I want to talk about the election. For the first time in the United States, a predominantly white group of voters voted for an African-American candidate for President. And in fact Barack Obama did quite well. He won 375 electoral votes. And he won about 70 million popular votes more than any other presidential candidate -- of any race, of any party -- in history. If you compare how Obama did against how John Kerry had done four years earlier -- Democrats really like seeing this transition here, where almost every state becomes bluer, becomes more democratic -- even states Obama lost, like out west, those states became more blue. In the south, in the northeast, almost everywhere but with a couple of exceptions here and there.
Želim pričati o izborima. Prvi puta u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, grupa većinski bijelih glasača glasala je za Afro-Američkog kandidata za Predsjednika. I ustvari Barack Obama je postigao dobar uspjeh. Osvojio je 375 elektorskih glasova. I dobio je oko 70 milijuna glasova popularnosti više od bilo kojeg drugog predsjedničkog kandidata, bilo koje rase, bilo koje stranke, u povijesti. Ako usporedimo uspjeh Obame s uspjehom Johna Kerrya četiri godine prije -- Demokrati stvarno vole vidjeti ovaj prijelaz, gdje gotovo svaka država postaje više plava, postaje više demokratska --- čak i u državama u kojima je Obama izgubio, kao na zapadu. Te države postaju više plave. Na jugu, sjeveroistoku, gotovo svugdje ali uz pokoju iznimku tu i tamo.
One exception is in Massachusetts. That was John Kerry's home state. No big surprise, Obama couldn't do better than Kerry there. Or in Arizona, which is John McCain's home, Obama didn't have much improvement. But there is also this part of the country, kind of in the middle region here. This kind of Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, West Virginia region. Now if you look at '96, Bill Clinton -- the last Democrat to actually win -- how he did in '96, you see real big differences in this part of the country right here, the kind of Appalachians, Ozarks, highlands region, as I call it: 20 or 30 point swings from how Bill Clinton did in '96 to how Obama did in 2008. Yes Bill Clinton was from Arkansas, but these are very, very profound differences.
Jedna iznimka je Massachusetts. To je rodna zemlja Johna Kerrya. Nije veliko iznenađenje, Obama nije mogao proći bolje od Kerrya ondje. Ili u Arizoni, koja je dom Johna McCaina, Obama nije imao neko poboljšanje. Ali postoji i ovaj dio zemlje, negdje u sredini regije ovdje. Ova regija koja obuhvaća Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahomu i Zapadnu Virginiu. Ako pogledate '96, Billa Clintona, posljednjeg Demokrata koji je zaista pobijedio, kako i je '96, vidi se velika razlika u ovom ovdje djelu zemlje -- regija planina Appalachian, Ozarka, regija visoravni, kako ju ja zovem. 20 ili 30 bodova mijenja se od rezultata Billa Clintona '96 do rezultata Obame u 2008. Da, Bill Clinton je bio iz Arkansasa, ali ovo su vrlo vrlo profinjene razlike.
So, when we think about parts of the country like Arkansas, you know. There is a book written called, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" But really the question here -- Obama did relatively well in Kansas. He lost badly but every Democrat does. He lost no worse than most people do. But yeah, what's the matter with Arkansas? (Laughter) And when we think of Arkansas we tend to have pretty negative connotations. We think of a bunch of rednecks, quote, unquote, with guns. And we think people like this probably don't want to vote for people who look like this and are named Barack Obama. We think it's a matter of race. And is this fair? Are we kind of stigmatizing people from Arkansas, and this part of the country?
Pa. dok razmišljamo o dijelovima zemlje poput Arkansasa, znate. Napisana je knjiga: Što nije u redu s Kanzasom? Ali pravo pitanje -- Obama je prošao relativno dobro u Kanzasu. Izgubio je ali svaki Demokrat izgubi. Izgubio je ne puno gore od ostalih. Ali stvarno, što nije u redu s Arkansasom? (Smijeh) I kad razmišljamo o Arkansasu često imamo poprilično negativne konotacije. Razmišljamo o hrpi seljaka, navod, kraj navoda, s oružjem. I smatramo kako ovakvi ljudi vjerojatno ne žele glasati za ljude koji izgledaju ovako, i zovu se Barack Obama. Smatramo da je to pitanje rase. I je li to pošteno? Stigmatiziramo li ljude iz Arkansasa, i ovog dijela zemlje?
And the answer is: it is at least partially fair. We know that race was a factor, and the reason why we know that is because we asked those people. Actually we didn't ask them, but when they conducted exit polls in every state, in 37 states, out of the 50, they asked a question, that was pretty direct, about race. They asked this question. In deciding your vote for President today, was the race of the candidate a factor? We're looking for people that said, "Yes, race was a factor; moreover it was an important factor, in my decision," and people who voted for John McCain as a result of that factor, maybe in combination with other factors, and maybe alone. We're looking for this behavior among white voters or, really, non-black voters.
I odgovor je, bar djelomično točan. Znamo da je rasa činitelj, i razlog zbog kojeg to znamo je to što smo pitali te ljude. Zapravo nismo ih pitali, ali kada su podvrgnuti izlaznim anketama u svakoj državi, u 37 država, od 50, pitali su pitanje, koje je bilo direktno, vezano uz rasu. Pitali su ovo pitanje. U odlučivanju za koga glasati za Predsjednika danas, je li rasa kandidata bila faktor? Tražimo ljude koji su rekli: "Da, rasa je bila faktor, štoviše bila je važan faktor u mojoj odluci." I ljudi koji su glasali za Johna McCaina kao rezultat tog faktora, mogu biti u kombinaciji s drugim faktorima, a mogu biti i sami. Tražimo ovakvo ponašanje među bijelim biračima, ili zapravo, ne-crnim glasačima.
So you see big differences in different parts of the country on this question. In Louisiana, about one in five white voters said, "Yes, one of the big reasons why I voted against Barack Obama is because he was an African-American." If those people had voted for Obama, even half of them, Obama would have won Louisiana safely. Same is true with, I think, all of these states you see on the top of the list. Meanwhile, California, New York, we can say, "Oh we're enlightened" but you know, certainly a much lower incidence of this admitted, I suppose, manifestation of racially-based voting. Here is the same data on a map. You kind of see the relationship between the redder states of where more people responded and said, "Yes, Barack Obama's race was a problem for me." You see, comparing the map to '96, you see an overlap here. This really seems to explain why Barack Obama did worse in this one part of the country.
Tako da možete vidjeti, velike razlike u različitim dijelovima zemlje, na ovo pitanje. U Louisiani, otprilike jedan od pet bijelih glasača rekao je, "Da, jedan od velikih razloga zašto sam glasao protiv Baracka Obame je zato što je on Afro-Amerikanac." Da su ti ljudi glasali za Obamu, čak i samo polovica, Obama bi bez problema pobijedio u Louisiani. Isto je točno sa, ja mislim, svim državama koje vidite na vrhu popisa. U međuvremenu, California, New York. Za njih možemo reći, "O mi smo prosvijetljeni," ali znate, puno manji dio priznaje, pretpostavljam da je ovo odraz glasanja po rasnoj osnovi. Ovo su isti ti podaci na karti. Možete vidjeti vezu između crvenijih država gdje je više ljudi odgovorilo i reklo, "Da, rasa Baracka Obame je bila problem za mene." Vidite, ako uspoređujemo kartu sa '96, vidimo preklapanje ovdje. To zaista objašnjava zašto je Barack Obama prošao lošije u ovom dijelu države.
So we have to ask why. Is racism predictable in some way? Is there something driving this? Is it just about some weird stuff that goes on in Arkansas that we don't understand, and Kentucky? Or are there more systematic factors at work? And so we can look at a bunch of different variables. These are things that economists and political scientists look at all the time -- things like income, and religion, education. Which of these seem to drive this manifestation of racism in this big national experiment we had on November 4th? And there are a couple of these that have strong predictive relationships, one of which is education, where you see the states with the fewest years of schooling per adult are in red, and you see this part of the country, the kind of Appalachians region, is less educated. It's just a fact. And you see the relationship there with the racially-based voting patterns. The other variable that's important is the type of neighborhood that you live in. States that are more rural -- even to some extent of the states like New Hampshire and Maine -- they exhibit a little bit of this racially-based voting against Barack Obama. So it's the combination of these two things: it's education and the type of neighbors that you have, which we'll talk about more in a moment. And the thing about states like Arkansas and Tennessee is that they're both very rural, and they are educationally impoverished.
Zato se moramo pitati zašto. Je li rasizam predvidljiv na neki način? Postoji li nešto što potiče ovo? Je li to povezano s nekim čudnim stvarima koje se događaju u Arkansasu koje ne razumijemo, i Kentuckyu? Ili su ovdje sistematični činitelji na djelu? Tako da možemo pogledati mnoštvo različitih varijabli. Ovo su stvari koje ekonomisti i politički znanstvenici gledaju cijelo vrijeme -- stvari kao prihod, vjera, obrazovanje. Što od ovoga potiče ovu manifestaciju rasizma u ovom velikom nacionalnom eksperimentu koji smo imali četvrtog studenog? I postoji nekoliko ovih činitelja koji imaju jake predvidljive poveznice -- jedna od kojih je obrazovanje. Gdje se vidi da države koje imaju najmanje godina školovanja po odrasloj osobi, su u crvenom i vidite ovaj dio zemlje, regiju planina Appalachian, koja je manje obrazovana. To je jednostavno činjenica. I vidite poveznicu ovdje s rasno uvjetovanim uzorcima glasovanja. Druga važna varijabla je vrsta naselja u kojem živite. Države koje su više ruralne, čak i neke države kao New Hampshire i Maine, one pokazuju malo rasno uvjetovanog glasanja protiv Baracka Obame. Tako da je to kombinacija ove dvije stvari. Obrazovanja i vrste naselja u kojoj ste, o čemu ćemo za trenutak malo više razgovarati. Stvar kod država kao što su Arkansas i Tennessee je to da su obje vrlo ruralne, i da su u zaostatku s obrazovanjem.
So yes, racism is predictable. These things, among maybe other variables, but these things seem to predict it. We're going to drill down a little bit more now, into something called the General Social Survey. This is conducted by the University of Chicago every other year. And they ask a series of really interesting questions. In 2000 they had particularly interesting questions about racial attitudes. One simple question they asked is, "Does anyone of the opposite race live in your neighborhood?" We can see in different types of communities that the results are quite different. In cites, about 80 percent of people have someone whom they consider a neighbor of another race, but in rural communities, only about 30 percent. Probably because if you live on a farm, you might not have a lot of neighbors, period. But nevertheless, you're not having a lot of interaction with people who are unlike you. So what we're going to do now is take the white people in the survey and split them between those who have black neighbors -- or, really, some neighbor of another race -- and people who have only white neighbors. And we see in some variables in terms of political attitudes, not a lot of difference. This was eight years ago, some people were more Republican back then. But you see Democrats versus Republican, not a big difference based on who your neighbors are.
Tako da je rasizam predvidljiv. Ove stvari, između ostalih varijabli, ali ove stvari ih čini se predviđaju. Sada ćemo zagrepsti malo dublje, u nešto što se zove Opće Društveno Ispitivanje. Ono se provodi od strane Sveučilišta u Chicagu svake druge godine. I oni postavljaju niz vrlo zanimljivih pitanja. 2000-te imali su posebno zanimljiva pitanja o rasnim stavovima. Jedno jednostavno pitanje koje su postavili, "Živi li netko suprotne rase u vašem susjedstvu?" Možemo vidjeti kako su rezultati različiti po zajednicama. U gradovima, oko 80 posto ljudi ima u svom susjedstvu nekog koga smatra druge rase. Ali u ruralnim zajednicama, samo 30 posto. Vjerojatno zato što živite na farmi, nemate mnogo susjeda. No unatoč tome, nemate veliku interakciju s ljudima koji nisu poput vas. Tako da ćemo sada uzeti bijele ljude iz ispitivanja i podijeliti ih na one koji imaju afroamerikanca za susjeda ili zapravo, susjeda druge rase. Ljudi koji imaju samo bijele susjede. I vidimo u nekim varijablama kada gledamo političke stavove, da nema puno razlike. Ovo je bilo prije osam godina, neki ljudi su bili više okrenuti Republikancima tada. Ali vidite Demokrati protiv Republikanaca, nema velike razlike na osnovu toga tko vam je susjed.
And even some questions about race -- for example affirmative action, which is kind of a political question, a policy question about race, if you will -- not much difference here. Affirmative action is not very popular frankly, with white voters, period. But people with black neighbors and people with mono-racial neighborhoods feel no differently about it really. But if you probe a bit deeper and get a bit more personal if you will, "Do you favor a law banning interracial marriage?" There is a big difference. People who don't have neighbors of a different race are about twice as likely to oppose interracial marriage as people who do. Just based on who lives in your immediate neighborhood around you. And likewise they asked, not in 2000, but in the same survey in 1996, "Would you not vote for a qualified black president?" You see people without neighbors who are African-American who were much more likely to say, "That would give me a problem."
Pa čak i neka pitanja o rasi, na primjer afirmativne akcije, što je političko pitanje, pitanje stava o rasi, ako želite. Nema ni tu puno razlike. Afirmativna akcija nije vrlo popularna iskreno, ni s bijelim glasačima, točka. Ali ljudi sa crnim susjedima i ljudi iz zajednica s jednom rasom nemaju različite stavove o tome. Ali ako zagrebemo malo dublje, ako odemo na malo osobniju razinu, "Da li podržavate zakon koji će braniti brakove između rasa?" Postoji velika razlika. Ljudi koji nemaju susjede druge rase su otprilike dvaput skloniji protiviti se međurasnom braku, za razliku od ljudi koji imaju. Na osnovi toga tko živi u vašem neposrednom susjedstvu. I isto to su pitali, ne 2000., već u istom istraživanju 1996, "Bi li glasali protiv kvalificiranog crnog predsjednika?" Vidite da su ljudi bez susjeda koji su Afro-Amerikanci bili skloniji reći, "To bi mi stvaralo problem."
So it's really not even about urban versus rural. It's about who you live with. Racism is predictable. And it's predicted by interaction or lack thereof with people unlike you, people of other races. So if you want to address it, the goal is to facilitate interaction with people of other races. I have a couple of very obvious, I suppose, ideas for maybe how to do that.
Dakle nije stvar u urbanom protiv ruralnog. Stvar je u onom s kim živite. Rasizam je predvidljiv. I predvidljiv je interakcijom ili nedostatkom iste s ljudima koji nisu poput vas, ljudima druge rase. Ukoliko ga želite riješiti, cilj je organizirati interakciju s ljudima drugih rasa. Imam nekoliko vrlo očitih, ideja kako to možda učiniti.
I'm a big fan of cities. Especially if we have cites that are diverse and sustainable, and can support people of different ethnicities and different income groups. I think cities facilitate more of the kind of networking, the kind of casual interaction than you might have on a daily basis. But also not everyone wants to live in a city, certainly not a city like New York. So we can think more about things like street grids. This is the neighborhood where I grew up in East Lansing, Michigan. It's a traditional Midwestern community, which means you have real grid. You have real neighborhoods and real trees, and real streets you can walk on. And you interact a lot with your neighbors -- people you like, people you might not know. And as a result it's a very tolerant community, which is different, I think, than something like this, which is in Schaumburg, Illinois, where every little set of houses has their own cul-de-sac and drive-through Starbucks and stuff like that. I think that actually this type of urban design, which became more prevalent in the 1970s and 1980s -- I think there is a relationship between that and the country becoming more conservative under Ronald Reagan.
Ja sam veliki obožavatelj gradova. Osobito ako imamo gradove koji su raznoliki i održivi, i mogu podržavati ljude različitih etničkih skupina i različith prihoda. Mislim da gradovi potiču više umrežavanja, i spontane interakcije nego što inače imate na dnevnoj bazi. Naravno da ne žele svi živjeti u gradu, naravno ne u gradu kao što je New York. Tako da možemo razmišljati o mrežama ulica. Ovo je naselje u kojem sam ja odrastao u East Lansingu, Michigan. To je tradicionalna zajednica srednjeg zapada, što znači da imate pravu mrežu. Imate prava susjedstva i pravo drveće, i prave ulice po kojima možeš hodati. I u interakciji ste sa svojim susjedima, ljudima koji vam se sviđaju, ljudima koje ne poznajete. I kao rezultat to postaje jedna vrlo tolerantna zajednica, što je drugačije, ja mislim, od nečega poput ovoga, što možemo vidjeti u Schaumburgu, Illinois. Gdje je svaka grupa kuća u vlastitoj slijepoj ulici i drive-through Starbucks i takve stvari. Mislim da zapravo ovaj tip urbanog dizajna, koji je počeo prevladavati u sedamdesetima i osamdesetima. Vjerujem da postoji veza između toga i situacije gdje zemlja postaje konzervativnija, pod Ronaldom Reganom.
But also here is another idea we have -- is an intercollegiate exchange program where you have students going from New York abroad. But frankly there are enough differences within the country now where maybe you can take a bunch of kids from NYU, have them go study for a semester at the University of Arkansas, and vice versa. Do it at the high school level. Literally there are people who might be in school in Arkansas or Tennessee and might never interact in a positive affirmative way with someone from another part of the country, or of another racial group. I think part of the education variable we talked about before is the networking experience you get when you go to college where you do get a mix of people that you might not interact with otherwise.
Ali ipak, tu je i druga ideja -- tu je program razmjene gdje studenti iz New York-a putuju u inozemstvo. Ali iskreno postoji dovoljno razlika unutar zemlje gdje ćete naći mnoštvo klinaca sa sveučilišta u New Yorku, koji su otišli studirati jedan semestar na sveučilište u Arkansasu, i obrnuto. Napravimo to na razini srednjih škola. Doslovno postoje ljudi koji mogu ići u školu u Arkansas ili Tennessee, i nikad neće biti u interakciji na pozitivan način s nekim iz drugog dijela zemlje, ili drugom rasnom grupom. Mislim da je dio edukativne varijable o kojoj smo razgovarali prije iskustvo umrežavanja koje dobijete kada idete na fakultet sa mješavinom ljudi s kojima inače možda ne bi bili u interakciji.
But the point is, this is all good news, because when something is predictable, it is what I call designable. You can start thinking about solutions to solving that problem, even if the problem is pernicious and as intractable as racism. If we understand the root causes of the behavior and where it manifests itself and where it doesn't, we can start to design solutions to it. So that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Ali poanta je, da su ovo sve dobre vijesti. S obzirom na to da je predvidljivo, to je ono što zovemo uredivim. Možete početi razmišljati o rješenjima za taj problem. Čak i ako je ovaj problem opasan, i tvrdoglav kao rasizam. Ako razumijemo korijene ovakvog ponašanja i gdje se ono pojavljuje a gdje ne, možemo početi stvarati rješenja za tu situaciju. Tako da je to sve što imam reći. Hvala vam puno. (Pljesak)