Liberals love conservatism
|
|
I could probably write a novel (or at least a pretty long post) on this subject, but just for kicks, here’s what I’m ruminating….
America became great under our founding principles. It was a haven for the free market, abundant in natural resources, and governed with limited intrusion or restrictions on the everyday lives of its citizens.
Sure, there were problems. The right to vote was infringed, an entire group of people were enslaved, and workers were under-paid and often worked in deplorable conditions.
But it still was a place where people wanted to come to live the American dream and escape even more deplorable economic and political conditions.
Yet something interesting happened as more and more people came to the United States — a progressive movement started which, in the process of making things “better”, gave more and more power to government and labor groups. So much so that the pendulum has swung well past a happy balance between freedom and big government.
That’s in the macro. Now let’s look at this at a state level.
Following the Civil War and Reconstruction, the north dominated in manufacturing and industry. This is where all the jobs were. The conditions in our large northern cities were such that business could thrive. Taxes and regulation were low. (While the South was largely under military rule, followed by a series of political machines).
Therefore, people gravitated to our large cities like Chicago, Detroit, New York, Cleveland, Philadelphia - in hopes of finding a job and a better life. But as more people came to the region, more progressive policies followed. Which has led to higher taxes, more regulation of business, increased social engineering, and, of course, big government. So much that our northern cities and regions are in decline.
After machine politics, southern realignment, northern decline (the rust belt), and increasing technology to improve shipping, production, and all-around business efficiency, the south began to emerge as a place to create jobs.
There are good universities. Right to work laws. Low taxes. Etc.
So, businesses and jobs began flowing into places like Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Mississippi to augment the largely agrarian and textile-based industry that had been in decline.
However, as people who suffered high taxes and regulation from northern areas began coming to places like Virginia, they brought with them their politics as well…just as all immigrants have.
And, when politicians say that in order to do good, we can just give government just a little more power, folks who have seen anything but over-regulation and taxation don’t seem to mind so much, because it’s better than where they came from.
I don’t think it’s so much that people themselves are liberal, but I think it’s folks who have a liberal agenda follow the people with a do-good mentality. And, in the process, end up wrecking all the positive gains a region possessed when it was conservative to begin with.
So the bottom-line - conservatism does well, populations grow, liberal ideas come in, society declines. Therefore, in order for liberalism to survive, there must initially be conservatism.
on 
Jim - I realize you have created a worldview, but cramming this analysis into your worldview doesn’t make it logical.
Interesting. I think that the liberal immigrants would need to have a reason to be “progressive” in applying their big-government politics to situations where conservatism seems to have created successful regions. Any ideas on what those concerns may have been?
I actually think that liberalism is a natural off-shoot of the increase in population growth.
In small town USA, problems such as unemployment, transportation, healthcare (or care for the elderly), security and public safety, are there, but can be handled using tried and true family values.
In the city, magnify these problems…and people naturally look to government to solve them.
I think we need to strike a balance.
Obviously we need to take care of our people, but part of taking care of folks is creating conditions for the free market to thrive too.
Sometimes we look at things through our own prism and don’t realize it’s good to have the “other” side around.
I’ve given some more thought to this and cannot believe the arrogance of Mark’s comment.
Am I not entitled to my view? Must I become a lemming to how the left feels I should think? Is there but one true way of thinking?
This is why I hate blogging and sometimes feel that it is an irrelevant and worthless enterprise.
When you actually try to seriously pose a question, people — people you might even consider a friend — decide to tear you down to your roots without so much as looking at the discussion on its merits.
I’n not sure about the macro histroical analysis, but I can personally tell you this dynamic of sorts has occured recently in New Hamphire. The “live free of die” state has no income tax or sales tax, little regulation and generally a small government. Because of this it has been the fastest growing state in the Northeast in the past two decades as businesses flock there with jobs (and it has the lowest unemployment rate in the Northeast even today). But with this, a large group of immigrants from other states have migrated to New Hampshire, especially from my native Massachusetts. However, these people who came to New Hampshire in search of low taxes and jobs ended up bringing their voting habbits with them and New Hampshire is quickly turning from a historically liberatarian state to a liberal one. The democrats took both houses of the legistlature in 2006 for the first time since 1870 something, and obviously the state has been trending blue in national elections. It just seems completely ironic to me.
Jim - I was so stunned by the conclusions your post made, without using logic that I had to write something. Your post was the apex of jumping to an illogical conclusion because something “feels” truthy to you - and because you want it to be true.
Some things to consider with your hypothesis:
1. Why is California - the most progressive/ liberal of the American states the most productive in the US?
2. Why do the “blue” states provide more in tax dollars to the federal government than they receive, while conversely your conservative “red” states take more in tax dollars than they provide? (Concurrently, why do the Blue states produce more than the red states?)
3. Why are the economies/ populations of good western-type conservative states like Wyoming, S/N Dakota, Montana, etc all going bust? They disprove your theory that low taxes and a conservative political bent are sufficient to boost economies and populations.
4. Why is it that the economies of Florida, North Carolina and Virginia did not start taking off until after the beginning of a northern migration?
5. Could it be in part that people just want to live in the South b/c it is warmer?
6. Lets talk about “bringing Northern poltiics South.” Do you really think that if the liberals in the north had not begun coming south in the 1960s to stamp out the rampant racism of the south - to get African-Americans the right to vote - if LBJ had not been President with his “liberal” pro-American agenda that the south would have seen any kind of boom? Or, do you think that maybe the south would have been stuck in its poor agrarian past?
7. Lets talk about those low taxes in the south. Do you think that maybe the uneducated workforce, perpetual poverty, substandard infrastructure, etc of many of the southern states has something to do with the states not collecting taxes? It’s fine to prepare a business-friendly atmosphere. But - what is interesting is that while Toyota hasn’t built a manufacturing plant in Michigan - Michigan is where they have their North American design and engineering facilities. Yes, it is expensive, yes the workers in Michigan do expect to make something above minimum wage, yes, they do expect to have access to healthcare, yes, they do expect access to good schools - so, yes, it is more expensive. But, when Toyota wanted to tap into an educated population where did they go? Michigan.
Where did the tech boom happen? California. Again, an educated workforce.
I have lived in the rural south - there is a significant societal cost to collecting less taxes.
I don’t think that the recent boom in the south has much to do with politics - I think it does have everything to do with lower taxes. Any business wants to pay less in taxes, duh. But, businesses are selfish. They don’t care about country, they don’t care about people, they care about making money - that’s it. They will abandon wherever they are if they can find lower taxes and/or a cheaper workforce elsewhere. Why do you think that so much manufacturing is being moved to Mexico/ China/ Vietnam - is it because of the “conservative” (by which I assume you mean libertarian and not fascist/ communist) politics? Or, is it because they can exploit a cheap workforce? How does that play into your theory?
Our country will not survive long if we subjucate the people to the will of the corporations. Which arguably is at the root of our economy’s current bust - everything came second to the all-mighty dollar.
So, while I will agree that low taxes will bring business in - at least temporarily (until another state/ locale offers lower taxes - or an even cheaper work force (see Mexico/ China/ Vietnam)) - I do not see anything other than a corporate willingness to move wherever there are low taxes/ a cheap workforce to support your theory.
Mark, you’re right! We should then ban any bailout money to any “blue” states, since they’re all doing so darn well, right?
I would just be happy if the Administration would stop giving $$ to banks/ investment firms -which would have gone under - to pay out their year-end bonuses…
Some very interesting ideas here, I need to think about this and let it digest a bit. Although the focus is different, something there reminds me of a good book by Virginian-Pilot alumnus Alex Marshall. In his book How Cities Work : Suburbs, Sprawl, and the Roads Not Taken, he says:
Your ruminations J.R seem to fit within this proposition.
I think one reason large cities gravitate towards more govt solutions is that they can arguably take advantage of the economies of scale. For example, a metrorail system makes no sense in a small city with population of 20,000 but in Northern VA with millions of people it does. Same goes for parks, clinics, etc. I do think this leads big city folk to believe the govt can solve their other problems but what works for New York City doesn’t usually work for Small Town, USA.
Really? California? The same California that recalled its governor because of his failed liberal fiscal polices?
Wow…there’s a winning argument.
I appreciate your other points and will mull them over.
That’s what this post is - the beginning of an idea. Taking an observation and seeing if it really has merit.
As intelligent as you are Mark, I was surprised you didn’t see it — even as I spelled it out for you at the beginning of the post: “here’s what I’m ruminating.”
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts…I’m not sure I agree with them, but thank you nonetheless.
an article in the WaPo today stating that the Blue States of California and New York want some Federal assistance due to budget deficits.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/15/AR2008111502380.html