Written by 
The Motor City 
I was born in Detroit and raised in the Detroit area. I still love the city. But it is distressing to hear about all of it’s problems. Earlier this summer there was a report from the Bay Area Center for Voting Research that said Detroit was the most liberal city in the nation. And then today I read about a report from the U.S. Census Bureau that said Detroit is the poorest city in the nation. This begs the question:
Are liberalism and poverty related?
I wonder if there has been any study done in this area? Perhaps there are conservative cities that are high on the poverty list and liberal cities that are enjoying prosperity. History seems to indicate that liberalism (high taxes, out-of-control spending, redistribution of wealth) does not lead to prosperity, but just the opposite. Now, at this point someone will always bring up Bill Clinton’s presidency — saying that he was a liberal and we enjoyed prosperity under his regime. Well, Clinton embraced some conservative policies during his presidency — like welfare reform and frugal spending (thanks to a conservative congress). We also had the dot com boom on his watch. The last time we had a liberal president with a liberal congress was Jimmy Carter. If you lived through those years, you know they were anything but prosperous.
So what do you think — does liberalism lead to poverty? It seems to be the case in Detroit. I wish the leaders and citizens of that great city would embrace a new paradigm. Perhaps if they did, there would be brighter days ahead.
OK, at first I was thinking “liberal” as in a liberal giver…. so now that I have that out of my head my answer is yes.
At least in my experience, the people who would call themselves liberals often support programs that encourage people to stay on some type of government assistance. Not that all such programs are bad or unneccessary but, I think that we must hold people accountable for their own standard of living eventually. If we do not we cannot expect them to raise their living standards.
Having said that…I am totally in the dark as to how to properly help people and encourage them to help themselves, therefore I hesitate to criticize. I don’t promote shooting the donkey when there is no other way to travel.
Jeff, it appears to me that Detroit is not poor because it is liberal; Detorit is liberal because it is poor in a nation that has grown increasingly conservative. As conservatives and others bothered by urban realities exited the city, the city core likely grew more liberal in terms of its politics. This has happened all across the nation, especially over the past quarter century.
Dallas, Texas reflects the same patterns–the city is increasingly liberal in terms of voting (the city of Dallas went for Kerry in ’04!), the surrounding area is very conservative. One way to understand our current red state-blue state reality is to look to our large urban centers.
Interestingly, the money and as a result most of the power resides with the conservatives. The needs with the liberals.
In addition to this, there is an effort underway in the nation to “starve the beast” of government. Grover Norquist and company come to mind here.
Clinton was no liberal. He was a utilitarian politico who moved his party to the right–into the center. He also was smart and he could make a speech.
If you look at the poverty stats during the Johnson Administration (1963-1968), you will may be astonished. The War on Poverty–part of Johnson’s Great Society–worked in terms of driving down poverty as a percentage of the population (down 19%). It was short circuited by the expanding war in Southeast Asia.
President Reagan’s “welfare Cadillac” myth and his personal, radically individualistic philosophy and charisma turned the nation to the right rather quickly. He also took advantage of white male anger–that still rages in this country.
The poverty stats have risen ever sense, with the exception of the Clinton Era, thanks largely to the good economy and to several smart programs.
Currently, everything from affordable housing to higher education is taking a hit–the very tools that the poor need to rise up out of poverty’s mire.
Too many Christians labor under the illusion that if the church would do its job, there would be very little poverty in the nation. This naive view ignores both the reality of churches and the scale and complexity of the issues associated with poverty.
Just my two cents. Nice blog.
Actually, Larry, the reason folks like me have been leaving Detroit since the 60′s has everything to do with liberal policies. After the riots, many fled the city for the suburbs. The city’s response? Instead of putting down the riots and cleaning up the city to make returning attractive, they did what every good card-carrying liberal does first — they raised taxes.
So more people left. So they raised taxes more. Ad nauseum.
It’s a one-note tune, this liberal policy. And it’s grossly out of key.
ftwskies, our recent catastrophe in New Orleans points out some of the problems with the conservative agenda.
we should not be surprised – the equation is farily simple: when your top priority is cutting taxes, and then you launch an expensive war WITHOUT ASKING THE PEOPLE TO PAY FOR IT, you necessarily have to cut programs and/or go into a deficit (the current administration has chosen this option, making our children pay for its policies).
What happened?
We cut support for the levies. We cut assistance to the poor, which ensured that many New Orleans residents did not have the ability to leave the city. We uprooted the National Guard, who could have helped maintain order, and sent them to Iraq.
You profess to preach the word of Christ. I am no scholar, but I do believe that Christ would not align himself with an anti-tax, pro-military regime that passes debts on to future generations while undercutting their ability to pay for those debts.
Jeremy, I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to look at the New Orleans levy (spelling?) system, but the levies were the responsibility of the local and state government. The federal government never cut funding for the levies, the local government chose to spend it in other ways. New Orleans is a perfect example of a liberal run area. The government (political party) has created a group of dependents, relying on a system to help them, a system which is unwieldy and inefficient. That’s what liberalism does.
If there’s any tie between liberalism and poverty, that tie is dependence and entitlement. When we create goups of people incapable of helping themselves and constantly waiting for help from somebody else, I believe poverty will follow.
Great blog by the way. Check mine out if you have a moment.
Todd
Jeremy
Some facts:
> Do you know how much of the national guard is in Iraq? About 10%.
> Do you know how much of US forces are right here in the continental 48? About 74%.
> Do you know who pays 80% of the taxes in the US? The top 20%.
You talk about taxes as if they fix problems. I like to see taxes get cut because I think they ARE a big part of the problem. Guess what? Poor people don’t hire. Rich people do. To tax the rich is to constrain them from growing their businesses, building the economy and spreading prosperity.
The point of the article is the example of Detroit: liberals have had complete and total control of Detroit for 40 years now. Anything they wanted they could do. Have their policies fixed anything there?
“…an anti-tax, pro-military regime that passes debts on to future generations while undercutting their ability to pay for those debts.”
a. Anti-tax for all the right reasons. See above.
b. God is pro-military. Read the Old Testament. Or show me where Jesus told soldiers to stop being soldiers. He even told a Roman centurion he had greater faith than anyone else in Israel! And His apostles taught that governments do not bear the sword in vain, but bear authority appointed to them by God.
c. How does cutting taxes undercut the ability of people to reduce the deficit or pay off debt? Where do you think taxes come from, anyways? They come from earnings! You can’t have earnings if nobody has enough money to buy anything because of all the taxes! Revenues go up when you cut taxes, not down.
–Jim
Jeff,
Interesting comment, but I’m fairly sure you can’t demonstrate a causal relationship here. If poverty and liberalism were necessarily linked, you’d expect Boston, NY, San Francisco, and LA to be among the nation’s poorest cities, right? Instead, they’re among the wealthiest. I guess I have methodological issues with this survey.
Further, if this relationship were true at the city level, wouldn’t it also be true at the state level? And that’s where this causality fails – a brief look at states’ rankings in per capita income reveals that a good chunk of the wealthiest states are blue states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, California, Washington, New Jersey, Minnesota) while the poorest 13 or so states are red states (Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Louisiana, New Mexico, Kentucky, etc.)
In sum – I guess I have issues with this study.
ML –
How do you measure the wealth of a city like NY? Surely you don’t expect us to believe that there aren’t scads of poor folks in NY.
Most of those red states you mention were blue states until recently, when they realised that the liberal politics simply wasn’t helping their people get ahead. You look at the shape AR was in when Clinton got elected, it’s a wonder he ever got elected dog catcher. Folks from there were saying they voted for him just to get him out of AR.
The rich blue states are simple to explain: these are the few folks who can afford to be liberals — most of the $$ there isn’t income, it’s old family money (or married money, like Heinz). You don’t pay taxes on old family money. But they’re more than happy to spend your money (and mine), because after all — they know what’s best for the rest of us, right?