Orthodox Jews are yet another kind of conservatism, and they also vote heavily Republican.

I think the deep distrust between Evangelicals and Mormons can't be underestimated. There's still a deep feeling in the LDS community that while Mormons had made pretty extreme efforts to be part of America and were accepted that the Romney campaign and Evangelical reaction showed it wouldn't be. It'll be interesting to see how the Mormon community reacts after the three different events this year. (Romney, the FLDS and press reporting, and the prop-8 situation)

I think there's some truth to the Mormons as Puritan view. Although it can be really exaggerated. For instance the drinking prohibition while technically part of Mormonism since fairly early on really wasn't seriously made a part of Mormonism until around the time or prohibition. Prior to that time there were a fair number of Mormons who drank. It was looked down upon but more in line with say someone who swears.

I also think that once we hit the Utah period you start to have a broader selection of cultures coming. For instance there was a huge influx of Scandanavians. Certainly there was and is that strong British tie. But once again you have to be careful. Likewise the large conversion of pacific islanders had a pretty significant effect. (Hawaiians, Tongans, Samoans, Maori) Finally I think that the fact that the main persecutors of Mormons were from the south has a serious and long lasting effect on Mormon views. (The tragedy of the Mountain Meadows Massacre was wrapped up in that dynamic)

I don't think Mormons identify with Protestant America. Indeed there are many examples where they would in frankly silly ways separate themselves. For instance really until the last few decades the word "grace" wasn't used much theologically even though Mormons have a complex notion of grace. Why? Because of Protestants (especially Southern Protestants) Likewise Mormons tend to not use the symbolism of the cross even though there is absolutely no reason for it. (Although some Mormons sometimes invent silly reasons) The main reason is to distinguish itself from Protestantism.

That said they also drew on Protestant theology at times. The opposition to evolution by some Mormons back in the 1930's largely adopted the rhetoric and arguments of Evangelicalism. Likewise the racist views of Mormons in the 19th century up tended to marshal Protestant arguments and exegesis. The issue of Creationism at BYU ends up being one of those areas where things are more complex than they first appear. That's because the Mormon theology really isn't the same in the least as Protestant theology. Indeed there are, due to the Mormon notion of a pre-mortal existence, radical differences. Likewise Young Earth Creationism is hard to reconcile to Mormon theology. That's not to say you won't find many BYU students uncomfortable with evolution. But the reason tends to be more that our bodies are seen as teleologically directed and that the human form was planned from before the universe was created. Reconciling that with evolution can be theologically tricky. (Many think it can be done, which is why BYU goes out of its way to stress there's no conflict between LDS teachings and evolution and even gives out a handbook with fairly pro-evolution statements to most students) Likewise BYU has a pretty respected biology department with lots of prominent theorists on evolution.

Anyway, a few nits and picks

Sorry, I wrote way too much. One other quick point. A lot of the Mormon British connection postdated Puritanism by a fair bit. The English among the Mormons tended to consist of a lot of British converts. For a while there were actually more British Mormons in Britain than in Utah. So I think one has to be careful drawing too many cultural connections.

I think Jews are like the New England Puritans, in their respect for formal education and their "striving" mentality. Also, just like the descendants of NE Puritans today (like Howard Dean), they tend to be progressive in their political views today, and reasonably secular in their views. If the Mormons are the last remaining social conservatives in the NE Puritan progeny, then the Orthodox Jews are likely the same among the Jewish community. It seems like Jews are either very liberal (Reform & Conservative) or very conservative (Orthodox, Ultra-Orthodox). I get the impression that Asian immigrants are also like the NE Puritans in their value system. I know that Indians in this country, like my parents, disdained Sarah Palin's general ignorance; there was no comparable contempt for McCain.

just to be clear:
The largest ancestry groups in the state are:
29.0% English
11.5% German
6.8% American (Mostly British Descent)
6.5% Danish
5.9% Irish
4.4% Scottish
4.3% Swedish

oh, and: The English among the Mormons tended to consist of a lot of British converts. For a while there were actually more British Mormons in Britain than in Utah. So I think one has to be careful drawing too many cultural connections.

yeah, i looked up mitt romney's genealogy. that's evidence. there's a puritan branch, but that's outnumbered by people who obviously converted to mormonism and then immigrated to utah....

Also, just like the descendants of NE Puritans today (like Howard Dean), they tend to be progressive in their political views today

in catholicism & american freedom the author recounts an interesting bit of cultural & intellectual history. before the 1950s jews and catholics were allied as white ethnics against the protestant ascendancy. the new deal coalition was to some extent the culmination of this, though even as far back as the 19th century the two groups had to coordinate to defend themselves against protestant nativist groups.

in the 1950s post-protestant intellectuals abandoned their nativism, and turned their guns on traditionalist religion, and secularized their anti-catholic rhetoric. secular jews quickly switched their orientation this period and joined in with liberal protestants and post-protestants in fostering the emergence of the counter-culture and the individualist post-religious ethos. catholic intellectuals who had long interacted with jews against the protestant establishment were totally shocked at the turnabout.

my point here is that alliances serve a bigger strategic ends, and tactics will persist as long as they are useful.

I think the deep distrust between Evangelicals and Mormons can't be underestimated. There's still a deep feeling in the LDS community that while Mormons had made pretty extreme efforts to be part of America and were accepted that the Romney campaign and Evangelical reaction showed it wouldn't be. It'll be interesting to see how the Mormon community reacts after the three different events this year. (Romney, the FLDS and press reporting, and the prop-8 situation)

mormons are a minority. there are enough conservative protestants that they don't need mormon numbers, though i think mormon organizational genius is something which they might want. but from the outside it would seem mormons better keep kissing ass like romney if they want toleration. the mormon religion is just weird in its details to most christians, and conservative protestants have a hard enough time not takfiring each other ;-)

I also think that once we hit the Utah period you start to have a broader selection of cultures coming. For instance there was a huge influx of Scandanavians. Certainly there was and is that strong British tie.

two points

1) first culture imprinting. the theory that even if british mormons end up outnumbering the original new england stock, the culture of the new england stock will keep assimilating the new comers at a constant rate so that it is will be mostly the folkways of the first settlers which echo down. analogy with english in the USA; the majority of america's population is not descended from english speakers, but the vast majority speak english.

2) the type of people who convert to mormonism in england and scandinavia might plausibly be self-selected based on their affinities to the mormons who proselytized amongst them. so one could posit a positive-feed-back loop emerging in this sort of scenario.

another issue: from all i have read mormons tended to skew toward the less successful segment of the new england population. joseph smith's relatively marginal background not being atypical. i don't put much weight on this simply because judging from the high emigration rates for new england in the period before 1850 to the west it seems that the area was being subject to malthusian pressures.

I think Jews are like the New England Puritans... If the Mormons are the last remaining social conservatives in the NE Puritan progeny, then the Orthodox Jews are likely the same among the Jewish community.

That's a very interesting point.

But I think there are other conservative NE progeny. They live in places like Montana and Idaho. Maybe that explains the difference between Rocky Mountain conservatism and southern conservatism?

the mormon religion is just weird in its details to most christians

Indeed...
baptizing dead people!
Sorry but I find all religious manners soooo silly that it makes it very difficult to seriously discuss the whereabouts.
It's entirely whimsical and lacks any grounding in any kind of reality (ethnology, neuropsychiatry may be?) thus I wonder if there is any value (and reliability) in trying to predict the social outcomes.

The South is an interesting region. Before the Civil War, it was a bastion of European-style feudal aristocracy. Essentially, coastal Southern whites were like the English aristocracy before Cromwell, and resembled Spanish hidalgos or Russian boyars in their lifestyles and attitudes (i.e. not doing real work, spending their time sporting, drinking, dueling, etc.). The interior of the South, was, of course, settled by the so-called Scots-Irish, who were notorious for their unruly ways.

However, the Scots-Irish were religiously Calvinist, like the Puritans, and there was a powerful strain of hardcore, zealous Christianity among them (think Stonewall Jackson, or even Woodrow Wilson). Elements of Scots-Irish society certainly resembled the Puritans in their dourness and zealousness. You are seeing the consequences today, with congregations like the Southern Baptist Church, and politicians like the late Jesse Helms, who was, by all accounts, frugal and clean-cut in his personal life, in contrast to old stereotypes about English Cavaliers and Scots-Irish frontiersmen.

Also, Razib, you are absolutely right about the descendants of NE Puritans turning their anti-Catholic nativism into a progressive dislike of organized religion. The author Michael Lind has written extensively about this, about how Southern low-church Protestants and Northern Catholics became allies against a progressive coalition of Jews, Northeast WASPs, and non-white minorities. Issues like busing, AA, law & order, etc. permeate this conflict. Think John Lindsay, that progressive Northeastern WASP vs. Mario Procaccino, that socially-conservative, populist ethnic. This was a big reason for Nixon's success, getting the Catholic hardhats to turn their aggression towards the same WASPs but for different reasons (previously wealth and concentrated power, now anti-traditional progressivism).

I have been a lurker on this site for a bit and would like to contribute to this thread so forgive me if I am transgressing any implicit norms here. In support of Razib’s contention of the strong New England influence in the LDS, there is this brief paper, http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/ p...44.3Fleming.pdf , which cites this book which I have not read, Radical Origins: Early Mormon Converts and Their Colonial Ancestors, a genealogical study of the first Mormon converts. However, I have read this book - The Burned-over District: The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800-1850 by Whitney Cross, which also supports the very strong New England connection. The Burned-over District is a study of the many religious movements in the Western New York state area showing what a period of ferment and environment it was for locally organized religious movements. But the really interesting work to pursue is this one, The Refiner's Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 by John L. Brooke, which traces not only doctrinal/thematic links but genealogical links back to the more extreme Protestant dissenters of the English Civil War and the European hermetic traditions. It is quite exciting history demonstrating the radical doctrinal links in early Mormon theology (somewhat downplayed these days) and the specific families in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and elsewhere that, plausibly, carried them to the new world. The value of the work is that the fascinating “history of thought” section is not some free-floating conjecture but is tied to real family relations, which partially come down to a genetic component. Food for thought.

They definitely skewed to the poor for various reasons. That doesn't mean their ancestors were poor though.

While you're also right about dominating cultures there was a bit of a culture clash when in the later 19th century the large British and then Scandanavian bodies moved to Utah. They'd been more independent in England and the assimilation to the culture of Utah caused a few clashes including schizm called the Godbeit movement. (Which led to Utah's non-Mormon paper the Salt Lake Tribune with tensions between the two papers that remains to a degree to this day) Interestingly the mining interests (by the 1920's the state was only half Mormon) and the break offs of the Mormons were the main Republicans at that time. Until the 20th century Mormons were overwhelmingly Democratic and fairly anti-Republican due to the anti-Mormon platform of Lincoln's Republican party. (Lincoln is beloved now by mostly Republican Utah but sure wasn't in the 19th century)

Anyway, the mixing led to some interesting cultural changes. As did the history of persecution which produced almost a martyr complex in LDS culture that it only really came out of in the 80's. That's why the anti-Mormon vandalism of the last week or so will be interesting to watch to see if or how it affects the "collective unconscious" of Mormon culture. (I don't mean that in Freudian terms - just that I can't think of a better term at the moment) The prop-8 pressure by Mormons and blowback may end up being the most interesting cultural phenomena in Mormonism of the last few decades. (Or it may eventually not end up amounting to much - I don't know)

David, I think that's true too. Many social trends tend to parallel between the Mormons of the intermountain west and non-Mormons. Mormons have their own culture obviously but it is probably closer to other westerners due to similar structural encounters with their environment. For instance I think the Reagan Republicanism was in part due to dislike of Federal control of western lands with for Mormons that tension having much more deep roots due to their persecution by the state in Missouri and to a lesser extent Illinoi, the effects of the Utah War in the 1850's, and then the federal disenfranchising of the Church in the 1890's.

Mormonism. like a lot of other religious groups, was actually founded in western New York: The Burned-Over District. This doesn't destroy Razib's thesis, because this area is directly west of New England and migrants tended to be from New England.

However, I have another objection. The Puritans of the seventeenth century were communitarian out of military and economic necessity. As the area became more prosperous, the individualism of Calvinism (as opposed to Lutheran, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and even Methodist communitarianism) became dominant. Even today the old New Englanders (a threatened species) tend to be Republican, proudly independent, and contemptuous of anyone who gets government help. (The poet Robert Frost had a bit of that.)

Another angle, returning to the Burned-over District, would be to show the Mormon affinity to some of the Utopian communities of that area: the Oneida Colony, the Shakers, etc.

It's the wrong century and the wrong state (Michigan), but just for fun, here's the House of David. My guess is that it's descended not too distantly from the nearby burnt over district.

Communal groups tend to survive if they're a.) religiously-based, b.) stress the work ethic, and c.) have strong leadership, usually a charismatic leader. (The Hutterites do not have charismatic leaders and must survive because of diligent attention to the socialization of children.)

I should add: as far as I know, old Yankees are contemptuous of anyone who needs help from any source.

"...intellectuals who had long interacted with jews against the protestant establishment were totally shocked at the turnabout."

I always wondered about that--could you give some examples? William Buckley?

Also: Razib's map probably underestimates English ancestry in conservative areas of the country (esp. The South) where many claim "American" ancestry.

Note that Minnesota and North Dakota have very low English ancestry, even though these states are 90%+ white. If the map showed British ancestry, including Scottish and Scotch-Irish (and lumping in "American"), the result would be even more striking.

I think that's a pretty good point John. Further adding to the problem is that most people don't really know their ancestry. Mormons probably due better than most simply because of their focus on genealogy. I looked up the survey and it seems a self-identification survey which, for this sort of question, seems likely to be misleading. I'm also not quite sure how they handle mixed ancestry. For instance I'm probably about 2/3 British of various sorts with the rest being Swedish, Norweigan and Laplander. What would I put?

intellectuals who had long interacted with jews against the protestant establishment were totally shocked at the turnabout.

Catholics are a diverse bunch, I suppose the Irish are the most important group, but there are others - I understand that you aren't referring to Mexicans. Also, before FDR Jews weren't yet partisan Democrats (which was the natural home of Northeastern Irish Catholics), frex NY Jews didn't like the Irish Catholic-dominated Tammany and voted for the Republican La Guardia, the half-Jewish half-Italian Episcopalian. Seems to me that if there was an alliance it was a short-lived one, as Jews started moving into the Democratic Party, the Catholics were slowly starting to move out.

RE: Mormon baptism of the dead, comes this particularly money quote:

We ask you to leave our six million Jews, all victims of the Holocaust, alone, they suffered enough

ROTFL

Ralph Waldo Emerson called the Mormons an afterclap of puritanism.

Also, Mormon teaching bears a lot of resemblance to liberal, self help, power of positive thinking theology of the New England type.

Even today the old New Englanders (a threatened species) tend to be Republican

i think this is only compared to their catholic neighbors. and some of it is semantic. republicans olympia snowe and susan collins of maine are actually somewhat more liberal than ben nelson, a democrat (and on some ratings more liberal than the dem senators from louisiana & arkansas).

from cnn epolls, maine:
catholics obama - 61%
protestants obama - 49%

new hampshire:
catholics obama - 49%
protestant obama - 46

vermont:
catholics obama - 58%
protestant obama - 63%

the "no religion" group went overwhelmingly obama of course, and i would be willing to be that there are more cultural protestants than catholics in this group (in the northeast catholic ethnic associations seem to result in a higher church affiliation due to sentiment among the operationally secularized).

Excellent posting and comments.

One thing to keep in mind is that English Puritanism tended to have its roots in areas settled by Scandinavians, such as the Danelaw region in eastern England. (See a picture of the young Isaac Newton to see a prototypical eastern Englishman -- he looked like Christopher Guest in "Spinal Tap.")

So, the fact that the Mormons recruited directly from Scandinavia may actually validate Razib's point, since Puritanism has a Scandinavian element in its origin.

Indeed, Mormonism today somewhat resembles a non-governmental version of the Swedish welfare state.

I always wondered about that--could you give some examples? William Buckley?

buckley was an intellectual who happened to be catholic. i don't think of him as a catholic intellectual. i mean someone like john courtney murray.

Also, before FDR Jews weren't yet partisan Democrats (which was the natural home of Northeastern Irish Catholics), frex NY Jews didn't like the Irish Catholic-dominated Tammany and voted for the Republican La Guardia, the half-Jewish half-Italian Episcopalian. Seems to me that if there was an alliance it was a short-lived one, as Jews started moving into the Democratic Party, the Catholics were slowly starting to move out.

good points. i think the relationship between party & ideology was more complicated before FDR, who really created the word "liberal" as we understand it today. but the original alliance was really less political, in parts of the midwest the klan attacked both jews and catholics, and when it came to immigration policy, etc., they had natural common interests.

and you're right about catholic diversity. republicans were more common among italian and german catholics who resented the irish hegemony.

One difference between Mormons and liberal Protestants descended from Puritans is the Mormons are less intellectually elitist. The Puritans founded countless colleges which form very obvious hierarchies of intellect. If you looks at the 25th and 75th percentile of SAT scores for Puritan-founded colleges, like Harvard, Yale, Amherst, Pomona, etc., they are close together.

In contrast, the SAT score range between the 25th and 75th percentiles at BYU are among the largest in the country. Evidently, both smart and dumb Mormons go to BYU, where tuition is kept very low for a private college (causing class sizes to be quite large). BYU is more like a leftist post-WWII European public college -- easy to get into, cheap to stay in, not too distinguished intellectually.

i thought of what steve mentioned too: here's a map of the danelaw. a disproportionate number of puritans were east anglian in provenance, perhaps the majority. but, i would point out that the triangle between york, chester and torskey is where the quakers tended to come from. so one could posit that *two* of the folkways had scandinavian influence. OTOH, i personally thing that east anglia's long medieval to early modern trading relationship with the most culturally and economically advanced area of europe by modern metrics is more critical: the low countries. but in any case:
So, the fact that the Mormons recruited directly from Scandinavia may actually validate Razib's point, since Puritanism has a Scandinavian element in its origin.

i think there is something to this, scandinavians and puritans seem to have "ordered liberty" in common.

&, fwiw, east anglia is the original "saxon shore." it was probably where the germanic settlers were thickest on the ground, and made the biggest impact.

Unlike evangelical Christians in the South, Mormons do not accept with resignation that many youth may "raise hell" before settling down. Mormons do not accept the Protestant contention that salvation is through faith alone. Behavior matters

I don't agree with anti-Weberian argument there, that belief in predestination encourages bad behavior? Do you actually think that?

English Puritanism tended to have its roots in areas settled by Scandinavians, such as the Danelaw region in eastern England

Other parts of the British Isles, like Northern Ireland, Scotland, Northumbria, Cumberland, from where Appalachian Whites can trace their roots, also had a considerable Viking influx. Unless you someone can show any sort of continuity in East Anglia from the 9th to the 17th century, say in marriage and fertility customs, I'd say it's completely accidental.

I don't agree with anti-Weberian argument there, that belief in predestination encourages bad behavior? Do you actually think that?

no. i don't actually think theology matters. just illustrating a reinforcer of why *works* would matter to mormons. actually, think most humans are arminians, period. their theology doesn't matter if they notionally accept predestination.

One difference between Mormons and liberal Protestants descended from Puritans is the Mormons are less intellectually elitist

No, it's that liberal Protestants don't set up sectarian colleges that appeal mostly to liberal Protestants. Anyway, there's no difference in this regard between originally-puritan Ivy league colleges like Harvard and Yale compared to Princeton and Columbia that don't have a puritan background.

btw, to clarify, i wanted to emphasize this cultural continuity because i think mormons tend to have an organizational genius and group coherency and power projection which the scot-irish and southerners lack. pound for pound, mormons can leverage their skills so that they are very effective at forwarding their values. despite the fact that there are an order of magnitude fewer mormons than southern protestants, i think that their impact factor is probably going to be far more than an order of magnitude lower.

The Puritans founded countless colleges which form very obvious hierarchies of intellect. If you looks at the 25th and 75th percentile of SAT scores for Puritan-founded colleges, like Harvard, Yale, Amherst, Pomona, etc., they are close together.

but isn't this an artifact of the meritocratic revolution of the 1960s? puritan america was always the most literate region...it seems that that implies a particular egalitarianism. after all, puritan-descended new englanders were major forces behind the eduction of females, and they also fanned out cross the south along with quakers to teach post-slavery blacks how to read.

No, it's that liberal Protestants don't set up sectarian colleges that appeal mostly to liberal Protestants.

but that was their original aim. they were colleges to train sectarian ministers. e.g.,

harvard = congregationalist
yale = congregationalist
columbia = anglican
brown = baptist
princeton = presbyterian

but first with the "take over" of harvard by the unitarian faction these religious origins quickly faded away (princeton was new light calvinist which wanted offer a "real" christian alternative to heretical harvard, but it went the same way).

Also: Razib's map probably underestimates English ancestry in conservative areas of the country (esp. The South) where many claim "American" ancestry.

i'm working on this...but i've seen some social science research which suggests that "mixed" whites might choose their most "ethnic" ancestry because they code it as ethnic. e.g., someone who has half-english and half-german might say german because that seems more exotic.

i think mormons tend to have an organizational genius and group coherency and power projection which the scot-irish and southerners lack

I was thinking along similar lines regarding the composition of the Supreme Court. The conservative majority consists of 5 Catholics, the liberal minority of 2 Protestants and 2 Jews. Since the bedrock of the Conservative movement is (mostly southern) white evangelicals, the lack of any evangelicals is striking. Since nowadays you can't have mediocrities appointed to the Supreme Court, one wonders whether evangelicalism plays a part here (no offense).

Steve interesting point about puritanism and the Swedes. I didn't know that.

Regarding BYU, the level of SAT or equivalent scores were increasing when (I think in the mid 90's if I recall) there was a conscious effort to not raise that standard anymore but have a minimum requirement and then "random" after that with the other requirements being community service and so forth. (Don't quote me on this - but I remember it being a big issue in the 90's) Part of that is because BYU isn't just an university but also a place where Mormons outside of the main Mormon belt of Utah, Idaho, Arizona and California can come and socialize with Mormons and encounter Mormonism in an more intellectual avenue. (One might criticize BYU for not approaching Mormonism in enough of an intellectual fashion)

That said I do think there's a distinct anti-elitism further there is a common view, which I believe originally comes out of Calvinism, that the good is rewarded with success. Thus the large amount of entrepeneuralship (for better or worse) in Utah. Everyone thinks if they work hard they'll be successful. One could also read this into the Book of Mormon history even though I'd argue it's main message is more the dangers of wealth rather than righteous living providing wealth.

The other interesting thing is that Mormonism was largely a rural society really up until the past decades. Even in Utah some joke it's less an area of city than one large suburban sprawl that likes to imagine it's all small town living.

No, it's that liberal Protestants don't set up sectarian colleges that appeal mostly to liberal Protestants.

but that was their original aim. they were colleges to train sectarian ministers

They weren't liberal at the time, nor were they elitist... Applying Occam's razor which Sailer loves so much, Harvard and Yale are the most elitist because they are the oldest and have managed to acquire the most prestige.

There's a book out called "Knute Nelson: Norwegian Yankee" which is relevant to this thread. Nelson was Minnesota's first important political figure of Scandinavian descent, but he was Republican and assimilated the ways and attitudes of the previously-dominant Yankees. By the time he died in 1923, though, Minnesota Germans and Scandinavians were Populists or further left than that (Nelson was unmistakably anti-Populist) and supported a non-Yankee near-Socialist third part, the Farmer-Labor Party. The break came during a loyalty crisis during WWI, with Prohibition a major factor too. (Minnesota Germans were strongly pro-alcohol and big in the moonshining business -- "The Great Gatsby" was born Jake Gatz and was a North Dakota / Minnesota bootlegger.)

razib,

before the 1950s jews and catholics were allied as white ethnics against the protestant ascendancy. the new deal coalition was to some extent the culmination of this, though even as far back as the 19th century the two groups had to coordinate to defend themselves against protestant nativist groups. in the 1950s post-protestant intellectuals abandoned their nativism, and turned their guns on traditionalist religion, and secularized their anti-catholic rhetoric.

This wording is a little misleading: it implies that the liberal, anti-nativist strain of the Puritan tradition is a post-WWII invention. Which, as I'm sure you know, is anything but the case.

Liberal mainline Protestantism shows an extremely clear continuity from the Second Great Awakening, through the abolitionists and Transcendentalists, to the Social Gospel, the settlement movement, the Progressive Era proper, Eleanor Roosevelt, etc, etc, etc. It has not always been politically dominant, but it has generally been socially dominant.

Moreover, this obscures a bit of geographical culture history: the "nativist," American-nationalist branch of mainline Protestantism (eg, Madison Grant) to which you refer, responsible for the Harding-Coolidge restoration and now pretty much extinct, has its roots in one branch of the Unionist coalition, namely the Midwestern (or as they said then, just "Western"). There were considerable tensions between the Westerners and the New Englanders - for example, the latter hated the South because it oppressed blacks, the former because it was full of blacks. The last remnants of Midwestern nativist politics are seen with the isolationists, Taft, etc.

The relationship with the Catholics is also more interesting than you describe. The Catholics were always Democrats. In 1932, someone had a bright idea: if the progressive wing of the Republican Party (which was the Northern Protestant party, containing both nativists and progressives) took over the Democrat name and the Democrat machine, they could wax fat on the votes of their enemies, the "hyphenated-American" inner-city white ethnics and the Solid South, for the next thirty years, before the suckers woke up. Done. Smooth move, gents.

As for the Jews, being no suckers, they realized that they should assimilate into the most socially prestigious branch of the American tradition - the progressives. Again: done.

Since nowadays you can't have mediocrities appointed to the Supreme Court, one wonders whether evangelicalism plays a part here (no offense).

in a word, jews are smart, mainline protestants are somewhat smart (unitarians as smart as jews) evangelicals are stupid, and white catholics average. evangelical stupidity isn't necessarily heritable, there's evidence that people rise or fall in many parts of the country generationally SES.

Moreover, this obscures a bit of geographical culture history: the "nativist," American-nationalist branch of mainline Protestantism (eg, Madison Grant) to which you refer, responsible for the Harding-Coolidge restoration and now pretty much extinct, has its roots in one branch of the Unionist coalition, namely the Midwestern (or as they said then, just "Western"). There were considerable tensions between the Westerners and the New Englanders - for example, the latter tended to hate the South because it oppressed blacks, the former because it was full of blacks. The last gasp of the Midwest, politically, can be seen in the isolationists, the Taft dynasty, etc. Taftism being now of course extinct.

yes. but i think you're overemphasizing the deep roots of anti-catholic nativism in new england. e.g., henry cabot lodge. btw, many of the people you now as being of the midwest wing of course have new england origins. william howard taft's (the president) father was from vermont and that's where calvin coolidge was from.

Nelson was Minnesota's first important political figure of Scandinavian descent, but he was Republican and assimilated the ways and attitudes of the previously-dominant Yankees.

re: germans, carl schurz. unlike the irish the post-1848 germans were white ethnics who shared new england progressive social orientation (e.g., anti-slavery).

and re: mencius' comment, it's a lot easier to talk about new england than "the midwest." the latter is too expansive.

The conflict between European Catholic ethnics and New England WASPs is interesting, especially since the new immigrants were generally not known to respect education to a high degree (except maybe clerical studies). A lot of the old stereotypes are similar to the ones about Hispanics today. There are all these stories about how South Italians really didn't see the point of school, just manual labor or gangsterism. The Irish used to have this worldwide rep for not taking education that seriously, not only in America, but in Australia, NZ and Canada. This is MUCH less true today, as the Catholic ethnics seemed to have assimilated much of the WASP culture's education ethic. I'm guessing the GI Bill had a huge effect, too.

The conflict between European Catholic ethnics and New England WASPs is interesting, especially since the new immigrants were generally not known to respect education to a high degree (except maybe clerical studies).

exclude german catholics from this i think. remember that the first waves of post-1848 immigrants were often from the principalities of western germany, which were very advanced compared to the rest of the country (especially prussia). the other group of european catholics who were very advanced in the 19th century would be france, but france was not sending out immigrants (it was a destination country), and an enormous disproportionate number of 17th-18th century french immigrants were of protestant background (thank you edit of nantes revocation!)

ok guys, i have to do some errands. so if you comments get into queue, i won't be letting them through for a few hours. please try and mention books, papers and put up links in the comments if possible.

Part of that is because BYU isn't just an university but also a place where Mormons outside of the main Mormon belt of Utah, Idaho, Arizona and California can come and socialize with Mormons and encounter Mormonism in an more intellectual avenue.

And meet other Mormons to marry, I assume...

in a word, jews are smart, mainline protestants are somewhat smart (unitarians as smart as jews) evangelicals are stupid, and white catholics average

Actually I don't want to say that; maybe I want to say that conservative Catholicism has a rigorous enough intellectual tradition that is able to survive close contact with secular liberal culture, which make Conservative Catholics excellent Republican appointments to the Supreme Court.

What happened in the '30s is that the extreme progressive wing of the Republican party came up with a neat trick

Can you name names?

And assimilationist Jews, not being stupid, realized that the most socially successful American cultural group was the one they wanted to join. Thus, they became progressives.

You're getting it backwards. Jews brought their left-wing inclinations from Europe. (See the 1920 & 1948 elections).

maybe I want to say that conservative Catholicism has a rigorous enough intellectual tradition that is able to survive close contact with secular liberal culture, which make Conservative Catholics excellent Republican appointments to the Supreme Court.

sure, that makes sense. evangelical protestantism in the united states today is self-consciously against excessive intellectualism. the main exception i would think are the conservative calvinists associated with institutions like calvin college. mainline denominations like presbyterianism and congregationalism come from the same roots as protestant evangelicalism, but it seems like the latter's main distinction is that it totally turned on intellectualism and deference to educated elites. congregationalism (united church of christ) is the most liberal denomination today, but its decentralized organizational structure (as per its name) reflects common origins in the post-low church british protestant tradition which disliked institional artiface.

one last point: i think there are plenty of differences between puritans, modern new england protestants and mormons. rather, i'm trying to suggest that the differences between southern protestants and mormons, who are politically aligned and in agreement on culture wars issues, are likely rooted in their ancestral heritages. of course, some of it is just ecological & historical; mormons were shaped by utah. but i think the puritan antecedent also adds explanatory value.

the main exception i would think are the conservative calvinists associated with institutions like calvin college

I'd never heard of it, but I see that its roots are in the Dutch Reformed church, it's located in Michigan, i.e. unrelated to the Southern/Scots-Irish culture.

DHF's folkways on the silver screen:

Mr. Evans: You ever been to Lawrence young man?
Jack Bull Chiles: No, I reckon not Mr. Evans. I don't believe I'd be too welcome in Lawrence.
Mr. Evans: I didn't think so. Before this war began, my business took me there often. As I saw those northerners build that town, I witnessed the seeds of our destruction being sown.
Jack Bull Chiles: The foundin' of that town was truly the beginnin' of the Yankee invasion.
Mr. Evans: I'm not speakin' of numbers, nor even abolitionist trouble makin'. It was the schoolhouse. Before they built their church, even, they built that schoolhouse. And they let in every tailor's son... and every farmer's daughter in that country.
Jack Bull Chiles: Spellin' won't help you hold a plow any firmer. Or a gun either.
Mr. Evans: No, it won't Mr. Chiles. But my point is merely that they rounded every pup up into that schoolhouse because they fancied that everyone should think and talk the same free-thinkin' way they do with no regard to station, custom, propriety. And that is why they will win. Because they believe everyone should live and think just like them. And we shall lose because we don't care one way or another how they live. We just worry about ourselves.

(From "Ride in the Devil" - I think anyone who finds this discussion interesting would like this movie).

I think british ancestry is generally under reported. For instance my family has an irish surname and we have always thought of ourselves as good irish americans, big st. patricks day celebrations, pilgrimages to ireland etc. Well my aunt started to research our background. My grandfather was 1/16th irish the rest of his ancestry was derived from new england yankee's cum mormons. In my experience very few people think of themselves as English americans even if the have obviously english surnames like johnson, roberts, baker etc. Were as people I know with german, irish, scottish or scandinavian surnames tend to identify with those ancestries even if they only form a proportionally very small part of their ancestry. I think unless you have recent british ancestry there is little consciousness of british as distinct type of american. Its not an identity that seems to have much sway for people, what does it mean to be british american, there is little contrast to the mainstream culture. Were as if your ancestor spoke a different language, ate different food practiced a different religion that is a more memorable identifier.

but i think you're overemphasizing the deep roots of anti-catholic nativism in new england. e.g., henry cabot lodge. btw, many of the people you now as being of the midwest wing of course have new england origins. william howard taft's (the president) father was from vermont and that's where calvin coolidge was from.

Anti-Catholicism and nativism overlap but are not quite the same thing. Eg, Eleanor Roosevelt, no nativist, was a serious anti-Catholic. Indeed the various conservative American Christianities have more or less filled the evolutionary niche of Catholicism in the English political system: ie, boogeyman.

One of the well-hidden skeletons in the liberal closet is that our self-labeled multiculturalists were just as harsh on "hyphenated Americans" as their nativist enemies. Eg, much of the postwar drive for integration and "urban renewal" was a poorly concealed attack on inner-city Catholics. How many inner-city Catholics are there these days? And yet, in the '30s, they all voted for FDR and his lovely wife. Funny how that works. (For a discussion, see Michael Jones' odd and poorly-edited, but nonetheless fascinating, The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing.)

That Coolidge was a New Englander did not prevent him from being elected with Midwestern votes. There were conservatives in New England, too, just not so many. (The way most Americans use the word "Puritan" is a liberal mainline usage, meaning "unreconstructed Puritan" - ie, not Unitarian. Confusing because by descent, Unitarians are 100% Puritan.)

The mention of Carl Schurz is also interesting. It's not clear to me how numerically significant the phenomenon was, but Schurz and many other leaders of the German community in the Civil War era were 1848 liberal nationalists who had come to the US as political refugees - their own Heimat having figured out what a menace they were.

Can you name names?

You mean, FDR? Or his advisers, like Louis Howe?

Of course, progressive takeover of the Democrats was nothing really new - see Wilson. But the level of cynicism was new. Wilsonians, for instance, aimed to smash the Democratic urban machines. Whereas the New Deal incorporated them, and raised vote-buying to an almost theological plane. (When you see Thomas Frank complaining that Kansans don't vote according to their "economic interests," basically what he's expressing is anger that they sold him their votes and didn't stay bought.)

You're getting it backwards. Jews brought their left-wing inclinations from Europe.

They'd already been doing it in Europe. That's basically what a Reform Jew is: a Protestant Jew. Or even a Jewish Protestant. Started in Germany, I believe.

I'd never heard of it, but I see that its roots are in the Dutch Reformed church, it's located in Michigan, i.e. unrelated to the Southern/Scots-Irish culture

yes. there are some in the south which are not too different. it's a special subsection of the calvinist/evangelical which takes a more old-line puritan intellectual approach to theological conservatism, as opposed to lip-service to literalism but an emphasis on emotional experience and communal worship (pentecostals are the reductio ad absurdum of this).

That's basically what a Reform Jew is: a Protestant Jew. Or even a Jewish Protestant. Started in Germany, I believe.

in some ways i think this is fair. the original reform movement wanted to turn judaism into a confessional like protestantism or catholicism in 19th century germany. ergo, "germans of the mosaic faith." reform also originally disavowed jewish ethnicity/nationhood so as to emphasize that they were a religious denomination.

I think british ancestry is generally under reported.

yes. i have found some suggestive scholarship on this. more later....

I guess this is why I've always liked Mormons so much!

David Boxenhorn, according to this Orthodox Jews are more Democratic than Republican. In this post from Razib Jews by religion are more Democratic than non-religious Jews.

Rafe, my genealogy story is similar. My dad sympathized with the I.R.A when he was younger and named me after a character murdered by the hated English in some Irish book. As far as we were concerned we were 100% green. When my uncle went back to the old country to find out about our ancestor from there he discovered that he was born in Scotland and had merely moved to Ireland before America.

I think Mencius overlooks the difference Daniel Flynn emphasizes in "A Conservative History of the American Left" between the indigenous seperatist religious commune variety and the immigrant (often Jewish) more Marxist (or Prussian-style progressive) left. I also find it funny that he uses urban renewal as the turning point of the liberal & minority coalition against their Catholic allies when it's better known as "Negro removal".

Haloscan kept crashing so I had to write my comment in notepad and click post half a second after posting. Weird.

David Boxenhorn, according to this Orthodox Jews are more Democratic than Republican.

On the other hand, the Satmar Hasidim of Brooklyn voted overwhelmingly for McCain.

Mormons may not be really intellectually or culturally productive, but they probably consume more than do southern Protestants, and are probably more like Puritan-descended New Englanders in this respect. Not knowing anything about religious sects in the US, I don't know why they consume so much.

The GSS doesn't have a state-by-state breakdown, but it does do regions. They ask if, in the past year, you've visited an art museum, attended a dance performance, and been to a classical music or opera performance.

The only regions that are above the national average for all three leisure activities are Pacific, New England (duh)... and Mountain. The lowest, far and away, in all three is East South Central. This is true even when you restrict the data to whites.

Hillbillies would rather kill themselves than spend a few hours "watchin' some faggot prancin' around in tights."

This may be worth a post of its own. The NEA does surveys of arts attendance, and has regional data -- they show the same thing as the GSS.

GSS variables: VISITART, GOMUSIC, DANCE.

Regions:

New England - Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut

Pacific - Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii

Mountain - Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada

East South Central - Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi

In this post from Razib Jews by religion are more Democratic than non-religious Jews.

yes, but most jews by religion are reform or conservative. they're also older i believe. the reduction in dems is just that jews of no religion are younger, more cosmopolitan and less attached to institutions (the halo of the new deal and FDRolatry effects them less). but they're basically liberal independents who almost always vote democrat in any case.

ut they probably consume more than do southern Protestants

mormons consume way more jello than southern protestants. they also purchase way more trampolines per capita than southern protestants.

About New England vs. the Midwest in the pre-New-Deal Republican coalition:

In many ways, the Midwest/West was the more liberal (or rather "progressive") of the two wings. Think Robert LaFollette (although he had a French name; I don't know what his exact ethnic background was), George Norris, William Borah, or even Albert Beveridge (an imperialist but a domestic progressive) on the one hand vs. Nelson Aldrich, Henry Cabot Lodge, Calvin Coolidge, and forgotten figures like George Moses and Frank Brandegee on the other.

The dominant tone of Upper Midwest politics from the 1910s to the 1950s was isolationist, progressive (often bordering on socialist), yet usually nominally Republican.

And for that matter, Southern Democrats were all over the map (no pun intended) on economic issues; many were conservative, but others were segregationist liberals.

lafollette's french ancestor seems to have been a hugenot.

TGGP,

The history of urban renewal is complex, and we are quite a ways off topic. But yes, the phrase you mention has often been used. I think the Jones book would be a fun one for you to review on your blog.

Basically, there is a big difference between actually loving A, and claiming you love A as a cover story for your cynical, savage use of A as a club to bash B. One way to tell the difference: the results. Has the club flowered and grown leaves? Um, not exactly. So much for the miracle of "civil rights."

There is certainly a qualitative difference between the indigenous, WASPy high Puritans and the immigrant radicals. But the former had no trouble bridging this gap and forming a practical alliance. Think, for example, of the defenders of Sacco and Vanzetti. The alliance of terror and progressivism didn't start with Ayers and Obama.

Uneducated Italian anarchists are a phenomenon of the past, but the American left has long since moved on from the working class to the real prize - the underclass. Cajoling the support of what he called lumpenproletariat was too gauche even for Marx, but today's modern or Alinskyite communist has a conscience whose suppleness old Karl could only have envied.

James,

If you define left-right as statist/free-market, yes - the result is all over the map. The marker is simply inappropriate for the period, and it is very confusing when applied to historical continuity. The political ancestors of our modern progressives, for example, tended to have very sound economic policies up to the 1890s or so: classical liberalism, free trade and sound money, etc.

I would say the key divides between Boston Republicans and Chicago Republicans were nativism/universalism, (later) isolationism/internationalism, (earlier) protectionism/free trade and soft money/hard money. It is not quite on point, but cool essay by Charles Francis Adams, Jr. is a good review of the political scene, from a Mugwump New England high-Republican perspective, up to about the turn of the century.

I'm waiting for the day when the world finally stop calling Mormonism a "religion" and instead call it what it really is: a cult.

[i let this comment through to illustrate its obvious unthinking lack of value-add. e.g., this is a mental fart. any comment of this odor won't be let through the queue -razib]

What happened in the '30s is that the extreme progressive wing of the Republican party came up with a neat trick

Can you name names?

You mean, FDR? Or his advisers, like Louis Howe?

FDR was elected Democratic NY State Senator in 1910. Howe was an associate of FDR from around that time. The Democratic party in 1910 was not exactly an attractive vehicle for winning Presidential Elections, having held power for a grand total of 8 years in the previous 50. If either had previously been extreme progressive republicans, I don't know, but if they were - planning the New Deal coalition that arose out of the Great Depression 20 years before it happened - that would be some neat trick!

They'd already been doing it in Europe. That's basically what a Reform Jew is: a Protestant Jew

Reform Judaism has nothing to do with it. Both left-wing politics and reform were responses to the identity crises that afflicted Ashkenazi Jews in the 19th century - but they were distinct responses. Central European Jews (and also pre-1880 American Jews of German descent) tended towards Reform Judaism, which indeed aped liberal protestantism. In Eastern Europe, where the mass of American Jews come from, Reform Judaism didn't exist, if they expressed dissent from traditionalist Orthodox Judaism it was usually via this or that brand of secular politics. American Jews of East European descent picked up Reform Judaism in America.

That Coolidge was a New Englander did not prevent him from being elected with Midwestern votes. There were conservatives in New England, too, just not so many.

Wrong. In the 1924 La Follette broke with the Conservative Republicans and ran as a Progressive; Outside the solid Democratic South, New England was his worst region. New England was Coolidge's strongest region.

"English Puritanism tended to have its roots in areas settled by Scandinavians, such as the Danelaw region in eastern England"

Cf.

"Other parts of the British Isles, like Northern Ireland, Scotland, Northumbria, Cumberland, from where Appalachian Whites can trace their roots, also had a considerable Viking influx. Unless you someone can show any sort of continuity in East Anglia from the 9th to the 17th century, say in marriage and fertility customs, I'd say it's completely accidental."

My comment: There can have been no continuity because of the simple fact that the English were Catholic until the Reformation. There is nothing in Scandinavians, then or now, that is likely to give them a propensity to Puritanism. In any case, when the Scandinavians became Protestants, they became Lutherans, not Calvinists like the Puritans.

I have seen the Domkirke (Cathedral) in Aarhus in Denmark. It looks like a Catholic Church after a bit of a tidy up. It seemed quite familiar to my Catholic eyes. That's because it's Lutheran not Calvinist. First Reformation, not Second Reformation.

a cool essay by Charles Francis Adams, Jr. is a good review of the political scene, from a Mugwump New England high-Republican perspective, up to about the turn of the century.

It's getting really tangential to a discussion on Mormons, but I'd also recommend this collection of NY Times presidential endorsements since 1860, seems to be a chronicle of north-eastern liberal opinion:

1860-1880: Partisan Republicans. Anti-slavery and pro-reconstruction.

1884-1932: Mugwumps. Pro-free trade, sound money, moderate reform, since the 20s anti-prohibition and internationalist. Endorsements go to Democrats that aren't called William Jennings Bryan.

1936-1960: Centrist Internationalists: Surprisingly ambivalent about the New Deal, strongly internationalist. Endorsements are divided about equally between the two parties.

1964-: Reluctant Leftists: In the face of the growing conservatism of the Republican party, the NYT is strongly committed to the Democrats.

mormons consume way more jello than southern protestants. they also purchase way more trampolines per capita than southern protestants.

But for these things, they don't share top status with New England.

i think mormons tend to have an organizational genius and group coherency and power projection

You keep saying this, is this relative to Southern Protestants or absolutely? Maybe Romney was the most able Republican candidate this year (and his father was similarly well-regarded), but that doesn't prove anything. I'm not aware of a Mormon who created as great a business empire as Arkansas Presbyterian Sam Walton. In terms of power projection, Mormons are certainly well-represented in the US Senate (5 of them) where the Mountain West is overrepresented, I don't think it's true of the House. (I'll grant the group coherency part).

Mormonism today somewhat resembles a non-governmental version of the Swedish welfare state

I imagine that you are referring to Utah's relative egalitarianism relative to the rest of the USA (richest 20% 5.9 as much income as poorest 20%). But this is nowhere near Scandinavian levels of inequality (Denmark - 4.3, Sweden - 4, Norway - 3.9). The most egalitarian country is Japan (3.4). Now the Japanese most definitely have organizational genius. Hmmn... does Nephi mention anything about this?

In contrast, the SAT score range between the 25th and 75th percentiles at BYU are among the largest in the country.

Mormons admit returned missionaries of any academic ability to BYU. The perks of service.

"Razib's map probably underestimates English ancestry in conservative areas of the country (esp. The South) where many claim "American" ancestry."

Only 1.2% of white Americans list 'American' as their primary ancestry is the GSS (for blacks it's 12.2%). The highest for whites is in the South, but it's still only 2-3%.

What is your ancestry (whites):

English%, American%

New England 14.1, 0.4
Middle Atl 8.9, 0.9
E N Central 13.4, 0.8
W N Central 12.6, 0.4
South Atlan 24.1, 2.2
E S Central 24.5, 3.1
W S Central 15.6, 2.5
Mountain 22.1, 0.8
Pacific 17.6, 0.8

danny,

FDR was elected Democratic NY State Senator in 1910. Howe was an associate of FDR from around that time. The Democratic party in 1910 was not exactly an attractive vehicle for winning Presidential Elections, having held power for a grand total of 8 years in the previous 50. If either had previously been extreme progressive republicans, I don't know, but if they were - planning the New Deal coalition that arose out of the Great Depression 20 years before it happened - that would be some neat trick!

I must apologize for answering flippantly. I didn't really mean to go into detail on this.

FDR was a lightweight, a nothing, a figurehead. The title of John T. Flynn's Country Squire in the White House sums it up best. Howe was FDR's first producer, a la David Axelrod. His successor Harry Hopkins, who pretty much ran the White House for most of FDR's presidency, has much clearer ideological roots. However, the person largely responsible for staffing the leadership of the New Deal bureaucracy was Felix Frankfurter, and his name is probably the one I should have given. For FDR biographers, I prefer Flynn and Finis Farr. There is a great deal of misinformation about this period floating around.

The talk of party labels is misleading in general, as well, because most American elites of that period did not think of party politics as ideologically meaningful and valid. In fact, they thought of party politics as sordid, as of course they were. So, for example, one could be as easily confused by the fact that Horace Greeley ran as a Democrat in 1872.

Nonetheless, if we can generalize about the vast herds of ignorant, unintelligent, and misinformed voters that decided these ancient elections, in their little ovine minds, Republicans were the party of the Northern elite and Democrats were the party of the ignorant masses.

Switching around these labels - what is politely called "realignment," although I think a more forceful word, such as "partyjacking," would be appropriate - confused tens of millions of voters for a generation and a half. And the key election in which it happened was the election of 1932. I think these claims are pretty much uncontestable, and they are all I meant to say.

Reform Judaism has nothing to do with it. Both left-wing politics and reform were responses to the identity crises that afflicted Ashkenazi Jews in the 19th century - but they were distinct responses. Central European Jews (and also pre-1880 American Jews of German descent) tended towards Reform Judaism, which indeed aped liberal protestantism. In Eastern Europe, where the mass of American Jews come from, Reform Judaism didn't exist, if they expressed dissent from traditionalist Orthodox Judaism it was usually via this or that brand of secular politics. American Jews of East European descent picked up Reform Judaism in America.

I don't disagree with this at all.

Wrong. In the 1924 La Follette broke with the Conservative Republicans and ran as a Progressive; Outside the solid Democratic South, New England was his worst region. New England was Coolidge's strongest region.

The Progressive Party of 1924 is no longer representative of the main stream of the movement I think of as "progressive," as in both the Progressive Era and progressives today. For example, La Follette was an isolationist.

Is it surprising that New England in 1924 was the Republican candidate's strongest region? Is a bear Catholic, etc?

When talking about Democrats and Republicans you have to think of these names as very nominal umbrella terms for messy coalitions. These coalitions have realigned drastically at least four or five times, to the point that the continuity was almost broken.

1. Andrew Jackson transformed the Democrats into a more populist, more Western party.

2. Lincoln established the (new) Republicans, made up of fragments of various earlier parties, as a Yankee-Midwestern farmer-middle class party.

3. Wilson and Bryan moved the Democrats somehwt in the direction of labor and poor farmers. I'm not sure that this was as much of a change as the others.

4. With Roosevelt the Democrats became a labor and small farmer party. Perhaps 3 and 4 are one gradual change spread over 30 years.

5. in 1948-1980 the Republican Party shifted to the South. The most recent election makes the Republicans seem like a regional Southern / interior Western party.

AFAIK, the Democrats and Republicans before Bryan and Wilson, and mostly before FDR, were regional and ethnic parties with the Democrats mostly representing primary producers and the Republicans mostly representing finance and manufacturing. Tariffs and currency questions were their biggest issues; neither was very populist or egalitarian.

Populists starting in 1880 or so and Progressives a little later could work together or against each other, and both could work either with the Republicans, with the Democrats, or as independent third parties. This may be in part because the two major parties were above all patronage distributors, and secondarily represented concrete industries and groups, so that the ideological issues had to be addressed outside the party structures.

Very nice blog site, I some how found you looking for things on our sons esophageal atresia issues he was born with. Either way I am always thankful to meet new blog friends. I wish you nothing but the best.

Here's something else New Englanders have in common with Mormons..low smoking rates. According to the CDC Utah has the lowest smoking rate at 11.8%. Both Connecticut (15.4%) and Massachusetts (16.4%) rank in the bottom 5 states. Other NE states such as Vermont and Rhode Island also rank well below avergae. At the other extreme, Kentucky (28.2%) and West Virginia (26.9%) have the highest smoking prevalences in the U.S.

Fun and interesting discussion. Two quick things:

* FWIW, Mormonism was born in central-western NY State, not New England. That part of the country these days is pretty bland, but back in the day it was a krazy place, full of fervor and forever going nuts for revivals and new religions, and known as the Burned-Over District partly for that reason. I'm no authority on the history of the region, but I did grow up there, and FWIW these days anyway it's certainly fair to say that it's more akin to Ohio than it is to New England. Don't know that that makes any diff to your thesis, though.

* PBS's pretty-recent series about the Mormons was good, I thought. I learned a lot anyway. You can watch the whole thing online here.

and FWIW these days anyway it's certainly fair to say that it's more akin to Ohio than it is to New England.

upstate new york and the northern third of ohio were settled from new england (northern ohio was once claimed by the state of conneticut). because of the later influx of "white ethnics" the fact that long island, upstate new york, michigan, northern ohio, northern illinois and the upper midwest were originally settled by new englanders, while the areas to the south were settled by people from the upper south, is not as obvious.

For more data as to why Mormons vote overwhelmingly Republican one should check out Alexander's Mormonism in Transition which covers LDS history from the end of federal persecution in the 90's to around the time of modern Mormonism in the 1930's. It was during this period that Mormons started to embrace in a big way the political process. Interestingly often Mormons were assigned to run for both parties just to ensure there was a two party system going.

Now this doesn't deal with the changes in the 70's and 80's when social conservative issues tended to make Democrats far, far less attractive to Mormons to such an extent that one could talk about Mormon block voting for Republicans.

I also mentioned at my blog that Leonard Arrignton's Great Basin Kingdom makes many of the same points Razib makes. The introduction, which is available via Google Books goes through the economic, religious and political parallels between Mormons and Puritans. (Read from pages 3 - 5)

(Edit: it's not being accepted so I must have too many links. So Amazon links have been deleted)

I'm not aware of a Mormon who created as great a business empire as Arkansas Presbyterian Sam Walton.

Well, there are the Marriotts. I'm not sure that methadology is the best way to calculate this. There are other fairly big Mormon businesses. However it seems like, judging by Utah, what most interesting are entrepreneurs who make multimillion companies. Maybe not Fortune 500 companies but large ones.

Unlike evangelical Christians in the South, Mormons do not accept with resignation that many youth may "raise hell" before settling down

This article is interesting.

Someone at my blog brought up the article "The Religious Heritage of the British Northwest
and the Rise of Mormonism" (Church History 77:1) which seems to go against Razib's thesis.

"I'm not aware of a Mormon who created as great a business empire as Arkansas Presbyterian Sam Walton."

Jon Huntsman, a Mormon from Idaho, founded Huntsman Corporation, one of the world's largest chemical companies with annual revenues of $11.5 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Hun...man_Corporation

Mormonism is definitely a New England
export (which went through upstate NY).
Containing elements of other "second great
awakening" beliefs along w/ a bit of
freemansonry thrown in.

Joseph smith was born on the VT/NH border
area. There is an official birthplace site and
a number of "Joseph Smith Lived Here" type sites.
People actually moved around a lot back then
perhaps even more than average today. Often, even
people who farmed rented farmland so they were
not necessarily tied to owning their own farm.
I believe his father was a shopkeeper and a farmer
at different times.

Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science) was born
in Concord NH and most of the big shaker sites
are in New England).

This region really did produce unconventional beliefs.

I get the impression that Southerners tend to either be really hedonistic or really puritanical. It's almost like Saudi Arabia, w/ the princes' debauchery contrasting with the extreme puritanism of the Wahhabists like bin-Laden.

i'm not too interested in impressions. thread closed.