The 'Rotten Equilibrium' of Republican Politics

[elleng]

Charlatans rise. Government falls.

'One clear lesson from the elections of 2016 and 2018 is that President Trump and his fellow Republican candidates win where white voters are losing ground.

Take a look at the 2018 congressional results in the upper Midwest and Pennsylvania, states that provided the Electorate College votes crucial to Trump’s capture of the White House.

John C. Austin, the director of the Michigan Economic Center and a senior fellow at Brookings, analyzed economic trends in 15 congressional districts that changed hands last year — 12 from Republican to Democrat, three from Democrat to Republican — in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and Iowa.

Austin found a striking pattern. In the majority of districts that went from Republican to Democrat:

Residents had incomes higher than statewide medians, as well as higher educational attainment — in most places by considerable margins. Conversely, in the three districts that moved from blue to red, incomes and educational attainment lagged statewide figures. . .

Of the ten districts ranked highest on economic health, eight were categorized “lean Republican” by the Cook Political Report, and two “lean Democrat.” Before the November election, nine of those 10 seats were held by Republicans.

On Election Day, Democrats carried eight out of 10 of these districts. . .

“Certainly more people and communities that are feeling abandoned, not part of a vibrant economy means more fertile ground for the resentment politics and ‘blaming others’ for people’s woes (like immigrants and people of color) that fuel Trump’s supporters.” . .

As a rule, as economic conditions improve and voters begin to feel more secure, they become more generous and more liberal. In the United States, this means that voters move to the left; in Britain, it means voters are stronger in their support for staying in the European Union. . .

Together, the trends described above raise an intriguing question: If the Republican Party now depends on the votes of those who are falling behind, does the party have a vested interest in economic stagnation and decline? . .

Jerry Taylor, president of Niskanen, replied to my inquiry by making the case that “as conservatives see it, the more visible government dysfunction is, the better. It provides civic education.”

Working from this premise, Taylor argued that as far as conservatives go,

anything that dispels the illusion that government can be harnessed for positive ends is generally a good thing, and anything that reduces its power and scope is a salutary development.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/opinion/republicans-democrats-2018-economy-prosperity.html?

[eppur_se_muova]

1. "anything that dispels the IMPRESSION that government can be harnessed for positive ends"

The word "illusion" has no place in that sentence.

[SWBTATTReg]

2. Good article. Southern states and their economic prosperity are tied directly this ...

concept too of the Republican Party keeping others behind, in order to retain power, thus the party does have a vested interest in economic stagnation and decline of some of their residents (or it certainly seems this way).

Not all southern states are like this, e.g., FL, because of its unique geographical location and huge tourism traffic.

[marylandblue]

3. This is why the argument about economic anxiety vs. racism is a false one

People feel and qct more racist when times are bad. They look for scapegoats to blame their troubles on. The conservative combination of limited social welfare and stoking racial tensions has been successful, but it can turn deadly. Fighting back means addressing both sides of the equation.

[Blue_Tires]

5. Yeah, that was *always* a bullshit talking point

[modrepub]

4. Kind of Along the Same Lines

When given a choice people tend to want functioning government and are generally willing to pay for it through taxes. The Republican mantra has always been for less government, less regulations and lower taxes. If we accept that home values reflect people's genuine desire to live in a certain locality then the clear choice is to live in areas with good schools, good health-care access, good roads, strong local zoning (more regulation), which are generally high tax areas, than areas without these characteristics. If the Republican vision was true, why aren't people clamoring to live in Montana or some other rural area of their state?

On that thought, I've always wondered if high local income/state taxes are triggered by wealth transfers to more rural areas. For example, in Pennsylvania a handful of counties (out of 67 counties), mostly in the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas, account for 50% of the state's tax revenues. If the state directed more revenue towards the source counties, in effect returning more of these area's taxes to their source, would these area's tax burden be as high?