There is an article over at NewGeography.com where the penny begins to drop for a self-proclaimed leftist professor. He goes over the economic results of the blue model and compares it to those seen in Republican areas… and of course the results are not pretty.
As an old Democrat, I am sympathetic to the concerns. But it’s dubious the deep blue cities have found a solution. Let’s start with the gap between rich and poor. For the most part the regions and states with the widest gap between the classes are overwhelmingly dominated by modern progressivism.
The capital of blue America, New York City, has easily the worst levels of inequality in the country, with an income distribution that approaches that of South Africa under apartheid, notes demographer Wendell Cox.
He also finds that both the poor and minorities did much better under Reagan and Clinton who had, as he called it, “trickle down” policies.
We should consider that last time African-Americans made big strides in income were when the economy was booming under Presidents Reagan and Clinton, both of whom have been criticized for “trickle down” policies. They have done far worse under the present more conventionally progressive region.
And that Obama’s progressive policies have been a disaster for minorities. He doesn’t say that outright because it would be blasphemous but it is what the data shows.
The net worth of blacks and Hispanics has declined relative to whites. The black poverty rate stood at 27.2% in 2012, and for Hispanics, 25.6%. At the same time as poor kids are flocking here from Central America, child poverty among Latinos has risen sharply, from 27.5% in 2007 to 33.7% percent in 2012.
None of this is a surprise to anyone who knows anything about economics; which is to say anyone who is not a progressive. The entire point of socialism is for the wealthy to protect their wealth by feeding the middle class to the lower class. There simply isn’t enough money at the top to pacify those at the bottom. Which is why when someone talks about redistributing wealth they may point at the rich, but should know that it is the middle class which will be extinguished. You could hang all of the rich tomorrow and divide up their wealth and it would not make a dent in the poverty rate. But you can leach off the middle class for quite a while.
Socialism leads to the same results everywhere it is tried. Inequality is always greatest under redistributive regimes because they destroy the engine of progress — the middle class. Every policy is geared towards making it hard to rise in society and challenge the wealthy elite for their position. The minimum wage keeps people from getting jobs. The ACA keeps people from being hired or having full time employment. High taxes keep people from saving enough to invest or build anything. Lax immigration standards (or no standards) drives wages lower. You can’t support all of these polices and simultaneously pretend you are for the little guy or that you are trying to create more equality. You are obviously doing exactly the opposite. You are putting all of the power in the hands of a few people at the top and making it impossible for anyone to climb up and challenge them.
Simply put, socialism is the upper class’ way of building a moat around their wealth by stocking it with angry peasants rather than with alligators. The two groups work together for their short term benefit at the expense of there ever being any hope of change or progress… the very things Obama and the left promised. That is not a coincidence. That is a caste system. That is leftism.