The Left’s Plan to Make Cities More Powerful

The Left’s Plan to Make Cities More Powerful

Jan 29, 2020 by

Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Political Divide
By Jonathan Rodden
Basic Books, 2019
313 pages

Jonathan Rodden is unhappy. In American elections, Democrats often receive a larger number of votes than their Republican rivals, but they nevertheless frequently fail to win elections. “In most democracies, the path to victory is simple: win more votes than your competitors. For the Democratic Party in the United States, however, this is often not good enough.…Democrats must win big in the overall popular vote, as they did in the ‘blue wave’ elections of 2018 and 2006, in order to win a majority of seats in the House. The Democrats’ problem with votes and seats is even more pronounced in state legislatures.”

Rodden, who is a professor of political science at Stanford, specializes in political geography. In Why Cities Lose, he devotes enormous effort to finding out the reasons the situation just described has come about, but the gist of his answer is simple. Democrats are highly concentrated in cities, but Republicans are spread out in the suburbs and rural areas. As a result, a Democrat who wins in a city will likely gain a large majority. In our “first-past-the-post” electoral system, a large majority is no better than a narrow victory. The winner of a seat in Congress, for example, gets one seat regardless of the margin of his victory. “Surplus” votes do him no good. Republicans in rural areas are more spread out. Their votes tend to be more “efficient,” as Rodden puts it, than the wasted votes of the concentrated Democrats. They win by narrower margins but gain more seats. Rodden spends a great deal of time showing that partisan gerrymandering does not bear exclusive responsibility for the situation. Through careful comparison with Britain and the Commonwealth nations that have a “first-past-the-post” system but no gerrymandering, he shows that cities still suffer from “wasted” votes.

Rodden argues that proportional representation would change matters. Under this system, votes are not wasted. “There are important variations from one country to another, but in most cases, the country is divided up into a series of multimember districts, and within each district, every party receives a number of seats that is proportionate to its share of the vote.…In highly proportional systems with large districts, like those in northern Europe, the geography of a party’s support is largely irrelevant for the transformation of votes to seats. It is just as useful to have 30 percent of the vote that is highly concentrated in cities as to have 30 percent of the vote evenly dispersed throughout the country.” I have said that Rodden is unhappy with the dilution of votes in American cities, but why does he regard this situation as bad? (One might object that this misreads him; he is simply an objective political scientist describing and analyzing an important trend in voting patterns. But his dismay is unmistakable.) Speaking of countries in northern Europe with proportional representation, he says: “Above all, the proportional systems of Europe have developed larger public sectors, more generous social expenditure, higher levels of redistribution, and more stringent efforts at environmental protection.”

These are the measures Rodden favors, but then the question arises, what is so good about them? Not only does Rodden fail to tell us, but his way of looking at political values prevents him from doing so. He never discusses the reasons in favor of and against any “progressive” legislation. Instead, he amalgamates all political values into “objective” scales. “In joint work with Aina Gallego, I [Rodden] have selected a series of questions about abortion, homosexuality, and other social issues.…We used these questions to generate a scale measuring how liberal or conservative each respondent is on this set of social issues. We have done the same thing for classic economic issues related to the role of the government in the economy.”

Rodden might reply that he has done this purely as a way to analyze trends, and that he has not claimed to have shown that progressive measures are good and conservative ones bad. But if that is so, he has not given us any reason to endeavor to alter the urban-rural disparity in voting about which he spends so much time complaining.

One might object to what I have so far contended in this way: “Even if you are not an urban progressive, we do after all live in a democracy. Shouldn’t people be equally represented, rather than have fewer representatives than others? Isn’t it unfair that some votes pack more electoral ‘power’ than others?” To which our answer must be, “No, not at all. It depends on aims sought by those voting. People cannot legitimately invade the rights of others, and to the extent they try to do so, a weakening of their voting power is to be welcomed.”

As Murray Rothbard, writing in Power and Market, noted with characteristic wisdom: “Democracy may be thought of, not so much as a value in itself, but as a possible method for achieving other desired ends. The end may be either to put a certain political leader into power or to attain desired governmental policies. Democracy, after all, is simply a method of choosing governors and issues, and it is not so surprising that it might have value largely to the extent that it serves as a means to other political ends. The socialist and the libertarian, for example, while recognizing the inherent instability of the democratic form, may favor democracy as a means of arriving at a socialist or a libertarian society. The libertarian might thus consider democracy as a useful way of protecting people against government or of advancing individual liberty.” Like democracy, equal voting power isn’t an end itself, but valuable only to the extent it protects people’s rights.

A similar point applies to the proportional representation that Rodden favors. It is true that voters have more choices than they do in a system with only two parties, but whether this is good or bad depends on the nature of the choices. More choices for socialism are not a good thing. Further, European political parties in proportional systems are often rigidly controlled by the central party organization. Those who vote against the party’s dictates will be expelled from the party. Voters have a choice only between ideological platforms, not persons.

Rodden at one point adopts a more sensible position. Given the unalterable fact that people differ so widely in their political preferences, is it not desirable to deal with problems at the state or, even better, local level rather than to engage in a futile effort to impose the same policies on diverse regions? “As federal politics becomes increasingly mired in gridlock, investigations, and partisan posturing, voters come to rely on state and municipal governments for practical policy solutions to everyday problems.…As long as people with strong preferences are clustered conveniently into different jurisdictions, decentralization can, at least in theory, increase the number of people who are satisfied with government policy.”

But decentralization from his perspective is of limited value. “A broad constraint on decentralization as a way of managing polarization is the fact that local governments must often compete with one another.…Wasteful taxes and regulation and poor governance can lead to capital flight, which forces local governments to be prudent. For the left, this has always been a liability, not an asset of decentralization. Strong labor unions and protections for workers were hard to maintain in the North when southern states began competing for investment, and today, intergovernmental competition makes it difficult for blue cities and states to enact generous welfare policies or costly regulations.” (Possibly, though, what Rodden calls the “third industrial revolution” may brighten the prospects for a leftist local government, at least in the wealthiest cities.)

Contrary to Rodden, the path to progress does not lie in tinkering with our political system to make it easier for the Left to enact its political and social agenda. Instead, we need a free people living in a free market.

Author:

Contact David Gordon

David Gordon is Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute, and editor of The Mises Review.

Source: The Left’s Plan to Make Cities More Powerful | Mises Institute

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

can-schools-teach-not-to-hate-an-interview-with-alan-singer-from-hofstra-university

Can Schools Teach Not to Hate? – An Interview with Alan Singer from Hofstra University

Jan 17, 2020 by

By Michael F. Shaughnessy

1) Professor Singer, you recently posted about plans to have schools teach students not to hate. I am pretty sure I know what events that recently transpired precipitated this discussion, but please give us your interpretation of the event or events.

There have been a series of anti-Semitic incidents in the New York metropolitan area. The most serious were attacks that occurred in Jersey City, New Jersey and Monsey, New York in December. In Jersey City, four people were killed, including a police officer, two Orthodox Jews at a local grocery store, and a store employee who was not a Jew. The two assailants responsible for the attack were killed by police responding to the incident. It was later learned that the assailants, both African American, were part of a religious sect known as the Black Hebrew Israelites who believe American Jews are imposters. In Monsey, five Orthodox Jews were stabbed during a Hanukah celebration by an attacker who is now believed to be mentally ill and is also African American. During the past six months there has also been a significant increase in minor incidents that usually involve ethnic slurs, graffiti, or harassment. A big part of people’s concern is that these incidents followed attacks on Jewish houses of worship in other parts of the country. In October 2018 at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania eleven Jews were murdered by a self-proclaimed white nationalist. In April 2019, at a synagogue in Poway, California, one person died and three others were injured in an attack by an assailant who posted anti-Semitic and racist diatribes on the Internet.

In my post on Daily Kos I expressed concern that for political reasons politicians were painting everything with the same brush. Organized rightwing ethno-nationalist assaults on Jews are very different from explosive behavior by people who are mentally ill or inappropriate, even criminal, teenage behavior. Almost two-thirds of the anti-Semitic incidents in New York City are by teenagers in communities where expanding ultra-Orthodox Jewish congregations bring them into conflict with largely black, poorer, neighbors who feel themselves being displaced. These incidents are definitely not the same as what happened in Poway, Pittsburgh, Jersey City, and Monsey.

I am a secular Jew and I live in a Brooklyn neighborhood not far from where some of these incidents took place. The Brooklyn incidents have targeted an ultra-Orthodox community known as the Hasidim who are distinguishable because of their traditional clothing. While attacks on the Hasidim are not acceptable, all Jews have not been threatened

2) Now, speaking objectively – is it the school’s job to teach tolerance, to fight against bigotry, and especially anti-Semitism, or should that come from parents?

It is the school’s job, it is society’s job, and it is a parent’s job to combat racism, anti-Semitism, and bigotry of all sorts. But we know from past U.S. history that parents sometimes either do a very poor job of this or even encourage the bigotry. We have photograph of children being brought to the lynching of African Americans by their parents during the first decades of the 20th century. A big problem today is that the United States has a President, Donald Trump, who continually makes insulting remarks about African Americans, Latinos, immigrants, and Muslims, feeding into racial bigotry and making the job of schools much more difficult.

All this being said, there are limits to what school’s can do. I am a teacher and I believe in the power of education, but I also understand its limitations. In 1996, the New York State Assembly and Senate passed legislature, signed into law by Governor Pataki, mandating a human rights curriculum where students learned about the Great Irish Famine and the right of people to food, the European Holocaust and the right of people to life, and slavery and the Underground Railroad and the right of people to freedom. But despite the new human rights curriculum, there is still hunger in the world, there have been additional genocides, and racism and human bondage continue.

I anticipate an anti-hate curriculum, scheduled to be introduced in New York City during the 2020-2021 school year, will be just as ineffective as similar curriculum initiatives were in the past because it will fail to address the actual experience of students who continue to live in racially, ethnically, and economically segregated communities and, in many cases, are subject to debilitating poverty, gang violence, homelessness, and discrimination that have nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

The city’s Department of Education is rushing to launch hate crime awareness programs in February for public middle and high school students in areas of Brooklyn. But the ultra-Orthodox Jewish students attend private religious schools, so there will be no interaction across differences.

3) We as teacher can teach acceptance of all races, creeds, religions, racial and ethnic groups and advocate for tolerance. But where is it in the curriculum?

In the United States there is no national curriculum. Each state set’s its own standards and they vary widely. The National Council for the Social Studies defines tolerance as a major civic virtue and advocates for curriculum that “helps students to see the world through others’ eyes, to increase their understanding of group dynamics, and to develop tolerance of differences” (73). The national organization Teaching Tolerance is a major proponent of preparing students to respect others and live in a diverse world. In states and localities, children are exposed to the importance of respect and tolerance but it is rarely expressed in a systematic way. I argue that this is partly because of the excessive focus on skills acquisition because of Common Core and Common Core aligned standardized assessments. I also think schools and districts might shy away from addressing bigotry because they do not want to get embroiled in controversy with parents or religious groups. There is a long history of Christian anti-Semitism and the contemporary anti-Semitic White Power movement that we saw parading in Charlottesville, Virginia strongly equates anti-Semitism with its Christian beliefs.

4) Do we need a longer school day or year to cover the curriculum as well as discuss subjects that are current and appropriate such as church shootings and the invasion of a rabbi’s home?

I think nothing will turn students off like a longer school day or year. I would hate to see Jews or another minority group get blamed. That is a recipe for increased anti-Semitism.

5) Children grow up in an environment and learn values from their parents. If they express what they learn at home, should they be referred for counseling or evaluation?

This is a difficult question that also arises when we teach about religious freedom. We want to respect the rights of parents, but on balance I think we have an obligation to the school community, and to these kids, to intervene. We already mandate things like school attendance and vaccination because otherwise parents might not make the best choices for their children. Bullying and hostile acts towards others in school are prevented. A more forceful action in response to expressed bigotry and hostility might have prevented some of the school shootings that plague the country. Bottom line is that parenthood does not establish an absolute right to dictate the lives of your children.

6) How should schools respond to a high school student who expresses an interest in the ideas of Adolf Hitler or the KKK?

Multiple step procedures need to be in place. The first question is whether it was just an idle comment in class. In class, a teacher should express their opposition to Klan and Nazi ideology and how they contradict American laws and values. Teachers also need to be prepared to meet with a student privately to further explain the consequence of Klan and Nazi actions. Given recent history, a teacher should notify school administrators. If the statements and behavior are more extreme there needs to be intervention by school counselors and meetings with parents. If statements and behavior are threatening to others, it becomes a disciplinary matter.

7) Professor Singer, it is the year 2020, I remember the 1960s quite well and I thought that we had accomplished a lot. How much do we still need to do and work on?

There is an old Civil Rights song that says, “Freedom is a constant struggle.” It is just as true now as it was in the 1960s. Monday, January 20, 2020 is the national holiday celebrating the accomplishments of Martin Luther King, Jr. so I think it is fitting to paraphrase him here. In Memphis, just before his assassination in 1968, Dr. King proclaimed that he had been to the mountaintop and seen the other side, but would not be able to accompany people into that future. In the speech Dr. King was making a biblical reference to the story of Moses and the Israelites. Much has been accomplished in the struggle for civil rights, but I think Dr. King, if he were alive today, would agree that much more needs to be accomplished as well. He would also be disturbed by the election and Presidency of Donald Trump and positions taken by some of his extreme supporters. In another speech Dr. King asked the SCLC leadership “Where do we go from here?” We still ask that question as we struggle for a more just and equal America.

8) In one Star Trek episode Captain Kirk says “Leave any bigotry in your quarters; there’s no room for it on the bridge. Do I make myself clear?” How do we communicate to students to leave their bigotry at home – because it has no place in our schools?

The Star Trek quote is probably from Season 1, Episode 14, “Balance of Terror,” when the USS Enterprise encounters a Romulan battleship on the border of the Neutral Zone. Captain Kirk was responding to a ship’s navigator who made a disparaging remark about Mr. Spock’s Vulcan origin. The interchange between Kirk and the crewmember is posted on Youtube. In this case, I disagree with Captain Kirk. It is not enough to tell students to leave their bigotry in their quarters or at home, because it will always seep out. That does them and society a big disservice. Bigotry has no place in our world, not just in school.

9) What have I neglected to ask?

Putting an end to anti-Semitism, to racism, to anti-immigrant nativism, to gay-bashing, and to gender bias in the United States requires much more social and cultural change and government action than a just a new anti-Semitism or Holocaust curriculum. I am concerned that a curriculum initiative provides an excuse not to address broader, underlying, social tensions in our society. Schools have a role in challenging bias, but schools and teachers cannot do it on their own. People who are interested in my views can follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/ReecesPieces8.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

disturbing-number-of-young-americans-favor-communism

Disturbing number of young Americans favor communism

Jan 4, 2020 by

RIP America?

  • A distrurbing poll found that one-third of Millennials view communism favorably.
  • The same poll found that 70 percent of Millennials say they are likely to vote for a socialist.

According to a poll commissioned by the Washington, D.C. area nonprofit Victims of Communism, 70 percent of Millennials say they are likely to vote for a socialist while one in three view communism favorably.

The same poll also reported that 27 percent of people believe President Donald Trump is the biggest threat to world peace. The survey placed the U.S. president over North Korea dictator Kim Jong Un, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.

“Our generation doesn’t appreciate freedom”   

According to YouGov, 36 percent of millennials say they approve of communism. That percentage is up almost 10 percent from 2018.

While most college students today are not technically “millennials,” since Pew Research identifies members of that generation as those who were between the ages of 23 and 38 in 2019, more than one-third of the millennial generation is college-educated, the most ever for a single generation, according to City Lab.

The majority of students in college today are considered Generation Z, or those who fall between the ages of 7 and 22.

[RELATED: FLASHBACK: Venezuelan socialism victims send message to American socialists]

The report also included other jarring statistics, including how 22 percent of millennials believe “society would be better if all private property was abolished.” In addition, 45 percent of Generation Z and millennials agree that “all higher education should be free.”

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation Executive Director Marion Smith describes this shift as the “historical amnesia” about the dangers of communism and socialism. In a statement, Smith said, “When we don’t educate our youngest generations about the historical truth of 100 million victims murdered at the hands of communist regimes over the past century, we shouldn’t be surprised at their willingness to embrace Marxist ideas.”

The radical left will stop at nothing to intimidate conservative students on college campuses. You can help expose them. Find out more »

In 2017, Campus Reform covered a story in which a poll had similar findings: that “more millennials would prefer to live under a socialist regime than a capitalist one, though only about one-third of respondents were able to successfully define the term “socialism.”

[RELATED: VIDEO: Students support socialism…but not when it comes to their GPAs]

Joseph Eklach, University of Florida Turning Point USA vice president, reacted to this poll in a statement to Campus Reform.

“Our generation doesn’t appreciate freedom because they take it for granted living in the USA. They’re in a privileged position only first world nations afford that allows them to advocate for equality. Our colleges fail to teach our generation of the failures of socialism and the successes of capitalism,” Eklach said.

Campus Reform reached out to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation for comment but did not hear back in time for publication.

Source: UH OH: Disturbing number of young Americans favor communism, poll finds

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.