Voting With Their Feet

This article in The Wall Street Journal looks at some demographic trends and their political significance. I find particularly interesting the following couple of paragraphs:

People are becoming increasingly likely to live close to those who look, act and think like them. Author Bill Bishop and Robert Cushing of the University of Texas, argue ... that this is happening because people all over the country are moving to communities where they feel culturally and politically comfortable.

In the close presidential election of 1976, 27% of voters lived in "landslide counties" -- counties where the winning presidential candidate had a margin of 20 points or more. In the 2004 election, almost half the country's voters (48%) did. That same year 60% of voters lived in counties that had not changed their presidential party preference since 1988.

So we are moving to places where we "feel culturally and politically comfortable?" Sounds like residential segregation by race, class, and politics. Residential segregation by race and class is nothing new in America. However, residential segregation by political preference is new and therefore interesting.

It would appear that the red states are becoming redder and the blue states becoming bluer as we sort ourselves out politically. Expect the red states to cut taxes and attract new business investment and therefore jobs, while the blue states raise taxes and lose jobs.

One in 99 Behind Bars

This article reports results of a poll by the Pew Center on the States which shows that roughly 1 of 99 adult Americans is in prison. That sounds high upon first hearing. Then I did the following thought experiment and concluded it may be low.

I graduated from a small high school in a semi-rural area where all social classes attended the same school. In other words, residential segregation (which existed) did not result in kids of different social classes going to different high schools - there was only one. So, we had students whose fathers were bank presidents, doctors, dentists, CPAs, others from welfare homes, and everything in between. - the whole gamut. Our graduating classes, when I graduated 50 years ago, ran about 100 students.

Given that experience, I asked myself how many of my classmates should be behind bars and came up with a number larger than one, although smaller than five. Did I live in a particularly criminal area? On the contrary, my parents and I suspect most adults thought the area "a good place to raise kids."

Do we lock up some people who pose no direct threat to society? Sure. Most white-collar criminals are unlikely to mug you or steal your car. Can you think of another foolproof way to make them miserable without locking them up? If so, I'd bet your governor would like to know about it.

One reason we have so many people in prison is that several decades ago we mostly did away with our mental hospitals, places where we warehoused folks who could not function with or live around others. Many such dysfunctional people are now in prison. Would we be happier if we took care of them in 'hospitals' instead of prisons? I do know that would inflame civil libertarians.

Remembering Buckley

I've read maybe a dozen remembrances of William F. Buckley, Jr. All of them speak of his role in organizing the conservative movement in U.S. politics. Many speak of his founding the National Review, which continues today as a monument to his foresight. None I've read so far has mentioned the enjoyment we got from reading his version of the James Bond novels. I speak of his Blackford Oakes novels, set in the post-WW II CIA. Not great literature but for sure a fun read.

Religion in Flux, Further Thoughts

I was rereading the earlier post citing a poll which found 44% of Americans have changed their religious denomination. Imagine what that says to devout Muslims about our society.

Muslims might view it as a hopeful indicator that many Americans could be persuaded to convert to Islam. Or they might view it as the final proof that our society is so totally abhorrent (from their perspective, of course) that complete annihilation is the only answer.

Islamic societies forbid anyone leaving Islam. Sharia law apparently says anyone leaving Islam for another faith must be executed. Perhaps we will learn the reaction in the Arab press, in the next couple of weeks.

Good News

In this sad old world, any good news is worth celebrating. This Los Angeles Times article, reprinted in the San Jose Mercury News, reports polling data which shows McCain leading both major Democrats. Of course this is February; November is a long way off, and much can happen in the interim. Here is the key paragraph:

In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46 percent to 40 percent) and Obama by 2 (44 percent to 42 percent). Neither lead is commanding given that the survey of 1,246 registered voters, conducted from Thursday to Monday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

In a technical sense, McCain is tied with Obama. That said, I'm sure McCain prefers being "tied and ahead by a nonsignificant amount" as opposed to "tied and behind by an nonsignificant amount."

Religion in Flux

This New York Times article reports a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life telephone poll of some 35,000 Americans concerning their religious affiliation both as a child and today. It concludes:

If shifts among Protestant denominations are included, then it appears that 44 percent of Americans have switched religious affiliations.

Nearly half of us have changed denominations, I think that is amazing. It also finds that the number of people unaffiliated with any church has doubled in the last 25 years. In the 1980s about 8% of adults were unaffiliated.

In the Pew survey 7 percent of the adult population said they were unaffiliated with a faith as children. That segment increases to 16 percent of the population in adulthood, the survey found. The unaffiliated are largely under 50 and male. “Nearly one in five men say they have no formal religious affiliation, compared with roughly 13 percent of women,” the survey said.

I wonder why women find religion more rewarding than men? Do you suppose they value the social aspects of church membership more than do men?

The amateur sociologist in me finds these survey results very interesting. The rest of the article is worth your time too.

Global Cooling Alert

This article in Canada's National Post reports that North America has the greatest snow cover in over 40 years, since 1966 to be precise. Aren't satellite photos wonderful? If you are having trouble squaring that with global warming, you aren't the only one. Gaia is even more self-regulating than we thought.

Kissinger on GWOT

The guys at Power Line blog report a Henry Kissinger speech (scroll down), given at their Book of the Year award ceremony. Here is the key thought:

There is no way to escape the conflict with Islam by leaving Afghanistan or leaving Iraq. Now that is not only delusion and it is not something that will have long term consequences, it is something that would have almost immediate consequences. That is the fundamental problem of our period. That this is a war against radical Islam that has to be won.

You can't say fairer than that. Henry the K has been, in my opinion, the best theorist of international relations practicing during the last 50 years. Whatever his other shortcomings may be, McCain clearly "gets" Kissinger's point. No leading Democrat seems to.

Superdelegates in a Bind

Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee political columnist, is the dean of the political commentariat in California. He writes about the history leading to the establishment of Democratic superdelegates and the dilemma faced by those individuals in CA. Here he puts the issue in its most basic form:

California's superdelegates – especially its Democratic members of Congress – are caught up in the rising angst. Six of the fifteen congressional members who have endorsed Clinton saw their districts vote for Obama on Feb. 5, while five of the seven who have endorsed Obama have voters who favored Clinton.

I wouldn't want to be one of those eleven members of Congress whose prior endorsement was contradicted by his/her district's subsequent vote. Read the whole thing, it is brief but good.

Conservative Humor Alert

This article by the pseudonymous David Kahane in the National Review Online is one of the funniest, and most right-on pieces of conservative political humor I've seen in a long time, better even than Mark Steyn, which is high praise indeed. Here is my favorite quote about Clinton:

The reason Hillary had to go was, well, to put it kindly — she was a dreadful candidate. That grim Nurse Ratched visage, that hectoring, flat, midwestern drone, the stubby finger-pointing: She was every guy’s first wife and his first mother-in-law rolled into a pantsuit.

Here is what he says about Obama:

Instead of the second coming of Jesus Christ, some of us are beginning to sense the second coming of Jim Jones. Instead of a new redeemer, we’re looking at an undistinguished first-term senator with no paper trail, a wife with a major-league chip on her shoulder, a politician from the insalubrious precincts of ... Chicago.

I don't know the identity of "David Kahane." Whoever he is can sure write.

An Epitaph for the Clintons

Mark Steyn writes a funny, but accurate, assessment of the Clintons' strengths (few) and weaknesses (many). He shows how Obama, whom he calls "Obamessiah," is the Bill Clinton of this election cycle. As is often the case, Steyn is worth your time and good for a chuckle along the way.

Same Old, Same Old....

Once again this November we will have the opportunity to vote for the lesser of two evils. It was true in 1996, 2000, and 2004, and it will be true again in 2008. As we noted in this blog last year, there is something toxic about our national political process that causes it to keep giving us flawed excuses for candidates in both major parties. And there is no point whatsoever in voting for third party candidates.

This article by Ann Coulter suggests one of the possible reasons for our political disfunction. Clearly another is the exaggerated length of the presidential race. Readers, feel free to suggest yet other process glitches, or to take issue with the basic premise.

Quote of the Day

The Lucianne.com blog reports a campaign argument made by Hillary Clinton against B. Hussein Obama, and then gives their reaction to it. The two, taken together, constitute my quotes of the day:

Clinton: "I know it's very attractive to have the fresh and new, but I think I'm tested and true."

Lucianne: "(This is) a first-wife argument that never works."

That is one cold comment, and so true.

Barone: My HRC Optimism Misplaced

Michael Barone, writing in the U.S. News & World Report online, admits his rosy scenario concerning Hillary's chances was wrong. As he notes here, the Wisconsin results proved that he'd been too optimistic. He doesn't use the words but I'd guess he thinks she is toast.

Alliterative Quote of the Day

Mark Steyn, writing in Macleans magazine online, commenting on the Canadian prohibitions against saying anything vaguely "anti-Islamic" because it could be viewed as being hate speech:

What was it they said in the Cold War? Better dead than red. We're not like that anymore. Better screwed than rude.

Love those diffident Canadians; that will do for my quote of the day.

Huckabee Editorial

The editorial writers of The Chicago Sun Times do a very nice, brief summary of the role of Huckabee in the GOP primaries. They say it better than I can, check it out.

Brooks Disses Obama

David Brooks of The New York Times does a fine, funny take on Barack Hussein Obama, and the people who have been ga-ga over him. He observes that some devotees are starting to get over their high and experience hangovers. He calls this phenomenon Obama Comedown Syndrome and calls B.O. himself the Hope Pope. However, the best part of Brooks' article deals with the Clinton campaign:

Patients in the grip of O.C.S. rarely express doubts at first, but in a classic case of transference, many experience slivers of sympathy for Hillary Clinton. They see her campaign morosely traipsing from one depressed industrial area to another — The Sitting Shiva for America Tour. They see that her entire political strategy consists of waiting for primary states as boring as she is.

They feel for her. They feel guilty because the entire commentariat now treats her like Richard Nixon. Are liberal elites rationalizing their own betrayal of her? Is Hillary just another fading First Wife thrown away for the first available Trophy Messiah?

I love the lines, "Is Hillary just another fading First Wife thrown away for the first available Trophy Messiah?" and "her entire political strategy consists of waiting for primary states as boring as she is." When Brooks is on his game, as he is here, only Mark Steyn can equal him.

Brace Yourself

This article in The New York Times Business section indicates there is a very high probability that the U.S. economy is headed into a recession. Citing research from the Federal Reserve Bank, it concludes:

There have been six recessions since 1968, the year that the quarterly survey of economists began. At the start of each one, economists put the odds that the economy would shrink in the current quarter at 40 percent or more. In the latest survey, the forecasters also said there was a 43 percent chance that the economy would shrink in the second quarter of 2008. Every time that reading has risen above 40 percent, the economy has gone into recession.

Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Quote of the Day

A hat tip goes to my old pal Earl C. for this one:

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug pusher an "unlicensed pharmacist."

That will do for my quote of the day.

Barone: HRC Could Still Win Nomination

See this U.S. New & World Report analysis by Michael Barone, arguably the best journalistic analyst of modern American politics. Examining demographics of the next few big states to vote - OH, PA, TX, WI - Barone concludes that two of these races definitely favor Clinton: OH and PA. WI he believes will probably go to Obama, and TX is up for grabs.

He bases his conclusions on the relatively small number of black voters in all of these states and of educated white Democratic voters in all except WI. Barone completely ignores the so-called "momentum" factor about which other pundits are waxing rhapsodic. I suspect he ignores it because it has been a noticeably unreliable predictor this year.