So I really don’t want this to turn into an argument about the evils of genocide, slavery, Jim Crow, apartheid, imperialism or what have you.
I just think there is a compelling narrative developing here that has nothing to do with demonizing any particular group. I have little doubt that if the positions of various races/ethnicities were swapped the result would be the same.
All that having been said, it looks to me that people aren’t opposed to spreading the wealth around so much as they are opposed to spreading it to Brown and Black people.
In a somewhat controversial paper Alesiana, Glaeser and Sacardote suggest that ethnic differences explain generosity of the welfare state around the world. In the US, in particular the greater the percentage of black residents the weaker the less distribution available though welfare.

Kevin Drum points today to the common observation that American’s want to cut spending, but they see the most gains from cutting Foreign Aid.

It also worth noting that Defense is least popular when its viewed as Nation Building. When its Nation Destroying as in the beginning days of the Iraq War its pretty popular. However, when we switch to nation building popularity collapses. Still not to the level of actually aiding other nations, but still.
One interpretation is that American voters are confused, irrational one might even say. They don’t know what they want.
Another hypothesis, however, might be that they know exactly what they want but are unable or unwilling to articulate it. They want to avoid giving away their hard earned money to people who don’t look like them.
Nor, should we find this surprising. The evolutionary psychologist in me would expect just that. After all, we don’t really, really care about other people. We care about other people’s genes. And, we care about other people’s genes because they likely share some of those genes with us. That is, of course unless they look radically different than us, in which case they probably share few.
Indeed, I would argue, and this probably deserves in own post, that cosmopolitan who want to save the world and give to poor people of all colors want to do so precisely because on an instinctual level they are not really sure what they themselves look like.
Without an abundance of mirrors in the evolutionary environment we probably picked up our cues on what we looked like by examining what our friends and family looked like. Anyone who was different from them was likely different from us.
But, if you grow up in a completely diverse environment then you have no idea what you look like, at least your base instincts don’t. And, so you naively assume that the Third World Kid or Ghetto Youth is just as related to you as everyone else. Hence, your willingness to give.
Now, if someone would be so kind as to supply me with 1000 infants of varying races and $100 Million dollars, I will be happy to test this out.

7 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ July 14th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
batterseapower
The paper link is broken.
Could it be possible that this is a correlative effect only? e.g. it could be the case that states with a high proportion of black residents tend to be poorer, and poorer states are more adverse to redistribution.
With any luck, the authors found some way to control for this.
Wednesday ~ July 14th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Dain
“…and poorer states are more adverse to redistribution.”
I wonder about this. Are Louisiana and Mississippi poorer than Wyoming and North Dakota? I could look it up of course.
Wednesday ~ July 14th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Apex
2001 Bureau of Economic Analysis Numbers:
(PCI – Per Capita Income)
Mississippi PCI – $21,653, 51st (counting DC)
Lousianna PCI – $24,454, 45th
North Dakota PCI – $25,798, 39th
Wyoming PCI – $29,587, 20th
Thursday ~ July 15th, 2010 at 12:53 am
Dain
Thanks. Wow, ND trumps Louisiana.
Thursday ~ July 15th, 2010 at 8:12 am
filrabat
It’s also true that widespread poverty limits the ability of the state to make adequate payments. Now I’ll be the first to admit that the strong racism in the Deep South in particular did a lot to contribute to the overall high poverty of those states. Still, if a state is poor, then it’s poor – regardless of what causes it to be poor.
Take a look at the sort-of-middle regression line. Maryland, It has a high % of Blacks but it’s wealthy. Therefore, they can afford higher AFDC payments. Also, look at the left side of the graph. The states above the regression line tend to be wealthier in terms of per capita income and/or gross state product per capita than those below the regression line (e.g., Connecticut is above the regression line, Idaho is below it).
So while it’s interesting to correlate the AFDC payments with the % of Afr-Ams, the most the graph might be showing is the long-lasting effects of Jim Crow segregation. IOW, if you treat a huge % of your population like dirt for long enough and pervasively enough, your society creates poverty lasting far into the future – a poverty difficult to dig yourself out of even long after you stop treating the oppressed population like dirt. Put more simply, it’s the “sins of the father” phenomenon.
Thursday ~ July 15th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
jazzbumpa
FWIW, here is an insight from Brink Lindsey, president of the American Enterprise Institute:
Does America’s smaller welfare state reflect important cultural differences between us and folks on the other side of the Atlantic? Yes, probably, but the main one is hardly worthy of defending. A 2001paper, “Why Doesn’t the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State?” by economists Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser, and Bruce Sacerdote, provides powerful evidence that race is at the center of the story. There’s a strong negative relationship between a country’s racial heterogeneity and its levels of social spending, and within the U.S., states with larger black populations spend less on welfare programs. “Americans think of the poor as members of some different group than themselves, while Europeans think of the poor as members of their group,” the paper concludes.
Source: http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=another_culture_war_no_thanks
It would be hard to untangle this from what filrabat points out. Either way it’s a whole lotta F U, I got mine.
Cheers!
JzB
Thursday ~ July 15th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
jazzbumpa
Just realized Lindsey is citing the same paper as Karl.
So, never mind.
Cheers!
JzB