You might want to take a look at this piece at City Journal by M. Anthony Mills. As it turns out social cohesion is vital for economic growth and has political implications as well:
The disintegration of civil institutions —the source of social capital—disproportionately harms distressed regions. As Tim Carney showed in Alienated America, struggling rural and Rust Belt towns that supported Donald Trump in the 2016 primary were united by the absence of not only economic opportunities, but also social connectedness and the institutions that foster it. By contrast, communities that voted for Hillary Clinton boast flourishing civil institutions, including neighborhood associations, clubs, and churches, along with stable, two-parent households.
Studies indicate a positive correlation between high social capital and economic opportunity, including mobility and wage growth. One obvious explanation holds that well-off communities have the resources to sustain vibrant institutions and social capital. This would suggest that disadvantaged regions need a combination of market forces and government assistance aimed at creating more economic opportunities. But what if social capital is not simply a sign of economic vitality, but also a precondition for it?
Read the whole thing.
“…struggling rural and Rust Belt towns that supported Donald Trump in the 2016 primary were united by the absence of not only economic opportunities, but also social connectedness and the institutions that foster it. By contrast, communities that voted for Hillary Clinton boast flourishing civil institutions, including neighborhood associations, clubs, and churches, along with stable, two-parent households.â€
Pure bullshit.
M. Anthony Mills: P.H.D. in philosophy, Notre dame. Struggling to figure out why the lower classes would pass on the chance to elect Hillary Clinton decides it must be because they have no social cohesion, family connections, or friends. Or is his group just too cloistered?