The Coming Great Divide in American Political Culture

American Thinker ^ | May 15, 2007 | J.R. Dunn

[neverdem]

Michael Barone's occasional forays into sociology are always a pleasure to come across. Like the rest of his work, they are concise, well-researched, original, and always marked by clarity. Barone goes where the data takes him, and never seems to have an agenda or an ideological ax to grind.

All this is true of his latest such piece, "The Realignment of America" which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, May 8. While going through recent census estimates, Barone discovered a pattern until now overlooked: the old coastal cities, or "Coastal Megalopolises" are steadily becoming dominated by immigrants, while at the same time native Americans are repopulating the thriving heartland cities.

Since 2000, Barone tells us, New York City has seen "a domestic outflow of 8% and an immigrant inflow of 6%". Boston, LA, Washington, and San Diego show similar turnovers. The total outflow of native-born Americans from these cities amounts to 650,000 a year.

At the same time, cities such as Orlando, Charlotte, Phoenix, and Tampa have had dramatic leaps in native-born population, in all cases exceeding 10%, and in that of Las Vegas approaching 20%. So while the coastal cities remain static in population numbers despite the turnover, interior cities are booming.

What does this mean for our political culture? Barone touches on the question, noting that "The economic divide in New York and Los Angeles is starting to look like the economic divide in Mexico City and São Paulo", but doesn't go much further. But if the process continues, the implications will be profound.

If Barone is correct - and there's no reason to believe he isn't - then we're headed for an even more serious social schism between the heartland and the coastal metropolises. The heartland (along with smaller cities and towns on the coasts) will be comprised of melting-pot Americans, the coastal cities a bewildering melange of immigrants from all points of the compass, topped with an exceedingly thin layer of ultra-wealthy natives.

Miami, as it has been for the past thirty years, can serve as an example, with these differences: the Cubans represented a single homogeneous group; they had very good reasons - hatred of Fidelista communism above all - to appreciate American society; and they already understood American culture. This will not necessarily be the case with the new arrivals. Above all, PC and multiculturalism have removed all reason for immigrants to adapt to their new country.

With no particular pressure to fit in, the new immigrants will cling to their traditions, worldviews, and customs, many conflicting with ours and with those of other immigrant groups. NYC's asinine decision to establish a madrassah in Brooklyn is only the opening wedge - now all hundred-odd ethnicities residing in New York will demand the same treatment, and they will get it. The result will be Babel.

So thank the Archangels you're not living in NYC. But there are implications that may affect us all. Many of these people will have emigrated from failed polities of one type or another. Too many of the countries of Africa and Asia and Latin America, are operating in something resembling free fall, to put it kindly. Government is whoever has the most guns; civil society goes its own way with little reference to governmental activity; whatever political entanglements that can't be avoided are dealt with in the most primitive manner conceivable, through processes characterized by kinship and tribal relations, bribery, and paternalism. It's those conditions many people were fleeing when they came to the United States.

But it's those same conditions that, even with the best will in the world, they are going to bring with them. People cannot shed elements of their culture the same way they may change the dishdash for slacks and shirt. They are going to look for the Big Man. They are going to wonder whom to bribe, and how much. They are going to gravitate toward whoever operates in the manner closest to their country, region, or tribe. They will, without the least intending to, recreate in the U.S. the same situation they were fleeing from back home. With the added complication that dozens of other ethnicities will also be trying to grab the political levers to ensure that things are done their way, all at once.

It's difficult to see how this is particularly congruent with American democracy as we understand it today. Nor that there is any way to make it compatible with any form of democratic practice. So something will have to give. And it seems likely that what will give will be the members of America's sole native criminal class, the politicians.

What politician could resist such an opportunity? Masses of helpless, ignorant, and needy people requiring guidance, requiring a protector, requiring a leader. We've seen this before. Consider how the black vote has been manipulated by Democratic politicians since the days of the New Deal. Multiply that by a few dozen ethnicities, and the magnitude of the problem becomes manifest. (What's that? New immigrants can't vote? Do you really think so?)

But let's not be unfair to Democrats. If you think the GOP would hesitate a minute to leap into the same role, your introduction to practical politics remains before you. All the same, the Democrats are the prime suspects here, seeing how they control the surviving political machines in cities up and down the Eastern seaboard. Many of these machines have been in operation since the last big immigration wave early in the 20^th century. Adapting them to the new conditions will simply be a matter of integrating the new arrivals into the places once held by Italians and Irishmen.

But there's another factor at work as well - even as the pols are gathering in the new flock, the new flock will be exerting pressure on them to conform more to the style that they're used to. How are they going to resist becoming something along the lines of a tribal chieftain? Many of them think of themselves in similar terms in any case. And with that shift will come a level of corruption that will make New Jersey or Louisiana look like the Palace of the Just. If you think that New York resembles a third-world country now... you ain't seen nothing yet.

At the same time, we'll have a native-born American population that has reconnected with its roots, and very likely, after years of dealing with terrorism, undergone a resurgence of patriotism, much as Great Britain did in the course of the lengthy Napoleonic Wars. (And, as Barone points out, will have grown more Republican, too.) This will represent quite a contrast to the teeming multilingual coasts, and create inevitable and unavoidable grounds for conflict.

We can dismiss any thoughts of civil war. Conflicts in advanced societies aren't settled that way, and a situation in which isolated urban areas are opposed to the country at large doesn't lend itself to such an outcome. But there are plenty of other ugly possibilities. (And some benefits as well - the coastal cities, which wield far too much influence today, will find their sway over the rest of the country dwindling, no doubt a good thing.) Most of the downside factors will involve native politicians released from any responsibility to the population of the country as a whole, a nightmare in and of itself. Corruption will grow to proportions not easy to imagine today, particularly as it takes on an international dimension.

Mayors, representatives, possibly even governors and senators, will be running their own sub rosa foreign policies in order to fulfill the wishes of their foreign-born constituencies. Foreign groups and organizations of all types -- religious, political, social, and criminal -- having no current connection to American society will establish strong beachheads by manipulating and playing off native politicians. This will create new challenges for law enforcement, particularly as it shades into foreign intelligence. Questions of national security will begin to take in the policies of the administration the next town over.

Potential solutions are less than obvious. Education of new immigrants as to what the American system is and how it works would appear to be the key, but who would handle that? With the educational system as it exists, enraptured with the doctrines of multiculturalism, the cure would be worse than the disease.

It may in the end merely be a matter of muddling through, of using law enforcement and social pressure to hold the fort while the new immigrant masses ever so slowly adapt themselves to this country (or, rather, their children and grandchildren do). It doesn't seem like much, but it may be the best we can hope for.

Of course, we could always return to a sane immigration policy. I have yet to hear what would be wrong with that.

J.R. Dunn is contributing editor of American Thinker.

[KoRn]

mark

[RetiredArmy]

A very sobering piece on the threat posed by open borders, chain immigration, and unassimilated residents (both legal and illegal).

And good ole George W. Bush is supporting making all those illegals, legal. Thanks a lot Georgie.

[ctdonath2]

We can dismiss any thoughts of civil war. Conflicts in advanced societies aren't settled that way, and a situation in which isolated urban areas are opposed to the country at large doesn't lend itself to such an outcome.

While I certainly disagree with the notion that "conflicts...aren't settled that way", methinks a major reason why we haven't seen a civil war, and may take some time to, is precisely the geographic division of urban vs. rural instead of more straightforward geographic lines. There's too many political islands involved (complicating the logistics), and the polarization is uniform enough that things may work out because there are places for varying political persuasions to stay out of each others' way.

It's when the urbans try to enforce their views on the rurals that things will get ... interesting.

The other situation, underdiscussed, is a sufficiently large area of sufficiently uniform & different political persuasion (say, California being dominated by Mexicans), simply saying "you don't rule us anymore". Should a Leftist be running the administration at the time, I'm not sure that much would be done to counter that.

[durasell]

The so-called “urbans” have no interest in imposing their economic, social or political views on the rural — except when they feel it directly impacts them. In fact, rural America isn’t even on their radar except as a money drain. Eventually, money will cease to flow from the cities (via taxes) into rural areas.

[StormEye]

"Education of new immigrants as to what the American system is and how it works would appear to be the key, but who would handle that? With the educational system as it exists, enraptured with the doctrines of multiculturalism, the cure would be worse than the disease."

If the scenario the author describes in the article comes about, there will be no "American system" to inculcate into the third world invaders in our land. It will be nothing but chaos and civil war brought about by "multiculturalism." "Multiculturalism", the formula for ripping apart the western democracies and republics and replacing them with third world, non-white kleptocracies.

[Constantine XIII]

IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT

LOL, just kidding. This post is a bit silly. :p

[neverdem]

I agree. The stars don’t seem aligned for the former. The latter needs a Constitutional Amendment.

[Jack Black]

Despite the false impression that NYC is “socialistic,” the city is about nothing but work.

Well it is a world center for commerce, that's for sure! But then work takes place everywhere, everyday, all over the world. What is unique about NY is the large amount on 'non-work' that goes on.

According to this article, in the NY Times, there are 913,000 people on welfare in NY. That makes it the biggest socialist operation in the USA. (Ref:LINK)

Note that according to the article, for housing at least, FedGov pays 1/2 of the welfare, which makes NY's problem everyones.

According to this next article NYC has one out of 13 welfare cases in the nation, and prior to welfare reform 10% of the population was on AFDC - the queen of welfare programs. (Ref: LINK)

Workfare, a Republican program grudginly signed by Clinton - has worked to reduce the numbers from their all-time highs. But the numbers are still staggering - both in absolute terms and as a percentage.

Here is a table listing the many social programs in NY:

Some of the programs are described in the article:

New York spends more on Medicaid than any other state and more on AFDC benefits than any state except California. It has also implemented several state- and locally funded programs to serve low-income residents. New York is one of 33 states with General Assistance programs and was one of just 7 states to have a state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program in 1996. New York also serves low-income children via the State Low-Income Day Care program and the State Prekindergarten program, which, by the 2001-02 school year, will be available to all eligible four-year-olds. Child Health Plus (an insurance subsidy program for low-income children) provides free health insurance to children in families with incomes at or below 120 percent of the poverty threshold and is entirely state financed.

As you can see NY does more, for more people, at a higher cost than any other state.

As of 2002, as reported in this article (Ref: LINK NY was doing it's best to thwart the intent of the Workfare laws. Very 'socialist' of you!

A Loophole in Welfare Reform. Though many observers think that an enforceable requirement to participate in work or related activities is already part of the law, 17 states, including California and New York, allow recipients to continue to receive most welfare benefits indefinitely, even if they refuse to participate in required activities. Overall, 52 percent of the nation's welfare recipients are not subject to enforceable work requirements. In New York State, for example, if welfare recipients refuse to participate in their assigned activities, their benefits are reduced (sanctioned) by only a modest amount (from $588 per month to $475 for a family of three), and they continue to receive food stamps, public housing, and other welfare benefits without interruption.

Here is an amazing chart from the census that shows just how out of whack NY welfare is. Medicaide, California has 9.3 million recipients but gets only $25 billion for them. NY has 'only' 4.4 million on the roles, but gets an amazing $35 billion for them. More than 2X the per patient rates.

Just another way that other states pay for New York's socialist politics.

I could go on, but it's not really needed. Any fair look at the data will show the same things.

[Jack Black]

Link for last statistic, on costs vs. patients in Medicaid. LINK

[gcruse]

” the coastal cities a bewildering melange of immigrants from all points of the compass, topped with an exceedingly thin layer of ultra-wealthy natives.”

A perfect description of Blade Runner’s future Los Angeles.

[Freedom4US]

I noticed one of the late-night radio jocks who got in line with the whine with respect the EC. Couldn’t believe it, because I’m quite certain I’ve heard the very same host in years past argue quite vehemently for the EC. Or I would expect to. Somethings’ up obviously.

[durasell]

You miss the point.

A)NY gets less tax money back from DC in services than almost any other state. The NYC budget surplus is more than most states’ entire budgets.

B)Nothing — and I mean nothing — is done in NYC that does not benefit business in some way. This is the way it has always been. Go back a hundred years or more and you’ll see the creation of public baths. This helped stem the tide of diseases spread in close work environments of the sweatshops. Look at public housing today — it subsidizes a workforce of low level employees who work for the city and large corporations.

C)NYC is now in a caged death match for financial capital of the world with London. This has gone unnoticed by much of the country, but if NY loses the rest of the country will feel the impact.

[dljordan]

“We hide it a little better in America. But the stamp on every IRS 1040 is put there by a gun.”

Oooh! That’s a good one, I like that! How very damned true.

[Cacique]

The democrats have already figured a way around that by trying to pass proportional award of electoral college votes to be in sync with the popular vote. They have been pushing this in states where they control legislatures.

[Freedom4US]

I read about that. Financial center tending to gravitate back to the City? Who’d a thunk it, huh.

[USMCVet]

ping

[durasell]

NYC isn’t down for the count yet. Never bet against NY.

[ctdonath2]

The so-called “urbans” have no interest in imposing their economic, social or political views on the rural

Baloney.

They want to subject EVERYONE to their Leftist economic, social and political views: Taxes should be high on all and forwarded to cities; No citizens should have guns; Hunting is nasty and should be banned; Cars should be regulated into oblivion; etc. When you live packed in like sardines, you want everyone - even those far away - to live by intense rules.

Ruralites, on the other hand, just want to be left alone.

Consider Rudy: a "conservative" in NY who is so far left of rural "center" that he's a liberal.

I know of what I speak. Living in upstate NY is exactly the scenario, with NYC dictating obnoxiousness to the rest of an otherwise rural state. I predict a sociopolitical meltdown there within 10 years.

[durasell]

The way to control people is through money — carrots and sticks. Downstate is letting upstate fall into decay. Except for acting as a re-settlement for some of the poor in prisons and substandard housing in the Poconos, there’s really no interest in rural areas on the part of the urban dwellers.

You see a conflict of existing ideas, which exists, but thriving urban centers have no interest in exporting those ideas. It simply doesn’t benefit them to do so.

[ctdonath2]

thriving urban centers have no interest in exporting those ideas. It simply doesn’t benefit them to do so.

"Benefit" has nothing to do with it. It's not so much "exporting deliberately" as much as "everyone will submit to our principles, and we don't care if they have any objections."

Downstate NY is not trying to export their ideas, they are simply inflicting those ideas on the rest of the state - under threat of severe punishment. They do not see boundaries; they do not recognize any reason for others to not be subject to their rules. It's simply "we're right, and you will comply. Now."