I have a lot of relatives in NY-23. They are all Republicans, and that affiliation has been passed down through the generations (along with Catholic church membership and a tendency to dress like the pictures in the LL Bean catalog).
And few things get them angrier than how the Republican party has been taken over by "the Texans." This is shorthand for the southern-oriented, Protestant-oriented religious right. They hate that crowd more than any Democrat could. Betrayal by your own side always hurts the worst.
Some of them have even started voting for Democrats as a protest. I don't think they like doing it, but it's the only thing they can think of to smack their party back to its senses. And to its historical roots.
So the question for me is, can the Republicans accomodate a northern wing that is middling conservative, but very different in outlook from its southern wing? Or will they abandon that part of the political spectrum to conservative Democrats? Of course, one could ask the same about the Democrats and their conservative wing as well.
This resonates with me, because my mom's from Western New York. I remember once noting that until I was in college, I hadn't known any Republicans, to which my mother blinked, and replied "You knew your grandparents."
"But I didn't know they were Republicans."
She blinked again. "Well, we didn't try to hide it from you."
My grandparents were hard core Republicans. My grandmother still won't let you say mean things about (either) George Bush in her presence. They lived in a hard core Republican district--I think Wayne County is the reddest in New York State. But it's not Republican the way that, say, the Florida panhandle is Republican. If my family had lived in one of the redder areas of the South, I doubt I could have missed it.
Social conservatism just isn't the main issue there. Abortion will be legal no matter what happens on the federal level, and a lot of local Republicans are perfectly fine with that. Evolution will be taught in the schools. What animates Republicans in the upstate is a deep economic conservatism. Their social issues are confined to frowning at drug use, excess drinking, and people who won't work to take care of their families. (And in rural Western New York, there's no question about who can't work, and who won't . . . it is not an anonymous sort of place.)
Rural areas have a farmer's contempt for welfare, and the entire upstate region knows too well that the taxes and regulations imposed by the rich downstate voters are crippling their economy. No, this is not libertarian cant; it's obvious to basically anyone who spends any time there. New York has onerous business taxes, a deeply problematic workman's comp system, and various rules about public sector unions that are slowly destroying the budgets of the local cities. Combine this with a whole lot of cold weather, and there's no way they can attract new businesses to replace the big industrial plants they've lost.
I mean, it's quite possible that the economy wouldn't regenerate anyway--but it's 100% sure that it won't as long as the state's tax and regulation levels are so bloated. But the finance industry throws off enough money that the downstate can afford a costly and often inefficient welfare state (1 in 3 New Yorkers are on Medicaid!). And New York's major industries, which tend to be information based, are less harmed by corporate regulation. Downstate voters are the majority in the state. So nothing changes, and the upstate slowly strangles.
As long as social issues dominate the Republican Party, they will continue losing their north--I had a lot of relatives who at least considered voting for Obama. Ironically, I wonder if the tea parties won't help bring the two wings of the Republican party together: guns and lower government spending are the two things all members can agree on. But if the south wants to keep its northern Republicans--and the congressional seats that come with them--it's going to have to back off trying to make the northern party look like a miniature version of itself.
Not least because northern Republicans share one more feature with their southern brethren--they hate people from some distant city telling them what to do. If you find that hard to understand, just picture how y'all feel when the ACLU starts its annual Nativity Scene Hunt through the town squares of Alabama and Mississippi.
"Abortion will be legal no matter what happens on the federal level, and a lot of local Republicans are perfectly fine with that."
Megan, I have a question for you: Of all abortions in the United States, what is the percentage of little black babies killed vs. white babies?
Is it a principled position to be pro-abortion when the proportion of black children aborted is so high? Isn't this the American Genocide of black people?
You kill all the black people you want and I might not be able to stop the genocide, but at least I don't want to pay for it with my tax dollars.
Whatever.
I did not like my tax dollars not go to killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don't get to pick and choose.
Why do you think you should?
I suggest that if you are so worried about "black children" maybe you might want to support programs that help pregnant woman who feel they have no option but abortion.
How about supporting comprehensive sex ed and free contraception?
In the end the best way to end abortion is though support and true information.
Not by forcing women to go though with an unwanted pregnancy.
So you're OK with black genocide?
How is it genocide that a disproportionate number of women who choose to terminate their own pregnancies are minorities? I don't support abortion, but trying to shoehorn it into "genocide" is stupid.
The best way to end abortion is to outlaw it while at the same time providing comprehensive sex education and free contraception.
Well, right, because outlawing behavior always puts an efficient end to it.
Here's a picture of International Planned Parenthood's Board of Directors:
http://www.ippfwhr.org/en/board_of_directors
What do you notice? Even the token black board member is whitish.
Um, this may not be as obvious as taking a racist look at people's faces. Dig a little deeper movertypeguy, like . . . scroll down the page a read a little bit about those folks.
Somehow I am not as confident as you that each one, except one, considers themself to be "white."
There's one token black (whose appearance is very white).
Everyone else is white or Hispanic.
It's patently racist.
"I know that there are times when abortions are necessary. I know that... when you have a black and a white." -Richard Nixon, January 23, 1973
That's especially annoying Mover - especially since that isn't the International Planned Parenthood's Board of Directors. That's the board of directors in the Western Hemisphere.
a lot of them are teenage girls coerced into aborting, actually.
Are you on drugs? Or has the fact that abortions are performed because THE MOTHER (and *nobody* else) chose to do so really completely lost on you? And I'm not sure how firm your grasp of biology is... but if the fetuses being aborted are of a certain race or ethnic group, the mothers are too. So you're basically accusing black people of trying to exterminate THEMSELVES when you make the idiotic statement that abortion is "genocide" against black people.
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read all day.
You are obviously uninformed about the Genocide Awareness Project.
"... abortions are performed because THE MOTHER (and *nobody* else) chose to do so
They're not counseled to do so? Convinced to do so? Urged to do so? You've clearly never been to a Planned Parenthood office.
AP Reports: "The director of Texas based ‘Planned Parenthood’ has resigned after 8 years of working there. Abby Johnson came to the difficult decision after she watched an ultrasound of an abortion. She also revealed that her bosses at work pushed her to raise the number of abortions performed at the clinic due to financial woes.
Do you have any evidence to present that anyone is being forced to have an abortion against their own will? At all? That would be rather required for a charge of "genocide" to be levelled.
Do you have any evidence that anyone is specifically targetting ethnic minorities with attempts to get them to abort but not other racial or ethnic groups, as opposed to ethnic minorities in this nation simply being in a more disadvantaged economic sutuation and thus more likely to find themselves in a situation where abortion is going to be considered?
Or, perhaps, are you just mouthing off and spouting complete and total nonsense with absolutely no basis in reality? Let me take a wild guess at which one it is...
Do you have any evidence to present that anyone is being forced to have an abortion against their own will?
Nobody said "against their own will." That was outlawed long ago.
No, the plan now is that it's a lot more subtle than that. Much more nuanced.
But it's genocide just the same. Just look at the %ages.
It's a bunch of white people killing black babies by the millions.
Ah... so nothing is happening against anyone's will but it's still genocide. So, it's voluntary self-genocide then?
And we're back to asking if you're on some kind of exotic pharmaceuticals... or were perhaps dropped on your head as an infant. Repeatedly.
Are you on drugs?
If you wanted a clearer example of the kind of nutjobs that are pushing people out of the GOP, I doubt you could find one.
I would also add that McArdle's point probably stands up in Orange County, CA, one of the GOP's strongest redoubts in California, but one that's steadily slipping due to various factors, immigration and the Texas-ization of the party being two of the most visible. My parents are still registered Republican, but hated Bush (my whole family does, despite some of us voting for Bush II the first time). There's a fair amount of the evangelical megachurch influence at the south end of the county and in to San Diego County, but it's hard to see just how much reach they really have politically.
I don't see how the GOP gets out of its current position of being a pointless rump, a discredited regional party associated with the lunatic fringe Christianists.
no, a bunch of teenaged girls are told that they need to abort. that's not choosing for themselves. and everyone pretending a 13 year old's choices are as agented as a 25 year old woman's is just vile.
And how exactly is a 13 year old getting pregnant? Voluntarily? Given a bag of candy?
@ MSimon:
they are often getting raped or coerced into sex-- most such girls are not having sex with 13 year old boys, but with older teens and adult men, and often not consensually.
"movertyperguy" is the most obvious troll in the world, AND YOU'RE ALL FALLING FOR IT.
Bob
That's... completely irrelevant to anything Megan was actually saying.
Local republicans in upstate New York are perfectly find with abortion being legal in New York State.
It's not about race or "genocide". It's about the issue just not being one they're fired up about - and all your complaining won't make it one they have to be fired up about.
(Hint: Until someone's forcing black babies to be aborted or preventing white ones from being aborted, you don't get to claim "genocide", since genocide is a deliberate campaign of ethnic murder.
The destruction of the urban black family in the US is a tragedy, but it's not genocide - and abortion is an effect of it, not the cause.
Nor is "you kill all the black people you want" remotely relevant or fair. Megan isn't killing anyone - she isn't even mentioning her own views on abortion, just reporting those of upstate New York Republicans (which happen to largely match those of everyone else in upstate New York and probably most New Yorkers in total).
Not wanting to pay for things you don't like is a fine and understandable position.
However, accusing people of genocidal intent for not sharing your priorities about the outcomes of voluntary individual action [rather than a notional actual campaign of genocide ala Nazi Germany or Armenia or the late Balkan incidents] is beyond the pale of reasonable argument, and down the rabbit-hole of either hectoring or trolling.
"You must oppose abortion for all, because more black women choose to abort, and that's genocide!" doesn't follow at any level or in any way.)
"It's not about race or "genocide"."
Sure it is. It's how they're keeping blackie's numbers down.
If it's not about race or genocide, then why is it mostly black babies being aborted exclusively by white doctors (and mostly white donors)?
It's a horrid genocide that is frowned upon everywhere except in America.
Like people who say Israel is guilty of "genocide", you might want to look the word up in a dictionary.
As for why it's mostly black babies, it's because of differences in birth control usage by race. White teenagers are more than twice as likely to be on the pill when they have sex, for example.
Pretty funny to see this post, of all posts, immediately hijacked by movertyperguy as he goes on a social-conservative crusade.
@ Careless:
when planned parenthood refuses to dispense BC pills to black girls, leaving them only the option of abortion (because who'd want to adopt black babies?), it's not really a question of racial differences in birth control pill use but racially-biased access differences.
So you're saying that differences in usage aren't differences in usage?
Wibbles, I admit I'm not really well-educated on the actions of Planned Parenthood, but the suggestion that they're intentionally denying birth control to black girls seems completely insane. If that had happened any time in the last 40 years, I'd almost certainly have heard about it before now. Do you have an actual reference on this?
I think you and your emailer and right; I myself have noticed this kind of contempt from Northern Republicans toward the rest of their coalition, especially religious people. But, here's the thing: Northern Republicans never win...John McCain was the perfect choice of the Northern Republicans and he was a disaster...so I guess if these Northern Republicans can't get over their dislike of Southerners or the Christian right, they'd better get used to massive debt, 15% unemployment, and government-run health care, because there certainly doesn't seem to be enough of them to make much of a difference.
I'm not even talking about presidential elections, which are trickier--until Bush pissed them off, my relatives voted reliably Republican (and for that matter, probably voted for McCain). I'm talking about congress. It seems cute to parachute in social conservatives and ram them through the primary with money and local activists, but the broader R-identified coalition hates it.
"... but the broader R-identified coalition hates it."
Is that the same coalition that put Scozzafava on the ballot? That spent $900,000 on her. That resulted in her nominating a Democrat? That resulted in a Democrat winning?
That coalition?
Is that the same coalition that put Scozzafava on the ballot? That spent $900,000 on her. That resulted in her nominating a Democrat? That resulted in a Democrat winning? That coalition?
movertype: It's entirely possible Dede would have won a two person race. You can blame the Dem's win on strong-arming from moderate Republicans if you want. But it seems to me she would have stood a good chance against the Democrat. A shrill right winger? Not so much.
a) She almost certainly would have won, absent Hoffman
b) The local party != the base
Actually replying to Megan:
Hoffman was in the race as a Conservative Party candidate. Had national republicans stayed behind Dede (or butted out completely), he still would have been on the ballot, and would have taken some share of the vote. It is possible Dede would have won in a two-candidate race, but this was never a two-candidate race. Therefore the question is really whether she could have won in a three-way race had the GOP remained united behind her. I believe she could not, but I am open to persuasion.
"It's entirely possible Dede would have won a two person race."
Perhaps, but only if it was Scuzzyfava v. Owens ... and then who cares who would have won since they were both Democrats (one openly, one secretly). That was the whole point of the mole hunt operation that when down in NY23 - to unmask Scuzzyfava's secret.
If it was Scuzzyfava vs. Hoffman there's no question she would have been trounced.
And Owens will be a one-termer, so ... win-win.
You're worse than those of us pissed off about people like Ben Nelson. It's too bad Fightin' Bob LaFollette isn't alive now. I bet you'd drive him out of the party, too. You do realize the Republicans once had a much bigger tent, right? Given the ideological litmus test of the Republicans today, you guys would call LaFollette a far left fringer. Hell, you already call anyone to the left of Attila the Hun a far left fringer.
"You do realize the Republicans once had a much bigger tent, right?"
Yes ... that tent included a bunch of Democrats like Dede Scuzzyfava who snuck in and started running as Republicans by stealing conservative campaign donations.
We're now in the process of clearing out that tent and kneecapping those Secret Democrats.
1. One of McCain's advisors was a former cabinet-level official with the Mexican government. If he was anyone's perfect choice, please let's all chip in and buy them a ticket to some other country.
2. Maybe Meghan would care to tell us whether she considers this issue Hoffman was weak on to be a "social issue", despite the fact that if Hoffman had his way it would have raised the taxes on his supporters and given more power to the Dems.
P.S. If someone had really pressed him on the questions at the last link, it might have either driven him out of the race or - if he had an impromptu change of heart - made him a clear winner (even if the ClubForGrowthAtAnyCost asked for their money back.)
It seems cute to parachute in social conservatives and ram them through the primary with money and local activists, but the broader R-identified coalition hates it.
The problem with this is that "social conservatives" are the only people in the GOP who are in any sense fiscally conservative. Hoffman being Exibit A.
In general, Republican Congressmen and Senators from the South are significantly more fiscally conservative than those from other parts of the country. A quick glance at the CFG ratings makes this clear.
There is no coalition without the social conservatives. If they aren't on board it's Game Over.
The northeastern 'economics only' Republicans have a choice, they can accept that they need the social conservatives if they're going to stop socialism and super-high taxes and massive regulation, and that economic conservatism comes only at the cost of social conservatism as well, OR they can demand the hicks be expelled and accept Democratic dominance with all that implies.
There is no third choice because there is no 'libertarian faction' in the Democratic Party that amounts to anything.
The news media, except for FOX and talk radio and the other social-conservative-linked sources, are solidly Democratic and that won't change. They're losing numbers, but guess what? It's the social conversatives, more than anybody else, that they've lost.
Corporate America is with the Dems, contrary to popular perceptions. GE, the insurance companies, Goldman-Sachs, these people are not libertarians and they don't believe in unfettered free markets (except that they want no limits on job offshoring or restrictions along those lines). They're fine with cap-and-tax, fine with Obamacare as long as they get a cut and don't get cut, if you know what I mean, fine with high taxes as long as they are on somebody else.
Feminists? Please. Bob Dole and John McCain both placed a lot of their hopes on Democratic feminists crossing over. Not going to happen, they know where their bread is buttered and they'll take whatever the Dems dish out, be it Clinton's treatment of women or the party's treatment of Hillary. They voted for Obama in huge majorities.
Union labor? Oddly enough, this is where we find the Reagan Democrats, at the rank and file level, who do sometimes cross over to help the GOP...but they aren't libertarians or all that economically conservative, they're more social conservative (in a mild way) and nationalist. They crossed over for Reagan but went back when Clinton pretended to move the Dems in a moderate direction.
Environmentalists? Too many of the hard-core 'greens' are actually a 'religious left' of their own, they are fantically Left.
Internationalists? Democrat internationalists hate free trade and and the U.S. military and love the U.N. and the E.U. This is one of the kookiest fringes of the Dems, there's no help for libertarians there.
That pool of Dem voters waiting to join an economic conservative/social liberal coalition just simply does not exist. They aren't libertarians, they're full-on liberals and they vote it on Election Day.
I dunno. The current "Texans" as Megan calls them don't seem too libertarian friendly either. I hang out with "Texans" on line. I'm a libertarian Republican from a moderate State (Illinois) and if I don't tow the line on abortion, the drug war, and gay marriage I'm definitely unwelcome. Despite the fact that I'm totally with them on small government - if they mean it.
Toe the line.
Look, MSimon, people like their own opinions and are jerks and dismissive of people who disagree them--including you (I've read your blog and, yeah, you could be worse, but you're not really trying to be lovy and accepting of folks who disagree with you).,
That's not the point. The point is that you don't get the ideal politics you want. You get statism plus the abortion license or you get the opposite (hopefully--the GOP has suffered from some me-tooism lately, especially on the economic and regulatory front).
I dunno. I support Palin. I supported Hoffman. Why? They did not run on a Culture War Platform as far as I could tell. But I was late to the game. (around mid October I came out for Hoffman).
What the majority of Culture War Conservatives (who are also the majority of the R Party) don't get is that the popularity of the Culture War is regional.
I know it makes Culture Warriors really uncomfortable to hear that. But 's the truth. And I intend to keep telling it. Megan is saying that. Others are saying it. Maybe there is something to it.
Wow, there are a lot of things wrong in that comment.
1- Northern Republicans are religious people, just not southern protestants. Catholicism still counts.
2- John McCain wasn't the perfect choice for anyone, anywhere.
3- Massive debt is bipartisan, as repeatedly demonstrated in DC.
4- Unemployment had already risen from mid 4% to 6.8% by Nov2008 and nothing was going to change the trajectory to prevent further increases.
5- Thanks to an unsuccessful parachute candidate there's now one more D vote in Congress, making health care reform more, not less, likely. The "worst" R is still way to the left of all D.
Oops, I meant way to the right of all D.
I didn't say they weren't religious--but Catholics aren't the majority (at least in Western NY) and the northern churches are VERY different from their southern equivalents--I ought to know, as I'm a northern Methodist marrying a southern Methodist.
I agree. This is a religious group, and I was trying to point out the falsity/irony of Jennis's comment that northern R's are contemptuous of the religious members of their coalition. The entire coalition is generally religious.
It's so cute that you're so comfortable just making things up. Actually, Catholics are the majority in New York State overall and in Western New York too.
Northern Republicans are not all religious people. Certainly some are; there are the traditional Catholics, particularly in the French Canadian towns like Lewiston.
But there's a lot of fiscal conservatives who are not religious, and would like folks to keep religion out of government, except for a few polite things that they feel define civil society (marriage appears to be one; Christmas celebrations and Easter others). These are people like my mom and most of my family; they voted for Romney in the primaries, and most voted for a split ticket, Obama/Collins in the general. And for all, the Obama vote was a vote against Palin and the religion in your government.
The funny thing is that Palin was put on the ticket to attract libertarians and it worked.
Why McCain Picked Palin
Speaking as a former atheist and now conservative Protestant who lives in New England, that's simply because most Catholics aren't that devout and don't really live their faith. In the North most of them don't even go to church every week. Needless to say, they do not have a truly biblical worldview and thus their circle of moral consciousness does not truly encompass the unborn or the poor. They really only care that their taxes are low and their guns are legal.
I believe I speak for all northerners with a Catholic upbringing when I say this: shove your "truly biblical worldview" up your ass, you bigoted asshole.
There is no need to use insults. Remember, the Catholic priests agree with evangelicals on abortion and marriage even if the people in the pews do not.
You realize you just proved Megan's point?
I was making the same point as her friends from an evangelical perspective. The defining social conservative issues are abortion, marriage, and guns. Most rural Catholics are really only on board with guns. Catholics are really more libertarian than socially conservative.
"Most rural Catholics are really only on board with guns. Catholics are really more libertarian than socially conservative."
Do you want their votes or not?
A lot of Catholic teaching is actually pretty liberal. This weekend at the (big city) Catholic church I go to, the closing announcements talked about asking people to write their politicians about health care proposals - which they disliked not only because they included abortion, but also because they didn't include illegal immigrants.
But yes, Catholicism does have a lot of "cafeteria Catholics" and Christmas/Easter Catholics who consider themselves Catholics, but realistically don't have it as a major part of their lives, including politically.
"A farmer's contempt for welfare" is very cute. When do you take this act on the road?
jrb
"A farmer's contempt for welfare" is very cute. When do you take this act on the road?
It is always a bit funny when someone who depends on gov't money complains about that other guy over there who also depends on gov't money.
True, but contextually accurate. My Dad's family is from Darien /Attica area, and rural landowning subsidized farming is much higher status than town/suburb living subsidized rent/workfare. I agree that it's intellectually bankrupt, but that distinction is there.
What would be interesting would be to somehow determine what deviations from the Republican norm caused the uprising against Scozzafava. Megan and others seem to think that it was her social leftism that cost her conservative support. The Tea Party crowd, on the other hand, seem to believe that it was her economic views - supporting the bailout, supporting unions, etc. - that led to Hoffman overtaking her on the right.
It seems to me that both the Democratic and GOP leadership are trying desperately to convince everyone that it is social issues that is causing this fight. That is the field that they have successfully been focusing everyone's attention on, and thereby keeping their hold on their respective parties. It is what is driving the discontent with both Parties from the fiscally conservative, socially moderate/indifferent portion of the electorate; the two major Parties have basically been in agreement on economic issues for years.
Hoffman, as a social and economic conservative, did not have majority support in NY-23. But Scozzafava, as a social and economic liberal running as a Republican, had almost no support. I hope the Republicans will take the lesson and start running fiscally conservative, socially moderate candidates in such districts.
No, I'm not saying that she lost support because she was pro-gay marriage; I definitely agree that her pro-stimulus vote was what sunk her. But the northern Republicans do resent the southern evangelical dominance of the party, and swooping in to support Hoffman--a guy who by all accounts displayed little grasp of local issues--just brought all the old feelings up . . .
I think that the fiscal issues can unify the party. But only if the evangelicals back off a little. The NY GOP may suck, but it's their suckage to deal with.
I don't understand why so many pundits think the national conservatives who admittedly pushed themselves into this race are particularly interested in social issues. Even Palin's facebook notes emphasized that Hoffman was the 'right' candidate for his economic stances and made no mention of social stances. Is it just because the Susan B. Anthony List came on board? How were the evangelicals 'on' NY-23 in the first place, if they now need to 'back off a little'?
"What would be interesting would be to somehow determine what deviations from the Republican norm caused the uprising against Scozzafava."
She was for ending the secret ballot for crissakes. What more do you need to know?
Maybe the real lesson from NY-23 is that its almost impossible for non professional politicians to win an election. Especially when they are poor public speakers and don't have an incumbent to run against.
It was both the social and the economic issues. Scazzfava was, for practical purposes,a Democrat. Owens was actually hitting her from the right, on taxes.
And yes, the Dems desperately want to convince the GOP that social conservatism is their weakness, because they know perfectly well that that is the heart of the GOP's voting strength. The cold math of election day makes the South more important to the GOP's chances of winning nationally, especially the White House, than the northeast, which naturally tilts Democratic at the best of times.
It simply does not make strategic and tactical sense to sacrifice entire States in the South to win a handful of races in the Northeast. Yet in 2008, the GOP leadership tried to ram 'Rudy McRomney' down the throat of the voting base, knowing that they risked alienating huge swaths of their own voters, on the forlorn hope that one of the three would be competitive in the Northeast. Rudy actually said in a radio interview at one point that (paraphrasing): "Yes, I'll lose in the South, but I'm competitive in New York, New Jersey, and the northeastern States!"
That was just fantasy, there was no way the GOP was going to win any of those States in 2008, Rudy or no Rudy.
We saw how well John McCain's supposed 'crossover appeal' worked in the test, too. The GOP lost the entire northeast on Election Night in 2008, and he ran away from social conservatism and made much of his 'moderation'. He discovered that his good buddies in the news media weren't as friendly when it was him vs. a Dem.
(And no, the problem was not Palin. Without her, he'd have lost the northeast AND more of the South than he did, she at least managed to revive some enthusiasm in the base, while Obama had his side locked up already.)
Then there's Maine, where the social conservatives just won on gay marriage, and where there's unshakable support across the board for high taxes and handouts. Oh, and medical marijuana. Hurrah. That'll be a big help.
Lots of those back-country Christians are big pot smokers in Maine; one of the best ways to make a comfortable living farming. It's a definite part of the 'alternative medicine' culture. Funny alliances brewing between the Dead Heads, the Christian fundamentalists and the organic gardeners here in Maine.
When it comes to gay marriage, we're seeing the Bradley effect. It's hard to admit you're like Archie Bunker. People know their opinions are discriminating of other people; so they won't admit it to a pollster or their granddaughter. But many folks don't like the notion of men marrying men and of women who don't need men; it's change. In the privacy of the voting booth private; nobody sees your prejudice. (That's why I love open Town Meeting where votes are taken with a show of hands. You're accountable for your vote socially.)
Baselinescenario charted the shift in opinion and I think it likely discrepancy between polling and vote is a snapshot of that change in motion.
But many folks don't like the notion of men marrying men and of women who don't need men; it's change.
I think a lot of people are conflicted in how to resolve their opinions of things when it comes to single instances vs. the society they want to live in.
For example, someone might agree that what people do in their own homes is their business but also not want to live in a society where they have to witness two men making out on a bench in the park. You can say the same thing about guns: many people probably agree that having a gun is a right, but they don't want to live in a society where everyone around them is brandishing one...
Is Barack Obama a "social conservative?"
Because he's the one who led the charge to bash gay marriage in Maine. He's the gay basher keeping the gays down in the military.
He's committing the hate crime on gays by denying them their civil rights. Should he be prosecuted?
Considering how fathers and husbands are treated in divorce courts, perhaps Obama is actually protecting gay men by being against same sex marriage.
It tells you what the polling data is telling him. Gay marriage is unpopular nationally, and Obama knows it. He's happy to have their money and support on E-day, but he has no more interest in actually doing anything publically for them than he does in actually closing GITMO.
Obama is about health cara and cap-and-tax, not gay rights.
New York Republican office holders, and I assume many Northeast Republican office holders, are not really like Repubs in other parts of the country. For the most part, they're tax and spend. In truth, just about all NY pols answer to the unions, mostly public sector but also powerful ones like the hospital workers and construction unions. those powerful unions are heavily concentrated downstate. NY pols also answer to the shysters, another group concentrated downstate.
Republicans in NY may run on a lower taxes, but that's never accompanied by calls for lower spending - especially on the union dominated public sector. Thats' why, when Repubs controlled the NY Senate, they did not block extravagant spending and onerous regulations.
I live in Nassau County (Long Island). For years it was a Republican stronghold yet taxes and spending went up and up and up - especially the spending. Finally the place went broke. Dems got elected and the spending continued to climb and climb and climb. Not much difference. Even my Repub Congressman, King, does not rule out support for card check.
One of the rules of marketing is "product differentiation". In truth, in NY, there is not that much difference between Dem and Repub. No matter who wins, things stay the same. That means things just get worse.
What animates Republicans in the upstate is a deep economic conservatism.
And this is exactly why the Republican party is in such a crisis..."economic conservatism" and "Congress" haven't been seen together for a long time.
New York Republican office holders, and I assume many Northeast Republican office holders, are not really like Repubs in other parts of the country. For the most part, they're tax and spend.
With both parties, we just get tax and spend, or tax cut and spend. Either way, there is always the "spend" component because...well...that's how you buy votes.
It's really not correct to lump congress in with state or local pols. You're absolutely correct that the Repub congress abandoned restraint. They paid a steep price.
However, there are many conservative states and locales that keep a lid on spending, over regulation and taxes. Over the last 20 years those areas have shown economic growth while the older, Dem dominated areas have foundered.
I've said this more times than I want to (re)count, but:
If we would just stick to federalism and the 10th amendment, none of this would be an issue.
Nobody outside a few libertarians gives a shit about that anymore. Essentially once the first progressive income tax was levied in 1913 that was the real end of libertarian America. We've been the Unites Socialist States of America ever since.
Liberals make it to the "general welfare" clause and quit reading. If they really work at it, they get to the commerce clause and figure they don't need the rest.
I tend to agree (at least in broad), but we're not there and we're not going to get there anytime soon. The best we can do is try to shift the national debate in that direction a little at a time.
We're like a group of people in the arctic and somebody say that if we were just in the tropics we'd be warm. Sure, but we have to get there from where we are, and it's going to take a while and involve a lot of travel.
And without the social conservatives and the southerners, the people who want to go northward to find warmth will continue to prevail.
"...just picture how y'all feel when the ACLU starts its annual Nativity Scene Hunt through the town squares of Alabama and Mississippi."
Dang - how do I get in on one of these? I've lived in Mississippi for forty years and have never even HEARD of anything like the "annual Nativity Scene Hunt" by the ACLU.
I usually don't read this blog - is it still issues-related or has it been changed to some kind of libertarian fantasy-fiction site?
Well you need a Nativity Scene Hunt license.
I usually don't read this blog - is it still issues-related or has it been changed to some kind of libertarian fantasy-fiction site?
If you don't like it - get the frak out.
Jay Cost on Realclearpolitics made a good point on this yesterday. I think the parenthetical at the end is particularly apt.
"Incidentally, I don't know why pundits are so obsessed with northeastern Republicans. Hasn't anybody noticed how many seats from the South the GOP has picked up in the last 20 years? That seems to me to be an extraordinarily beneficial tradeoff for the Grand Old Party. The Northeast has been shedding seats decade after decade. In the last thirty years, the Mid-Atlantic region has lost 18 seats. And they're going South - Florida and Texas have picked up 18 seats in the last 30 years. If, in 1976, the Ghost of William McKinley (the quintessential Republican) had been offered the following deal: "Decline in the Northeast but rise in the South, or stay the same in both regions"...wouldn't he have taken the swap? Maybe not at first - but after the Ghost of Mark Hanna had told him all about the upcoming demographic changes in both regions - I bet he would!
Relatedly, it seems to me that the Republican Party - being a party that stretches across all regions of the country - should weigh its attention according to population. And, in that kind of analysis, more focus should be dedicated to fielding good candidates in the Midwest and especially the South than in the Northeast. That's where the most potential pickups for the GOP are. So why so much attention given to the Northeast? (Partial answer: Most people encouraging the GOP to focus on the Northeast rarely if ever vote Republican. E.g. David Axelrod's recent advice for how the Republican Party can build a majority. But that's a column for another day!)"
He, and you, seem to be forgetting the Senate.
On the contrary, the Senate is even more in line with that approach than the House. The luck of history gives the Northeast a disproportional influence in the Senate, true, but there's nothing the GOP can do to undo the Democratic edge in the northeast in the short term. The Northeast naturally prefers Democrats, in the current cultural climate.
It's cultural/structural, if the GOP did what was necessary to become very strongly competitive in the Northeast, it would alienate the entire South, much of the montane West, and big swaths of Ohio Valley. They'd gain (maybe) those northeastern Senate seats, and give the Southern and Midwestern Senate seats to the Dems in return. Losing proposition.
The Democrats own (politically) most of the news media and much of punbditry, and they aren't urging the GOP to focus on the Northeast because they want them to win, they're doing it because they know that if the GOP does that, they lose.
I think anyone trying to read the tea leaves on NY-23 is simply going to find whatever they're looking for.
I think it's simply a case of a bizarre set of circumstances. First, there was no primary for the candidates. It's difficult to say whether someone with Scozzafava's positions would have won the GOP primary in the first place. Second, the late withdrawal of Scozzafava and the fact that she drew a larger percentage than the winning margin makes it difficult to say who would have won if she hadn't been on the ballot.
Third, AFAICT, Hoffman is pretty close to the GOP's "historical roots" (social and economic conservatism), so I'm not sure I understand your commenter's complaint, aside from voting for Owens to spite Palin, Beck, et. al.
Third, AFAICT, Hoffman is pretty close to the GOP's "historical roots" (social and economic conservatism), so I'm not sure I understand your commenter's complaint, aside from voting for Owens to spite Palin, Beck, et. al.
Historical roots of what? The same party to which Abraham Lincoln and Fightin' Bob LaFollette belonged? Please!! Both of them would have been labeled as heretics and RINO's by the Palin/Beck/Red State Strike Farce contingent.
Abraham Lincoln has the sole distinction of being the only President in our history who ordered the United States military to fire its weapons on other US citizens.
In many countries, he'd be hung for treason. Here, we gave him a monument.
Abraham Lincoln has the sole distinction of being the only President in our history who ordered the United States military to fire its weapons on other US citizens.
Well, technically, the war started when the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter. Besides, treason is levying war against the United States, so it depends on your definition of "United States."
Also, technically, they weren't "US citizens" at the time, having declared themselves another country.
You're also forgetting about the Whiskey Rebellion, so technically George Washington also ordered the United States military to fire its weapons on other US citizens.
It's settled. He's definitely a lefty troll doing parody.
(And just a little hint: they gave up their citizenship rights when they, you know, declared to the world they no longer wanted to be citizens of the United States).
George Washington, Whiskey Rebellion.
Cleveland, federal troops against strikebreakers.
And that's just off the top of my head.
Also, Jackson would have been more than happy to have had the chance.
I took the "historical roots" comment to mean returning to the Reagan-era positions instead of those of the George W. Bush administration.
I highly doubt NY-23 voters who are have recently switched to voting Democratic are trying to push the GOP back to Lincoln-era policies (and who even knows what those would translate to today?). After all, they were voting heavily Republican during the 1990s.
I can't believe that the Republican party can look at things like this and not see the value in partial regionalization. A free market, classical liberal party could make substantial progress in New England and would still caucus with the Republicans on every important issue. They wouldn't be there for social issues, but you aren't getting that out of New England anyway. There is quite a bit of political value to be squeezed out of the northeast, but it won't happen as long as the process to extract it carries the stigma of overt religiosity.
Before anyone starts, I know the arguments about why the US system promotes a two-party equilibrium, but (with the exception of the Presidential race) that occurs at the state & local level, not nationally. Plus, it's not as if there would be any meaningful change if the Republicans were to formally pull out of New England, given that there is no substantial presence here to begin with; it wouldn't be a third-party movement as much as a second.
Single party rule has done such wonders for New England, California, WA...
"Rural areas have a farmer's contempt for welfare."
I've always been mystified by this concept. Agricultural subsidies are huge in this country, and I wouldn't be surprised if we spend as much or more on such subsidies than TANF, food stamps, etc. How is it that farmers rationalize their contempt for welfare in light of the massive subsidies the agricultural community receives? Or am I missing something here?
Hence the phrase "farmer's contempt for welfare".
It's because the farmer has to work like hell even with the subsidy, and they don't imagine the welfare recipient lifting a finger.
As author of the quoted material, I would add that the equivalent group of people in the midwestern part of the north includes a lot of Lutherans. Some Catholics and other mainline Protestants as well. And evangelical Protestants aren't unknown in the north either.
There are some major ethnic differences too. A particular cultural style drawn from certain parts of the British Isles may not appeal to people of Scandinavian, Polish, or French Canadian ancestry.
As a rule, I'd say the northern cultural style is less overtly aggressive and less testosterone-fueled. (This does not mean less competitive.) It might have liked Sarah Palin back before she became a national figure and started being marketed. The pragmatism, small town roots, hockey mom persona, and part-Eskimo kids do have some appeal, and Palin herself is really about as northern as you can get. But I don't think many northerners approve of the bullying, frat boy antics of some of the supporters Palin has acquired. You're supposed to pass through that phase around age 19 or so, but then you're supposed to get over it.
As an Arkansas resident who is theoretically surrounded by religious nuts who are only motivated by religious legislation, I think the most extreme and most vocal minority gets more attention outside of conservative/Republican circles than it does within those same circles. The same is true on both sides of the aisle. Librals/Democrats who are wholly motivated by gay marriage and abortion will fight a lot harder for those things, and use a lot more airtime in the process, when the economy is good and there isn't much interesting to keep the 24 hour news cycle fed. Moreover, both extremes play into stereotypes that people really want to believe. I have the hardcore religious southern Baptist relatives, but they never started protesting or contacting their representatives until this administration and congress started spending so much that W could actually be considered fiscally prudent in comparison. When the focus was social issues, they just complained. Insofar as NY-23 is concerned, I think H. Protagonist hit the nail on the head.
Megan,
I think "the Texans" recognize something so-called "economic conservatives" don't get:
Social issues ARE economic issues as well as freedom issues.
1) The way abortion was legalized turned the Constitution into a figure-head.
2) The ACLU position on religion and government at the state level inevitably leads to marginalization of religious people. Britain and Canada offer good examples of what happens when the ACLU position prevails.
3) The legalization of drugs will inevitably lead to a society that expects the government to do more for it. There are lots of "Libertarians" who care nothing about the government's domination of property rights if they can only have their drugs and prostitutes.
4) The lack of a voucher system and a true free-market school system leads to insoluble decrepitude in inner city school districts. State dominance of schools also leads to necessary policies that tramp on parental rights and makes innovation in teaching impossible.
5) The SSM fanatics have an entirely backwards priority. No-Fault Divorce and Paternity Law have made a joke of the institution of marriage. We should be working on stripping the recognition of marriage in our laws. Not expanding it. SMM Activists are not about fairness. They care about staking a flag for the legitimacy of their sexual-orientation and choices. There are easier ways to gain almost everything they say their want. Also, their inclination to accomplish their goals via the state and federal Supreme Courts is quite troubling.
James you ignorant bubba,
Libertarians are the only group that consistently supports property rights, free markets and smaller government.
Amen. The "Texans" are always on about smaller government. Except when it comes to their social issues.
Why McCain Picked Palin
The more and more I read the comment about the Republican party being taken over by the "Texans", the more I see shades of the Federalist Party.
I suppose in 2010 we will find out if the election of 2008 was more like the election of 1796 as opposed to the election of 1800 that it appears like right now.
I think the comparison to the Federalists is an interesting one, though perhaps the Whig-to-Republican transition is worth looking at too. As a Republican from New England, I'm definitely concerned about today's party, or at least curious about where it's headed.
I share the sentiment of feeling betrayed by the religious right, which didn't even exist (at least on the surface) before the mid/late eighties. I feel I speak for many NE-R's(at least those I know personally) when I say we share a few core national-political concerns (in no particular order): Fiscal conservatism, along with low taxes and small government; Strong national defense, combined with a reasoned US interests-based foreign policy; individual liberties (where gun rights and smoking bans come to mind); as well as a preference for local control over most day-to-day issues (e.g., education).
That last point, local control, is what many of us see as the key to (perhaps lost?) Republican unity, for two reasons: 1) It's a philosophical point we can all rally behind; and 2) It allows NE-R's to focus on Northeastern concerns, while Social/Religious R's in the rest of the country can focus on their (more local) worries.
The Warning: so long as the religious, non-northeastern right sets the agenda a) nationally, and b) in Our Own neck of the woods, Northeastern Republicans will question our association with the party. If this party is to return to it's height, this pushiness and contempt for we NE-R's has to stop, lest we suffer the fate of the Federalists or the Whigs. That said, I'm already wondering if it's not time for a realignment of the current party system.
Wes,
As a knuckle-dragging hillbilly Southern Baptist social/fiscal con from Texas, let me just say that I agree with your comment almost completely.
I think the national party should stand primarily for FISCAL conservatism (small gov't, lower taxes, economic liberty), minimal gov't interference in business and private lives, individual liberty as opposed to "group rights", strong national defense defined by US interests, and foreign policy that us unabashedly pro-US. The national party should then leave the other issues up to each state party as they see fit.
A pro-choice plank simply won't fly in Texas, whereas a pro-life plank won't fly in the NE. It fits nicely with the states rights/Federalist crowd anyway.
When it comes to the social issues, my knuckle-dragging pastor always says, you can't change minds until you change hearts.
I'd be perfectly happy to have the national party focus exclusively on the non-social issues...I was going to say in the short term but scratch that. I'd be perfectly happy if the national party permanently focused on the non-social issues and left the social issues to local communities/churches.
I'm sorry that you feel betrayed by the 'religious right'. All of the religious conservatives I talk to in Texas would be perfectly happy just to have the gov't leave us alone as much as possible. None of us want to force religious beliefs or practices into law or to force anyone to act/believe as we do. We would certainly love to talk to you about Jesus, God, the bible, what a biblical worldview looks like, etc., but not one of us is going to force anything on anyone.
David,
Let's just hope that someone important reads this little thread and takes a hint. If that happened, maybe we could finally have a big nation-wide Republican hug-fest; and maybe we'd actually retake the Congress or the White House. If only we could bring Reagan back from the dead...
A farmer's contempt for welfare? Right. That, presumably, is why Wayne County farmers accepted more than $46 million in federal subsidies between 1995-2006. More than a quarter of Wayne County farms were on the dole - but they account, in aggregate, for a majority of the farming sector's employment in the county. There is no class of Americans which relies more heavily, or which feels more entitled to, government support for their economic well-being than farmers. What farmers bitterly resent is other people receiving state assistance, particularly when that assistance is decoupled from work.
I'm also baffled by the notion that what's wrong with upstate New York is that people in some distant city are telling them what to do. In point of fact, the upstate counties have enjoyed an influence on state-level policy making wholly disproportionate to their actual populations, by means of gerrymandering in the state senate. And, as you point out, many of the decisions on taxation and spending are made at the county and municipal levels, which routinely spend beyond their means.
Taxes and regulation are only a small piece of the picture. New York State's total tax burden ranks 31st, measured as a percentage of its GDP, tying it with Utah, Florida, and Alabama. Its workers comp system is indeed a costly disgrace, and its public employees unions are too powerful, but the private sector unions are considerably weaker. The problem upstate New York encounters is that it's not a terribly attractive region for industrial plants. Its old advantages - cheap power from Niagra, abundant land, lake river and canal transportation, and above all its workforce - no longer seem so compelling.
That's not a popular analysis in upstate New York, which would much prefer to blame taxes, regulation, and chronically bloated and inept government. But even if New York swept through shockingly low tax rates and cleared out the regulatory hurdles, these structural impediments would remain. New Yorkers are relatively more affluent than, say, folks in Alabama - why would an industrial plant locate where it had to pay its workforce more? It no longer sits astride major transportation routes - why not put the plant nearer to a major port? Its current energy supplies are now fully utilized - why not go nearer to coal mines or gas reserves? For cutting edge businesses, it has little in the way of higher education - why not build closer to major cities with multiple leading institutions?
Identify for me Western New York's comparative economic advantages, Megan, and I'll think you have an argument. But I don't see them. I see a bunch of fading, legacy cities that have lost their economic rationale for existing at their present size, struggling to come to grips with that reality. I see a population responding to economic incentives, as bright young people move out and population stagnates or declines. You think cutting taxes will reverse that? Why should it?
You nailed it. It's funny that Republicans/Libertarians(some) rely on the same old tired(and often blatantly absurd) arguments. Heck, I'd go so far as to say they are based on lies and lack of self-awareness.
According to these guys, NY has the #2 highest overall taxes in the nation:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/336.html
New Jersey is higher.
There is simply no way that onerous taxes don't factor into NY's woes. They do.
As I said, I don't think that these are the only problems. But they're crippling. The problems at the local and county levels, you neglect to mention, are largely driven by the state: the mandatory pension fund contributions, the mandatory Medicare spending, Wick's Law, Taylor's Law, and so forth. This is not just a figment of the upstater's minds; it's what keeps putting their cities into receivership. The Wicks/Taylor debacle can be worked around downstate, because public employees who need COLAs are eventually forced back to the table. Upstate, where the cost of living (espeically housing) is basically flat, they just keep working on the old contract while their benefits and employment numbers suck the city dry.
As for farm subsidies, I am second to none in my contempt for them, and I agree that it's mostly hypocritical (though as one commenter pointed out, the farmers do feel that they at least have to work quite hard to get their milk price supports). But it's just a fact: farmers hate welfare recipients. They have a fair amount of sympathy for those with bad luck, but none at all for those who could work, and don't. And their definition of "couldn't" simply doesn't extend to personal problems.
As for endowments: the triangle between Syracuse/Rochester, Ithaca, and Binghamton has possibly the highest concentration of college students in the country. The workforce is more highly skilled. It's close to major airports, has excellent infrastructure, and close to Toronto, a major bustling city. Wages are an issue, but they're not particularly high up there, and you get a more skilled workforce, at least according to the experts I interviewed when I was writing about the place. What's high is benefits, insurance, property taxes, corporate income taxes, compliance costs--all of which are the result of state mandates. The tax burden as a percentage of GDP is grossly distorted by finance; the tax burden on businesses with substantial physical presence and big workforces relative to revenues are crippling.
Thank you, Megan, for that reply.
Not long ago, you wrote:
At the time, I felt that it was a remarkably moving statement of the conundrum facing these upstate cities. In fact, I find it more compelling than what you've written today.
Yes, New York is burdened by an extraordinarily bad regulatory regime, and by a bunch of mind-numbingly stupid laws. And I write that as a liberal Democrat. It's certainly the case that changing these laws would help the economic climate throughout the state. And yet I can't help but point out that New York City has experienced an extraordinary revival during the same period that Western New York has been declining inexorably. NYC has some advantages in bargaining with its unions, but even so, its local tax burden is substantially higher. So it's clearly possible to thrive despite these obstacles.
You're quite right to point out the large number of college students in the triangle - but they only underline the problem. Both the state and federal governments have poured money into the region. It boasts a competitive infrastructure, thanks to those investments. It has an educated workforce, mostly graduates of public schools and the enormous state universities. At any given moment in time, the university population in Buffalo amounts to almost a fifth of the city - including 35,000 undergraduates. And yet, somehow, only about a quarter of the adult population of the city is college educated, and its population continues to drop rapidly. Part of the problem is what I meant when I imprecisely alluded to the problem with 'higher education' - that enormous state colleges will solve your workforce problem, but not necessarily perform the kinds of research that leads to new technologies and companies. But the bigger problem is that young people don't want to live in shrinking cities - they want to go where opportunities seem to be expanding. (And yes, it's circular.)
These cities grew great because they sat at the crossroads. They built on their early success through technological innovation. And they have declined because they have been unable to find new industries to replace the old ones. There are two solutions to this problem. The first is to foster the growth of new industries through proven methods - more investment in research and infrastructure, courting the creative classes, revitalizing cities to hang on to bright young people. There's hope in these approaches, and fortunately for the region, it already has a solid base on which to build. But they also bear a cost - they require government spending, and taxes to finance it. The other is to allow a painful readjustment to take place, and to implement policies to speed it and cushion its impact - by consolidating jurisdictions and services, by clearing whole sections of failing municipalities, and the like. In all probability, both approaches will be needed - some cities and towns will continue to shrink, and others will find a new rebirth.
The factors that you identify - regulation and taxes - have worsened the region's problems and retarded the implementation of solutions, but I do not see how they can be said to have caused them. Eastman Kodak didn't go bust because of workman's comp; the domestic steel industry wasn't done in by the high tax burden. Moreover, simply slashing taxes to attract industry from elsewhere in the country does precisely what you so eloquently opposed - saves the region by destroying someone else's business. It's one thing to make a region somewhat more friendly to entrepreneurial activity, quite another to use tax cuts as a strategy for spurring growth by attracting existing businesses from elsewhere. That's simply a race to the bottom, and it's one that everyone stands to lose.
At the end of the day, the resources simply aren't there to sustain these cities. That's not an argument against scaling back unfunded mandates, or a case for excessive tax burdens and government redundancies. Those are problems that need to be fixed, as necessary. But too often, the upstate discourse focuses on the wrong problems and presses for the wrong solutions. No number of enterprise zones or tax credits can revitalize an economy that isn't generating its own new ideas, nor retaining its best and brightest.
What made cities, and their environs, like Charlotte, Atlanta, Denver, Dallas, Salt Lake City, etc grow while those upstate NY cities withered?
Why did companies choose to locate facilitates there rather than in Upstate NY? New York had ample skilled employees to offer. NY had infrastructure in place. NY had ample land. NY had the NY Power authority to offer power. Why did IBM, that former arch employer in NY, choose to locate its web related business outside Atlanta rather than in NY?
None of this happened overnight. None of this was some secret. yet the powers that be in NYS took zero action to make NYS more business friendly. In fact, over the years, they passed more laws and regulations to make the place business unfriendly.
My point is not that taxes killed the steel industry, or the car industry (though taxes and regulation have inarguably chased a lot of smaller businesses out of the state.) The point is that the taxes and regulation prevent any chance of generating new industries. They also make any competitive disadvantages worse. Believe it or not, probably a majority of the people who leave Western New York would like to stay. The people I talk to cite their property taxes as the number one reason for leaving; number two is jobs, and the businesspeople I talk to cite the very high cost of doing business. Almost every issue, from electricity costs to taxes to insurance to labor issues, can be traced back to the downstate influence on Albany.
Cutting the taxes and the regulatory burden is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for growth in the region. As long as it is strapped to a downstate that can afford more and worse government, it will die. All the liberal solutions have been tried, and failed. The conservative solution might not work . . . but it's probably worth trying. Because places like Buffalo really can't afford much more of this. Even the receivers have thrown up their hands.
Megan:
Hah! Let's hope the prospects for the city are better than those of the Bills.
I take - and to an extent support - your point. The issues you have identified serve as a break on growth. They're worth solving. I don't think they're as much a product of downstate interests as you suggest; I think they have a lot more to do with the corrupt bargain which kept the two legislative houses divided for so many years, and incumbents all-but-immune from challenge. There's no shortage of suburbanites in Westchester and Long Island who would like to see lower property taxes, but three terms for Pataki didn't produce much change. In fact, it tends to be the more affluent downstaters who support change; the SEIU workers, for example, aren't exactly pressing for reform.
Be that as it may, I would still maintain that it's a mistake to focus exclusively on these problems. As you acknowledge, they also afflict New York City - but its thriving economy can support their burden. It's not just about taxes and regulation, and changing these things won't be enough to solve it.
I continue to support a two-pronged approach. New York needs to reform its public-employee benefits, its entitlements, and its regulatory hurdles. But it also needs to make the sorts of longterm investments that might actually turn these communities around. Those aren't inconsistent or mutually-exclusive notions. You can float a bond issue to build new research institutions affiliated with upstate universities even as you cut taxes by reducing pension burdens and automatic increases. You can aggressively rezone failing cities, to promote reinvestment, and increase police budgets even as you reform workers comp. It's not just about getting government out of the way. It's about using government to invest in these areas for the longterm and to provide crucial services; and moving government out of the way of matching private investments and initiatives.
You're stealing quite a few bases by saying it's "proven" that the solution is better infrastructure and more research. That's a frequent argument and policy in places like Ohio and Michigan, and for that matter New York, and it hasn't been notably successful in those places.
All true. It's amazing to contrast the education and skill levels between Buffalo and Rochester. The impact of that "triangle" you mention is recognized in the area, at least by the better business people.
Tom Golisano was capitalizing on it, as was Arunas Chesonis and quite a few other high-tech thinkers in the area. The regulatory environment, coupled with the taxes, keep cutting their legs out from under them. Golisano, in particular, has had enough. He's left his business in WNY, but he is personally declaring residence in Florida.
How long before that commute, even in a Gulfstream, wears thin? Anyone want to guess where PayChex will expand if/when the time comes? Florida is probably a good guess.
In the effort of full disclosure, I am what you would consider an upstate New York resident. For the past ten years, I have resided in the Syracuse area. Before that I lived somewhere in the middle of America.
The problems with upstate New York certainly hinge on the seemingly unattractiveness of the region for industrial plants. However, taxes, regulation and bloated and inept government have much more to do with it than you may imagine. Local governments in the region have yet to come to a full understanding that they will never be able to return to the glory days of manufacturing in the 50's and 60's. As you poignantly wrote, it is far more cost effective for a major industrial plant to locate in Alabama, or Singapore, than it is in upstate New York.
However, local government in upstate New York is also to blame. In Onondaga County (where Syracuse is located), there are hundreds of local governments from towns to villages to hamlets. All of which are attempting to support their own fire departments, police departments, highway departments, etc. Rather than consolidating these local governments and eliminating wasteful spending, property taxes are increased.
Property taxes in the upstate New York counties are the highest (as a percentage of the value of the home) in the country. In the latest study in the USA Today, I believe it was 9 out of the top 10 counties were located in upstate New York. One of the major reasons for these high property taxes are unfunded mandates from New York State government. Local governments are given mandates for Medicaid spending, Highway spending and various government programs and are not given the resources to fund them so they have to turn to either sales or property taxes.
With more of the younger population leaving the region, this will continue to put a strain on those of us that remain. The flood of population out of the region is attributed most to the lack of jobs and second to the weather. All things considered, the weather is less of a problem than the lack of jobs. And the lack of jobs is a curious one. There is ample access to higher education, contrary to your belief. Within a 50 mile radius of Syracuse you have SUNY ESF, Upstate Medical, LeMoyne, Cazenovia, SUNY Morrisville, SUNY Cortland, Colgate, Hamilton, Syracuse, Utica, Hobart William Smith, Cornell and Ithaca amongst other educational institutions. Many of these institutions are leaders in various vocations.
If this part of upstate New York can eliminate some government waste, focus on attracting businesses to the region that compliment the area colleges and universities, and retain young, skilled workers it can certainly thrive. And how best can the region do this? Govenment consolidation and cutting taxes on emerging business and technologies.
"If this part of upstate New York can eliminate some government waste, focus on attracting businesses to the region that compliment the area colleges and universities, and retain young, skilled workers it can certainly thrive. And how best can the region do this? Govenment consolidation and cutting taxes on emerging business and technologies."
It won't happen. Not as long as it's dominated by downstate liberals. The simple fact is that a company can locate a facility in any other number of states and save money. The people in upstate NY who want meaningful employment can be hired to work in Texas, or wherever.
In all honesty I think that upstate NY would be better off as its own state, free of the NYC liberals mandating impossible costs and taxes on the area.
Yes, wouldn't that be nice? Then the upper reaches of New York could share the prosperity and economic revival of the rest of the Rust Belt. Oh, wait.
It's not about the taxes and unfunded mandates. Really, it's not. They're easy targets. They make things worse, in many cases. But as Megan's pointed out elsewhere, it's the flight of the young and the educated that's left these counties with huge elderly populations that the remaining residents can't support. That's consequence, not cause. It makes recovery harder, and contributes to the downward spiral, but competing with Texas in a regulatory race to the bottom is not the solution - at best, you end up with larger numbers of poorly-paying jobs, at least until the next state goes a little lower. And you haven't expanded national economic activity, merely robbed Peter to pay Paul. Revival requires new businesses and new industries. You get those by attracting risk-takers and innovators. That means investment in research (for ideas) and in cities (where young people these days like to live) as well as cutting away red tape. Restart the cycle of economic growth, and the region gains the clout it needs to force through reforms, as businesses ally with residents to demand change. Blame Albany for the problems of Rochester, and you have the satisfaction of feeling aggrieved all the way down.
Cynic, you said "Restart the cycle of economic growth, and the region gains the clout it needs to force through reforms, as businesses ally with residents to demand change."
That's utterly impossible because the liberals from downstate will block any change. They have forever. The Assembly is dominated by liberals dems from downstate. The Senate is nowdominated by dems. Virtually all the pols are beholden to the public employee unions. If any cross them, the unions will spend millions to crush them. That's one reason why, when the The Repubs controlled the Senate, they did not block all the crap that's become NY law.
One more comment and then I'll stop. I suspect that many of the things the Republicans could do to better represent northern border areas would also play quite well in contested parts of the west. Also among women, and among people who are neither white nor black.
Appealing to black voters and gay voters is trickiest of all, of course, and some people don't want the Republicans to even try. But there are certainly gay people who would vote Republican on a lot of issues (including abortion) if other parts of the Republican coalition weren't so anti-gay. Is the tent big enough for that? I don't know, but I suspect not if it can't even deal with Catholics.
"But there are certainly gay people who would vote Republican on a lot of issues (including abortion) if other parts of the Republican coalition weren't so anti-gay."
This is a severely flawed analysis. Barack Obama is the only thing standing in the way of gay marriage - and yet gays voted for him almost unanimously.
Barack Obama could - with the mere stroke of his pen - end hundreds of years of discrimination against gays in the military and yet he's refused to do it. Yet gays (see Andrew Sullivan on the next page) blindly support him.
Barack Obama hates gay people. And they love it. He's denying them their civil rights. And they love it. He's committing the ultimate hate crime. And yet ...
... They love it.
The drug trip continues I see.
Obama is the only thing standing in the way of gay marriage? Seriously? How, exactly, is he accomplishing this amazing feat of single-handedly preventing gay marriage being legalized across the nation without ever actually appearing to do one damn thing to prevent it beyond not actively campaigning in favor of it?
And when exactly did the president gain the ability to nullify congressionally instituted federal statutes "with a stroke of his pen"? You were aware that DADT *IS* a federal statute right? And that the president doesn't have the constitutional authority to just erase federal laws by decree any time he feels like it?
You just live in your own little world don't you?
Technically true, but practically false.
He is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. With that power, alone, he could unilaterally make all sorts of pro-gay changes within the military.
But even if he couldn't - I'm pretty sure that both the House and the Senate are squarely Democrat. Are you saying that they wouldn't go along with changing the statute?
And even if they did - he would still be viewed as a hero amongst them, merely for trying.
There are all sorts of excellent reasons to keep DADT, and I in no way favor changing it. I am, however, deeply entertained in watching this man mired in a swamp of his own making.
He could, theoretically, unilaterally make all kinds of changes in the military *that don't directly contradict standing federal laws.* Ending DADT does not however fall into that category.
As for me saying the House and Senate "wouldn't" go along... no, I'm not saying that at all. That would be silly, since it would imply we were discussing a hypothetical where no hypothetical exists. This is playing out in reality right now, or hadn't you noticed?
And "being viewed as a hero" may sound nice, but is somewhat lacking as an excuse for the chief executive of the nation to attempt to flout that nation's laws. But maybe that's just my wacky opinion.
I doubt seriously if he hates gay people. That probably assumes more emotional investment in the matter than he has.
The truth is he just doesn't care about these issues, as such. It's almost exactly comparable to GITMO or the 'Bush lied' nonsense that the Dems pretended to believe for several years. It's sucker bait, red meat for their base, but they don't really consider any of it important.
'Health care reform' and 'cap and tax', that's where the Democratic Party's collective heart is, because that's how they hope to transform the political landscape to cripple their opponents ideologically and politically. They'd really like some version of the 'fairness doctrine', too, to silence opposition voices.
From Obama's POV, the gay community is important as as source of funding, primarily, there just aren't enough of them to make much difference on E-day (excpet in a few special case districts), but their money is very useful. OTOH, their issues are very, very unpopular not just with cultural conservatives but in the 'black community' and much of union labor rank-and-file.
The gay activists continue to support the Dems in spite of this on the assumption that they'll appoint activist Federal judges who'll enact gay marriage (and the rest) by court fiat.
I suspect when the magnitude of deficit spending hits home that the main issue for all republicans will be taxes, excessive government spending, and the absolute size of government. Social issues will take a back seat.
I suspect when the magnitude of deficit spending hits home that the main issue for all republicans will be taxes, excessive government spending, and the absolute size of government.
You mean all that debt thanks to George W. Bush and the Republicans(2001-2006) and the wars they didn't want to pay for?
Hey Calvin ... why hasn't Barack Obama ended the war in Iraq like he promised?
How come he hasn't closed Guantanamo?
How come he sent 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan?
How come he keeps 60,000 troops in the North Korean border?
How come he is shooting Hellfire missiles into Pakistan?
Why has Barack Obama, Commander In Chief, not ordered the US military to turn off the nukes and dismantle them?
You are in the midst of a cognitive dissonance, my friend.
1. He is.
2. He is.
3. Because he said he would pretty much the entire election campaign.
4. Why wouldn't he?
5. Here's a hint: Who are they shooting them at?
6. There's only so many times I can ask the drug thing before it gets old... so I'll refrain.
Hey Calvin,
Why haven't the progressives repealed the patriot act?
Why haven't the progressives repealed ERISA?
Why haven't the progressives ended Rendition?
Why haven't the progressives been transparent?
you know, negotiating on C-SPAN; put their bills online
Why haven't the progressives punished those greedy GS bastards that killed the economy?
Why haven't the progressives reduced the Bush Defecits?
Why haven't the progressives created ANY jobs?
You mean all that debt thanks to George W. Bush and the Republicans(2001-2006)
No, we mean the far greater debt being racked up by Barry Obama and the Democrats (2007 - now and the next few years).
Please, most Presidents this side of FDR are at least partially to blame. And while those wars are fairly expensive, they're small fry in the context of the US debt. Iraq cost less than a trillion, the debt is up to 12 trillion. If Obamacare passes, and nothing is done to lower deficits over the next several years, it'll be north of 20 by the time Obama finishes his second term. Bush 43 was a fairly big part of the problem - certainly more than Clinton or Bush 41 - but that had more to do with tax cuts and civilian spending increases than with the wars.
Just finished reading Kevin Phillips' "The Cousins Wars", and believe there is much truth to this observation. Upstate New York was settled by New England Yankees, who were abolitionists and the original backbone of the Republican Party. The Texans and other southerners who control today's Republican Party were the historical arch-enemies of these Yankees, and were the leaders of the secessionist Democrats. This history continues to have an impact on today's political culture.
I think your analysis of upstate New York's economic problems is off. I've lived both upstate and downstate. Upstate would not be a viable economic entity without the downstate area, specifically New York City. The City is the economic engine of the entire state, and everything upstate feeds off the tax revenues.
There are transfers to upstate from downstate, but that's precisely because otherwise, all the counties and cities upstate would already be bankrupt. New York has a bunch of unique mandates, like a mandatory 1:1 match of state Medicaid spending, that simply were not affordable for counties when the population aged and the industrial base moved out. So yes, upstate needs downstate tax revenues, but that's because they have to do downstate-mandated spending. That downstate-mandated spending has also hastened the exodus, because the property taxes are so high ($5,000 a year on a $100,000 house!), so the people left are disproportionately dependent on the government.
Megan - no point. The haters will simply continue spouting their lies. Times like these simply make me wish there was a "end of world" button so I could press it. Sort of like the one in "Beneath the Planet of the Apes".
And what would happen to new York State if the finance industry left NYC? It would resemble Michigan. NYS relies on fiance to generate something like 40% of its revenue.
New York State had a very diverse economy at one time. Costs imposed by the liberals from the New York City area, made the whole state too expensive. If finance ever realizes that it could make a lot more money, and its employees could probably live better for less, by simply relocating to another state, NY is dead.
And what would happen to new York State if the finance industry left NYC? It would resemble Michigan.
No, not really. That is, contrary to the image, Michigan has never been the same kind of extreme high-tax, high-regulation state that New York is. Consistent with that, many of the northern and western parts of Michigan (Traverse City, Grand Rapids-Holland-Grand Haven) are relatively healthy economically. Not great, perhaps, but certainly healthier than upstate New York and healthier than Detroit and the auto-industry dependent Detroit 'burbs.
And there's still a huge industrial base. Detroit had a GDP per capita of $50.7K in 2005, which was still better than every city outside the U.S. except London, despite the slow-motion collapse of U.S. manufacturing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP
But MI, as a state, was too dependent on one industry. NY faces the same thing with its reliance on Finance, based in NYC. The NYS environment for business is considered to be equally hostile so, when business have left, they were not replaced.
Roger Simon made the same point: we don't government in our bedroom or our pocketbook.
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/11/03/election-2009-the-strange-case-of-ny23/
Hopefully, the GOP will take that message to heart in 2010.
The won't have a choice ... either they take that message to heart or third-party candidates will screw their re-election chances.
NY23 is the message ... change or seats go to Dems.
Challenge for the lefties! If us libertarians are so minuscule and irrelevant why do you keep insulting us? Surely we aren't even worth paying attention to? You must be frightened by our ideas.
I'll take a guess. Is it because you are wrong? Because name calling and "he did it too" are favorite modes of argument? I suspect the left is not frightened by your ideas so much as they are remembering the dictum: Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups, (C.F. wichcraft, christianity and the civil war.)
Exactly! That's also the same reason people are so hard on scientology, because its teachings and doctrines are just so awesome and influential they're all intimidated and frightened by its inevitable coming global domination. After all, if that wasn't true everyone would just completely and totally ignore them, right?
There is absolutely no other possible explanation. At all. Victory is yours! Surely none will be able to rise and meet your challenge!
Gallup say libertarians are 23% of the population. That is a heck of a swing vote.
Alright, y'all, back off of Texas. We have plenty of classical liberals and fiscal conservatives who aren't religious nuts. In fact, we just had a 10,000 person Tea Party the other day. Yes, we have religious nuts and yes, everything is bigger in Texas, even the churches. But we also have Austin, which is kind of like a Texan version of San Francisco. And also, Texas isn't part of the South. The South ends at the Sabine River.
In Canada there is a profound prejudice against Alberta, a western oil producing province. Everyone's kids go there to work, the taxes they pay support everyone else, but my goodness, they must be evil and must be stopped.
Politics is at heart illogical. The alternative is warfare.
Derek
Hiro Protagonist: "Second, the late withdrawal of Scozzafava and the fact that she drew a larger percentage than the winning margin makes it difficult to say who would have won if she hadn't been on the ballot."
Does anyone know how many of the votes for Scozzafava were cast before she withdrew, when she was still the official Republican candidate?
"As long as social issues dominate the Republican Party, they will continue losing their north--"
McHugh, the outgoing Republican Congressman from NY-23, is a social conservative.
Chris Christie, the Republican who just won the NJ governors race, is pro-life.
Meanwhile, Maine just voted down gay marriage.
Sorry, but the north is not nearly as socially liberal as you think it is.
But did they run on those issues? Did they denigrate those who didn't tow their social line?
And Maine just made Med Pot stores legal.
But did they run on those issues?
Obvviously, they did.
Did they denigrate those who didn't tow their social line?
Strawman. Your caricature of social conservatives is misplaced. The people who denigrate those who don't tow their social line are in fact the social liberals. And when they get the chance they go beyond mere denigration.
I think you'll find that most people, when confronted with someone who is aggressively pro-life and anti-gay-marriage, will not describe them as "socially liberal", no matter how big of jerks they are about it.
Social conservatives can win. Bush was pro-life and quite religious and got enough support to win 2 terms. I keep hearing about how being socially conservative is a turnoff but then at election time these social issues don't even make the top 10 in voter concerns. Economic issues and national security are always right up there of course.
The other issue is that when traditional marriage has been on the ballot, the conservative position is winning every time. Most Americans also support further restrictions on abortion. Many problems in society are a result of abandoning traditional values. The breakdown of the family has had a devastating effect on society for example.
I don't see why social issues should not be discussed by any political group that sees fit to bring them up, on either side of the aisle. There are pro-life Democrats and those that support traditional marriage (including Obama apparently). Backing away from social conservatism is basically accepting the premise of the left which is that these issues are too divisive. African Americans are overwhelmingly against gay marriage and many are also pro-life, the same goes for Hispanics.
I don't know too many people who truly believe that politicians are going to start interfering in people's sex lives, or even do that much about overturning Roe. Sadly most of these issues are decided in the courts so electing this candidate or that doesn't actually change much. If anything, once the glut of 60's counterculture boomers start dying off, traditional values could make a big comeback. I think people are recognizing the consequences of the "if it feels good, do it" mentality.
The breakdown of the family is mostly a Black issue. And what is driving that break down? Our covert Jim Crow program called the Drug War.
Demographics
From what I see social conservatives are totally ignorant of how the policies they want are giving them what they don't want.
Nope. Divorce and illegitimacy cross racial boundaries. The white, native illegitimacy rate is around 30%. The black rate is in the 50-60% range, but there are a lot more whites. Some of this is attributable to people living together who later get married, but most of it isn't: and, in any case, the folks who have kids before they get married are more likely to get a divorce, perpetrating the pathology.
Did you even read the link? Try. Humor me.
And wouldn't it be good to get the Black rate down to 30% to start?
In the Black Community the pathologies you speak of are exacerbated by the drug war. Read the link.
"What animates Republicans in the upstate is a deep economic conservatism."
Sure it is. That's why they just voted for a man who is not at all an economic conservative, who is in fact a pure economic liberal.
Are you saying that the bulk of Republican voters went for the Democrat in that race?
'And few things get them angrier than how the Republican party has been taken over by "the Texans." This is shorthand for the southern-oriented, Protestant-oriented religious right. They hate that crowd more than any Democrat could. Betrayal by your own side always hurts the worst.'
They haven't been betrayed, and they have a fundamental, unfixable problem based in the mathematics of election day. From the time of FDR forward to the time of Reagan, the Democratic Party was the dominant political force in America, and even when the GOP had the White House or (rarely) one or both houses of Congress, any attempt to make any significant change to the FDR/New Deal 'mindset' resulted in immediate loss back to the Dems.
The Republicans were 'the party of business' in the eyes of the general public, the 'party of the rich', or just 'the party of the boss', and they were, but definitely, the minority party. Year in, year out, the minority party, the minority in spirit even when they occasionally held power.
What changed that was the switch of the social/cultural conservatives from the Democrats over to the GOP in response to the excesses and perceived immorality of 'the 60s;' and the military/national security incompetence of the post-Vietnam Democrats. That, more than any other single factor, is what made the GOP a serious competitor again nationally, after a lapse of decades.
Without the social conservatives, without the 'southern Protestants' and the social issues that animate them, the Republicans would immediately revert back to the 'permanent minority' status they held before the time of Reagan. The math is inexorable, the GOP simply cannot build a national majority coalition without the southerners.
Those in the GOP leadership who don't like the southerners know that, and keep trying, rather desperately, to find some group of Democrats who'll come over to take their place. Various approaches have been tried to woo these supposedly libertarian Dems over, and the result has been the same each time: the targeted group nods, says they like what the particular Republican is saying, in contrast to those rural hicks down South, and then votes Democrat. Over and over and over and over.
We saw that play out again in 2008, when John McCain supposedly had 'crossover appeal' (he didn't, that was a media artifact, as a serious look at the election numbers from 2000 reveals), and on top of that feminist women in the Dems were supposed to be so angry at Obama for how Hillary was treated that they'd vote McCain in revenge.
Result: On E-day 2008, the Dem women voted overwhelmingly for Obama. The supposed economic conservative Dems voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Every group the GOP hoped might come over and take the place of disgruntled social conservatives voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
Ryan Sanger not withstanding, there is only one group of Dems that has ANY track record of helping the GOP in some election years, and that's the 'Reagan Democrats', and they are much more in tune with the southerners than they are the northeastern libertarian wing.
It's all very well to wish or daydream, but we have close to forty years of practical data to examine, and we can look hard at the elections the GOP won and lost, and the message is clear: the social conservatives, esp. in the South, made the GOP a national competitive force again, and there's nobody in the wings to take their place.
And yet McCain brought Palin on the ticket to get libertarian votes.
Why McCain Picked Palin
And it worked.
It's all very well to wish or daydream, but we have close to forty years of practical data to examine, and we can look hard at the elections the GOP won and lost, and the message is clear: the social conservatives, esp. in the South, made the GOP a national competitive force again, and there's nobody in the wings to take their place.
Except Social Conservatism is not enough to win national elections. You get the South and that is it.
A libertarian Republican Party might do quite well in California. Except the socons own the Calif Republican Party.
A libertarian Republican Party might do quite well in California.
Is there even the slightest evidence that this would be the case?
There is no evidence to back up the claim that they picked Palin to woo liberatians. McCain's staffers have said a lot of things on the subject of why she was picked, and the various claims are neither consistant nor do they pass the commmon sense test.
Palin appealed (and appeals) to the GOP broad base for precisely the same reasons that she repels and infuriates the Democratic/Washington establishment (including many elite Republicans) and the news media class, it's not so much what she stands for as who she is, and abortion is a strong backbeat of that dichotomy.
Rural areas have a farmer's contempt for welfare
I almost busted a gut at this one. Meghan, you of all people should know that the only Republicans that love welfare are farmers - they just don't call it that. The call it "farm subsidies."
I take your comments to mean not that there is too much emphasis on social issues but that there is not enough attention to fiscal issues. Perhaps New Hampshire is different from the other Northeast states, but here among Republican activists the emphasis is typical Tea Party issues: too much spending, too much taxes, too much regulation. The party is definitely pro-life but that's not what animates us. (Many of us are passionately pro-life but it doesn't come up as an issue all that often.) Our complaint is with the "Washington Republicans" rather than "the Texans" but in both cases we're angry with the national leaders who have betrayed Republican principles of low spending, limited government, and individual freedom.
I occasionally get emails from one of those people who think they need to put a pithy tag line in their signature block, and in this case it's pretty appropriate.
"You can't reason someone out of a postion that he wasn't reasoned into."
I don't believe that attempting to appeal to people who identify as Republican because 'those people' are Democrats (Megan, your ignorance of your grandparent's beliefs has a certain willful air about it, and I'm pretty sure you know 'those people' tend to be), and are now upset becase the 'wrong people' are running the party is going to produce the kind of 'big tent' party you would like to join.
BTW, I say that as someone whose parents were the upper midwest version of your grandparents, and is a registered Republican.
Here we go again. Small-"l" libertarian types often like to imagine that if only those knuckle-dragging social conservatives would get with the program and change their entire worldview, the GOP would be just fine and would cruise to easy election victories. But the SoCons could make a similar argument: If only the socially-liberal Northerners would rediscover personal morality, the GOP would be in great shape.
What libertarian types don't seem to realize is that there is a strong populist streak in the South. If social issues are no longer on the table, the South suddenly becomes ripe territory for big-government Democrats.
Besides, I don't quite buy the idea that Northerners are uniformally turned-off by social conservatism. Maine, after all, just shot down same-sex marriage at the ballot box. Maybe the North isn't as keen to completely ban abortion, but there are some areas of shared concern on the social issues front.
It is not the who (socons vs libs) it is the where.
You run libs where they can win. A tough concept to master I know.
Yeah Maine. Where Medical Pot is more popular than traditional marriage by 58 to 53 (both won).
Megan, I think you are 100% correct. I grew up downstate in Queens and there are a huge number of people who are fiscally conservative and strong on national defense but chaff at fundamentalists telling them how to live. This includes Catholics and Jews. As long as social moralizing is at the center of the Republican platform, the party will be primarily a regional party.
I believe that this demographic, fiscally conservative, strong on defense, socially libertarian are the independents. These people are not moderates, as they are often identified, they are passionate about their belief ultimately in liberty and how that is best achieved.
Party pundits and the media constantly misinterpret elections because they misidentify the motivating factors for this 3rd and extremely large group of American voters
I grew up downstate in Queens and there are a huge number of people who are fiscally conservative and strong on national defense but chaff at fundamentalists telling them how to live.
So they vote for socialists? That does not sound like they are really "fiscally conservative" to me.
And it's not like the Queens GOP is running Jerry Falwell for office. Those Queens "fiscal conservatives" refuse to vote for any Republicans, even the rather socially left-wing ones the GOP offers them.
Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg, both socially liberal, fiscally responsible, Republicans became mayor of New York despite the fact that New York City has roughly 5 times more registered democrats than Republicans. In large part because of Queens.
If Dede Scozzafava was a fiscal conservative she would have won NY-23 easily despite her views on Abortion.
I believe, that despite the clear evidence to the contrary(Obama/Pelosi are socialists in everything but name), most of the "independents" believed they were voting for a Clinton-like fiscally responsible Democrat and were exhausted by the profligate spending of the social conservatives under Pres. Bush.
The profligate spending of the social conservatives under Pres. Bush? You are mad.
The major sources of budget-busting under President Bush were the Iraq war and the tax cuts, plus general spending rises across programs. Also, his largest deficits were after 2006, under those notorious social conservatives Reid and Pelosi.
Bloomberg is a hundred times more of a nanny stater than those social cons who you fear want to run your life.
Rudy won because of crime in NYC, not because of his fiscal or social views.
most of the "independents" believed they were voting for a Clinton-like fiscally responsible Democrat
Then they're really not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree, are they?
the profligate spending of the social conservatives under Pres. Bush.
The profligate spending (which looks like small change compared to what the Dems are doing) had nothing to do with the social conservatives. It was not Tom Tancredo and Jim DeMint and Jeff Sessions calling the shots in those years. The Bush Republican party was the party of the Arnies and Rudy's and even the Ted Kennedy's. The only token social con in the administration was John Ashcroft, and he left early on.
I think there is a lot of truth in the observation that many of the people who voted for Obama thought (or at least hoped) they were getting the third term of Bill Clinton.
That is, they wanted the politica/social/international and economic conditions prevalent in the late 90s back, and a President who would follow Clinton's second-term model (forgetting that his first two years, pre-1994) were a lot more like Obama now than many want to remember).
I think a lot of folks might be missing what people like myself (economic conservative-social libertarian) don't like about the Tea Party movement or extreme social conservatives. It isn't social conservative principles or conservative economic principles that trips me up. I don't like some social conservative policy stances (same-sex marraige is a freedom issue to me), but it doesn't necessarily stop me from voting for candidates like McDonnell because he proposes solutions and at least acknowledges the existence of problems I think are real.
When Tea Partiers say they want limited govt, lower taxes, and more freedom...I believe them, I really do and it sounds great. But then you see interviews and comments from those folks espousing some of the craziest world views around and it just turns me off. I simply don't want to be associated with people who think seceret socialist cabals are everywhere and commies are coming for us all. It perverts any approach to policy when candidates or their supporters can't even properly identify a problem. (And to be fair, the "proper identification of a problem" is merely my opinion, which might be no better or no worse than anybody else's). But I'm not talking absolute truth, I'm talking representation here.
It turns me off when Republicans or Conservatives completely deny problems exist. How in the world do you expect to represent me when you won't even acknowledge problems I believe are real even exist? In that environment, who do I vote for to push conservative principles of government to help solve some pretty big damn problems or even tone down a extreme response from government in a reasonable way? Well, I'll tell ya...the only game in town is Democrats on many issues. Why vote for a candidate who isn't even in the game? I'll just try to vote for a Blue Dog Dem and hope for the best...and usually I'm disappointed, but at least they're trying.
"Evolution will be taught in the schools."
This bizarre idea of what actually occurs off the east coast is a continuing blind spot you should address.
Look, I know people whose science teachers were creationists. Open creationists. Whose units on evolution consisted entirely of the "holes". Whose towns were 95% creationist. Maybe that's all just lies, but I don't think so. Nor am I imagining the fact that fights over ID, the "other side" etc really happen in various places. If you suggested this in Wayne County, you'd just get strange looks from almost everyone.
Sure you do. From liberals a la Molly Ivins who spend their time exaggerating because they disagree with and dislike the people around them. On the other hand I personally went to school in Texas and I learned evolutionary theory indistinguishable from that taught when I moved to the east coast.
Liberals have a large incentive in keeping you scared. You know they are lying about their economic and fiscal plans, but you still vote for them. Why? Because you are culturally a liberal and you believe this tripe. You believe conservatives want to stick it to the poor. And you believe these scare stories about not teaching evolution. Sad.
There's no strong movement to eliminate evolution teaching, though a majority of Americans don't necessarily accept the 'pure Darwinist' version, and there is a strong creationist substrain. It isn't a threat to anyone.