Let me try to summarize David Brooks’s latest New York Times column.
- Lots of people are leaving Blue States for Red States
- Red States have lower taxes, are more pro-business, and have more affordable housing
- People are moving from Blue cities in Blue States to Blue cities in Red States
- Blue cities in Red States are socially more liberal than the rest of the state
- Therefore the “winning formula” is low tax, pro-business, and socially liberal
- Neither political party espouses the “winning formula” and it doesn’t look like they’re likely to in the foreseeable future
I think that’s a superficial analysis and far too “from 50,000 feet”. IMO examining what’s actually happening tells a slightly different story.
For one thing to some extent what he’s observing is nothing new. It’s the same Mad Tea Party that’s been going on since the founding of the Republic. The main difference is now that now the frontier isn’t moving West but moving to the relatively undeveloped parts of the country in the West and the South.
For another are people actually moving from Blue cities in Blue States to Blue cities in Red States? Or are people moving from Purple suburbs in Blue States to Purple suburbs in Red States? I don’t honestly know but I suspect at least some of that is going on.
I note that the words “labor union” do not appear in his column. I suspect that unionization is a factor in the present migration. I don’t know what the situation is in other states but here in Illinois paying public employee pensions and benefits makes up nearly 30% of the state’s spending. The courts have seen to it that the only way for Illinoisans to escape that tithe is to leave the state. Ironically, about 20% of retired Illinois public employees move to other states thereby draining Illinois’s economy in two ways at the same time.
Which provides me a smoother transition to the last point I wanted to make. Ostensibly the United States has a common law system. A common law system has several features that distinguish it from a civil code system. In a common law system the law may or may not apply; if it doesn’t apply, it doesn’t apply. Also in a common law system the written law is only the tip of the legal iceberg. Most of the law has been made by judges and lawyers, precedents, some going back hundreds of years or longer. In that sense our legal system is inherently conservative.
I think there’s a quiet rebellion going on, particularly in Blue States, against our common law system because the common law gets in the way of progressives accomplishing the things they want to do. In Blue States they’re freer to ignore precedent; in Red States even people in Blue cities need to conform to the common law.
And I haven’t even touched on the degree to which the rest of the country has been subsidizing the “Sun Belt” for the last 80 years.
“And I haven’t even touched on the degree to which the rest of the country has been subsidizing the “Sun Belt†for the last 80 years.”
Seems like it would be important. You get to have lower taxes and more jobs if the rest of the country is supporting you. Also, as we know, you are only paying lower tax rates in many of those red states if you are in the upper income brackets. Even then, if you are moving to blue cities or even the suburbs around them I wonder what taxes, total taxes, end up at?
Steve
So, you believe the story that liberal Blue states subsidize conservative Red states. Would you object to the conservative Red states seceding?
Better, how about the conservative counties seceding. Go look up the Clinton Archipelago:
https://vividmaps.com/trumpland-and-clinton-archipelago/
By the way this whole Red/Blue thingy is the exact opposite of what happens in the rest of the world and what was the practice in this country prior to 2000. In all the world and all history since the French Revolution, the color of Revolution and Socialism was/is Red. Blue was the color of royalty, conservatism (all kinds). In war games, the US and its allies are Team Blue; the enemy is Team Red.
The inversion was instituted by the American MSM in one fell stroke in the 2000 election. Every MSM outlet simultaneously adopted the inverted color scheme, even Fox. It was the first demonstrationl/proof of the US MSM hive mind and the work of Journolist chat room.
It is really amazing how complete and rapid the coordination was, that there was no resistance from anyone anywhere, and even no discussion or commentary. One day liberal was red, conservative was blue; the next day it was the opposite. Truly astonishing.
Forgot. “I think there’s a quiet rebellion going on, particularly in Blue States, against our common law system because the common law gets in the way of progressives accomplishing the things they want to do.”
Examples?
Steve
There are dozens, hundreds of them. Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, Grutter v. Bollinger, the EPA’s classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, extending Title IX to cover transgender individuals just to cite a few off the top of my head.
When you ask “what is the right policy?” rather than “what is the law or precedent?” you’re diving into civil code territory.
I’ll give just two examples: the TVA and FEMA.
Is Colorado subsidizing New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming Arizona, California, and Nevada? The Colorado River is supplied by the snow from the harsh winters their residents must endure.
Was New Palestine, OH subsidising the country? They are living in a toxic environment so that the rest of the country can have products made from the chemicals transported by them?
Is New Orleans subsidizing Chicago? We must sanatize your shitwater. Actually, Chicago was built on the backs of western ranchers, and those ranchers stole Native American lands.
Honestly, you all have amassed quite a debt.
I have an idea. Start (or increase) drilling in Lake Michigan. Build chemical plants next to your refineries, and then, expand your refineries. Build movie studios and amusement parks. Block all roadways into Illinois. Create your own currency and financial sector. Hopefully, you all have enough food.
Finally, you can drink your own toilet water.
Also, you all bought us. We never asked to have a bunch of crude Americans take over, and your British cousins expelled our Cajuns. It is too late for buyer’s remorse.
Not seeing it. Take abortion as an example. While I think you conflate common law with cultural tradition, still the tradition was that the law didnt involve itself with the issue of abortion. Recipes for inducing an abortion were widely spread and while not officially condoned baby most you will find very few instances of it being punished by secular authorities. Even the church largely turned a blind eye or might require a punishment of penance. So the legal tradition was to have the secular authorities ignore it, then that got changed to make it illegal then it got changed back to having govt stay out of it though now its going back the other way in places.
If you want to advocate for tradition being honored you need to be sure of the tradition and I guess we also go back to women not voting/driving etc. Tell your wife.
Steve
Common law includes cultural tradition. You’re straining to defend a policy that has no basis in the law.
There are laws that cover these things, e.g. the Nineteenth Amendment. The point is that granting women the vote required an amendment. It couldn’t just be assumed that the law could be stretched to cover them. That’s how a civil code system works.
Where do you get that? It’s untrue. There were many, many cases of people being punished for facilitating abortions in states that had such laws prior to Roe v. Wade. If your argument is that because not every case of abortion was prosecuted, that means the authorities were looking the other way, it would mean there’s effectively no law against homicide today.
The Colorado River Compact addresses the subject. I think the short answer would be yes.
Are those states subsidizing Colorado by allowing the Colorado River to drain into them?
States aren’t people. People get transfer payments, and they tend to be overrepresented by people who look like they have been holding their breath too long.
This BS gets surfaced from time to time. Its shoddy analysis. As they say, the interested student can easily find the analyses. And spare me the hired lefty guns who want to spread the meme.
People are leaving blue cities like New York and SF because they are no political solutions to their problems. The NIMBY v YIMBY debate is a pointless feud. Barring a massive federal investment in housing, costs ain’t going down. It’s like helping mentally-ill people on the streets. You can’t do that without fixing health care as a whole and random Americans on twitter saying something needs to be done aren’t the solution, even if Elon Musk gets involved.
Meanwhile starting an actual small business requires an exceptional amount of capital to begin and the result is an absolute precarious existence unless you are very lucky. There was a successful restaurant in the east village which shuttered during covid, and the owners wrote an essay in the NYT. The gist being: “what we were thinking? We had a popular place for 20 years with wait times at an hour and a cookbook and a loyal base and in the end we had about 2 months in the bank to survive when covid came.”
I have a friend who is a genius at building out spaces for high-end businesses and he does that as a hobby because he’s also a genius (and his parents set him up) in mixed-use RE investment in places that started taking off 10-20 years ago. His actual small business barely squeaks by, and his worker’s comp was so high that he is now on his own and subbing out everything and vice versa: a COI at any site is a list of different contractors with owners who are often 15 tranches of a bank in Arkansas.
As for the common law, nobody leaves a blue state in order to be ruled by the wisdom of some bible college moron in an idiot county of a red state who respects tradition or some nonsense.
Dave Schuler: Roe v. Wade
Isn’t Roe v. Wade part of common law? If the common law referred only to ancient tradition, then it would not have been capable of evolution. It would still be the same as it was in King John’s day.
I regarded it as such. That’s why I opposed its reversal.
The question is what should have happened in 1973? IMO the Supreme Court should never have taken it up.
There weren’t really laws against abortion until the mid 1800s and that was mostly driven by doctors who wanted control. Ads for abortion concoctions were placed in leading publications. So the actual history of common law is that it was legal. You will find very few cases of women being prosecuted for inducing their own abortion. Then due to business concerns and eventually religious, it became illegal. Roe made it legal again. So which tradition do you follow?
Steve
There didn’t need to be explicit laws against it—it was a crime under the common law. It was not considered murder, however.
Dave Schuler: There didn’t need to be explicit laws against it—it was a crime under the common law.
Abortion was generally not proscribed under common law until quickening, typically about 18-20 weeks. However, even then, it was rarely enforced because quickening was something determined by the pregnant woman.
That’s correct. I think that France’s law (prohibited after 15 weeks) is about right. That’s also why I thought those fighting Mississippi’s prohibition of abortion after 15 weeks were fools. If they hadn’t fought that, Roe v. Wade might have stood for a few more years.
If its a “crime” but it was essentially never prosecuted and it wasn’t written down how did it qualify as a crime? I think you are confusing crime with sin.
Steve
steve: If its a “crime†but it was essentially never prosecuted and it wasn’t written down how did it qualify as a crime?
It doesn’t have to be “written down” under common law. Common law refers to the body of judicial decisions. The United States inherited common law from Britain, though significant portions of the common law were replaced by a written constitution and statutory law.
Dave Schuler: I think that France’s law (prohibited after 15 weeks) is about right. That’s also why I thought those fighting Mississippi’s prohibition of abortion after 15 weeks were fools.
That’s for abortion on demand. Abortion is allowed in France after that to protect the physical and mental health of the mother, or if the fetus has a severe abnormality. Abortion is essentially banned in Mississippi.
The case that was brought to the Supreme Court that resulted in Roe v. Wade being overturned prohibited elected abortions after 15 weeks in Mississippi.
Dave Schuler: The case that was brought to the Supreme Court that resulted in Roe v. Wade being overturned prohibited elected abortions after 15 weeks in Mississippi.
The Mississippi law did not include exceptions for the health of the mother, incest, or rape. Even abortion to protect the mother’s life was problematic, because it only allowed for “medical emergencies.”
It’s odd to blame people trying to protect women for Mississippi choosing to enact draconian abortion laws.
“It doesn’t have to be “written down†under common law.”
I get that but it also was not prosecuted. So if its not written down, as I guess I should have pointed out is largely true of common law, and its not prosecuted how do you know it is illegal? Given how public people were about advertising their abortion concoctions and recipes AND the civil authorities were not prosecuting I think it hard to claim it was illegal. A sin? Sure, but while some sins are against the law many are not.
Steve