3 simple Q's (Who are buying homes? Why are suburbs Rep? Why are cities Dem?)

[Beet]

A little of both.  I think the gap between the truly poor and the rest of society, both materially and culturally, is far greater than it was in the 1940s.  Being poor in the 1940s didn't necessarily mean living in a broken/abusive family, or in a high-crime drug-infested neighborhood, as it often does now, to a greater extent I believe than it did then.  Today, the truly poor are more isolated from society in every way, and the effect on their quality of life goes well beyond their dearth of material possessions relative to the rest of society.

I read this right after you posted it and realized I basically agreed, but I suppose I should let you know.

I think that the juxtaposition between welfare and blacks, which really came together in the 1960s, is unfortunate.  The majority of those on welfare were not blacks, though black participation was highly disproportionate to their share of the population.

Having said that, I think that Great Society welfare programs had a more devastating effect on blacks than on any other segment of the population.  I blame many of those welfare programs, and the overall philosophy behind them, for the precipitous collapse of the black family structure since 1965.  The damaging effects of this more than offset any good that those programs did, and this family structure collapse is one of the biggest factors in keeping large numbers of blacks cut off from the greater society, and mired in perpetual poverty.

I think liberals did blacks no favor in linking racial justice with highly questionable anti-poverty programs.

This could actually be true. I think it's the collapse of the Keynesian state more than the Great Society that ended the decline of poverty though. Even without the Great Society, the Keynesian economic policies of the Fordist era after 1930 were tending towards equalization. This ended around 1973, and Great Society or not, I think it fundamentally changed the structure of poverty reduction; basically killing it.

Here, you're contradicting your previous paragraph. I think that there is a difference between how people view poverty in general, and how they view their own poverty.

Prior to the New Deal, really, people tended to blame themselves for their own poverty, and were therefore very reluctant to accept charity or help.  The New Deal softened some of this attitude, and during the depression, poverty was a pretty normal condition, with external economic factors largely to blame.  There was no opportunity for most in society not to be poor.

By the time of the Great Society, the overall society was becoming quite affluent, and the Great Society, more so than the New Deal, was meant to deal with those who, for whatever reason, were unable to participate in the affluence being enjoyed by the larger society.  Because anti-poverty programs got tied in with the fight for racial equality, the notion of welfare as a promoter of social justice was created, and when the results of welfare became so obviously abysmal -- higher illegitimacy, crime, lack of work ethic, terrible attitude, etc. -- this gave weight to the idea that poverty was linked to moral failing, particularly among blacks.  And the proof was right in front of us, if the facts were interpreted in a certain way.

I think that during and after the Great Society, liberals who were not poor started to say that the poor were victims of circumstance, no matter how much their own decisions and behavior contributed to their situation.  Many of the poor themselves believed this, and those who did felt no responsibility to change their behavior.  But this is an argument that the liberals lost.

I think it's a difference in the way New Deal vs. Great Society programs were structured. The goal of the New Deal was primarily to restore employment, security and economic vigor, and was structured around means to achieve that. Utilizing economies of scale, it alleviated poverty by increasing productivity and demand for goods. The goal of the Great Society on the other hand was to increase the absolute living standards of people through various forms of transfer payments. It had nothing to do with increasing productivity amongst or demand for the poor whom it was meant to serve. This is why I believe that it failed.

[12th Doctor]

Well suburbs aren't exactly so Republican, depending on the part of hthe country.  Boston's suburbs are liberal and have been for awhile.  new York's suburbs (especially Long Island, & Westchester) have gone from GOP to DEm & now is fairly liberal.  Philly's suburbs Montco & Bucks have done the same & are now fairly liberal.  D.C's subrubs are moving leftward (Fairfax especially)  Denver's suburbs are pretty liberall,  Seattle's suburbs are fairly liberal, same with the bay area.

Only midwestern and southern suburbs are "conservative".

[A18]

Question: why is Virginia Beach Republican?

[dazzleman]

This could actually be true. I think it's the collapse of the Keynesian state more than the Great Society that ended the decline of poverty though. Even without the Great Society, the Keynesian economic policies of the Fordist era after 1930 were tending towards equalization. This ended around 1973, and Great Society or not, I think it fundamentally changed the structure of poverty reduction; basically killing it.

I agree with most of what you've said, but I think this statement is questionable.

I don't think economic equalization can ever realistically take place, no matter what the economic policies are that are being pursued.

The excesses of the Great Society, and their obviously bad effects, killed the public support for much of the anti-poverty agenda.  In addition to that, the types of programs championed by the Great Society effectively encouraged the type of behavior that inevitably leads to poverty.

The decline of the economic well-being of the blue collar working class, relative to the rest of society, which began in the early 1970s, was not in my opinion due to economic policies, but due to changes in the international economic situation, most notably the loss of US manufacturing supremacy that had existed since WW II.  Much of the working class, facing harder times than before, looked down rather than up for their class enemy, and strongly resented non-working poor being given what they had worked for.

[Beet]

I don't think economic equalization can ever realistically take place, no matter what the economic policies are that are being pursued.

Again, I agree with all that you said except for this. Firstly, public opinion does undergo change after long periods of time. Change is possible in what the public is willing to accept, and as I've said to Al, there's evidence of a more populist mood in this country lately as a backlash to Bush's overwhelmingly "my base are the haves and the have-mores" legislative agenda. Second, there is no correlation between economic equalization and performance. Jeffrey Sachs has I think done a great regression on this in his new book on poverty which I was browsing through about a month ago.

[dazzleman]

I don't think economic equalization can ever realistically take place, no matter what the economic policies are that are being pursued.

Again, I agree with all that you said except for this. Firstly, public opinion does undergo change after long periods of time. Change is possible in what the public is willing to accept, and as I've said to Al, there's evidence of a more populist mood in this country lately as a backlash to Bush's overwhelmingly "my base are the haves and the have-mores" legislative agenda. Second, there is no correlation between economic equalization and performance. Jeffrey Sachs has I think done a great regression on this in his new book on poverty which I was browsing through about a month ago.

I'm not sure what you mean by "economic equalization."  I firmly believe there's no such thing, and never can be, regardless of the policies pursued by the government.  We can narrow the gap between the haves and have-nots, but we can't eliminate it without bringing everybody down to the lowest common denominator.

If you define economic equalization as I am, then I don't agree that there's no correlation between economic performance and economic equalization.

It is necessary to continually search for the right balance in economic policy.  The basic reality is that the greater good for the largest number of people is served by allowing a certain degree of economic inequality, and most people recognize this and don't mind, as long as they are reasonably well off.  But if the economic gap gets too great, it can undermine the whole system.

I think that rather than attempt to control the gap between the haves and have-nots through policies like confiscatory tax rates, which have other bad side effects, both social and economic, we are better to make the greatest attempt to help our workers adapt to the changing needs of the marketplace, in order to give them leverage in dealing with potential or actual employers.

Those who have the skills employers want have power and leverage to improve their economic circumstances.  Those who do not have those skills are without those powers.  The poor are mostly found among the second group, and no amount of legislation can make them marketable and competitive in the job market.

[Beet]

I'm not sure what you mean by "economic equalization."  I firmly believe there's no such thing, and never can be, regardless of the policies pursued by the government.  We can narrow the gap between the haves and have-nots, but we can't eliminate it without bringing everybody down to the lowest common denominator.

If you define economic equalization as I am, then I don't agree that there's no correlation between economic performance and economic equalization.

I've defined equalization exactly as it sounds-- a more equitably distributed gradient of income and wealth across society. I don't think that's impossible at all. There's a notion out there that there's some kind of a trade-off between equality and growth... I don't think that's true at all. History has shown it's not true. An analysis of cases over the years since World War II have shown it's not true. That's what I'm saying.

t is necessary to continually search for the right balance in economic policy.  The basic reality is that the greater good for the largest number of people is served by allowing a certain degree of economic inequality, and most people recognize this and don't mind, as long as they are reasonably well off.  But if the economic gap gets too great, it can undermine the whole system.

I think that rather than attempt to control the gap between the haves and have-nots through policies like confiscatory tax rates, which have other bad side effects, both social and economic, we are better to make the greatest attempt to help our workers adapt to the changing needs of the marketplace, in order to give them leverage in dealing with potential or actual employers.

Those who have the skills employers want have power and leverage to improve their economic circumstances.  Those who do not have those skills are without those powers.  The poor are mostly found among the second group, and no amount of legislation can make them marketable and competitive in the job market.

I agree with the first 2 paragraphs, but that's not incomptible with equalization. Equalization can be achieved by helping the lower classes be copetitive. I don't agree that "no amount of legislation can make" people who would otherwise be poor competitive. If that was true, public funding for education would be pointless. Yet perhaps the biggest problem is societal rather than governmental. The government's policies will be reflected and mediated through the society. If our society is divided, then the government's efforts will be undermined and fail. It's hard to get a society as big as the U.S. to see a common good. Not impossible, but harder. That's why to a certain extent I think it might be better to try and do it at the state level. But it's an uphill challenge in the U.S. because of the way our society works, not because of economic impossibilities.

[dazzleman]

I'm not sure what you mean by "economic equalization."  I firmly believe there's no such thing, and never can be, regardless of the policies pursued by the government.  We can narrow the gap between the haves and have-nots, but we can't eliminate it without bringing everybody down to the lowest common denominator.

If you define economic equalization as I am, then I don't agree that there's no correlation between economic performance and economic equalization.

I've defined equalization exactly as it sounds-- a more equitably distributed gradient of income and wealth across society. I don't think that's impossible at all. There's a notion out there that there's some kind of a trade-off between equality and growth... I don't think that's true at all. History has shown it's not true. An analysis of cases over the years since World War II have shown it's not true. That's what I'm saying.

t is necessary to continually search for the right balance in economic policy.  The basic reality is that the greater good for the largest number of people is served by allowing a certain degree of economic inequality, and most people recognize this and don't mind, as long as they are reasonably well off.  But if the economic gap gets too great, it can undermine the whole system.

I think that rather than attempt to control the gap between the haves and have-nots through policies like confiscatory tax rates, which have other bad side effects, both social and economic, we are better to make the greatest attempt to help our workers adapt to the changing needs of the marketplace, in order to give them leverage in dealing with potential or actual employers.

Those who have the skills employers want have power and leverage to improve their economic circumstances.  Those who do not have those skills are without those powers.  The poor are mostly found among the second group, and no amount of legislation can make them marketable and competitive in the job market.

I agree with the first 2 paragraphs, but that's not incomptible with equalization. Equalization can be achieved by helping the lower classes be copetitive. I don't agree that "no amount of legislation can make" people who would otherwise be poor competitive. If that was true, public funding for education would be pointless. Yet perhaps the biggest problem is societal rather than governmental. The government's policies will be reflected and mediated through the society. If our society is divided, then the government's efforts will be undermined and fail. It's hard to get a society as big as the U.S. to see a common good. Not impossible, but harder. That's why to a certain extent I think it might be better to try and do it at the state level. But it's an uphill challenge in the U.S. because of the way our society works, not because of economic impossibilities.

You are defining economic equalization as narrowing the gap between the rich and poor.  This implies that there will still be a gap.

I think that whether the push for economic equalization compromises economic performance depends on the thrust of that push.  If the thrust is confiscatory tax policies and redistribution of income, then it will hurt economic performance.  But if the thrust is constructive -- such as well-conceived initiatives to improve education -- then there can be both a move toward economic equalization and positive economic gains overall.

When I said no amount of legislation can make the poor non-competitive, I meant that legislation cannot have a direct effect.  We cannot will it.  Improved education can make the poor more competitive, assuming they are interested in that, but that is an indirect, rather than direct, effect of legislation that seeks to improve education.

You will never get people to see and work toward a single common good, except in the short term under extraordinary circumstances.  The best we can do is to try to get people to see that it is in their interest to improve society, and explain how.

I think failed liberal initiatives, such as ill-conceived Great Society anti-poverty programs and busing, just to name a couple, have drained the public of its will to improve certain situations.  Liberals clung to these bad policies long after it was obvious that they were making worse the problems they were supposed to solve, and that compounded the negative effect.  There are only rare, and short, windows of opportunity when people are willing to address in a large-scale way issues beyond their own personal concerns, and these opportunities were lost with ill-conceived policies to which liberals stubbornly clung.

One of my pet peeves on the education issue is the belief that in order to help those who don't have access to good education currently, we must somehow hurt those who do.  This was the main premise, practically speaking, behind busing, and it caused people to reject violently any larger societal concerns, and look out for number one totally.  If some people have access to good education, we should seek to spread that, not destroy it, as we have effectively done in many cases.

[Beet]

You are defining economic equalization as narrowing the gap between the rich and poor.  This implies that there will still be a gap.

Yup. There will always be some kind of gap, no matter what. Its the relative differences that do make a big difference though.

I think that whether the push for economic equalization compromises economic performance depends on the thrust of that push.  If the thrust is confiscatory tax policies and redistribution of income, then it will hurt economic performance.  But if the thrust is constructive -- such as well-conceived initiatives to improve education -- then there can be both a move toward economic equalization and positive economic gains overall.

I agree.

When I said no amount of legislation can make the poor non-competitive, I meant that legislation cannot have a direct effect.  We cannot will it.  Improved education can make the poor more competitive, assuming they are interested in that, but that is an indirect, rather than direct, effect of legislation that seeks to improve education.

You will never get people to see and work toward a single common good, except in the short term under extraordinary circumstances.  The best we can do is to try to get people to see that it is in their interest to improve society, and explain how.

I think failed liberal initiatives, such as ill-conceived Great Society anti-poverty programs and busing, just to name a couple, have drained the public of its will to improve certain situations.  Liberals clung to these bad policies long after it was obvious that they were making worse the problems they were supposed to solve, and that compounded the negative effect.  There are only rare, and short, windows of opportunity when people are willing to address in a large-scale way issues beyond their own personal concerns, and these opportunities were lost with ill-conceived policies to which liberals stubbornly clung.

One of my pet peeves on the education issue is the belief that in order to help those who don't have access to good education currently, we must somehow hurt those who do.  This was the main premise, practically speaking, behind busing, and it caused people to reject violently any larger societal concerns, and look out for number one totally.  If some people have access to good education, we should seek to spread that, not destroy it, as we have effectively done in many cases.

Politically, the busing issue was terrible for activists, I'll easily admit. It screwed over efforts to improve the lot of the poor for a generation or more.

[dazzleman]

Politically, the busing issue was terrible for activists, I'll easily admit. It screwed over efforts to improve the lot of the poor for a generation or more.

I completely agree.  It was a stupid, ill-conceived idea, implemented hypocritically by those who exempted themselves from it.  It misdiagnosed and refused to acknowledge the real problem, and sought to hurt whites on the lower rungs of the economic ladder as atonement for our racial sins, while exempting better-off whites, by their design.

Busing is one of the major reasons that the image of the "elitist liberal" gained such currency among the middle and working classes.  I would venture to say that elitist liberal support for busing is the largest single contributor to this accurate image.

[memphis]

Democrats are much more interested in considering issues of class.  In turn, central cities are Democratic because of the enormous class disparities that exist there.  Residents of central cities (especially old-fashioned, high-density cities) see large numbers of very wealthy and very poor, often with no  middle class. Such a situation creates anger among the poor and guilt among the rich. In both cases, the result is a Democratic landslide. Suburbs tend to be MUCH more homogenous. If you only see people who are economically similar to you, you're going to be much less likely to feel a great crisis in wealth distribution.

[Smash255]

Democrats are much more interested in considering issues of class.  In turn, central cities are Democratic because of the enormous class disparities that exist there.  Residents of central cities (especially old-fashioned, high-density cities) see large numbers of very wealthy and very poor, often with no  middle class. Such a situation creates anger among the poor and guilt among the rich. In both cases, the result is a Democratic landslide. Suburbs tend to be MUCH more homogenous. If you only see people who are economically similar to you, you're going to be much less likely to feel a great crisis in wealth distribution.

The suburb depiction I would say was more true in the past or now at least more true in the south & midwest.  Suburbs in the northeast & midatlantic especially don't really fit into this mold & have trended Democratic over the past 15 years or so

[dazzleman]

Democrats are much more interested in considering issues of class.  In turn, central cities are Democratic because of the enormous class disparities that exist there.  Residents of central cities (especially old-fashioned, high-density cities) see large numbers of very wealthy and very poor, often with no  middle class. Such a situation creates anger among the poor and guilt among the rich. In both cases, the result is a Democratic landslide. Suburbs tend to be MUCH more homogenous. If you only see people who are economically similar to you, you're going to be much less likely to feel a great crisis in wealth distribution.

Excellent observation.

Whatever the political leanings of a city, the suburbs of that city will almost always be significantly more conservative.

Even in the northeast, where suburbs are trending Democratic, they are significantly more conservative than the cities they surround.

[memphis]

Democrats are much more interested in considering issues of class.  In turn, central cities are Democratic because of the enormous class disparities that exist there.  Residents of central cities (especially old-fashioned, high-density cities) see large numbers of very wealthy and very poor, often with no  middle class. Such a situation creates anger among the poor and guilt among the rich. In both cases, the result is a Democratic landslide. Suburbs tend to be MUCH more homogenous. If you only see people who are economically similar to you, you're going to be much less likely to feel a great crisis in wealth distribution.

The suburb depiction I would say was more true in the past or now at least more true in the south & midwest.  Suburbs in the northeast & midatlantic especially don't really fit into this mold & have trended Democratic over the past 15 years or so

I think that the Southern Evangelical base of the national Republican party has scared away Northeast suburbanites. These people don't want an authoritarian government, which many Southerners want, making personal decisions for them, such as telling their children what to believe (prayer in schools), whether they can get an abortion, whether they can choose to allow a relative on life support to die...