# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about Obama's opinion on the chances of being president. He goes over his account of being a minority and how he wanted to go on to make change for minorities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the spring of 2004, a young state legislator was driving home from a campaign event in rural Illinois when he got a phone call from Washington. A voice asked if he would be interested in giving the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention that summer in Boston.

"That I felt neither giddy nor nervous said something about the sheer improbability of the year I'd just had," that legislator now recalls in his new memoir A Promised Land.

Back in 2004, Barack Obama took that opportunity to speak to the convention. "Let's face it," he began. "My presence on this stage tonight is pretty unlikely."

An improbable year? An unlikely presence? Obama was only beginning his high-speed elevator ride to the world stage. That night in Boston his voice, then still unfamiliar, was soon rising and ringing through the arena:

"There are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America."

Thereafter, Obama was "the guy who gave that speech." He got elected to the U.S. Senate that fall and people in Washington were asking when he would run for president.

He tells us in this memoir that he has only watched the video of that night in Boston once, and he points out flaws in his performance. That will impress some as stunning humility, and strike others as "humble bragging" or downright disingenuousness.

The 44thpresident of the United States has always prompted extremes of reaction. Though his nature may be to seek consensus, he has tended to inspire partisan aspiration for some and equally intense resentment for others. His ascent thrilled millions, but also stirred a counter-movement that is still on the march.

One wellspring of that movement, of course, was electing Obama's successor. The publishers of A Promised Land surely knew they were launching this sure-to-be blockbuster in the month when President Trump would either be re-elected or rejected by the voters. They knew the mountain of memories compiled in these 700 pages would appear in a certain light, or shadow, depending on the voters' verdict.

But this is more than Obama's answer to four years of Trump's rhetorical assaults and policy reversals. It is a continuation of the story that the "skinny kid with a funny name" had begun to tell well before the world was listening.
The man and the memoirist
Obama began his literary career a quarter century ago, recalling the struggles of his youth while still in his early 30s in Dreams from My Father. A second volume discussed his rising political ambitions a dozen years later, when the The Audacity of Hope presaged his first run for the White House.

Now, in A Promised Land, the man is approaching 60, recalling how his audacious dreams came true in 2008 and detailing the first 30 momentous months thereafter.

To a remarkable degree, the style of this latest retelling reflects the man we have seen over these years: Orderly, cautious, self-examining - yet eloquent in flashes so vivid that the world was immediately able to share something of his vision.

Or at least much of the world was able to. Reliving this history through Obama's eyes reminds us how differently others reacted to his rise - how offended they were when he drew vast crowds in Europe while still a candidate for president - collecting the Nobel Prize just for getting elected.

Whatever one's feelings about this man, they are likely to be brought to the surface by this book. We hear his voice in every sentence, almost as if he were physically present and reading the book aloud.

For those who did not leap aboard the Obama bandwagon, much of his memoir will put them in mind of what put them off. To be sure, there were countless issues of policy on which to differ with the 44th president and many elements of his personality to judge for oneself. There were also, as he puts it, plenty of people who never got past being "spooked by a Black man in the White House."

But for those who felt the magnetism and power of the first African American president, at any point in his career, this book should rekindle some of that feeling of discovery. For the truly faithful, some of these pages may have to be read through tears.
Reviewing the history
Obama begins this account by briefly revisiting his rather aimless adolescence, but he moves swiftly on from college identity crises to community organizing in Chicago to Harvard Law School. Soon he is back in Chicago, meeting Michelle Robinson at a law firm, working and making a life in the boom years of the 1990s.

Embedded throughout this dense text are frequent valentines addressed to Michelle. We see her as a smart young lawyer, assessing the trainee who will become her husband. They are soon involved, friends as well as co-workers, then lovers as well as spouses. They marry and have two careers and two daughters but also work at remaining a romantic couple.

He runs for office, aiming too high the first time and losing. He meets David Axelrod (who will be "Axe" the rest of the way), a former newspaper reporter who has become a political consultant and understands Chicago's complex racial politics. Obama wins a seat in Springfield, then an improbable promotion to Washington.

Much of the first 200 pages suggests a Hollywood biopic, with a lot of soft focus and camaraderie and heart-warming music. We meet the campaign's inner circle - Axe, campaign manager David Plouffe, "Memo Master" Pete Rouse, spokesman Robert Gibbs and aide de camp Reggie Love - and all the other buddies who keep the candidate loose and focused, like the crew Shakespeare sketched around Prince Hal.

At one point, Obama retells how his innermost circle thrashed out the decision to run for president in 2008. Michelle makes no secret of her reluctance. She finally asks him why he has to run, when Hillary Clinton and so many other Democrats are running who are better known and more experienced.

"I know," her husband replies, "that the day I raise my right hand and take the oath to be the president of the United States, the world will start looking at America differently. I know that kids all around this country - Black kids, Hispanic kids, kids who don't fit in - they'll see themselves differently too.... And that alone ... that would be worth it."

Michelle relents with: "Well honey, that was a pretty good answer." It is only one of many times in the book that her devotion to her husband overcomes her deep aversion to politics. She appears often, not just to take a bow but to add her perspective and reveal what keeps her husband centered.

He also takes frequent opportunity to mention and share credit with the man he made his running mate back in the summer of 2008. From first reference forward, Joseph R. Biden Jr., is just "Joe."

Obama writes: "If I was seen as temperamentally cool and collected, measured in how I used my words, Joe was all warmth, a man without inhibitions, happy to share whatever popped into his head."

Biden reappears at crucial moments in the narrative, helping to sell the Senate on the Recovery Act and also on what swiftly came to be called "Obamacare." He is there in foreign policy debates as well, often as a contrarian.
Governing as grinding
The campaign story has a happy ending. The rest of the book does not really have an ending at all. The author relives the first part of his presidency, recounting not so much a rise and fall as a battle against the unexpected and a struggle for equilibrium.

After the uplift of the throngs on Inauguration Day, we settle into the rhythm that will govern the bulk of the book - the relentless beat of governing. Much has to be done, many people must be met and accommodated. Meetings segue into more meetings. Nothing is ever easy, or really finished or quite what it seems.

As a writer, Obama manages to convey the grinding work of his first years in office without losing forward momentum. First, we see endless negotiations pull the economy back from the brink of a crash in early 2009, but it's a slog for the reader as it was for the policymakers. Then it's on to the Herculean efforts needed to haul the Affordable Care Act across the finish line in March 2010.

Along the way, Obama encounters united resistance from Republicans and dissatisfaction among Democrats. The economy survives the mortgage security and credit crisis, but big Wall Street banks and bankers are seen getting off easy. Health insurance is expanded, but without a "single payer" government system or a "public option" to choose one.

Obama gets to know the players in Congress, starting with the gruff and rough-edged Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader who urges his young star to run for president in 2008.

The cast of Obama intimates keeps expanding, including chiefs of staff Rahm Emanuel (later mayor of Chicago) and then William Daley (brother and son of Chicago mayors). There are Republican leaders in Congress such as John Boehner in the House and Mitch McConnell in the Senate, the latter looming up again and again for his strategies and tactics against nearly all Obama's initiatives and appointments.

But the principal irritants who get perhaps more attention than necessary are the stars of the conservative media subculture, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and the primetime stars of Fox News. Obama also contemplates the swelling power of populist sentiment on the right, from Sarah Palin as the vice presidential nominee in 2008 (Obama says "she had no idea what the hell she was talking about") to the nascent "Tea Party" the following year and the surge of its acolytes in Congress after the midterms of 2010. Of Palin, Obama says: "Hers was a biography tailor made for working-class white voters who hated Washington and harbored the not entirely unjustified suspicion that big-city elites - whether in business, politics, or the media - looked down on their way of life."

The bulk of the book is a crisis-by-crisis recounting of Obama's first two years in office. He does not spare us, or himself, the controversies that studded those years. Some involve longstanding issues such as immigration, gay rights and abortion. Some involve Supreme Court decisions such as Citizens United, which pared back a century of campaign finance laws. We see Obama delight in appointing two Supreme Court justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

We also visit the valleys between the peaks, spending somewhat less time there, as one might expect. Some seem relatively minor now, such as the firestorm over bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other conspirators from the Sept. 11 attacks to New York for trial. We may have forgotten the fracas over the building of "an Islamic community center" and mosque near what was known as Ground Zero, the former site of the World Trade Center towers destroyed in those attacks. But these incidents still rankle Obama, who tells Emanuel: "If we can't speak out on something this basic, then I don't know what the point is of us being here."

To which Emanuel replies: "At the rate we're going, we may not be."

Which segues to the harsh dose of political reality Obama received in the midterm elections. The Democrats lost 63 seats in the House - their worst drubbing in 72 years. Obama devotes the ensuing chapter ("In the Barrel") to the travails of the lowest days of his first term.

They are all part of the catalog Obama seems to be keeping, like a scrapbook in his head.
Ending in suspense
Obama ends this volume (a second is in the works) with what might be called his greatest hit. The last chapter is about the hunt for Osama bin Laden that culminated in the raid that killed him in May 2011. We sit in on the tense hours as Obama and his national security team await word of the mission's fate. Here, as elsewhere, Obama shares credit with his people, in particular Adm. William McRaven, a former Navy SEAL who planned and conducted the strike.

We watch with the president and his national security team as live video shows the raid in real time. We hear McRaven and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta speaking in code: "Geronimo EKIA." Enemy killed in action.

Even as the final hours tick away before the mission launches, we see Obama put on his tux and attend the White House Correspondents' Association annual dinner, which he could not duck without raising suspicions.

At this late moment in the memoir, a character previously glimpsed in the shadows off-stage is suddenly in the spotlight. It is Donald Trump, the real estate man and "reality TV" star. Obama has mentioned him before, holding him responsible for stoking years of assault on his native-born American citizenship, the imaginary conspiracy of the "birthers."

On this night in 2011, with Trump a highly visible guest, Obama mocked the birther conspiracies and skewered a recent plotline from The Celebrity Apprentice. Cameras caught Trump barely cracking a smile amidst the roars of laughter. It has been suggested since that Trump has not forgotten that night.

In truth, Obama was often lacerating in his humor at such dinners, ribbing his rivals at times but often finding the jugular as well. In this case, the target found a way to fire back.
The voice lingers
If you remember enjoying just listening to Obama talk, the cadences and content of what he said, you are likely to keep this volume handy for a long time. If you tend to tire of his lecturing style (he himself calls it his "droning on"), or his tendency to share what he knows with an air of knowing it's a lot, then you will find it easier to put down.

In his early months as president, there were certainly admirers who hung on his every word. But not a few White House correspondents squinted and squirmed through his early news conferences as his answers to questions became lectures.

Yet all presidential memoirs have value, even if they are far less candid than this one. They offer a unique view from the presidential mind and suggest at least some of the conflicts and contradictions that contend within that mind.

Even if what is revealed is only what the author wishes to reveal, it is an invaluable piece of the puzzle historians will struggle to put together from here forward. If it takes time and effort to take it all in, it's worth it.
NPR's Michel Martin will interview former President Obama to air on Monday, Nov. 16.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Former President Obama Tells His Story His Way - And Makes His Case For History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the spring of 2004, a young state legislator was driving home from a campaign event in rural Illinois when he got a phone call from Washington. A voice asked if he would be interested in giving the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention that summer in Boston.

# data[].attributes.body
This article open with the 2008 election and with the hope of a turn about with the first minority president being elected . However, the article goes on to sharing data about how people felt like this didn't create/show change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article appears in the Fall 2014 issue of The American Prospect magazine.

Not so long ago, black Americans were giddy witnesses to what many regarded as a miracle. Election night, November 4, 2008, seemed to be a millennial turning point as a majority of Americans entrusted an African American with the nation's highest office and greatest powers. "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible," Barack Obama declared, "... tonight is your answer." Against the backdrop of that high, a downturn was inevitable. But what many blacks are feeling now is more than a correction; it is depression.

The racial front is the site of especially keen disappointment. In a 2013 survey pegged to the fiftieth anniversary of the March on Washington, the Pew Research Center found that less than half (45 percent) of all Americans agreed that the country had made "a lot" of progress toward racial equality during the previous half-century. Among blacks, only 32 percent shared the same view. That dourness stems in part from persistent hard times. The economic meltdown that accompanied Obama to the White House (and probably played a major role in his initial election) devastated the earnings and assets of black Americans. Since his election, they have not recouped their losses in what has only been a tepid recovery tipped in favor of the haves. Adding to the unhappiness is anger at the recalcitrance Obama has faced since the outset of his administration, a resistance mainly from Republicans that many observers believe is substantially fueled by racism.

Slumping morale among blacks, however, is attributable to more than frustration with Obama's enemies; it also reflects frustration with the president himself. Although the overwhelming majority of politically active blacks supported Obama in 2008 and 2012 and continue to rally behind him defensively, an appreciable number feel let down. They maintain that he has been altogether too fearful of being charged with racial favoritism and has done too little to educate the public about the peculiar racial hazards that African Americans routinely face.

Beneath the malaise is a deep current of racial pessimism that has a long history in American and African American thought. Pessimists believe that racial harmony predicated on fairness is not part of the American future. They posit that the United States will not overcome its tragic racial past. They maintain that blacks are not and cannot become members of the American family (even with a black family occupying the White House). They believe that the United States is a white nation that will always be governed on behalf of white folk.

For pessimists, the Obama presidency is no sign of racial transcendence; to the contrary, it is a demonstration of the intractability of American pigmentocracy. For them, the Obama ascendancy shows that in order to rise to the top of American politics, a black politician must be willing to forgo substantively challenging the racial status quo (though he is allowed to cavil about it rhetorically). For them, the Obama administration simply mirrors the racial diversification of an existing order in which a relatively small sector of upper-crust blacks prosper while the condition of the black masses stagnates or deteriorates-the consequence of a misbegotten theory of racial trickle-down. For them, the Obama era is littered with bitter incongruity: While a black man is commander-in-chief, Michael Brown and thousands like him are stalked, harassed, brutalized, and occasionally killed in Ferguson-like locales across America.
SUPPORT THE PROSPECT
The pedigree of black racial pessimism is impressive. In its ranks one finds such figures as Henry McNeal Turner, Marcus Garvey, Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, Randall Robinson, and the extraordinary W.E.B. Du Bois. One encounters Frederick Douglass declaring in 1847, "I cannot have any love for this country ... or for its Constitution. I desire to see its overthrow as speedily as possible, and its Constitution shriveled in a thousand fragments." In that tradition, one also finds Derrick Bell, professor of law at Harvard, teaching in the 1990s that the United States is irredeemably imprisoned by its past, that "racism is an integral, permanent, and indestructible component of this society," and that "black people will never gain full equality in this country."

The tradition of black racial pessimism has its white counterpart. According to Thomas Jefferson, "The two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government." Alexis de Tocqueville doubted that "the white and black races will ever live in any country upon an equal footing," but believed "the difficulty to be still greater in the United States than elsewhere." According to Abraham Lincoln, differences between blacks and whites "will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

But the pessimists, black and white, have not been the only influence on American thought about the prospects for racial progress. Arrayed against them are optimists who contend that blacks are (or can become) members of the American family and insist that racial harmony bottomed on fairness is attainable. This, in fact, has been the predominant tradition among blacks. Its adherents include Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Roy Wilkins, Mary McLeod Bethune, Jesse Jackson, and John Lewis (joined by whites such as the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton). The most memorable spokesman for the optimistic tradition was Martin Luther King Jr. On April 3, 1968, the night before he was assassinated, he told his followers to take heart because he knew that, eventually, they would overcome the obstacles they faced. He knew this because he had "been to the mountaintop" and glimpsed the Promised Land, though he might not make it there himself.

King was vague, however, about the Promised Land's boundaries and topography. He had famously spoken of a nation where individuals will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Yet that formulation is popular partly because it is open to contending interpretations. Is it a condemnation of all racial distinctions? Or is it a condemnation only of invidious racial distinctions? Is it meant to posit a rule of non-discrimination that should go into effect immediately even at the cost of barring efforts to rectify past racial wrongdoing? Or is it meant to posit a rule of nondiscrimination that should go into effect only after the consequences of past wrongdoings have been ameliorated?

These questions underlie the debate that has been raging for decades over competing conceptions of the racial Promised Land. In one conception, the Promised Land is a society henceforth substantially free of intentional racial discrimination in major domains of the public sphere. In this society, no effort is made to rectify the oppressive consequences of past racial misconduct because, it is argued, trying to do so is futile, unfair to those innocent of past wrongdoing, and conducive to the perpetuation of race-mindedness. This view has been propounded vigorously in the legal writings of Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, mainly in critiques of affirmative action. Chief Justice John Roberts, also a champion of this view, expressed it epigrammatically when, abjuring a race-conscious plan for school integration, he quipped that the best way to stop racial discrimination is to stop racially discriminating-no matter whether the aim is to assist or oppress a vulnerable group. Under this conception, we enter the racial Promised Land when racial discrimination is a negligible feature of social life, even if the vestiges of racial subordination in the past are evident and consequential. Let's call this model of racial justice the conservative conception of the racial Promised Land.
SUPPORT THE PROSPECT
The progressive conception of the racial Promised Land is more ambitious. It envisions two essential landmarks. The first is the requirement of the conservatives that invidious racial discrimination be reduced to a negligible influence. The second condition is that the vestiges of past discrimination-the racial gaps that so dramatically scar the social landscape-be erased. Pursuant to the progressive perspective, we will reach the racial Promised Land when blackness is no longer a uniform that, holding other variables steady, signals that its wearer bears a notably higher risk than whites of premature death, impoverishment, unemployment, incarceration, victimization by criminality, homelessness, police harassment, and similar afflictions.

Today, one can go into a hospital, visit the ward for newborns, and make accurate estimates about the babies' varying life trajectories on the basis of their racial identities.

When accurate estimates of this sort are no longer possible, progressives contend, we will have reached the racial Promised Land.

Some observers insist that what I have dubbed the conservative model of the racial Promised Land is at hand or at least nearby. They maintain that, for the most part, we have overcome. They proclaim "Mission Accomplished" or at least mission near-accomplished.

This is mistaken. Intentional invidious racial discrimination constitutes a force in American life that is far from negligible. It is a substantial headwind that blacks and other racial minorities face in many key areas, including housing, finance, employment, criminal justice, electoral politics, and markets for romance and marriage. There is a library of empirical literature establishing this fact beyond sensible controversy-studies based on similarly situated but racially disparate testers who meet different fates when they seek to buy automobiles, rent housing, get jobs, or obtain loans. And then there are the lessons of everyday life that suggest forcefully that in crucial interactions with police officers, prosecutors, judges, and other authorities armed with discretion, outcomes differ, all too often, depending on the race of the person being assessed. It is difficult to imagine that the dismal train of events surrounding the deaths of Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown would have been identical had they been white.

Even more distant is the progressive conception of the racial Promised Land. In practically every key index of well-being, a chasm separates the circumstances in which whites and blacks typically find themselves. The income gap separating blacks and whites widened from about $19,000 in the late 1960s to about $27,000 in 2011. The wealth gap increased from $75,000 in 1984 to $85,000 in 2011. Blacks are nearly three times more likely to live in deep poverty than whites. Black men are six times as likely as white men to be incarcerated. And on. And on. And on.

We have failed to reach the racial Promised Land in either its conservative or its progressive definition. With respect to both of these destinations, our society remains far afield. Still, I put myself in the optimistic camp.

Why?

I am hopeful first and foremost because of the predominant trajectory of African Americans-a history that John Hope Franklin framed with the apt title From Slavery to Freedom. In 1860, four million African Americans were enslaved while another half-million were free but devoid of fundamental rights in many of the jurisdictions where they lived. In 1860, the very term "African American" was something of an oxymoron because the Supreme Court had ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that no black, free or enslaved, could be a citizen of the United States. But within a decade, the Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolished slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) established birthright citizenship and required all states to accord all persons due process and equal protection of the laws, and the Fifteenth Amendment (1870) prohibited states from withholding the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. People who had been sold on the auction block as youngsters helped to govern their locales as public officials when they were adults. In 1861, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi resigned from the United States Senate to join the Confederate States of America, which he led as president. In 1870, Hiram Revels, the first black member of Congress, occupied the seat that Davis abandoned.

The First Reconstruction was overwhelmed by a devastating white supremacist reaction. But the most fundamental reforms it established proved resilient, providing the basis for a Second Reconstruction from the 1950s to the 1970s. During that period, too, the distance traveled by blacks was astonishing. In 1950, segregation was deemed to be consistent with federal constitutional equal protection. No federal law prevented proprietors of hotels, restaurants, and other privately owned public accommodations from engaging in racial discrimination. No federal law prohibited private employers from discriminating on a racial basis against applicants for jobs or current employees. No federal law effectively counteracted racial disenfranchisement. No federal law outlawed racial discrimination in private housing transactions. In contrast, by 1970 federal constitutional law thoroughly repudiated the lie of separate but equal. The 1964 Civil Rights Act forbade racial discrimination in privately owned places of public accommodation and many areas of private employment. The 1965 Voting Rights Act provided the basis for strong prophylactic action against racial exclusion at the ballot box. The 1968 Fair Housing Act addressed racial exclusion in a market that had been zealously insulated against federal regulation. None of these interventions were wholly successful. All were compromised. All occasioned backlash. But the racial situation in 1970 and afterwards was dramatically better than what it had been in 1950 and before.

Today, at a moment when progress has stalled, we need to recall how dramatically and unexpectedly conditions sometimes change. Until recently who'd-a thunk it possible for the president to be an African American? In the 1980s, I used to ask law students how long affirmative action programs ought to last. Champions of such programs, seeking to ensure their longevity, would say that affirmative action would be needed until the country elected a black president. That reply would elicit appreciative laughter as listeners supposed that that formula would preserve affirmative action for at least a century. But then along came Barack Obama and with him the remark that soon became a cliché: "I never thought that I'd live to see a black president."

Obama's election is much more than a monument to one politician's talent and good fortune. Changes in public attitudes, law, and custom have clearly elevated the fortunes of African Americans as individuals and black America as a collectivity. Hard facts may give plausibility to the pessimistic tradition, but they make the optimistic tradition compelling. Despite the many wrongs that remain to be righted, blacks in America confront fewer racist impediments now than ever before in the history of the United States. The courage, intelligence, persistence, idealism, and sacrifice of Fannie Lou Hamer and Rosa Parks, Julian Bond and Bob Moses, Medgar Evers and Bayard Rustin, Viola Liuzzo and Vernon Dahmer-and countless other tribunes for racial justice-have not been expended for naught. The facts of day-to-day life allow blacks to sing more confidently than ever before James Weldon Johnson's magnificent hymn "Lift Every Voice and Sing," often referred to as the Black National Anthem:

Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past

has taught us

Sing a song full of the hope that the present

has brought us

Facing the rising sun of our new day begun

Let us march on till victory is won.

My optimism involves more than a sociological prediction. I am also swayed by my intuition regarding which of these hypotheses-the pessimistic or the optimistic-will do the most good. Hope is a vital nutrient for effort; without it, there is no prospect for achievement.

The belief that we can overcome makes more realistic the possibility that we shall overcome. Optimism gives buoyancy to thinking that might otherwise degenerate into nihilism

, encourages solidarity in those who might otherwise be satisfied by purely selfish indulgence, invites strategic planning that can usefully harness what might otherwise be impotent indignation, and inspires efforts that might otherwise be avoided due to fatalism.

On Election Day 1996, exit polling showed General Colin Powell beating President Bill Clinton by a comfortable margin. But Powell was not Clinton's opponent. Senator Bob Dole was. Powell had considered seeking the Republican Party nomination but declined in the end to do so. Before he made that decision, polls suggested that he could win the nomination and the general election, but friends were skeptical. Powell recalls that Earl Graves, the publisher of Black Enterprise magazine, told him, "Look, man ... [w]hen [white voters] go in that booth, they ain't going to vote for you." Maybe Graves was correct. Real voting might have produced different results from the polls. Furthermore, whereas the actual candidates had suffered a year of merciless scrutiny on the campaign trail, Powell on Election Day was a mere hypothetical candidate who suffered from none of the wear and tear that a presidential contest exacts. At the end of a campaign, the general might not have remained so attractive. Still, Powell's apparent popularity does provide a basis for conjecturing that America's readiness to elect a black president had been an unrecognized part of the political landscape for longer than many had appreciated. Powell may well have denied himself the opportunity to make a successful historic leap by being self-defeatingly pessimistic.

A major fear of many blacks is that acknowledging progress will prompt underestimation of racial obstacles that blacks at every socioeconomic level continue to face. When Americans are polled about their perceptions of racial affairs, whites are typically more upbeat than blacks. The more affluent they are, the more upbeat white observers tend to be. Inordinately impressed by progress, they all too often prematurely declare victory over racism.

Although complacency nourished by an overly rosy view of racial affairs is a real danger, I stand by my conviction that a clear-eyed assessment favors black optimism. Who, after all, have been the figures most beneficial to blacks? Was it the Martin Delany who decamped for Africa, thinking America to be irremediably racist? Or was it the Martin Delany who returned, recruited blacks for the Union, and participated significantly in Southern politics during Reconstruction? Was it the pre-1966 Stokely Carmichael who sang "We Shall Overcome" in the splendid early days of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC)? Or was it the post-1966 Stokely Carmichael (later renamed Kwame Ture) whose impatient bitterness helped to destroy the SNCC and rationalize an indulgent exile to Guinea that squandered a substantial talent? Was it my long-time colleague of blessed memory, Derrick Bell, who posited the permanence of racist white dominance? Or was it a student who rightly admired Professor Bell but eschewed his pessimism and followed a different path, a black student who, years later, put Bell's hypothesis to a test by seeking the highest elected office in the land under the slogan "Yes We Can!"?

That student, of course, was Barack Obama, and his presidency has been the setting for much debate between pessimists and optimists. Some detractors, perhaps the angriest, started from a position of raised expectations. They thought that Obama embodied the "audacity of hope" and that he would somehow bring about sweeping changes. Disappointed, they have expressed themselves in the angry, accusatory rhetoric of betrayal. Obama, Cornel West charges, "posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit." Others condemn Obama but without disappointment. They see their low expectations as having been validated.

Certain pessimists have maintained that Obama's election indicated little in terms of "real" racial progress. They even discount the symbolic significance of his ascendancy, stressing his exceptionality. Although he calls himself black, Obama is the offspring of a black African father and a white American mother and is thus distinguished genealogically from most African Americans. Much was made of his Muslim-sounding name. But some observers maintain that popular acceptance of that, too, should be viewed skeptically. It would have signaled more, they argue, had America elected a black person raised in, say, Detroit with a name such as Tyrone Washington or Jamal Jefferson. Pessimists argue that, substantively, the Obama presidency has delivered no more to blacks than would have been delivered by any other centrist-liberal Democrat (say, Hillary Clinton), and that in certain respects the Obama presidency delivered less because Obama sought excessively to prove that he was a president for all Americans and not merely black Americans. They contend that Obama's blackness was an asset that he used for personal marketing and that the white establishment seized upon for advertising, "The United States cannot sensibly be accused of practicing or condoning racism! It just elected a black president!" Pessimists will now also enlist the horrifying events in Ferguson, Missouri, to reinforce their claim that despite the civil rights movement, antidiscrimination legislation, affirmative action, and the election of Obama, the narrative of race relations in America is a doleful tale-not a march upward from slavery to freedom, but a trek sideways from plantation to ghetto.

What is an optimist in the waning years of the Obama presidency to say in the face of this challenge?

Obama's election signaled a dramatic, substantive change in racial beliefs and attitudes. In 1960, his victory would have been impossible: Too many whites would have been unwilling to vote for a black candidate-any black candidate-because of doubts about the capacities of anyone of black African ancestry. Recall that there were no black cabinet officers until Johnson appointed Robert Weaver as secretary of housing and urban development in 1966, and no black Supreme Court justices until Johnson nominated Thurgood Marshall in 1967. The specter of black intellectual and characterological deficiency stunted the careers of many talented blacks, and still does. That Obama was able to win the presidency-twice-is a sign that rumors of racial inferiority, while still extant, are much diminished in influence.

In thinking about the meaning of Obama, it is important, too, to focus on the special status of the presidency. The person who occupies that office is not only the head of the executive branch of the federal government, the person who nominates all federal judges, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and thus a person with the wherewithal to destroy most, if not all, of humankind. The president is also the nation's mourner-in-chief, booster-in-chief, spouse-in-chief, and parent-in-chief.

That a black man has been the master of the White House for the past six years does indeed reflect and reinforce a remarkable socio-psychological transformation in the American racial scene. If that is "tokenism," give us more of it.

I have emphasized progress that blacks have made in absolute terms: where they stood 50 years ago and where they stand today. But what about the position of blacks relative to whites-those yawning gaps in wealth, income, educational attainment, and risk of imprisonment that have remained unclosed and that have, in some ways, widened even further during Obama's tenure? There is no use denying that reality. America remains racially stratified and will continue to be long after the Obama presidency.

There is also no use, however, in denying other facets of the American racial reality. One is a comparative view. In considering the appropriate attitude to adopt toward America-allegiance, for example, or dis-affiliation-it is sensible to compare the United States to other divided societies. Negrophobia in America is, alas, all too present. But it pales in comparison with the prejudice against racial, ethnic, religious, and national minorities in many countries around the globe. As bad as the American racial problem is, as urgently as it calls for concentrated attention, its condition is less dire and more encouraging than might be gleaned from an analysis that views the American situation in isolation, divorced from international comparisons.

There is also no good purpose served by ignoring manifestations of progress that display themselves even in heartrending crises. Consider the events in Ferguson. The killing of the unarmed teenager, the callous inattentiveness to his body, the militarized police response to protest, and the dubious investigation by local authorities of this tragic death display much of what is terrible in American race relations: an atavistic fear of young black men; quick resort to excessive force against African Americans; racial residential separation; black powerlessness that foments resentment; white dominance that encourages contempt; an utter lack of mutual trust. But the events in Ferguson have also revealed other responses. The federal government took note of what happened and actively involved itself via the president, attorney general, and the director of the FBI. The Ferguson tragedy became the leading news story all over the country. Blacks have not been the only ones calling the police to account and demanding reform. Whites from various walks of life, including right-wing politicians like Rand Paul, have also been doing so. Never in American history, in analogous circumstances, has there been a higher level of interracial empathy.

Overcoming the racial burdens-individual, communal, institutional-that encumber us will take unremitting effort, major deployments of intelligence and imagination, daunting amounts of time, huge expenditures of money, and the resolute conviction that America's racial affairs can and will improve. Is the uncertain prospect of a better future worth that investment? The lessons of American history and a comparison of our society with others around the world impel me to say yes. I am a racial optimist. Only time will tell whether my faith is wise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black America's Promised Land: Why I Am Still a Racial Optimist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article appears in the Fall 2014 issue of The American Prospect magazine. Not so long ago, black Americans were giddy witnesses to what many regarded as a miracle. Election night, November 4, 2008, seemed to be a millennial turning point as a majority of Americans entrusted an African American with the nation's highest office and greatest powers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Role of Implicit Bias

Implicit bias refers to preferences, thoughts, or feelings that are skewed and subconscious - we don't recognize them when they occur to us as, and we can't identify them as, flawed. When our feelings about a race or group of people influence our actions without our conscious understanding, we are acting with implicit bias. For example, a common implicit association test finds that, when shown images of white and black children juxtaposed with positive and negative words, white people tend to associate positive words with white children and negative words with black children. Take a test for yourself.

One can imagine how implicit bias plays out in systems and institutions dominated by one race. Racism becomes codified into laws and regulations, resulting in institutions that disproportionately disenfranchise, criminalize, and marginalize people of color, and the outcome can be not just unfair, but fatal.

The Fair Fight Initiative (FFI) is a non-profit organization focused on fighting racism in the criminal justice system. FFI exposes some of the most damaging manifestations of systemic racism in America, including mass incarceration, police brutality, prosecutorial misconduct, and inhumane prison conditions.

Through public support, FFI helps victims of systemic racism bring their oppressors to justice at no cost. Victims often find pursuing litigation against powerful systems to be prohibitively expensive - often, that's by design. The unfortunate reality is that people in power have the time and money to create insurmountable barriers for victims to pursue justice. In addition to litigation, FFI conducts advocacy campaigns to raise awareness of cases and the systems perpetuating them.

Your donation directly benefits victims and their families by leveling the playing field for them. Your support also helps amplify their stories to work toward an end to injustice based on race in the criminal justice system in this country.

Please consider a tax-deductible donation to FFI to support the fight against racist injustice in the criminal justice system in our society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Implicit bias refers to preferences, thoughts, or feelings that are skewed and subconscious - we don't recognize them when they occur to us as, and we can't identify them as, flawed. When our feelings about a race or group of people influence our actions without our conscious understanding, we are acting with implicit bias.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about what trump expresses about races and disproving his statement about race, along with his reasoning. Just like a other article they bring up alot of data. Some of the data talks about people thinking there is an advantage of being white. They talk about how trump had an negative effect on minorities. Also the difference thought of White Democrats verses Republicans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For updated findings on views about racial inequality in the U.S., see "Amid National Reckoning, Americans Divided on Whether Increased Focus on Race Will Lead to Major Policy Change."
More than 150 years after the 13th Amendment abolished slavery in the United States, most U.S. adults say the legacy of slavery continues to have an impact on the position of black people in American society today. More than four-in-ten say the country hasn't made enough progress toward racial equality, and there is some skepticism, particularly among blacks, that black people will ever have equal rights with whites, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

Opinions about the current state of race relations - and President Donald Trump's handling of the issue - are also negative. About six-in-ten Americans (58%) say race relations in the U.S. are bad, and of those, few see them improving. Some 56% think the president has made race relations worse; just 15% say he has improved race relations and another 13% say he has tried but failed to make progress on this issue. In addition, roughly two-thirds say it's become more common for people to express racist views since Trump became president.

Blacks are particularly gloomy about the country's racial progress. More than eight-in-ten black adults say the legacy of slavery affects the position of black people in America today, including 59% who say it affects it a great deal. About eight-in-ten blacks (78%) say the country hasn't gone far enough when it comes to giving black people equal rights with whites, and fully half say it's unlikely that the country will eventually achieve racial equality.

Americans see disadvantages for blacks and Hispanics in the U.S. A majority of all adults (56%) say being black hurts people's ability to get ahead at least a little, and 51% say the same about being Hispanic. In contrast, 59% say being white helps people's ability to get ahead. Views about the impact of being Asian or Native American are more mixed.

Blacks, Hispanics and Asians are more likely than whites to say being white helps people's ability to get ahead at least a little. Among whites, those who are more educated, as well as those who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, are particularly likely to see advantages to being white.

The nationally representative survey of 6,637 adults was conducted online Jan. 22-Feb. 5, 2019, in English and Spanish, using Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel. In addition to exploring the public's views about the state of race relations and racial inequality in America, the survey also looks at personal experiences with racial and ethnic discrimination and the role race plays in people's lives. Among the report's key findings:

Most Americans say it's now more common for people to express racist or racially insensitive views; more than four-in-ten say it's more acceptable

Most Americans (65%) - including majorities across racial and ethnic groups - say it has become more common for people to express racist or racially insensitive views since Trump was elected president. A smaller but substantial share (45%) say this has become more acceptable.

Democrats and those who lean Democratic are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to say it has become more common and more acceptable for people to express racist and racially insensitive views since Trump was elected president. Among Democrats, 84% say this is now more common and 64% say it's more acceptable; fewer than half of Republicans say it has become more common (42%) and just 22% say it has become more acceptable for people to express these types of views.

Views of Trump's handling of race relations are far more negative than views of how Obama handled the issue

A majority of Americans (56%) say Trump has made race relations worse; just 15% say he has made progress toward improving race relations, while 13% say he has tried but failed to make progress and 14% say he hasn't addressed this issue. In contrast, 37% say Barack Obama made progress on race relations when he was president, and 27% say he tried but failed. A quarter of Americans say Obama made race relations worse. These retrospective views of Obama's handling of race relations are nearly identical to views expressed during Obama's last year in office.

Not surprisingly, assessments of Trump's and Obama's handling of race relations differ considerably along partisan lines. Democrats overwhelmingly say Trump has made race relations worse (84%), including large shares of black (79%) and white (86%) Democrats. Views are more divided among Republicans. About a third of Republicans (34%) say Trump has improved race relations and 25% say he has tried but failed to make progress; 19% of Republicans say he hasn't addressed the issue, while 20% say he has made race relations worse.

When it comes to views of Obama's handling of race relations, 55% of Democrats say he improved race relations during his presidency; just 8% say he made things worse. In contrast, 51% of Republicans say Obama made race relations worse, while 14% say he made progress toward improving it. As is the case with views of Trump's handling of race relations, white and black Democrats offer somewhat similar assessments of how Obama handled this issue when he was president.

Republicans and Democrats have vastly different views on race

In addition to being linked to views of Trump's handling of race relations, partisanship is strongly associated with racial attitudes more broadly. In fact, after controlling for other factors, partisanship has a greater association with views about the country's racial progress than demographic factors, though being young and more educated are also significant predictors, particularly among whites.

Because whites and nonwhites often have widely different views of racial issues, and nonwhites disproportionately identify with or lean to the Democratic Party, gaps between Republicans and Democrats are often shown among whites in this report in order to account for differences in the racial composition of the two parties.

White Democrats (64%) are far more likely than white Republicans (15%) to say the country hasn't gone far enough when it comes to giving black people equal rights with whites. About half of Republicans say it's been about right, while a sizable minority (31%) says the country has gone too far in this regard.

Eight-in-ten white Democrats - vs. 40% of white Republicans - say the legacy of slavery continues to have an impact on black people's position in American society today. And when it comes to views about racial discrimination, 78% of white Democrats say the bigger problem is people not seeing it where it really does exist, while a similar share of white Republicans say people seeing racial discrimination where it really does not exist is the bigger problem.

Blacks are more likely than other groups to say their race has had a negative impact on their ability to get ahead; whites are the most likely to say their race helped them

About half of black adults (52%) say being black has hurt their ability to get ahead at least a little, with 18% saying it has hurt a lot. About a quarter of Hispanics and Asians (24% each) and just 5% of whites say their race or ethnicity has had a negative impact. In turn, whites are more likely than other groups to say their racial background has helped them at least a little.

Among blacks, those with at least some college experience are more likely than those with less education to say being black has hurt their ability to get ahead.

Education is also linked with whites' perceptions of the impact their race has had on their ability to get ahead. Small shares of whites across educational levels say their racial background has hurt their ability to succeed, but those with a bachelor's degree are more likely than those with less education to say being white helped them at least a little.

Across all racial and ethnic groups, more point to their own hard work than to any other attribute, including their race, their gender, the people they know or their family's financial situation, as something that helped them get ahead.

Blacks, whites differ in assessments of why it may be harder for black people to get ahead

Whether or not they see their race as an obstacle for them personally, about two-thirds of blacks (68%) say being black generally hurts a person's ability to get ahead in the country; 55% of whites say the same.

Among those who say being black hurts a person's ability to get ahead, blacks are far more likely than whites to point to racial discrimination, less access to high-paying jobs and less access to good schools as major reasons why this is the case. In turn, whites are more likely than blacks to point to family instability and lack of good role models as major obstacles for black people. The same shares in both groups (22%) say a lack of motivation to work hard is to blame.

There are wide partisan gaps in these views. Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person's ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.

Majorities of black and white adults say blacks are treated less fairly than whites in dealing with police and by the criminal justice system

Black and white adults have widely different perceptions of how blacks are treated in America, but majorities of both groups say blacks are treated less fairly than whites by the criminal justice system (87% of blacks vs. 61% of whites) and in dealing with police (84% vs. 63%, respectively).

About six-in-ten blacks or more - but fewer than half of whites - say blacks are treated less fairly than whites in hiring, pay and promotions; when applying for a loan or mortgage; in stores or restaurants; when voting in elections; and when seeking medical treatment. In each of these realms, whites tend to say blacks and whites are treated about equally; very small shares say whites are treated less fairly than blacks.

Across these different areas, there are gaps ranging from 39 to 53 percentage points in how white Democrats and white Republicans see the treatment of blacks in the U.S. About half or more white Democrats say blacks are treated less fairly than whites in dealing with the police (88% vs. 43% of white Republicans); by the criminal justice system (86% vs. 39%); in hiring, pay and promotions (72% vs. 21%); when applying for a mortgage or loan (64% vs. 17%); in stores or restaurants (62% vs. 16%); when voting in elections (60% vs. 7%); and when seeking medical treatment (48% vs. 9%).

In some of these areas, black and white Democrats express similar views, but larger shares of black Democrats say black people are treated less fairly than whites in employment situations (86%), when applying for a loan or mortgage (78%), in stores or restaurants (73%), and when seeking medical treatment (61%).

Seven-in-ten U.S. adults say they, personally, think it's never acceptable for a white person to use the N-word; 13% say this is rarely acceptable and about one-in-ten say it is always (3%) or sometimes (6%) acceptable for a white person to use the N-word. Roughly seven-in-ten whites and blacks say this is never acceptable.

A smaller share of Hispanics (58%) say it's never acceptable for a white person to use the N-word, but this is driven in part by the relatively large share of foreign-born Hispanics (28%) who say they are not sure whether it's acceptable for a white person to use the N-word. Among Hispanics born in the U.S., 67% say this is never acceptable.

When it comes to black people using the N-word, about four-in-ten adults - including similar shares of blacks and whites - say they, personally, think it is never acceptable; 15% say it is rarely acceptable and about a third say it's always (13%) or sometimes (20%) acceptable for black people to use the N-word.

Most black adults say being black is extremely or very important to how they think about themselves

Blacks are more likely than Hispanics or Asians - and much more likely than whites - to say that their race is central to their identity. About three-quarters of black adults say being black is extremely (52%) or very (22%) important to how they think of themselves; 59% of Hispanics and 56% of Asians say being Hispanic or Asian, respectively, is at least very important to their overall identity, with about three-in-ten in each group saying it's extremely important. In contrast, just 15% of whites say being white is very or extremely important to how they think of themselves; about two-thirds say it's either only a little important (18%) or not important at all (47%).

Whites and blacks younger than 30 are less likely than their older counterparts to say their race is at least very important to their overall identity. Some 64% of black adults ages 18 to 29 say being black is at least very important, compared with roughly three-quarters or more among older age groups. And while relatively few whites across age groups say being white is central to how they think about themselves, whites younger than 30 are among the least likely to say so.

Among Hispanics, those born abroad are more likely than those born in the U.S. to say being Hispanic is at least very important to how they think of themselves (65% vs. 52%).

Majorities of blacks, Hispanics and Asians say they have experienced discrimination because of their race or ethnicity

About three-quarters of blacks and Asians (76% of each) - and 58% of Hispanics - say they have experienced discrimination or have been treated unfairly because of their race or ethnicity at least from time to time. In contrast, about two-thirds of whites (67%) say they've never experienced this.

When asked about specific situations they may have experienced because of their race or ethnicity, blacks are considerably more likely than whites, Hispanics or Asians to say that people have acted as if they were suspicious of them; people have acted as if they thought they weren't smart; they have been treated unfairly by an employer in hiring, pay or promotion; or they have been unfairly stopped by police. Hispanics and Asians are more likely than whites to say each of these have happened to them.

Asians are more likely than any other group to say they have been subject to slurs or jokes because of their race or ethnicity. In turn, more whites than blacks, Hispanics or Asians say people have assumed they were prejudiced or racist; 45% of whites have had this experience.

For Hispanics, skin color is associated with experiences with discrimination

The survey asked black and Hispanic respondents to identify the skin tone that best resembles their own using a modified version of the Massey-Martin scale. A multivariate analysis suggests that Hispanics with darker skin tones are more likely than those with lighter skin to say they have ever experienced discrimination or been treated unfairly because of their race or ethnicity. Darker skin color is also associated with a higher likelihood among Hispanics of saying that - because of their race or ethnicity - people have acted as if they were suspicious of them, people have acted as if they thought they weren't smart, they have been treated unfairly in employment situations, they have subject to slurs or jokes, and that they have feared for their safety.

Among blacks, those with darker skin tones are more likely to say they have experienced racial discrimination generally, but skin color is not necessarily associated with having faced specific situations because of their race or ethnicity. In fact, for blacks, being male and having higher levels of education are more consistently associated with the specific forms of discrimination asked about in the survey.

A note about the Asian sample

This survey includes an oversample of Asian respondents, for a total sample size of 332 Asians. The sample includes English-speaking Asians only and, therefore, may not be representative of the overall U.S. Asian population (66% of our weighted Asian sample was born in another country, compared with 78% of the U.S. Asian adult population overall).

Despite this limitation, it is important to report the views of Asians on race relations and racial inequality, as well as their personal experiences with racial discrimination, as the U.S. Asian population is growing faster than any other major racial or ethnic group. Measuring the attitudes of Asians on these topics is an important piece in understanding the state of race in America today.

As always, Asians' responses are incorporated into the general population figures throughout this report; data are weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population as a whole. Asians are shown as a separate group when the question was asked of the full sample. Because of the relatively small sample size and a reduction in precision due to weighting, results are not shown separately for Asians for questions that were only asked of a random half of respondents (Form 1/Form 2) or some filtered questions. We are also not able to analyze Asian respondents by demographic categories, such as gender, age or education.

Terminology

References to whites, blacks and Asians include only those who are non-Hispanic and identify as only one race. Hispanics are of any race.

All references to party affiliation include those who lean toward that party: Republicans include those who identify as Republicans and independents who say they lean toward the Republican Party, and Democrats include those who identify as Democrats and independents who say they lean toward the Democratic Party.

References to college graduates or people with a college degree comprise those with a bachelor's degree or more. "Some college" includes those with an associate degree and those who attended college but did not obtain a degree. "High school" refers to those who have a high school diploma or its equivalent, such as a General Education Development (GED) certificate.

Foreign born refers to people born outside of the United States, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories to parents neither of whom was a U.S. citizen, regardless of legal status.

U.S. born refers to individuals who are U.S. citizens at birth, including people born in the United States, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories, as well as those born elsewhere to parents who were U.S. citizens.

This report has been corrected to address an error in the classification of Asian respondents. In this corrected report, Asian estimates are based on 332 respondents who self-identified as Asian or Asian American only. An earlier version of this report provided Asian estimates based on 355 respondents, which properly included the 332 single-race Asian respondents but also included 23 respondents who identified as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander or both Asian and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. This correction did not affect any of the substantive conclusions of the study. Some estimates for Asians changed by 1 to 3 percentage points.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Juliana Menasce Horowitz, Anna Brown and Kiana Cox

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most Americans (65%) - including majorities across racial and ethnic groups - say it has become more common for people to express racist or racially insensitive views since Trump was elected president.

# data[].attributes.body
Article talks about the the disadvantages placed on minorities. With all the data shown with in the article it prove that at the least there is a deep rooted issues within the American system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I. Social Group Affinity and Feelings about Young People

Social Group Affinity

Most white Americans report feeling at least some affinity with members of racial, ethnic, and religious minority communities although relatively few say they have a lot in common. Nearly three-quarters of white Americans say they have either a "lot" (20%) or "some" (53%) in common with African Americans. Similar numbers of whites say they have a lot (17%) or some (54%) in common with Hispanic Americans. Fewer whites report the same with Asian and Pacific-Islander Americans (14% say "a lot" and 48% say "some) or immigrants (12% say "a lot" and 49% say "some" in common). Only 43% of whites, however, say they have a lot or some in common with Muslims, and 49% of whites-including only 39% of white Christians-say they have a lot or some in common with atheists.

To provide an overall picture of the degree of affinity that white Americans express towards a variety of different groups, we developed the "Group Affinity Scale" by combining responses to all s. questions. ¹ More than half of white Americans report having "low" (18%) or "modest" (34%) affinity for people of different racial, religious, and ethnic backgrounds. More than one-third (36%) report having "moderate" affinity for these groups, while 13% feel "high" affinity toward them.

There are considerable differences among whites by educational attainment. Nearly two-thirds of whites with a college degree have a moderate (45%) or high degree (19%) of affinity toward people of different racial, ethnic, or religious backgrounds. Fewer than half of whites without a college degree have a moderate (31%) or high (10%) affinity for such groups.

There are substantial partisan divisions among white Americans on the question. A majority of white Democrats have a moderate (39%) or high (18%) affinity for racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups. More than half of white independents also report a moderate (37%) or high affinity (14%). In contrast, only about one-third of white Republicans report having either moderate (29%) or high affinity (6%) for these groups.

The demographic profile of whites with a low affinity for religious, racial, and ethnic minority groups is quite distinct from those who have a high degree of affinity. First, whites with low affinity are somewhat older: A majority (56%) are age 50 or older, compared to 46% of those who have high affinity. A majority (57%) of whites with low affinity have a high school degree or less, compared to only 19% of whites with high affinity. Only 13% of those whites with a low affinity to minority groups have a college degree compared to nearly half (48%) of whites with a high affinity. The ideological outlook of whites also varies between those with a low and high affinity for minority groups. Close to half (46%) of whites with a high affinity identify as liberal, compared to only 11% of those expressing very low levels of affinity.

The Southeast/Southwest

Overall, whites in the Southeast and Southwest region have somewhat less affinity for racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups. ² Nearly six in ten whites in these regions have low (23%) or modest (35%) affinity, while about four in ten express moderate (31%) or high affinity (10%).

However, more educated whites in these regions express greater affinity for racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups than whites who are less educated. Six in ten whites with a college education express a moderate (43%) or high affinity (17%) for people of different racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. Only about one-third of whites without a college degree feel a moderate (27%) or high (8%) degree of affinity.

Partisan differences are more muted in these regions. Fewer than half of white Democratic residents have a moderate (37%) or high (10%) affinity for racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups. Fewer than half of white independents also report a moderate (32%) or high affinity (13%). In contrast, only about one-third of white Republicans in these regions report having either moderate (28%) or high affinity (6%) for these groups.

The Values and Economic Importance of Young People

Americans generally agree that the future economic success of the United States is dependent on helping minority children succeed. More than three-quarters (77%) of Americans agree that as the number of black and minority children continues to grow, our economic future depends on helping children from these communities be successful.

There is consensus on this issue across racial and ethnic groups. More than three-quarters of white (76%), Hispanic (79%), and black Americans (82%) also endorse the view that the country's economic future is dependent on helping minority children succeed. Both whites with high and low affinity for minority groups agree that helping minority children is imperative (83% vs. 74%). However, low-affinity whites are about half as likely as high-affinity whites to strongly embrace this belief (25% vs. 49%).

However, most Americans perceive a disconnect between their own values and those of young people. Three-quarters (75%) Americans agree "most young people today do not share the same values I do."

This view is shared across different racial and ethnic groups. More than eight in ten (85%) black Americans and more than seven in ten white (76%), and Hispanic Americans (73%) say young adults do not share their values.

The disconnect is felt across the political spectrum, although Republicans (87%) are more likely than Democrats (64%) to perceive a values gap between themselves and young adults. Independents largely mirror the general public.

The Southeast and Southwest

Roughly three-quarters (76%) of residents of the Southeast and Southwest regions believe the country's future is dependent on the success of minority children. Similar numbers of white (74%), Hispanic (74%), and black residents (83%) endorse this view.

Again, political affiliation sees the largest divides on this question. A 20-point gap separates Democrats (84%) and Republicans (64%), although majorities of both groups agree helping minority children is critical to the country's economic future.

At the same time, residents of the Southeast and Southwest also perceive a sizable gap between their own values and those of young people. Nearly eight in ten (79%) say their values do not align with those of young people today.

Similar numbers of black (83%), white (79%), and Hispanic residents (78%) say their values are largely different from the values of young people today. Among whites, those without a college degree (83%) are more likely than those with a college degree (68%) to perceive differences. Further, whites who express low affinity for racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups are far more likely than those with high affinity to believe that young people's values do not align with their own (91% vs. 58%, respectively).

II. Optimism About the Country's Future

Are the Country's Best Days Ahead of or Behind Us?

Americans are about evenly divided on the question of whether the country's best days are still to come. A majority (52%) of Americans believe the country's best days are ahead of us, while close to half (46%) say they are behind us.

Racial differences on this issue are stark. Majorities of white (54%) and Hispanic (52%) Americans say America's best days are still to come, while fewer than four in ten (39%) black Americans feel the same. Whites with a college degree have a somewhat more positive outlook about the future than those without (58% vs. 52%, respectively).

Party differences in optimism about the country are also strong. Roughly two-thirds of Republicans (64%) say America's best days are still to come, while only 45% of Democrats feel the same. Independents (53%) fall between these two groups. Optimism among partisans has shifted over the past couple of years. In 2015, nearly six in ten (59%) Democrats reported feeling that America's best days are yet to come while only about four in ten (41%) Republicans expressed this view. ³

A majority (54%) of Americans living in the Southeast and Southwest regions believe America's best days are yet to come. Close to half (45%) say America's best days are in the past. The demographic patterns in these regions are nearly identical to those seen at the national level.

Concerns Over the Next Generation's Wellbeing

The general public is split over whether most children growing up today will be better or worse off than their parents. Nearly half (48%) of Americans say most children will grow up to be better off than their parents, while 50% say most children will grow up to be worse off.

Notably, racial differences on the optimism about the future of the country itself do not extend to optimism about the next generation's wellbeing. Only about half of white (47%), black (48%), and Hispanic Americans (51%) say children will be better off than their parents.

There are modest political differences in optimism about the future of America's children. A majority (54%) of Republicans believe children in the U.S. are likely to grow up to be better off, compared to fewer than half of independents (47%) and Democrats (46%). There are no major differences across educational, age, or gender groups in views about the future welfare of children.

Americans living in the Southeast and Southwest regions of the U.S. express nearly identical views as Americans overall. Close to half (47%) of Americans living in these regions say children will be better off than their parents, while a majority (52%) say they will be worse off.

Although there are no generational differences nationally, seniors (age 65 or older) living in the Southeast and Southwest are more pessimistic about the welfare of children. Nearly six in ten (58%) say children will be worse off than their parents.

III. Opportunity and Success

Equal Opportunity

Americans are broadly concerned about equal opportunity in the country. Roughly two-thirds (66%) of Americans believe that "one of the big problems in this country is that we don't give everyone an equal chance in life," while only 32% agree that "it is not really that big a problem if some have more of a chance in life than others."

There is general agreement across major racial and ethnic groups that a lack of equal opportunity is a significant problem in the U.S., although there are differences in the level of concern. More than eight in ten (83%) black Americans, nearly three-quarters (74%) of Hispanic Americans, and roughly six in ten (61%) white Americans say one of the big problems in the U.S. is that not everyone has an equal chance to succeed in life.

White college-educated Americans express less concern about the lack of opportunity than those without a college degree (56% vs. 63%, respectively). But high-affinity whites are about as likely as those with low affinity to express concerns about lack of opportunity (68% vs. 65%, respectively).

There are significant differences across the political spectrum about the extent to which lack of equal opportunity is a problem. More than eight in ten (83%) Democrats believe that not giving everyone an equal chance in life is a major problem in the U.S., while fewer than half (44%) of Republicans agree. A majority (54%) of Republicans say that it is not really a problem if some have more of a chance in life than others. Independents largely reflect the views of Americans overall.

Concerns about inequality also vary significantly across lines of gender. Men are less likely than women to say that not giving everyone an equal shot is a major problem in the country (59% vs. 73%, respectively).

Americans living in the Southeast and Southwest mirror the views of the public overall. Nearly two-thirds (65%) say that not providing everyone an equal chance is a major problem.

More than eight in ten (81%) black residents and about six in ten Hispanic (63%) and white residents (61%) of these regions say the lack of equal opportunity is a substantial problem.

Opportunities for Success

Americans report considerable concern about lack of opportunity in the U.S., but there is disagreement over whether all children have opportunities to be successful. A majority (55%) of Americans agree children from all income groups have adequate opportunities to be successful, while 45% disagreed with this statement.

Racial gaps in perceptions that all children are given adequate chances are fairly modest. A majority of black (59%), Hispanic (55%), and white Americans (52%) agree children from different social classes have adequate opportunities to be successful. Interestingly, whites without a college degree are much more optimistic about the opportunities available to children across the income spectrum. A majority (57%) of whites without a college degree say children of all socio-economic backgrounds have adequate opportunities to be successful, a view shared by only 43% of whites with a college degree. Whites with a low affinity for racial, ethnic, and religious minorities are also much more likely than those with a high affinity to say there are adequate opportunities for children to succeed (61% vs. 39%, respectively).

Responses to this question again divide sharply along party lines. Roughly two-thirds (66%) of Republicans say children from all income groups have adequate chances, while fewer than half (44%) of Democrats agree. The gap between those who voted for President Donald Trump and those who voted for Hillary Clinton is even greater: 70% of Trump supporters believe all children have adequate opportunities, while only 41% of Clinton supporters say the same.

A similar number (58%) of Americans living the Southeast and Southwest believe children of different income brackets have adequate opportunities. This view is generally shared equally among Hispanic (62%), white (57%), and black residents (56%). However, white residents in these regions without a college degree are more likely than those with a college degree to believe there are adequate opportunities (60% vs. 51%, respectively). There is an even larger affinity gap among whites in these regions-nearly three-quarters (73%) of those with a low affinity say children have suitable opportunities compared to roughly four in ten (43%) whites with a high affinity.

Factors that Affect Success

Americans generally agree that there are several factors beyond one's own merit and hard work that either help or hurt people in their efforts to get ahead. A majority of Americans believe family wealth, racial and ethnic identity, and immigrant status impact the prospects of success.

Family Wealth

A slim majority (51%) of Americans say family wealth matters "a great deal," while 28% say it matters to some extent. Just 21% of the public report that family wealth matters "little" or "not at all."

Agreement on this issue extends across racial and ethnic groups, although white Americans (53%) are slightly more likely than black (48%) and Hispanic Americans (48%) to say someone's family wealth matters a great deal in determining their chances for success. Notably, whites with a low affinity for minority groups are far less likely than those with a high affinity to believe that family wealth matters a great deal (47% vs. 72%, respectively).

There are greater partisan divides on how family wealth impacts success. Democrats (62%) are much more likely than independents (50%) or Republicans (42%) to say that family wealth matters "a great deal."

Interestingly, there are no significant differences by income. A majority of Americans with household incomes under $30,000 per year and those with incomes in excess of $100,000 say that family wealth matters a great deal (51% vs. 57%, respectively).

White evangelical Protestants (42%) are less likely than other religious Americans to say family wealth matters a great deal. Sixty-three percent of the religiously unaffiliated and at least half of white mainline Protestants (50%), black Protestants (52%), and Catholics (51%) believe family wealth plays an important role in determining one's chances. Notably, white Catholics are significantly more likely than Hispanic Catholics (55% vs. 45%, respectively) to believe in the role that family wealth plays.

The attitudes of Americans living in the Southeast and Southwest regions match those of the country overall. A slim majority (51%) say an individual's family wealth matters a great deal. There are no major differences of opinion between residents of different racial, ethnic, or educational backgrounds.

Racial or Ethnic Background

Compared to family wealth, significantly fewer Americans agree that a person's racial or ethnic background plays much of a role in determining an individual's success. Fewer than one in three (29%) say a person's race or ethnic background matters a great deal. Roughly four in ten (38%) say it matters some, while about one-third report that this personal attribute matters little (16%) or not at all (16%).

Not surprisingly, there are sizable racial differences on this issue-though there is no major racial or ethnic group in which a majority believes a person's racial or ethnic background plays a large role in success. Nearly half (46%) of black Americans, and only 33% of Hispanics, and 25% of whites, believe that racial and ethnic background matters a great deal. Importantly, whites with high affinity for racial, ethnic, and religious minorities are not much more likely than low-affinity whites to see a link between a person's racial or ethnic background and their chances of being successful in the U.S. (34% vs. 25%, respectively).

There are also significant differences in the perceived importance of racial background between partisans. Democrats (42%) are three times as likely as Republicans (14%) to believe racial background matters a great deal for success. Forty-five percent of Republicans-but only 23% of Democrats-say racial background matters very little or not at all.

Fewer than one in three (29%) residents of the Southeast and Southwest believe a person's racial or ethnic background impact their chances of getting ahead. Black residents (54%) are far more likely to say a person's racial or ethnic background matters "a great deal" than Hispanic (28%) or white residents (22%).

Immigration Status

A similar number of Americans believe immigration status impacts one's chances of getting ahead in life. Roughly three in ten (31%) believe it matters a great deal for one's chances of getting ahead in life. Approximately four in ten (38%) report that immigrant status matters some while fewer than one-third say it matters a little (16%) or not at all (13%).

There is a significant disparity between black, white, and Hispanic Americans about the role that immigration status plays in achieving success in American society. Hispanics (43%) are more likely than black (35%) and white Americans (27%) to believe that being an immigrant matters a great deal for one's ability to get ahead. Among whites, there are no significant differences between those with a high and low affinity.

Opinions on the role of immigration status also diverge sharply by party affiliation, with Democrats (40%) more likely than either independents (32%) or Republicans (20%) to say that being an immigrant matters a great deal.

In the Southeast and Southwest regions, one-third (33%) of residents say someone's immigration status has a major impact on their chances of success. Black (43%) and Hispanic residents (39%) are more likely to believe this than white residents (27%).

Children Living in Poverty

A majority (56%) of Americans endorse the belief that the only way to help children escape poverty is to provide more assistance to their parents. More than four in ten (43%) Americans disagree with this statement.

White Americans are significantly less likely than other racial and ethnic groups to think that assisting parents is critical to helping low-income children succeed. Whites are divided over whether providing more help to parents is the best way to help children escape poverty: 48% agree and 51% disagree. In contrast, more than seven in ten black (78%) and Hispanic Americans (73%) say parental assistance is critical. Importantly, there is a substantial cleavage of opinion among white Americans.

White young adults (age 18-29) are much more likely than white seniors (age 65 or older) to say that helping parents is the only way to provide low-income children a path to succeed (57% vs. 42%, respectively).

There are also strong partisan divisions. Only about four in ten (38%) Republicans agree with the idea that family assistance is the only way to help children out of poverty, while a majority (52%) of independents and three-quarters (75%) of Democrats say the same.

Nearly six in ten (57%) residents of the Southeast and Southwest regions say providing additional assistance to parents is the best way to help children escape poverty. Whites in these regions are closely divided: 48% agree with the statement and 51% disagree. More than three-quarters (76%) of black residents and more than two-thirds (68%) of Hispanic residents in the Southeast and Southwest believe parental assistance is pivotal.

IV. Cultural Anxiety

Discomfort with Non-English Speakers

A majority (59%) of Americans say they are not bothered when they come into contact with immigrants who speak little to no English, while four in ten (40%) say they are bothered during these interactions.

Views about immigrants vary markedly by race and ethnicity. Only 22% of Hispanic Americans, but 41% of black Americans and 45% of white Americans, report being bothered by coming into contact with immigrants who speak no English. There are considerable differences of opinion among whites by social affinity. Low-affinity whites are roughly five times more likely than high-affinity whites to report being bothered when interacting with non-English-speaking immigrants (66% vs. 13%, respectively).

Differences along partisan lines are also significant: Six in ten (60%) Republicans, but only 36% of independents and 29% of Democrats, are bothered by such interactions.

Southeast and Southwest

An identical number (59%) of Americans living in the Southeast and Southwest regions also say they are not bothered when they come into contact with immigrants who speak little or no English; 40% say it would bother them.

Racial differences seen among Americans in the Southeast and Southwest regions mirror those nationally. Nearly half (47%) of whites and four in ten (40%) black Americans say that contact with non-English speaking immigrants bothers them, compared to roughly one-quarter (27%) of Hispanics in these regions. White residents with a college degree are significantly less likely to be bothered by interactions with non-English speaking immigrants than those without a college degree (38% vs. 49% respectively). There is a similar gaping difference in attitudes of high- and low-affinity whites in these regions. Nearly seven in ten (68%) low-affinity whites, compared to 21% of high-affinity whites, say it bothers them when they come into contact with immigrants who do not speak English.

Partisan differences are also large in these regions. A majority (55%) of Republicans in these regions are bothered by coming into contact with immigrants who do not speak English, but only 36% of independents and 33% of Democrats feel the same.

Among religious groups these regions, white evangelical Protestants are by far the most likely to be bothered by interactions with non-English speaking immigrants. A majority (57%) of white evangelical Protestants say they are bothered by such interactions, compared to 49% of white mainline protestants, 35% of Catholics, and 29% of those with no religious affiliation.

Stranger in My Own Country

Almost half of Americans (44%) agree that things have changed so much that they often feel like strangers in their own country. A majority (55%) of the public disagrees.

Nationally, black Americans (59%) are significantly more likely than white (43%) or Hispanic Americans (38%) to say they feel like strangers in their own country. Black Americans have become increasingly likely to affirm this statement. In 2016, fewer than half (48%) of black Americans reported that they felt like a stranger in their own country. ⁴ The views of whites did not change over the same time period, with roughly as many (40%) in agreement with the statement last year.

Young people are significantly less likely than older Americans to report that they feel like strangers in their own country. Only about one-third (34%) of Americans under the age of 30 agree with this statement, compared to a majority (53%) of those age 65 or older.

The Southeast and Southwest

Close to half (48%) of Americans living in the Southeast and Southwest regions say they feel like a stranger in their own country. A slim majority (51%) disagree.

There is broader agreement across racial and ethnic groups in these regions. A majority (54%) of black residents and close to half of Hispanic (45%) and white residents (49%) report feeling this way. However, low-affinity whites are far more likely than high-affinity whites to say they feel like a stranger in their own country (71% vs. 27%, respectively).

Both age and education play a strong role in shaping whether the attitudes of whites in the region. A majority (53%) of whites without a college degree say they often feel like a stranger, compared to only 38% of whites with a four-year college education. And while more than half (55%) of white seniors say they often feel like a stranger in their own country, only 39% of white young adults express the same view.

There is surprisingly little difference between partisans. Roughly half of Republicans (52%), independents (48%), and Democrats (48%) in these regions report that they often feel like strangers in their own country.

Discrimination Against Whites

Nearly half (48%) of all Americans-and a majority (54%) of white Americans-believe that discrimination against whites has become as big of a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities. Only about one-third (36%) of Hispanic Americans and 28% of black Americans agree. Among whites, those who feel a strong affinity to racial, ethnic, and religious minorities are far less likely to express this view than those with weak affinities (30% vs. 69%, respectively).

Nationally, attitudes about "reverse discrimination" are more tied to partisanship than they are to race. Seven in ten (70%) Republicans agree discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against minorities, a view shared by fewer than half (46%) of independents and only about three in ten (31%) Democrats.

White Christians also tend to be much more apt to think that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities. Roughly two-thirds (66%) of white evangelical Protestants, 56% of white Catholics, and 53% of white mainline Protestants feel this way, compared to fewer than four in ten religiously unaffiliated (36%), Hispanic Catholics (34%), and black Protestants (28%).

The Southeast and Southwest

A slim majority (51%) of Americans in the Southeast and Southwest regions say discrimination against whites is as big of a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities.

Whites in these regions are even more likely to agree that reverse discrimination is a problem. More than six in ten (61%) whites across these regions perceive discrimination against whites to be as big of a problem as discrimination against nonwhites, compared to 40% of Hispanic residents and 32% of black residents. Whites who feel little affinity to minority groups are much more likely to express concerns about reverse discrimination than those who have much greater affinity (72% vs. 38%, respectively).

Among whites in these regions, there are significant age differences in how widely reverse discrimination is perceived as a problem. Only 41% of white residents under the age of 30 say discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against nonwhites, while six in ten (60%) white seniors agree.

Education also matters a great deal. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of whites without a college degree say reverse discrimination is a serious problem, compared to half (50%) of whites with a college degree.

Perceptions of Effort and Success

Most Americans reject the idea that inequality between white and black Americans is primarily due to a lack of effort among black Americans to improve their condition. A majority (55%) of Americans disagree with the statement that "if blacks would only try harder, they would be just as well off as whites." However, a significant minority (43%) agree.

A majority of every racial and ethnic group rejects the notion that effort is the driving force behind racial inequality. A majority of black (68%), Hispanic (57%), and white Americans (53%) disagree that blacks could be as well off as whites if they only put forth more effort. However, more than two-thirds (68%) of low-affinity whites say blacks would be as well off as whites if they would try harder; only 26% of high-affinity whites agree.

There are yawning political differences on this question. Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to agree that inequality is caused by a lack of effort among black Americans (60% vs. 30%, respectively). The views of independents mirror the general public.

The Southeast and Southwest

Southeast and Southwest residents are more divided on this issue. Close to half (47%) of Americans living in the Southeast and Southwest regions agree that racial inequality is primarily the result of lack of effort among black Americans. A slim majority (51%) disagree.

A majority (52%) of white residents in these regions agree that if blacks would only try harder they would be just as well off as whites. More than four in ten (44%) Hispanics, and more than one-third (37%) of black Americans agree with this statement as well. Low-affinity whites in these regions are more than twice as likely as high-affinity whites to say inequality is due to lack of effort among blacks (67% vs. 33%, respectively).

Among white Americans, gaps across educational lines are evident in these regions, although they are smaller than they are nationwide. A majority (55%) of whites without a college degree believe that gaps between blacks and whites are due to effort, a view shared by 42% of college-educated whites.

There is a wide disparity in the views of Republicans and Democrats in the region. Republicans are roughly twice as likely as Democrats to think that blacks would be more equal if they only tried harder: 65% vs. 33%, respectively.

Government Attention to the Problems of Minorities

Most Americans do not believe the government has paid too much attention to the problems of blacks and other minorities over the past couple of decades. A majority (58%) of the public reject this statement, while four in ten (40%) embrace it.

A majority of black (68%), Hispanic (60%), and white Americans (54%) disagree the government has been too focused on the problems confronting blacks and other minorities over the past several decades. More than four in ten (44%) white Americans agree the government has paid too much attention to minority groups in the recent past, while fewer Hispanics (37%) and blacks (28%) agree. Among whites there are divisions by education and affinity. Half (50%) of whites without a college degree agree that government has prioritized too highly the problems of racial and ethnic minorities, compared to 31% of college-educated whites. Low-affinity whites are also much more likely than those with a high affinity to say that the government has paid too much attention to the issue facing black Americans (64% vs. 26%, respectively).

As with other racial attitudes, views about government assistance to minorities are sharply polarized by political affiliation. Nearly six in ten (59%) Republicans believe the government has focused too much attention on the problems of blacks and other minorities, a view shared by only 27% of Democrats. Independents largely mirror the general public.

The Southeast and Southwest

Most (55%) residents in the Southeast and Southwest regions also reject the notion that the government has paid too much attention to the challenges facing blacks and other minorities. However, more than four in ten (43%) agree.

Opinions on whether the government pays too much attention to the problems of racial minorities vary by race and ethnicity. Roughly half (48%) of white residents in these regions agree the government pays too much attention to the problems of racial minorities, while 40% of Hispanics residents and 30% of black residents report the same.

Among whites in these regions, attitudes vary by educational attainment. A slim majority (51%) of whites without a college degree agree with this statement, compared to 39% of those with a college degree.

Police Treatment of Black Americans and Minority Groups

A majority (57%) of Americans do not believe that police treat black Americans and members of other minority communities generally the same as whites. Roughly four in ten (42%) Americans believe police treat these groups equally. Opinions on whether police officers generally treat blacks and minorities the same as whites vary dramatically by race, ethnicity, and party affiliation.

White Americans are about evenly divided over whether the police treat minority communities the same as whites: 49% agree vs. 51% disagree. More than eight in ten (83%) black Americans and nearly two-thirds (65%) of Hispanic Americans do not believe blacks and other minorities are treated the same by police as whites. Whites without a college degree are only slightly more likely than those with a four-year degree to believe police officers are equitable in their treatment of minority communities (50% vs. 44%, respectively). In contrast, whites with a low affinity for racial, ethnic, and religious minorities are much more likely than high-affinity whites to say the same (61% vs. 36%, respectively).

Though racial differences in views of policing are large, they are dwarfed by differences across political lines. Nearly two-thirds (66%) of Republicans say whites and minorities are treated the same by police, while only 42% of independents and 26% of Democrats say the same. Differences across presidential vote choice are even larger. Roughly seven in ten (71%) Trump supporters think police treat people of all races equally, compared to only fewer than one-quarter (23%) of Clinton supporters.

The Southeast and Southwest

Views about police treatment of minority groups are similar among residents in the Southeast and Southwest. A majority (55%) of the region's residents do not believe that black Americans and other minority groups receive equal treatment by the police, while 44% agree that they do.

Racial gaps in views on policing are even larger in the Southeast and Southwest than they are elsewhere. A majority (52%) of white residents believe police generally treat people of all races equally, compared to only 16% of black residents. Fewer than four in ten (37%) Hispanics believe police treatment is equitable. Interestingly, there is a smaller gap among whites in these regions by social affinity-fewer than six in ten (58%) whites with low affinity say police officers treat all people equally compared to 42% of those with a high affinity.

As is the case nationally, Republicans and Democrats within these regions hold dramatically different views on the issue of policing equality. More than two-thirds (68%) of Republicans, but only 24% of Democrats in these regions, feel police treat people of all races the same.

Making Sacrifices to Benefit Other Racial Groups

Americans generally doubt they are required to make sacrifices that benefit other racial and ethnic groups. More than six in ten (62%) Americans do not believe they are being asked to make too many sacrifices to benefit people of another race, while 36% agree.

Interestingly, responses to this question vary little by racial or ethnic identity. Notably, black Americans (42%) are more likely than white (36%) and Hispanic Americans (31%) to agree with this statement.

Political affiliation matters a great deal on this issue. Nearly half (49%) of Republicans and a majority (54%) of Trump supporters feel they are being asked to make too many sacrifices that benefit people of other races. No more than one-third of independents (33%), Democrats (30%), and Clinton supporters (25%) believe they are being asked to make too many sacrifices.

The Southeast and Southwest

Whites in the Southeast and Southwest regions are more likely than whites nationally to say they have been asked to make too many sacrifices for people of different races. More than four in ten (42%) whites in these regions agree they have been asked to make too many sacrifices, compared to roughly one-third of black (35%) and Hispanic residents (32%).

Among whites in the Southeast and Southwest, there are notable differences by education level. Whites without a college degree (45%) are more likely than whites with a degree (32%) to say they have been asked to make too many sacrifices for people of another race. White men (45%) are also somewhat more likely than white women (38%) to say they have been asked to make too many sacrifices.

Partisan differences are considerable in these regions. Republicans (49%) are substantially more likely than independents (37%) and Democrats (34%) to say they are having to make too many concessions.

V. Views of Government

Is Government Wasteful?

Americans are generally skeptical of the government's ability to efficiently and effectively deliver services to citizens. More than six in ten (63%) Americans agree things run by the government are usually inefficient and wasteful. Only 36% of the public disagree.

Views about the efficiency of government vary by race and ethnicity, although majorities of every major group perceive its inefficiency. Approximately two-thirds (66%) of white Americans say the government is usually inefficient and wasteful, compared to 56% of black Americans and 53% of Hispanic Americans.

There are strong partisan differences in perceptions of government's efficiency. Republicans (74%) and independents (67%) are more likely than Democrats (51%) to agree the government is inefficient and wasteful. It's notable that even among Democrats, fewer than half (47%) disagree with the statement.

Americans are also not generally inclined to give government the benefit of the doubt. Fewer than half (46%) of the public say the government generally does a better job than it is given credit for, while 53% believe that it does not.

There are no racial or ethnic differences on this issue. Fewer than half of Hispanic (47%), white (45%), and black Americans (44%) say the government does not receive the credit it deserves.

The Southeast and Southwest

Americans living in the Southeast and Southwest U.S. closely resemble the rest of the country on attitudes toward the government. Close to two-thirds (64%) say programs run by the government are usually inefficient and wasteful and fewer than half (45%) say government deserves more credit for the job it does than it gets.

The racial divide is somewhat larger in these regions than it is nationally. Seven in ten (70%) white Americans in these regions agree the government is usually wasteful, a view shared by fewer Hispanic (54%) and black Americans (51%). White residents (41%) are also less likely than black (50%) and Hispanic residents (51%) to say that government does a better job than it gets credit for.

Among residents of the regions, differences in attitudes toward government are stark across lines of party affiliation. Three-quarters (75%) of Republicans say the government is inefficient and wasteful while slightly more than half (52%) of Democrats agree. Importantly, Democrats are only somewhat more likely than Republicans to say the government often does a better job than it gets credit for-52% vs. 40%, respectively.

Is Private Charity Enough?

Despite generally negative views about how the government operates, Americans of all types still see a role for government in helping the poor. Only 36% agree the government is providing too many social services that should be left to religious groups and private charities. More than six in ten (62%) disagree. In addition, more than three-quarters (77%) of the public agree nonprofit and religious groups are not large enough to address the needs of poor Americans.

There are modest differences by race and ethnicity in views about the government's role in the administration of social services. White Americans (39%) are somewhat more likely than Hispanic (29%) and black Americans (28%) to say the government is doing more than it should in this area. But roughly equal numbers of whites (78%), blacks (78%), and Hispanics (74%) agree secular and religious nonprofits do not have the capacity to address the needs of poor Americans.

Republicans and Democrats are sharply at odds in views about the role the government should play in providing social welfare. More than six in ten (61%) Republicans agree the government is doing more than it should, while only 19% of Democrats agree. The views of political independents closely track those of the general public.

There is greater cross-partisan consensus about the inability of nonprofits and religious charities to address the needs of poor Americans. High majorities of Democrats (81%), independents (78%), and Republicans (71%) agree religious and secular charities are not large enough to meet the needs of those living in poverty.

Across different religious denominations and traditions, there is widespread agreement that religious charities and nonprofits are not able to sufficiently address poverty. Roughly eight in ten white mainline Protestants (83%), black Protestants (81%), and white evangelical Protestants (79%), along with roughly three-quarters (76%) of Catholics, agree nonprofits and charities cannot adequately address the needs of poor Americans. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of religiously unaffiliated Americans also agree.

The Southeast and Southwest

Americans living in the Southeast and Southeast express similar views about government's role in society. About four in ten (42%) Americans living in these regions say government is doing too much, while a majority (57%) disagree.

In the Southeast and Southwest regions, white Americans are more likely to perceive the government as being too involved in the provision of social services. Nearly half (48%) of whites in these regions say government is doing too much, compared to 38% of Hispanics and 29% of black residents. However, there are no significant differences across racial lines in the belief that nonprofit charities are large enough to address the needs of the poor. Roughly three-quarters of black (76%), white (74%), and Hispanic residents (74%) say such organizations are not large enough to address all the needs of poor Americans.

The opinion gap between Republicans and Democrats in these regions is roughly the same as it is nationally. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Republicans in the Southeast and Southwest regions say the government has been too involved in providing social services, a view shared by only one-quarter (25%) of Democrats. There is a political consensus about the inability of nonprofits and religious charities to address all the needs of poor Americans, with at least two-thirds Democrats (81%), independents (73%), and Republicans (69%) expressing agreement.

Does Government Help the People it is Designed to Help?

Two-thirds (67%) of the public agree the government is too often helping the wrong people, while roughly one-third (32%) of the public disagree.

Notably, there is little divergence in opinion across racial and ethnic lines. About two-thirds of Hispanic (65%), white (66%), and black Americans (70%) agree the government too often helps the wrong people.

There are important differences by political affiliation on the issue. More than three-quarters (77%) of Republicans say the government often helps the wrong people, compared to 64% of independents and 61% of Democrats.

The Southeast/Southwest

Americans living in the Southeast and Southwest regions are similarly inclined to believe the government is helping people it should not. Close to seven in ten (68%) residents in those regions say government too often helps the wrong people.

Views are similar across racial and ethnic lines: Roughly two-thirds of white (69%), black (66%), and Hispanic residents (65%) agree the government is assisting people it should not.

Among white residents, those without a college degree are more likely than those with one to think the government helps the wrong people. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of whites without a college degree say the government too often helps the wrong people, compared to about six in ten (61%) whites with college degrees who say the same.

Among residents in the Southeast and Southwest, there are meaningful differences across party lines, although majorities across the political spectrum agree the government too often helps the wrong people. Republicans (76%) are more likely than independents (68%) or Democrats (61%) to say the government often helps the wrong people.

Views of Government Aid Recipients

Americans are roughly evenly divided on whether people who receive welfare payments from the government are genuinely in need of aid (53%) or taking advantage of the system (45%).

White Americans are even more closely divided over the issue than Americans overall. Half (50%) of white Americans say people receiving welfare need the assistance, while roughly as many (48%) say they are taking advantage of the system. Six in ten black (60%) and Hispanic Americans (60%) say people who receive welfare are genuinely in need of help.

Views of welfare recipients differ drastically by political affiliation. Only 32% of Republicans believe welfare recipients are genuinely in need of help, while a majority of independents (53%) and Democrats (69%) say that they are.

The Southeast/Southwest

Americans living in the Southeast and Southwest are similarly divided in their view of welfare recipients. Nearly half (49%) of residents in these regions say welfare recipients are genuinely in need of assistance, while roughly as many (48%) say they are abusing the system.

White Americans in the Southeast and Southwest regions have considerably more negative attitudes than whites overall toward recipients of welfare. A majority (55%) of whites in these regions say welfare recipients are abusing the system, while 42% say they are in need of help. A majority (55%) of Hispanics and nearly two-thirds (65%) of black Americans say people who receive welfare are truly in need of such assistance.

The views of whites are stratified by educational attainment. Whites without a college degree are much less likely than those with a college degree to say welfare recipients are genuinely in need of help (38% vs. 53%, respectively).

The political gulf in views of welfare recipients eclipses racial and ethnic differences. Democrats are more than twice as likely as Republicans to say welfare recipients are genuinely in need of the assistance (67% vs. 30%, respectively). Independents are closely divided in their views of recipients of welfare.

Trust in Government

Trust in the U.S. government has been stagnant or declining for several decades, and clear majorities of Americans do not trust the federal government to do what is right. Opinions are somewhat more positive, though, when it comes to trust in state and local governments.

Less than three in ten (29%) Americans say they trust the federal government to do what is right "just about always" or "most of the time." A majority (56%) say it can be trusted "only some of the time," and 15% say it can be trusted "none of the time."

Americans exhibit only slightly more confidence in their state governments. Roughly one-third (34%) say they trust their state government most of the time or nearly always. About half (51%) say they trust their state government some of the time, while 14% say they never trust it. More than four in ten (43%) Americans say they trust their local government most of the time or nearly always. Roughly as many (45%) say their local government can be trusted some of the time, and 10% say they never trust it.

Trust in government does vary markedly across racial lines-especially for lower levels of government. Black and white Americans are roughly equally distrusting of the federal government: Only 26% of whites and 24% of blacks say they trust the federal government always or most of the time. More than one-third (37%) of Hispanics report trusting the federal government at least most of the time. In contrast, Hispanic and white Americans are more likely than black Americans to express trust in their state government (37% vs. 35% vs. 24%, respectively). Similarly, while more than four in ten (42%) Hispanics and close to half of white Americans (46%) trust their local government at least most of the time, only 27% of black Americans feel similarly.

The Southeast/Southwest

Americans in the Southeast and Southwest regions report similar levels of trust in federal (30%), state (36%), and local governments (42%).

Disparate levels of trust exist in the Southeast and Southwest among racial and ethnic groups. Hispanic residents of these regions (38%) are the most likely to have high levels of trust in the federal government, while trust in the federal government is roughly equal among black (29%) and white residents (27%) of these regions. When it comes to state governments, however, Hispanics (41%) and whites (36%) in these regions are considerably more trusting than black residents (27%). The trust gap is even larger on the local level, with more than four in ten Hispanics (46%) and whites (43%) expressing trust in their local government, compared to fewer than three in ten (28%) black residents.

Notably, partisan differences in trust are relatively modest. More than three in ten Republicans (37%) and Democrats (31%) say they can trust the federal government at least most of the time. Far fewer independents (23%) feel the same. The trust gap grows significantly larger in views about state and local government. Half (50%) of Republicans-compared to fewer than one-third of independents (31%) and Democrats (31%)-say they trust their state government at least most of the time. Similarly, while a majority (55%) of Republicans say they trust their local government at least most of the time, only 34% of independents and 39% of Democrats report similar levels of trust.

VI. Issue Priorities and Community Problems

Critical Issues in the Country

No issues are viewed as more critical among Americans today than health care and child poverty. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Americans say health care is a critical issue to them, and nearly as many (63%) cite child poverty as a critical issue. Notably, fewer than half (48%) of Americans say the issue of poverty generally is a critical issue. At least half the public say crime (54%), ensuring all children have equal opportunities to succeed (54%), and the quality of public schools (50%) are critically important issues. Fewer than half of Americans cite immigration (45%) or immigration issues that affect children (44%), domestic violence (44%), the cost of higher education (38%), race relations (37%), or the cost of child care (31%) as critical issues to them.

The importance of particular issues varies by race and ethnicity. At least three-quarters of black (79%) and Hispanic Americans (75%) say that child poverty is a critical concern, a view shared by just 56% of white Americans. However, the views of white Americans vary considerably by education and social affinity. Six in ten (60%) white Americans without a four-year college degree say the issue of child poverty is critically important, compared to fewer than half (49%) of whites with a college degree. Whites with a high affinity for minority groups are more likely than low-affinity whites to prioritize child poverty (64% vs. 51%, respectively).

Americans overall are about equally as likely to prioritize immigration generally and immigration issues affecting children. White Americans, however, are more likely to say immigration is a critical concern than they are to say immigration issues that impact children are a critical concern (46% vs. 36%, respectively). In contrast, black and Hispanic Americans are more likely to prioritize immigration issues that affect children than they are to prioritize immigration generally: More than six in ten (61%) Hispanic Americans and a majority (54%) of black Americans say immigration issues that impact children are a critical priority, while only about half (52%) of Hispanics and fewer than four in ten (38%) black Americans say immigration is a critical issue. There are no educational differences among whites in concerns about immigration issues that affect children, but whites with a high affinity are more likely than those with a low affinity to say this issue is a priority (48% vs. 21%, respectively).

Black and Hispanic Americans also report being more concerned about providing equal opportunities for children. Approximately three-quarters (74%) of black Americans and six in ten (60%) Hispanic Americans say that ensuring all children have equal opportunities to succeed is critical. In contrast, fewer than half (48%) of white Americans say this is a critical issue for them. There are no differences among whites by education, but low-affinity whites are much less likely to say this is a critical issue than high-affinity whites (47% vs. 63%, respectively).

Black Americans are more likely than white or Hispanic Americans to rate a number of other issues as critically important. A majority (53%) of black Americans say the cost of childcare is critically important to them, compared to only 36% of Hispanics and 25% of whites. Similarly, nearly six in ten (59%) black Americans say domestic violence is a major concern, while fewer than half of Hispanic (48%) and white Americans (39%) agree. However, whites without a college degree are much more likely than white college graduates to cite domestic violence as a critical issue (45% vs. 27%, respectively).

In general, Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to prioritize issues affecting children, particularly vulnerable children. Nearly six in ten (59%) Democrats compared to fewer than half of independents (45%) and Republicans (44%) say the quality of public schools is a critical issue to them personally. About two-thirds (66%) of Democrats and a majority (55%) of independents say that ensuring equal opportunities for children is a critical concern, while only 39% of Republicans say the same. Child poverty is a critical issue for nearly three-quarters of Democrats (73%) and more than six in ten (61%) independents. Fewer than half (45%) of Republicans say children living in poverty is a critical issue. Notably, while Republicans are somewhat more likely than Democrats to prioritize immigration in general (53% vs. 43%, respectively), Democrats express greater concern about immigration issues that impact children (50% vs. 31%, respectively).

The Southeast and Southwest

In the Southeast and Southwest regions, no issues are ranked as more important among residents than health care (65%) and children living in poverty (62%). There are notable racial and ethnic divisions on these issues. More than seven in ten black (79%) and Hispanic residents (72%) of these regions say children living in poverty is a critical issue to them. Substantially fewer (55%) white residents of these regions agree.

A majority (55%) of residents in these regions say that ensuring equal opportunity for children is a critical priority, although racial and ethnic differences are manifest: Three-quarters (75%) of black residents, roughly six in ten (59%) Hispanic residents, and fewer than half (48%) of white residents identify this issue as critical. Notably, white residents with a college degree are much more likely to prioritize child poverty (57%) than ensuring equal opportunities for all children (43%). In contrast, white residents without a college degree are about as likely to say child poverty and providing equal opportunities for children are critical concerns (55% vs. 50%, respectively).

Concerns about poverty expressed by white residents vary sharply by education level and gender. Whites without a college degree express substantially greater concern about poverty than those with a college education (47% vs. 37%, respectively). A majority (54%) of white women but only about one-third (34%) of white men say people living in poverty is a critical issue.

Problems in American Communities

No issue is cited by more Americans as a major problem for U.S. communities than drug abuse and addiction. More than two-thirds (68%) of Americans say drug abuse and addiction is a major problem in U.S. communities. A majority (56%) of the public cite the lack of good paying jobs as a major problem, while half (50%) report crime is a major concern. Fewer than half of Americans say people suffering from hunger and malnutrition (43%), the breakdown of families (43%), a lack of opportunities for young people (42%), racism (41%), illegal immigration (39%), and a lack of access to good public schools (36%) are major problems in communities around the country.

White Americans express far less concern than black and Hispanic Americans about many of these issues. One-third (33%) of whites say racism is a major problem, compared to a majority (54%) of Hispanic Americans and two-thirds (67%) of black Americans. A similar number (30%) of white Americans say lack of access to good public schools is a major problem, while roughly half of Hispanic (47%) and black Americans (51%) say this is a major issue. White Americans report substantially less concern about a lack of opportunities for young people in U.S. communities-only 36% say it's a major problem, while half (50%) of Hispanic Americans and more than six in ten (61%) black Americans say it's a pressing issue. White Americans (46%) are also less likely than Hispanic (62%) and black Americans (63%) to report crime is a serious problem afflicting communities in the U.S. Roughly equal numbers of black (55%) and Hispanic Americans (53%) cite hunger and malnutrition as major community problems, while fewer (38%) white Americans agree. Black Americans are unique to the extent that they identify the "breakdown of families" as a problem for U.S. communities. More than six in ten (61%) black Americans say this is a substantial problem, compared to 43% of Hispanics and 40% of whites. Notably, consensus among racial and ethnic groups emerges on the issue of drug abuse. About seven in ten white (68%), black (70%), and Hispanic Americans (70%) say drug abuse and addiction are serious problems facing communities.

The Southeast and Southwest

Americans who live in the Southeast and Southwest regions express similar concerns about the problems facing communities in the U.S. Two-thirds (67%) of residents in these regions say drug addiction and abuse is a major problem afflicting communities, while nearly six in ten (58%) say a lack of good paying jobs is a major problem. Similar numbers of black (71%), white (67%), and Hispanic residents (63%) cite drug abuse and addiction as a significant problem, but racial and ethnic divisions are much more pronounced on the issue of jobs. A majority of white (53%) and Hispanic residents (59%), compared to three-quarters (75%) of black residents, say a lack of good paying jobs is a major problem.

Racial divisions in the Southeast and Southwest regions mirror those nationally. About two-thirds (66%) of black Americans say a lack of opportunities for youth is a major problem, compared to half (50%) of Hispanics and 39% of whites. Black Americans (62%) are also much more likely than white (44%) and Hispanic Americans (40%) to say the breakdown of families is a major problem confronting American communities.

VII. Child Welfare Policies

Tax Breaks for Low-Income Parents

Nationally, an overwhelming majority (87%) of Americans support providing tax breaks to low-income parents with child support obligations to help them care for their children, and more than four in ten (41%) Americans strongly support this policy.

Support for tax breaks for low-income parents is strong across the lines of age, race, and gender. The policy enjoys considerable bipartisan support, though support is more pronounced among Democrats and independents. More than three-quarters of Democrats (92%), independents (87%), and Republicans (77%) favor tax breaks for low-income parents. A slim majority (51%) of Democrats strongly favor the policy, compared to 39% of independents, and 28% of Republicans.

There is robust support for such a policy among Americans living in the Southeast and Southwest regions. More than eight in ten (85%) residents of these regions express support for providing tax breaks to low-income parents with child support obligations. There is broad support for this policy across racial, ethnic, and generational lines.

Pre-K Education

Americans overwhelmingly support free pre-K education: Eight in ten (80%) Americans favor providing free pre-kindergarten services to all children in their state, including 40% who strongly favor this policy.

Support for universal pre-K education stretches across racial and ethnic groups. At least three-quarters of white (77%), Hispanic (87%), and black Americans (88%) favor providing free pre-K education in their state.

The most significant differences in support for free pre-K are observed along partisan lines. While majorities of all political parties support free pre-K, Democrats (92%) express far more staunch support for the policy, followed by Independents (80%) and Republicans (65%).

Nearly two-thirds (66%) of Americans say pre-K programs in their state should be supported by local taxpayers the same way public schools are funded; only one-third (33%) say parents should be obligated to pay for such programs for their children themselves.

While majorities of all racial and ethnic groups say taxpayers should fund pre-K, support is strongest among black (83%) and Hispanic Americans (73%) and lowest among whites (61%).

Differences among partisans are considerable. Roughly eight in ten (81%) Democrats and about two-thirds (64%) of independents say local taxpayers should support pre-K programs. Republicans, however, are closely divided: Half (50%) say local taxpayers should support pre-K programs, while 49% say parents should be obligated to pay for such programs for their children themselves.

Similar degrees of support emerge among Americans residing in the Southeast and Southwest. More than eight in ten (81%) Americans in these regions are in favor of providing free pre-Kindergarten access to all children in their state, compared to 18% who do not support this policy.

Government Support for Extended Family Caregivers

More than eight in ten (84%) Americans agree the government should provide financial assistance to relatives, such as grandparents, who are able to care for children who have been in foster care.

Such a policy sees overwhelming support among Americans of varying racial and ethnic backgrounds. More than eight in ten white (81%), Hispanic (88%), and black Americans (91%) agree the government should support the extended family who care for children.

This policy also garners support across the political spectrum. More than three-quarters of Democrats (93%), independents (80%), and Republicans (78%) agree the government should support the extended family of children who serve as their caregivers.

More than eight in ten (85%) Americans living in the Southeast and Southwest regions express support for providing financial assistance to relatives who take care of children, compared to 15% who do not support such a policy.

Public School Funding

A majority (56%) of Americans agree public schools that serve many poor students, students learning English as a second language, and students in foster care should receive more money per student than public schools who serve fewer of these students. More than four in ten (42%) Americans oppose this policy.

Substantial differences of opinion exist among Americans by racial and ethnic background. More than seven in ten (71%) Hispanic Americans and nearly two-thirds (65%) of black Americans favor a policy that provides extra resources to schools serving students with greater needs, compared to a slim majority (52%) of white Americans. High-affinity whites are far more likely than those with low affinity to support increased aid for these types of public schools (68% vs. 36%, respectively).

Stark differences emerge along partisan lines. Seven in ten (70%) Democrats agree schools that serve disadvantaged populations should receive additional funding, while fewer than half (45%) of Republicans agree.

Views on the policy vary considerably by age: More than two-thirds (68%) of young Americans (age 18-29) say schools that serve students with outstanding needs should receive more funding, compared to 52% of seniors (age 65 or older) who agree.

A majority (56%) of Americans living in the Southeast and Southwest regions express support for such a policy. Hispanic residents (69%) of these regions are among the strongest supporters of the policy, while significantly fewer black (56%) and white residents (51%) express support.

Financial Incentives for Foster Care

Most Americans believe financial assistance significantly influences people's decisions to become foster parents. Nearly three-quarters (72%) of Americans say people often agree to become foster parents because of the financial support they receive from the government.

The belief that financial considerations often influence people's decisions to take in foster children is about equally as strong among different racial and ethnic groups. At least seven in ten black (79%), white (72%), and Hispanic Americans (72%) agree people often become foster parents because of the money they receive from government. About four in ten (39%) blacks say such deliberation occurs very often, compared to 28% of Hispanics and 24% of whites who say the same.

This view is also largely shared among residents of the Southeast and Southwest regions of the U.S. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of Americans residing in these regions say financial incentives often inspire people to become foster parents.

VIII. Criminal Justice Policies

Criminal History

Most Americans believe employers should be able to ask about criminal history on job application forms, and oppose policies that would forbid them from doing so. Only 38% of Americans agree employers should be prohibited from asking about criminal history on job application forms; approximately six in ten (61%) oppose such a policy.

White Americans (65%) are the most likely among racial and ethnic groups to oppose prohibiting employers from asking about criminal history, while Hispanic Americans are more closely divided (53% oppose, 46% favor). Fewer than half (47%) of black Americans oppose such a policy, while a slim majority (51%) favor prohibiting employers from asking about criminal history on job application forms.

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of Republicans, compared to about six in ten (59%) independents and a majority (53%) of Democrats, say employers should not be restricted from inquiring about criminal history on job application forms.

The Southeast and Southwest

Views among residents of the Southeast and Southwest regions are nearly identical to the general public. More than six in ten (62%) Americans in these regions say employers should not be prohibited from asking about criminal history as part of the job application process. More than one-third (37%) of residents support such a policy.

Divisions by race and ethnicity in the Southeast and Southwest in views on this policy are stark. A slim majority (53%) of blacks in these regions support policies that would stop employers from inquiring about criminal history, compared to fewer than half (44%) of Hispanics and only 30% of whites.

Partisanship plays a significant role in explaining attitudes toward this issue. Close to half (47%) of Democrats in the Southeast and Southwest support a policy that would prohibit employers from asking about criminal history, while four in ten (40%) independents and only one in five (20%) Republicans support such a policy. Eight in ten (80%) Republicans, nearly six in ten (59%) independents, and a slim majority (52%) of Democrats in these regions oppose this policy.

Sentencing

More than six in ten (61%) Americans believe judges should always consider the impact on children and families when making sentencing and prison assignment decisions for parents convicted of a crime. Nearly four in ten (38%) say judges should not be required to consider such circumstances when making sentencing decisions.

There are substantial differences of opinion between Americans of varying racial and ethnic backgrounds. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of black Americans and roughly six in ten Hispanic (63%) and white Americans (58%) say judges should consider family circumstances when making sentencing and other judicial decisions.

There is a wide disparity in the views of partisans on the issue. More than seven in ten (72%) Democrats believe judges should consider the impact on children and families when making sentencing and prison assignment decisions, compared to nearly six in ten (59%) independents and roughly half (51%) of Republicans. Nearly as many (48%) Republicans say judges ought not to worry about how sentencing decisions would impact children.

There is greater consensus among the public over whether nonviolent juvenile offenders belong in prison. More than three-quarters (77%) of Americans say judges should find alternatives to prison for nonviolent juvenile offenders.

This view is embraced by wide swathes of the racial and ethnic spectrum. More than three-quarters of Hispanics (76%), whites (77%), and blacks (81%) favor alternatives to prison for nonviolent juvenile offenders.

There is political consensus on the issue: Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Republicans and at least eight in ten independents (80%) and Democrats (83%) say judges should be encouraged to find alternatives to prison for nonviolent juvenile offenders.

The Southeast and Southwest

In general, residents of the Southeast and Southwest regions agree judges should consider the interests of families when handing out sentences to people convicted of crimes. More than six in ten (61%) residents of these regions agree judges should take into account considerations of children and families when making sentencing and prison assignment decisions.

There are similar differences of opinion among residents of these regions by racial and ethnic background. More than seven in ten (72%) blacks and two-thirds (67%) of Hispanics in the Southeast and Southwest say judges should take into account family considerations when making sentencing decisions, while fewer (57%) whites say the same.

Democrats (73%) in the Southeast and Southwest are also more likely than independents (61%) and Republicans (52%) in these regions to believe the considerations of families and children should be taken into account.

Roughly three-quarters (76%) of Southeasterners and Southwesterners favor a policy that would encourage judges to find alternatives to prison for nonviolent juvenile offenders.

Bail and Incarceration for Nonviolent Offenders

Most Americans do not believe it is appropriate for nonviolent offenders who cannot make bail to remain incarcerated. More than six in ten (63%) Americans agree that people convicted of nonviolent crimes should not be held in jail between their arrest and trial date simply because they cannot afford bail; 35% disagree.

There is general consensus on the issue across racial and ethnic lines. Nearly seven in ten (69%) blacks and roughly six in ten whites (62%) and Hispanics (59%) do not believe nonviolent offenders who cannot afford bail should remain imprisoned until their trial.

There are only modest differences across the political divide. More than six in ten Democrats (69%) and independents (63%) say nonviolent offenders who cannot afford bail should not be held in jail between their arrest and trial date, compared to a majority (56%) of Republicans who say the same.

The Southeast and Southwest

Most residents of the Southeast and Southwest regions do not believe people should be held in jail because they cannot afford bail. A majority (62%) of residents in these regions agree people convicted of nonviolent crimes should not be held in jail between their arrest and trial date because they cannot afford bail; only 37% disagree.

Agreement transcends racial and ethnic differences with more than seven in ten (72%) black Americans and roughly six in ten white (61%) and Hispanic Americans (58%) expressing opposition to policies that require suspected nonviolent offenders to remain in prison until their trial date.

This policy also garners support across political lines. A majority of Democrats (69%), independents (65%), and Republicans (54%) in the Southeast and Southwest do not believe nonviolent offenders should remain in jail because they cannot afford bail.

Second Chances in the Criminal Justice System

When it comes to the criminal justice system, Americans largely believe in second chances. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of the public agree that after serving their sentences, people convicted of a crime should be given more support so they can make a new start in life.

This view is common among Americans across racial and ethnic lines. A substantial majority of whites (69%), Hispanics (79%), and blacks (86%) agree people convicted of crimes who have completed their sentence should be provided with support to make a new start.

There is bipartisan support for policies geared toward providing support for people who have served their sentences, though Democrats are more supportive than Republicans overall (81% vs. 61%, respectively). Nearly three-quarters (73%) of independents agree people convicted of a crime should be given more support after they serve their sentences.

More than seven in ten (71%) Americans living in the Southeast and Southwest regions support a policy that would provide more support for those who have served their sentences. There is strong support across generational, religious, and racial and ethnic lines for such a policy in these regions.

Reducing Juvenile Crime

Americans largely believe the juvenile justice system should prioritize approaches that emphasize prevention and rehabilitation to deal with crimes committed by young people. More than four in ten (42%) Americans say prevention, such as youth education programs, should be the top priority for dealing with crime committed by young people, while a similar number (40%) say rehabilitation, such as job training and education for offenders, should be the primary consideration. Far fewer Americans endorse more punitive approaches: One in ten (10%) say the top priority should be enforcement, such as putting more police officers on the street, and seven percent believe the top priority should be punishment, such as longer sentences and more prisons. Americans of different racial and ethnic backgrounds express similar views on the issue of priorities for addressing juvenile crime.

Republicans are somewhat more likely than Democrats to emphasize stricter punishment and enforcement (23% vs. 15%, respectively), but more than three-quarters of Republicans (77%) and Democrats (84%) say strategies that focus on prevention and rehabilitation are preferable.

The Southeast and Southwest

Residents of the Southeast and Southwest regions also express a preference for rehabilitative or preventative solutions over punitive solutions to juvenile crime. More than four in ten (42%) residents of these regions say rehabilitation through programs such as job training and education should be the top priority for dealing with crime committed by youth, while roughly as many (40%) say prevention through youth education programs should be the top priority. Only 10% of residents in these regions say the justice system should prioritize addressing juvenile crime through enforcement strategies such as putting more officers on the street, while seven percent said stricter punishments should be the top priority.

There are no significant differences in the views of black, white, and Hispanic residents in these regions with roughly equal numbers of each group expressing a preference for prevention and rehabilitation (83% vs. 81% vs. 80%, respectively).

Support for prevention and rehabilitation over punishment and enforcement is nearly universal across party lines. Roughly equal numbers of Democrats (83%), independents (82%), and Republicans (79%) in the Southeast and Southwest favor prevention- and rehabilitation-focused solutions.

IX. Confidence in Child Welfare Institutions

Foster Care

Americans are closely divided over how well the foster care system is working in their state. Fewer than half (46%) say the system works somewhat or very well, while roughly half (49%) say it does not work too well or at all well.

There are modest differences in views about the functioning of the foster care system by race and ethnicity. A majority (53%) of Hispanic Americans say the foster care system is working at least somewhat well, a view shared by fewer than half of white (45%) and black Americans (41%).

Views on the matter diverge somewhat by gender: A slim majority (51%) of men say the foster care system is working well, compared to 40% of women who say the same.

The Southeast and Southwest

Residents of the Southeast and Southwest are about as divided as the general public about the effectiveness of the foster care system in their state. Fewer than half (46%) say it is working at least somewhat well, while 51% say it is working not too well or not well at all.

A majority (53%) of Hispanic Americans and nearly half (49%) of black Americans say the foster care system is working at least somewhat well, compared to 43% of whites who say the same. There are no notable differences in opinion among whites by level of educational attainment.

A significant partisan divide is also evident over perceptions of state foster care systems in the Southeast and Southwest. Republicans are more likely than independents and Democrats in these regions to say the foster care system is working at least somewhat well (56% vs. 42% vs. 42%, respectively).

The Juvenile Justice System

A majority (54%) of Americans do not believe the juvenile justice system in their state is working well, while 43% believe the system works at least somewhat well.

Views are similar among Americans of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. A majority of black (55%), white (54%), and Hispanic Americans (51%) feel negatively about the way the juvenile justice system is functioning in their state.

The Southeast and Southwest

Fewer than half (44%) of Americans in the Southeast and Southwest feel the juvenile justice system is working very or somewhat well. A majority (53%) in those regions say that it is working not too well or not well at all.

Similar numbers of white (44%), black (46%), and Hispanic residents (49%) of the Southeast and Southwest say the juvenile justice system in their state is working well. A majority of white (55%) and black residents (51%) and close to half (47%) of Hispanic residents say it is not working well.

Republicans offer a slightly more optimistic appraisal of the juvenile justice system. Half (50%) of Republicans, but only about four in ten Democrats (42%) and independents (41%), say the system is working at least somewhat well.

Public Schools

Americans have a generally positive outlook about the public school system in their state. More than six in ten (62%) Americans believe the public school system works well in their state. Thirty-seven percent of the public believe the system is working not too well or not at all well.

White and Hispanic Americans offer more optimistic appraisals of the public school system than black Americans. More than six in ten Hispanic (67%) and white Americans (63%) report the public school system is working well, compared to a majority (55%) of black Americans who say the same.

Republicans and Democrats express roughly similar views about the public school system in their state. More than six in ten Republicans (69%) and Democrats (62%) say public schools are functioning well.

Views are more sharply divided by age. Seniors offer a much more positive assessment than young adults: Nearly three-quarters (73%) of seniors (age 65 or older) say the public school system in their state works well, compared to roughly half (51%) of young adults (age 18-29) who agree.

The Southeast and Southwest

Residents of the Southeast and Southwest regions also express positive views about the quality of the public schools in their state. About six in ten (59%) residents of these regions say the public school system in their state is working very or somewhat well, while 40% say that it is working not too well or not well at all.

Opinions are largely consistent across racial and ethnic groups in these regions. Roughly six in ten white (57%), black (61%), and Hispanic residents (63%) report the public school system in their state is working well.

Younger white residents in these regions view the public schools in their state more negatively than older white residents. Two-thirds (67%) of white seniors in these regions say the public school system in their state is working well, a view shared by fewer than half (48%) of white young adults.

In these regions, the partisan divide is somewhat larger than that of the general public. Republicans are substantially more likely than Democrats and independents to express favorable views of public schools (70% vs. 59% vs. 49%, respectively).

Key Insights for the South and Southwest

Overview: Support for Child Wellbeing Policies, Skepticism about Government

Residents of the Southeast and Southwest generally express support for a wide range of policies designed to enhance child welfare, deal with child poverty, and rehabilitate criminal offenders, particularly juveniles. They generally prioritize children's issues when thinking about the problems that are critical to the nation, and they embrace the idea of equal opportunity.

However, they are ambivalent about the government's ability to solve such problems effectively, and residents are more inclined to believe government is helping the wrong people and allowing welfare recipients to take advantage of the system. And white residents also express fairly high levels of cultural anxiety and discontent with social change.

Opinions on child wellbeing issues vary strongly along the lines of party, race, and educational attainment in these regions, and to a lesser extent along other demographic lines such as age and gender. Republicans and white residents are generally less likely to prioritize and support policy issues designed to enhance the wellbeing of children than Democrats and black or Hispanic residents. Similarly, older citizens, those without college degrees, and men are somewhat less likely to prioritize and support such concerns than young residents, the college educated, and women.

Rising Partisan Identity, Muted Regional Distinctiveness

In most cases, the opinions and priorities of Southeasterners and Southwesterners differ only modestly from the opinions and priorities of those living in the rest of the country. Over the past few decades, political parties have polarized in a way that has made partisanship-much more so than region, gender, age, or anything else-the central dividing line on most issues. Partisan identity has also become increasingly fused with racial, ethnic, and religious identity. The Republican Party is increasingly becoming a party of white Christians (and particularly white evangelical Protestants), while the Democratic Party is increasingly the home of ethnic minorities and the religiously unaffiliated.

Since the Southeast and Southwest have patterns of party affiliation that look much like the nation as a whole-26% of Southeasterners and Southwesterners identify as Republican and 30% as Democrat, while the nation as a whole is 23% Republican and 32% Democrat-patterns of support in these regions look much like those of the country at large.

With these caveats in mind, there are areas of difference between residents of the Southeast and Southwest and the rest of the country. This is most true in perceptions of "reverse discrimination" and other markers of anxiety over demographic and cultural change. White Americans in these regions are considerably more likely than whites elsewhere to believe that discrimination against white people is a problem, that government pays too much attention to the needs of minorities, and that they have been asked to make sacrifices to benefit other minority groups.

Barriers to Success: More Economic than Social

There is broad consensus among residents of the Southeast and Southwest regions that unequal starting points, especially family wealth, significantly impact someone's chances of getting ahead in life, but there is less consensus about the impact of other factors such as racial background or immigration status. In other words, barriers to success are conceived more in economic, not social, terms.

There is widespread agreement among residents of the Southeast and Southwest that family wealth plays a substantial role in shaping one's chances of success: Roughly half (51%) say one's family wealth matters "a great deal" in affecting one's chances of getting ahead, while 27% say it matters to some degree.

There is far more disagreement over the impact of racial and ethnic background. White Southeasterners and Southwesterners are more skeptical of the possibility that one's racial or ethnic background or immigration status impedes success in life. White residents of these regions (22%) are substantially less likely than black residents (54%) to say one's racial background plays much of a role in one's chances for success. Notably, relatively few (28%) Hispanic residents of these regions believe a person's racial or ethnic background influences their opportunity to be successful.

Among white residents of these regions, the structural disadvantages or advantages provided by one's racial or ethnic background are less apparent. This is true regardless of one's affinity for minority groups. Whites with a high affinity for minority groups are not much more likely to say race or ethnicity matters than those with a low affinity (29% vs. 21%, respectively). The basic experience of being a member of the majority racial group, more than attitudes about racial minorities, drives perceptions of the impact of cultural factors for success in life.

The Principle of Equal Opportunity

Like the rest of the country, large majorities of residents in the Southeast and Southwest believe "one of the biggest problems in this country is that we don't give everyone an equal chance in life" and that minority children are key to the country's future.

In these regions, as in the rest of the country, however, party affiliation and racial or ethnic background strongly shape perceptions. Democrats and black Americans tend to be more concerned than Republicans or white Americans about a lack of equal opportunity.

Whites in these regions are divided by education level. White college-educated residents are far less concerned than those without a college degree about the lack of equal opportunity. Nearly half (46%) of white college-educated residents say it is not that big a problem if not everyone has an equal chance in life-a view shared by only 36% of those without a college education.

White college-educated residents in the Southeast and Southwest are more likely to see the impact of social factors in determining chances of success, but they are less likely to see this problem as something that requires redress by policymakers. On the other hand, white residents without a college degree are more likely to affirm the importance of equal opportunity and to support economic policies that address those issues, but they simultaneously deny that social factors play a significant role in structuring inequality.

Racial Anxiety and Resentment among Whites

When white residents of these regions do see social forces at play, they tend to see themselves, more than other groups, as the victims. More than six in ten (61%) white residents of the Southeast and Southwest say discrimination against white people has become as big a problem as discrimination against black people and other minorities, compared to 51% of whites living outside these regions who share this view. In the region, this view is especially prominent among Republicans (71%) and whites without a college degree (64%).

Whites in the Southeast and Southwest are also more likely than whites in other parts of the country to believe they are being asked to make sacrifices that benefit minority groups (42% vs. 32%, respectively), and that government pays too much attention to the problems of minorities (48% vs. 42%, respectively).

Government Efficiency, Competency, and Trust

Americans in the Southeast and Southwest, as elsewhere, are ambivalent about the government's role in solving social problems. On the one hand, they are skeptical about the government's ability to deliver services efficiently and effectively. Roughly two-thirds (64%) of residents of these regions, for example, say programs run by the government are usually inefficient and wasteful, a number that mirrors views among the country at large (63%). White residents of the Southeast and Southwest (70%) are especially likely to believe that government is inefficient and wasteful, although a majority of Hispanic (54%) and black Americans (51%) express similar views.

Residents of these regions are also apt to say government often helps the wrong people- nearly seven in ten (68%) agree with this view. This perception is common among white (69%), black (66%), and Hispanic residents (65%).

Residents of these regions differentiate between the federal government and their local government, the latter of which they view somewhat more positively. Only 30% say that they trust the federal government to do what is right "always," or "most of the time," while more than four in ten (42%) say the same of their local government. Notably, black residents are particularly untrusting of local government. Only 28% of black residents trust their local government at least most of the time, while more than four in ten white (43%) and Hispanic residents (46%) express similar levels of confidence. In part, feelings of mistrust among black residents toward law enforcement may impact feelings about local governance generally.

Despite the misgivings that residents of the Southeast and Southwest region have about government, most acknowledge that private charity alone is not sufficient to solve widespread social problems. Three-quarters (75%) of Southeast and Southwest residents say nonprofits and religious charities cannot by themselves do enough to meet the needs of low-income Americans. This view is embraced across the racial and ethnic spectrum. Only 42% of Southeastern and Southwestern residents believe government is doing too many things that are better left to private charities. Notably, white residents are somewhat more likely to agree than black and Hispanic residents (48% vs. 38% and 29%, respectively).

Issue Priorities

When it comes to child welfare, opportunity and poverty rank high on the list of concerns that Southeasterners and Southwesterners have. More than six in ten (62%) residents of these regions say child poverty is a critical issue, while a majority (55%) say ensuring equal opportunity for children is a critical concern. More than half (52%) of residents say the quality of public schools is critically important to them, while exactly half (50%) mention poverty more generally.

Priorities vary widely between residents of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Black and Hispanic residents are far more likely than white residents to prioritize equal opportunity for children (75% and 59% vs. 48%, respectively). Similarly, more than seven in ten black (79%) and Hispanic residents (72%) say child poverty is a critical issue, compared to 55% of white residents. White college-educated residents are even less likely to express concerns over opportunities for children-fewer than half (43%) say this is a critical issue.

White college-educated residents are noticeably less concerned about poverty and the social problems often attributed to it. Only 42% of white college-educated Americans in the Southeast and Southwest say crime is a critical issue, compared to 55% of Hispanic residents, 57% of white residents without a college degree, and 68% of black residents. Similarly, only 33% of white college-educated residents say domestic violence is critically important, compared to more than four in ten Hispanic residents (44%) and white residents with no college degree (47%), and 63% of black residents. White college-educated residents are also far less likely to say poverty is a critical issue-only 37% express this view, compared to 47% of white non-college residents and a majority of Hispanic (52%) and black residents (69%).

Perceptions of Community Problems

When it comes to thinking about problems in U.S. communities, Southeasterners and Southwesterners, regardless of race, consider drug abuse and addiction to be a serious problem: 63% of Hispanic residents, 67% of white residents, and 71% of black residents consider drug abuse to be a "major problem" in their communities.

But for most other community problems, perceptions differ markedly by race, ethnicity, and class. Only 37% of white college-educated residents say crime is a serious problem, while a majority of Hispanic (55%), white non-college (57%), and black residents (62%) say the same. White residents (39%) are much less likely than Hispanic (50%) and black residents (66%) to say a lack of opportunity for young people is a major problem. Fewer than half (45%) of white college-educated residents say a lack of good paying jobs is a major problem facing U.S. communities, compared to majorities of white non-college (56%), Hispanic (59%), and black residents (75%) who identify this as a problem.

Partisanship also plays a critical role in structuring priorities and perceptions. A majority (55%) of Democrats in the Southeast and Southwest say a lack of opportunities for young people is a major problem in U.S. communities, a view shared by only 34% of Republicans in these regions. Democratic residents are nearly twice as likely as Republican residents to say a lack of access to good public schools is a major problem (43% vs. 22%, respectively). Even perceptions about job opportunities vary starkly by party affiliation. Roughly two-thirds of Democratic (66%) and independent residents (65%) say a lack of good paying jobs is a major problem, compared to fewer than half (45%) of Republican residents.

Child Welfare Policies

As in the rest of the country, residents of the Southeast and Southwest generally favor policies designed to benefit families with children. More than eight in ten residents of these regions support tax breaks to low-income parents with child support obligations (85%), government support for extended families and caregivers (85%), government-sponsored health insurance for children whose families cannot afford coverage (83%), and universal pre-K education (81%). These policies command overwhelming support across nearly every major demographic subgroup.

Even policies that require more explicit tradeoffs elicit substantial support from residents in these regions. A majority (56%) of Southeastern and Southwestern residents believe schools that serve disadvantaged populations (poor students, ESL students, and those living in foster care) should receive more money per student. This policy was more strongly supported by racial minority groups, though it did receive slim majority (51%) support from white residents.

Criminal Justice Policies

Southeasterners and Southwesterners generally support policies that offer less punitive ways of dealing with crime, particularly when such policies are applied to juveniles.

More than eight in ten residents of these regions say rehabilitative measures (such as job training or education) or preventative solutions (such as youth educational programs) should be the top priorities for dealing with crimes committed by young people. Fewer than one in five (17%) residents support enforcement-based measures (such as putting more law enforcement officers on the street or stricter punishments). Importantly, there are only modest racial and partisan differences in the preferred approaches to dealing with juvenile crime. At least eight in ten Hispanic (80%), white (81%), and black residents (83%) favor solutions that emphasize prevention and rehabilitation.

Residents of these regions also express broad support for rehabilitative efforts over more punitive approaches in criminal justice more generally. More than seven in ten (71%) residents of the Southeast and Southwest support policies that would offer support for those who have served their sentences to reintegrate into society. And more than six in ten (62%) residents would prohibit governments from holding nonviolent offenders in jail because they could not make bail.

At the same time, more than six in ten (62%) residents of these regions do not believe employers should be banned from asking about criminal records on job application forms. Opposition to prohibiting employers from seeking this information is most pronounced among white residents (69%) and Republicans (80%). However, a majority (56%) of Hispanic residents and nearly half (46%) of black residents also do not believe employers should be prohibited from asking about criminal history.

Confidence in Institutions that Care for Children

Residents of these regions retain a relatively high degree of trust in the public school system in their state, while the foster care and juvenile justice systems fare less well. A majority (59%) of residents in the Southeast and Southwest say public schools in their state are working at least somewhat well. In contrast, fewer than half say the foster care system (46%) and the juvenile justice system (44%) are working at least somewhat well.

Feelings of confidence in these three systems are similar across the political spectrum and among residents of different racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Endnotes

¹ Responses to these questions are highly correlated indicating that they are well-suited for such a scale. The Cronbach's Alpha value for these items is 0.899 far exceeding the conventional cutoff.
² Throughout the remainder of this report we explore the attitudes and experiences among all Americans as well as those residing in the Southeastern and Southwestern U.S. These regions include the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia.
³ PRRI, 2015 American Values Survey.
⁴ PRRI/The Atlantic 2016 White Working Class Survey, September 2016.

Recommended Citation

Jones, Robert P., and Daniel Cox. "Attitudes on Child and Family Wellbeing: National and Southeast/Southwest Perspectives." PRRI. 2017. https://www.prri.org/research/poll-child-welfare-poverty-race-relations-government-trust-policy/.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Attitudes on Child and Family Wellbeing: National and Southeast/Southwest Perspectives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most white Americans report feeling at least some affinity with members of racial, ethnic, and religious minority communities although relatively few say they have a lot in common. Nearly three-quarters of white Americans say they have either a "lot" (20%) or "some" (53%) in common with African Americans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Given the myriad crises our country now confronts, who would have guessed that among them would be how we teach American history? Nevertheless, as a new school year begins, the content, presentation and teaching of US history are in the news almost daily. Should statues honoring civil war figures-at least those from the losing side-or former slaveholders be retained? Do we need to change the names of streets or buildings if they bear the names of historical figures that do not satisfy present moral or political sensibilities? Should history texts be rewritten to diminish their emphasis on our flawed heroes while increasing the teaching of racial, ethnic and gender minorities? In short, should we be about the business of erasing, rewriting, apologizing for, protecting against, knocking down or covering up our history as many have proposed?

The recent controversy over historic murals at George Washington High School in San Francisco presents a microcosm of the problems. A 1936 painting depicting the life of George Washington shows two features that some found troublesome: White settlers standing over the body of a Native American and slaves working at Washington's estate. Some students, faculty and parents said the mural was racist and offensive. Others said no, it tells the truth about that era and should be seen. Still others said, regardless of the historical questions, it is a work of art and should remain. Washington High graduate, actor Danny Glover, said, "Art has to make us feel uncomfortable. That's what art does."

Initially the school board decided to do away with the mural but after a hue and cry from many-including minority groups and artists-it reversed course and, by a one-vote margin, concluded it would cover them up at a cost of over $600,000. The sense was that showing the art would traumatize students and others in the community, but that destroying it permanently went too far. At the root of the debate is whether such depictions are appropriate for learning from our history or, alternatively, whether history must be presented in a way that does not offend.

What happens in the schools constitutes the ground war in the battle over American history, but elites are busily engaged in an air war. The New York Times joined the battle this month by introducing The 1619 Project, "a major initiative...to reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding." The beginning of slavery in 1619 explains everything, including the brutality of American capitalism, says the Times, and it will "publish essays demonstrating that nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery." Meanwhile, across the country in California, the state school board has proposed a draft ethnic studies curriculum that seeks not just to celebrate the historic contributions of minorities, but to "critique empire and its relationship to white supremacy, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism and other forms of power and oppression at the intersection of our society." That is hardly the way to open a conversation about the historic contribution of ethnic groups.

The bombs are dropping and the guns are firing in the war over America's history.
Can We Make Sense of This Moment?
Why should the teaching of American history have become so controversial at this moment? Surely one factor is a shift in how we think about students themselves. For many years, now, the term "helicopter parents" has described a heightened involvement by adults to keep careful watch over their kids, fearful that in this complex age, their child will be left behind. A new term, "lawnmower parents," seems to characterize the current age even better, since these adults now seek to mow down any and every obstacle that might stand in a child's path. Children are thought of as "snowflakes" who might melt if exposed to too much heat, including the fires of controversy or even criticism. Taking down murals and rewriting stories of an uncomfortable history becomes part of the strategy of coddling and protecting sensitive kids rather than letting them confront the difficulties of history and make sense of them for themselves, developing judgment and resilience for life.

Another important factor is the movement, begun several decades ago, to demythologize American history. Howard Zinn led this charge with his People's History of the United States (1980), a textbook that reveals the selfish motives and cruel actions of America's traditional heroes, while retelling America's narrative from the perspective of their victims. By Zinn's account, Columbus came to murder natives and steal gold, while the Founders developed a constitutional republic that would protect their slaves and property. The counter-narratives continues into modern times, when World War II was about "advancing the imperial interests of the United States," and the last fifty years were "a capitalistic encouragement of enormous fortunes alongside desperate poverty, a nationalistic acceptance of war and preparations for war."

In the early going, The People's History, was assigned by teachers as a supplement or counterpoint to traditional history textbooks. However, today it has sold over two million copies and has become, as Professor Sam Wineburg of Stanford University has said, "mainstream" and, in many circles, "the dominant narrative." One way to read the battle over American history, then, is a conflict between the traditional heroic view and Zinn's account of resistance. But it is no longer enough for Zinn's story to be presented as a counterpoint to the traditional view, allowing students to make their own choices, but Zinn's disciples now feel the need to eliminate the heroic view and favorable understanding of American history altogether. We live in a moment when many feel a need to throw out the baby of America's accomplishments with the bathwater of colonialism. Zinn's work presents not merely a counterpoint but a new orthodoxy.

In seeking to understand the current history wars, we might go so far as to say that they have become politics by other means. American history has been afflicted by presentism, examining our past with 21 st century sensibilities and standards. If colonials owned slaves, for example, our present standards must cause us to reject them, even erase their names from our history. If a leader was on the wrong side of the Civil War, we may no longer honor them, despite any other accomplishments. Professor Wineburg calls this "reading the present into the past." Since we now find politics in every part of the curriculum-even in biology and art-we should not be surprised to find it in history class. Indeed, publishers sell very different history textbooks in conservative Texas than they do in liberal California.
Toward Better Teaching of History and Civics
As a starting point, all sides should be able to agree that we have been teaching history and civics poorly. In the most recent report of the National Educational Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, or "America's report card"), only 18% of 8 th graders tested as "proficient" or better in American history while a mere 23% were "proficient" or better in government and civics. Only 1-2% tested as "advanced" in these subjects. The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation reported last year that only 36% of Americans could pass the US Citizenship Test, including questions about the ratification and provisions of the US Constitution, the participants in World War II and other history basics. An Annenberg Public Policy Center Study in 2017 reported that 75% of students did not know the three branches of government and 37% could not name one right in the First Amendment.

History and civics have been crowded out of the curriculum in many places by the heavy emphasis on STEM (science, math, engineering and technology). Further, with few colleges requiring courses in American history and civics, and with schools of education teaching pedagogy and not content, many history teachers enter the classroom with very little understanding or enthusiasm about the subject. Perhaps worst of all are the textbooks that are boring at best and biased at their worst. They reduce exciting moments in American history to a few dry paragraphs and, in the case of Howard Zinn, they present a diatribe against the American ideal.

As a starting point, we should recognize that the purpose of teaching American history in K-12 education should be different from its treatment in a college course. Quite simply, younger students need to learn the basics about our history and leave the interpretation for college courses. College is the time for reading multiple approaches to historical narratives and sorting out a proper interpretation, but the lower grades should be about laying a proper base of understanding. Professor Sam Wineburg of Stanford University underscores that younger students "do not get the interpretive game [and] are just learning that claims must be judged not for their alignment with current issues of social justice but for the data they present and their ability to account for the unruly fibers of evidence that jut out from any interpretive frame." We do students a disservice when the adults carry out their political battles over history on the playing field of high school history classes.

A number of curriculum experts advocate the more promising approach of teaching students using primary documents, not just textbooks. The Ashbrook Center in Ohio has trained and retrained thousands of teachers to use primary documents-not just the Constitution and Declaration, but speeches, letters, and other documents of the time-to recreate events and debates in our history. This engages students more actively than the passive reading of a textbook and invites them to understand history from the perspective of the participants, not just through the political lens of the 21 st century. Teachers report both greater excitement and understanding from the use of primary documents as well as the prospect that students can draw their own conclusions. Several other curriculum efforts such as the DBQ Project and programs at Berkeley, Stanford and Brown University similarly put primary documents at the center of history teaching.

There is even a new and improved textbook, finally, in American history: Wilfred M. McClay's Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story (Encounter Books, 2019). McClay succeeds in delivering an inspiring narrative of American history, without rewriting, whitewashing, avoiding or politicizing. Author Gordon S. Wood understood the value of such a narrative during, as he put it, "a time of severe partisanship that has infected many accounts of our nation's past." History, in McClay's hands, is a compelling and hopeful narrative, not a collection of disputed facts and intrusive opinions.

Dare we further propose that another important objective in teaching American history should be to help students not only understand but also love their country and be prepared to serve as well-informed citizens? The Founders understood that a free republic would only work if an informed citizenry supported it and education was high on their agenda. More recently, President Ronald Reagan, in his farewell message, warned of the need to return the teaching of civics and history to develop "an informed patriotism." Sociologist James Loewe, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me, reminds us that, "We aren't just learning about the past to satisfy our curiosity-we are learning about the past to do our jobs as Americans." Professor Sam Wineburg agrees: "It is not popular to talk about in an era of identity politics, but history teaching in school has a civic purpose, not only a disciplinary purpose."
Conclusion
We live in a time when we seem to engage in every possible approach to history except to learn from it. We seek to erase it, cover it over, topple it down, rewrite it, apologize for it, skip it-but not to put it out there to learn from it. The evidence suggests students are doing very little learning of history as it is but, with all the bad ways we are presenting history, we should not be surprised. It is time we return to an understanding that history and civics are essential underpinnings for good citizenship, and that teaching them includes, most assuredly, the basics but also an appreciation of one's country and a willingness to be prepared to serve it.
Davenport is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Lloyd is a senior fellow at the Ashbrook Center and Dockson Professor Emeritus at the Pepperdine School of Public Policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Given the myriad crises our country now confronts, who would have guessed that among them would be how we teach American history? Nevertheless, as a new school year begins, the content, presentation and teaching of US history are in the news almost daily.

# data[].attributes.body
Article talks about why history is important in general. How history has and will continue to change our future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 1980, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians began hearing testimony from Japanese-Americans who, after the Pearl Harbor attack, were forced at gunpoint into prison camps throughout the desolate interior of the United States.

Initiated by Sen. Daniel Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat who lost an arm fighting the Nazis, the commission was largely conceived in order to establish a legal and political case in Congress against internment and for some kind of redress. But Nisei men and women, the children of Japanese immigrants who had kept virtually silent for decades due to a social code inherited from their ancestors, captured the moment. They used the hearings to share their stories of sorrow and humiliation. The intense emotion of these personal histories galvanized a political movement that succeeded in winning monetary reparations from the federal government for those who had been interned. It was an unprecedented event in the American experience.

As my father, the Japanese-American Citizens League's volunteer chief legislative strategist who helped convince President Ronald Reagan to sign the redress bill in 1988, later recalled, "I saw all these old people crying, and that made me cry. I guess the whole community cried."

When the nation feels not just divided, but divided in an unprecedented way, studying history serves as a guide. A nation that can see through and place the turbulent present in historical context is better empowered to grasp the present and decide on the best course of action ahead.

Those who work in classrooms and with students grasp this. In a recent survey of educators who were presented with two choices, 78 percent told EdWeek Research Center they believed the primary purpose of teaching history is "to prepare students to be active and informed citizens," compared with 22 percent who said the primary purpose of teaching history is "to teach analytical, research, and critical thinking skills." (We should not, of course, label the second group wrong.)

Therefore, we study and share history in part to give us the foundation for action. We build that foundation in part by learning and sharing stories of immigrant forebears and their legacies; the 1619 Project from the New York Times, which consists of a series of essays about the legacy of slavery, does something similar, but in a fashion that its creators want to be unsettling, if not excruciating for many.

Telling different stories within a single broader narrative, and using those stories to create empathy within an agreed-upon historical framework, are powerful skills. Indeed, one of the key strategies for Japanese-American redress activists in Washington was-to use my father's metaphor-selling the same Ford Taurus sedan in two different ways.

For a liberal audience, the main argument went like this: These immigrants and their children were the victims of powerful white men who, in the name of national security, exploited wartime panic and longstanding anti-Asian bigotry among other whites to deprive Japanese-Americans of their civil liberties.

For conservatives, the tougher audience, it went this way: Japanese-Americans were content to obey the law and grow artichokes and strawberries. They were exemplary models of enterprise, the free market, and family values-until they were deprived of private property rights and denied due process by an overbearing federal government.

Together, these arguments succeeded because both narratives underscored the ideals that presumably governed American history, and how internment undermined those ideals.

This should not be confused with warping history as if for some kind of novelistic experiment, or perverting it for political control. In his 1946 essay " The Prevention of Literature," George Orwell wrote that totalitarian governments approach history as "something to be created rather than learned."

But in classrooms, it has always been a struggle to teach history in a way that resonates with students. The CEO of Baltimore City schools, Sonja Santelises, thinks she's found a way to do that: Help them see themselves up close in their hometown's history.

Motivated partially by Baltimore's often-negative portrayal in the media, Santelises recently oversaw the implementation of BMore Me, a social studies curriculum. The basic idea is "using the city as a classroom."

They've explored how local geography impacted the Industrial Revolution in Baltimore. They learn what the history of certain neighborhoods reveals about the nation's history of red-lining black families away from valuable land and capital. And they've heard stories from a community elder about singer Billie Holiday, who grew up in Baltimore, and from D. Watkins, who went from dealing drugs in the city to teaching at the University of Baltimore.

Santelises said the city curriculum's emphasis on this approach that allows students to see themselves in history puts their own lives and people they know at the center of what can feel detached and distant. The consequences for this approach, if done right, can be profound, she argued.

"What makes people proud to be American? Well, part of it is that you're validating people's stories," Santelises told me. "You're validating their role."

What's also central to this approach, Santelises says, is that it allows children to see complexity in history and not just (in the case of black Americans, for example) one long and painful struggle against oppression.

"We don't have to have a perfect or one story," Santelises said. "That's not the goal."

In 1945, a young Army captain spoke at a service honoring Kazuo Masuda, a Japanese-American soldier who died in combat in Italy and whose family had been interned. This Army captain said men like Masuda were heroes, distinguished by their sacrifice and love of country, not their race.

That captain's name was Ronald Reagan. Decades later as president, he was initially opposed to redress for internment. But when Reagan was reminded of that moment, he changed his mind. It was crucial for Reagan to see himself as a character in a crucial moment in American history.

The arc of that narrative can be questioned. Why did it take this chance moment in history to shift Reagan's views? Why did men like Masuda have to prove their loyalty to the land of their birth? What about those Japanese-Americans who out of principle resisted military service?

Trying to answer those questions adds to the story I just laid out rather than subverting it. Still, it's one story. History doesn't always provide such dramatic, clear narratives. Similarly, what if such historical inquiry like the kind Santelises supports for her city's students can't be scaled up or made to work well elsewhere?

To such questions, Santelises responds that the approach in general can apply in all sorts of places for all kinds of students.

"Once you're grounded and validated in the power of your own story," Santelises said, "that's what makes you want to go and learn about other people."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sure, We Teach History. But Do We Know Why It's Important?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1980, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians began hearing testimony from Japanese-Americans who, after the Pearl Harbor attack, were forced at gunpoint into prison camps throughout the desolate interior of the United States. Initiated by Sen.

# data[].attributes.body
Article goes on to talk about the multiple issues that have occur during the history of America. Then they go on to talk about the possible negative effects about the lack proper education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The NCSS had an immediate response when a campaigning President Donald Trump called for schools to reject teaching The 1619 Project, which he called "unpatriotic." The Pulitzer Center created a curriculum based on that New York Times publication that "aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of our national narrative."

When Trump spoke out against it, the NCSS responded in a statement, "We stand with all the schools, school districts, and teachers who use resources like the 1619 Project to accurately depict the history of slavery in the United States, broaden the horizons of their students, and prepare citizens for a just, democratic society."

Pugh said, "Historically, students need to know about 1619 and the impact on the trajectory of American history. But they also need to know about 1526 and the first arrival of Spaniards with enslaved individuals, and they need to know the story of the use of forced labor with American Indians as well."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When Will History Be Taught Honestly? | Teach For America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NCSS had an immediate response when a campaigning President Donald Trump called for schools to reject teaching The 1619 Project, which he called "unpatriotic." The Pulitzer Center created a curriculum based on that New York Times publication that "aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of our national narrative."