Why is Minnesota different? (Dakota, Kensington: centers, safety, estimated)

[WriterDude]

Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile

Those are the first two things that come immediately to mind for me.

Exceptions abound, and these are gross generalizations. However, I'd say it also has to do with population density, diversity, and transition pressures.

In Minnesota (certainly within the Twin Cities), there was enough population (and enough diversity) that individuals needed to use arbitrary authority to govern (manage trade, arbitrate disputes, enforce the laws). Over time, especially in a climate that discourages strict individualism, it made sense to use the state to govern a wider and wider array of things, and that governance required progressive social policies. Without a strong power center between the family and the state (except for explicitly civic entities like unions), progressive political thinking became ingrained in institutions. That accelerated in the absence of social cohesion created by comprehensive religious institutions (nothing like the Baptist Church in the Bible Belt), and in response to the need for cooperative standards in a heterogeneous population. That transition from the 40s to the 60s led to a political climate that is more like modern-day liberalism. Doesn't mean that Minnesota is "liberal" per se, although it could be perceived that way from a fairly conservative perspective. From Massachusetts, Minnesotans are moderate.

In the Dakotas, a smaller and more uniform population simply didn't need the state to do as much, so they used direct local authority to govern, and consequently gave up less power to the state. Progressive social polices weren't as necessary to maintain community cohesion, and to a certain degree, progressivism was looked at skeptically. That transition through the 40s through the 60s led to a political climate that is more like modern-day conservatism. Doesn't mean the Dakotas are "conservative" per se, but they could be perceived that way from a fairly liberal perspective. From Alabama, the Dakotas are moderate.

[phlinak]

Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring

Minnesota, and the Twin Cities in particular, put a lot of emphasis on education and in general the population ranks high in educational attainment. That is one big reason that I can think of.

I believe this is the explanation. Study after study has demonstrated that the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to identify with, accept and embrace liberal political views.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by WriterDude

Exceptions abound, and these are gross generalizations.

I suppose that if we are going to describe entire states as either this or that, isn't that by definition a gross generalization? I don't mean that as a criticism of your post; as usual it was thoughtful and well-worded. It's just that I wonder why we all have a need to classify ourselves and each other into pre-defined categories. Do the categories exist because that's the way we really think, or do we think a certain way because that's what we understand fits the category we identify with?

[my54ford]

Originally Posted by phlinak

I believe this is the explanation. Study after study has demonstrated that the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to identify with, accept and embrace liberal political views.

Maybe not? Look t all the dummy's in DC which is overaly populated by dumbocrats....
The Audacious Epigone: State IQ estimates (2009)
The Audacious Epigone: Politics and IQ; Conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans least intelligent
Evincing the whiterpeople/NAM divide, the gap is especially wide among Democrats. This tentatively suggests moving either party towards the political center is going to see that party's voter base become less intelligent. This meshes with what appears to have happened to the GOP this election cycle with leftist John McCain as the party's Presidential nominee.

* The GSS lists three degrees for each side by political party orientation and also by political ideology (seven total categories for party and also for ideology). I've condensed them to three for ease of comparison in both sets of tables. The IQ conversion from Wordsum scores is based on the presumption that the white average is 100.

** Women have stronger verbal intelligence than men do. They are also more likely to be Democrats than men are. Consequently, not controlling for gender artificially inflates the apparent average intelligence of Democrats relative to Republicans when GSS data are being used.

^ At least the GSS suggests as much. However, the GSS' proxy for intelligence is a verbal measure. In academia, emphasis on verbal intelligence and leftism go together--disciplines where mathematical and visuo-spatial abilities are more heavily rewarded (engineering, computer science, business) are less leftist in orientation.

[WriterDude]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I suppose that if we are going to describe entire states as either this or that, isn't that by definition a gross generalization? I don't mean that as a criticism of your post; as usual it was thoughtful and well-worded. It's just that I wonder why we all have a need to classify ourselves and each other into pre-defined categories. Do the categories exist because that's the way we really think, or do we think a certain way because that's what we understand fits the category we identify with?

Hi Glenfield,

LOL - you're exactly right. I should have been more careful, and said something like "because we're sailing on the S.S. Generality, I'll start by rearranging the deck chairs."

I think we aim for classifications because our brains are ordered that way. Also, there are major survival advantages to being able to group things ("safe to eat"/"likely to eat me"), or to see variations from an expected pattern ("that pork chop is blue; I'll have the fish"). It's a very human kinda thing.

Socially, I think it's handy for someone like me to say, "I'm open to a whole vast range of different types of people, but I won't hang out with heavy smokers or those openly carrying deadly weapons." When I make that type of assertion, some will enter into a categorization tizzy and judge me as an anti-smoking elitist with a deep aversion to people with ice picks. Others will think, "oookay, sounds like he's not some kinda weirdo who's gonna double-dip my salsa, so maybe I'll invite him over for my next ping pong & snooker party." Yet others, well, they're going to be difficult to classify without a generalization, ya know?

Oh, right, and because we're on a message board, I feel compelled to say something outlandish, so here goes. "Conservatives are all conservative or something. And liberals are all liberal or something. And some noun verbs about some other noun." Sorry if anyone was offended by that; I know how strong language comes across online.

[WriterDude]

Originally Posted by phlinak

I believe this is the explanation. Study after study has demonstrated that the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to identify with, accept and embrace liberal political views.

I thought more education was correlated with more student loan debt? Sheesh, I always miss the fun studies.

Frankly, any study that attempts to "prove" a connection between educational achievement and political perspective is inherently suspect. How would we have reacted if a bunch of conservatives found a reverse correlation between educational achievement and IQ?

Even better, what if some study identified significant parallels between liberal intellectualism and Maoist political theories that led to the Cultural Revolution in China? Cultural Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, you mean if a study shows results we like, it must be right, and if one says our political perspectives are associated with 30 million dead people, it must be flawed? Ooookay.

I think it's best to keep a sense of perspective about these things.

[chessgeek]

Originally Posted by Mouldy Old Schmo

I wonder if Farmer Jensen is cool with same-sex marriage.

The organic farmers are cool with it; the non-organic farmers not so much...LOL!

[unnativeelpasoan]

Originally Posted by Mouldy Old Schmo

It's been said that the large number of Scandanavian immigrants made Minnesota into the liberal state it is today. But a lot of them also immigrated to the Dakotas and those states are much more conservative. What is the difference?

It has been my experience that in rural, northern MN, where there are a lot of Scandinavians, people are quite conservative. But that is just my experience.

[freezengirl]

Hmm. I am from the very far northern part of Minnesota. I have always found it to be quite progressive. I suspect in part that it might be a spill over from the Iron Range sociocultural history. One hundred twenty miles south east in Bemidji area is as different as can be, much more conservative. My DH and I have often talked about how different the two areas are and why that may be. The only thing that stood out is that the Iron Range was much more industrialized while the Bemidji area was more of a farm based economy overall.

[iNviNciBL3]

Originally Posted by Mouldy Old Schmo

I wonder if Farmer Jensen is cool with same-sex marriage.

Most southwest MN counties voted highly in favor to pass the man + women only marriage bill.