|
|
|
September 20, 2003 CREATIVE DESTRUCTION....Some good news from the much maligned California legislature:
A couple of days ago I implied that perhaps liberal metropolitan values were associated with dynamic, prosperous, moneymaking states (like California). I don't have any special proof of this, but think about a bill like this one. If you were a smart, hardworking, and mobile gay couple, would legislation like this make you more likely to move to California? You betcha, and we welcome these people. On the other hand, intolerant, xenophobic societies that are obsessed with tradition aren't likely to embrace the change, chaos, and diversity associated with, say, Silicon Valley or Wall Street. On the contrary, they're rather more likely to drive out smart, hardworking gays who have the wherewithal and guts to pack up and move. Their loss. "Creative destruction" isn't just a feature of successful capitalism, it's also a feature of successful cultures. And cultures that are open enough and dynamic enough to engage in creative destruction of social mores in favor of better ones are more likely to do the same thing when it comes to business and industry. As with capitalism, of course, there's always the risk of carrying things too far now and again, but the inevitable mistakes are trivial compared to the long-term rewards of being openminded about cultural change in the first place. That's why California is rich and Mississippi isn't. It's the people, stupid. Posted by KEVIN DRUM at September 20, 2003 10:02 AM | TrackBackComments
At moments like this, I like to shove the Republicans' words back in their faces, even if the words don't make sense (i.e. most of the time): "California - love it or leave it!" Posted by: Commisar at September 20, 2003 10:14 AM"...with all 32 Republicans voting no." Sometimes it's just truly astonishing what a hateful bunch they are. Grr...! Posted by: spacetoast at September 20, 2003 10:15 AMEqual rights and equal social status for gays is one part of the creative destruction of the white patriarchy that dominated America. The resistance is strongest in areas where the white patriarchy was most deeply embedded. My advice to those people is give it up already. Posted by: James E. Powell at September 20, 2003 10:17 AMWhen a homophobic bill was proposed in the Minnesota awhile back, I looked at the list of sponsors (about a dozen, House and Senate). Except for one, they all came from the prosperous "ring suburbs" about 40 miles from Minneapolis-St.Paul. (The exception was from coon Rapids -- real place -- which is a suburb of St. Cloud. With two exceptions, these were all new towns that didn't exist when I lived in the state. They're built for prosperous people who make their money in the city but don't want to work there. The Limbaugh crowd isn't necessarily (or even mostly) small-town losers and rustics. It's mostly successful, anti-intellectual people who've got theirs (or are getting it) and don't care about anything else. Posted by: zizka at September 20, 2003 10:25 AM"I don't have any special proof of this, but think about a bill like this one. If you were a smart, hardworking, and mobile gay couple, would legislation like this make you more likely to move to California? You betcha, and we welcome these people." It isn't just the "smart, hardworking, and mobile gay couple," Kevin. Take a look at "Why cities without gays and rock bands are losing the economic development race" By Richard Florida http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html You'll find it's the issue of openness and tolerance that also tends to draw other creative people--not just gays--to a state or locality. Posted by: RAJ at September 20, 2003 10:39 AMAs Coors breweries learned the hard way, homophobia is bad for business. They even went so far as to hire a lesbian named Mary Cheney to try and smooth things over with the gay community and win back those bars the hundreds of bars (and other venues where gays and lesbians quaff a brew)that wouldn't stock the stuff(vile to begin with) because the Coors family used its money to support all manner of right-wing anti-gay political groups. I wonder what became of Mary? Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 20, 2003 10:41 AM"Liberals" tend to distrust economic creative destruction, and "conservatives" tend to distrust cultural creative destruction. All the more reason to not associate with either group. Posted by: Will Allen at September 20, 2003 10:43 AMMeant to add that both groups are reactionary, just in different areas. Posted by: Will Allen at September 20, 2003 10:45 AM"This is the difference between Mississippi and California!" These radical right Republicans want us to be Mississippi. Posted by: Ari at September 20, 2003 10:47 AMNote that correlation is not causation. It's possible that a good economy causes liberal attitudes, not the other way around. ...Just being persnickety! Posted by: logician at September 20, 2003 10:55 AMI think that Zizka is onto something. There was an article by David Brooks in Weekly Standard during the past year that discussed the rapid development oof far-flung, highly conservative suburbs as a reaction to the growing (social) urbanization of older suburbs. The title was something about "office park dads". Anyway, Brooks posed it in a favorable light. Good, Church-going, patriotic middle class types fleeing the Bobo-ization of their hometowns. But Zizka highlights that there is a darker side to this. In my own personal experience, I have seen numerous people who come to a city or university town, and react to the liberal social values with hostility. These types pretty much find a way to get what they want in terms of education and money while retreating to a more controlled social environment. So while it is easy to blame conservatism on rural types voting against their economic interests, there are plenty of upper-middle class and well-off types living (or at least working) amongst us who do not buy into the cosmopolitan worldview. And it is not so clear to them that the GOP is against their economic interests. Hell, it seems to me that this sort of thing explains about 90% of David Brooks writing. He's basically a Phd-educated, well-to-do urbanite, but he feels enormously guilty that he comes from such a cosmopolitan and materialistic background. Hence, he writes endless flattery to an imagined "real America" while decrying "elites" that are projections of his own self.
Good post, Kevin -- sounds like someone has been reading The Future and Its Enemies. But it is worth at least noting that there are plenty of conservative areas of the country that seem to thrive despite their relative "close-mindedness," e.g. Dallas or Phoenix. And then there's Europe, which is as committed to the creative destruction of social mores as it is opposed to the same forces applied to economic life. Maybe California is just lucky. Posted by: Charlie Murtaugh at September 20, 2003 11:02 AMNice environmental fallacy you've got there, Kevin :-) Posted by: Matthew at September 20, 2003 11:24 AM"But it is worth at least noting that there are plenty of conservative areas of the country that seem to thrive despite their relative "close-mindedness," e.g. Dallas or Phoenix." Possibly even Atlanta. However, ponder the possibility--the likelihood--that Dallas, Phoenix, and Atlanta, like Austin, are oases surrounded by hostile deserts of conservatism. Posted by: raj at September 20, 2003 11:29 AMThere was an article by David Brooks in Weekly Standard during the past year that discussed the rapid development oof far-flung, highly conservative suburbs as a reaction to the growing (social) urbanization of older suburbs. What claptrap. I grew up and still live in an older suburb. From my perspective, the movement "out south" has more to do with the great American philosophy of "bigger is better and biggest is best." The 1200 to 1500 square foot, single car garage, houses in the older suburbs just won't cut it. Posted by: Mike at September 20, 2003 11:31 AMThose few conservative areas that are making it big tend to be based on either resource extraction (Dallas) or retreat from modernity (Phoenix). The first won't last, and the second is not going to give you a cutting-edge industry in anything except gated communities. In other areas, sure, conservatives can indeed isolate themselves in suburbs because they're afraid of city life. But they are basically parasites and contribute nothing. Posted by: Rich Puchalsky at September 20, 2003 12:05 PMI second the comment about MN. The rural and city areas are traditionally liberal. and it has been the suburbs that have started the conservative move. It might be because of the real or perceived flow of money from the suburbs to both the inner city and the coutry. All the welfare (farm subsidies, inner city) we've been talking about. Essentially the suburbs have discovered the power of the vote, to the detriment of everywhere else. Posted by: Tripp at September 20, 2003 12:19 PM"It's the people, stupid" is exactly right. By investing heavily in the education of its people and by welcoming the contributions of everyone, no matter how unwelcome they may be somewhere else, states like California and New York have become the engines of economic growth in this country. It's a lot like the internet. In principle the internet has no social barriers to entry, and as a result a huge amount of value is being created by the contributions of everyone from dedicated professionals to passionate amateurs. The internet would be a much poorer place if it had the kinds of social barriers to entry that a state like Mississippi has. More conservative elements who live in the ring suburbs of cosmopolitan cities are essentially free riders. Posted by: Ranjit at September 20, 2003 12:23 PMDomestic partnerships, I suspect, are used for cohabitation between heteros more than gay couples. I expect that cohabition will soon give way to arbitrary dependent relationships, mom and son, casual room-mates, friends, and so on. It is simply a method of eliminating the special subsidies that traditional families have gotten over the years. The end result will be a movement toward pay your own way for extra family benefits, followed by in increased demand to eliminate special federal subsidies as families see no more advantage in supporting them.
what got you started on all this red state-blue state crap? And I don't want to be a cultural relativist or anything ;), but I want to point out there are many good points about tribal Mississippi-type cultures. If I can think of some, I'll let you know. . . Posted by: roublen vesseau at September 20, 2003 12:29 PM "That's why California is rich and Mississippi isn't." "Domestic partnerships, I suspect, are used for cohabitation between heteros more than gay couples. " Why? What's the advantage? Do all breeders carryas much pocket change as Kurt and Goldie? I think not. Siging the contract (and that's all that marriage is,folks -- a contract recognized by the state) gants automatically priveleges pertaining to shared assets that it would take an army of lawyers and mountains of money to construct otherwise. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 20, 2003 01:20 PMThank you, Baker, for pointing out that there are other reasons for California's prosperity. It is inaccurate and unfair to oversimplify. If all north Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia needed for prosperity were openmindedness, yes, they might be hard-pressed to come up with enough of that particular ingredient, but better men than I am have not been able to explain the South. And I'd like to add that I grew up in a very different "South" from the "South" I experienced in Arkansas and South Carolina, and I don't understand that either. Posted by: Jamie at September 20, 2003 01:26 PMThere are exceptions to everything, and I certainly didn't want to imply that openmindedness accounts for *all* of the difference between (for example) California and Mississippi. However, keep in mind that Mississippi actually has tremendous natural resources, a really big river, great access to the Gulf, etc. California has great geographical advantages, to be sure, but they probably don't explain very much. After all, Saudi Arabia has great natural resources, but no one would call them an economic powerhouse. Economic prosperity is mostly created by the human mind, and that's where you should look for differences. And Will, I really can't agree that liberals are opposed to dynamic capitalism. There are certainly some on the far left who are, but mainstream liberals mostly aren't. One of the biggest problems with liberalism these days is that we have somehow allowed the right to scare people into thinking we're all like Noam Chomsky. That's something we need to fight. Posted by: Kevin Drum at September 20, 2003 02:26 PMPeople like David Brooks and John Derbyshire puzzle me. They seem to revere rural "red state" values, even though they pretty much admit that they don't truly share most of them. For some reason, though, those people are "real," not phony elites. If you genuinely share their attitudes, I can see why you'd like them. But if you don't, I have a hard time understanding why you'd put them on a pedestal. Very peculiar. Posted by: Kevin Drum at September 20, 2003 02:31 PMIf you genuinely share their attitudes, I can see why you'd like them. But if you don't, I have a hard time understanding why you'd put them on a pedestal. Very peculiar. Doesn't seem peculiar to me at all. Really, as a one who has seen many a well-meaning western volunteer expound on the simple ways of the noble African, it's pretty clear that the values one admires need not be ones own. Posted by: WillieStyle at September 20, 2003 02:46 PMI haven't studied it, but I know that the first generation of suburbs has been thought of as attempt to create fake small towns which could profit from the city without being polluted by it. The next-generation ring suburb is a second try at it. If you talk to a conservative about cities they'll talk about vice, crime, dirt, poverty, etc. If they trust you they'll talk about "minorities" which they might call something else. In most cases, but not all, they won't talk about Catholics and Jews any more. They also won't talk about universities, bookstores, music stores, lecture series, live music, coffee shops, specialty groceries, restaurants, etc., which are the reason why people want to live in cities. (That, and the vice :) ). I've gone the circuit myself. I hated NYC when I first visited from my small town, but by now I couldn't live the small time life any more, much less the suburban life. Posted by: Zizka at September 20, 2003 02:48 PMThe California miracle was based on good weather yielding low energy costs and large agricultural surpluses. That in turn, allowed for a large workforce and manufacturing. And the great ports of the Bay Area and Long Beach topped of the economic growth. The last element was the University System. It had nothing to do with Kevin's grade school fantasies of the princes and princesses. "They seem to revere rural "red state" values, even though they pretty much admit that they don't truly share most of them." And they sure as hell wouldn't want to actually live there. Brooks and Derbyshire are ideologues. "Red State" citizens are rhetorical abstrations for them. Nothing more. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 20, 2003 02:57 PMThe California miracle was based on good weather yielding low energy costs and large agricultural surpluses. That in turn, allowed for a large workforce and manufacturing. And the great ports of the Bay Area and Long Beach topped of the economic growth. The last element was the University System. All of that could apply just as well to Mississippi. Posted by: WillieStyle at September 20, 2003 02:57 PMWilliestyle-- Haha! I have been to Mali and seen the interaction between peace corps volunteers and the local Africans... it becomes hard to cling to the notion of the Noble African when you get up close and they all seem so damn _human_. On the other hand, it troubles the Africans with dreams of America that these particular Americans don't know squat about making money. The image my mind now is that of David Brooks as a perplexed volunteer, stationed with a family in Minot, ND or Hot Coffee, GA. "You really think that??? but that's class warfare! the heartland doesn't believe in class warfare!" Posted by: Nate at September 20, 2003 03:13 PMI think this chart shows what Kevin meant about the difference between the people of CA and MS. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/StaticMapFramesetServlet?_lang=en&_tm_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_M00083&_SLSelected=010&_tab_gsl=040&_geo_id=01000US&_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Ffactfinder.census.gov%2Fservlet%2FBasicFactsServlet%3F_basicfacts%3D2%26_mult1%3D8569236%26_geo2%3D010%26_current%3D%26_action%3D_subjectSelected%26_child_geo_id%3D%26_lang%3Den&_caller=main Dan Carver Posted by: Dan at September 20, 2003 03:26 PMDan, Do you mean that the problem with Mississippi is 60 years of Democrat supported slavery, a destructive Democrat defense of slavery, 50 years of Democrat Jim Crow, and another 20 of Dixicrat Democrats. Then, Democrats abandon Mississippi, run to California and blame it on Republicans? Posted by: Matt Young at September 20, 2003 03:42 PMDo you mean that the problem with Mississippi is 60 years of Democrat supported slavery, a destructive Democrat defense of slavery, 50 years of Democrat Jim Crow, and another 20 of Dixicrat Democrats. Then, Democrats abandon Mississippi, run to California and blame it on Republicans? Aren't those Democrats, hello Trent Lott, all Republicans now? On another note, I don't know that I disagree with Kevin's thesis entirely, but it always seems that people on the coasts identify California and New York and can't find the many places that share their values elsewhere… I think we've got a civil union thing going in Vermont, no? And the Great Lakes states are pretty progressive, too. Posted by: Rick at September 20, 2003 03:47 PM"The last element was the University System." Yeah. I've always thought that the big advantage CA clearly had was the great natural resource of the great forests of free-standing acedemics the first settlers there found..... Or maybe, possibly, the quality of CA's university system is a product of the attitudes of the inhabitants (and then feeds back into those attitudes by attractive smart motivated people, who are less likely to be Bible-thumping Neanderthals), while MI's university system (well-regarded among people looking for a good college to get blind drunk at, I'm told) is equally a product of the inhabitants of MI. Posted by: NBarnes at September 20, 2003 03:57 PMnbarnes-- clearly you mean "MS" not "MI" the University of Michigan is one of the USA's best, and as for public schools, it's right up there with UC Berkeley. Hell, Michigan State at East Lansing is probably a far cry better than Ole Miss and whatever else they got down there. matt-- Either you are being disingenuous or you are completely ignorant of history. The conservative block of southern Democrats was at odds with national party since before FDR, and during his administration the cracks really started to appear as these DINOs (in modern terminology) frequently crossed party lines to stymie the New Deal. During the Truman administration, when the national party started to become more strongly affiliated with the civil rights movement, these "Dixiecrats" formed their own third party movement (led by that famous Democrat-Dixiecrat-Republican Strom "Ladykiller" Thurmond) to deny Truman a second term. Their grievance? That Truman "had stabbed the south in the back" by integrating the armed forces. In the following decades, the South turned its back on the Democratic party, largely because of its stance on civil rights (or states rights, depending on who you ask). Numerous politicians made the switch from Democrat to Republican, including such noted personages as Trent Lott. The people who you are attributing blame to stopped being Democrats
and started being Republicans. You can go meet them in Washington DC if
you want. On the local level, they are now the electoral base of the
modern Republican party-- the Solid South. "I haven't studied it, but I know that the first generation of suburbs has been thought of as attempt to create fake small towns which could profit from the city without being polluted by it. " I haven't studied it, but I know that the first generation of suburbs has been thought of as an attempt to create towns where people could live in houses with yards without breaking the bank, as opposed to being cramped in overpriced apartments. (Wow, that was easy! I'll have to not study things more often!) "If you talk to a conservative about cities they'll talk about vice, crime, dirt, poverty, etc." Well, yeah, not getting shot at is a definite plus. You can find places like that in the city (with neato cultural amenities to boot), but it'll definitely cost you. If you don't have that kind of money, then your best bet is to live in the suburbs. Posted by: Ken at September 20, 2003 04:54 PMWhy is 41-32 "barely" passing? Seems like a landslide, these days. Posted by: SqueakyRat at September 20, 2003 05:07 PMYes, Nate; The Republican party eventually defeated the party of slavery in the ballot box, 100 years after they whooped them in the Civil war. Now, don't you think that 150 years of rule by the Democratic party of slavery would cause lasting damage to Mississippi? No, I am not being disingenuous. Just the opposite, I think the liberals are being disingenuous when they suddenly believe that history began in 1960. Sounds like historical mythmaking in the public schools too me. Posted by: Matt Young at September 20, 2003 05:09 PMThe Mississippi vs. California thing is kind of interesting. It may well be true that the northern part of the "heart of Dixie" states didn't have the agricultural resource advantages of the coastal areas. But Birmingham, Alabama had all sorts of other resources, which is why the steel industry thrived there. Regardless of the histories of the various regions (and California has its own troubling racial history), the issue Kevin seems to be getting at is whether creative people now (or in the past couple of decades) have found cosmopolitan and socially liberal places attractive. I suspect that one reason bright kids leave places like Birmingham and Tupelo for places like California is cultural vitality and diversity, even when there are decent jobs at home. That's not just an urban/rural question, because those same bright kids will go to college in fun small towns, and a good number of them will stay in such places after they graduate, or find others like them. Lawrence, Kansas isn't an economic dynamo, but it does pretty well for a small city -- could it be because young adults, whether they're non-conformists or not, find Lawrence more accomodating than the rest of Kansas? OTOH, there are economically productive conservative businessmen who like the socially conservative suburbs zizka mentions. Birmingham is a lot more interesting than its own conservative suburbs -- in fact it has some very cool neighborhoods -- but it's also a lot poorer. On balance, I'd guess that when people start their professional careers, they'll prefer socially liberal places like California, but when they reach middle age, a lot of them may start looking for the stability of those conservative suburbs. What they probably won't do is move back to Mississippi if they left when they were younger. Posted by: Keith at September 20, 2003 05:20 PMMatt-- This is the last time I reply to you. How on earth you can accuse me of believing history started in the sixties when I describe events prior to that decade, and how you can behave as if party label is more indicative of one's beliefs than one's own identity (regarding Sens. Thurmond, Lott et al) leaves me to believe that you have no internal logic or any consideration for the things tha you say. It may amuse you to try to rankle "the liberals", but you will not win any converts or respect with nonsense such as this. Ken: Matt: What does any of this have to do with "historical mythmaking in the public schools"? Posted by: Keith at September 20, 2003 05:38 PM"Whatever effect Democratic party dominance in the south had, it wasn't the imposition of liberal values..." This is what I mean about history starting in 1960 for the liberals. In fact, the liberal tradition of plantation politics continue to this day, little transformed by Woodrow Wilson, the defender of the white man's burden. If you follow the liberal tradition it flows from ante bellum Southern plantation politics, through Woodrow Wilson's post war liberal colonialism, on up to affirmative action; almost a continuos tradition. You know of course that the plantation organization was helpful to the slaves (wink wink) just like affirmative action is helpful to the ex-slaves (wink wink). Posted by: Matt Young at September 20, 2003 05:48 PMMatt, you seem to love word games. We're not interested. More than 90% of blacks are Democrats and not Republicans. Does this not suggest that something in the role of the two parties changed between now and the Civil War? You seem to be treating the parties as fixed things which have performed the same role for the last 150 years. The Democratic party of Jefferson and Jackson is not the same as the one of Wilson, which in turn is not the same as the one today. I would have been a proud member of the Republican party of Lincoln and Mark Twain; the modern GOP of Tom Delay and George Bush is a whole different kettle of fish. Historical amnesia is indeed a big problem, Matt. Stop being a poster child for it. Marc
You know of course that the plantation organization was helpful to the slaves (wink wink) just like affirmative action is helpful to the ex-slaves (wink wink). Oh for the luva... Posted by: WillieStyle at September 20, 2003 06:02 PMJeez, the idiocy is astounding. To elaborate on what Nate and others are trying to get through to this bonehead: In the early part of the 20th century, progressives were at the time aligned with the Republican Party. Senator LaFollette, the founder of the Progressive magazine, was a Republican senator from Wisconsin. Progressives (you know, the ones who were against slavery) moved to the Democratic Party in two parts, first during the post-Wilson business/labor disputes, and again later during the post-war civil rights disputes. Dixiecrats (a term coined during Truman's second term) moved to the Republican party as Nate has ably described it. The sort of idiotic reasoning displayed above is either willful ignorance, or ignorant willfulness. I think David Brooks and John Derbyshire are more palatable to many
on the progressive side because they seem so, well, conservative
compared to most right-wing Bush supporters. They are reserved, know
how to be polite, and, especially in the case of Derbyshire, are
sometimes downright funny. They seem worth a listen most of the time,
and you don't have to agree with most or even any of what they say to
feel that way. They don't come across as reckless, pompous neocons or
avaricious, Rush-esque vulgarians. They are an acceptable loyal
opposition, so to speak. Matt: If you follow the liberal tradition it flows from ante bellum
Southern plantation politics, through Woodrow Wilson's post war liberal
colonialism, on up to affirmative action; almost a continuos tradition. These are compelling arguments, except that they're completely false and don't make sense. But on Bizarro World, they're really, really good. Posted by: Keith at September 20, 2003 07:50 PMRobuzo writes: "Given Pat Buchanan's latest essay on the war http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34598 , it's becoming obvious that progressives are going to have to get used to some strange bedfellows. . ." An alternative view is that progressives are going to have to think twice about sharing any sort of bed -- or policy prescription -- with the likes of Pat Buchanan. Posted by: Charlie Murtaugh at September 20, 2003 07:58 PMGetting back to the subject at hand (and ignoring Matt's idiotic
diatribe), is it the people or the resources? Mississippi certainly has
resources (access to a great river, fertile land, etc.). There are
states that have taken advantage of their resources and created more
prosperous societies with them. California is one of them. Charlie wrote: "An alternative view is that progressives are going to have to think twice about sharing any sort of bed -- or policy prescription -- with the likes of Pat Buchanan." No more than did Republicans when Pat was part of that party. If I support a policy after giving it careful thought, why should I change my position just because someone repugnant to me also shares that opinion? In any case, Kevin's original point is pretty much unsupported. As
already noted above, correlation is not necessarily causation. As a
thought experiment, it's fun to speculate. I just can't take it very
seriously without far more evidence than I've seen thus far, though. "I think David Brooks and John Derbyshire are more palatable to many on the progressive side because they seem so, well, conservative compared to most right-wing Bush supporters. They are reserved, know how to be polite, and, especially in the case of Derbyshire, are sometimes downright funny. They seem worth a listen most of the time, and you don't have to agree with most or even any of what they say to feel that way. They don't come across as reckless, pompous neocons or avaricious, Rush-esque vulgarians. They are an acceptable loyal opposition, so to speak." So they can feign civility. Big deal. They're still scumbags. On the care and feeding of trolls: perhaps we shouldn't? It's kind of an aesthetic choice, I guess some people enjoy the debate. Others think that it's kind of a poisoning of the well, tragedy of the commons kinda thing. I would vote for the subtle shun. Posted by: andrew at September 20, 2003 08:54 PMCalifornia is a really big state. Lots of land, many climates. Multiple communities. Orange County, which I share with Kevin, is nowadays spectacularly multiracial and yet mostly remains steadfastly rightwing. Forty years ago, some neighborhoods in my town tried to keep out Jews, but even then it was a magnet for gays. We have an assortment of microclimates. What's good for grapes is good for human cultures. If you don't like the flavor of this town, try the one over the next ridge. (It's a mountainous state; there are lots of ridges.) We got the movie industry in part because of the weather, but also because there was no active hostility towards Jews (see Neil Gabler, An Empire of Their Own). California, formerly part of Mexico, long the farthest reach of the frontier, is more American than America. The wine industry was started by Italians. We've got Basques, Czechs, Armenians, Cambodians and Filipinos. Also otters, dolphins, pelicans and condors. Gays are the canaries in the coal mine. If a place is healthy for them, it's healthy for you and me. Posted by: bad Jim at September 20, 2003 10:40 PMFrom way up there: Those few conservative areas that are making it big tend to be based on either resource extraction (Dallas) or retreat from modernity (Phoenix). The first won't last, and the second is not going to give you a cutting-edge industry in anything except gated communities. Besides gated communities, places like Phoenix have grown by offering low-cost alternatives for back-room operations of sectors like financial services, customer teleservice, and telemarketing. Not a lot of creation or innovation in those spheres, just good (or at least adequate) execution with cheaper labor and real estate. Of course those folks may want to start developing a taste for curry if they want to be working in that field in ten years... And speaking of Asia, one thing constantly missing from this type of discussion is CA's role as a destination for immigration, investment, trade, etc., with the burgeoning tech-capitalist class of East-and South-Asians (not to mention as a location for the of 2nd/3rd/4th/5th homes for some of them). The story of Calif for the next half-century will be determined far more (and I believe positively) by its key relationship with Asia rather than how it compares culturally or economically to Mississippi, the threat of "Mexifornia-zation," or any other dopey fetishes of the east coast chattering classes.
Kevin, when I look at "liberals'" relationship with the education establishment (among other examples), which fights to the last dead dog absolutely any change in the status quo (except more money, of course), it is very difficult for me to conclude other than that the "liberals" are every bit as reactionary as the "conservatives". I think it was the historian Robert Conquest who remarked that any group that ever experiences any degree of political success eventually becomes reactionary. I think "liberals" in this society reached that point about 35 years ago, when a supposedly "conservative" President Nixon esssentialy endorsed and expanded LBJ's Great Society, while fully embracing the techniques of central planners. Personally, I see no reason why I should have any allegiance to any political group. Politics is a nasty little business in which it is decided which group will forcibly impose it's will on other groups. It is an unavoidable activity, and certainly it is best done absent explicit violence, but it sure isn't anything that one should engage in with a sense of group loyalty. Posted by: Will Allen at September 20, 2003 10:59 PMCalifornia is also a terrific place to do business. The manufacturing infrastructure is supurb - the legacy of the aerospace industry, a child of WWII which continues to dwindle. Access to shipping is good, proximity to Asia is better at least than Mississippi. Good relations with Mexico, ready access to the Mexican labor force. Some of the best universities in the world. Some credit is due to key governors: Earl Warren, Pat Brown. I wish I could be proud of the presidents that California has given the country: Hoover, Nixon and Reagan. Posted by: bad Jim at September 20, 2003 11:00 PMGeez, Will, have you never participated in a family, group or community activity? Helped someone on a construction job? Politics is a nasty little business in which it is decided which group will forcibly impose it's will on other groups. Substitute "family" for "politics", "member" for "group", and it sounds rather familiar. In practice, once an organization reaches a certain size it's perceived as being political. YMMV. There is however no fucking way in hell that you're going to saddle us with Richard Milhous Nixon. Posted by: bad Jim at September 20, 2003 11:14 PMSuburbs are fine, even superb, but not supurb. However, I can whole-heartedly recommend Estancia Zinfandel 2000, now only $8.99 at Ralph's. Kevin's speculation has reminded me about a good moment and a bad moment in the recent history of Atlanta. Several years ago, Cobb County -- one of the ring of counties surrounding Atlanta in the Metro Atlanta region -- made national headlines and kicked up quite a fuss by passing an ordinance decrying homosexuality. The ordinance had no legal force or implications, of course; it was just a statement of opinion. Nevertheless, it generated quite a bit of noise and controversy in the place that still likes to think of itself as "The City to Busy to Hate." (Heck, my wife and I still avoid Cobb County as much as possible because of that resolution, and it's been almost a decade now) Less noticed at the time was the public statement of the Mayor of Decatur, an old "intown" suburb dominated by Emory University, who earned innumerable karma points in my book by stating, on more than one occasion, that anyone who felt uncomfortable or unwelcome in Cobb County would be more than welcome to move to Decatur. I often wonder how many people followed up on that offer. Posted by: Ray Radlein at September 21, 2003 02:31 AM"I think it was the historian Robert Conquest who remarked that any group that ever experiences any degree of political success eventually becomes reactionary." A historian? I'm only familiar with his science fiction writing. In any event he was speaking for himself, and his friend amd collaborator Kingsley Amis. The Mayor of Decatur is a wise man, Ray! Posted by: David Ehrenstein at September 21, 2003 07:30 AM"That's why California is rich and Mississippi isn't. It's the people, stupid." As others have pointed out, it's not fair to automatically assume that the differences are caused by the people. It's a lazy analysis born of bigotry. After all, try these: Why does the compassion for the working poor, and the recognition that economic worth and personal worth are not perfectly correlated, tend to fail so many liberals in this context? Posted by: denise at September 21, 2003 08:25 AMI was seeing a couple of interesting posts up above concerning first the Creative Class theories of Richard Florida (disclaimer, I am doing some work with Dr. Florida right now) and secondly the role of growing cities as relatively liberal places. If we look back to Jane Jacobs and her theory of cities, these two behaviours and tendencies are actually emblamatic of a single core attribute of cities which help justify their economic existence. Cities are places where vast quantities of strangers are intermixed and where the strangers are allowed to be strange. This is how the freaks and the wierdos from MIT like MIT because they are socially allowed to be bizarre. Economic growth is the history of innovation, of adding new work onto pre-existing work. The cities that do this the best are the cities that have hundreds of little economic activities going on at the same time and cities with high degrees of cross pollinization. So as another poster further up thread was mentioning, the hardworking but socially non-conformant gay couple from Alabama will be much more comfortable living and contributing to the economic life of a city than a rural town. Next to Matt Young; the weather, the natural resources that you claim are paramount to California's success are almost irrelevent. IF they were relevent than why the hell is Tokyo thriving while Montevideo is not. Why is Los Angeles which is at the edge of a desert and has no natural harbor thriving while the two villages at the mouth of the Connecticutt River and its great natural harbor not thriving? If resources and good weather are the prerequistates for economic growth than please explain Copenhagen's existance and the economic miracle of Addis Abba, Ethiopa. Cities do not need to form where there are resources to extract; they form where creative new work is added to old work. Most company towns are stagnanating or dead economically as they have been doing fundamentally the same work for a hundred years in the coal regions of West Virginia and Western Pennyslvania. Posted by: fester at September 21, 2003 08:54 AMDenise, The theory that liberal politics attracts or develops a creative class isn't bigotry. If we even look at the South itself we'll find that the more liberal and cosmopolitan cities like Atlanta, or Austin outperform more conservative cities. Saying "It's the people, stupid." does not mean "The people are stupid." The claim is that a culture which is excessively hierarchical and intolerant of diversity will lag in development behind cosmopolitan cultures. So the third claim about minority vote doesn't fit here, because that's just the typical obnoxious attempt by some conservatives to claim that minorities are less intelligent than whites. The first claim about the Muslim world isn't so far off the mark though. Remember a few centuries ago it was the Muslim world that was cosmopolitan and rich, and the Judeo-Christian world that was poor. I won't bother going into why it's idiotic to think that any differences are inherent to the religions themselves. As far as the AIDS claim goes, it's the conservative desire to control sexual behavior that allows AIDS to continue to spread by opposing educating people about the facts of sexual activity so that they can make their own decisions about their relationships. That's why the South has such a big problem with STD's. Hierarchical social structures inhibit growth because they limit the autonomy, participation, and entrepreneurship of the majority of citizens. Whether a particular place has a hierarchical or a cosmopolitan culture though is going to depend on the particular history of that region. California's cosmopolitan culture probably has to do with the fact that it has been absorbing waves of migration ever since the Gold Rush. None of these waves were by design, they just happened. But some cities today are attracting immigrants by design with positive results. And the development strategy of the state of Kerala in India, has been to enhance citizen autonomy and participation as much as possible also with very positive results. The South would be much better off if they tried to learn from these examples. Posted by: Ranjit at September 21, 2003 10:09 AMWhat took us so long? Sheesh! This is a wonderful day for California. But yikes, there's a lot of hostility here. Since I canceled my subscription to the LA Times, I've been trying to find other ways of getting the news. I've also been trying to broaden my horizons a bit and expose myself to more viewpoints, liberal and conservative. And one thing stands out on sites/publications with particular ideological bents: lack of respect for any opposing viewpoint. There are some good things about the conservative platform, and ditto for the liberal one. Newsflash! Liberals haven't cornered the market on open mindedness! One look at the way people are are commenting on people who don't live in places like NY or CA should tell you that. Neither do Conservatives have the lock on the use of ignorant stereotyping of large swathes of the population -- look at the same example. Anyway, good move by the legislature. A day in which a little share of equality is handed down is a good day. Laurie K. Posted by: Laurie K. at September 21, 2003 11:18 AMThe Mayor of Decatur is a wise man, Ray! Oh, definitely. The strange thing, though, is that the folks who run Cobb County aren't a bunch of ignorant hicks. Cobb is a fairly affluent county, by and large, and the folks who run it are mostly competent and clear-headed stewards of its resources. Admittedly, they were operating from a stronger tax base than that of Atlanta proper, but at the time this controversy broke out, their steady management of their budget was a remarkable contrast to that of Atlanta, which was leaking away more money through advanced incompetence than a typical third-world dictatorship would through graft and corruption (oh, there was graft and corruption, too, of course, but it really was remarkable how much of Atlanta's budget simply vanished through a kind of fiscal entropy). Cobb County has always been known for its odd combination of rock-headed stubbornness and level-headed practicality; for instance, when the Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) was being formed, many of the counties around Atlanta opted out of it, rather than help develop a mass transit solution for the Atlanta area; Cobb County was, not surprisingly, among them. However, once they opted out of MARTA, Cobb County -- unlike the other opt-out counties -- turned around and built their own mass transit system, which connects and cooperates with MARTA. They just figured they could do a better job of it themselves, I suppose (for what it's worth, neither Cobb County Transit nor MARTA is particularly robust by, say, New York standards; but both are superior to, say, Tampa's alleged mass transit). So once Cobb County passed their offensive little resolution, I'm not surprised that they refused to back down from it in the face of near-universal condemnation; that's just their stubbornness at work. I'm just surprised that they passed so impractical a resolution in the first place.
David, Messrs Brooks and Derbyshire do indeed 'feign civility' - spot-on. And they don't say anything even remotely meaningful. And I did not know that Robert Conquest writes 'science fiction' - thanks for making me laugh! P.S. I wonder when certain people are going to catch up with us on this site ... Posted by: Helga Fremlin at September 21, 2003 11:25 PMspacetoast - I think somehow it became a partisan issue. State
Senator Bruce McPherson, R-Santa Cruz, who has always voted for DP laws
in the past and keeps getting reelected from one of the most liberal
districts in the state, voted no. I was quite perplexed and irritated at this.
You are quite right that creative destruction is a necessary feature of successful societies. And whether or not California's experimentation with domestic partnership falls into this category, it's unfortunately the case that in most areas of social and economic policy, the State has chosen to protect the status quo at the expense of change. The net result is a welter of rules, regulations and taxes that is turning California into ... New York. Posted by: douglevene at September 22, 2003 08:10 AMTell ya' what, bad Jim, when families or Habitat for Humanity start incarcerating or killing people who fail to toe the line, then the activities in those settings will become political. The fundamental purpose of politics is to organize violence, no matter how much this nasty little fact is denied or unacknowledged. Given the imperfect nature of humans, politics is a necessary activity, but the fact that it is necessary doesn't make it any less nasty. The fact that you despise Nixon (for good reason) doesn't obviate the reality of his domestic policies. As for Mr. Ehrenstein's remrks, it isn't suprising in the least that he prefers the New York Times' Pulitzer-winning account of the Soviet Union in the 1930s.
Anyone else find it amusing that this latest Republican "legal project" has resulted in a spate of ultraliberal bills that Davis never would have signed if he weren't suddenly in trouble with his base? Posted by: xian at September 22, 2003 02:33 PMWill Allen: As for your statement: The fundamental purpose of politics is to
organize violence, no matter how much this nasty little fact is denied
or unacknowledged If that's so, then it's quite incorrect to say that organizing violence is the fundamental purpose of politics, and far more correct to say that violence (organized or not) points out that politics has failed in its fundamental purpose. Posted by: Keith at September 23, 2003 10:46 PMPost a comment
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 |
||||||
|
|||||||