This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/upshot/ordering-vindaloo-or-hunting-for-venison-how-you-vote.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Ordering Vindaloo or Hunting for Venison? How You Vote Ordering Vindaloo or Hunting for Venison: How Cosmopolitanism Shapes the Vote
(1 day later)
Who are you? It sounds like a simple question, but your answer depends on how you read the question. Are you being asked just for your name? The request seems to pose something deeper: Where are you from? What kind of person have you become?Who are you? It sounds like a simple question, but your answer depends on how you read the question. Are you being asked just for your name? The request seems to pose something deeper: Where are you from? What kind of person have you become?
It’s a question about identity, but not about descriptive traits, like being a daughter, father, friend or brother, or about the church or political party with which you associate. The question goes straight to how you see yourself in the world, and the answer has a lot to do with the state of politics in America right now.It’s a question about identity, but not about descriptive traits, like being a daughter, father, friend or brother, or about the church or political party with which you associate. The question goes straight to how you see yourself in the world, and the answer has a lot to do with the state of politics in America right now.
Part of how you see yourself is wrapped up in how you view and react to others. As a political scientist, I’ve been asking people about their experiences with people who are different from them. In 2008, I wrote a series of questions to measure cosmopolitanism. I asked seven questions about travel, sports and food to tap into behaviors that expose people to varying levels of social and cultural differences.Part of how you see yourself is wrapped up in how you view and react to others. As a political scientist, I’ve been asking people about their experiences with people who are different from them. In 2008, I wrote a series of questions to measure cosmopolitanism. I asked seven questions about travel, sports and food to tap into behaviors that expose people to varying levels of social and cultural differences.
Drawing on work in sociology, I tried to measure whether people thought their most powerful connections were to those in their local circles or to those in a broader orbit. For example, I asked people whether they had played softball on an organized team in the last decade, because this is usually done with members of a community. I also asked about hunting, an activity often done with family or close friends.Drawing on work in sociology, I tried to measure whether people thought their most powerful connections were to those in their local circles or to those in a broader orbit. For example, I asked people whether they had played softball on an organized team in the last decade, because this is usually done with members of a community. I also asked about hunting, an activity often done with family or close friends.
I asked people about the places to which they had traveled in the last 10 years: Canada, Mexico, Australia, Asia, Africa, Europe and South America, and whether they had eaten a meal at an Indian or Japanese restaurant in the last decade.I asked people about the places to which they had traveled in the last 10 years: Canada, Mexico, Australia, Asia, Africa, Europe and South America, and whether they had eaten a meal at an Indian or Japanese restaurant in the last decade.
The questions helped differentiate white voters who chose Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary from those who chose Hillary Clinton. The more likely people were to experience other cultures — through travel or food — the more likely they were to vote for Mr. Obama, even controlling for things like income, education, personality, racial attitudes and city living. As J.D. Vance recalls in his memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” comments about voters in parts of the country “clinging to their guns and their religion” didn’t help Appalachian residents warm to Mr. Obama. He was different from them, and he reminded them of it all the time.The questions helped differentiate white voters who chose Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary from those who chose Hillary Clinton. The more likely people were to experience other cultures — through travel or food — the more likely they were to vote for Mr. Obama, even controlling for things like income, education, personality, racial attitudes and city living. As J.D. Vance recalls in his memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” comments about voters in parts of the country “clinging to their guns and their religion” didn’t help Appalachian residents warm to Mr. Obama. He was different from them, and he reminded them of it all the time.
As the 2016 campaign unfolded, Donald J. Trump drew on this tendency to mistrust those who are different by saying he would keep various outsiders away. To see whether this had appeal, I asked 3,000 people the cosmopolitanism questions and found a pattern. White Republican primary voters were more likely to vote for one of the other 16 candidates in the race instead of Mr. Trump if they had traveled abroad or gone to an Indian or Japanese restaurant in the last 10 years. In some cases, the differences were quite large.As the 2016 campaign unfolded, Donald J. Trump drew on this tendency to mistrust those who are different by saying he would keep various outsiders away. To see whether this had appeal, I asked 3,000 people the cosmopolitanism questions and found a pattern. White Republican primary voters were more likely to vote for one of the other 16 candidates in the race instead of Mr. Trump if they had traveled abroad or gone to an Indian or Japanese restaurant in the last 10 years. In some cases, the differences were quite large.
Mr. Trump fared worst among white G.O.P. primary voters who had been to Asia, Africa or South America. These voters were 23 points more likely to choose one of the other candidates in the race. Those who had been to Europe, Australia, Canada or Mexico or had eaten at an Indian restaurant were also less likely to choose Mr. Trump by 10 to 12 points. The differences for eating at a Japanese restaurant and hunting were smaller, and there were no differences among those who had played softball on a team.Mr. Trump fared worst among white G.O.P. primary voters who had been to Asia, Africa or South America. These voters were 23 points more likely to choose one of the other candidates in the race. Those who had been to Europe, Australia, Canada or Mexico or had eaten at an Indian restaurant were also less likely to choose Mr. Trump by 10 to 12 points. The differences for eating at a Japanese restaurant and hunting were smaller, and there were no differences among those who had played softball on a team.
In the general election, there were also wide divergences among white voters. People who had been hunting in the last decade favored Mr. Trump by 22 points, while those had played softball favored him by nine points. People who had eaten Indian food favored Mrs. Clinton by 15 points, and those who had been to Europe or Australia favored her by 13 points. These relationships persist after accounting for things like partisanship, income, education and geography.In the general election, there were also wide divergences among white voters. People who had been hunting in the last decade favored Mr. Trump by 22 points, while those had played softball favored him by nine points. People who had eaten Indian food favored Mrs. Clinton by 15 points, and those who had been to Europe or Australia favored her by 13 points. These relationships persist after accounting for things like partisanship, income, education and geography.
Who we are and how we see ourselves in the world — fundamental questions about our identity — relate to our political choices. This is nothing new. A willingness to come into contact with others may drive both travel and vote choice, but actually experiencing differences has been shown to have effects on behavior.Who we are and how we see ourselves in the world — fundamental questions about our identity — relate to our political choices. This is nothing new. A willingness to come into contact with others may drive both travel and vote choice, but actually experiencing differences has been shown to have effects on behavior.
The philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah confronted this identity question head-on in his 2007 book “Cosmopolitanism” by asking readers to entertain the idea that in an increasingly connected world we have obligations that stretch “beyond those to whom we are related by the ties of kith and kind.” Some of these people may be different in one way or another, but Mr. Appiah urged us to consider the possibility that these differences are worth exploring because they help us learn about one another and thus make it easier to live together and respect one another.The philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah confronted this identity question head-on in his 2007 book “Cosmopolitanism” by asking readers to entertain the idea that in an increasingly connected world we have obligations that stretch “beyond those to whom we are related by the ties of kith and kind.” Some of these people may be different in one way or another, but Mr. Appiah urged us to consider the possibility that these differences are worth exploring because they help us learn about one another and thus make it easier to live together and respect one another.
He’s not alone.He’s not alone.
In “Hillbilly Elegy,” Mr. Vance writes about the views his family passed on to him about those who were different. According to his Mamaw, that is, his grandmother, people who were outsiders, whether socially or culturally, could never understand the needs, hopes or experiences of Mr. Vance’s kin. The Appalachian natives in Mr. Vance’s memoir were not interested in the kind of exploration of differences that Mr. Appiah envisions.In “Hillbilly Elegy,” Mr. Vance writes about the views his family passed on to him about those who were different. According to his Mamaw, that is, his grandmother, people who were outsiders, whether socially or culturally, could never understand the needs, hopes or experiences of Mr. Vance’s kin. The Appalachian natives in Mr. Vance’s memoir were not interested in the kind of exploration of differences that Mr. Appiah envisions.
It’s worth pointing out: The feeling was mutual. Until the success of “Hillbilly Elegy” and the election of Mr. Trump, nonhillbillies showed equally little interest in exploring the differences between their cultures and Mr. Vance’s. But explore we must, Mr. Vance implores. Getting out into the world is what helped him finally go to college and eventually end up at Yale Law School. Similarly, he suggests that understanding the culture in today’s rural America may help urban-dwellers and coastal elites appreciate Mr. Trump’s appeal.It’s worth pointing out: The feeling was mutual. Until the success of “Hillbilly Elegy” and the election of Mr. Trump, nonhillbillies showed equally little interest in exploring the differences between their cultures and Mr. Vance’s. But explore we must, Mr. Vance implores. Getting out into the world is what helped him finally go to college and eventually end up at Yale Law School. Similarly, he suggests that understanding the culture in today’s rural America may help urban-dwellers and coastal elites appreciate Mr. Trump’s appeal.
Both Mr. Appiah and Mr. Vance offer the same suggestion to break though contemporary barriers: get people to interact with those who are not like them.Both Mr. Appiah and Mr. Vance offer the same suggestion to break though contemporary barriers: get people to interact with those who are not like them.
It’s a strategy that has recently been borne out empirically. A team of economists led by Stanford University’s Raj Chetty reanalyzed a decades-old experiment called the Moving to Opportunity project, in which families living in public housing were randomly selected for a housing voucher that came with a requirement to move to a lower-poverty neighborhood. Other families stayed put. The differences between the two groups were substantial on one particular group: the youngest children in the families.It’s a strategy that has recently been borne out empirically. A team of economists led by Stanford University’s Raj Chetty reanalyzed a decades-old experiment called the Moving to Opportunity project, in which families living in public housing were randomly selected for a housing voucher that came with a requirement to move to a lower-poverty neighborhood. Other families stayed put. The differences between the two groups were substantial on one particular group: the youngest children in the families.
Those children whose families left the high-poverty areas were more likely to go to college, have higher incomes in their 20s and live in wealthier neighborhoods as adults. They were also less likely to become single parents.Those children whose families left the high-poverty areas were more likely to go to college, have higher incomes in their 20s and live in wealthier neighborhoods as adults. They were also less likely to become single parents.
Mr. Appiah suggests that conversations between people who find one another unfamiliar and anxiety-provoking are the first steps toward respect. Talking about anything at all — or even imagining what it might be like to be somewhere different and meet different people — can lead to understanding. In this way, reading a book, seeing a movie or television show, or traveling to a new place can fuel new consideration for others. Something as simple as conversation can change behavior.Mr. Appiah suggests that conversations between people who find one another unfamiliar and anxiety-provoking are the first steps toward respect. Talking about anything at all — or even imagining what it might be like to be somewhere different and meet different people — can lead to understanding. In this way, reading a book, seeing a movie or television show, or traveling to a new place can fuel new consideration for others. Something as simple as conversation can change behavior.
It may be naïve to think that politics could one day proceed without consideration of whether someone looks or sounds different — substituting instead the quality of a candidate’s ideas or of a neighbor’s actions. But there is reason to draw heavily on this hope.It may be naïve to think that politics could one day proceed without consideration of whether someone looks or sounds different — substituting instead the quality of a candidate’s ideas or of a neighbor’s actions. But there is reason to draw heavily on this hope.
“Conversation,” Mr. Appiah writes, “doesn’t have to lead to consensus about anything, especially not values; it’s enough that it helps people get used to one another.”“Conversation,” Mr. Appiah writes, “doesn’t have to lead to consensus about anything, especially not values; it’s enough that it helps people get used to one another.”