posted
Has anyone read the book "Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture" by Naomi Cahn and June Carbone?
This article summarizing the book in the context of marriage equality is amazing. It strongly tempered my tendency to ascribe malice/bigotry/intolerance to many members of my immediate and extended family. I have been unfair and disrespecting of them. Time to change.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Red-staters of the type who desire greatly to defend themselves as keepers of 'morals and values' and the sanctity of marriage absolutely loathe to hear that they are probably worse stewards of the institution of marriage than a bunch of blue-state progressives. I mean, they absolutely hate the idea. So you will get a lot of handwaving excuses over the (actually fairly compelling) findings of Cahn and Carbone. They absolutely cannot abide by the idea that their social ideals and practices like abstinence until marriage actually drive up divorce rates, family poverty, etc.
It's as I noted before a fairly simple concept to observe, really: in traditional red states which promote abstinence and traditional family values, you end up with people marrying at younger ages, not getting college educations frequently on account of that fact, and having children early. The greater lack of the feasibility of education hampers the ability for the husband to find a job that pays enough for the wife to do her expected stay at home gig to raise their children. These marriages are more likely to dissolve.
In blue states, people wait and marry later, after completing college, and have children when they are older. Women in these states have more access to contraception as well as abortion. Both men and women are more likely to complete college and have more financial stability.
However straightforward this revelation is, this is not going to stop proponents of the outmoded social models from tripping over themselves to take studies like those published in the 'Red Families v. Blue Families' book and try to discredit them with simplistic counter-analyses. My favorite handwave being to explain it all away as a byproduct of the availability of abortion to those not morally against it. This is my favorite for a few reasons I won't go into yet.
The article summarizing the book you presented is pretty good.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. At the very least, a lot of what this says about "blue families" describes the views I adhere to when it comes to families, even if I haven't so succinctly defined them for myself.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, it does seem plausible. Plausible not meaning necessarily accurate, but even so my "gut" suggests there's an element of truth somewhere in there whether the conclusion is correct or not.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Red-staters of the type who desire greatly to defend themselves as keepers of 'morals and values' and the sanctity of marriage absolutely loathe to hear that they are probably worse stewards of the institution of marriage than a bunch of blue-state progressives.
It might be because, as Rauch said, they're defining the institution different than you. Needing to defend it on your terms instead of theirs would piss anyone off.
Personally, I don't see why marriage can't work either way. If we as a society would start shunning dead-beat dads more than we do, it wouldn't be as easy for a guy to start a family (even if accidentally), "do the right thing", and a few years later walk out. That, to me, is the death-knell for the "marriage makes adults" philosophy. If you don't have to become an adult, it loses the one advantage it previously had.
I also want to say how much I love Rauch's point about the fertility trade off. At what point have you acquired enough to afford the kids? As someone at 29 looking at a couple more years to be able to afford one and my hormones insisting that we need to get a move on, I can tell you personally that the longer you wait, the harder the balancing act gets.
If I'd had the kid when we were young and poor, I wouldn't be choosing between family and a comfortable lifestyle now.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally, I don't see why marriage can't work either way. If we as a society would start shunning dead-beat dads more than we do, it wouldn't be as easy for a guy to start a family (even if accidentally), "do the right thing", and a few years later walk out. That, to me, is the death-knell for the "marriage makes adults" philosophy. If you don't have to become an adult, it loses the one advantage it previously had.
Except even when you do force the father to stick around, you still suffer the issues of lack of good education and corresponding quality of life.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It really isn't surprising that blue state's and blue families would seem to foster healthier, longer lasting relationships. In general Blue states are wealthier and more educated than red states. They also have an advantage of having closer knit communities (blue states have higher densities of cities and more dense city populations) that need and want the same thing. Close proximity to "different" people (women, minorities, different religions) creates a greater understanding and acceptance of those people. People who are more prone to understand, accept and be distracted from the bad things (cities usually have more entertainment available than rural areas) would be happier with their situation.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On that note, I would probably add that one person's emphasis on "traditional" values is another person's "foreign."
Asians understandably favour blue states for immigration leading to this kind of distribution. This should only reinforce the kinds of trends in the measures mentioned like greater age of first marriage, fewer children, emphasis on education, etc.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Discouraging or banning birth control and abortion and encouraging younger marriage with "traditional" gender roles are ways for men to hold more power. It shouldn't be surprising that many women put in that situation would try to find a way out.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really strict religions that micromanage marriage as part of their toolbox of social control of adherents also have a 'solution' to the divorce issue by stigmatizing divorce to such a degree that people will stay in unhappy or ill-timed marriages instead of divorcing because they don't feel they have the 'right' to and/or they have been told that the marriage is Permanent Forever No Takebacks. Then, they champion their low divorce rate! its genius.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, from your map, I would say Asians favor coastal cities, not necessarily blue. The coast does tend to be blue though, but there are still Asian pockets on say Texas.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Samprimary: [qb]]It might be because, as Rauch said, they're defining the institution different than you. Needing to defend it on your terms instead of theirs would piss anyone off.
I .. am defining the institution only insomuch as I am judging its success rate between two demographics. Blue state marriage is stronger, healthier, happier, longer lasting, produces less maladjusted children, etc. While judgment over which is the "superior" form of marriage is still subjective, if better performance in marriage is what you're looking for in your society, you want the blue state model. That's what defenders of 'traditional' marriage in conservative cultures dislike the connotations of, because they want to think that what they do is best for society and marriage. In many cases, when their championing of traditional conservative marriage culture makes them reliant on the idea that it makes better families, they feel they NEED to.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you have a couple who has no interest in college, do they still retain the same advantages if they wait later to marry and have children? If you have a family who would rather have their children young and make do with less, are they prone to the same problems?
I think we're looking at a pile of correlations and assuming a heaping pile of causation. The Blue Collar way of life is dying. As a result, that demographic is having problems. I'm not sure I think it's fair to pick abstinance and traditional marriage as the boogeyman behind it. The decline of America's factories, the rise of the professional manager class, and the constant assumption that everyone will be better off if they throw away their old values and hump like bunnies - but with protection! - probably has as much to do with it.
I'm not saying the red states are right and theirs is the answer to what marriage and adulthood should be. I'm saying when everything you think has value and should be is eroding, it's not surprising that it shows up in every facet of your life. Bring back a solid non-degree requiring path to sustainable living, and I bet a lot of those "red" problems would match their better off counterparts.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you have a couple who has no interest in college, do they still retain the same advantages if they wait later to marry and have children?
source not on hand, but generally very much so yes. Marriages on the whole last longer and are more stable when the persons involved are more mature and traveled before they opt to get married and/or have children. A benefit which does not nearly as often avail itself to those in a culture which pressures people to marry as soon as possible and/or frowns upon nonmarried romantic/living arrangements.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Marriages on the whole last longer and are more stable when the persons involved are more mature and traveled before they opt to get married and/or have children. A benefit which does not nearly as often avail itself to those in a culture which pressures people to marry as soon as possible...
While not exactly discussing this topic, this article about parental happiness would seem to argue against that:
quote: ... the abundance of choices—whether to have kids, when, how many—may be one of the reasons parents are less happy.
That was at least partly the conclusion of psychologists W. Keith Campbell and Jean Twenge, who, in 2003, did a meta-analysis of 97 children-and-marital-satisfaction studies stretching back to the seventies. Not only did they find that couples’ overall marital satisfaction went down if they had kids; they found that every successive generation was more put out by having them than the last—our current one most of all. Even more surprisingly, they found that parents’ dissatisfaction only grew the more money they had, even though they had the purchasing power to buy more child care. “And my hypothesis about why this is, in both cases, is the same,” says Twenge. “They become parents later in life. There’s a loss of freedom, a loss of autonomy. It’s totally different from going from your parents’ house to immediately having a baby. Now you know what you’re giving up.”
posted
That's ... an interesting peripheral reading of a meta-analysis of having kids and happiness. It only acts against my position in the most cynical sense: that those who have kids early are happier only because they are ignorant of how much fun they would have been having without kids. The entire article is really more into something that's being popularized as a finding: that having kids doesn't actually make people more happy.
Of which there's a curious but expected finding involving respondent bias: person(s) who have been taught that having children is a duty or religious obligation (quiverfull, etc) are conditioned to express how happy their children make them, so if you ask them if they think having had children early on has made them happier, they will state yes yes yes! (but when asked neutral questions about their overall state of happiness, it's gone down versus when they had kids, consistent across age groups, age of first kids, etc).
Again I'm being lazy and I don't have the sourcing available but yeah.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That's ... an interesting peripheral reading of a meta-analysis of having kids and happiness.
I like to mix it up.
On a serious note about that - I love keeping up on all these fascinating social studies. But they are by nature all very focused and I often wonder what we're missing in the larger picture. How do the findings in one study affect or are affected by what we see in another.
And when we discuss them, we tend to keep the discussion narrow - I think the next great scientific movement will be the compiling of differing research that will open up new discoveries.
quote:It only acts against my position in the most cynical sense: that those who have kids early are happier only because they are ignorant of how much fun they would have been having without kids.
I'll give you that, certainly.
quote:The entire article is really more into something that's being popularized as a finding: that having kids doesn't actually make people more happy.
Well, that's part of it. But it also asks why and begins to dig into the very definition of happiness.
quote:Of which there's a curious but expected finding involving respondent bias: person(s) who have been taught that having children is a duty or religious obligation (quiverfull, etc) are conditioned to express how happy their children make them, so if you ask them if they think having had children early on has made them happier, they will state yes yes yes! (but when asked neutral questions about their overall state of happiness, it's gone down versus when they had kids, consistent across age groups, age of first kids, etc).
Again, agreed. But what exactly is happiness? Is it best measured in the moment or in memory? Are there different kinds of it? And how does happiness affect the stability of a marriage? I would think this factor is a major one.
quote:Again I'm being lazy and I don't have the sourcing available but yeah.
I'm actually interested in seeing any source that backs your claim of marriage stability in older couples who have children. Maybe I'll try to look something up.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, agreed. But what exactly is happiness?
for any and all empirical and anthropological purposes relevant to observable study, happiness is analyzed mostly through life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect to create a picture of one's subjective well-being and consists of a state of mind characterized by contentment, love, satisfaction, pleasure, or joy.
There is also a distinction between remembered happiness and experienced happiness. If you ask people how happy they are at regular intervals, you get a different picture than if you asked people how happy they were during a given experience. The difference is often attributed to the peak-end rule where people are biased based on how they felt (1) at the peak of, and (2) at the end of, their experience. Net pleasantness/unpleasantness felt by the individual is more often disregarded. Therefore, measures of happiness vary depending on whether one measures overall or even life satisfaction versus moment to moment affect. Both can be categorized and recorded with consistency and lead to important and actionable data about whether people are generally in a positive and desirable state of mind or in a depressed and undesirable state of mind.
alternate answer: a warm gun
quote: And how does happiness affect the stability of a marriage?
To not the same degree as they once expected, but still present (and easy to reason) are the facts that dissatisfaction that people feel originates to the marriage (dissatisfaction with spouse, or life condition presented by marriage/cohabitation) create frustrations, belligerent, critical, or moody behaviors, and can often create a snowballing loss of the attachments that define a healthy marriage. Divorce is only half of the issue, too. Of the half of people who remain married, only about half of them remain happy with their marriage. The rest stay in unsatisfactory marriages (that being the conclusion of a longer-term University of Denver study).
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point of the article, though, is that conservatives don't feel marriage is there to make you happy. It's there to teach you how to be a grown up. As long as you're creating a healthy workspace for yourselves and your kids, you're doing it right.
The basic definitions in play are different.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually agree with the notion that choices subtract from rather than add to happiness. At this point trying to eliminate choice would be even worse, and there were certainly a lot of consequences to lack of choice that ruined lives. But I think a hypothetical ideal world is not one with unlimited choice, but one with just the right amount necessary to get out of really bad situations. (Granted, the hypothetical ideal world wouldn't have really bad situations anyway, so... whatever).
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I think we're looking at a pile of correlations and assuming a heaping pile of causation. The Blue Collar way of life is dying. As a result, that demographic is having problems. I'm not sure I think it's fair to pick abstinance and traditional marriage as the boogeyman behind it. The decline of America's factories, the rise of the professional manager class, and the constant assumption that everyone will be better off if they throw away their old values and hump like bunnies - but with protection! - probably has as much to do with it.
I agree completely.
I think in light of the massive changes in much of the working/middle class as of late (Especially in employment opportunities and expectations), the familial values decline in importance. I feel like the issue is much bigger than the majority of "red" families' values. It's all interconected I realize, but, ultimately, I think it's just another manifestation of class stratification.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say in general what they are seeing in their story is correlation, not causation. Mainly it is not being "conservative" that is driving what is going on in say, Mississippi. Simply the correlation that the "deep South" has serious issues. Mainly they are economically worse off, have a poorer education system, the talented folks often move out, and are generally more "disconnected" from the world than say people from Massachusetts etc. As a note, that is all a really broad generalization.
What would be more interesting is to see if some of these same things are occurring in conservative couples/families in Massachusetts etc. I also just noticed that someone just said something close to the same. I think you get the point.
However, I'm all for gay-marriage.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
okay guys looks like you need an excerpt from the book.
quote:The differences in family structure, of course, do not occur in a vacuum. We recognize, for example, that they strongly reflect wealth and that wealth plays a major role in reinforcing both the political and family patterns we describe. Moreover, we realize that family formation varies within the states. White Californians, for example, may experience patterns more like that of Massachusetts, while the large Latino population in California marries and bears children at younger ages, producing state totals distinctly different from those of the South or Northeast. We also make no statement about causation; we cannot say, for example, that a pregnant 19-year-old is choosing to conceive and bear a child because she lives in Mississippi rather than Massachusetts, or even that the Mississippi teen has become pregnant because of a lack of access to contraception, less optimism about her economic future, racial patterns that make early sexuality more common for blacks than whites, or religious patterns that discourage use of birth control or abortion, though we note that others have looked at these issues.
Finally, we acknowledge that our red and blue family paradigms intersect with other cultural constructs. Mormon life in middle-class Utah, for example, may differ significantly from rural life in Baptist portions of Arkansas even as they both embrace portions of the social conservative family frame. Indeed, we suspect that while there may be one dominant blue pattern for the well-educated, there are at least two comparable red patterns. The poorer red areas, such as Arkansas and Oklahoma, combine high rates of early marriage with high teen birthrates. The somewhat better-off families in states such as Utah and Nebraska have high rates of marriage at younger ages with relatively lower levels of teen pregnancy.
Despite the differences within and between states, however, we believe that the cultural differences between regions of the country frame the world views voters bring to the ballot box and the milieus in which legal issues are decided. Issues related to marriage, contraception, abortion, and divorce take on different symbolic and practical meanings if young adults characteristically marry at 22 rather than at 29, and if teen pregnancy is a routine pathway to marriage rather than an inopportune event to be managed. Moreover, we suspect that political attitudes might well vary between states where over half the population lives in married-couple households versus those where household patterns are more diverse.
Causation, however, runs in multiple directions. Bill Bishop's book The Big Sort argues that the regions have become more distinct — and different from each other — as the like-minded have become more likely to move closer to each other. He maintains that the most dramatic movements have occurred in the country's technological centers (e.g., Silicon Valley in California or the high-tech corridor near Boston), which attract well-educated, ambitious — and overwhelmingly blue — professionals. Steve Sailer, a columnist at the American Conservative, notes further that states where the costs are lower (cheaper housing and family-related expenses) are more likely to be Republican, suggesting that family-oriented Americans may be voting with their feet as they also seek out more family-friendly communities. Moreover, even if diversity exists within each region, and even if regional differences reflect an amalgam of income, class, race, and the ethnic origins of the original European immigrants who settled there, they frame family law decision making. Other scholars are examining the correlations among these factors and finding statistically significant connections between family styles and voting patterns. Michigan political scientists Ron Lesthaeghe and Lisa Neidert, for example, have demonstrated that family characteristics showed a significant correlation with voting preferences in the last three presidential elections.
They measured family factors in terms of a host of variables that include postponing marriage and childbearing, overall fertility, marriage, abortion, and cohabitation rates, which they describe as indicators of the second demographic transformation (SDT) and which we link to the blue family paradigm. The political scientists found that the weaker the state's score on the composite SDT measure, the more likely it is to vote Republican, which "is to our knowledge one of the highest spatial correlations between demographic and voting behavior on record."
What we are doing in our analysis is both simpler and more complex than that of the political scientists. It is simpler in that we are not performing the type of statistical analysis they perform. Although we accept their more-sophisticated calculation of the strength of the correlation between family characteristics and voting patterns, we do not attempt to say whether each of the variables we discuss independently correlates with political preferences. Instead, we break down the components of their term, "second demographic transition," to examine the role of factors such as teen births or abortion rates in the construction of family understandings.
In the process, we have begun to unlock the factors that help determine the acceptability of legal innovations. Family life has changed in the United States, it has changed unevenly across the country, and it is a major factor determining the life chances of the next generation — and aggravating the increased inequality that characterizes our society. The critical question for us is understanding the legal frameworks that create and reinforce different pathways to family life, such as the variations between support for abstinence-only education or contraception, the restrictions on or broader availability of abortion, the creation of family-friendly workplaces, and the meaning of marriage or cohabiting relationships. Having observed substantial demographic variation between regions, this brief exercise convinced us to probe further. We wondered what accounts for these regional differences and whether they are reflected in the law. Finding some answers requires returning to the broader literature on the family to which both of us have contributed.
quote:The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However, correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.
posted
It seems that some of the Red States' problems are a feedback loop. There exists a very conservative attitude, which makes more liberal people want to leave, which makes the conservative population more of a majority. There is a backlash against the "educated elite" by the "hard working Everyman" so the educated people go elsewhere, and the local schools get worse.
The attitudes of these red states are causing their problems to get worse, which in turn reinforces the backward values in some sort of disfunctional coping mechanism.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Mucus, from your map, I would say Asians favor coastal cities, not necessarily blue. The coast does tend to be blue though, but there are still Asian pockets on say Texas.
This is true, it isn't a hard and fast rule. But the pockets in Texas are clearly much more than balanced by the population in New York, California, and Hawaii. Houston is already down to tenth of largest percent populations by metropolitan areas (and 15th by state).
Edit: Actually, if you add Canada into the mix as either an uber-blue state or a series of states, you'll find the trend continues even more. I recall a conversation with The Rabbit where The Rabbit expressed surprise at our high marriage and (age at first) birth ages.
quote:The attitudes of these red states are causing their problems to get worse, which in turn reinforces the backward values in some sort of disfunctional coping mechanism.
I read an interesting study last year regarding the non-effectiveness of abstinence promises.
Let me banish some possible biases: Although I am Mormon, I support sex education in public schools. I do not support abstinence only programs; I support setting a cultural expectation of abstinence until marriage, and providing social safety for people who do not meet that expectation.
Any rate: it's not a big surprise that abstinence only doesn't work in general. What the study I read showed, however, was that it worked amazingly well in communities with high church attendance. Kids who made the abstinence promise and who attended church meetings regularly and often were more likely to stay abstinent, than kids who made the pledge but whose lives weren't accompanied by a social action.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like they did a wonderful study Sam, however looking at thing from a historical perspective I don't see these things being created by certain family values, as in abstinence only etc. In my mind, many people have turned our two-party system, which is really only that way due to our SMDP electoral system, into their only being two ways to live your live politically, morally, etc. That being the case, people pushed into the "conservative" camp are more likely to take on other "conservative" belief.
This is where I believe this study is making the mistake of correlation rather than causation. People have a way of becoming like their neighbors, to a degree, so that educated Alabaman engineer that goes to work in a liberal metropolis is more likely to change his views than if he stayed in Alabama. I don't think that kind of thinking should really throw anyone for a loop. I think an interesting study would be if having certain conservative ideas are a clear indicator towards other ideas, as in if you don't believe in their being legal gay-marriage how many of those people also don't support sex education etc.
That and they have already linked higher-income to lower child-birth on a fairly global scale. In that case if you also have a causal link between income and voting patterns it could potentially skew other results.
That and I agree with you Might Cow, the "red states", mainly the "Deep South" is basically killing itself and causing itself to become more socially conservative. They want to blame the federal government for the failings of local government etc. Not to mention their own decision making. The funny thing is I hear Minnesotan Republicans talk about how "our" federal tax income goes South instead of back into the state.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That and I agree with you Might Cow, the "red states", mainly the "Deep South" is basically killing itself and causing itself to become more socially conservative. They want to blame the federal government for the failings of local government etc. Not to mention their own decision making.
How do you reconcile this view with the walking blue state disasters that are New York, Michigan, and California?
Or do you figure their miserable failures on the local government level come from other factors? If so, like what?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what, I will say one thing though. I am utterly tired of Republicans and Red States in general. I interned with my district's Congressman this last semester who happens to be a Republican. I could not believe what came out of some of these people's mouths etc. Although I will admit that some rather filthy vulgar comments were sledged into my ears by various callers, gotta love working the phones. I figure it is pretty rare to be wrong about everything, but the modern Republican Party is sure trying hard.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: You know what, I will say one thing though. I am utterly tired of Republicans and Red States in general. I interned with my district's Congressman this last semester who happens to be a Republican. I could not believe what came out of some of these people's mouths etc. Although I will admit that some rather filthy vulgar comments were sledged into my ears by various callers, gotta love working the phones. I figure it is pretty rare to be wrong about everything, but the modern Republican Party is sure trying hard.
So your theory is that because one Republic has a foul mouth, all republican ideas are wrong?
Sorry, I don't see the correlation. I mean, if I say 2 + 2 = F'in 4, does that mean it suddenly changes to 5?
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be inductive logic, if most professional Republicans I have met, staffers etc., at all levels tend to spout things that are really just a bit whacked, then I see a trend, however I could not deductively state that. Some would say that almost all of our knowledge is inductive, read David Hume etc.
That and the Republicans were not so much vulgar, that being the callers, it was the kind of comments that they made in general. As in their observations on life, politics, foreign affairs, etc. I do know quite a few great Republicans, heck the Congressman I worked for is actually a pretty good guy. One of my friends just graduated as in working on a campaign in Wisconsin, my friend being the good Republican there. However, I am rather tired of the Republican party in general, not to mention "conservatives" in general.
The reason I made the comment in general is that I was, as a young man, a Republican, now I'm just a conservative with ethics and rational thought. I understand that is a bit snarky in general, but I am really tired of how many people just run with the talking points of some pundit etc.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That and I agree with you Might Cow, the "red states", mainly the "Deep South" is basically killing itself and causing itself to become more socially conservative. They want to blame the federal government for the failings of local government etc. Not to mention their own decision making.
How do you reconcile this view with the walking blue state disasters that are New York, Michigan, and California?
Or do you figure their miserable failures on the local government level come from other factors? If so, like what?
quote: The reason I made the comment in general is that I was, as a young man, a Republican, now I'm just a conservative with ethics and rational thought. I understand that is a bit snarky in general, but I am really tired of how many people just run with the talking points of some pundit etc. [/QB]
That makes more sense, and I don't entirely disagree with you there but what happened is that you ran into the number one rule of politics. There is no room for rational thought. Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because my "disaster" of a state, Minnesota, has actually done really well with relatively high taxes and excellent state services. Although, Minnesota is rather bipartisan. That and I'm not saying Democrats are all that wonderful either, however I understand that in America we clearly only have two ways of thinking. Note, extreme sarcasm.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
New York, California, and Michigan and are all miserable examples of severe local government failure, and none of the three are red states.
When red states have troubles, you blame it on their politics. What do you blame when blue states have troubles?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that two of those states, New York and California, have to run a state government that is larger than most of the federal governments in the world without any of the perks. That is they don't have a central bank they control, can't deficit spend, etc. Yet they have to deliver a myriad amount of services greater than many of those countries.
Michigan is such a mess it is hard to find a starting point. That is more of a combination of private industry in Michigan collapsing along with poor municipal governance, Detroit, as well as a state government with little ability to recover from motown's downfall.
Either way, I would rather live in Michigan, say Grand Rapids, than live in Alabama etc. Maybe I am biased, or maybe Grand Rapids is just a nice place.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In what sense does the massive collapse of GM, Chrysler, and Ford count as "good reasons." Regardless of what proportion you blame the unions, the engineers, and the executives in those companies, they're all people who potentially suck, no?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Michigan is a pile of mess. New York and California, however, are blue state all the way, and their miserable local government crises are all made by blue staters.
But that's okay! Because running a government is hard.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* It is entirely possible that the people in those two states suck. In fact, I'm far from the last person who would admit that
I'm just curious, what would be the causal relationship that you are proposing between their views on marriage, abstinence, and so forth and their current government crises?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not due to the people sucking, it is due to a combination of poor governance, never being properly rebuilt following reconstruction, the fact that the Deep South was built on agriculture through and through and we live in a world primarily driven by industry and services.
Texas has many of the same governing issues that California and New York face. However, have you looked at their average record on education, act scores, higher education, quality of life, fortune 500 companies etc. Well things tend to change. I would rather live in Minnesota, and the frozen north winters, than have to live with some of issues a state like Kentucky has to deal with. Are all of these issues due to their "redness", no. However, following conservative thinking those states should be helping themselves, but they generally can't! Not to mention a majority of state governments are really doing poorly at the moment due to decreased tax revenues and the fact that they can't deficit spend like the federal government. Guess what that means, high tax states are going to be hit the worst as they get hit with huge budget deficits due to decreased revenue, the math is not difficult to understand.
However, having been around the nation a few times. I have tended to notice that blue states, which tend to be wealthier, are generally nicer places all around. That is not hard to grasp when they have more money etc. That and as a little side note, the average ACT score from New York and California both top out Alabama, or pretty much any red state out there. Not that it is exactly the most objective benchmark, but hey.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't want them to "look good" I just have been to all the states mentioned and would rather live in some than others due to a host of factors.
This, by the way, is part of what I hate about American politics. Due to the fact that I said many "red states" have issues, mainly the deep south due to a number of issues that go in a far different route then what we are talking about, somehow I must support blue states and how they are run. Not only this, but I must be a Democrat and be on the "other side". In reality that is not he case, but it is how people wish to shape their own realities.
Really, mostly what I have against a lot of the "conservative" states and what the pundits talk about on tv is that they love America, but hate its government. Love the Constitution, but then seem to dislike or hate what the Constitution produces. They want freedom and democracy, but call it undemocratic and bad when things don't go their way. It is that kind of thinking that has pushed me far away from the Republican party. They are all for state's rights and small federal government, but then don't take the blame when their own state governments fail at education and improving the quality of life. Then it is all the "liberals" fault and "big bad federal government". As a person, I am all about accepting my own personal failings ( of which I have many), and I feel that other people should as well when they cast the blame around so easily. Thats all. Also, this is obviously extremely generalized, but I do believe you get the general notion.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Red stares suffer for a variety of reasons, including low education standards and expectations, backward "family values" which have been shown to have negative consequences, and a number of other reasons, which we could discuss, if you actually had any interest.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: ... It is not due to the people sucking, it is due to a combination of poor governance ...
Mind you, the government is still comprised of people, so you're just shifting the suckiness around. Not even far since the government is representative.
I believe it was an American President who described it as, "that government of the sucky people, by the sucky people, for the sucky people."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: [QB] It is not due to the people sucking, it is due to a combination of poor governance, never being properly rebuilt following reconstruction,
You are bringing reconstruction into this? Then how do you explain Virginia, the capitol of the confederacy and a mostly red state (though does go blue from time to time) doing better then most others? No, things aren't perfect here but it beats the hell out of most others.
Also, many of the things you state makes you hate republicans so much are the EXACT SAME THINGS that make me hate most democrats so much (and a few republicans as well). Neither side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's so many states at the baby table. Some because they have defunct constitutions which effectively cripple legislation from managing its own debt or stopping the down-ratcheting of revenue loss from tax cuts (California), some because they have overarching problems with social concerns because their regulatory boards and the like are filled with wingnuts who literally want to keep people ignorant (Texas), some because they have been turned into the usury version of tax havens and/or have defunct medical systems they refuse to fix (South Dakota) and some because their overarching fear of brown people is frothing people into political hysteria (Arizona). Oh boy! There's plenty of states that are on the good side of things, in the sense that they aren't flagrant walking displays of failure of state government on some level or another, and I wish I could say 'and there's no relation to being red or blue!' but the better states tend significantly to blue. New England doesn't help with that.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
