TomPaine.com - The GOP's Roe Gamble
Two things I thought really interesting in this article:
1) Political affiliation is usually determined by neighborhood. (Like land economics, where property value is determined by adjacent property value.) Here in the city, we have the progressive Mission and the conservative Marina (both urban). But this article posits that political affiliation can be predicted by land use type: progressive inner suburbs (low density) and conservative exurbs (very low density).
2) Every family wants their children to do better and not be bogged down with a teenage pregnancy. Position on abortion can be predicted by religion not political affiliation. So, the article says that formerly Republican families in the exurbs are going Democratic in order to protect their daughters' right to succeed. I have also noticed this issue divides my otherwise Republican cousins in exurban Cincinnati. While, at the same time, many of them ARE having babies very young; I think because of that, they see the appeal of choice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Along the same lines, last week the US columnist for the Economist suggested that the Democrats would be better off if Roe were overturned, because it would put the Republicans in the position of fighting public opinion directly.
http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5278945
That's an interesting article, Eric. However, what I don't agree with is the idea of putting every single issue to the electorate (like we do here in SF). If we're going to do that, we might as well fire all the politicians and use that money to pay teachers instead bc we'd be doing the politician's jobs for them.
Plus, the people are not particularly good about figuring out the nuances of the issues on their own.
Post a Comment