Why did you post this? Do you want comments? Who is the audience? I think the article is wrong about a lot, and I’d provide some criticisms but past conversations with you have led me to think you’re not looking for commentary from me.
I think the article is wrong about a lot
Of course you do.
But I’m in a better position to know what’s what! Which would you rather read: a tea party voter explaining why he supports tea party candidates, or a liberal democrat explaining why the tea party voter supports tea party candidates?
Liberal Jews were looking for a rational excuse to justify their emotional stance
Vic Rosenthal must know Bob personally.
Jiminator:
Looking for a rational excuse to justify an emotional stance is pretty much what “liberals” do anyway. It’s not like they have logic on their side.
Well, here’s one example of Vic Rosenthal’s ignorance: the article suggests that both secular and non-Orthodox Jews don’t really know a lot about Israel, and what they do know is from leftist university professors and leftist university environments. But that’s wrong: talk to any Jew who is both non-Orthodox and non-secular (in other words, someone who is Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, or perhaps even Humanist if you can find one). A member of any of those kinds of synagogues will typically be quite informed about Israel. They’ll typically have many friends who have visited Israel even if they themselves haven’t visited. If they are the type of person who follows the news and cares about politics at all (as opposed to being the kind of person who only cares about sports or physics or gossip or whatever), then they’ll likely be very informed about Israeli current events.
This is often true of secular Jews as well, but it is easier to generalize accurately about people who attend synagogues, because as much as there will often be many differences between a given Conservative synagogue and a given Reform one, there will be even more similarities, and one of those similarities is an interest in the welfare of Jews across the world, and an interest in Israel in particular.
Any Jew, really? You’ve managed to interview all of them?
First I suggested how to start: “talk to any Jew who is both non-orthodox and non-secular”. Then I said they would “typically” be […], and then I talked about the relative ease of generalizing about the synagogue members vs non-members. I’m well aware that I’m generalizing.
But compare my argument to the original piece: Rosenthal was making generalizations about non-secular non-orthodox Jews (as well as secular Jews), so I was countering those generalizations with generalizations of my own. Neither of us talked to every person in the categories we were discussing. The difference, I bet, is that I’ve known more Reform and Conservative Jews than Rosenthal has. I’m not Orthodox and I bet Rosenthal is.
The overall point is this: synagogue members of all the major streams of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform) are exposed to a lot of information about Israel that goes beyond what someone would (typically) pick up going to college (assuming they aren’t middle east studies majors). Conservative and Reform synagogues are great places to get a Zionist perspective on Israel, and contrary to Rosenthal’s prejudices, most Conservative and Reform Jews count themselves as Zionists. What was baffling to Rosenthal in 2012 when the piece was published was that this Zionist perspective didn’t lead to a rejection of Obama. I could explain why, but I would want to know I was talking to someone who actually cared.
Okay, I hate to admit this but sometimes I comment before reading the whole thread. I’m sure Rand and no one else here has ever done that, because it’s wrong. But anyway, shortly into reading Bob-1’s comments my mind substituted “Disney World” for “Israel” and now I think I might need hernia surgery. There were perhaps a few other twists, but I think Disney is the one that will land me in the ER.
What’s sad is not just Jews supporting Obama, but the general willingness of groups who, historically, should most be aware of the evils of statism (Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, etc.*) from their ancestors’ first-hand experience with it, falling into place like good little Eloi when the Hive gets another power-tripping Democrat to run for office.
*Even, to a large extent, my own group, the Irish, who left the “ould sod” for a freer society here in America, and then either went to work for the State or supported Democratic politicans who wanted to expand the State.
Clarification:
When I refer to Gays’ “ancestors,” I am speaking metaphorically: that is, of the older generations of homosexuals who actually could get arrested for their sexual practices, or the Gays who fought the cops at Stonewall.
Personally, though I’m certainly it total disagreement with how 70% of Jews vote, and am also a vehement supporter of Israel (US policy on Israel is a major issue for me, and one of many reasons I oppose Obama) I find the assumption of some on the right that Israel is a major issue for all Jewish-Americans to be somewhere between perplexing and offensive.
It does not require ignorance of an issue to not see it as a major issue. What it looks like to me, and that several Jewish friends have commented to me in the past, is that some on the right are basically telling Jews what they should, and should not, find important. I see this same dynamic on both sides regarding hispanics; the assumption that illegal aliens are a major issue for all of them. That’s racial stereotyping at best.
The GOP would also do well to look at why it does as poorly with Asians as it does Hispanics and Jews. It would behoove them to find out, because only by finding out can they then see if there’s anything that can be done about it or not. The alternative is vacuous, offensive pandering based on false assumptions (which will thus backfire), like we’re seeing with some in the GOP who favor amnesty.
Also, they should beware of the trap of thinking that there is one big reason and fail by attempting to oversimplify. As with most things, it’s most likely multifaceted rather than simplistic.
I don’t pretend to know all of why the GOP does poorly with Asians and Jews, but I do know one aspect of it; the GOP needs to play the same game as the Democrats; identity politics. There is a golden opening to do so via pointing out how badly some Democrat agendas would impact a specific group. For example, a smart move would be to point out to blacks and Asians the impact on their communities of an amnesty – higher unemployment, reduced social services, etc. There are also racial divides (An example of which is the antipathy between many blacks and koreans) that can be exploited
I hate identity politics (I’d prefer that no one used it) but the fact is, it works, and the other side does it well. It’s time the GOP started playing the game too, instead of leaving the field to the other side. The opportunity is a golden one; the Democrat “coalition” is by far the most vulnerable of the two sides to this sort of maneuver. (To pick yet another example, the opposing interests and agendas of unions and environmentalists is another golden opportunity to drive a wedge and peel away a few votes.).
“I don’t pretend to know all of why the GOP does poorly with Asians and Jews, ”
Because they tend to be concentrated in urban areas and share the same myopic mindset with other urbanites that the world ends before the horizon and food comes from a supermarket.
M Pucket, that’s a very interesting point.
Speaking as someone who has occasionally, but thankfully no longer, lived in urban areas, I think you might have hit the nail on the head, and I’ll go further to include white urbanites, because the same dynamic applies.
I think it can be summed up as city life corrodes the mind; it makes many people myopic and utterly incompetent; they can’t even change a tire or do basic car and home repairs (even in an emergency), and panic if their cell phone stops working. Perhaps the plethora of easy services a cell call away means they never have to grow up, and thus many essentially have the mindset of children, with the government in the role of parent.
A glance at an electoral map with results by precinct shows that liberal majorities occur in the cities and virtually nowhere else. Islands of blue in a sea of red. Perhaps those Republicans who think the country should keep increasing its population (and thus shifting an even larger percentage of the population to urban realms) in mind. The GOP doesn’t have an ethnic problem, it has an urban problem.
Here is a challenge for you: explain rural Southwest Wisconsin’s liberal voting pattern. Exclude liberal Madison, home of the University of Wisconsin. Exclude anywhere close enough to be influenced by Madison and the University. Focus on the voting pattern of the counties with the highest percentage of rural population. I’m talking about the Southwest, not the Northwest, so the Native American population is extremely low. The African-American, Asian, Hispanic and Jewish populations are all also extremely low. From personal experience: the percentage of really nice people who know exactly how to fix their own stuff seems quite high, but I don’t have any data on it. I’m not saying that Southwest Wisconsin disproves your hypothesis, I’m just suggesting that it would be a good exercise to explain why they vote the way they do.
I should add: my guess is that Southwest Wisconsin farmers vote for liberal candidates for the same reason that urban Jews do.
Here’s an observation that does dispute your hypothesis: many large American cities are surrounded by wealthier suburbs which vote for Republicans. In these wealthy Republican-leaning suburbs, goods and services are easy to come by (often easier than in the cities), and the wealthier the suburb, the less likely people are to fix (or even know how to fix) their own cars and homes.
I think it has more to do with the relentless racist and bigoted stereotyping that Democrats engage in. The article referenced a fear of Christians and backed it up with the bigoted things Democrats say all the time.
Democrats divide all the various ethnic, gender, and religious groups and then try and make it out as if the “other” is out to get them. It is pretty f’d up really and on par with some of the nastiest things done by one human to another in modern history.
Wodun, I assume you’re referring to the central thesis regarding why Jews back Obama and you’re not referring to Arizona CJ’s idea about how red and blue America correspond to rural and urban America.
There was only one paragraph in Rosenthal’s essay that you could be discussing – it was this one: They are very concerned about what they perceive as the danger of a Christian takeover of American society, in which Christian symbols and prayer will be officially sanctioned in public places, abortion and contraception will be prohibited on religious grounds, their children will be required to sing Christmas carols, etc. They associate Christianity with antisemitism — but do not seem to be alarmed by growing antisemitism on the Left, or in the black community.
First of all, these issues are real:
The Supreme Court in the last month or two came down on the side of Christian prayer at a New York village council meeting. The right to an abortion is threatened on religious grounds . I personally was required to sing religious Christmas carols in my public school (O Holy Night, for example) and so on.
But fortunately, except for abortion, none of that stuff is very important!
Abortion is the only issue of any consequence, and only abortion played any real role in Presidential politics. Nobody was worried about Christmas carols when they voted for Obama or Romney.
There is a religious component to the debate over abortion, but Christians (as opposed to Christian leaders) are as divided just like everyone else regarding abortion – it is hardly a Jewish-Christian issue.
Regarding Jewish-Christian relations in America, I think everything is going quite well! I’m certainly not aware of anything you could describe as ” f’d up really and on par with some of the nastiest things done by one human to another in modern history”!!!
Rosenthal gets it completely wrong.
@ Bob-1
Those are some interesting points.
As for Southwest Wisconsin’s voting patterns, I’ll be honest, I was utterly unfamiliar with them. Also, I’ve never been to that area, so I have no firsthand knowledge of it whatsoever. (Unlike a deep blue rural area near me in Northern Arizona, which I know well and can thus explain with ease)
Therefor, I don’t feel comfortable having, let alone voicing, an opinion on this Wisconsin area,… but what the heck, this is the Internet, so I’ll blather…
A look at an electoral map from 2012 confirms; Southwest Wisconsin is one of the very few rural areas Obama carried. I see it’s called the Driftless area, as it was spared glaciation in the last glacial era (unlike all the surrounding areas) and is thus different geologically.
I don’t know enough to have a firm opinion, but I see a couple of demographic clues; First, the economic basis of the area is more strongly than average government and union jobs (those are a disproportionate part of the higher paying jobs in the area) so you have the vote-buying effect in play. Secondly, there are a lot of urban transplants from the Chicago area in the region, and such folk often bring their politics with them while decrying the results of said policies as the reason they left. (I see this dynamic a lot in Northern Arizona with people who move here from urban California).
A further factor is the geology itself; the land is not as suited for farming as it is in surrounding regions, so farms are a smaller part of the economy, and trend to being small, poor ones).
A further *possible* factor; as Tip O’Neil once said, all politics is local, so I’m wondering if there is a similarity between the region (which until recent times seems to have had mostly solidly Republican local government) any my own, in that one party control tends to breed corruption (my county is solidly Republican, and there’s a lot of corruption (the old-boy network, pandering to big developers, and other forms of graft). As a result, this Republican has voted D more often than R in local elections).
I do find this issue very interesting (thank you for raising it), and IMHO, it’s the sort of thing that both parties ought to look into and try to understand, as they could both learn useful lessons (and thus better serve the voters and themselves) in this and other apparently anomalous areas. (regardless of whether the anomaly favors one party or the other).
As for my urban hypothesis, I don’t claim it to be a rule that applies everywhere, just more of a general trend. However, examples that run contrary to it (like the one you bought up about the Driftless area) are to me by far the most interesting, precisely because they run counter to it. The other one, Suburban Republicans… That’s interesting too, because it actually, contrary to my initial guess, fits my hypothesis; true suburbs tend to not be Republican, while the exurbs, (further out and thus much less urban) tend to be – and this dynamic seems to apply independent of income demographics.
Huh, now I’ll have to do more research – you’ve obviously done some! My personal experience runs contrary to what you’ve found, and now I have to discount (somewhat) what I thought I knew. I live in Chicago, but I’ve visited Grant and Lafayette counties many times (Grant is in the far SW corner of the state and Lafayette is just to the East, and I’ve spent a lot of time in neighboring Sauk and Richland counties. My experience is that the density of farms is as high as in rural (and Republican) Illinois. In the hilliest areas, dairy farming replaces cropland, but there is still plenty of cropland. (I might not be using the right words, as I’m a city person.) The people I’ve met tend to be people who build their own airplanes and fly off their own property, but they aren’t rich retirees, they are farmers, carpenters, and truckdrivers. (I realize this personal anecdotal stuff is useless for our conversation, but I thought I’d add some local color). Where I visit, no one is (seemingly, at least) from Illinois, and especially not from Chicago — all the Chicago transplants move farther North, to nice homes overlooking the Wisconsin River, which wouldn’t account for the voting trends in Grant and Lafayette counties. I can’t figure out (before doing any additional reading) why there would be more government jobs in the driftless region than elsewhere in Wisconsin.
One explanation I’ve heard for the Democratic voting trends involves dairy: according to the story I heard, dairy farmers traditionally pooled the milk they produced, and sold it collectively. If you were a dairy farmer and the neighboring dairy farm was having trouble, it would hurt your bottom line, so you had an additional incentive to help out, beyond just being neighborly. This collective farming method led to (moderately) left-leaning thinking, or so the explanation goes.
The other explanation I’ve heard involves ethnicity: the Scandinavian settlers trended leftward in their politics. This explanation doesn’t sound quite right to me: the lead miners who originally settled the area must have been rugged individualists. I’m typing this is a bit of a rush, so I’ll keep my own explanation to myself for now.
I’m obviously pretty ignorant, and now I’m inspired to learn more. I’m glad you found the subject interesting, and I agree with you that the anomalies are worth studying and understanding.
Regarding SW Wisconsin. In general, dairy farmers depend on government price supports for milk to survive. Groups that depend on government tend to vote for the party of government. That’s a simplification, since both parties have voted for price supports for farmers, but the Dems seem to play that game better.
This might be due to Jewish conservatives moving to Israel. I suspect a large fraction of Jews who voted for Reagan at 20 voted for Netanyahu at 50.
Why did you post this? Do you want comments? Who is the audience? I think the article is wrong about a lot, and I’d provide some criticisms but past conversations with you have led me to think you’re not looking for commentary from me.
I think the article is wrong about a lot
Of course you do.
But I’m in a better position to know what’s what! Which would you rather read: a tea party voter explaining why he supports tea party candidates, or a liberal democrat explaining why the tea party voter supports tea party candidates?
Liberal Jews were looking for a rational excuse to justify their emotional stance
Vic Rosenthal must know Bob personally.
Jiminator:
Looking for a rational excuse to justify an emotional stance is pretty much what “liberals” do anyway. It’s not like they have logic on their side.
Well, here’s one example of Vic Rosenthal’s ignorance: the article suggests that both secular and non-Orthodox Jews don’t really know a lot about Israel, and what they do know is from leftist university professors and leftist university environments. But that’s wrong: talk to any Jew who is both non-Orthodox and non-secular (in other words, someone who is Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, or perhaps even Humanist if you can find one). A member of any of those kinds of synagogues will typically be quite informed about Israel. They’ll typically have many friends who have visited Israel even if they themselves haven’t visited. If they are the type of person who follows the news and cares about politics at all (as opposed to being the kind of person who only cares about sports or physics or gossip or whatever), then they’ll likely be very informed about Israeli current events.
This is often true of secular Jews as well, but it is easier to generalize accurately about people who attend synagogues, because as much as there will often be many differences between a given Conservative synagogue and a given Reform one, there will be even more similarities, and one of those similarities is an interest in the welfare of Jews across the world, and an interest in Israel in particular.
Any Jew, really? You’ve managed to interview all of them?
First I suggested how to start: “talk to any Jew who is both non-orthodox and non-secular”. Then I said they would “typically” be […], and then I talked about the relative ease of generalizing about the synagogue members vs non-members. I’m well aware that I’m generalizing.
But compare my argument to the original piece: Rosenthal was making generalizations about non-secular non-orthodox Jews (as well as secular Jews), so I was countering those generalizations with generalizations of my own. Neither of us talked to every person in the categories we were discussing. The difference, I bet, is that I’ve known more Reform and Conservative Jews than Rosenthal has. I’m not Orthodox and I bet Rosenthal is.
The overall point is this: synagogue members of all the major streams of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform) are exposed to a lot of information about Israel that goes beyond what someone would (typically) pick up going to college (assuming they aren’t middle east studies majors). Conservative and Reform synagogues are great places to get a Zionist perspective on Israel, and contrary to Rosenthal’s prejudices, most Conservative and Reform Jews count themselves as Zionists. What was baffling to Rosenthal in 2012 when the piece was published was that this Zionist perspective didn’t lead to a rejection of Obama. I could explain why, but I would want to know I was talking to someone who actually cared.
Okay, I hate to admit this but sometimes I comment before reading the whole thread. I’m sure Rand and no one else here has ever done that, because it’s wrong. But anyway, shortly into reading Bob-1’s comments my mind substituted “Disney World” for “Israel” and now I think I might need hernia surgery. There were perhaps a few other twists, but I think Disney is the one that will land me in the ER.
What’s sad is not just Jews supporting Obama, but the general willingness of groups who, historically, should most be aware of the evils of statism (Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, etc.*) from their ancestors’ first-hand experience with it, falling into place like good little Eloi when the Hive gets another power-tripping Democrat to run for office.
*Even, to a large extent, my own group, the Irish, who left the “ould sod” for a freer society here in America, and then either went to work for the State or supported Democratic politicans who wanted to expand the State.
Clarification:
When I refer to Gays’ “ancestors,” I am speaking metaphorically: that is, of the older generations of homosexuals who actually could get arrested for their sexual practices, or the Gays who fought the cops at Stonewall.
Personally, though I’m certainly it total disagreement with how 70% of Jews vote, and am also a vehement supporter of Israel (US policy on Israel is a major issue for me, and one of many reasons I oppose Obama) I find the assumption of some on the right that Israel is a major issue for all Jewish-Americans to be somewhere between perplexing and offensive.
It does not require ignorance of an issue to not see it as a major issue. What it looks like to me, and that several Jewish friends have commented to me in the past, is that some on the right are basically telling Jews what they should, and should not, find important. I see this same dynamic on both sides regarding hispanics; the assumption that illegal aliens are a major issue for all of them. That’s racial stereotyping at best.
The GOP would also do well to look at why it does as poorly with Asians as it does Hispanics and Jews. It would behoove them to find out, because only by finding out can they then see if there’s anything that can be done about it or not. The alternative is vacuous, offensive pandering based on false assumptions (which will thus backfire), like we’re seeing with some in the GOP who favor amnesty.
Also, they should beware of the trap of thinking that there is one big reason and fail by attempting to oversimplify. As with most things, it’s most likely multifaceted rather than simplistic.
I don’t pretend to know all of why the GOP does poorly with Asians and Jews, but I do know one aspect of it; the GOP needs to play the same game as the Democrats; identity politics. There is a golden opening to do so via pointing out how badly some Democrat agendas would impact a specific group. For example, a smart move would be to point out to blacks and Asians the impact on their communities of an amnesty – higher unemployment, reduced social services, etc. There are also racial divides (An example of which is the antipathy between many blacks and koreans) that can be exploited
I hate identity politics (I’d prefer that no one used it) but the fact is, it works, and the other side does it well. It’s time the GOP started playing the game too, instead of leaving the field to the other side. The opportunity is a golden one; the Democrat “coalition” is by far the most vulnerable of the two sides to this sort of maneuver. (To pick yet another example, the opposing interests and agendas of unions and environmentalists is another golden opportunity to drive a wedge and peel away a few votes.).
“I don’t pretend to know all of why the GOP does poorly with Asians and Jews, ”
Because they tend to be concentrated in urban areas and share the same myopic mindset with other urbanites that the world ends before the horizon and food comes from a supermarket.
M Pucket, that’s a very interesting point.
Speaking as someone who has occasionally, but thankfully no longer, lived in urban areas, I think you might have hit the nail on the head, and I’ll go further to include white urbanites, because the same dynamic applies.
I think it can be summed up as city life corrodes the mind; it makes many people myopic and utterly incompetent; they can’t even change a tire or do basic car and home repairs (even in an emergency), and panic if their cell phone stops working. Perhaps the plethora of easy services a cell call away means they never have to grow up, and thus many essentially have the mindset of children, with the government in the role of parent.
A glance at an electoral map with results by precinct shows that liberal majorities occur in the cities and virtually nowhere else. Islands of blue in a sea of red. Perhaps those Republicans who think the country should keep increasing its population (and thus shifting an even larger percentage of the population to urban realms) in mind. The GOP doesn’t have an ethnic problem, it has an urban problem.
Here is a challenge for you: explain rural Southwest Wisconsin’s liberal voting pattern. Exclude liberal Madison, home of the University of Wisconsin. Exclude anywhere close enough to be influenced by Madison and the University. Focus on the voting pattern of the counties with the highest percentage of rural population. I’m talking about the Southwest, not the Northwest, so the Native American population is extremely low. The African-American, Asian, Hispanic and Jewish populations are all also extremely low. From personal experience: the percentage of really nice people who know exactly how to fix their own stuff seems quite high, but I don’t have any data on it. I’m not saying that Southwest Wisconsin disproves your hypothesis, I’m just suggesting that it would be a good exercise to explain why they vote the way they do.
I should add: my guess is that Southwest Wisconsin farmers vote for liberal candidates for the same reason that urban Jews do.
Here’s an observation that does dispute your hypothesis: many large American cities are surrounded by wealthier suburbs which vote for Republicans. In these wealthy Republican-leaning suburbs, goods and services are easy to come by (often easier than in the cities), and the wealthier the suburb, the less likely people are to fix (or even know how to fix) their own cars and homes.
I think it has more to do with the relentless racist and bigoted stereotyping that Democrats engage in. The article referenced a fear of Christians and backed it up with the bigoted things Democrats say all the time.
Democrats divide all the various ethnic, gender, and religious groups and then try and make it out as if the “other” is out to get them. It is pretty f’d up really and on par with some of the nastiest things done by one human to another in modern history.
Wodun, I assume you’re referring to the central thesis regarding why Jews back Obama and you’re not referring to Arizona CJ’s idea about how red and blue America correspond to rural and urban America.
There was only one paragraph in Rosenthal’s essay that you could be discussing – it was this one:
They are very concerned about what they perceive as the danger of a Christian takeover of American society, in which Christian symbols and prayer will be officially sanctioned in public places, abortion and contraception will be prohibited on religious grounds, their children will be required to sing Christmas carols, etc. They associate Christianity with antisemitism — but do not seem to be alarmed by growing antisemitism on the Left, or in the black community.
First of all, these issues are real:
The Supreme Court in the last month or two came down on the side of Christian prayer at a New York village council meeting. The right to an abortion is threatened on religious grounds . I personally was required to sing religious Christmas carols in my public school (O Holy Night, for example) and so on.
But fortunately, except for abortion, none of that stuff is very important!
Abortion is the only issue of any consequence, and only abortion played any real role in Presidential politics. Nobody was worried about Christmas carols when they voted for Obama or Romney.
There is a religious component to the debate over abortion, but Christians (as opposed to Christian leaders) are as divided just like everyone else regarding abortion – it is hardly a Jewish-Christian issue.
Regarding Jewish-Christian relations in America, I think everything is going quite well! I’m certainly not aware of anything you could describe as ” f’d up really and on par with some of the nastiest things done by one human to another in modern history”!!!
Rosenthal gets it completely wrong.
@ Bob-1
Those are some interesting points.
As for Southwest Wisconsin’s voting patterns, I’ll be honest, I was utterly unfamiliar with them. Also, I’ve never been to that area, so I have no firsthand knowledge of it whatsoever. (Unlike a deep blue rural area near me in Northern Arizona, which I know well and can thus explain with ease)
Therefor, I don’t feel comfortable having, let alone voicing, an opinion on this Wisconsin area,… but what the heck, this is the Internet, so I’ll blather…
A look at an electoral map from 2012 confirms; Southwest Wisconsin is one of the very few rural areas Obama carried. I see it’s called the Driftless area, as it was spared glaciation in the last glacial era (unlike all the surrounding areas) and is thus different geologically.
I don’t know enough to have a firm opinion, but I see a couple of demographic clues; First, the economic basis of the area is more strongly than average government and union jobs (those are a disproportionate part of the higher paying jobs in the area) so you have the vote-buying effect in play. Secondly, there are a lot of urban transplants from the Chicago area in the region, and such folk often bring their politics with them while decrying the results of said policies as the reason they left. (I see this dynamic a lot in Northern Arizona with people who move here from urban California).
A further factor is the geology itself; the land is not as suited for farming as it is in surrounding regions, so farms are a smaller part of the economy, and trend to being small, poor ones).
A further *possible* factor; as Tip O’Neil once said, all politics is local, so I’m wondering if there is a similarity between the region (which until recent times seems to have had mostly solidly Republican local government) any my own, in that one party control tends to breed corruption (my county is solidly Republican, and there’s a lot of corruption (the old-boy network, pandering to big developers, and other forms of graft). As a result, this Republican has voted D more often than R in local elections).
I do find this issue very interesting (thank you for raising it), and IMHO, it’s the sort of thing that both parties ought to look into and try to understand, as they could both learn useful lessons (and thus better serve the voters and themselves) in this and other apparently anomalous areas. (regardless of whether the anomaly favors one party or the other).
As for my urban hypothesis, I don’t claim it to be a rule that applies everywhere, just more of a general trend. However, examples that run contrary to it (like the one you bought up about the Driftless area) are to me by far the most interesting, precisely because they run counter to it. The other one, Suburban Republicans… That’s interesting too, because it actually, contrary to my initial guess, fits my hypothesis; true suburbs tend to not be Republican, while the exurbs, (further out and thus much less urban) tend to be – and this dynamic seems to apply independent of income demographics.
Huh, now I’ll have to do more research – you’ve obviously done some! My personal experience runs contrary to what you’ve found, and now I have to discount (somewhat) what I thought I knew. I live in Chicago, but I’ve visited Grant and Lafayette counties many times (Grant is in the far SW corner of the state and Lafayette is just to the East, and I’ve spent a lot of time in neighboring Sauk and Richland counties. My experience is that the density of farms is as high as in rural (and Republican) Illinois. In the hilliest areas, dairy farming replaces cropland, but there is still plenty of cropland. (I might not be using the right words, as I’m a city person.) The people I’ve met tend to be people who build their own airplanes and fly off their own property, but they aren’t rich retirees, they are farmers, carpenters, and truckdrivers. (I realize this personal anecdotal stuff is useless for our conversation, but I thought I’d add some local color). Where I visit, no one is (seemingly, at least) from Illinois, and especially not from Chicago — all the Chicago transplants move farther North, to nice homes overlooking the Wisconsin River, which wouldn’t account for the voting trends in Grant and Lafayette counties. I can’t figure out (before doing any additional reading) why there would be more government jobs in the driftless region than elsewhere in Wisconsin.
One explanation I’ve heard for the Democratic voting trends involves dairy: according to the story I heard, dairy farmers traditionally pooled the milk they produced, and sold it collectively. If you were a dairy farmer and the neighboring dairy farm was having trouble, it would hurt your bottom line, so you had an additional incentive to help out, beyond just being neighborly. This collective farming method led to (moderately) left-leaning thinking, or so the explanation goes.
The other explanation I’ve heard involves ethnicity: the Scandinavian settlers trended leftward in their politics. This explanation doesn’t sound quite right to me: the lead miners who originally settled the area must have been rugged individualists. I’m typing this is a bit of a rush, so I’ll keep my own explanation to myself for now.
I’m obviously pretty ignorant, and now I’m inspired to learn more. I’m glad you found the subject interesting, and I agree with you that the anomalies are worth studying and understanding.
Regarding SW Wisconsin. In general, dairy farmers depend on government price supports for milk to survive. Groups that depend on government tend to vote for the party of government. That’s a simplification, since both parties have voted for price supports for farmers, but the Dems seem to play that game better.
This might be due to Jewish conservatives moving to Israel. I suspect a large fraction of Jews who voted for Reagan at 20 voted for Netanyahu at 50.