Those
guys are Marginal Revolution already got to that Economist article:http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/05/iq_hoax.html
So your claiming that the data in the article in the economist can't be
found in the Lynn book? I would be very surprised at that. The Economist is not
a wild liberal hack journal and they normally check their sources. Also, as much
as I disagree with Lynn's conclusions in the book, it is very carefully
researched. Further, I've done my own analysis of stateAFQT using the
NLSY. The sample sizes are very small, so you wouldn't want to believe the state
by state numbers, and although I haven't done the correlation with the Gore vs.
Bush vote by state, I can tell you that the South and the West trails the East
and the Midwest significantly within race. I would be very surprised if there
wasn't a strong positive correlation between Gore vote and state IQ.
I saw Sailer's piece on this and although he calls the table phony, heaps
scorn on liberals who like the table but don't like to admit that blacks score
lower on IQ tests, and provides alternative evidence on the question that the
table purports to answer, as far as I can see he never tells us directly that
the data on state IQ can't be found in Lynn's book. Has anyone looked? I've read
the book and don't remember seeing it, but I could have missed it (its a long
book and I would have skipped over a section on US states since I was reading it
for the international evidence). Like I said, I doubt the economist would
publish the table without checking the book.
My point in raising this was not that Republican's are stupid. The data
Sailer cites on party identification by years of school is probably exactly
reflective of party identification by cognitive ability - - people with little
schooling and people with post graduate degrees are most likely to be Democrats
while people with college degrees are most likely to be Republican. I suspect
that IQ would follow the same U shaped pattern and that the causation of the
relationship has more to do with geography than cognitive ability. Bush's
support is greatest in rural areas and rural states. That is where you find the
most poor whites with the lowest cognitive ability and a lot of the sorts of
pathological behavior that has been commented on.
Yes, there is a black-white dimension to this (that explains DC in Sailer's
NAEP data), but there is the same rural-urban gradient for blacks as for whites,
and the tests are just as predictive of the behaviors in question for blacks as
whites.
What does all this mean? Certainly it does not mean that stupid immoral
people vote for Bush. I think the argument of reverse causation is basically
right. There can be little doubt that there has been a massive change in social
norms over the last 50 years - - a huge shift in favor of individual liberty
over social conformity that I would expect most people who subscribe to this
list would applaud. I would argue that middle class people have benefitted from
these social changes, but the poor have seen their families crumble while their
relative incomes have been falling due to economic change. Not surprisingly they
feel under assault and not surprisingly they become social reactionaries and
"values voters." Because the Democratic party is allied with gay and women's
rights movements it can only appeal to these people on economic grounds and the
economy isn't bad enough for that to work. So poor, low cognitive ability,
states with lots of single moms, divorces etc. vote Republican.
What you libertarians ought to be wondering is whether your tax cuts are
worth the cost of being part of a Republican party going in this direction. You
can't like theidea of legislating fundamentalistmoral
strictures.I would also argue that the fiscal irresponsibility that the
Bush administration has shown isinherent in this strategy.
IfRepublicans started cutting the social programs they would have to cut
to pay for their tax cuts it would hurt these poor white constituents
andturn them back to theDemocrats (who do you think gets most SSDI,
food stamps, TANF - - not urban blacks). I suspect most of you don't like
this aspect of the Bush strategy either.
So what's a libertarian to do? I suspect that most of you would be much
more comfortable in the moderate wing of the Democratic party these days. You
would find a lot of people (like me) who would be willing to compromise on
things like regulation and taxes(we're technocrats and like efficiency) in
order to preserve individual liberty. Moderate Democrats are fiscal
conservatives these days (actually they always have been except for a
willingness to run counter cyclical fiscal policy). Further, moderates
would welcome you. We are all pro free trade and shudder at the gains the
anti-globalization people have made in the party in the last four years. I feel
I have more in common with many libertarians than I do with the more liberal
members of my own
