Red/Blue is nothing new & Immigration
- From: Ann <nntpmail@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 17:10:00 GMT
"Red States, Blue States: New Labels for Long-Running Differences"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/04/business/04scene.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
"The economists examined a number of contemporary and historical data
sources on cultural, religious, economic and political attitudes and
compared these responses across states. They found that differences in
political attitudes across states are nothing new: the Civil War and
Roaring Twenties had much larger geographic variation in political views
than we do today. Though dispersion in political attitudes has generally
declined over the last 60 years, the last four years have brought a small
uptick.
....
The most remarkable phenomenon is the rise of religion in politics. Thirty
years ago, income was a better prediction of party affiliation than church
attendance, but this is no longer true. Religion also played a big role in
politics a century ago, so we may well be returning to the historical
norm."
"Myths and Realities of American Political Geography"
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=874977
When I browsed through the article, one thing that got my attention was
the authors' proposed reason for the development of more liberal
religious/social attitudes in the Northeast; New England Puritans were
puritans, after all. Based on the positive correlation of current
attitudes with early industrialization and immigration - and on history,
they think it was a pragmatic change that accommodated economic growth.
Some New England business leaders decided that, to become a factor in
international trade, cultural differences and intolerance would have to be
put aside. (There is more to it, but that's the gist.)
Up to a point, it does seem that history is repeating itself in the
South. Manufacturing can no longer be depended on for economic growth
since labor costs are even lower overseas. But some industries, like
agribusiness, don't lend themselves to export and there still is a growing
need for low cost labor. Again, there is a conflict between what
business (Tyson, Walmart, etc) wants and a prevailing social attitude
(toward immigration). Some states (Texas and Florida) have "accommodated".
However else history treats the Bush/Rove administration, surely it will
get credit for putting together, at least temporarily, a coalition of the
immigration pros (business( and cons (social conservative).
BTW, credit also to English-speaking countries across the pond for
coining "Dog Whistle Politics".
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Why no immigration arrests May 1?
- Next by Date: Re: Why no immigration arrests May 1?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why no immigration arrests May 1?
- Next by thread: America: Land of the hopelessly stupid&ignorant!!!!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
