Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not want to make the same error as some of the putative conservatives do here on the board, i.e., denigrate a town without taking into account its complexities and circumstances that would demand more consideration.
First, I would freely acknowledge that Piedmont is almost uniformly beautiful, but the operative word is "uniformly," which I will return to in a moment. On the one hand, Piedmont is not only geographically connected to Oakland's Crocker Highlands, it is also as if the entire town were one big Crocker Highlands, with some estates even larger than those found in the former( Oakland's largest estates are found in Montclair, Woodmont/Claremont Hills, Claremont Pines and parts of the Ridgemont and Hillcrest estates). Herein lies, for me, the problem.
Piedmont is not just surrounded by Oakland,but two among its prime neighborhoods, Crocker Highlands and Montclair. Piedmont, a bastion of Bay Area wealth, is ensconced within wealth, and is literally and figuratively buffered from any contact, exchange, negotiation, or even acknowledgement of the outside world and its realities. Piedmont's highly rated schools produce students who can get into UC Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, and San Diego, not to mention Stanford and the great universities in the midwest and east. But to what effect? To return to a Piedmont-like cocoon. This might all be well and good, but how might this bode for a society that supposedly embodies a democratic ethos?
This brings me to the "uniformity." Piedmont was developed specifically as an all-white, wealthy enclave, replete with the housing covenants that discouraged the sale of property to Jews and forbade them to African-Americans. The mid-1960s Civil Rights legislation struck this down, but the wealth and social mores of Piedmont basically restored the racially exclusivist ethos of the township, albeit by other means.
It may very well be true that Piedmont is populated by democrats–––but this is no surprise, as democrats are largely better educated (see the above listed universities) and professional, and more likely to reinforce their political/philosophical understanding by reading Locke, Neihbur, Burke, Brooks, Buckley,Jr., and for the brave, Klein, Beauvoir, and Focault, whereas the Republican demographic now tends to the literally uneducated demagogues such as Beck and Limbaugh.
I have no doubt that based upon the very interesting point you raised about Piedmont's political trends, democrats of Piedmont might vote for, in addition to least registering as members of, the party that has historically (at least in the past eighty years) sympathized with minorities, immigrants, and the working classes. But Piedmonters will not live with or anywhere near same said "Others" for whom they might vote more fair-minded policies.
Now, I am not about to say that Montclair or Crocker Highlands, to name but two of Oakland's tony neighborhoods, are redoubts of class diversity or places that did not practice exclusionary housing up until the 1960s. There are without doubt limousine liberals, or at least Lexus and BMW liberals, throughout Montclair and the Crocker Highlands who are very willing to help their "lessers," as long as they don't move in next store or go out with the old man's daughter. Yet, Oakland's better neighborhoods are closer geographically and socially to the city's less well off, less powerful, and less aristocratic in terms of social capital. This proximity demands more social interaction, more negotiation, and more awareness of a world other than that of leafy streets, grand homes, and nearly uniform class, ethnic, and racial community.
However exclusive Oakland's better neighborhoods are, they in fact do boast more diversity ethnically and racially than their counterparts in Piedmont (or supposedly "liberal" San Francisco, for that matter). Their proximity to and connection with the rest of the city involves residents in many more ways, and indeed the well-heeled Oaklanders have involved themselves directly in terms of volunteering time, money, and expertise to bettering their city overall. This is of course, self-interest, but it makes for a more democratic ethos.
Thus, I freely acknowledge the beauty of Piedmont, the grandeur of its homes, the orderliness of its governance, the cleanliness of its streets, and the excellence of its schools. I thank you both for pointing out that Piedmont has a high number of self-identified democrats, most of whom would ostensibly vote for and/or otherwise support the more rational,educated, and efficacious style of government on many if not most issues.
But for me, Piedmont's political and social history remains disturbing. That it has effectively replicated its past incarnations albeit other means (exclusive economic and social power) presents the flip side to Oakland's pathology-scared ghettos, but it is a side of the same coin in the currency of America's race, ethnic, and class dilemma.
And I admit that I might not be able to quantify in an objective manner the difference of feeling I have experienced when crossing over from Crocker Highlands or Montclair into Piedmont––the scale of homes are almost the same, the homes and estates designed by many of the the same architects, the streets almost indistinguishable––-but a difference there is. Perhaps it is the plethora of signs indicating police patrols exclusive to Piedmont; perhaps it is the nearly uniform complexions of the residents whom I encounter; perhaps it is the scrutiny I receive as an "outsider," no matter how well dressed I am or that I, too, am a graduate of an Ivy League university.
And I will note that these perhaps subjective perceptions–––coupled with some objectively derived knowledge about Piedmont and Oakland's history–––do not predispose me to have very warm feelings about Piedmont in the way I do for, say, Haddon Hill or Oakmore in Oakland.
So, I hope this response does forthrightly acknowledge your points in favor of Piedmont as valid, and very informative as well. Yet I also hope that my explication will convey some points to consider, and that even if you might disagree with them, at least they, too, will give one pause to reconsider.
Just want to point out that you can be a registered Democrat and still be very conservative. ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
Piedmont has more than 75% Registered Democrats vs 23% Republican... I never thought of Piedmont being Conservative either...
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitors sites is not allowed
Piedmont is extremely pro-active when it comes to the community... many residential streets have 15 mph speed limits and Piedmont Officer told me he can jail speeders going more than 30 in a 15 zone because it's double the speed limit... they also are very strict if you've got a tail light out or similar...
Did you know that if you do any business in Piedmont you pay business tax... this includes all home based business or if you are a contractor fixing a sticking door... makes no difference...
Not really. Apparently liberals don't think a significant asian population is "diversity" enough for them. Thats exactly what piedmont has.
But successful minorities who do well on their own are no use to the left. And hence ignored. They are "honorary" whites and included with the white population. I find that interesting.
Just want to point out that you can be a registered Democrat and still be very conservative. ;-)
I know alot of "liberal" republicans. Though they are of the classical "liberal" variety and are more libertarian in that sense. Democrats were traditionally the party of sourthern (racist) conservatives so it makes sense in any case.
Not really. Apparently liberals don't think a significant asian population is "diversity" enough for them. Thats exactly what piedmont has.
But successful minorities who do well on their own are no use to the left. And hence ignored. They are "honorary" whites and included with the white population. I find that interesting.
It is the reappearance of those conservatives of the bay, given to calling themselves "dude" of one sort or anther, who give us cause to find it "interesting" how they like receiving their derrières on silver platters. It is not enough that they make spectacles of themselves, going down in flames as would a Zero under fire from a Corsair by tallying exactly zero in the direct comparison and contrast of their calumnies, obfuscations, misstatements, and outright balderdash with that which is the actual fact.
And here one of the self-derrière collecting bright lights of the dimmer set awaits his silver platter with the latest unsupported calumny and invitation to disabuse by abuse. Consider it granted:
1) President Barack Obama
2) Professor Barbara Fields
3) Toni Morrison
4) Ursula M. Burns
5) Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
6) Professor Glenn Loury
7) Amy Tan
8) Secretary of State Colin Powell
9) Richard Delgado
10) John, Robert, Ted Kennedy
Let's see, in this but partial list we have listed African-American men and women, an Asian-American, a Hispanic-American, three Catholic Irish-Americans, all of whom belong or belonged to "minority" groups, all of whom have distinguished themselves in a range of disciplines, and all of whom Liberals and fair-minded conservatives ( an endangered breed) have honoured neither as "white" nor as worthy of living in Piedmont.
That those of the cali calumny set do not give statistics or any meaningful evidence that would approach the status of truth is a given.
And that the distinguished representative of the dim dudish set of Cali climes has proven himself/herself most incorrect,most fatuous, and most boorish in the slinging about of dank and thinly veiled racialisms yet again demonstrates his or her in hopes, one can only gather, that same self said dude could collect behind-thinking part of the anatomy from the proverbially served silver platter. I have handed it to thee, oh dude who abides by the bay, and with great pleasure.
This is the part where you might recall the abfab scene in Monty Python: "Now go away before I taunt you a second( third, fourth, fifth, etc.) time."
I know alot of "liberal" republicans. Though they are of the classical "liberal" variety and are more libertarian in that sense. Democrats were traditionally the party of sourthern (racist) conservatives so it makes sense in any case.
It is presented in evidence yet again that dudes at bay, without doubt, really don't "know alot" about, well, anything. There are no "liberal" Republicans,either in the contemporary or 19th century sense, serving in office or pontificating in the emerging or established media. "Libertarianism" is just a variant of postmodern "conservatism," favored primarily by white males who advance the utterly undermined notion that the "free market" solves all, and that no government intervention or regulation is necessary. This dovetails with that which passes for postmodern conservatism, in that it denies (a) the historicity of race, class, and gender as modes of systemic inequality and the role of government in addressing it and (b) attempts to preserve the economic and social privilege (class) that certain white males enjoy.
As to the very hoary, and disgusting, calumny among the right-wing, i.e., Democrats were the traditional party of the racist south, this completely overlooks the following facts: (a) the democrats became the party of the large city, white ethnics in the early part of the 20th century and then expanded to champion African-American and other minorities by the 1930s, whereas the the Republicans became first the redoubt of the country-club set of white Anglo-Saxons of privilege and then, from 1968 onward, the purveyor of thinly veiled racism via the "Southern Strategy."
And this strategy entailed picking up all of the Southern Dixiecrats who would never abide by the landmark Civil Rights legislation first gingerly proposed under Roosevelt, moved forward by Truman, and taken up full force by the Kennedys (particularly Robert and Ted), Lyndon Johnson, and every Democratic president, Congress, and Senate since.
Perhaps the moderator here finds it amusing, instructive, or unimportant that some conservative dudes are given to bandying about barely veiled ad-hominems, outright historical lies, and all manner of calumny and falsehoods under the guise of "contributing" to the discourse.
But let these "dudes" of the bay know as a fact: every single one their lies, idiocies, innuendos, calumnies, and out-and-out disgusting assaults on the the very notion of truth will be revealed for what they are, and will be made to reflect on the execrable nature not only of the base assertions, but also of baseness of the character behind such attempts.
And I for one, within the constraints of time, will ensure that this is so.
Not really. Apparently liberals don't think a significant asian population is "diversity" enough for them. Thats exactly what piedmont has.
But successful minorities who do well on their own are no use to the left. And hence ignored. They are "honorary" whites and included with the white population. I find that interesting.
Minus the Asian poplation in Piedmont, I don't agree with that at all.
Might I suggest that with respect to the calumny of a conservative who identifies himself or herself as a "dude" of one sort or another, of course you would–––and should–––disagree. A lie is an assault on truth. In this, yet another rancid and simultaneously bathetic attempt to creep out his or her way to the middle, as sleeping their way to the top is but a chemera, and thus attain attention he or she cannot get elsewhere, the self-described dude of bay watched is willing to exploit Asian-Americans as pawns, removing them from the human experience and rendering them into "model minority" to thus cast aspersions upon other minorities whom the baying dude views as less than worthy, less than whites, less than human.
As cowards the world over must do, the champion of marketed for free projects his own unseemly but all so evident racism upon the "left," which has handed him in his mind and on these boards a lifetime of slights, frustrations, and catastrophic defeats.
What one finds "interesting" is that dudes baying from the champion-free market can be so unaware that their use of Asian-American as pawns in their racial board games reveals their ugly and base racism to one and all, and that their simultaneous baiting and scapegoating of the left confirms the baseness of intent as well as the baselessness of their conservativism-besotted delusions of mediocrity.
As for Piedmont, the place will stand proud, beautiful, affluent, and apart from all that doesn't quite conform to what its residents consider the "right people." Tout ça change, tout reste le même.
Be that as it may, the (very) abbreviated list I posted of the leaders in the arts, academia, politics, military, and commercial life, all of whom come from minority groups, and all of whom have won acclaim from the "left" as well as the endangered species, fair-minded conservatives, reveal and highlight once again the big lies that come from very, very little persons of the conservative, dude-think sort.
Might I suggest that with respect to the calumny of a conservative who identifies himself or herself as a "dude" of one sort or another, of course you would–––and should–––disagree. A lie is an assault on truth. In this, yet another rancid and simultaneously bathetic attempt to creep out his or her way to the middle, as sleeping their way to the top is but a chemera, and thus attain attention he or she cannot get elsewhere, the self-described dude of bay watched is willing to exploit Asian-Americans as pawns, removing them from the human experience and rendering them into "model minority" to thus cast aspersions upon other minorities whom the baying dude views as less than worthy, less than whites, less than human.
As cowards the world over must do, the champion of marketed for free projects his own unseemly but all so evident racism upon the "left," which has handed him in his mind and on these boards a lifetime of slights, frustrations, and catastrophic defeats.
What one finds "interesting" is that dudes baying from the champion-free market can be so unaware that their use of Asian-American as pawns in their racial board games reveals their ugly and base racism to one and all, and that their simultaneous baiting and scapegoating of the left confirms the baseness of intent as well as the baselessness of their conservativism-besotted delusions of mediocrity.
As for Piedmont, the place will stand proud, beautiful, affluent, and apart from all that doesn't quite conform to what its residents consider the "right people." Tout ça change, tout reste le même.
Be that as it may, the (very) abbreviated list I posted of the leaders in the arts, academia, politics, military, and commercial life, all of whom come from minority groups, and all of whom have won acclaim from the "left" as well as the endangered species, fair-minded conservatives, reveal and highlight once again the big lies that come from very, very little persons of the conservative, dude-think sort.
I'm not 100% sure where you're going. I disagreed with that post minus the Asian population because I've seen the Asians in Piedmont.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
