4 ms·

Chicago has been overwhelmingly governed by the Democrats, yet they things you've listed are usually pushed by the Republicans. And people leaving are usually g

Chicago has been overwhelmingly governed by the Democrats, yet they things you've listed are usually pushed by the Republicans. And people leaving are usually going to the majority Republican states and cities. How can you explain this phenomenon?

StudentStuff 8y ago
Far right Democrats enact these sorts of policies too, see Southern California as an example. They're usually huge bootlickers, bought and paid for by companies. Edit: Downvote away, but if you tune to local public radio in San Diego & LA, some "Democrat" will often be banging on about how the #1 job of theirs is to ensure law and order. Democrats in other states don't usually prattle on about law and order, but its a special breed down there.
enraged_camel 8y ago
"Democrat" doesn't necessarily mean liberal. There are plenty of conservative Democrats, and plenty of the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" types.
- grayed-down 8y ago
  Those conservative democrats seem to be pretty well hidden these days :-)
muzz 8y ago
Was that different before 1970?
ousta 8y ago
easy. democrats do not want to live in states where the ideas they vote for are put into concrete projects. just look at california. they all going to texas to make it become like cali
- samatman 8y ago
  This is a tiresome trope that needs to die. California is a formerly Red state, Texas is nearly blue. It's not that the situation is the opposite of what you describe, it's that your nostrums are utterly incoherent and describe nothing of any accuracy.
sandworm101 8y ago
Chicago's problems are caused by things well beyond chicago. These local issues are driven by national choices. Elect all the best mayors you can, but America's economy is dominated by the national government, and to a lesser extent states. Chicago's problems will be solved when the nation breaks free of the ussual squabbles and opts to resolve social issues rather than scream dogma at each other.
- rjf72 8y ago
  I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not, but something I'd add to your point is that this is also a proxy for typical political ideologies. 'Small government' is specifically focused on reduction of the size of the federal government excepting a few national responsibilities including military. The point of this is to strengthen autonomy at a level closer to the people -- states, counties, and so on. I don't really abide either side of the political spectrum, but I do find this point salient. Chicago's successes, and failures, should come as a result of decisions made in Chicago, and to a lesser degree the whole of Illinois. States being held subject to decisions, outside of a very small set of shared minimal norms, from a completely detached governing body that lives very much in a bubble in D.C. is just quite a peculiar system. Having 2% representation in e.g. the Senate does not, in my opinion, markedly change this. Probably made a lot more sense when we had 13 colonies and a hundredth the national population.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Chicago, and Illinois, has made its own problems far worse than other cities and states by a completely corrupting their defined benefit pension system. Also see NJ/CT/KY. They have hundreds of billions in debt coming due, the figures are staggering. It also doesn’t help that the weather in Chicago is not to most people’s liking, so other than employment or existing family, most people aren’t going to choose to move to Chicago. When Warren Buffet says he’s avoiding doing business for the next few decades in certain regions due to the defined benefit pension debt, I would certainly be making sure I have backup options or a way out.
  - grayed-down 8y ago

StudentStuff 8y ago

Far right Democrats enact these sorts of policies too, see Southern California as an example. They're usually huge bootlickers, bought and paid for by companies. Edit: Downvote away, but if you tune to local public radio in San Diego & LA, some "Democrat" will often be banging on about how the #1 job of theirs is to ensure law and order. Democrats in other states don't usually prattle on about law and order, but its a special breed down there.

enraged_camel 8y ago

"Democrat" doesn't necessarily mean liberal. There are plenty of conservative Democrats, and plenty of the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" types.

grayed-down 8y ago
Those conservative democrats seem to be pretty well hidden these days :-)

muzz 8y ago

Was that different before 1970?

ousta 8y ago

easy. democrats do not want to live in states where the ideas they vote for are put into concrete projects. just look at california. they all going to texas to make it become like cali

samatman 8y ago
This is a tiresome trope that needs to die. California is a formerly Red state, Texas is nearly blue. It's not that the situation is the opposite of what you describe, it's that your nostrums are utterly incoherent and describe nothing of any accuracy.

sandworm101 8y ago

Chicago's problems are caused by things well beyond chicago. These local issues are driven by national choices. Elect all the best mayors you can, but America's economy is dominated by the national government, and to a lesser extent states. Chicago's problems will be solved when the nation breaks free of the ussual squabbles and opts to resolve social issues rather than scream dogma at each other.

rjf72 8y ago
I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not, but something I'd add to your point is that this is also a proxy for typical political ideologies. 'Small government' is specifically focused on reduction of the size of the federal government excepting a few national responsibilities including military. The point of this is to strengthen autonomy at a level closer to the people -- states, counties, and so on. I don't really abide either side of the political spectrum, but I do find this point salient. Chicago's successes, and failures, should come as a result of decisions made in Chicago, and to a lesser degree the whole of Illinois. States being held subject to decisions, outside of a very small set of shared minimal norms, from a completely detached governing body that lives very much in a bubble in D.C. is just quite a peculiar system. Having 2% representation in e.g. the Senate does not, in my opinion, markedly change this. Probably made a lot more sense when we had 13 colonies and a hundredth the national population.
lotsofpulp 8y ago
Chicago, and Illinois, has made its own problems far worse than other cities and states by a completely corrupting their defined benefit pension system. Also see NJ/CT/KY. They have hundreds of billions in debt coming due, the figures are staggering. It also doesn’t help that the weather in Chicago is not to most people’s liking, so other than employment or existing family, most people aren’t going to choose to move to Chicago. When Warren Buffet says he’s avoiding doing business for the next few decades in certain regions due to the defined benefit pension debt, I would certainly be making sure I have backup options or a way out.
- grayed-down 8y ago