Category: Demographics

Two interesting articles, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/why-am-i-moving-left-109241_full.html#.U9MMv_ldU1I and http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/07/25/why-am-i-moving-left/ from two commentators who, despite still holding what I'd consider to be some fairly conservative views, find themselves more and more identifying with causes on the Left, as the Right (and even the ostensible Center) keeps creeping toward the worst.

'The party of Lincoln, of Eisenhower and of Reagan still appeals. Which is why the party of Cheney, of Hannity and of Adelson so appalls.'

When I look back at my own opinions of, oh, a decade ago (still on the record here on my blog; the 13 year anniversary of which is coming up shortly), I can see where I've lurched much more to the left. I was never a Reaganite (I voted for John Anderson my first presidential outing), but I used to be a lot more pro-militarist (including, sadly, supporting the Iraq War), and a lot more small-government. I was a child of Eisenhower Republicans (I think I can say with some accuracy), growing up in the era of the Cold War and coming to political awareness in the aftermath of Watergate and the "national malaise."

What's moved me to the Left (in those areas where I wasn't there already) lines up pretty neatly with the categories described by Ricks and Sullivan — less a seduction by the side I moved toward than a revulsion of the side I moved away from. The GOP has assumed that if it can gin up support from the fringe Right, it can stay in power; in so doing, they've managed to alienate a lot of other folk, myself included.

And, yes, I am well aware that many ostensibly on the Left are as in bed with some of the same national security and big business excesses as the folks I'm moving from (I'm looking at you, Mr Obama and Ms Clinton); the only thing I can say in their defense is that they are not actively courting the Christianists and the worst of the would-be New Guilded Age Robber Barons.

I have no idea where the country is going, politically. The demographics tend to indicate the population shifting to a moderately Left-wing position, but those wheels grind slowly, and are subject to change as younger folk get invested in the status quo. And, of course, there are outside forces — from geopolitics to climate change — that could push the citizenry one way or the other. I'm a bad oracle about such things.

But my hope is (of course) that my own viewpoint will prevail among the majority. It'll mean I'll have to find something else to complain about — but I'm willing to take that chance.

Half the US population lives in 146 of over 3000 counties.  (I'm one of them.)  For all that it sometimes feels like we're wall-to-wall people, there remains a lot of places that are far less populated than it seems.

That’s actually been the case for a while, but the trend seems to be accelerating, with Independents now at 42%, Dems at 31%, and Republicans at 25%. Most of the folks shifting over to “Independent” are coming from the Republicans (the Democrats aren’t doing all that hot, but have been stable the past few years).The big question is what this actually means for elections. Certainly nobody can win without a chunk of that Independent plurality, but it makes primary and other party-focused contests more dependent on the extremes. And is the change only label-deep, with folks unhappy over calling themselves Republican but still identifying with GOP political positions?  Does it make parties — the GOP in particular — that much more dependent on big money donors? Does it increase pressure for open primaries? Does it make that much difference when people tend to vote for incumbents, and “hate” Congress but “love” their Congressman?