Horizon

I ended up light-red. Pinkish almost.

I was really disappointed by the geography questions. I can't imagine any of my red-state friends and kin ever having heard of the Upper Penninsula of Michigan. The rest was fun, though.

And what's an Ivy?

I land in the same spot as Ben. Couldn't figure which way the Book of Revelation question was supposed to cut: conservative because familiar with Christian sermons, or liberal because of having read books? The assumptions behind this thing are strange clean through. Do people's politics change if they've simply *visited* northern Michigan, Davenport, Iowa, or New York City? Why does being too poor to have a car count as "blue"? If so, then why does being too rich to walk your own dog *also* count as "blue"? What's "conservative" about liking a multinational conglomerate retailer that puts mom-and-pop stores out of business and sells products from Red Chinese sweatshops? Is it *my* fault I once worked across the street from Dr. Laura's studio (in a legal aid office) and even briefly had her call-in line crossed with my own phone extension? (No, I didn't give any advice. WIsh I had.) Do I have to start picketing abortion clinics just for the sin of liking barbecue? Are these quiz-writers stupid, bigoted, or do they just not get out much?

P.S. Yeah, what *is* an Ivy?

The test is calibrated according to aggregrate probability; it's not suggesting causality. Living in Manhattan doesn't make you liberal any more than living in a southwestern suburb makes you conservative; but it's an indicator that you probably are. Men are taller on average than women, and so a randomly selected man is probably taller than a similarly chosen woman; but of course we can all think of real-life examples that buck the trend. No doubt there are latte-sipping, goat-cheese eating lawyers in San Franciso who are also die-hard Christian fundamentalist Republicans, but I suspect they're probably in the minority.

Incidentally, a market researcher using much the same logic as the Slate testers has apparently calculated that I am a "member of the lesbian and gay community", judging by the strange junk-mail I have begun receiving. I'm not quite sure what I've done to deserve this honor, but I have to assume that the decision was made in the best probablistic good faith. Perhaps, on average, I am gay. Who am I to argue with a database?

OK, sorry I went off the handle. Also sorry I forgot to point out that there are plenty of liberals, not to mention intense leftists, who not only read the Christian Bible but take spiritual inspiration from it.

That's a strange thing especially: what has happened to the liberal do-gooder urban churches?

During the 1960s race riots in Rochester, New York, my parents' Presbyterian church provided a forum for some of the peacemaking meetings, as a gesture of liberal goodwill. It also provided the only large hall in that whole area willing to host a poetry reading by Allen Ginsberg. Church members volunteered to serve as usher/monitors, and stood in the hall, in their suits and skirts, surrounded by hippies, while Ginsberg read the strangest poetry most of them had ever heard.

OK, sorry I went off the handle. Also sorry I forgot to point out that there are plenty of liberals, not to mention intense leftists, who not only read the Christian Bible but take spiritual inspiration from it.

I think the reference to Revelations was deliberate, however, in that millenarian Christians are predominantly 'red' in politics and culture.

Right in the middle, just like Mr. Allport-- and I've never even lived in the US. Of course, I know most of the references from living in close cultural (and geographical) proximity and as a result know a little of everything and don't veer too much in any one direction.

I came out in the light red/pinkish vicinity too. Interesting irony: wanting to own a video of "True Grit" gets you 10 red-state points, but the movie's screenwriter, Marguerite Roberts, was a one-time blacklisted CP member. (Or maybe if you consider the more common political meaning of red, it's not so ironic.)

As for Martha's comment "what has happened to the liberal do-gooder urban churches?", they're still around. I would direct you to the Sojourner community in Washington DC, which also has a kick-ass magazine as well: http://www.sojo.net/ Or you could visit St. Gregory of Nyssa in San Francisco.

Smack in the middle for me too. But I think my scores were skewed by a couple of coincidences. I study medieval history on the side, so of course I know who wrote the book of revelation. And I happened to guess the Dale Earnhardt one, which naturally gets you big red points. Oh yeah, and as a film nut I knew who Caveziel was even though I haven't seen The Passion.

I wonder. Would liking Neil Young be red or blue?

Is this The Ivy? There's a celebrated restaurant of the same name in London too, I believe.

Would liking Neil Young be red or blue?

Depends on geography. Southern man don't need him around, anyhow.

Southern man don't need him around, anyhow.

How come?

Oh, I get it. That's this song.

Phenomenal guitarist, though.

And this song as well.

Right, right. Thanks for the reminder. Can you tell me what this stanza is about?

In Birmingham they love the governor
Now we all did what we could do
Now Watergate does not bother me
Does your conscience bother you?
Tell the truth

Is this an analogy suggesting that southern people do not bear the blame for racism necessarily any more than northerners are responsible for Watergate?

Call me Pollyannish, but is it really true, as this press release suggests, that Bush could expect to attract more votes than he loses for snubbing the NAACP? If so, wouldn't he be basically labeling his own supporters as racists, and in many cases isn't that unfair? Aren't decent people who happen to vote conservative going to object to being presumed hateful? Yes, I know what P.T. Barnum said, but actually some folks have gone broke overestimating the bigotry of the American public.

Call me Pollyannish, but is it really true, as this press release suggests, that Bush could expect to attract more votes than he loses for snubbing the NAACP? If so, wouldn't he be basically labeling his own supporters as racists, and in many cases isn't that unfair?

Is failure to attend a NAACP conference - or any kind of indifference towards that particular organization - prima facie evidence of racism? Bit presumptuous, don't you think? Or is this not an issue upon which 'decent people' can disagree?

Can you tell me what this stanza is about?

I've never had a clue what that meant, but have always wondered.

If the conference were simply an opportunity to bludgeon the guy or his party in public, wouldn't it make sense for him to not go? Anybody know what the attendance records are for similar NAACP events by other presidents?

The press release seems pretty slimy to me -- I see no particular reason this Payne guy's analysis of Bush's motivations are better than mine, or more trustworthy.

Hmmm...

The president's decision means he will be the first sitting president since Warren G. Harding not to address the NAACP.

But on the other hand (and contra Professor Payne's press release):

But Alvin Williams, president and CEO of the conservative-leaning Black America's political action committee, said the president may have had other motives. During the 2000 presidential campaign, he said, the NAACP endorsed a series of ads depicting the heinous dragging death of a black man in Texas.

"I think they placed the blame at Bush's feet when he was governor, and I think he was, rightly, greatly insulted by that," Williams said.

But effectively announcing to the NAACP that he doesn't want or need to make peace with them? When the invitation could have been seen as a conciliatory move on their part?

I'm not saying that there's no dumb, cynical or nefarious purpose to the refusal, just that I can't imagine it to be the one that Prof. Payne is painting. (Sorry -- I just can't help myself).

The entire point of the Payne paper was to be basically labeling [Bush's] supporters as racists. I see it as wholly orthogonal to whatever the real reasons might be.

..whereas I'm seeing the paper as suggesting that Bush is the one doing the unjust labeling, to the extent he's presuming his supporters will approve of his snubbing a major civil rights organization. I.e. it only goes to show what opinions Bush expects from his supporters, not what opinions they actually hold.

Oh well.

BTW found a scad of evidence, in case wanted, that Republicans have a significant tradition in New York City. I guess when New York was designated a "blue state" someone forgot to tell Heather Mac Donald.

Payne was on NPR this morning on this same topic. His basic point there was the disrespectfulness one, rather than the crypto-racism semi-allegation one. In that respect, it's a valid point: Bush went as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, and then implemented a number of policies that fairly directly contravened the image he tried to portray to them. Subsequent to that appearance, the NAACP has been critical, if not explicitly partisan, in their reaction to Bush. And, consistent with how the Bush team has reacted to political criticism ever since his first term as governor, they've attempted to paint the organization as being a partisan tool of his opponents. I'm not necessarily saying that the NAACP isn't partisan, just that the reaction coming from the White House seems to be, if you agree with us, say what you like, but if not, then you're improperly using your organization in a horridly partisan way. But shouldn't the NAACP, being a political organization, be allowed to have an opinion, even a critical one, of the administration and its policies without necessarily being labeled as a partisan?

They say "partisan" like it's a bad thing they'd never want to be.

BTW found a scad of evidence, in case wanted, that Republicans have a significant tradition in New York City.

I don't think the revelation that Manhattan is a bastion of capitalism is going to shock many people. But you're confusing straightforward support for the Republican Party with 'redness'. So far as I understand them, redness and blueness are lifestyles with political implications rather than party allegiances. There are probably scads of Rockefeller Republicans and libertarians in NYC, but that doesn't make them 'red'.

Far as I can tell they're not much more than iffy stereotypes in David Brooks' brain.

But shouldn't the NAACP, being a political organization, be allowed to have an opinion, even a critical one, of the administration and its policies without necessarily being labeled as a partisan?

Absolutely. But who's doing the labeling? The only place I've seen it is in Payne's press release, in a vigorous denial of an accusation that may never have been made in the first place. More insinuation, I think.

Far as I can tell they're not much more than iffy stereotypes in David Brooks' brain.

He seems to have made quite a lot of money persuading people otherwise.

But who's doing the labeling? The only place I've seen it is in Payne's press release, in a vigorous denial of an accusation that may never have been made in the first place. More insinuation, I think.

This SF Chron news analysis doesn't mention Payne and does lay out the case pretty well for Bush's behavior being both unusual and a sign that he's writing off both black voters and the political center.

This SF Chron news analysis doesn't mention Payne and does lay out the case pretty well for Bush's behavior being both unusual and a sign that he's writing off both black voters and the political center.

Hang on though. It may well be true that Bush is ignoring black voters for tactical reasons, hence (arguably) his lack of interest in the NAACP conference. But how is this any more racist than blatant pandering to black voters for tactical reasons? Aren't obsequious politicians who suck up to the NAACP because it suits their constituencies being equally cynical?

There's something in that notion about hypocrisy being the tribute vice pays to virtue. If candidates aren't all that they want to be seen as, at least it's nice of them to pretend.

At least it's nice of them to pretend.

Or offer obeisance, anyway. Seems to me that the NAACP - a lobby with its own institutional self-interest, like any other - is pissed off because Bush didn't pay the political Danegeld which it traditionally demands on pain of charges of 'racism'.