Liberal Places/Conservative Places

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Flint is populist (very poor, very rundown, very leftwing)

[© tweed]

Perot won Anchorage in 1992

No he didn't.

He won the city not the ED it was in I think

[bejkuy]

Downtown San Diego is very liberal.  I was there recently
and felt like I was the only straight guy there.  Friends from El Cajon (a close suburb) tell me that SD has a huge homosexual population.  Inner San Diego is represented by 2 liberal Jewish Dems, every bit as liberal as LA.

Suburban and outer San Diego is a very different story.  

[angus]

Flint is populist (very poor, very rundown, very leftwing)

pretty much what was in my mind's eye.  thanks.

[bejkuy]

Lewis county- SW Washington

Conservative.

Democratic is a dirty word here.  Much different from the place I graduated from High School.  Portland, OR

[bgwah]

Perot won Anchorage in 1992

No he didn't.

He won the city not the ED it was in I think

Those are counties or boroughs or whatever Alaska calls them. I believe Anchorage is a city/county. The "city" is 1500 square miles. You can see it on the map. It is blue, and its shade means it was at least 40% republican.

[angus]

There's a place called Gore, Illinois that is very conservative and a place called Bush, Illinois that slightly less so.

[Platypus]

Left: Southern half of sydney, North, West and center of Melbourne, Newcastle, Woolongong, Tasmania

Right: Outback, esp. QLD and NSW; north central VIC, Adelaide, Northern SYD, eastern MELB

rest is not firmly set

[Huckleberry Finn]

Left: Southern half of sydney, North, West and center of Melbourne, Newcastle, Woolongong, Tasmania

Right: Outback, esp. QLD and NSW; north central VIC, Adelaide, Northern SYD, eastern MELB

rest is not firmly set

Please Hughento. Add the note "I am from AUSTRALIA" to your profile. There is lot of people who think that you're from Iowa.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Left: Southern half of sydney, North, West and center of Melbourne, Newcastle, Woolongong, Tasmania

The whole Hunter Valley, NSW (including Newcastle) is leftwing (coalminers)... Freemantle in WA is as well... (dockers, ethnic minorities)
Tasmania was the only state to swing against Howard last election

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More or less true... but a lot of NPA seats are vunerable (Gippsland or Richmond for example). North Sydney (including Howard's seat, Bennelong) remains as solidly "Liberal" as ever...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed

[??????????]

Can we keep this is the U.S.? lol I've never heard of Wallabee corner or Kangaroo Junction. j/k

[migrendel]

I can give my opinions of the liberal/conservative tilt of municipalities based upon my travels.

Most every city in the Northeast is liberal, such as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, at least in terms of voting patterns. To give you an idea of the general breakdown of ideology in any one of these cities, I'll explain it based upon Boston, the city I know best. There are socially liberal areas such as Beacon Hill, where I grew up, and such extraneous suburbs as Cambridge and Brookline. There are culturally conservative areas such as South Boston. Despite their shared economic liberalism and Democratic majorities, there is an intense conflict between them. A famous example was when a court order went into effect ordering busing to end de facto segregation in the city. Students from the black enclave of Roxbury were bused into South Boston, where they were met with rocks being thrown, jeering mobs, and death threats. If one watches footage of this, it still shocks the conscience to see housewives, police officers, truck drivers, and construction workers yelling the most coarse epithets at students who merely complied with court order. Incidentally, the lobbying arm of the anti-busing people was led by a former Congresswoman, Louise Day Hicks, who was also a Democrat. I was not alive when this happened, but from my family, I heard it was a time when many in Beacon Hill were outraged by the lawlessness and manifest racial hatred. That is not to say, though, that this was the only incident of conflict between working class people and progressives. For example, a group of construction workers assaulted peaceful protestors outside of the New York Stock Exchange in 1971. Rather than being sent to prison for using violence to disrupt the discourse inherent to a free society, they were honored at the White House where they presented President Nixon with a hard hat.

Moving on, Southern cities are often moderate-to-liberal, such as Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta, with their political influence diminished by the conservatives denizens of the area living in suburbiam. West Coast cities, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, are often liberal on matters of culture and economics. Midwestern cities, such as Chicago, Detroit, and Milwaukee, are overwhelmingly Democratic, their agendae often shaped by economic populism.

[dazzleman]

New York is very much like Boston, but with a broader ethnic base and greater geographical area.  People of Italian descent in New York probably occupy a position similar to the Irish-decended people in Boston.

I'm convinced that the reaction to busing in Boston is one reason it was never brought to New York, where it would have been greeted in a similar manner.  New York continues to maintain a system of neighborhood schools, basically, for the lower grades, and schools in outlying white areas remain predominantly white, despite the overwhelming minority composition of the system as a whole.  High schools cover wider areas of mixed ethnicity, but most upwardly mobile white, black and Puerto Rican parents etiher remove their kids from public school at this point or get them into the system of admission-based high schools, leaving the neighborhood or zoned high schools for the most poorly performing students.

Lower middle class and middle class whites in the outer boroughs of the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island remain strongly anti-black in general because they fear that the problems of adjoining black neighborhoods will penetrate their neighborhoods, and they can't afford to move in that event.  Social liberalism is more prevalent among rich Manhattanites who can afford to indulge the fantasies of social liberalism secure in the knowledge that they can buy their way out of the grim realities that it produces.

I have also noticed that upwardly mobile Puerto Ricans in New York are becoming anti-black, and are much more vocal about saying so than white people.  Puerto Ricans who have been successful tend to be social conservatives also, believing strongly in family and religion, and opposed to abortion, etc.

I don't favor forced integration because I think it reinforces racial labeling and gives it more importance than it deserves.  People should be judged their behavior, not their ethnic background.  If kids are unable to get a good education in their neighborhood schools, then we ought to be asking why, and fixing that problem, rather than attempting to avoid it by moving kids around.  It failed miserably in Boston and every other place it was tried.  Even most blacks don't want busing any more.

[migrendel]

I think that in one respect you are somewhat off. I believe that the wealthy liberals might be more supportive of busing than someone in Queens because of something other than wealth. Someone's background might determine their outlook on these things more than the amount of money they have. Perhaps the type of experience of social liberals makes them more receptive to the notion.

In addition, I believe that under our Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection, the state has an affirmative duty to attempt to end any form of segregation, for it is a badge of servitude, by creating schools which reasonably approximate the racial balance of the community at large. I believe that busing, including inter-district busing, is an acceptable method of doing this.

[12th Doctor]

as far as i know walworth county where i live has never voted democratic in a presidential election.
sounds conservative to me

What about when the Democrats were the Conservative.  

[dazzleman]

I think that in one respect you are somewhat off. I believe that the wealthy liberals might be more supportive of busing than someone in Queens because of something other than wealth. Someone's background might determine their outlook on these things more than the amount of money they have. Perhaps the type of experience of social liberals makes them more receptive to the notion.

In addition, I believe that under our Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection, the state has an affirmative duty to attempt to end any form of segregation, for it is a badge of servitude, by creating schools which reasonably approximate the racial balance of the community at large. I believe that busing, including inter-district busing, is an acceptable method of doing this.

Well, it depends on how you define the community.  Right now, the care defined as conforming to district lines.

I disagree that liberals support busing for altruistic reasons.  They like to think that, but their support would turn to firm opposition if their kids were going to be sent to violent neighborhoods.  Bet you life on that.  They support busing - for the kids of the "lesser" people, not themselves.  Their support of it eases the guilt they feel over their better circumstances.

Your argument presupposes that government has the power to equalize the effects of factors beyond its control, like circumstances of birth, family situation, upbringing, etc, all of which affect educational prospects.  This is simply not the case.  Equal protection under the law means an equal chance, not equal outcomes.  There is more than one way to skin this cat, and the discussion should be over how to do it in practical terms, because their is no magic wand that is going to make social difference go away.  Liberals presuppose that their way is the only way, even though it has failed.

[angus]

as far as i know walworth county where i live has never voted democratic in a presidential election.
sounds conservative to me

What about when the Democrats were the Conservative.  

That's part of the reason it is so faulty, historically inaccurate, and generally detrimental to understanding political culture to say Democrat=Liberal and Republican=Conservative.  For example, most people I work with are Democrats.  Most people I work with also consider themselves more conservative than I, and are usually taken aback when I proudly inform them, when the question arises, that I support our President.  

GOP is the nationalistic party.  It has been so since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856.  The democrats are best defined relative to that.  Whatever the current alternative to nationalism is.  First it was regionalism, or sectionalism.  Later it was imperialism (though the gop has its share of imperialists).  Nowadays it is internationalism.  The fundamental nature of the republican and democrat parties HAS NOT changed.  The people they attract come and go, but the defining characteristic does not change.  

It is not surprising, therefore, that a Republican county in Wisconsin has stayed Republican.  Though I suspect a serious search might turn up a time or two when their nationalism, though not shaken, might have given way to more pressing concerns momentarily.

[Rev. Matthew]

The San Jaun Islands in Washington state are a very liberal place! One Island voted only 5% for Bush, while 30% for Nader!

[© tweed]

Perot won Anchorage in 1992

No he didn't.

He won the city not the ED it was in I think

Those are counties or boroughs or whatever Alaska calls them. I believe Anchorage is a city/county. The "city" is 1500 square miles. You can see it on the map. It is blue, and its shade means it was at least 40% republican.

wrong

they are election districts.

[migrendel]

It is hollow to speak of equal opportunity if circumstances create such a chasm that the opportunity cannot be utilized. Just saying that segregation is unconstitutional will not do away with it. The government needs to take action to make sure Jim Crow is dead, not just officially deceased. I will defend busing as a means to do this, because I feel it is at times the only way to make sure that our guarantee of equality under the law is extended to all our citizens, and not just given lip service.

What I would ask the South Boston parents is: Why do you oppose this? Why do you throw stones and scream? They're 14 years old and obeying the law. Don't you see the seeds you sow?

What I ask you, dazzleman, is: Why should we tolerate segregation if it is unnecessary? If not this, what?

[dazzleman]

It is hollow to speak of equal opportunity if circumstances create such a chasm that the opportunity cannot be utilized. Just saying that segregation is unconstitutional will not do away with it. The government needs to take action to make sure Jim Crow is dead, not just officially deceased. I will defend busing as a means to do this, because I feel it is at times the only way to make sure that our guarantee of equality under the law is extended to all our citizens, and not just given lip service.

What I would ask the South Boston parents is: Why do you oppose this? Why do you throw stones and scream? They're 14 years old and obeying the law. Don't you see the seeds you sow?

What I ask you, dazzleman, is: Why should we tolerate segregation if it is unnecessary? If not this, what?

First of all, let's be clear about our language.  Segregation means that the law has imposed a separation of people by race.  While this took place in the south, it did not take place in Boston.  Segregation does NOT mean that different races of people are not spread around evenly, to the liking of everybody.

So what we have is not segregation, but separation of people along racial lines, as a result of millions of individual decisions.  There are other types of separation as well - by ethnic group, income level, etc.

Aside from making sure that people are not precluded, on the basis of their race or ethnic background, from living in a place that they can pay for, government has no business deciding where people live, and is therefore not in a position to proactively force integration.  Government's role should be a limited one, and you seek to have government telling everybody where to live in the name of "social justice."

As far as the parents of South Boston go, if you can't understand why they wouldn't want their kids sent to school in Roxbury, then your head is really in the clouds.  Rich liberal parents would simply have moved rather than submit to that.  Yet you expect those parents to be OK with having it forced down their throat.  I don't condone attacking innocent children as they did, but if you have to ask why they were unhappy with the busing order, then you must have no understanding of the dire options that those people faced.

[migrendel]

I know that their displeasure stemmed from racial animosity. I also think it helps to distinguish between de jure segregation, where it is decreed where to go to school, and de facto segregation, where circumstances segregate the races. I fail to see the practical distinction if there is no differentiation in the school's racial composition with both systems.

[bgwah]

Perot won Anchorage in 1992

No he didn't.

He won the city not the ED it was in I think

Those are counties or boroughs or whatever Alaska calls them. I believe Anchorage is a city/county. The "city" is 1500 square miles. You can see it on the map. It is blue, and its shade means it was at least 40% republican.

wrong

they are election districts.

Hmm, maybe you're right. But Anchorage definately looks republican still. It looks like theres quite a few smaller "election districts" in the Anchorage area and all of them are blue?

[angus]

First of all, let's be clear about our language.  Segregation means that the law has imposed a separation of people by race.  While this took place in the south, it did not take place in Boston.  Segregation does NOT mean that different races of people are not spread around evenly, to the liking of everybody.

This is inaccurate.  We all know MA was the first US state to abolish slavery, in about 1781, so it may come as a surprise that it was the last major city in the US to desegrate it schools.  Perhaps surprising, but true.  You are probably thinking of the Roberts v. Boston case of 1848 where a black student sued over the right to attend white schools.  A city ordinance passed in 1845 said any child "unlawfully excluded from the public schools" could recover damages, so little Sarah Roberts was allowed to quit her 'colored' school and attend a 'white' school so the city wouldn't be sued.  

In 1896, Chief Justice Shaw's conclusions in Roberts v. Boston were cited before the U.S. Supreme Court in the now infamous case, Plessy v. Ferguson. "Separate but equal" became the law nationwide. The court ruled that as long as equivalent facilities were provided, classification by race was not an abridgment of a person's rights.  It seems clear that Shaw did not intend this to be the legacy of his decision, but it was!  In the 1850s, state courts were reluctant to intrude on the function of the legislature.  Shaw recognized the injustice of segregated schools.  However, he believed the Roberts case did not raise any constitutional issue on which he could rule.  He also believed social injustices could not be remedied by the Court.  In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court believed so as well.

Meanwhile in Boston, while integration remained the law, the reality was far different.  Settlement patterns established over generations resulted in rigidly segregated ethnic and racial neighborhoods across the city.  The result was de facto school segregation. By the 1960s, this pattern of racially segregated school districts was consciously being sustained by white city officials and voters.  Black parents again turned to the courts.  In 1974, under a federal mandate, Boston once again began the process of integrating its public schools.

Thus, fully twenty years after Brown v. Board of Education, black folks in Boston required a federal court decision to permit them in Boston's white-only schools.  I'd say it is entirely accurate to posit that desegration was very late coming to Boston city schools.

[dazzleman]

New York never desegregated its schools.  Neither did Philadelphia or Chicago.

Desegregation in the context that we're discussing has no practical meaning when most of the whites leave the system, as happened in Boston and in every major city that had a policy of desegregation.

I think it's a travesty that access to education is highly dependent upon where a person lives.  We need a policy to allow access for people in urban areas to good schools.

But desegregation through busing has already been tried, and failed miserably.  It doesn't address the right issues, and it's now ironic that those who claim to care most about minorities are standing in the way of a realistic solution to this problem.  It takes a very stubborn person to still be pushing busing as the solution after 30+ years of failure.  Even most liberals have abandoned active support for busing.