Courting the Asian-American Vote: Part II

I had a few interesting comments when I posted Part I of the subject on Asian-American politics, or the lack thereof. Mike Warren succinctly pointed out that he is "cautious to want Republicans to start trying to appeal to identity groups like this, because it dilutes or negates the basic conservative message" while also pointing out the importance of communicating non-raced based principles to ethnic communities in America. Repack Rider was especially harsh in assuming that I had no experience within the Asian-American community; fortunately, Freedoms Truth came to my defense. Like I said last week:

"What I am about to opine on comes from a combination of life experience being raised by Korean immigrants, my limited experience of dealing with Asian communities around the nation, and maybe some bald assertions about what Asian-Americans care about."

This includes experiences that I have had as a first generation American-born citizen of Asian descent, developing friendships and relationships with people from many ethnic communities from around the nation from different socioeconomic situations, and academic study into the sociology of race. Does this mean from time to time I have to make a few assertions here and there to get a point across? Yes, but it does not mean those assertions come out of thin air. So instead of making ad hominem attacks on the observations that I make, please disagree with me if you have had an experience different from mine.

Part I of this post focused a lot on the importance of family and freedom to Asian-Americans. I want to take the time to really delve into the "freedom" part of the message we can send to this relatively politically inactive group. On Tuesday, David Brooks of the New York Times penned an op-ed from Chengdu, China, making some key observations on the differences between individualistic societies (like those of the West) and collectivist societies (like those in Asia). Brooks makes several important distinctions. (Read the stories that go with these contrasts.):

"This is a divide that goes deeper than economics into the way people perceive the world ... Americans usually see individuals; Chinese and other Asians see contexts ... Americans are more likely to see categories. Asians are more likely to see relationship."

"The individualistic countries tend to put rights and privacy first. People in these societies tend to overvalue their own skills and overestimate their own importance to any group effort. People in collective societies tend to value harmony and duty. They tend to underestimate their own skills and are more self-effacing when describing their contributions to group efforts."

The thrust of Brooks' column was to point out that collectivist societies seem to now be competing economically with individualistic societies with the emergence of China as an growing economic powerhouse, that "the ideal of a harmonious collective may turn out to be as attractive as the ideal of the American Dream." While I can't expound on how Asians in Asia feel today about their new position in the world, the individualistic vs. collectivist mindsets might shed some light on the motivations of Asian-Americans, especially those who are naturalized citizens.

Scholars will probably argue over whether the collectivist mindset of Asians came from ancient Buddhist ideals, the nature of leaders like Mao in China or the emporers in Japan to call for modern collectivist movements, or a combination of the two. No matter what the source and evolution of the Asian collectivist mindset, Asian-Americans who have immigrated here (and many Asian-Americans born here who have inherited their parents' values) seem to have kept two important concepts from collectivism: stability and education.

When Brooks talks about valuing "harmony and duty," it is not a superficial, static harmony between people; it's also about the type of stability that people look for in the dynamic sense, the political, economic, and environmental stability that they can count on in order to successfully live their lives and support their families. So when I talk to young Asian-Americans in college, Asian-American small business owners, and Asian-American professionals (including my parents and extended family), most of them have reacted to Barack Obama's message of "change" by simply asking two questions: "why" and "how"? Valuing stability has led Asian-American immigrants, and many of their progeny, to be risk-averse, which has its benefits and pitfalls. I think our side of the aisle has the automatic advantage in playing to the "stability" message. Conservatives can provide economic stability by promoting a simple and predictable tax code. Conservatives can provide social stability by promoting not only the concept of law and order, but also enforcing it.

Brooks also describes the overestimation vs. underestimation of individual skills sets between people in individualistic societies and those in collectivist societies. I'm not sure whether or not calling it an "underestimation of skills" is an exaggeration; but what I am sure about is that the de-emphasis on skills developed increases emphasis on skills to be developed. This is why education seems to be on the mind of every Asian-American family. The focus on education has always been the subject of why Asian-Americans are called the "model minority," which I think has tended to be too short-sighted of an analysis. The drive to succeed in America is race-blind; that drive seems to be catalyzed within Asian-American individuals with a constant lack of satisfaction they have of the skills they presently possess. Sure, other ethnicities also have a drive to be better than they are, but from my observations, Asian-Americans seem to develop this drive from an inherited principle of collectivism. Conservatives can re-focus their attention on education in creative ways to attract Asian-American voters by calling for more options within public education and demanding more accountability for teachers. The message should no longer be based on "No Child Left Behind"; rather the goal should be to "Move Every Child Forward" from where they are now.

So if these two principles derived from collectivism are so great, why have so many immigrants of Asian descent, from the Chinese and Japanese immigrants that settled in California and Hawaii during the first half of the 20th century to the immigrants from multiple East, Southeast, and South Asian countries today, leave collectivist societies? The answer is simple: freedom.

There really are two problems with collectivism when applied to society. Collectivism does not gently persuade people into placing society over individual wants. Rather, it insists that you give up your individual identity for some common identity. Furthermore, collectivism applied to society usually leads to some form of authoritarianism and the erosion of personal freedoms. Ayn Rand famously argued that "throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing the common good." It's worth repeating Megan Shank's most important observation about Asian-American political involvement from her Newsweek article last week:

"Coming from nations where democratic engagement has been actively discouraged or eliminated, where politics has wrecked furtunes and ruined families, many Asian American voters remain reluctant to get involved."

Here's the bad news for liberals: Asian-American immigrants, as well as immigrants from other parts of the world, did not risk their lives and fortunes to come to this country because they marveled at our three branches of government, or because they repsected our system of checks and balances as well as separation of powers. They come here because they know they will have the freedom to pursue opportunities of their own choosing. They are attracted to a democratic individualistic society because, although they are adverse to getting deeply involved in politics, they like the fact that they can have a future they choose instead of a future chosen for them.

More bad news for liberals: Barack Obama is essentially the collectivist presidential candidate. If we can target the contrast points between McCain and Obama based on who will promote a future that they can choose for themselves, it might be a way to get Asian-Americans out to vote Republican.

But there's bad news for conservatives too. David Brooks penned an earlier column in May, raving David Cameron's Conservative Party in the UK and calling on American conservatives to learn a few lessons:

"The central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom."

I disagree that we should de-emphasize the conservative principles over the role of government and individual freedoms. I do agree that we must merge the principles of freedom and individualism with the best by-products of collectivism, particularly the by-products that Asian-Americans value: stability and education, both of which have particular importance in the "quality of life" of life debate.

We can win over this voting bloc, as well as other identity-based voting blocs, not by talking about identity, but by talking about the importance of freedom.

Discussion and disagreement are welcome. (I am particularly interested in other people's experiences with the Asian-American community, whether or not you are an Asian-American.)