My current neighbor is a wicked smart former (recovering?) civil engineer in his seventies with whom I like to grab a beer whenever I can. Generally, our topics of conversation range over the areas of politics (specifically American foreign policy) and, for lack of a better term, “how stuff works.” I’ve often got a lot to say about the former, but my CompSci/Philosophy background didn’t leave a lot of room for the natural sciences so I mostly try and soak up data when his fancy turns to dam building or the internal temperature regulation methods of the stegosaurus. That being said, I do like to occasionally tease him with the phrase, “it’s all about the surface area” largely because all sorts of everyday problems (particularly of the civil engineering variety) tend to revolve around just that issue. The correspondent generalization in the political realm is, of course, “it’s all about the demographics” – a point that this article dramatically drives home.
The thrust of the article is essentially that the tendency toward low reproductive rates amongst progressives augers an ultimate demographic failure for the ideology in the future. If the birthrate in Utah is twice that of Vermont is it any wonder that American policy should reflect the values of Utah over those of Vermont?
I’m not entirely sure I buy the argument though. Anecdotal evidence seems to imply that parental ideology doesn’t influence beliefs nearly as much as one’s geographic location. In other words, cities incubate liberalism – and our cities grow relentlessly. According to this article experts claim that by 2030, “more than 60% of the world’s population will live in cities”.
Of course, there’s this and this to contend with…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You stated: "In other words, cities incubate liberalism – and our cities grow relentlessly."
I tend to disagree with that. I'm not going to dispute that cities are centers for liberalism. But times are a changin'. During the past elections (the lovely one that let us have 4 more years of the War on Terroh), voting patterns in some cities resembled a bullseye.
The bullseye pattern was really evident in Minneapolis, a city that has a leaning towards independants and moderate candidates - think Jesse the Body and Governor Ventura. Color coded precints for Rep. or Dem. expanded in concentric circles from the interior of the city.
The end result is a mix of "white flight" from established neighborhoods into the suburbs, upwards movement of those within the central areas of the city to either more established areas or suburbs, redevelopment of blighted areas, such on and so forth. Inevitably, the voting structure within a city is in constant flux - never static.
I would not be surprised to see a greater presence of conservatism within cities, especially if African-Americans become disenfranchised with the Democratic party and look for a new avenue of choice. In addition, the influx of Latinos in the southwest, southeast, and midwest will play a greater role in politics in the next 20 years. Who is going to embrace and represent this growing political bloc?
Post a Comment