You're not going to find open-air downtown drug markets, public defecation and decriminalized theft in Mississippi or Arkansas. For that, you need to visit one of our progressive West Coast cities.
Why don't all American cities look in these regards like San Francisco does? They don't, so something is going on. I think there's something broken about San Francisco, and people have been suggesting that for coming up on 3 decades now:
That's because Mississippi And Arkansas are too damned poor to support the homeless. They've pushed them all out to the West coast where people actually have pocket change to give them.
Can you explain how the homeless people who defecate on the streets because of a lack of facilities and shoot up drugs in parks are better off on the West Coast?
Drugs are taken and sold openly in San Francisco and LA.
Exactly. One party rule is bad. The failurs of the GOP to put up viable local candidates in SF and the the Democrats in deep red states are not good for the health of the country
I used to hear conservatives lament that large cities were unwinnable for Republican candidate, and these days I don't even hear that; it seems that they just accept it as a law of nature that they will be governed by Democrats. And as an example, Jacksonville, Florida just flipped that way.
And I wonder - what would Republicans offer a city? My assumption is that they'd just blow a hole in any city budget with tax cuts for the wealthy, thereby achieving defunding of city services, but that's my bias. Still it doesn't seem like anyone in a big metro is buying what they're selling to the point where the Republicans don't even seem to try selling it anymore.
There are a lot of local policies that are in the vein of the traditional GOP politics (small govt, personal freedom, less regulation, etc.) that are very applicable to urban living but do cut against national GOP politics. If they could separate the local from the national they'd do great.
Some examples:
* Cutting land use regulations to encourage more housing development. Urban areas suffer from ridiculously high housing prices due to overburdensome regulation
* Give parents more input into how their children's education via school choice.
* Reduce red tape/bureaucracy for accomplishing things in cities like slow permitting processes and starting businesses
From what I see in the comments about San Francisco (I'm a neophyte about it, never having even visited), it does not seem like people are desirous of less regulation. It seems that a tent city/open drug market is about as unregulated as it gets. (I get that ignoring regulations is different from removing them, though the practical difference seems small). I'm also suspicious of the idea that there's some great supply of land or buildings available for cheap housing if only it was deregulated; isn't San Francisco a small place?
Not sure if you meant this as a counterpoint or as confirmation, but let's be clear that that ALSO doesn't sound like solidly-entrenched one-party rule is good.
I wasn't sure if the person I was responding to was expressing a sincere belief, or just one of the conservatives that love hypocritically pointing out SF's flaws. Figured with this we'll find out.
11% is not the number for the Supplemental Poverty Measure. The percentage for the Supplemental Poverty Measure is under the heading SPM. It's 15.4% for California, which is the highest of any state. D.C. is at 16.5%, but D.C. is not a state.
Healthcare outcomes, standard of living, GDP per Capita, poverty, educational attainment, obesity, etc.
All deep dark red.