superdave
13 Sep 2004, 12:54 AM
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/13/polarized_country/index.html
Fascinating article from an economist.
Basically, he maps 3 kinds of counties, by wealth. The top 10%, the bottom 10%, and the 80% in the middle. What he found is that states with more counties in the 80% vote GOP (generally) and the states with alot of rich and poor counties vote Democratic. And it's not just poor people voting Democratic; Massachusetts is mostly top 10%, and it's a Democratic stronghold (at the presidential level, of course. Plus, their GOPs are as moderate as Bill Clinton, anyway.)
A striking pattern emerges. States that are sharply divided, usually between major cities and lower-income hinterlands, are primarily Democratic. States that are either near the economic median or else sparsely populated tend to be Republican.
What does this mean?
Changing "geopolarization" may explain some big political trends. Thirty years ago, California was middle-class and rural -- and was a solidly Republican state. So was Oregon. Now the whole West Coast is split between a handful of counties -- places like Santa Clara or San Francisco in California and King County in Washington -- that have a lot of money and the many others that have much less. What's curious is that states undergoing this evolution find themselves increasingly Democratic. And in this respect, the West Coast now resembles the strongly Democratic East.
In the South, on the other hand, average incomes in many counties have been rising toward the national average. For this reason, the South contributes much less to national income inequality than it used to. In the process, Southerners have become Republican. The pattern may not continue. The most polarized Southern states are Virginia and Florida. Arguably, the Democrats could start winning Virginia someday soon. In the case of Florida, they already did in 2000 -- as well as in 1996. Over the past 20 years, Virginia has seen the largest increase in polarization among states Republicans usually win. Others drifting upward include Colorado, North Carolina, Missouri, Georgia and Arizona.
Part of his argument, the part that will probably cause the most discussion on this thread, is that one element of GOP leaning areas is that they don't knew the poor, don't relate to them at all.
Residents of the suburbs and the countryside generally vote Republican. They are, however, far from contented. Not being rich, they didn't get much from the Bush tax breaks -- and their property taxes went up. They pay for services that, they believe, flow to people unlike themselves. Meanwhile they make ends meet by borrowing against their houses. Their politics is fueled by resentment -- which is fed, of course, by drive-time radio on the commute to work.
And now to go really far afield...I don't know what it's like where you live. But here in the Research Triangle, when GOPs get involved in politics at the local level, the main thing they fight for is to keep people economically segregated. That's behind their zoning positions. That's behind their school busing positions. That's behind their road building/mass transit decisions. It ties everything together, the desire to keep people separate from people who are different. They dress it up as choice, but give them a choice between spending $100M on mass transit or roads, guess which they choose? Try to build low or even moderate income housing in a prosperous enclave, and see how excited they are about "choice."
Looking into the future, it's clear that as India and China continue to boom, and therefore increase consumption, there's going to be massive, massive pressure on oil prices. World output is nearly at its limit. Even now, any serious disruption of the flow of oil causes prices spikes. As China and India grow, that's going to get worse. The upshot will be that except for the rich, we'll have no choice but to live closer to each other, and closer to where we work. It'll take time, but by the time I'm drawing Social Security, we'll have a single payer health care plan, and the US will be, well, not as socialized as Sweden. Maybe Britain.
Thoughts?
Fascinating article from an economist.
Basically, he maps 3 kinds of counties, by wealth. The top 10%, the bottom 10%, and the 80% in the middle. What he found is that states with more counties in the 80% vote GOP (generally) and the states with alot of rich and poor counties vote Democratic. And it's not just poor people voting Democratic; Massachusetts is mostly top 10%, and it's a Democratic stronghold (at the presidential level, of course. Plus, their GOPs are as moderate as Bill Clinton, anyway.)
A striking pattern emerges. States that are sharply divided, usually between major cities and lower-income hinterlands, are primarily Democratic. States that are either near the economic median or else sparsely populated tend to be Republican.
What does this mean?
Changing "geopolarization" may explain some big political trends. Thirty years ago, California was middle-class and rural -- and was a solidly Republican state. So was Oregon. Now the whole West Coast is split between a handful of counties -- places like Santa Clara or San Francisco in California and King County in Washington -- that have a lot of money and the many others that have much less. What's curious is that states undergoing this evolution find themselves increasingly Democratic. And in this respect, the West Coast now resembles the strongly Democratic East.
In the South, on the other hand, average incomes in many counties have been rising toward the national average. For this reason, the South contributes much less to national income inequality than it used to. In the process, Southerners have become Republican. The pattern may not continue. The most polarized Southern states are Virginia and Florida. Arguably, the Democrats could start winning Virginia someday soon. In the case of Florida, they already did in 2000 -- as well as in 1996. Over the past 20 years, Virginia has seen the largest increase in polarization among states Republicans usually win. Others drifting upward include Colorado, North Carolina, Missouri, Georgia and Arizona.
Part of his argument, the part that will probably cause the most discussion on this thread, is that one element of GOP leaning areas is that they don't knew the poor, don't relate to them at all.
Residents of the suburbs and the countryside generally vote Republican. They are, however, far from contented. Not being rich, they didn't get much from the Bush tax breaks -- and their property taxes went up. They pay for services that, they believe, flow to people unlike themselves. Meanwhile they make ends meet by borrowing against their houses. Their politics is fueled by resentment -- which is fed, of course, by drive-time radio on the commute to work.
And now to go really far afield...I don't know what it's like where you live. But here in the Research Triangle, when GOPs get involved in politics at the local level, the main thing they fight for is to keep people economically segregated. That's behind their zoning positions. That's behind their school busing positions. That's behind their road building/mass transit decisions. It ties everything together, the desire to keep people separate from people who are different. They dress it up as choice, but give them a choice between spending $100M on mass transit or roads, guess which they choose? Try to build low or even moderate income housing in a prosperous enclave, and see how excited they are about "choice."
Looking into the future, it's clear that as India and China continue to boom, and therefore increase consumption, there's going to be massive, massive pressure on oil prices. World output is nearly at its limit. Even now, any serious disruption of the flow of oil causes prices spikes. As China and India grow, that's going to get worse. The upshot will be that except for the rich, we'll have no choice but to live closer to each other, and closer to where we work. It'll take time, but by the time I'm drawing Social Security, we'll have a single payer health care plan, and the US will be, well, not as socialized as Sweden. Maybe Britain.
Thoughts?