November 11, 2017

"People often move for a reason that seems to have nothing to do with politics but then turns out to correlate to politics quite closely."

"According to a Pew survey, for instance, nearly eighty per cent of liberals like the idea of living in a dense neighborhood where you can walk to shops and schools, while seventy-five per cent of conservatives would rather live in a larger house with more space around it. After people move, the politics of the new place affect them. Those who move to a politically dissimilar place tend to become independents; those who move to a place where people vote the same way they do tend to become more extreme in their convictions. But there also seems to be something about the act of moving that disturbs people’s beliefs, regardless of where they end up. One woman left Orange City to attend college in a place that was, if anything, more conservative than her home town, but, even so, the experience changed her. 'Both of my parents are vocally conservative, so I thought I was a Republican all these years, but my views have changed,' she says. 'Living outside of a small rural town gives you a different perspective. When I think about taxes now, what comes to my mind is school funding coming from taxes, which perpetuates poverty, because schools in lower-income areas have lower graduation rates. When I think about immigration, I think, We all immigrated at some point—well, most of us—can we not remember that?...'"

From "Where the Small-Town American Dream Lives On/As America’s rural communities stagnate, what can we learn from one that hasn’t?" by Larissa MacFarquhar in The New Yorker.

Orange City is in Iowa, and I was listening to the audio version of the magazine as I took a walk in my neighborhood, over around by the stadium, where the home team is playing Iowa right now.

77 comments:

rhhardin said...

When you move you also become older.

Jim at said...

"When I think about immigration, I think, We all immigrated at some point—well, most of us—can we not remember that?...'"

Yes. We did.
Legally.

Why do you leftists deliberately leave that out?

pacwest said...

If you live like rats in a maze...You think like the other rats in the maze.

Bill Peschel said...

All I can say is that this didn't happen to me personally. I was an independent when I moved to my walkable neighborhood years ago in a Democratic-run state (Pennsylvania) and am now registered Republican. I look at the terrible schools in Harrisburg that receive extensive federal aid, and realize that dysfunctional families, an education system riddled with fads and nostrums, an inefficient city system run by the Democratic Party and their labor union allies refuses to deliver needed services and a lack of working-class jobs makes it difficult to work their way out.

But I've been reading and thinking about this stuff for years.

Angel-Dyne said...

'Living outside of a small rural town gives you a different perspective. When I think about taxes now, what comes to my mind is school funding coming from taxes, which perpetuates poverty, because schools in lower-income areas have lower graduation rates. When I think about immigration, I think, We all immigrated at some point—well, most of us—can we not remember that?...'"

Considering the shoddy "thinking" on display here, I hope this young lady didn't go into debt to acquire this "different perspective".

Ann Althouse said...

I am so strongly in the category of "like the idea of living in a dense neighborhood where you can walk to shops and schools."

Where we live we have that, but we also have some space around the houses. These aren't row houses. There are small yards including side yards separating the houses. It seems like the perfect distance. I like the sense that there are neighbors around on all sides.

YoungHegelian said...

Well, as someone who was fairly recently liberal & lives in a very liberal area still, let me weigh in on this.

One thing that has changed for me in the 37 years I've lived here is that while taxes stay high, local government services have gone to crap. You should see the roads in my neighborhood, & it's not just my neighborhood.

When I moved into Montgomery County, MD in late 1980, it was the epitome of "good government" liberalism. High taxes, good services. Now, like every other bureaucracy, it has gone sclerotic with age. High taxes, but often little to show for it.

Once you are stuck in a high tax environment, you are stuck with the bureaucracy. And there's almost no way you as a citizen can force those people to actually, you know, do their jobs.

And, I gotta admit, as I pass into life phase of being an old cantankerous white fart, it bugs me.

traditionalguy said...

But you need a golf course too.

Earnest Prole said...

In other words, where you stand depends on where you sit.

True enough, though it’s also true that most people in America care very little about politics because they’re busy pursuing actual real life. I’ve lived in the most left-wing place in America, the most right-wing place, and a place divided 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats. In all three the average person barely follows politics and doesn’t care at all about all the things that supposedly divide us. Your commenters are outliers.

buwaya said...

Outliers drive politics.
And make revolutions.
It's always a minority, often a very small one.

buwaya said...

The October Revolution (its now the hundredth anniversary!) happened because the Bolsheviks in Petersburg organized about 35,000 armed men to more or less follow orders, or claim to, while their opponents in that city could find no more than 1000-3000.

Rusty said...

" When I think about taxes now, what comes to my mind is school funding coming from taxes, which perpetuates poverty, because schools in lower-income areas have lower graduation rates. When I think about immigration, I think, We all immigrated at some point—well, most of us—can we not remember that?...'"

The associative property of idiocy at work.

YoungHegelian said...

@Rusty,

When I think about taxes now, what comes to my mind is school funding coming from taxes, which perpetuates poverty, because schools in lower-income areas have lower graduation rates

Recently, it was reported that there were 5 high schools & one middle school in Baltimore where there was not one student who did math or read at grade level. The cost to the tax payers for this record of achievement? $16K per student.

Minority Democrats screwing over minority Democrats for the benefit of other minority Democrats. It's a really ugly situation.

Earnest Prole said...

Yes, buwaya, I’ve learned never to underestimate the ability of a tiny number of assholes to make life miserable for everyone. Here in the Bay Area, it’s a few hundred Maoists and anarchists, loathed by everyone.

The genius of American politics is that it exhausts extremists and forces mainstream compromise through federalism and separation of powers. Those who want to reduce government by a tiny bit are called fascists and those who want to expand it a tiny bit are called communists. Meanwhile, we compromise and middle through.

David53 said...

“When I think about taxes now, what comes to my mind is school funding coming from taxes, which perpetuates poverty, because schools in lower-income areas have lower graduation rates.”

In other words if we just give schools in lower income areas more money their graduation rates would increase. If only it were that easy.

After retiring from the military in the 90s I taught 4th grade in Title 1 schools for about four years. Money wasn’t the issue. Lack of parenting skills, dysfunctional families, incompetent administrators, and a trillion miles of state and federal red tape hinders learning far more than a lack of money. I had a 4th grader threaten to gut me because I confiscated his yoyo. “No big deal,” I was told, I could handle him because I was a man. The female teachers wouldn’t take him so he stayed in my class. He left at the end of the first semester and was replaced by another child who needed “a strong male role model.” I remember one Dad who would pick up his kid after school, well most of the time he would pick him up, he had a vanity license plate holder that said, “Pimpin Ain’t Easy.” Maybe if we just gave him some more money he would be a better Dad and help his kid learn to read. Money is not the issue.

JaimeRoberto said...

That's funny. My conservative brother just moved from liberal California to a town just a few miles from Orange City. Orange because of all the Dutch, not because of the citrus.

Brian Balster said...

"One woman left Orange City to attend college in a place that was, if anything, more conservative than her home town"

where'd she supposedly Go? Sioux Center?

chuck said...

It's The New Yorker world ... in a galaxy far, far, away.

Unknown said...

Welcome to the bigger wider world. Opens your eyes.

MayBee said...

I too love living within walking distance to amenities. I love it so much.

The way moving changed me politically is....as a non-progressive, I had to keep my mouth shut when it came to political when I lived in more progressive areas. I used to dare talk about politics in the open, but there are areas int the country where you just can't do that.

campy said...

there were 5 high schools & one middle school in Baltimore where there was not one student who did math or read at grade level.

And not one teacher who's ever cast a vote for a republican, I'll wager.

madAsHell said...

When I think about taxes now, what comes to my mind is school funding coming from taxes, which perpetuates poverty, because schools in lower-income areas have lower graduation rates.

Wut?

tim in vermont said...

When you live in red areas, the differences in income from the top to the bottom are not that striking, when you live in a blue area, you have the top out of sight, in their secret and exclusive clubs, their doormen, private cars, etc, and the homeless on almost the same street.

tim in vermont said...

In the Sherry Netherland Hotel, in NYC, there is a wall in the lobby with a door you can't really see until it's opened, and when it opens, there is a club in there with laughing people, music, etc. But you have to know it's there, and I suppose, to be invited to be allowed in.

Those are kind of the reasons that the rich are more hated in the blue areas than the red, where rich means likes to play golf, pays other people to mow his lawn, and has a shiny pickup truck that never gets dirty.

MikeD said...

Tim, as soon as I read your comment the following came to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAESKjNGpiU

tim in vermont said...

A lot of the money that rich people spend in red areas, ends up in the hands of working class people around them. Unlike, for example, the rich in Boston, who, when they show up in a neighborhood, drive out the long-time residents. An African American run wig and hair extension shop gets driven out for a French restaurant, or whatever.

tcrosse said...

Nobody is harder on small-town people than those who left their small town for the Big City. It's mutual.

Earnest Prole said...

The problems urban and rural places need to solve are radically different, so why shouldn’t the politics be radically different as well? I live in both, and am certain that Democrats would be disastrous running the rural government and Republicans would be disastrous running the city.

Jake said...

The lady quoted in the excerpt above seems awfully dense.

Wilbur said...

Earnest Prole said...
The problems urban and rural places need to solve are radically different, so why shouldn’t the politics be radically different as well? I live in both, and am certain that Democrats would be disastrous running the rural government and Republicans would be disastrous running the city.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Interesting. Could you give some examples of how Republicans would screw up running the city?

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

Love the narrative gymnastics necessary to conform to the Lefty narrative. Why do they hate us? We may never know.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I've lived in blue communities and neighborhoods my entire life, up until 3 weeks ago, when I moved to conservative Ozaukee county. However, I'm in town and within walking distance of shops and restaurants. The neighbors are noticeably friendlier - three of them stopped by to introduce themselves when I moved in. I don't know their politics. I have not gotten into political discussions with them yet. That could be a sign they are conservative. My old liberal neighbors couldn't talk for 5 minutes without making sure you knew they were liberal.

Ralph L said...

Since '92, I've lived in the 2nd & 3rd houses (my grandparents' houses) from our old downtown, which all but died in the 70's when the all the grocery/department/5&dime stores moved to new and greener pastures well out of walking range. The fed govt gave them a couple million to tear half of it down and put in a pedestrian mall, a total failure.

That waste of money and working for Carter's Dept of Energy in DC for two summers made me into a conservative, though at the time I was living in the People's Republic of Alexandria, which is now probably half foreign-born or childless and all blue.

LabCorp redid most of the remaining large buildings for their head office in the 80's, and when they eventually leave it will be a LabCorpse. The Salvation Army store recently moved out of sight and a very popular gambling den replaced it.

exiledonmainstreet said...

tcrosse said...
Nobody is harder on small-town people than those who left their small town for the Big City.

That explains 90% of Titus' comments.

tim in vermont said...

MikeD, it was sort of like that! I was just saying at the SN, in the lobby when that door opened and a lady to sort of reminded my of Mrs. Howell, from Gilligan's Island, went in there.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob said...

Ann, you have plenty of room in your yard to set up a small house for a homeless person or family.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

tcrosse said...
Nobody is harder on small-town people than those who left their small town for the Big City. It's mutual.

"For these people, liberalism is not a belief at all. No, it’s something more important: a badge of certain social aspirations. That is why the laments of the small-town leftists get voiced with such intemperance and desperation. As if those who voice them are fighting off the nagging thought: If the Republicans aren’t particularly evil, then maybe I’m not particularly special." - Christopher Caldwell

Angel-Dyne said...

tcrosse: Nobody is harder on small-town people than those who left their small town for the Big City. It's mutual.

I've come across the term "hicklibs" to describe the sort of people who shit all over the folks back home to suck up to their new city-clicker friends.

I myself have the blue-est of effete blue urban asshole tastes in many things. But if I indulged them by moving to a major metro I'd be 1) relatively poorer due to cost-of-living differences, and 2)surrounded by shitlibs. So by not going major-metro, I can 1)afford to indulge those of my effete blue urban asshole tastes that don't require permanent residence in a major metro, and 2) my Dem-voting neighbors won't key my car, vandalize my property, and will go right on on being neighborly, even if I put Trump signs on my lawn.

Rabel said...

"According to a Pew survey, for instance, nearly eighty per cent of liberals like the idea of living in a dense neighborhood where you can walk to shops and schools, while seventy-five per cent of conservatives would rather live in a larger house with more space around it."

I don't think this is a valid representation of the Pew survey, if this is the one she referenced.

If you read the actual question and visit Orange City on Streetview, then according to the survey most liberals would prefer to live in a place like ... Orange City.

But the author was hung up on a Manhattan vs. Deep Country paradigm so she interpreted it the way she chose.

Possibly she used a different Pew survey.

stever said...

People who move here (NM) from California only want to continue California. They don't care what we are or were.

mockturtle said...

Buwaya observes: Outliers drive politics.
And make revolutions.
It's always a minority, often a very small one.


The American Revolution was also deployed by a minority of colonists. Perhaps Mr. Prole would prefer that we were still part of England.

mockturtle said...

Steve says: People who move here (NM) from California only want to continue California.

Yes, they want to Californicate every place they move to. Gee, this part of Montana is so pretty! If only it were more like California! Let's fill it up with boutiques and coffee shops and yoga classes. And let's run some liberals for local offices. Let's demand gun control, too!

Michael K said...

I moved to Arizona to get away from the insanity of California. My son's best friends moved to Atlanta. He is a retired cop who became a very successful sales manager. He had been stabbed and shot so he decided to quit being a cop.

My son is thinking about where they will retire. NOT California.

The leftists from Taxachusetts moved to NH and took their politics with them.

Californians go to Oregon but they are just as left there.

rcocean said...

The obvious solution is to be Jack in the Country and Earnest in Town.

BTW, there's nothing dumber than a California liberal.

They will vote for the bad policies - and then complain about the effects. Like there's no cause and effect.

rcocean said...

Immigration is so what destroyed Republican California.

Native born Americans have been fleeing the state since the early 1990s. The population growth has come from immigration. Something like 45% of Californians don't speak English at home.

Welcome to America 2.O.

bgates said...

When I think about immigration, I think, We all immigrated at some point—well, most of us

What a fascinating and original perspective! We all - or most of us - or our great-grandparents - or their great-grandparents - immigrated, at some point, and organized military expeditions to drive previous inhabitants to less desirable parts of the continent, and hunted several species to extinction, and cut down forests to farm, and passed laws to ban sodomy and legalize the ownership of human beings and support the state church with our tax dollars. Why can't we remember to love immigration, while hating every other thing our immigrant ancestors did besides move here?

NoBorg said...

...."Money wasn’t the issue. Lack of parenting skills, dysfunctional families, incompetent administrators, and a trillion miles of state and federal red tape hinders learning far more than a lack of money"

This. It amazes me that more attention has not been paid to the fact that, in New Jersey, the experiment has already been performed: per-student funding levels have been equalized between poor and affluent areas for decades now, as per court order. Some of the poorest districts actually have significantly higher funding levels than most of the affluent ones. The impact on the disparity in academic performance between these areas has been zero.

NJ is a kind of weird place where some of the poorest municipalities in the USA are right next to some of the wealthiest. Neither the physical proximity nor the equalized school funding seems to make the slightest bit of difference.

Earnest Prole said...

The American Revolution was also deployed by a minority of colonists. Perhaps Mr. Prole would prefer that we were still part of England.

Why would a believer in American Exceptionalism think that?

Anonymous said...

I love cities. Even more, I love cities with urban single family homes where the neighborhoods are safe for kids to play outside without supervision, with 25-40 kids per block, and an ice cream shop within walking distance. Preferably beer too.


But you know what? Those cities keep raising my property taxes to where I can't afford it, and neither can the ice cream shop. They make the thoroughfares slow with their bike Lanes and roundabouts so cars fly through my residential block and into kids playing ball. They keep installing light rail that brings criminals and therefore crime to our neighborhood. They keep raising the minimum wage so only chains are left in the walkable areas. And I still had to pay for private school or homeschool.


So in the end, I had to leave for a place I didn't like where I could afford my family.

Earnest Prole said...

Could you give some examples of how Republicans would screw up running the city?

For the same reason there are virtually no Republican sociologists: their beliefs run counter to the enterprise itself. When a Republican occasionally becomes mayor of a major American city, you discover he’s actually pro-union, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, and pro-nanny state -- in other words, not actually a Republican.

mockturtle said...

For the same reason there are virtually no Republican sociologists

Which speaks well for Republicans, since sociology is not a science but rather a load of demographic and statistical claptrap that finds no place for the individual but see people as just a bunch of mice in a maze to be studied and manipulated toward leftist goals.

Comanche Voter said...

Ah but Larissa my first American ancestors immigrated 407 years ago. That's so long ago that I can't remember. And considering that some of my "white" ancestors may have mingled with some "Native" Americans, I may have to think about emigrating over the Siberian Land Bridge. Why should I listen to you Johnny Come Latelies?

tcrosse said...

Many years ago somebody explained to me that Sociology is what Anthropology is called when applied to White People

Earnest Prole said...

Cities are remarkably unequal places, with astonishing wealth literally side-by-side with abject poverty. Contrary to stereotypes, it is Democrats who are far more accepting (and even supportive) of this arrangement than Republicans.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Yeah, I recall moving from a poor elementary school to a richer one in 7th grade. I was embarrassed that I didn't know how wide belts should be or which bands (we called them "groups," though. Bands were like old, and had saxophones and white socks.) to listen to. It's important that kids get out and learn that school graduation rates are a function of taxes. Otherwise, they might...well, I can't think what might happen, but I'm sure it's bad.

Sebastian said...

"I used to dare talk about politics in the open" Progs will scream at you within two minutes. Or attack you on your own lawn if you're not careful.

mockturtle said...

Cities are remarkably unequal places, with astonishing wealth literally side-by-side with abject poverty. Contrary to stereotypes, it is Democrats who are far more accepting (and even supportive) of this arrangement than Republicans.

But, of course, Prole. Democrats have to keep their plantations in order.

Big Mike said...

When I think about immigration, I think, We all immigrated at some point—well, most of us—can we not remember that?...

I remember my grandfather telling me all the hoops he had to jump through to emigrate to the United States, to to return to the "old country" to marry my grandmother and bring her back. I rather doubt my grandparents came here illegally.

Big Mike said...

Nothing beats parents who insist that their kids to their homework, who want to know who they are with, who set times -- and enforce grounding -- when their daughters are out with friends, etc.

Earnest Prole said...

Democrats have to keep their plantations in order.

It’s condescending and dumb when lefties say working-class whites are voting against their own interests (“What’s the Matter with Kansas?”) and it’s condescending and dumb when righties say urban minorities are doing the same thing.

mockturtle said...

Many years ago somebody explained to me that Sociology is what Anthropology is called when applied to White People

Cultural Anthropology, maybe, but not Physical Anthropology.

rcocean said...

Yeah, all our families were immigrants at one point. Even the Mayflower passengers.

That's why if 200 million Africans want to move here, we should let them.

Yep, that makes sense to me.

rcocean said...

Did I tell you I LOVE Immigrants. No matter where they're from. Even if they have TB. Cause my Grandma came thru Ellis Island.

Of course, they don't move into MY neighborhood. I mean THAT would be different.
And they mow my lawn for so little money. That's great too.

But anyway, I'm not a hater. [Hugs self]

chuck said...

> For the same reason there are virtually no Republican sociologists: their beliefs run counter to the enterprise itself.

Having known a liberal who dropped out of an advanced degree program in sociology because of the utter dishonesty of her adviser and the field in general, I'd have to say that integrity pretty much runs counter to the enterprise itself. As we see in most cities.

wildswan said...

I feel as if some of the air is going out of the resistance. They realize Trump isn't going away. So they're adapting to this new neighbor and the new neighborhood. Or else maybe they were truly startled by the Weinstein scandal. It's imaginable that it all came to light because the Hollywood celebrities spent one solid year denouncing Trump and his supposed attitudes toward women and then, after one year, this continued jeremiad made Hollywood unable to tolerate Hollywood any more. So that's making the Dems think - if we keep calling Trump names, will the party members become so energized that they suddenly turn around and look at Dem behavior? If Mueller indicts Manafort amid many cheers from Democrats, will the Democrats then start asking Nueller to indict Podesta? Might things slip out of control as happened in Hollywood? Or might the NFL protests destroy the NFL and then the newsrooms financed by the NFL which spread the lie that caused the NFL protests? Is karma really a Trump brand right now?

themightypuck said...

I moved to SoCal because my conservative girlfriend refused to move to SF because it was too liberal. We broke up, she moved to SF, and is now basically a liberal. I always wondered if it was a thing.

Bruce Hayden said...

Each to his or her own, of course, but I have never understood the allure of big cities, esp living downtownish. I like what my parents did, which was live close enough that they could enjoy the cultural benefits of a big city, but were far enough out that they could only see 4 or 5 of their neighbors. Instead of dealing with the homeless, they had to worry about deer and a rather sizable elk herd. We don't really do the cultural thing, and don't get out that much to eat anyway, so are happiest even more rural, able to see only one neighbor, and in addition to the deer, also have to worry about black bear (we have brown bear in the county, but not in close. Also mtn lion, elk, a rare moose, and even a wolf pack or two). You know all your neighbors, and everyone is willing to help if they even think that you might need it. Unfortunately, she doesn't do well with cold, so we are south for the winter, which is fine, because we have more shopping close (in time - but by car) than most people living near a downtown can even dream about. It isn't small boutiques, but rather medium and big box stores - almost any that you can imagine, including an outlet mall 2 miles north. The easiest store to walk to is Walmart, which is a change from up north, where we are 2 hours away in 5 directions to the nearest one.

But we are at a place in our lives where we can pick where we want to live, and do. The problem with much of real rural America is, and long has been, a lack of opportunity. Both my grandfathers left rural America to go to college, then got jobs in big cities, moving back later in life. Maybe worse now. Fewer opportunitie. More drugs. Surprising how many still see the military as a way out. But we may be nearing the place/time where location becomes almost meaningless in terms of employment, with the Internet becoming so ubiquitous. Staffing companies in high cost urban areas is rapidly becoming cost ineffective, esp when a significant population of talented and skilled workers prefer living in suburban or rural America, where crime is low, and the schools tend to be better. Esp the public schools. Where the trash gets picked up and the police respond promptly, but are rarely needed. The deep blue urban model has, essentially, broken down, due to the inherent corruption of such systems. No matter how badly Dem politicians try to force people to live in ever denser environments, the bulk of the people see that that is not a good life for them, and rebel, if only to move to the suburbs. As a species, though social, I don't think that we do much better with overcrowding than do mice. Esp when the density results in people literally almost shitting in their nests. As I suggested above, what would most people prefer - being able to feed the deer from the front porch? Or that anything on the front porch be stolen? That the scat you encounter on the street is from deer? Or human? Which is why I expect that we will see our population spread out a bit, with the Internet allowing people to work together around the world, and this country being still largely empty of people.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Iowa has a hundred towns like Orange City, maybe two hundred. I don’t think Larissa understands even this one.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Bruce, just curious. I know you have mentioned your wife is a French-born ex-model. I assume she did not grow up with elk herds and only a handful of neighbors. Did you have to talk her into living in rural America?

This came to mind when I read your comment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umS3XM3xAPk

Robert Cook said...

"Surprising how many still see the military as a way out."

Not surprising at all if one considers the purposeful devastation done to America's job market in the past few decades.

Robert Cook said...

"Each to his or her own, of course, but I have never understood the allure of big cities, esp living downtownish."

Simple: it's stimulating, and, as everything is conveniently located, one doesn't need to own a car. When I need to buy groceries, I simply walk to a market a few blocks away, buy what I need, and walk back. Same thing for home goods, hardware items, things available at a drugstore, and so on. Outside a city area, everything is located miles away. There is also the mix of people from all over the country and of all ethnic, national, and cultural backgrounds; access to the arts--film, theater, bookstores, clubs, cuisines of the world, concert halls, etc.

Robert Cook said...

"Cities are remarkably unequal places, with astonishing wealth literally side-by-side with abject poverty."

This inequality is everywhere, but is more easily hidden in rural areas where there is distance between the wealthy and the poor.

"Contrary to stereotypes, it is Democrats who are far more accepting (and even supportive) of this arrangement than Republicans."

I'm curious how you know this.

Earnest Prole said...

I'm curious how you know this.

I live in one of the richest, most Democratic counties in California, and one of the poorest, most Republican, and the latter is a thousand times more egalitarian than the former.

Robert Cook said...

"I live in one of the richest, most Democratic counties in California, and one of the poorest, most Republican, and the latter is a thousand times more egalitarian than the former."

That, in and of itself, is insufficient to prove your presumption to be true. (How do you happen to live in two places? Two homes? Fancy!) And what do you mean by "more egalitarian?"

Earnest Prole said...

what do you mean by "more egalitarian?"

Next you'll be asking not only for me to buy you a dictionary but read it to you out loud.

The socioeconomics I'm referencing are well known, but if you need a primer, start with
a list of states by income inequality. You'll find the most egalitarian states (Utah, Alaska, Wyoming) are the nation's most Republican, while the most unequal states (New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and of course DC) are the most Democratic. Within states the most egalitarian places are Republican and the least are Democratic. I'm not saying its a good or bad thing; it simply is.

Robert Cook said...

I know what the word means. I'm wondering how "more egalitarian" plays out in real life in this poor Republican county. What do you see that tells you they are more egalitarian? Is everyone equally poor? Are people more generous to one another, more sharing, more altruistic, more respectful? And, to the degree life in this county is more egalitarian--however that is actualized--how is this connected to the "Republican" nature of the residents, as opposed to the the "Democrat" nature of the not egalitarian richer county?

How do you know it is not connected to the common poverty among the residents of the poor county?

It's well-known that the rich tend to be selfish. After all, why do you think they're called "rich bastards?"