Which European Ancestry are generally more Republican/Conservative?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Swiss, are the most conservative, no contest.  A large portion are Amish which are the most socially conservative group.  I'm not sure if most Amish vote, but their views are very traditional.  

English, Scots-Irish, and Dutch are likely the next most conservative.  English are disproportionately southern, the region with the most conservative whites, and Mormons tend to be English too.  Scots Irish are similar, but more recent to the Republican coalition as the Appalachians flipped solid R only fairly recent.  Highly Dutch counties in the midwest like Sioux and Ottawa are deeply conservative due to Dutch influence.  

German Americas are likely the next most conservative, huge pro Trump trends occurred in the heavily German midwest.  

Scandinavian Americans are ancestrally Dem, as can be seen in areas like Northern MN, but there is definitely a big Republican trend, as can be seen by the fact 2/3 of the Republican's 2018 gains were Scandinavian districts in MN.

"White ethnics" like Polish Catholics and Italians are probably less republican than Germanic ethnicities but I think they have recently trended R.  Italians were a big part of the Republican trend in Long Island and southern NJ in 2016.  

Irish (Catholics) are probably the least conservative white European group.  This is due to their concentration in New England, the area with the most liberal whites.  Irish outside of New England probably lean Republican, but the New England factor is what effects their overall numbers.  This group is one I think Republicans have the most room to grow with.  I think Irish are more ancestrally Dem than left wing ideologically.  

The most liberal whites of course are Jews, but they aren't a European ethnic group...

It's interesting how little diaspora in America resemble their home nations.  England, the Netherlands, and Germany are quite progressive nations while their American diaspora are so conservative.  Ireland, Poland, and Italy are to the right of places like England but their diaspora are probably to the left of the white average in America.  Jews are the most unique.  In Israel jews vote for right wing, anti-immigration politicians, while in America they are the most left, especially on cultural issues.  Part of this is due to differences in religiosity but there are probably other factors too.  Secular Jews in Israel are still quite nationalistic.

How exactly are you defining which European countries are to the right or left of the others? Your categorization seems to be "is this place Catholic or Protestant" most of all.

(and by the way, I don't think the Amish consider their ancestry as Swiss, also I read once that there is a saying among them that goes "we don't vote, but we pray Republican")

objectively, the Amish ancestors are from Switzerland.  Also, it's universally known Germany and the UK are to the left of Italy and Poland.

What does "universally known" mean?
You're not giving any supporting fact.
Whereas I am going to tell you some things about my country.

Did you know that in Italy homosexual activity stopped being a crime in 1890? That is, roughly 80 years before Germany and England.
Did you know that Italy abolished the death penalty in 1890 (although it was reintroduced by the fascist regime during 1926 - 1945)? That is, much before the United Kingdom.
Did you know that Italy was the third country in the world to recognize the right to change one's legal gender, in 1982?
Did you know that the Italian Parliament has a slightly higher proportion of women than both the British House of Commons and the German Bundestag?
Did you know that the Italian government is still the main shareholder and with special power - despite the liberalization of the 80's and 90's - of many former nationalized companies, including some large multinationals like Eni, Enel and Leonardo?

Yes, in Italy there is no same-sex marriage, and it has probably the highest rate of conscientious objectors on abortion of the world*, and you can pick all the measures you want to determine it is not particularly progressive or to the left. But, as I showed, you can also pick important measures that put it on the progressive or left side of things.
Anyway, I don't want to go against you or have a nasty argument, I just want to have a discussion informed by evidence and not by stereotypes. Sorry.

Nice history lesson, but i'm talking about the attitudes of the people, that's what is relevant to this discussion.  On a variety of issues, from religion to LGBT to immigration to mixed relationships to having kids before marriage, southern and eastern Europe tend to be more conservative than the Germanic nations.  I was simply pointing out how the modern politics of Europe have little link to how diaspora groups in America vote. 

I don't know. I have never seen surveys about that, but my guess is that people in Italy and Spain may be a little more conservative than in Northern Europe, and people in Poland, the Balkans and generally Eastern Europe (but emphatically not Czech Republic, one of the least religious countries in the world) may be clearly more conservative.

Anyway, of course the politics of diaspora groups were developed in an epoch where LGBT rights, abortion, birth control, kids before marriage, were not issues. If you want to find a religion-related issue of those times, Prohibition is no. 1. And the way these political leanings developed is, simplifying a lot, that Italians, Poles, Portuguese etc. were Catholic immigrants in a Protestant-majority nation, where the Republicans were - and still are - the party of established groups, of tradition and of religious conservatism, and the Democrats were - and still are - the party of immigrants, especially if from minority groups. Then of course more than a century of political, but also identitarian, realignments have happened (e.g. the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement) that have distorted and modified those leanings, but not enough to not still have more Italian American Democrats than German American Democrats.

I'm actually glad for this conversation. I think this is what Atlas is supposed to be about.

[RINO Tom]

I calculated these estimates awhile ago based on the White vote by County project of mine (the granularity is only at the county level, so there is some degree of error here):

Based on these stats, to some degree those who have eastern European ancestry are more likely to be liberal which is quite opposite to the ones living in the Eastern European countries now. I kind of thought the Scandinavians and Germans were likely to be less conservative seeing how many rural counties in Wisconsin and Minnesota vote democratic in the recent elections.

Scandinavians and Germans in Minnesota and Wisconsin may be comparatively Democratic, but then you've got to add in the members of those groups who live in places like the Great Plains, who are extremely Republican.

Not to mention that OF the votes Republicans get in major metro areas across the United States, from Minneapolis to Chicago to Cincinnati, are likely disproportionately German.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Or indeed that 'ancestry groups' say less about which ethnic groups a person primarily descends from, and more about which ancestry groups are particularly prestigious. People who identify as Norwegian-American rarely have solely Norwegian ancestry, it's a statement of self-identity more than it is a statement of actual descent.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This seems the right thread:

Does anyone have a theory for why Hillary Clinton collapsed in heavily French-Canadian areas?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Are people really including Jews among the 'Russian Americans' statistics?

I mean, all those stats are absurd (almost any white person - and most black people - in the US who raise at least one ancestor in the US from before 1900 has British Isles Ancestry) but that one tops off the ridiculousness.

[Sol]

This seems the right thread:

Does anyone have a theory for why Hillary Clinton collapsed in heavily French-Canadian areas?

I think French-Canadian areas in New England are historically industrial areas (thus the pull of immigration) and so HRC's collapse in places like Lewiston or Coos County parallels her general weakness in similar areas.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This seems the right thread:

Does anyone have a theory for why Hillary Clinton collapsed in heavily French-Canadian areas?

I think French-Canadian areas in New England are historically industrial areas (thus the pull of immigration) and so HRC's collapse in places like Lewiston or Coos County parallels her general weakness in similar areas.

Ah. Whereas areas with more English or Irish ancestry tend to be less industrial and more touristic/commercial?

[Sol]

This seems the right thread:

Does anyone have a theory for why Hillary Clinton collapsed in heavily French-Canadian areas?

I think French-Canadian areas in New England are historically industrial areas (thus the pull of immigration) and so HRC's collapse in places like Lewiston or Coos County parallels her general weakness in similar areas.

Ah. Whereas areas with more English or Irish ancestry tend to be less industrial and more touristic/commercial?

Yeah, I believe so, at least in New England. Louisiana is a different beast ofc.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Are people really including Jews among the 'Russian Americans' statistics?

I mean, all those stats are absurd (almost any white person - and most black people - in the US who raise at least one ancestor in the US from before 1900 has British Isles Ancestry) but that one tops off the ridiculousness.

Well if there are people who identify as Jewish and also tell the US Census they have Russian ancestry, they will be classified as Russian Americans. Like, Eliot Engel probably answered the ancestry question with Russian or Ukrainian.
Of course the majority of Americans have multiple national/ethnic ancestries, but I think everyone is free to identify with the one they like most.
I mean, there are even people who just say they have "American" ancestry! (They are heavily concentrated in Appalachia and likely are primarily of Scotch-Irish and English descent) (There's a strong correlation between American ancestry and swing towards Republicans in the last two decades)

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This seems the right thread:

Does anyone have a theory for why Hillary Clinton collapsed in heavily French-Canadian areas?

I think French-Canadian areas in New England are historically industrial areas (thus the pull of immigration) and so HRC's collapse in places like Lewiston or Coos County parallels her general weakness in similar areas.

Ah. Whereas areas with more English or Irish ancestry tend to be less industrial and more touristic/commercial?

Yeah, I believe so, at least in New England. Louisiana is a different beast ofc.

Well Louisiana is not French-Canadian but simply French, I think, and of course Obama had already lost enough votes in Acadiana that Clinton couldn't do much worse - and indeed didn't.
I have heard that Cajun cuisine is spectacular, by the way.

[RINO Tom]

Also, it will never not annoy me that someone identifies as "ethnically American," haha.  Like, until we develop our own language, that is ridiculous.  The whole point of this country is that it was one of the few on Earth that was founded on ideals rather than ethnocentrism.  Not only does selecting "American" undermine this, it makes our maps more boring.   Also, I do think it's important for younger generations of Americans to be in touch with the fact that most of their ancestors were European immigrants.  If you're THAT mixed between European components and your family has been here for so long, I would select "English."

[parochial boy]

Also, it will never not annoy me that someone identifies as "ethnically American," haha.  Like, until we develop our own language, that is ridiculous.  The whole point of this country is that it was one of the few on Earth that was founded on ideals rather than ethnocentrism.  Not only does selecting "American" undermine this, it makes our maps more boring.   Also, I do think it's important for younger generations of Americans to be in touch with the fact that most of their ancestors were European immigrants.  If you're THAT mixed between European components and your family has been here for so long, I would select "English."

This may be the mythology, but by any vaguely coherant or consistent meaning of the word ethnicity, you have to accept that there is an American ethnicity. There is an American identity, a shared understanding ofwhat American culture is, the language Americans speak, what the history of the American people, what it's foundational myths are, the idea of belonging to an American society. These are all the basics of what constitutes an ethnic group whether you explicitely admit to it being one or not.

[RINO Tom]

Also, it will never not annoy me that someone identifies as "ethnically American," haha.  Like, until we develop our own language, that is ridiculous.  The whole point of this country is that it was one of the few on Earth that was founded on ideals rather than ethnocentrism.  Not only does selecting "American" undermine this, it makes our maps more boring.   Also, I do think it's important for younger generations of Americans to be in touch with the fact that most of their ancestors were European immigrants.  If you're THAT mixed between European components and your family has been here for so long, I would select "English."

This may be the mythology, but by any vaguely coherant or consistent meaning of the word ethnicity, you have to accept that there is an American ethnicity. There is an American identity, a shared understanding ofwhat American culture is, the language Americans speak, what the history of the American people, what it's foundational myths are, the idea of belonging to an American society. These are all the basics of what constitutes an ethnic group whether you explicitely admit to it being one or not.

I suppose I hold "ethnicity" to a different standard.  For example, many people would describe Switzerland as made up of ethnic Germans, Frenchmen and Italians, not usually designating "Swiss" as an ethnicity.  In some instances, of course, I would absolutely consider "being Swiss" as an ethnic identity, but not really in the sense that I was using it.  Additionally, it would be another story if "American" was an ethnicity that replaced "English" (effectively meaning, "White American of European origin who doesn't have grandparents of significantly German/Swedish/Italian/Irish/etc. stock) on these types of things, but I find it annoying that it goes alongside it.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Also, it will never not annoy me that someone identifies as "ethnically American," haha.  Like, until we develop our own language, that is ridiculous.  The whole point of this country is that it was one of the few on Earth that was founded on ideals rather than ethnocentrism.  Not only does selecting "American" undermine this, it makes our maps more boring.  Also, I do think it's important for younger generations of Americans to be in touch with the fact that most of their ancestors were European immigrants.  If you're THAT mixed between European components and your family has been here for so long, I would select "English."

I identify as ethnically American. My ancestry on my mother's side is various Northern Europeans (German, French, Norwegian, English); and my father's is East European Jewish. What am I supposed to call myself then, besides American? I don't really feel any connection to wherever my ancestors came from, and I think by this point America has existed long enough and we've had enough ethnic intermixing that there is an established American ethnicity. I don't really see the point in calling yourself "ethnically German" when your most recent ancestor came over 200 years ago and you have no connection to German culture or language.

As for why the diaspora of ethnic groups doesn't mirror politics back in Europe, I think a lot of it has to do with religion. In old Europe the Catholic Church was a reactionary force that stifled freedom and enforced hierarchy, while Protestantism through its individualist doctrines provided a foundation for early liberal thought. This is why the Dutch were centuries ahead of their time in republican government and religious tolerance, and why the English had a thriving radical tradition stemming from Puritanism. Compare that with France and Spain, those heartlands of absolute monarchy and religious persecution.
Protestant and Catholic politics have continued to evolve along with their associated ideologies, and in more recent times Catholicism has proved a stalwart defender of social conservatism and traditional values, while liberal Protestantism has changed with the times.

By contrast, in America Protestant descended peoples made up the ruling class, while Catholics came to the country as poor and destitute immigrants. Thus the latter were drawn to more liberal and egalitarian causes, while the former sought to uphold tradition. In general though, I think this 19th century American ethnoreligious political tradition gets too much attention at the expense of an older, more fundamental liberal-conservative/Protestant-Catholic divide in Europe.

[Gass3268]

I calculated these estimates awhile ago based on the White vote by County project of mine (the granularity is only at the county level, so there is some degree of error here):

Based on these stats, to some degree those who have eastern European ancestry are more likely to be liberal which is quite opposite to the ones living in the Eastern European countries now. I kind of thought the Scandinavians and Germans were likely to be less conservative seeing how many rural counties in Wisconsin and Minnesota vote democratic in the recent elections.

The areas of Wisconsin that are super German overwhelmingly voted Trump. Obama lost them by strong margins in 2012 as well, but Obama almost won German Catholics in 2008. Obama won strong Norwegian areas in Wisconsin by strong margins in 2008 and 2012, before they very narrowly went for Trump in 2016. Norwegians swung back pretty well to both Evers and Baldwin in 2018. Poles in Wisconsin used to be very Democratic, probably the most Democratic white ethnicity in the state. That changed under Obama. Obama won Poles by about 24 points in 2008, Baldwin lost them by about 3 points in 2018.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Also, it will never not annoy me that someone identifies as "ethnically American," haha.  Like, until we develop our own language, that is ridiculous.  The whole point of this country is that it was one of the few on Earth that was founded on ideals rather than ethnocentrism.  Not only does selecting "American" undermine this, it makes our maps more boring.  Also, I do think it's important for younger generations of Americans to be in touch with the fact that most of their ancestors were European immigrants.  If you're THAT mixed between European components and your family has been here for so long, I would select "English."

I identify as ethnically American. My ancestry on my mother's side is various Northern Europeans (German, French, Norwegian, English); and my father's is East European Jewish. What am I supposed to call myself then, besides American? I don't really feel any connection to wherever my ancestors came from, and I think by this point America has existed long enough and we've had enough ethnic intermixing that there is an established American ethnicity. I don't really see the point in calling yourself "ethnically German" when your most recent ancestor came over 200 years ago and you have no connection to German culture or language.

As for why the diaspora of ethnic groups doesn't mirror politics back in Europe, I think a lot of it has to do with religion. In old Europe the Catholic Church was a reactionary force that stifled freedom and enforced hierarchy, while Protestantism through its individualist doctrines provided a foundation for early liberal thought. This is why the Dutch were centuries ahead of their time in republican government and religious tolerance, and why the English had a thriving radical tradition stemming from Puritanism. Compare that with France and Spain, those heartlands of absolute monarchy and religious persecution.
Protestant and Catholic politics have continued to evolve along with their associated ideologies, and in more recent times Catholicism has proved a stalwart defender of social conservatism and traditional values, while liberal Protestantism has changed with the times.

By contrast, in America Protestant descended peoples made up the ruling class, while Catholics came to the country as poor and destitute immigrants. Thus the latter were drawn to more liberal and egalitarian causes, while the former sought to uphold tradition. In general though, I think this 19th century American ethnoreligious political tradition gets too much attention at the expense of an older, more fundamental liberal-conservative/Protestant-Catholic divide in Europe.

Mh. I see where you're going. But I would say some things. There are many parts of Protestantism that act as stalwarts of social conservatism and traditionalism. Have you ever heard of Evangelical Christians? And Protestant nations often acted in a manner as authoritarian and intolerant as Catholic ones in the early modern era (think how England treated Catholics). And you could say that in the industrial world, Catholic economic doctrine is generally to the left of Protestant economic doctrine.
Basically I want to say that I don't think Catholicism and Protestantism are inherently right and left. That is my point. I respect your point too, and actually there may be a philosophical way in which Catholicism is more conservative and Protestantism is more liberal, but that has little to do with the colloquial usage of those terms in current American politics.

To be clear again, I don't think I have the absolute truth on this, and I answered your post principally because I get pretty upset when people seem to espouse the idea that "Catholic = conservative, always, ever", which in many ways is just a stereotype and one that I'm particularly not fond of, being as I am a pretty non-conservative Italian.

[MarkD]

Of the ones listed, definitely the Dutch, due to many of them having strong ties to the Reform Church.

Dutch. Tim Huelskamp is a good example. Huelskamp is Catholic.

Dutch and German Protestants

I go with the consensus and say the Dutch-Americans are the most Republican. Pete Hoekstra is another good example, as he even is an immigrant from the Netherlands. Whenever I think of Dutch-American settlements I think of the conservative-voting Pennsylvania Dutch and the heavily Republican western Michigan area that Hoekstra used to represent.

[Roll Roons]

Of the ones listed, definitely the Dutch, due to many of them having strong ties to the Reform Church.

Dutch. Tim Huelskamp is a good example. Huelskamp is Catholic.

Dutch and German Protestants

I go with the consensus and say the Dutch-Americans are the most Republican. Pete Hoekstra is another good example, as he even is an immigrant from the Netherlands. Whenever I think of Dutch-American settlements I think of the conservative-voting Pennsylvania Dutch and the heavily Republican western Michigan area that Hoekstra used to represent.

Yeah, Hoekstra's district has been continuously held by Dutch Republicans since the 60s. There's also Northwest Iowa. Randy Feenstra beat Steve King because of his ties to the strongly Republican Dutch community in the district.

[Idaho Conservative]

Of the ones listed, definitely the Dutch, due to many of them having strong ties to the Reform Church.

Dutch. Tim Huelskamp is a good example. Huelskamp is Catholic.

Dutch and German Protestants

I go with the consensus and say the Dutch-Americans are the most Republican. Pete Hoekstra is another good example, as he even is an immigrant from the Netherlands. Whenever I think of Dutch-American settlements I think of the conservative-voting Pennsylvania Dutch and the heavily Republican western Michigan area that Hoekstra used to represent.

PA "Dutch" are actually German

[Idaho Conservative]

Also, it will never not annoy me that someone identifies as "ethnically American," haha.  Like, until we develop our own language, that is ridiculous.  The whole point of this country is that it was one of the few on Earth that was founded on ideals rather than ethnocentrism.  Not only does selecting "American" undermine this, it makes our maps more boring.   Also, I do think it's important for younger generations of Americans to be in touch with the fact that most of their ancestors were European immigrants.  If you're THAT mixed between European components and your family has been here for so long, I would select "English."

It makes sense, for some who have been here so long, a new ethic identity forms.  Black Americans are in a similar situation, not exactly African anymore, just as someone who's ancestors were all here by 1850 doesn't have many ties to Europe other than DNA.

[King of Kensington]

Are people really including Jews among the 'Russian Americans' statistics?

There is no religion question in the Census and "Jewish" is not an ancestry or ethnicity question - and American Jews don't want it.

[King of Kensington]

Interesting to see Irish basically line up with the the English and German - gives credence to my feeling that they're actually more closer to other (mostly Protestant) NW European groups than to so-called "white ethnics" from eastern and southern Europe.  Not surprising given that they mostly live outside the Northeast, timing of immigration etc.

[Suburbia]

I am surprised Russian Americans leaned towards Clinton in 2016.....in NY, they like Trump.....

[Indy Texas]

You can definitely see the Jewish factor in the Russian number, less so the Polish number. (Russian is the ancestry I listed in my 2020 Census form.)

Most self-ID'd Polish-Americans are of actual ethnically Polish Catholic ancestry. Jews from what was then the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Congress Poland or Galicia probably aren't going to describe themselves that way. (Ex. Bernie Sanders' parents were from places that were then/are now part of Poland but he has never referred to himself as Polish.)

[Indy Texas]

Or indeed that 'ancestry groups' say less about which ethnic groups a person primarily descends from, and more about which ancestry groups are particularly prestigious. People who identify as Norwegian-American rarely have solely Norwegian ancestry, it's a statement of self-identity more than it is a statement of actual descent.

It doesn't have to be about prestige. For instance, Joe Biden, in weaving his own personal narrative, presents himself as an Irish Catholic in the vein of the Kennedys. But the majority of his family lineage is actually English. And generally, Americans have regarded having English ancestry as more "prestigious" than Irish ancestry.

But there is basically no such thing as "English-American" culture, nobody knows what that is, and it's not particularly interesting. Presenting himself as Irish allowed him to compare himself to popular political figures like the Kennedys, and present himself as someone who came from humble beginnings.