Taxpayer-Study: Why Obamacare Opponents Are Racist

Hurry up NOvember.

thefoxnation.com/business/2010/06/18/taxpayer-study-why-obamacare-opponents-are-racist

If you think $50,000 doesn’t buy what it used to, think again. For that rough sum, a professor at UCLA has agreed to draw up a report that proves opponents of the Democrats’ health-care bill aren’t motivated by a sense of fiscal responsibility or a general distrust of back-room deals, but by race.

The kicker? Taxpayers are funding the study.

According to the study’s abstract, provided by the National Science Foundation, a government agency under the control of the executive branch: “This research project attempts to provide further evidence for this Obama-induced racialization by pinpointing the extent that health-care opinions are influenced by racial attitudes and determining Obama’s causal role in racializing public opinion about a policy that has no manifest racial content.”

David Sears, a professor of psychology at UCLA, was awarded $52,034 in January 2010 to make this case for the National Science Foundation. The tautology he sets forth in his abstract is rather complicated, so let’s break it down: The project will seek to provide more evidence that opponents to health care are irrational because their negative opinions of health care “are influenced by racial attitudes,” even though the health-care bill has nothing to do with race.

It is so sad to see these well educated, intellectual professors who are clueless & yet we pay them to "educate (indoctrinate)" our kids & even pay them $50,000 to cry racism?????

Even our Universities are so dumbed down it is sad. Very little independent thought, 99% "group-think"!

Theories become "truths" without factual basis.

Anyone who doubts the beliefs of the "progressive" lemmings is called names like "racist, bigot....", despite having valid concerns!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

It is an interesting study that starts with the conclusion first!

[quote="estesbob, post:3, topic:202666"]
It is an interesting study that starts with the conclusion first!

[/quote]

Global warming started the same way too.

[quote="Stjudeprayforus, post:4, topic:202666"]
Global warming started the same way too.

[/quote]

Reminds me of the Red Queen-"Sentence first, trail later!"

[quote="Stjudeprayforus, post:1, topic:202666"]
David Sears, a professor of psychology at UCLA, was awarded $52,034 in January 2010 to make this case for the National Science Foundation. The tautology he sets forth in his abstract is rather complicated, so let’s break it down: The project will seek to provide more evidence that opponents to health care are irrational because their negative opinions of health care “are influenced by racial attitudes,” even though the health-care bill has nothing to do with race.

[/quote]

From Prof. Sears' website:
polisci.ucla.edu/people/faculty-pages/david-o-sears

On face value, this is his bread-and-butter. He's built a career off studying racism. His textbook is in its 9th printing.

Symbolic racism, from what I can tell, is the belief that a minority group receives problems because they deserve them. So health care would fit into this if:
1) You assume that health care reform is meant to help out minorities
2) You oppose health care reform because you don't want minorities to be helped.

Interesting. In this light (and I admit, this is a real short-hand look) the entire argument of symbolic racism is a rhetorical device of confusing form with intent. Ie, if you oppose an action that helps someone of a minority race, whatever you believe your intent actually is, symbolic racism holds that your intent is to deny them benefits because you feel that the minorities are lazy. I'll illustrate why this argument is obtuse.

Say there was a bill to give every African-American and Hispanic American in the U.S. $1.2 million to be funded by assessing a flat tax of 45% of net income on caucasian americans so that the increase on caucasian americans entirely pays for the benefit given to African- and Hispanic-Americans.

If you're a caucasian American and you're going to get hit with this tax, you may very well oppose the bill because your family cannot possibly absorb an additional 45% of your pay being withheld every month. You'd probably lose your house or fall behind on your rent or lease. So you oppose the bill for the purpose of helping your family. However, symbolic racism would consider that your intent is actually that you don't think those who would receive the $1.2 million wealth transfer deserve it, so therefore you're a racist. The only way to not be a racist here is to gleefully surrender your keys and live out of your in-laws basement (assuming they still have one).

Sears is another reason why if we have academics crafting thought leadership on policy, it needs to be economists, not psychologists with a hippie-axe to grind.

I read the methodology and summary of one of his papers ("Symbolic Racism", from 1988), Some of his studies have lousy methodology. In this paper he lists a summary of his previous research and includes the model specifications - which take the form of regression analysis on a "racism index", which is subjective ordinal factor, and use as few as two dependent metrics. Look, you can't compose an "index" from two metrics. That's just an average. And taking categorical data (such as "party ideology" and "opposition to busing") and converting it into an ordinal scale is one thing, but in regression analysis (which involves rotating matrices) you cannot using merely ordinal data (ie, 3 is bigger than 2 but less than 4) but rather you must well-defined countable numbers (ie, 4 is twice 2, the gap between 1 and 2 is equal to that between 2 and 3). This may be why his goodness of fit measures are .3 or below (ie, the racism factors are estimated to explain 30% of the variation in the racism scale). Altogether, this is a poorly designed "experiment" and it hardly justifies his theories.

[quote="losh14, post:7, topic:202666"]
I read the methodology and summary of one of his papers ("Symbolic Racism", from 1988), Some of his studies have lousy methodology. In this paper he lists a summary of his previous research and includes the model specifications - which take the form of regression analysis on a "racism index", which is subjective ordinal factor, and use as few as two dependent metrics. Look, you can't compose an "index" from two metrics. That's just an average. And taking categorical data (such as "party ideology" and "opposition to busing") and converting it into an ordinal scale is one thing, but in regression analysis (which involves rotating matrices) you cannot using merely ordinal data (ie, 3 is bigger than 2 but less than 4) but rather you must well-defined countable numbers (ie, 4 is twice 2, the gap between 1 and 2 is equal to that between 2 and 3). This may be why his goodness of fit measures are .3 or below (ie, the racism factors are estimated to explain 30% of the variation in the racism scale). Altogether, this is a poorly designed "experiment" and it hardly justifies his theories.

[/quote]

from the standpoint of the Obama adminsitration is was perfecty designed-it allows Obama to dismiss all oppostion to his policies as racist,

I actually agree with the notion that "Obamacare Opponents are Racist"! More correctly, they can be considered "racialist" even though they never explicitly use race when expressing their ideology. Kevin MacDonald, by no means a leftist, also makes this case.

theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-ADL.html
theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Anger.html
theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=743

Dodgson directs his readers to this compelling video of a working-class British woman of the type that is the heart of the BNP. These people are former supporters of the Labour Party. They have been completely abandoned by their party which, like the Democrats in the US, is seeking to keep itself in power by enabling a permanent majority of non-Whites. They rightly fear a future in which the White working class will have no power at all.

It may well be the same in America. As I noted previously, the enraged Whites who are expressing themselves in the tax revolts and town hall meetings of 2009 are middle- and lower-middle class. They are very angry — but they can’t discuss the real reason they are angry: mass immigration and the dispossession of people like themselves and their culture.

Eventually, all the phony implicit White issues will run out. And when that happens, these people won’t be overtly concerned about health care plans or even about Obama and his radical proclivities. All that will be ancient history. And it will have to get right down to it — that it is indeed about race.

[quote="Stjudeprayforus, post:1, topic:202666"]
Hurry up NOvember.

thefoxnation.com/business/2010/06/18/taxpayer-study-why-obamacare-opponents-are-racist

If you think $50,000 doesn’t buy what it used to, think again. For that rough sum, a professor at UCLA has agreed to draw up a report that proves opponents of the Democrats’ health-care bill aren’t motivated by a sense of fiscal responsibility or a general distrust of back-room deals, but by race.

The kicker? Taxpayers are funding the study.

According to the study’s abstract, provided by the National Science Foundation, a government agency under the control of the executive branch: “This research project attempts to provide further evidence for this Obama-induced racialization by pinpointing the extent that health-care opinions are influenced by racial attitudes and determining Obama’s causal role in racializing public opinion about a policy that has no manifest racial content.”

David Sears, a professor of psychology at UCLA, was awarded $52,034 in January 2010 to make this case for the National Science Foundation. The tautology he sets forth in his abstract is rather complicated, so let’s break it down: The project will seek to provide more evidence that opponents to health care are irrational because their negative opinions of health care “are influenced by racial attitudes,” even though the health-care bill has nothing to do with race.

[/quote]

Let's see... opposition to rendering unto Caesar what is God's, oppositon to communism, opposition to euthanasia, opposition to abortion on demand...

Yup. Racist. Definitely.

[quote="Sailor_Kenshin, post:10, topic:202666"]
Let's see... opposition to rendering unto Caesar what is God's, oppositon to communism, opposition to euthanasia, opposition to abortion on demand...

Yup. Racist. Definitely.

[/quote]

yep.. that is how some people actually think.

The really sad part... being called a RACIST is now a joke.
A horrible label has been reduced to a joke.

Ugh.

[quote="estesbob, post:8, topic:202666"]
from the standpoint of the Obama adminsitration is was perfecty designed-it allows Obama to dismiss all oppostion to his policies as racist,

[/quote]

Indeed! But from the standpoint of a statistician (which I am) it's like fingernails on chalkboard!

And they gave this clown an endowed chair ...

[quote="Black_Rose, post:9, topic:202666"]
I actually agree with the notion that "Obamacare Opponents are Racist"! More correctly, they can be considered "racialist" even though they never explicitly use race when expressing their ideology.

[/quote]

The trouble with assessing a racist intent to political opposition is that such an assessment sweeps away any merit that lies within the arguments. It is completely valid to oppose legislation on the grounds of fiscal solvency, a desire to adhere to Constitutional Law, or a suspicion of corruption in the powers that be. It is a rotten reason to oppose legislation because you don't want dark-skinned persons to be able to afford the doctor.

Yes, there are racists out there, and I'm sure that many voted for John McCain. That doesn't make white conservatives racist any more than it makes black liberals racist when they voted for Obama because the Black Panthers supported Obama.

Thanks for the link to MacDonald's pieces. He's an odd choice - at first I thought you were referencing the Charlotte Observer which is a well-respected paper. But the Occidental Observer is a website that focuses on "white identity" and as such I'd be suspect that anything that comes out of there has to do with race. Throughout the articles, he conflates race with other factors For example, he thinks the fear that whites have comes largely from:

"what health care would be like if the progressive wing of the Democratic Party got its way. These middle class Whites envision themselves standing in line with Blacks, Latinos, legal and illegal immigrants, and everyone else. And they realize that in general the taxes of people like themselves are being used to support services for people quite a bit unlike themselves — people who pay proportionately far less of the tax burden "

Yes, I fear this, too, but what I fear is:
1) Having to stand in line to receive health care when I get it on demand now with my employer-subsidized (though still not cheap) insurance
2) Having to support services for those who pay less for the same services
3) Having the progressive wing of the Democratic Party manage things. The same wing that champions throwing more money at half-broken systems (Medicare, Social Security, V.A.) rather than do the hard things that need to be done in order to fix them.

I wouldn't mind #2 as much if someone competent were running the show. We need more business managers and economists in D.C. and fewer lawyers, but I suppose that's an indict of Congress in general. I don't oppose altruism, but I do oppose having someone else tell me (under force of law) how to be generous with my own money.

Where I strongly disagree with MacDonald is that I've no problem if there are blacks and latinos in my doctor's waiting room. Good for them, he's a good doctor and he takes good care of his patients. I only have trouble if my bill includes line items for patients (regardless of race) who can't pay.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.