Are there any conservatives in the TC's at all? (Minneapolis: neighborhood, construction)

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by golfgal

I think if you look at the actual results you will see that the R/D split in outstate MN isn't as big as you think. Yes, a lot of counties are Red, but by a percentage point or few is all. There are some that are strong R states but many are 45-55 splits vs some of the D counties in the metro that are 30-70 splits (or 35-65 splits). The Iron range is very D.

2012 Election Results Map by State - Live Voting Updates - POLITICO.com

There are two counties in the metro area that are heavily Democrat: Ramsey and Hennepin, and that's because of the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul not because of their suburbs. Why would that be? Go back to the Pew Research link and you'll find it's because minorities very heavily identify as Democrats. While most whites identify as Republican, it's not by nearly the margin (+17) as whites. What's behind the political divide in this country? A racial divide.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

There are two counties in the metro area that are heavily Democrat: Ramsey and Hennepin, and that's because of the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul not because of their suburbs. Why would that be? Go back to the Pew Research link and you'll find it's because minorities very heavily identify as Democrats. While most whites identify as Republican, it's not by nearly the margin (+17) as whites. What's behind the political divide in this country? A racial divide.

Which would seem to bear out the problems that the GOP is having. Problems, which, they are not particularly interested in fixing.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Which would seem to bear out the problems that the GOP is having. Problems, which, they are not particularly interested in fixing.

I guess if by "fixing" you mean following the opposition's example of abandoning principles solely to gain votes and power then, thankfully, no it would seem that most Republicans are not interested in such a fix.

[Lafferty Daniel]

Imagine people in Twin Cities conservative with some things, liberal with others?

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

What's behind the political divide in this country? A racial divide.

In many states (including Minnesota), the divide appears to be much more of an urban/rural divide than purely race. Obviously race places into it in a major way, but I think it's hard to separate the two because minorities largely live in urban areas and always have. But we see that Minneapolis and St. Paul--both with white majorities--are so overwhelmingly liberal that it transcends the racial divide.

Outside the Twin Cities is an even better indicator. Here are some of the Great Minnesota counties with "large" cities within them: St. Louis (Duluth), Olmsted (Rochester), Blue Earth (Mankato), Clay (Moorhead). A common theme? All of them are pretty overwhelmingly white counties where people voted Democrat in the last election. The smallest spread was Olmsted (a 3 percent difference in voting), but that's always been a slightly more red area and is trending blue over time.

This really does need to be looked at as an urban versus rural debate. Other than the Iron Range, which trends blue only because of the strong union hold there, there just aren't a whole lot of rural areas with a strong enough DFL presence to overcome the general red tinge. And even so, a Range DFLer does not have the same reasons for voting the party as the DFLer who lives on Mount Curve. (Similarly, I'd argue a Wayzata Republican's voting reasons differ from the GOPer out in the sticks).

[WriterDude]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Someone else's words: "Have you even considered an argument where you disagreed with the outcome?"

Oops, I failed. And this ends the discussion. Thanks for playing! (insert condescending "thumbs-up" emoticon here)

I don't own firearms (or tanks or RPGs or nukes or Claymores), but you illustrated the source of the problem very well. You didn't even make your version more succinct, which was your original claim.

Our society is balanced by the structure of our institutions on one side, and the constant pressure to perfect our society on the other. When our founders said "more perfect union," they said what they meant. Today, we have so many people who ferociously denounce imperfections, without any understanding of what perfect means. As a society, we can't agree on the perfect breakfast, the perfect Scotch, the perfect sunrise, the perfect anything; how the heck can we try to define the perfect law about guns, or the perfect law about health care, or a perfect law about religion?

The founders understood that the best they could do was make it perfect-ish. As citizens, we need to identify the places where a peaceful compromise is way better than shouting for an impossible ideal.

We also can't discuss the Bill of Rights without acknowledging that it was modeled after the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments is all about 2 things: social norming (don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, be nice to your Mom and Dad, don't shack up with your neighbor's wife, don't covet your neighbor's iPhone); and religious dogma (I'm your God, I'm the number one God, don't take my name in vain) The Bill of Rights is about 3 things: defining human and civil rights (free speech, free religion, jury trials, self-incrimination, privacy - 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments); issues of the day (right to bear arms, right to avoid troop quartering - 2nd and 3rd Amendments); and limitations on federal power over individual or state power (9th and 10th amendments).

Reasonable people will differ about these things, reasonably. :-) Here's hoping that Minneapolis is a place where people look for reasonableness in their consideration and moderation in their approach. If it's not, we can all ask ourselves about our role in that problem.

[WriterDude]

Originally Posted by Lafferty Daniel

Imagine people in Twin Cities conservative with some things, liberal with others?

You raise a fascinating point. In many cases, I'd guess that the Twin Cities are fairly conservative (individual right) about the right to keep homes warm in the winter, fairly liberal (public organizing) about the need to have city snow removal services at the same time. Where I am in Arizona, we don't have to plow the streets, and public money is spent on very different things.

At the same time, I honestly believe that there's a rational foundation for most political thinking. For example, I think we all agree that we have freedom of religious choice. Most Americans would consider it preposterous to *in any way* limit someone's choice of religion. The issue is always in the practical details. How do we handle situations like women wearing a burqa to the DMV to get their driver's license picture? We have a tax-free status for churches, so atheists could legitimately claim they're being forced to fund churches (in the same way that public funding for abortions brings out pro-life ire). What happens if someone's religion requires them to molest children to get into heaven? (I totally blew this example out of proportion to make the point.)

I think we all fundamentally agree that people have rights. The scope, function, and exercise of those rights is a different matter. Whenever someone tries to state that the people they disagree with are something-phobes, or fascist, or don't believe in rights, I get a little irritable. I try to err on the side of acceptance and tolerance whenever possible, which would make me a right-winger in Berkeley, a beret-wearing commie in Texas, and a moderate - well, somewhere.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I guess if by "fixing" you mean following the opposition's example of abandoning principles solely to gain votes and power then, thankfully, no it would seem that most Republicans are not interested in such a fix.

And that's just fine by me!

[Glenfield]

WriterDude, I appreciate your thoughtful, well reasoned, and well written posts on this topic. They are a refreshing change from the one liner gotchas that all too often pass for dialogue around here.

I agree with you that we all generally accept the same principles, but the details are where we get hung up. I'd even say that most people on all sides of the political spectrum agree on the broad objectives, like educate our kids, keep us safe, provide opportunity and aid to the poor. Unfortunately, the steps we take to achieve those objectives can look very different, and result in very different social orders, and there are some battles on that front that are worth fighting for. If we could follow your advice and respect each others' positions, perhaps the battles could be less heated. But in some ways, both the left and the right see this as a life or death struggle. For those in power, perhaps it is.

[WriterDude]

Hi Glenfield,

Thanks for the welcome!

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I agree with you that we all generally accept the same principles, but the details are where we get hung up. I'd even say that most people on all sides of the political spectrum agree on the broad objectives, like educate our kids, keep us safe, provide opportunity and aid to the poor.

Precisely. I attended UC Berkeley back in the day, and ran into massive contradictions within the liberal universe. Campus radicals burned down the ROTC building. Act of violence? Hate crime? Political Speech? There's a very active nudist community in Berkeley, and they parade in the nude, even in areas where young children are present. Self expression? Public nudity? Child abuse? Sexual deviancy? Churches ran soup kitchens and shelters for the homeless, who refused to sleep in the shelters because they'd get robbed by other homeless people, so there were thousands of unoccupied beds in the shelters. Self-destructive choices? Foolish pride? Awkward reality?

I'm reminded of the standard liberal approach to poverty: state and federal benefits, sympathy, and encouragement. The standard conservative approach to poverty: changing public policy to spur job creation, sympathy, and encouragement. The radical liberal approach is shoveling cash into a shredder and encouraging the disadvantaged to believe that they're where they are because the rich hate them. The radical conservative approach is to encourage the police to roust the bums and take the absence of street people as a sign of progress. So moderates focus on the sympathy and encouragement that everyone can agree on, and hope that the rest of the problem will resolve.

Sadly, the political parties are both bound. They ossify into interest blocs rather than drive practical solutions to solvable issues. That's why aggregate congressional approval ratings are in the single digits, but congressional approval ratings by constituents are good enough for a 95%+ reelection rate for incumbents.

So we're all guilty, and all part of the problem, and over half of us are too lazy to even get out and vote.