This should generate interesting discussion. The Bible makes no mention of race save for the decedents of Noah’s kids. I think we’d be wading into a scriptural mess if we made racial determinations off Noah’s curse on Ham. The apostles got into trouble when they exhibited the slightest hint of racism: Samaritans, gentiles, etc.
For me, that dispels the best case to be made for racism. The next best case is experience which, unlike the first one, has nothing to do with genetics. We know by experience that we’re more likely to have crimes committed against us by non-whites. This isn’t just perception or racism, it’s reality. It’s also a reality that countries with large black populations are pretty miserable places. This, in know way, is proof of white superiority, but is proof that something is wrong culturally.
Culture explains the disparity between perceptions of government. This is something we’ve lost sight of. Democracy, liberty, individualism is an Anglo-American discovery, so to speak. It developed out of unfettered access to the teachings of the Bible. It wasn’t until the the Bible was allowed to be translated into English that the common man had access to the whole council of God with no liturgical filter. The more people who read the Bible, the more people understand there’s no King, Pope, priest, aristocrat, noble or parliament that intercedes between you and God.
Anyway, Asians, Mexicans, Blacks, etc don’t have the heritage Anglo-Americans have. To the extent that people assimilate into Anglo-American culture, they understand the evils of government. To the extent the Anglo-American heritage is ignored, harangued, abandoned, the more people will turn to government.
You are wrong to ignore genetics as a factor in personality traits. However, it is not inevitable that Conservatism not appeal to any particular group. The Leftist agitation of the past century has been largely successful, for example, in undermining the natural Conservatism of the American Negro--a major talking point when Booker T. Washington was the principal spokesman of the race. (See Booker T. Washington Address.)
When you write of "assimilation," you must not overlook the reality, that while America was clearly the land of the rugged individualist, the Anglo-Celtic culture appealed far more to a self-selected group in other nations, to whom those traits appealed (kindred spirits, almost certainly with some similar innate personality traits), who formed the preponderance of the 19th Century immigrants. (Those who did not fit that pattern, often crowded into Eastern Cities, which early in the 20th Century moved decidedly to the Left.)
With the increasing acceptance of Egalitarian/Collectivist values after the New Deal, this selection process broke down; with the adoption of the radical--indeed anti-White--immigration policy in 1965, which has actually subsidized immigration from lands with no social history or cultural parallels to that of earlier settlers (and, indeed the very opposite social norms, as related to individualism vs. group thinking); there has been a 180 degree departure from any likelihood for assimilation.
Frankly, I do not pretend to understand your apparent suggestion that we look to culture rather than genetics as the explanation for differing attitudes towards government. Specific people create specific cultures. Cultures will reinforce the personality traits that do well in any community; but culture, itself, reflects the result of the dynamic interaction between the unique individual types that live in a particular community.
William Flax
Noah did not curse Ham. He cursed Canaan, the fourth of Ham's sons.