Are Dems the real racists?

There’s a sense of the word “racist” in which white Democrats are more racist than white Republicans.

Written by Noah Carl.

Weary of constant accusations that their side is racist, some conservatives like to argue that “Democrats are the real racists”. Such arguments come in at least three different forms.

The first is that “Dems are the real racists” because it was them who passed Jim Crow laws in the South. This argument finds expression in Dinesh D’Souza’s book The Big Lie, which purports to expose the “Nazi Roots of the American Left”. The second is that “Dems are the real racists” because their policies actually do harm to non-white communities. “Welfare destroyed the black family”, it is often said. The third is that “Dems are the real racists” because they’re the ones who obsess over race, ignoring Martin Luther King’s dictum to judge people by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin.

Other conservatives lampoon these arguments, or at least claims to the effect that “Dems are the real racists”, on the grounds that they concede far too much ground to the left. After all, such claims take for granted that being considered “racist” is the worst possible thing and whichever side is shown to be less “racist” will inevitably occupy the moral high ground. As the journalist Darren Beattie notes, Republicans are “obsessed with proving that they’re not racist” because “they don’t understand it’s a game”. Racism “properly defined” is wrong, he says, “but it shouldn’t be a national obsession”.

I’m inclined to agree with Beattie. Certainly the first two arguments for why “Dems are the real racists” fall wide of the mark.

The first argument, that it was Democrats who passed Jim Crow laws, is highly disingenuous. Everyone knows there was a major realignment following the passage of the Civil Rights Act, with many white Southerners switching to the Republicans. And in any case, contemporary Democratic policies bear almost no resemblance to those which prevailed under the Southern Democrats.

The second argument, that Democratic policies actually do harm to non-white communities, isn’t much better. Even if that particular contention is true, it doesn’t follow that Democrats are “racist”, since unintentionally harming people through perverse incentive effects doesn’t qualify as racism.

However, I’d claim there’s an element of truth in the third argument, that Democrats are the ones who obsess over race. And, as I’ll explain, it isn’t just that they support objectively racist policies like affirmative action; they actually frame things in terms of benefits at the “racial level”. Now, I’m not placing myself back in the “Dems are the real racists” camp; as I’ve already said, I tend to agree with Beattie on that one. But I am saying there’s a sense of the word “racist” in which white Democrats are more racist than white Republicans.

Of course, there’s also a sense of “racist” in which white Republicans are more racist than white Democrats. For example, in surveys, they’re more likely to say they wouldn’t want to live in a half-black neighbourhood, and they wouldn’t want a relative to marry a black person (though, in both cases, the differences are quite small). In addition, I’m sure that most “racist skinhead” types support the Republicans, though their numbers are tiny.

Establishing the correct definition of “racist” is beyond the scope of this essay. I’m just saying there’s a commonly used definition of that term which yields the opposite conclusion, that Democrats are more “racist”. So what’s the definition I have in mind? It’s this. Racism is “treating people differently because of their race” (rather than because race happens to correlated with other variables, like criminality or worker productivity).

The first kind of evidence that Democrats are more “racist” than Republicans comes from the psychological literature. As the researcher Cory Clark notes, several recent studies have found that “liberals” treat blacks more favourably than whites, whereas conservatives treat these groups the same (or much more similarly).

Liberals are more willing to sacrifice a white man’s life than a black man’s life when asked to make utilitarian judgements. They present themselves as less competent when interacting with blacks than when interacting with whites (e.g., by using less sophisticated vocabulary). And they’re more likely to censor information if it portrays blacks unfavourably than if it portrays whites unfavourably. Relevant findings are summarised in the table below, which was taken from a paper by Clark and colleagues.

Source.

Liberals not only treat blacks and whites differently under controlled conditions; they also make arguments that seem to imply that races (not individuals) are the correct units when making moral judgements.

Confronted with evidence that black men are more likely to be searched, arrested or shot by law enforcement, liberals see “racism” and demand that such disparities be corrected – through measures such as eliminating stop and search or even “defunding the police”. But they typically, or invariably, ignore the effects that such measures have on specific individuals, including other black people.

According to liberals: if more black men are arrested, this must mean “blacks” (as a group) have been harmed. Yet the victims of black criminals are overwhelmingly other black people (just as the victims of white criminals are overwhelmingly other white people – most crime is intra-racial). And I’m not just talking about guys from different gangs being gunned down by their rivals. There are the children who get caught in the crossfire, the elderly residents too scared to leave their apartments, and many other innocent victims.

As a matter of fact then, arresting more black men could be beneficial for “blacks”. Of course, this sounds rather odd. And it should, since what we actually care about is the well-being of specific individuals, rather than the aggregate outcomes of different races.

Assuming that “racial level” outcomes represent the interests of those races, and then making policy based on that assumption, means that you end up treating people a certain way because of their race. In this case, you end up arresting black men less often than their level of criminality warrants, which has the effect of exposing other black people to more crime.

I agree with Beattie that trying to deflect every last charge of racism emanating from the left is not a good use of one’s time. However, noting whether each side’s behaviour conforms to commonly accepted definitions of “racism” is a useful intellectual exercise. And as I have demonstrated, there’s at least one definition of that term under which Democrats are more “racist” than Republicans. Studies shows that they treat blacks and whites differently under controlled conditions. And scrutiny of their arguments concerning policing reveals the same tendency.

This article was originally published behind a paywall on Noah’s Newsletter.

Noah Carl is Editor at Aporia.

---

Consider supporting Aporia with a paid subscription:

You can also follow us on Twitter.