UPDATE — Detroit: The petri dish of Liberal politics, education and unions

UPDATE: As you probably read recently, Detroit has a 47% illiteracy rate.  Forty-seven percent!

Ideas have consequences.  Please watch Steven Crowder’s analysis of Detroit and how the policies that ruined it are spreading to the rest of the country.  Democrats have had a virtual monopoly on inner city politics, education and unions for over 50 years and today’s Detroit is the result.  I think that all Liberal members of Congress should have to live there for a year — with the same un-Constitutional gun control laws they want to force on others.

12 thoughts on “UPDATE — Detroit: The petri dish of Liberal politics, education and unions

  1. Detroit is just sad right now. However, I remember Boston’s city core that had what was called the “combat zone” and also parts of New York that were just as bad (prostitution, strip joints, drugs, and other crime) and have since been revitalized. It is possible. But not by government programs alone but through growing small businesses which in turn until create jobs. You grow a tax base and not milk it until it disappears. That is what Detroit has done. They made their tax base disappear. Successful people will move away from where success is not appreciated but coveted. Whenever you grow entitlements faster than you grow your tax base, you will end up like Detroit. California, I am talking about you!

  2. My first question when considering films such as this is what are the anomalies? San Francisco comes to mind. Jeffe points out Boston. But what does Detroit have to offer the rich liberal seeking peace and culture? Answer, nothing. Nor do 9o% of American cities. So for most cities, Detroit, here we come!

    • San Francisco is a poor example of a well-run city. It is a very desirable place to live which is why its property prices have remained stable even during the housing crisis.

      Portland, Oregon is perhaps even more liberal than San Francisco and does make a very good example of a well-run city. In fact, it is often used as a model for other American cities. I think the most effective thing a city government can do to preserve a city center is strict zoning requirements. It results in much higher property prices but it keeps city centers from declining. Portland also has an excellent public transit system which is free in downtown. It’s very nice.

      • San Francisco is viewed by some as one of the worst run cities in the nation, and with good reason:

        http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-city-in-the-u-s/

        It’s a tough issue to face, but the biggest advantage a city like Portland has is being racially and ethnically homogeneous. Translation? The liberal bastions like SF, Portland, and Vermont have a distinct lack of black and brown people.

        Consider this article from New Geography:

        http://www.newgeography.com/content/001110-the-white-city

        The triumph of liberalism seems to be keeping black and brown people out of their nice cities so that their ideology doesn’t have to face reality.

      • That makes no sense. San Francisco is hardly homogeneous and Vermont has no urban areas at all.

      • San Francisco is hardly homogeneous

        Using the criteria spelled out by LCB, how do you figure?

        My take on the cases of SF, PDX, and perhaps VT, is that the state controls preserve a pristine environment. What I find key for a cities success as opposed to a Detroit like failure is the “rich liberal seeking peace and culture“. Liberal Meccas have two things in common. Intrinsic Natural beauty, and wealth. Given liberalism’s view of “compassion” This seems to me to be a dichotomy. But also given my understanding of the liberal disdain of bourgeois society, it does make sense.

        For the liberal mindset then, San Francisco as a kind of “shinning city on a hill” adds up. It is so prohibitively expensive to live there that the resulting wealth that does wind of there provides a tax base that can cover over a multitude of municipal blunders and sins.

        Detroit on the other hand is “a city in a dark abyss” under the same heavy hand of liberal ideolgy. The wealth of Detroit done moved to San Francisco, or Vermont, or some other pristine city and the leftist magistrates left in charge evidently haven’t figured that out yet, and though they have forgotten the impossible promises of yesterday, they are now clinging to the even more impossible promises for today’s tomorrow.

      • The high expense also manages to serve as an entry barrier to those that might “make us stronger by adding to our diversity.”

        If they were truly diverse they would set up special housing for, say, inner city Chicago blacks or Miami hispanic refuges to come and add to the diversity.

        And suddenly we find liberals are in favor of allowing market forces to dictate home prices without outside governmental interference.

  3. Funny to see Portland, Oregon mentioned in a post.

    What I find most interesting is comparing the approaches between Houston and Portland, Oregon. My sister lives in Portland and I live in Houston so I have seen both grow over time.

    Portland is tightly zoned. Houston is the least zoned major city.
    Portland (4,288.38/sq mi) has a higher population density than Houston (3,828/sq mi).
    Portland is 78.6% White population, Houston is 54.1%.
    Houston has an unemployment rate of 8.2%. Portland has 11.1%.

    From what I have seen, Houston sprawls and Portland focuses. Houston adjusts/reacts and Portland plans. I do not think Portland could absorb the influx of Katrina type refugees in the numbers that Houston did. Behind the scenes of such Portland’s beauty, clean “green” growth, and public transportation lies a lot of hidden control directing how much, how fast, what type, and where growth is allowed. Houston is messier and more chaotic. Both cities have been successful over the past several decades. However, I agree with the other post that question’s how much of Portland’s success is due to its lack of diversity? And when that changes, will Portland? Portland is certainly far prettier a city than Houston. It is also healthier. But messy, chaotic Houston is perhaps better balanced to survive long term. Time will tell.

  4. Pingback: The real racists. « Wolves in Sheep's Clothing

  5. Pingback: Roundup « Eternity Matters

  6. I grew up 20 minutes from Detroit, in the suburbs. I now live about 40 minutes from Detroit. (I was born in Texas though!)

    A dirty little secret, even people from the Detroit area do not like Detroit. The years of unopposed Democratic rule, union influence, and reversed racism has ruined a city that once showed so much promise. When Detroit area residents want to go to a real city we go to Chicago. Or if we don’t want to drive too far we go to Ann Arbor.

    One other note, much of the liberalism has now spilled out into the surrounding areas. The rest of Wayne County is going down the same path. As is Oakland County. That is why it is so hard to get a Republican elected in Michigan, because of the Metro Detroit area.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s