., Alaska, South Dakota, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico don’t have good data.)

Unfortunately, these numbers are 44 years old. Nonetheless, they stillcorrelate reasonably with public school 8th graders’ achievement test scores on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (here are the 2003 scores).

In Harpending’s data, of the top 10 smartest states, in 2000, Bush and Gore each won five. So we’re back to my original conclusion: red states and blue states are similar in average IQ, as are, on average, Republican and Democratic voters.

  • Additionally, Prof. Helmuth Nyborg, of Aarhus University in Denmark and head of the International Research Unit forPsychoneuroendocrinology, sent me a database from “theVietnam Veteran study of fairly representative 38 yearold vets (white 85%, black 12%, Hispanics 3%, someNative Americans and Islanders) studied in 1985/86 with a large number of cognitive tests.”

It’s sorted by birth state, not where the vets were living in the 1980s.

The sample size is a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than Project TALENT’s, so be wary of smaller states with less than 50 respondents. Also, there are no doubt selection biases caused by the fact that these are Vietnam Vets. But it’s still useful to have.

(Click here for consolidated table.)

Some comments:

  • Ironically, Utah, which was next to last in the hoax table, has the highest average score. But this is being driven mostly by a 110 average from only 26 Vietnam Vets.
  • Montana’s second place score seems perfectly legitimate—the state still scores well in the NAEP tests today.
  • Sorry, all you Massachusetts-hating conservatives, but thatarch-liberal state’s high ranking seems rock solid. The state was first settled by the Puritans, who were a self-selected intellectual elite. It has maintained its strong intellectual standing ever since.
  • I don’t know where Washington D.C. would fall today. It has the highest percentages of college and graduate degree holders, but also the lowest NAEP scores for public schoolstudents, by far. Like a lot of highly inegalitarian places, it votes very Democratic.

Personally, I really don’t think these kinds of tables will tell you which party deserves to win elections. But clearly, more honest discussions of IQ in the establishment media would be a good idea.

Until we get them, however, VDARE.COM will carry on alone!

Three cheers for the internet!

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2004 Election, IQ 
🔊 Listen RSS

On Sunday, I showed why the widely-reported claim by the notoriously-flawed $10 million National Election Pool exit poll that George W. Bush’s share of the Hispanic vote leapt from 35% in 2000 to 44% in 2004 didn’t match up with the actual votes counted.

Today, I will demonstrate that NEP’s Hispanic share estimate—reached after massive data massaging to eliminate the embarrassing fact that it had

originally predicted a solid Kerry victory—is internally contradictory.

A seemingly technical question—but actually crucial for Republican strategists.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has already been in Mexico to revive talks over opening the borders, just days after the election. Yesterday, the Washington Times’s Bill Sammon reported that President Bush has met with

Senator John McCain to discuss “jump-starting” his amnesty proposal. ["Bush revives bid to legalize illegal aliens," November 10 2004.]

The Administration intends to fast-talk Congressional Republicans into taking

more immigrants by brandishing Bush’s alleged 44% Hispanic exit poll share.

The press has been scratching its head all week, trying to figure out the reasons behind the NEP’s Hispanic share data—really, the biggestsurprise in an election of remarkably few surprises. The profile of Bush’s 2004 voters is almost identical, regionally and demographically, to his

2000 profile, just three points larger…except, supposedly, for Hispanics.

The Latino figure in the exit poll is a particular shocker because the Republican campaign brain trust, which had spent the first years of theBush Administration boasting about how it was going to win over lots more Hispanics, had lately given up pushing such claims. Poll after poll showed Bush was headed toward roughly the same performance with Latinos as in 2000.

Indeed, the Nov. 15th issue of Newsweek reveals in a chapter of its instant history of the campaign entitled “Down to the Wire” that Karl Rove’s pollster Matthew Dowd wasn’t expecting to get even 42% of the Hispanic vote.

In a paragraph devoted to Dowd’s reactions during Election Day,Newsweek has Dowd thinking: “Bush seemed to be doing surprisingly well with Hispanics, winning 42 percent of their votes…”

Dowd, of course, oversees a private polling operation that dwarfs most of the public polls in size and accuracy. So his surprise at the 42% share (much less than the 44% number that the NEP ultimately came up with) shows that the Republicans’ internal polls must have been pointing toward a Hispanic share down in the 30s.

There’s a very simple explanation for this Hispanic-share surprise:

It didn’t actually happen.

The only evidence of a disproportionately large Hispanic surge toward Bush is in this one NEP exit poll—which also, it’s worth remembering, also predicted that Kerry would win by three points.

Reporters keep looking for actual physical locations where the Hispanic tidal wave carried Bush to victory. They aren’t finding much.

Consider, for example, this map showing all the counties in the U.S. that switched from Democrat to Republican (in red) since the 2000 election. Very few counties in heavily Hispanic areas changed sides.

In my Sunday VDARE.com column, I showed how implausible was the exit poll’s claim that Bush’s share of Hispanics in Texas had skyrocketed from 43% to 59%.

Michelle Malkin has directed me to this Houston Chronicle article by Mike Tolson headlined “Latinos’ support for Bush debated: Exit-poll math doesn’t add up, one institute says.” [Nov. 6, 2004,] The point:

“But if Bush actually did claim almost 60 percent of the Latino vote statewide, his overall margin over Kerry in Texas should have been closer to 70 percent, not the final 61 percent to 38 percent, Gonzalez said.”

But you don’t even have to compare the NEP poll to reality to see that it’s untrustworthy. It’s also internally inconsistent.

In the comments section on Randall Parker’s www.ParaPundit.com, John S. Bolton pointed out something fishy: “CNN’s exit poll reports that Hispanics voted 64% for Bush in the Southern states.”

This is weirdly higher than Bush’s share in the Southern states of Florida and Texas, which have the largest Hispanic populations.

I did some digging along the lines that Bolton suggested and quickly hit paydirt.

Here’s the background: the NEP exit poll, as reported on CNN and other leading outlets, breaks out Presidential election numbers at threelevels: nationally, regionally (East, Midwest, South, and West), and by states.

In each of the regions, not just the South, the sums of the individual states’ number of Hispanic votes for Bush add up to less than the exitpoll’s total regional number of Hispanic votes.

The NEP reports the Hispanic share of the total vote in all states, but it only reports exactly whom Hispanics voted for in those states wherethere’s a statistically significant sample size of Hispanics.

In the South, for example, only four of the fourteen states have enough Latinos for the NEP to break out Bush’s and Kerry’s shares: Florida, Texas, Georgia, and, last and least, Oklahoma.

By combining the exit poll data with turnout data from the United States Election Project, we can see that the Bush’s Hispanic vote totals appear to be systematically inflated.

If we add up what the exit polls say was the total of Bush Hispanic votes from the broken-out states in each region, you repeatedly findthat he would have had to have won an absurdly high share, often over 100% (!), in the other, unreported states in the region for the regional total to be accurate.

Let’s start with the South. The exit poll claims Bush won a jaw-dropping 64% of the Hispanic vote there, up 14 points from 2000.

The South has the most Hispanic voters of any region, according to the exit poll—35% of the national total. So, if Bush’s Hispanic share isexaggerated in the South, that would have a sizable effect on the national number.

Traditionally, Florida has the most Republican-voting Hispanics in the country due to its middle-class, anti-Communist Cuban population. The NEP poll reported that 56% of Florida’s Hispanics voted for Bush. Bycontrast, a Florida exit poll conducted by the New Democrat Network claimed that only 46% voted for Bush, but no matter. Either number is still below that 64% Bush share the national exit poll claimed to find in the South overall.

Something is strange if Florida’s Hispanics are less Republican than the regional average.

Less plausibly, the NEP exit poll alleged that Bush’s share in Texas zoomed up to 59 percent. But even if we take that as gospel, that’s still less than the 64% claimed for the South overall.

Florida and Texas between them have over 4/5ths of the South’s Hispanics. So to get the overall Southern regional Hispanic share to 64%, Hispanics in the remaining Southern states would have had to be incredibly pro-Bush. Yet the NEP reports that the third largest concentration of Hispanics in the South, in Georgia, only gave 56% of their votes to Bush.

So, where are these hyper-Republican Southern Latinos hiding?

In Oklahoma, the exit poll claims Bush won a staggering 74% of the Latino vote, higher even than Bush’s non-Hispanic white share.

This seems awfully unlikely.

But if you add up the Hispanic votes from these four states with broken-out shares for Bush, you still see Bush supposedly winning 1.730 million out of 2.981 million Southern Hispanic voters—only 58%. So what had to happen in the other ten states to get him to 64% for the South as a whole?

There are two ways to estimate this. The first is to simply subtract the four broken-out states total from the South’s 14-state total and assume the remainder is the result in the other 10 states.

So, if Hispanics made up 9% of the 38.382 million voters in all 14 states of the South, then there must be 0.474 million Latino voters in the other ten states. And if Bush really carried 64% of Hispanics overall in the South, then he must have won 0.480 million Hispanic votes in those other ten states.

That means he won 101% of these states’ Hispanic vote.

That seems a little … unlikely, even for Karl Rove.

Yet when you use the second and more reliable method for estimating how many Hispanics voted in the other ten states, the results get even more absurd.

Because the NEP reports Hispanic share of turnout for each state, you can estimate how many Hispanics voted in the other 10 Southern states: only 0.253 million. Bush still needs to have garnered 0.480 million votes to make his regional total. So his share of the Hispanic vote in the 10 hidden states was 190%.

I suspect this exceeds even Mr. Bush’s expectations.

[Numbers fans should click here to see the Southern exit poll results.]

Similarly, the exit poll claims that in the West region, Bush took 39% of the Hispanic vote. But in the eight broken-out states, which accountfor something like 97% of all Hispanic voters in the West, Bush only garnered 34%.

So for the unspecified states (Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and Utah) to raise Bush’s regional share from 34% to 39%, their Hispanics would have had to cast about 167% of their votes for Bush.

In the Midwest, the exit poll purports that Bush won 0.489 million votes from 1.527 million Hispanics (32%). But in the four broken-outstates, he won only 0.216 million out of 0.735 million (29%). So Bush would have had to capture 0.273 million in the unspecified states. The exit poll reports that there were just 0.222 million Hispanic voters in those other states. So Bush must have won a 123% share of them.

In the East, the situation isn’t quite so preposterous. The exit poll reports that Bush won 28% in the whole region, and that’s what he won in the reported states. However, to make his supposed regional total of votes would still require him to win 95% of the Hispanics in the unreported Eastern states.

Let’s make two assumptions that are more realistic

  • First, that Bush only achieved the same Hispanic share in the unspecified states of a region as in the broken-out states.

 

  • Second, that instead of winning 59% of Latinos in Texas, he really captured only, say, 47%—still a healthy 4-point bump up over 2000.

That would put his Hispanic share at 38% to 39%, up 3 or 4 points from 2000, compared to his white share of 58%, which was up 4 points.

Historically, the gap between the white share and the Hispanic share stays relatively stable—and 2004 does not look like too much of anexception.

My conclusion: Bush scored at the high end of the GOP range for Hispanics—but he’s not really broken the mold.

Moral for Congressional Republicans: don’t ease your skepticism toward Bush’s immigration proposals because you think you’ll getHispanic votes.

Hispanic immigrants continue to spell defeat for the Republican Party—whatever hopes the Bush Dynasty may have for them.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His websitewww.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2004 Election 
🔊 Listen RSS

Steve Sailer’s VDARE.com scoop from last week, “This Just In: Kerry’s IQ Likely Lower than Bush’s!,” continues to make news. On the “NBC Nightly News” on Thursday night, 10/28/2004, Tom Brokaw asked John Kerry for his reaction to Sailer’s discovery. You can read the exchange on VDARE.com’s blog.

Perceptions of candidates’ intelligence have long played a major role in American politics, as have attempts to manipulate those perceptions. Misspelling the word “potato,” for example, appears to have permanently doomed former Vice President Dan Quayle’ s Presidential ambitions.

Thus, it’s hardly surprising that some candidates have toiled to cultivate an image of brilliance. For example, Joseph Kennedy Sr. spentheavily on the ghostwriters who largely concocted the two nonfiction bestsellers published under his son John’s name. JFK even won the Pulitzer Prize for “Profiles in Courage,” which is now known to bemostly the work of speechwriter Theodore Sorenson.

In reality, President Kennedy possessed a fine but hardly spectacular brain. According to historian Thomas C. Reeves, author of A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy,in prep school JFK scored a 119 on an IQ test. Although a tenth of the population scores higher than 119, a C-SPAN poll of 58 historians rated Kennedy as possessing the eighth strongest leadership qualities of all 41 Presidents.

Similarly, the Democratic nominee in 1952 and 1956, Adlai Stevenson, also portrayed himself as an intellectual. The press created the term “egghead” to describe the bald and supposedly scholarly Stevenson.In truth, Stevenson’s resume was comparable to that of George W. Bush. Stevenson was the grandson of Grover Cleveland’s second Vice President. As a rich socialite, Stevenson barely scraped through Princeton and Northwestern. After a nondescript early career,Stevenson unexpectedly became the popular and competent governor of Illinois. He then ran for President only four years later. At his death, the only book found resting upon his bedside table was “The Social Register.”

In sharp contrast, the man who twice beat Stevenson, Dwight Eisenhower, took pains to hide his considerable brainpower. He found it expedient to present himself as a kindly old duffer interested mostly in golf and cowboy stories. This masquerade fooled even the historians of the time, who somehow assumed that the organizer of the staggeringly complex D-Day invasion had the IQ of a tree stump. Shortly after Eisenhower left office, a poll of historians rated him one of the ten worst Presidents ever.

After Ike’s death, however, a new generation of historians discovered much evidence supporting the expert opinion of his Vice President,Richard Nixon, that

Eisenhower was “The most devious man I ever came across in politics.” Therefore, this year’s C-SPAN poll of historians rated him one of the ten strongest Presidential leaders.

One rule of thumb useful in evaluating candidates’ reputations is to remember that more writers will write nice things about politicians who give more jobs to writers. For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson, and John F. Kennedy resembled George W. Bush in important ways. They were wealthy heirs to famous political names who possessed strong electoral skills but no intellectual interests discernible to the disinterested historians of the current era. All three, though, were smart enough to hire Arthur Schlesinger Jr. This prominent Harvard historian returned their favors by extolling theirmental glamour for years afterwards.

In contrast, Presidents such as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover,Dwight Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon who employed as advisers more businessmen and soldiers than intellectuals naturally elicited less adoration from professional prose stylists. In reality, these four were formidably brainy.

Coolidge translated Dante for fun and was the last President to write his own speeches. His prose style was the most lapidary of 20th Century Presidents. (The reason Coolidge slept so much while in the White House appears to be that he may been clinically depressed after the sudden death of his 16 year old son in 1924.)

Hoover was an extremely successful mining engineer and mine promoter, who with his wife translated the classic mining text De re Metallica.

Eisenhower adeptly managed a massive military campaign involving the largest sea-borne invasion ever and a fractious, difficult coalition.

Nixon played a central role in American public life for many decades despite humble origins. There’s a story I have not confirmed that Nixon scored 143 on an IQ test, which seems not implausible—what other political assets did Nixon have besides an exceptionally powerfulintelligence, energy, and determination? In contrast, his opponent in 1960, John F. Kennedy, tested at 119 in prep school, but he was gifted with good looks, a charismatic personality, self-confidence, a glamorous wife, a prominent father, and wealth, everything theawkward, maladroit Nixon lacked.

Bill Bradley, a celebrated jock turned politician, provides a recent example of the dubiousness of reputations for intelligence. The formerNew York Knick managed to project for two decades a public image as the thinking man’s Senator. Yet, when finally tested in his run against Al Gore for the Democratic nomination in 2000 Bradley’s lacklustercampaign lived down to his 485 SAT Verbal score (570 under the new scoring system). The late historian Jim Chapin, one of the very few leftists to publicly admit the utility of IQ, told me that Bradley’s SAT Verbal score “May explain his relative ponderousness in reacting to changing verbal circumstances—he clearly preps and over-preps, but he may have more trouble dealing with unexpected lines.”

That we should expect smarter Presidents to serve us better may seem unlikely, though, judging from the historical record. While some intensely bright men such as Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln enjoyed much success in office, others experienced major difficulties, such as Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, Woodrow Wilson, William Howard Taft, James Madison, and John Adams

Still, this doesn’t mean that IQ is not desirable in a President, all else being equal. The problem is that all else is not equal. There are so fewpeople at the far right end of the IQ bell curve that you can’t always find amongst them all the other Presidential talents you need.

In contrast, the rare individuals who make it to the White House from the fat part of the bell curve are far more gifted overall than is typicalfor their IQ. It’s the same as with height in basketball. If you are 7’6″ tall, NBA teams will throw money at you no matter how dorky you might be. But if you are only 6’0″, the competition is so fierce that you need to be as quick as Allen Iverson.

So, if IQ can indeed explain something like one sixth of job performance, how important is IQ in hiring Presidents? Chapin and Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve came to an agreement during a discussion in 2000 that IQ probably explains about as much of the variance in success of Presidents as it has been measured to do for salesmen: 16%. That sounds trivial. Yet, since there are so many different factors that contribute to success, IQ can be one of the mostimportant in relative terms. For most jobs, it typically ranks with conscientiousness and honesty as one of the three most significant factors.

Can a man be too smart to be President? “Possibly,” says Jerry Pournelle, the science fiction novelist who learned recently that at age six he had scored 184 on an IQ test. “We have known since Shakespeare that there is and perhaps ought to be a certain distrust of those sicklied over with the pale cast of thought.”Although Pournelle fought in Korea as an artillery officer, he states,“We have always known that the brightest do not make the best military officers. There is a minimum, but go too high and you get problems. This is standard thinking.” According to Britishpsychometrician Chris Brand, the military adage that if a leader is more than 30 IQ points smarter than his average follower, he will have trouble communicating effectively stems from British Army research during World War II.

Inspired by this rule of thumb, historian Chapin offered a novel theory for why the first six Presidents were so smart on average, while thebraininess of Presidents from Andrew Jackson through William McKinley tended to be unimpressive, and then 20th Century presidents rebounded to be generally fairly bright.

He suggests that the IQ gap between the average President and the average voter has stayed roughly the same, but the voters have changed in average intelligence level. Up through 1824, the electorate was quite smart because only elite property owners could vote. Then, politics became a kind of national spectator sport with huge turnouts, so the IQ of voters fell to the mean. Therefore, we stopped electing geniuses like Jefferson and Madison and started electing nondescriptpoliticos like Franklin Pierce and Rutherford B. Hayes.

Then, a century ago, other forms of mass entertainment came along. Turnout dropped, especially among the dimmer elements. This allowedclever men like Nixon, Carter, Bush the Elder (Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, graduating in 2.5 years), and Clinton to win elections.

Gregory Cochran, a rocket scientist turned evolutionary biologist, summed up the challenge facing voters. “What really matters in a leader is not being smart, but being right. Who was smarter? Warren G. Harding or V.I. Lenin? I’m sure Lenin could have beaten Harding in chess, but I definitely would rather have lived under Harding than Lenin. Harding was kind of a dumb bunny, but his prejudices and instincts were much more reasonable than Lenin’s, who was wrong abouteverything.”

I think it’s useful for both the public and the candidates to have honest information about their intellectual capacities. Test scores aren’thugely important, but at least they are objective and honest compared to the enormous amounts of spin we voters are subjected to.

It’s not good for Kerry to listen to all the flattery about how brilliant he is compared to Bush. For example, it hurts him on the campaign trailbecause he refuses to just read what his speechwriters give him. He did well in the debates where the time limits kept him from rambling.

But when giving a speech, he insists on embroidering the crisply-written text with his own off the top of the head dependent clauses and digressions. He’d be doing better if somebody told him –“Senator, you aren’t that smart. Just the read the speech.”

Bush, in contrast, is a more disciplined campaigner because he doesn’t improvise much. But, as President, he’d do a better job if he sweated the details more. He should be told, “You were smart enough to get two Ivy League degrees and learn how to fly a supersonic jet fighter, so stop winging it based on your gut instinct. Buckle down and study the issues.”

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His websitewww.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: 2004 Election, IQ 
🔊 Listen RSS
 

“Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I’m sure the candidates’ SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead.”

Howell Raines – Former Executive Editor of the New York Times

“The ‘Dumb’ Factor”

Washington Post, August 27, 2004

 

Oh yeah?

On this tenth anniversary of the publication of the much-denounced The Bell Curve, it’s amusing to reflect on one of the enduring ironies of American political life. Liberals tend to believe two things about IQ:

  • First, that IQ is a meaningless, utterly discredited concept.

 

  • Second, that liberals are better than conservatives because they have much higher IQs.

Thus back in May, hundreds of liberal websites, and even the prestigious Economist magazine, fell for a hoax claiming to show that states that voted for Al Gore in 2000 have higher average IQs—by as much as an incredible 28 points—than states that voted for George W. Bush.

(In reality, no such data exist. But, for what it’s worth, Bush and Gorevoters were identical in educational level, and the states they won were almost dead even in 8th grade achievement test scores.)

Similarly, in 2001, many liberals, including Doonesbury cartoonist Gary Trudeau and The Guardian newspaper, fell for the notorious Lovenstein Instituteprank, which absurdly claimed that the IQ of Bush, a man with two Ivy League degrees, was a sub-average 91, while Bill Clinton’s was a Galileo-like 182.

But now I’ve turned up some hard facts about the IQs of Kerry and Bush.

Most significantly, at the age of 22, both men took the IQ-type tests required of candidate military officers. (The U.S. military, which has studied the predictive power of IQ in vastly more detail than any other institution, remains intensely dedicated to the value of intelligence testing.)

Bush’s scores on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test have been briefly mentioned in the press. But no-one before now has fully explained what they mean.

And, even more important, this is first article to publish Kerry’s score on the Navy’s Officer Qualification Test.

The two tests aren’t perfectly comparable. But they provide no evidence that Kerry is smarter. If anything, Bush is smarter thanKerry.

These scores are still relevant because IQ’s don’t change much over time. The Daily Telegraph of London reported on a 66 year long study in Scotland:

“People who sat an IQ test at the age of 11 in 1932 were ranked in exactly the same order when they took the exam again at the age of 77, showing that intelligence is stable throughout life.” [Longevity is linked to IQ, By Auslan Cramb, September 28,2000]

So the scores politicians earned as college seniors still have surprising significance.

Yes, it’s crass to look at the Presidential candidates’ scores on IQ-likeexams. For all their many limitations, however, cognitive tests have a unique advantage. Spinmeisters can manipulate their clients’ images—but they can’t manipulate these old test scores.

And, yes, the candidates’ IQ scores are hardly the most importantfactor in choosing a President.

But I believe the public has a right to know all the facts.

Am I writing this because I am biased against one candidate?

No. As a conservative Republican concerned by the President’s Invade-the-World / Invite-the-World policies on Iraq and immigration, I’ve certainly criticized Bush more than I’ve attacked Kerry.

But I haven’t spent weeks on this story out of any hidden desire todenigrate or promote either candidate. In fact, I couldn’t prove who scored higher until two days ago. And, for all I know, showing that Kerry isn’t quite the brainiac that his supporters assume might make him more popular.

I just think Americans need to know the truth.

In the long run, however, we do need to think about the quality of the candidates our current primary system is producing. Are these two thebest our nation of nearly 300,000,000 can put forward?

Despite Howell Raines’s diktat on the natural superiority of the liberal candidate, quoted in my epigraph, there was always room for doubt that Kerry was objectively sharper than Bush. While Bush mangles the English language, Kerry inundates it in dependent clauses. Chris Suellentrop recently reported in Slate how Kerry somehow bloviated the 2,500 crisply-written words his speechwriters handed to him into 5,300 soggily-spoken words.

Bush’s 1206 SAT score on the college entrance exam and his C average at Yale have been public knowledge since the last election. (Bush’s Graduate Management Aptitude Test score and grades at Harvard Business School, however, are not known.)

Kerry’s grades and academic test scores remain wholly unavailable. But we do know that he did not graduate from Yale with honors. His biography by three Boston Globe reporters recounts:

“During his senior year he ‘majored in flying,’ as Kerry put it, learning aerobatics and performing loop-de-loops instead of focusing on his studies.”

After fighting and losing the most expensive Congressional race in thecountry in 1972, Kerry wound up the next year at a surprisingly non-glittering law school, Boston College. The Boston Globe biography reports:

“A nationally known figure, Kerry was not your typical law student. ‘I remember looking up at my first-year class, and sitting there, big as life, was this guy I had seen ontelevision, testifying before the Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee and running for Congress,’ recalls Thomas J.Carey Jr., one of Kerry’s professors. ‘He stood out fromthe beginning.’”

Then three weeks ago, a minister in Florida named Sam Sewell, a Navy veteran and Mensa member who works with gifted children with learning disabilities, pointed out to me that, although no one in the press had noticed it, the Kerry campaign had posted on the Web the Senator’s score on the IQ-like test he took when he applied to join the Navy as an officer on February 18, 1966.

After interviewing military psychometricians and reading Defense Department reports from the 1960s on the development of the tests,I can now compare Kerry’s score on the Navy’s Officer Qualification Test to Bush’s score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test.

Kerry’s PDF file on JohnKerry.com is blurry, but it appears to read:

TEST FORM RAW SCORE STAND. [?]

SCORE

OFFICER QUALIFI-CATION TEST 7 58 50

To help me make sense out of this, a retired Navy psychometrician advised me to buy from the National Technical Information Service a 1961 technical bulletin called Development of the Officer Qualification Test, Forms 7 and 8by Smith, Guttman, Proctor, and Sharp of the Bureau of Naval Personnel.

According to this documentation, the Form 7 of the Navy’s OQT that Kerry took in 1966 was a 90-minute pencil and paper test consisting of 35 verbal analogy questions, 30 mechanical comprehension questions, and 50 arithmetic reasoning questions.

Kerry got 58 out of 115 questions right, or 50.4 percent.

The bulletin explained that,

“The Verbal Analogies section emphasizes understanding of conceptual relations rather than knowledge of vocabulary. The Mechanical Comprehension section calls for ability to understand mechanical principles and ability to apply them to visually presented problems. The Arithmetic Reasoning section measures skill in arithmetic reasoning and problem solving, and requires an understanding of basic arithmetic processes.”

In the validation process, the test was found to have a satisfactorycorrelation of about 0.6 with various measures of success in Officer Candidate School.

To standardize this new version of the test when it was developed in the early 1960, it was given to “approximately 1600 applicants to OCS [Officer Candidate School].”

The mean raw score (i.e., number of questions answered correctly) of the preliminary norming group on Form 7 was 57.11—almost identical to Kerry’s 58—with a standard deviation of 16.14. In other words, Kerry finished almost exactly at the 50th percentile.

(Technically, the “50″ on his record appears to refer to his NavyStandard Score.” This is a bell curve-based scoring system where the midpoint is 50 and each standard deviation is 10, so that a score of, say, 60 would fall at the 84th percentile and a score of 70 would fall just below the 98th percentile. In Kerry’s case, though, the differences between percentile and Navy Standard Score don’t matter, becausethe midpoint for both scales is 50—his score on both.)

It’s possible that the test slightly underestimated Kerry’s overall cognitive ability—if he is a stronger verbal thinker than mathematical or visual thinker. And this seems likely. He was political science major at Yale and then went to law school, a typical verbalist’s career path.

The Navy test was tilted in the opposite direction. When the Navy’s OQT was revised in 1961, the number of arithmetic reasoningquestions was boosted from 20 to 50 because of “a study by Wollnack and Guttman (1960), which found that quantitative reasoning items were the most valid predictors of OCS performance.”

During the 3.5 month-long Officer Candidate School, Kerry outperformed his test score, finishing 80th out of his class of 563.

I found two other class ranks for Kerry. In a ten-week class ondamage-control, Kerry ranked 17th out of 33 (p. 2 of this 5 megabyte PDF). In a three-week Command and Control course, he ranked 7th of 22 (p. 4).

So, if Kerry is about as smart as the average applicant to the Navy’s Officer Candidate School, how smart is he?

It’s certainly nothing to be ashamed of. To take the test, applicants were supposed to be college graduates, or on track toward a four-year degree, or be high scorers on the IQ test for enlisted men, the AFQT. The average IQ of a college graduate is typically close to one standard deviation above the national mean, over the 80th percentile.Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve, told me that, in the huge National Longitudinal Study of Youth that was featured in his book, the average college graduate’s IQ, as measured by the AFQT, was 114.

(A quick summary of IQ scoring: Scores are assumed to fall according to a “normal distribution,” or bell curve, with the average score at 100. Each standard deviation is 15 points. So, a 115 IQ falls at the 84th percentile and a 130 IQ at the 97.7th percentile.)

Perhaps a better way to estimate Kerry’s IQ is to look at the average SAT scores of military officers.

A second Navy psychometrician told me about a major study he hadconducted:

“I looked at the SAT scores of new officers from 1975 through 1985, by separate fiscal year. For each of the eleven years examined, new officers in the Navy had the highest SAT mean scores (on SAT-Verbal and SAT-Math) among all four services. Overall, including all officers commissioned from 1975 through 1985 combined, SAT scores were as follows:”

1975-1985 SAT-Math SAT-Verbal Total Recentered *(post 1994 scores)
Navy 584 519 1103 1188
Air Force 557 494 1051 1132
Marines 531 487 1018 1113
Army 522 479 1001 1098
Male high schoolseniors 495 437 932 1032

[* The "recentered" column converts these average scores into the easier scoring system that the College Board adopted in the mid-1990s.]

So, the average SAT score for Navy officers was 1103 (old style).

Of course, the SAT isn’t taken by high school dropouts, nor by students who don’t intend to go to college. So the true nationalaverage would have been much lower, probably around

800 under the old (uninflated) style scoring system.

Can we

convert the average Navy officer’s SAT score of 1103 into a rough IQ? There’s a reasonable

correlation between SAT and IQ.

The standard deviation of the SAT was around

230 back then, so if the typical Navy officer scored 1100, or 300points above the estimated national average of 800, then his IQ was about 1.3 standard deviations above the national average IQ of 100 — roughly 120, or maybe a little higher, which is in the low 90s on a percentile scale.

Of course, Kerry’s OQT score was average for applicants for OfficerCandidate School, not for officers, who presumably score better than those who flunk the test. This suggests he might have scored under 1100 on his SAT.

Another complication: it’s not clear whether the applicant pool was stronger or weaker when Kerry’s version of the test was normed in1961 than in this 1975-1985 period for which we have data.

The draft was in effect in 1961, so many young men chose to volunteer to be an officer rather than to be drafted into the enlisted ranks. The late 1970s in contrast, were the early years of the all-volunteer military. Recruiting was notoriously difficult and the quality of the military drooped. But then, in the Reagan 1980s, pay increases and revived patriotism brought in better recruits.

An SAT score of 1100 for Kerry seems low, however, because that might have been low enough to keep him out of Yale, which he entered in 1962. I don’t know the average SAT score at Yale at that time, but The Bell Curve reports that in 1960, the Harvard freshman class averaged 1373.

Yale turned down Former Senator Bill Bradley, who challenged Al Gore for the Democratic nomination in 2000, despite being an outstanding basketball player, because his SAT-Verbal score was only 485. Bradleywas accepted by Princeton and became a Rhodes Scholar. But, although he built a good reputation in the Senate, his dull style during his dismal 2000 Presidential campaign certainly did not disprove his SAT score’s validity.

Two years after Kerry’s admission to Yale, Bush slid into Yale too.According to a 1999 article in The New Yorker, he had a 566 Verbal – 640 Math, for a 1206 total (which would be about 1280 today).Combined with Bush’s mediocre grades in prep school, this meant he was left sweating over whether he’d get in. During spring break in 1964, Bush downplayed expectations by telling friends how much he looked forward to attending the University of Texas, which was his “safety school.”

Kerry, being a Forbes, had family pull too—but certainly no more thanBush, whose father and grandfather were Yalies. And the latter, Prescott Bush, had been U.S. Senator from Yale’s state of Connecticut until the year before.

During the 1960s, Yale tightened up entrance requirements for sons ofgraduates considerably, especially in the year after Bush was admitted. The late historian Jim Chapin, who taught at Yale during those years,told me that the intellectual quality of his students leapt upwards the next year.

This sudden arrival of so many brainy, bookish, leftwing nobodies may be a major reason Bush became so alienated from Yale during his later years there.

Still, it’s important to keep in mind that Kerry was admitted two years before Bush—when admission was even less meritocratic.

(By the way, there is a web page out there that claims that Kerry’s SAT score was 1190. That’s not implausible, but, unfortunately, the site provides no supporting evidence whatsoever, and I wasn’t able to find any confirmation on Google.)

What kind of IQ does Bush’s 1206 SAT imply?

Linda Gottfredson, co-director of the University of Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society, told me:

“I recently converted Bush’s SAT score to an IQ using the high school norms available for his age cohort.Educational Testing Service happened to have done astudy of representative high school students within a year or so of when he took the test. I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile.”

In other words, only one out of 20 people would score higher.

Charles Murray came up with a similar result:

“I think you’re safe in saying that Dubya’s IQ, based onhis SAT score, is in excess of 120, which puts him in the top 10 percent of the distribution, but I wouldn’t try to be more precise than that.”

This suggests that applicants to the Air Force Academy averaged about 122.5 (halfway between one and two standard deviations above the average), putting Bush in the 125-130 range — a little better than his SAT score would suggest.

By way of comparison, Bush’s 2000 opponent Al Gore scored 134 and 133 the two times he took an IQ test in high school, putting him just under the top 1 percent of the public.

Not surprisingly, the former vice president’s’ SAT scores were also strong but not stratospheric: Verbal 625, Math 730, for a total of 1355, which would equate to the upper 130s in IQ.

We can compare Kerry’s 50th percentile performance to Bush’s performance on the different but reasonably comparable Air Force Officer Qualifying Test.

On January 17, 1968, Bush took the AFOQT. (Just to keep our military acronyms from getting tangled up in a SNAFU, the AFOQT is different from the AFQT or Armed Forces Qualifying Test, which is the IQ portion of the ASVAB or Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery that all applicants for the enlisted ranks take.)

This AFOQT then consisted of 13 subtests that were aggregated into five composites.

Here are Bush’s percentile scores (p. 25 of a huge PDF on the USA Today website):

Test Composite Percentile
Pilot Aptitude 25
Navigator Aptitude 50
Officer Quality 95
Verbal Aptitude 85
Quantitative 65

Bush took the 1966 version of the test. I couldn’t find the technicalreport on that revision, so I bought from NTIS the report on the 1964 revision, “Development and Standardization of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test-64,” by Dr. Robert E. Miller and Dr. Lonnie D.Valentine, two prominent psychometricians at the Lackland Air Force Base.

The percentiles are based on the scores of Air Force Academy candidates during 1955-1960. (To be technical, the 1964 version ofAFOQT was renormed using the huge 1960 Project Talent study of high school seniors, but the percentile scores continued to reflect the scores of applicants to the Academy at Colorado Springs.)

This baseline group would appear to be fairly comparable to the Naval OCS applicants against whom Kerry scored at the 50th percentile. The Air Force norm group was typically younger, being high school seniors, than the Navy OCS candidate group, but applicants to the Academies tend to be a little more elite than OCS applicants. For example, the average SAT score of today’s Air Force Academy students is 1292(using the easier post-1994 scoring system), compared to the recentered 1132 of the average Air Force officer during the 1975-1985 period.

How did Bush do? In estimating his IQ, we can probably throw out his high score (the 95th percentile on Officer Quality) and his low score (25th percentile on Pilot Aptitude) because those tests don’t measure IQ very directly. Instead, we should concentrate on his Verbal Aptitude (85th percentile), Quantitative (65th), and Navigator Aptitude (50th). In fact, those three are fairly similar in subject matter to the three parts of the Naval OQT that Kerry took: Verbal Analogies, Arithmetic Reasoning, and Mechanical Comprehension, respectively.

The Officer Quality score was derived by combining Bush’s score on the 60 item Quantitative Aptitude subtest, the 60 item Verbal Aptitude subtest, with the 100 item Officer Biographical Inventory. The latter was a personality test that asked about “past experiences, preferences, and certain personality characteristics related to measures of officer effectiveness.” It inquired into enthusiasm for sports and hunting, and was only vaguely correlated with IQ.

(A retired Air Force test psychologist told me that this section was later dropped because women did very poorly on it, and urban and suburban youths didn’t do as well as country boys. “It was politically incorrect, but”—he recalled wistfully—“It was a predictor of success as an officer.”)

Judging from his scoring at the highest percentile possible on OfficerQuality, Bush must have absolutely nailed the Officer Biographical Inventory test, as you might expect coming from his ultra-competitive family.

In contrast, his not having any flying experience dragged down Bush’s 25th percentile score in “Pilot Aptitude.” He would have scored poorly on the Pilot Biographical Inventory and on Aviation Information, two of the seven subtests for this composite. Many of the other subtests focused on three dimensional imagination capacities, such as the “Visualization of Maneuvers” component. These are valuable mental skills, no doubt, but not ones called upon much in the Oval Office.

So, if you take the average of Bush’s percentile scores on the threecomposites most similar to the test Kerry took, Bush scored at the 67th percentile, a little better than Kerry’s 50th percentile.

This isn’t an apples to apples comparison, so you can’t say that Bush would have done better than Kerry on the same test. But this doesn’t provide any evidence in support of the common assumption that Kerry has a much higher IQ.

The standardization report by Miller and Valentine says that the “officer population” that provided the percentile scores was about one standard deviation better than the average 12th grade male on the Verbal subtest and about two standard deviations better on the Quantitative test.

This suggests that the 50th percentile among the norm group of Air Force Academy applicants had an IQ of about 123, thus putting Bush in the 125-130 range—a little better than his SAT score would imply.

Of course, effort matters at least as much as IQ. That’s why Kerry would probably beat Bush on a current events quiz, since Bush has never seemed particularly interested in learning about the duties of his job (as opposed to winning and keeping his job, at which he shows great cunning). In contrast, Kerry has been fascinated by the Presidency since his adolescence.

The subtle difference between Bush and Kerry in two words: Bush is competitive and Kerry is ambitious.

Bush, by nature and by upbringing in the hyper-rivalrous Bush-Walker clan, is driven by a need to win.

If he’d been born into a family where his father owned the biggestjunkyard in town, he’d be scrapping to own the biggest junkyards in two towns. By chance, he happened to be born into a family where to earn top honors requires him to win not one, but two Presidential elections. This helps explain the President’s striking lack of interest in the content of his job—being President is just a means to an end (of beating his Dad).

For Kerry, in contrast, being President is the end, the goal of the last 45 years of his life. He came from a family background where this burning ambition to be President was unlikely but hardly unthinkable, just unusual. At prep school, his naked flame of ambition made him a bit of an outsider among the sons of the hyper-rich who strove for nonchalance.

In Vietnam, Kerry was certainly brave, and relatively few men on his boat ended up hating him (which is an above average performance for an officer in Vietnam). But he was always a glory hog. In the Senate, he has mostly seemed to bide his time, being liberal enough to get re-elected in Massachusetts, but keeping a low enough profile that the GOP couldn’t hang the “Massachusetts Liberal” moniker on him as effectively as they did on Michael Dukakis.

Kerry has generally tried to portray himself as an intellectual, which hasbeen a successful strategy for him in college-crowded Massachusetts.

In contrast, the only election Bush ever lost was a 1978 Congressional race in the Texas Panhandle, where his opponent made fun of Bush for having degrees from Yale and Harvard.

Bush resolved never to get out-dumbed again.

Soon we shall see whether Kerry can beat him by trying to outsmart him.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: 2004 Election, IQ 
🔊 Listen RSS
 

After the second Presidential debate, one of my readers wrote:

“Hey, Steve, you are just ticked off that not a single person in the debate audience, which represented a cross section of the American people, asked a question about illegal immigrants. For surely, if anyone had submittedsuch a question, Charles Gibson would have used it, right?

“Nah, red-blooded Americans are concerned about the stuff that touches their daily lives, like stem-cell research.

“You’ve just got to shed your obsessions and think more like a normal American!”

Expecting to be shut out again, I tuned in to Wednesday night’s third debate. But then moderator Bob Schieffer announced—

“Mr. President. I got more e-mail this week on this question than any other question. And it is about immigration. I’m told that at least 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. Some people believe this is a security issue, as you know. Some believe it’s an economic issue. Some see it as a human-rights issue. How do you see it? And what we need to do about it?”

On the channel I was watching, I couldn’t see Bush’s expression. But another reader wrote me:

“That the most asked question turned out to be on immigration seemed to surprise Bush a good deal. He was visibly taken aback.”

Let’s go over the candidates’ responses in detail.

Bush’s Statement

First, keep in mind that, after his initial surprise, the President gave ithis best shot. Mickey Kaus immediately blogged:

“While Bush tried to be moderate in general, he wisely posed as a conservative on immigration, casting his own plan in the toughest possible light. He said he opposed an ‘amnesty’ because he doesn’t want to’reward illegal behavior,’ but missed a huge opportunityby failing to cast Kerry’s plan for ‘earned legalization’ (of illegal aliens already here) as just such a de facto amnesty. …’”

That’s certainly what it sounded like Bush was doing, but Mickey gotthe content totally wrong.

BUSH: “I see it as a serious problem. I see it as a security issue, I see it as an economic issue, and I see it as a human-rights issue.”

Uh-oh. You know that Bush is not talking about American citizens’right to live within secure borders—but about the purported right of the other six billion people on Earth to infiltrate into the U.S. without risk.

BUSH: “We’re increasing the border security of the United States. We’ve got 1,000 more Border Patrol agents on the southern border.”

Oh, yeah? Let’s do the math. If each additional agent works 42 hours out of each 168-hour week, that 250 full-time equivalents for 2000 miles of border, or one extra guard for every eight miles.

Well, that’s a relief! Mission Accomplished…to coin a phrase.

BUSH: “We’re using new equipment. We’re using unmanned vehicles to spot people coming across. And we’ll continue to do so over the next four years. It’s a subject I’m very familiar with. After all, I was a border governor for a while.”

Right—and did nothing to stop illegal immigration when he was governor.

BUSH: “Many people are coming to this country for economic reasons. They’re coming here to work. If you can make 50 cents in the heart of Mexico, for example, or make $5 here in America, $5.15, you’re going to come here if you’re worth your salt, if you want to put food on the table for your families. And that’s what’s happening.”

Shades of Bush’s disastrous “Bring ‘em on!” challenge to Iraqi insurgents! Bush here is encouraging poorly paid Mexicans to immigrate to America illegally. Mexicans who don’t violate our immigration laws aren’t worth their salt in his eyes—and he wants them to know it.

(Mysteriously, potential immigrants with the skills to earn more than the minimum wage appear to be a lower priority in the President’s eyes.)

To rephrase the famous tabloid headline when President Ford balked atbailing out New York City:

BUSH TO MEXICANS: COME ON IN!

Bush went on:

BUSH: “And so in order to take pressure off the borders, in order to make the borders more secure, I believe there ought to be a temporary worker card that allows a willing worker and a willing employer to mate up, so long as there’s not an American willing to do that job, to join up in order to be able to fulfill the employers’ needs.”

That makes it sound like Bush is fighting to lower the impediments to the white slave trade.

(Which, now that I think of it, in effect he is doing. I can just imagine that speech:

“My fellow Americans, it has come to my attention that Eastern Europe—the Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Russia, Lithuania — is full of nubile young ladies with hair the color of wheat ripening in the sun, willing workers who want tomate up with you willing American employers for $5dollars an hour, $5.15. But our antiquated immigrationlaws are keeping these willing workers out of our country, forcing you to pay 20, 30, even 40 dollars per hour to mate up with sullen, lazy native-born workers who probably aren’t even natural blondes.

“I say, we must issue temporary worker cards to these ash blonde beauties so they can mate up with you and fulfill your needs.

“But only temporary cards—so we can kick their skanky butts out the country when they get old and wrinkly.

” And may God bless America!”)

Hmmm. Back to the real President:

BUSH: “That has the benefit of making sure our employers aren’t breaking the law as they try to fill their workforce needs.”

Not that Bush ever bothered to enforce the law that he now wants to relieve employers from obeying.

And, while we’re on the subject of employers’ workforce needs, what about American workers’ employment needs?

The population has grown by 10.5 million people since Bush took office. But the number of jobs has shrunk by about a million.

BUSH: “It makes sure that the people coming across the border are humanely treated, that they’re not kept in the shadows of our society, that they’re able to go back and forth to see their families. See, the card, it’ll have aperiod of time attached to it.”

Exactly what period of time, anyway? Ever since Bush announced this plan in January, he’s refused to tell us what the time limit is going to be.

Anyway, won’t all these temporary workers disappear back into the “shadows of our society” when their time limit runs out?

And are you going to throw them out when they have lots of American-born—and thus American-citizen under the current dubiousinterpretation of the 14th Amendment—children?

The old temporary worker plan started during WWII was for men only, so President Eisenhower could deport a million back to Mexico without having to worry about their American citizen kids. Bush’s plan can’t work like that.

BUSH: “It also means it takes pressure off the border. If somebody is coming here to work with a card, it means they’re not going to have to sneak across the border. It means our border patrol will be more likely to be able to focus on doing their job.”

Apparently, in the President’s mind, keeping out the 6 billion non-Americans is not the Border Patrol’s job.

BUSH: “Now, it’s very important for our citizens to also know that I don’t believe we ought to have amnesty. I don’t think we ought to reward illegal behavior. There are plenty of people standing in line to become a citizen. And we ought not to crowd these people ahead of them in line. If they want to become a citizen, they can stand in line, too. And here is where my opponent and I differ. In September 2003, he supported amnesty for illegal aliens.”

Bush’s use of the word “amnesty” reminds me of a famousexchange in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass.

“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather ascornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

“‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can makewords mean so many different things.’

“‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to bemaster—that’s all.’”

What Bush is doing here is redefining “amnesty.” According to him, it no longer means forgiving lawbreakers for their crimes and allowing them to continue to reap the benefits of their lawbreaking. Indeed, doing exactly that is an essential part of the Bush plan. In a special Humpty-Dumptian sense aimed solely at Republican Congressmen who don’t want Democratic-leaning illegal immigrants to get the right to vote, Bush is defining amnesty only as giving citizenship to illegals. (Ofcourse, their children born in America get citizenship, so in the long run it doesn’t make much difference—the Democrats still benefit.)

But what Bush is also proposing is much more—and I use this term with all due respect—monstrous than just giving current illegals amnesty.

He’s proposing virtual Open Borders for “temporary workers.”Anybody in the world who can get a job offer at—as Bush madeexplicit—”$5.15″ per hour, can move to America, “so long as there’s not an American willing to do that job.” (That is, not willing to do that job at $5.15 per hour—$10,712 per year.)

Bush’s plan would reduce the market wage for tens of millions of American jobs to the minimum wage.

Kerry, in contrast, wants current illegal aliens to be put on track to become voters because they will mostly vote Democratic. But he’s never said he wants anything as wild as Bush’s Open Borders plan.

The only thing that’s keeping Bush alive in this race is that the vastmajority of Americans have no clue about the full extent of Bush’s staggeringly radical immigration plan.

They hear him deny that it’s amnesty, and they assume that, at worst, he’s lying and he’s actually proposing amnesty for the 11million or 13 million illegals who are already here.

What voters don’t realize, because it seems too crazy to even consider, is that Bush is not only lying about amnesty for current illegal aliens, but that the President wants to open the borders to an unlimited number of “temporary” workers.

As Harvard economist George Borjas has pointed out, our lone experience with granting open borders to Third Worlders is with Puerto Rico. In a couple of decades after WWII, one quarter of all Puerto Ricans moved to the U.S.

Assuming there are about four billion very poor people in the world, one quarter of them is … one billion people. Even if only one percent of all the poor folks on Earth took advantage of Bush’s open borders plan, that would still be 40 million newcomers.

 

Kerry’s Response

Obviously, Kerry didn’t want to talk about immigration either—he wasted a lot of his allotted time responding to an earlier Bush riposte on the state of the middle class. Even then, he passed up an obvious chance to link his complaints about declining wages to illegal immigration.

Finally, however, Kerry got around to saying:

KERRY: “Here’s what I’ll do: Number one, the borders are more leaking today than they were before 9/11. The fact is, we haven’t done what we need to do to toughen up our borders, and I will.

“Secondly, we need a guest-worker program, but if it’s all we have, it’s not going to solve the problem.

“The second thing we need is to crack down on illegal hiring. It’s against the law in the United States to hire people illegally, and we ought to be enforcing that law properly.

“And thirdly, we need an earned-legalization program for people who have been here for a long time, stayed out of trouble, got a job, paid their taxes, and their kids are American. We got to start moving them toward full citizenship, out of the shadows.”

That’s way to the left of the American public. But, at least on toughening up the borders and cracking down on illegal hiring—not to mention not inviting the whole world to move here—it’s still to the right of the Republican President.

Bush’s Rebuttal

Bush denied everything, with his usual unspoken premise, “Hey, I’m the President and he’s not! Who yah gonna believe? The President or somebody who’s not the President?”

BUSH: “Well, to say that the borders are not as protected as they were prior to September the 11th shows he doesn’t know the borders. They’re much better protected today than they were when I was the governor of Texas. We have much more manpower and much more equipment there. He just doesn’t understand how the borders work, evidently, to say that. That is an outrageous claim. And we’ll continue to protect our borders. We’re continuing to increase manpower and equipment.”

Kerry’s Rebuttal

At this point, Kerry finally realized there was a huge opening to the right of Bush:

KERRY: “Four thousand people a day are coming across the border.

“The fact is that we now have people from the Middle East, allegedly, coming across the border.

“And we’re not doing what we ought to do in terms of the technology. We have iris-identification technology. We have thumbprint, fingerprint technology today. We can know who the people are, that they’re really the people they say they are when the cross the border. We could speed it up. There are huge delays.

“The fact is our borders are not as secure as they ought to be, and I’ll make them secure.”

On substance, you’d have to give this part of the debate to Kerry.

But what an opportunity he blew by failing to expose Bush’s OpenBorders plan.

Sure, the Wall Street Journal would have blown a gasket accusing Kerry of xenophobic racism,” and the New York Times would tut-tut about his “appeal to nativism.” With the voters, however, the Bushcampaign would have suffered a massive blow—on the issue that Bob Schieffer reports attracts the most emails.

It seems to me that this failure to exploit Bush’s peculiar recklessness is a recurrent problem for Kerry. On several crucial issues—immigration, foreign policy, and the deficit—Bush, with his Invade-the-World-Invite-the-World policies, is radical, even utopian.

Kerry sometimes senses that he could win simply by running as an old-fashioned, sensible Eisenhower Republican. This is why he often feints to the right.

But, ever since his now-famous 1962 sailboat ride with John F. Kennedy, John F. Kerry’s heart apparently just isn’t in running as theconservative.

Not for nothing did George W. Bush’s biographers call him a “fortunate son.”

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2004 Election, Immigration 
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, VDARE.com columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.


PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?