inner city and the democratic party

[Bocephus]

Most will agree that the larger cities vote democrat. Most will agree there are a lot of problems in the inner city, yet democrats are still voted in year after year. What do you think the reason for this is? It brings to mind a case of a councilwoman in Dorchester, who got caught taking bribes. When they interviewed people on the street in Dorchester, they said they would vote for her again, and she was just caught doing what everybody else does anyways.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Bocephus

Most will agree that the larger cities vote democrat. Most will agree there are a lot of problems in the inner city, yet democrats are still voted in year after year. What do you think the reason for this is? It brings to mind a case of a councilwoman in Dorchester, who got caught taking bribes. When they interviewed people on the street in Dorchester, they said they would vote for her again, and she was just caught doing what everybody else does anyways.

Cities statistically have a higher density of people on government support. Democrats are more apt to expand welfare. Thus, they vote for the people who provide their freeloader checks.

Just as one reason wealthier people vote Republican is to keep more of their earned money in their pocket, inner city voters vote Democratic to get handed money to put in their pocket.

The Dorchester councilwoman is a different case (in my opinion). Dorchester is a battle ground - high drug dealing, high gang activity, people "doing want we need to do to get by". They perceive it as her doing what everyone else in Dorchester is already doing. I remember when it happened, there was a person on the 7 o'clock news that said (paraphrased) "She deserved to have that money."

When I worked for Fallon Ambulance, Dorchester was one of our major coverage areas. Many of the people in Dorchester live by a different ruleset than the rest of society. If you drive down BlueHills Ave in the middle of a weekday, you'd think it was a Sunday afternoon with the number of people sitting outside their houses hanging out just waiting to collect their weekly handouts.

[RIJIMMY]

also,

the democrats have created an illusion that republicans are
- against civil rights
- against immigration

2 things that anyone who paid attention in history class would know are incorrect.

[scottw]

it's called Stockholm Syndrome

Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger or risk in which they have been placed.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's called Stockholm Syndrome

Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger or risk in which they have been placed.

This isn't a dig at the Right, because I agree with much of their policies when it comes to Welfare...

but what do Republicans have to offer someone with no education, no job or a mother of 3 at 21 years old? The answer is nothing. That's why they vote Democratic. As I said above, the Dems are the ones that will put money in their pocket without having to get a job.

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

also,

the democrats have created an illusion that republicans are
- against civil rights
- against immigration

2 things that anyone who paid attention in history class would know are incorrect.

You're absolutely right. But the Republican and Democrat parties people learned about in history class are much different from the parties that exist today.

[Fly Rod]

I think that I'm going to hang out here in my easy chair and see where this blog is going.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

but what do Republicans have to offer someone with no education, no job or a mother of 3 at 21 years old? The answer is nothing. That's why they vote Democratic. As I said above, the Dems are the ones that will put money in their pocket without having to get a job.

The Dems offer permanent, subsidized, underclass existence. It's a sort of cause and effect generational cycle. The widespread incidence of 21 year old (or younger) mothers of 3 with no job is to a great extent caused by the lack of pressure to abstain from that behaviour (it's not their fault, societal discrimination, hundreds of years of slavery, etc. in the case of blacks; lack of behavioural standards in the case of whites) coupled with the welfare safety net. The Republicans offer them tough love, emphasis on crime reduction and business expansion, opportunity to gain self-respect. This is, obviously, an over-simplification, but the answer to your question would require more space than is available here.


You're absolutely right. But the Republican and Democrat parties people learned about in history class are much different from the parties that exist today.

Yes, they both have moved considerably to the left since those history books were written. The Dems, in olden days, enforced slavery with a stick, today, they cajole it with a carrot.

[Joe]

For some reason, the promise of lower taxes, smaller government and greater personal responsibility does not resonate with people below the poverty line.

[spence]

I wonder how all those poor people could afford tickets to the city in the first place?

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

I wonder how all those poor people could afford tickets to the city in the first place?

-spence

A nice ride on the Section 8 train. Guaranteed check and housing.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

A nice ride on the Section 8 train. Guaranteed check and housing.

I'm thinking a bit before Section 8.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm thinking a bit before Section 8.

-spence

How far back do you want to go? And which poor folks? All of them? That would be a very diverse group with many different stories. Do you mean narrowed down by race? By ethnicity? By immigration? By slavery? By indentured servitude? By loss of fortune and hard luck? By ancestors who searched for a better life? By escape from the law? Your mysterious question is impossible to answer unless you flesh it out. I'm sure there will be an interesting, if not controversial, point to be made.

[Joe]

Hillary Rodham was once a conservative. She was "Goldwater Girl" in 64' and a supporter of Nelson Rockefeller in 68'
She left the republican party after attending the 1968 Rep Convention because of Nixon's “veiled racist invective" in order to appeal to white southerners and swing them over to the GOP.
Nixon proved this approach to be very successful - it came to be known as the "Southern Strategy."

[buckman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, they both have moved considerably to the left since those history books were written. The Dems, in olden days, enforced slavery with a stick, today, they cajole it with a carrot.

The history books have move to the left also.

[Joe]

I think the republicans should be more concerned with why North Carolina and Virginia turned from red to blue last cycle than they should be with courting the inner city vote. Better to concentrate on the voters you just lost than the ones you never had.

[Bocephus]

Personally, I think its lack of involvement/information. If people are getting a check every week for nothing, they really dont have a reason to go out and get a job, if they are lazy slobs with different diseases for each of their kids. We all know how rare that is. And thats where "community organizing" comes in. The local person or people from that organization comes in to poor areas, let them know that the republicans want to take their free money. They vote democrat, because they dont know any better and dont want to know any better. I think its so engrained in the 'hood that its never going to change. Yet another reason to keep a close eye on community organizers, otherwise they might get as far as the white house...... wait, never mind. Too late.

[spence]

You guys are all missing the boat.

-spence

[Bocephus]

enlighten me Spence you seem to know alot about politics, and/or have an excuse for everything thats wrong with liberal politicians and policies. Im really just looking for something, anything so that I can say, "oh, ok, now I understand" because I am apparently "missing the boat". Or dont answer. It really doesnt matter to me, I just thought id throw it out there and see what came back.

[spence]

People seem to be missing the obvious, that the city is where a lot of the money is, the jobs are and this caused a lot of population density that persists today.

A lot of people living in close confines requires different rules than in the country. A city is an inherently dense system, where in the country it's much easier to live by your own rules. An example of this might be restrictive handgun laws, which to a moderate might make more sense in a city than in the country.

The needs of the city aligns better with some pure liberal values (that our strength comes from the village, which is nearly intrinsic) than perhaps pure conservative values (that our strength comes from the individual).

Certainly if everybody shared the same high ethical convictions, this may not be the case. But in the real world, biasing towards the rights of the individual could easily prove disastrous in the city. Granted, there are some who advocate if everybody had a gun, there would be no crime, but I think this view is wacky.

None of this is meant as an excuse for bad behavior, but rather how things may have come to be. I'd also note that both parties have a habit for hypocrisy and a base attracted often to less universal qualities.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

People seem to be missing the obvious, that the city is where a lot of the money is, the jobs are and this caused a lot of population density that persists today.

A lot of people living in close confines requires different rules than in the country. A city is an inherently dense system, where in the country it's much easier to live by your own rules. An example of this might be restrictive handgun laws, which to a moderate might make more sense in a city than in the country.

The needs of the city aligns better with some pure liberal values (that our strength comes from the village, which is nearly intrinsic) than perhaps pure conservative values (that our strength comes from the individual).

Certainly if everybody shared the same high ethical convictions, this may not be the case. But in the real world, biasing towards the rights of the individual could easily prove disastrous in the city. Granted, there are some who advocate if everybody had a gun, there would be no crime, but I think this view is wacky.

None of this is meant as an excuse for bad behavior, but rather how things may have come to be. I'd also note that both parties have a habit for hypocrisy and a base attracted often to less universal qualities.

-spence

I cannot stop laughing...
you asked for it Bo is it clearer now? do you get the "obvious"?

the city is where a lot of money is $$$$....

a city is inherently dense....

in the country it's much easier to live....
our strenght comes from the village....
ther rights of the individual could prove disasterous....
I think this view is whacky....
less universal "qualities"???

you can always tell when Spence isn't transposing talking points...he doesn't sound quite as ahhhhhhh....knowledgable? like Obama without the teleprompter...

too freakin' funny......

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

People seem to be missing the obvious, that the city is where a lot of the money is, the jobs are and this caused a lot of population density that persists today.

This paragraph is totally circular. Did population density occur because there was a lot of money and jobs in a lowly populated city and that attracted a density of newcomers, or, ipso facto, large numbers of people means more money and jobs.

A lot of people living in close confines requires different rules than in the country. A city is an inherently dense system, where in the country it's much easier to live by your own rules. An example of this might be restrictive handgun laws, which to a moderate might make more sense in a city than in the country.

You, of course, mean a large city of relatively small area. There are smaller cities that are not as dense a system and a bit larger ones that sprawl a bit. Unfortunately, laws are promulgated in uniform codes. That is, the country and city have to abide by the same laws. Close confines are a relative concept as well. The concept might more aptly apply to large families or tenants living in the same housing, or to a lesser degree to compacted housing that is not indicative of all large cities, nor to every district of our large cities in the U.S.

The needs of the city aligns better with some pure liberal values (that our strength comes from the village, which is nearly intrinsic) than perhaps pure conservative values (that our strength comes from the individual).

Of course, villages, by definition, are small "usually ranking in size between a hamlet and a town." Many, if not most small towns are of conservative persuasion. It seems that your perspective lends itself to a divergence from the views of our founding fathers.

Certainly if everybody shared the same high ethical convictions, this may not be the case. But in the real world, biasing towards the rights of the individual could easily prove disastrous in the city. Granted, there are some who advocate if everybody had a gun, there would be no crime, but I think this view is wacky.

It sounds like your concept of a city is like that of a commune. Almost marxist. "biasing towards the right of the individual" no matter the size of his community is, I think, what was meant by a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Given that any group of people have differing personalities and pursuits, to constrain them to the ant hill of a group contradicts what we have been about for three hundred years. I understand that extreme leftists want to change that (even for folks who live in the country), but to be so open about it is a bit frightening. If we can divide now, not only by race, sex, financial status, but by city and country, how will we stand?

I don't think anybody advocates that if everybody had a gun there would be no crime. Gun advocates argue that those who have guns can better defend themselves against criminals who have guns. Whether this would lower crime rates is not the question. As for murder, Switzerland, which may have the highest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #56 our of 62 in murders per capita. The UK, which may have close to the lowest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #46 out of 62 in murders per capita.

None of this is meant as an excuse for bad behavior, but rather how things may have come to be. I'd also note that both parties have a habit for hypocrisy and a base attracted often to less universal qualities.
-spence

If this is so, we have come to be in a bad way.

[Cool Beans]

I don't know, I think if I was a robber, I would think twice before breaking and entering into a home, if I knew that every house had a gun in it, with a citizen ready to use it in defense of his or her home.

Remember "Any which way but loose" with Clint Eastwood, the scene where his old mother is on the porch and the biker gang comes into her yard? What happened when she brought out that 12 guage and started shooting?

Also how many people were robbed in the old west? Bandits didn't hit citizens carrying guns, instead they went for the banks and stage coaches, because if you are going to risk getting shot, make sure the pay out is worth the risk.

$40 from an old lady isn't worth a possible bullet hole.......

[scottw]

still doesn't explain why dwellers of inner cities continually vote democrat criminals and reprobates into office, or why larger democrat dominated areas like say, RI, continually vote moron, drug addict, alcoholic trust fund children like Patrick Kennedy into office...I mean, it's one thing to vote a guy or gal in and then find out that they are completely corrupt or inept....but when there's ample evidence that the person is a complete crook(Charlie Wrangle), idiot(Kennedy) or worse, and you live in conditions that are generationally miserable and the same politicians from the same party are still promising you the same thing and 35,000 of you run to get in line for more handouts because Obama is giving out money I think it's pretty obvious that you are willing to trade the one thing that you are told each election season is your most precious right, your vote, for the promise of government largess..."gettin' paid"....not "Hope and Change"....someone else's bills and change...the far left and the Democrats have convinced an entire portion of our population that they are entitled to the product of the work of others, they have so tied these populations(most of which are around the city centers and easy to control at election time) to government handouts that are only designed to remove responsibility from every aspect of their lives that the vast numbers are simply content to "exist"...a few may rise out of the neighborhood but the odds are surely against that....they feed at the hands of democrat politicians and need to perpetuate the programs that they are enslaved to... in order to continue their existence....these are the trial grounds for democrat policies, programs and social engineering and look what they have wrought.....

this is the failed model that Obama and the dems would like to follow for the rest of the nation.......it's all about government dependence....not independence

[Fly Rod]

SCOTTW

U R right on.

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

When I worked for Fallon Ambulance, Dorchester was one of our major coverage areas. Many of the people in Dorchester live by a different ruleset than the rest of society. If you drive down BlueHills Ave in the middle of a weekday, you'd think it was a Sunday afternoon with the number of people sitting outside their houses hanging out just waiting to collect their weekly handouts.

I observed something similar at the Morton's Steak House on Connecticut Ave in D.C. some years back. I distinctly remember this one K street thug boast "I'm here to get money from the government for my clients...that's why were all here". The laughter from all at the table was almost instinctive.

I doubt the clients referred to above are any of those you saw idling about. Those "people in Dorchester" you referred to are not the only ones waiting on handouts.

Corporate welfare is very real.

And by the way, It's Blue Hill Avenue.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This paragraph is totally circular. Did population density occur because there was a lot of money and jobs in a lowly populated city and that attracted a density of newcomers, or, ipso facto, large numbers of people means more money and jobs.

Doesn't really matter, cities had these properties long before American cities were founded.

You, of course, mean a large city of relatively small area. There are smaller cities that are not as dense a system and a bit larger ones that sprawl a bit. Unfortunately, laws are promulgated in uniform codes. That is, the country and city have to abide by the same laws.

A city can pass different laws than a rural area, they just have to be constitutional.

Of course, villages, by definition, are small "usually ranking in size between a hamlet and a town." Many, if not most small towns are of conservative persuasion. It seems that your perspective lends itself to a divergence from the views of our founding fathers.

Adjective, not noun.

It sounds like your concept of a city is like that of a commune. Almost marxist. "biasing towards the right of the individual" no matter the size of his community is, I think, what was meant by a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Given that any group of people have differing personalities and pursuits, to constrain them to the ant hill of a group contradicts what we have been about for three hundred years. I understand that extreme leftists want to change that (even for folks who live in the country), but to be so open about it is a bit frightening. If we can divide now, not only by race, sex, financial status, but by city and country, how will we stand?

So by your logic we shouldn't have a Federal government to provide interstate highways and a common defense.

Funny how some can only interpret ideas in their most extreme form.

I don't think anybody advocates that if everybody had a gun there would be no crime.

Yet, I've heard it time and time again...

Gun advocates argue that those who have guns can better defend themselves against criminals who have guns. Whether this would lower crime rates is not the question. As for murder, Switzerland, which may have the highest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #56 our of 62 in murders per capita. The UK, which may have close to the lowest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #46 out of 62 in murders per capita.

It's difficult to understand statistics in that narrow context. It's like saying Hawaii's health care works so it should work in any state.

If this is so, we have come to be in a bad way.

That's quite a negative view of ourselves, we are after all, a product of history.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Cities statistically have a higher density of people on government support. Democrats are more apt to expand welfare. Thus, they vote for the people who provide their freeloader checks.

Bingo! That about says it all. Just enough to keep the people happy.
Complete dis-service to the people.

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Bingo! That about says it all. Just enough to keep the people happy.
Complete dis-service to the people.

Let them eat cake, said Nancy Pelosi

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That's quite a negative view of ourselves, we are after all, a product of history.-spence

I said IF! When I said "if this is so, we have come to be in a bad way," I was referring to your views, not mine. I didn't express views about us. I view some of us positively (the doers, creators, warriors, strivers, the free and independent minded, especially constitutional originalists), and I view some of us negatively--slackers, those who wait for help when they have the ability to help themselves, socialists, marxists.

Your view that we are a product of history defines, concisely, the difference in our views--probably an essential difference between conservatives and liberals. My view is that history is a product of us.

[Joe]

How do you feel about the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of teeming shores, the homeless and the tempest-tossed?