It's mostly anecdotes, but the lede is in the 2nd to last paragraph:
"The larger population may prefer to move—on those rare occasions when it does move—to a red state, but the college-educated minority, which moves much more frequently, prefers relocating to a blue state. There are 10 states that import more college graduates than they export, and all of them except Texas are blue. (I’m counting Georgia, which is one of the 10, as a blue state because it went for Joe Biden in 2020.) Indeed, the three states logging the largest net population losses overall — New York, California, and Illinois — are simultaneously logging the largest net gains of college graduates."
But without absolute or per capita numbers, it's hard to gauge this.
I live here. The fact that we elected two dem senators, one in a runoff, is indicative of a shift to me. We'll definitely see how 2024 goes, but at the very least we're very purple for the first time in a long time.
I mean, once you're past Cobb and north Fulton to the north, and down by McDonough or so to the south, you're back in red country all the way until Savannah. Yes, there's a "people vote, not land" thing in play there, but we're purple _in aggregate_, and even then only barely.
I wish this weren't the case, but I think it's less due to a blue shift and more indicative of the factional split between the Kemp (or older, Deal) type of Republicans who just vote for the good ol' boys they recognize and the MAGA wing (that has eaten the whole party in most of the country), with a sprinkling of confused "middle of the red" Repubs who don't think they can trust voting anymore at all.
I'll take the effect it has, sure, but I don't think we get to hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner until more than 10 years out.
Speaking anecdotally I have two friends who moved out of the Houston area into the NorthEast within the last two years. Both cited the state of the power grid and other Republican issues, along with a general poverty of intellectualism, as main reasons for the move.
I wish you a good move! Speaking for my two friends, they both seem very happy in their new digs, and don't seem to miss much from home that they can't visit or have sent over.
Anecdotally a friend of mine is contemplating moving out of Kansas. She is one of the only two Pediatricians in a 100 mile radius. Racism and extreme political views is one of the main reasons. Though most of the other ones are the result of the drain that’s already happened for a long time: lack of peers, low education rates in schools, cultural degradation etc.
Both red and blue states are becoming intolerant of differing views/opinions/beliefs and enacting legislation accordingly. Both sides seem to be drifting towards fascism.
Which is EXTREMELY weird given that the "red state" people often claims to be Christians. It's literally the core tenant in their religious texts that they should care about others regardless of circumstances, yet... NOPE.
What makes you think otherwise? There are so many charities to help with every need out there almost entirely funded by churches. Homeless shelters, home building, bed building, women’s shelters, food pantries, career programs and centers to help you finish your education to get back on your feet, disaster relief and the list goes on for miles. These orgs are funded, run on shoestring budgets and are heavily operated by people freely donating their time.
Exactly how does one ignore all that evidence because people favor the effectiveness of these orgs over the bloat of government programs?
I just find it really weird that you can get together to collect money to help a neighbor get a cancer treatment, which is wonderful, but you're at the same time completely against building a system that would ensure that this wouldn't be a problem for anyone in the future. Or you'll do volunteer work at a soup kitchen, but you refuse to let you tax money fund programs that would ensure that no one will go hungry in the future.
All the things you list are wonderful, but the churches can not do it alone nor should they be expected to. I think it weird that the same people (and let's face it, it's not the same people) wouldn't vote for a more careering government.
Can you agree hypothetically, that no matter how much you want anti-hunger programs you wouldn't agree to do it at the expense of putting the Nazi party in charge of it? You might reasonably believe they would use the leverage of having administrative control of that to program to evil ends.
If life experience has taught me anything it’s that government run programs will be expensive, inefficient, ineffective and impossible to remove once in place.
We can all freely donate our money and time to organizations that make a difference and we also have the freedom to stop if we don’t believe they are effective anymore.
The moment a government program exists, that freedom to choose goes away and you’re stuck with whatever the result happens to be.
A growing religious demographic group in the US "self-identified evangelicals who attend religious services fewer than once a month" [1].
"Christian" has, in the US, become increasingly synonymous with "Republican" rather than "follower of Jesus Christ". It's slowly becoming just another label that does the job "Traditional Values" used to do before that one lost its stickiness: it's increasingly just a dogwhistle.
As a Christian in a red state, it makes me pretty depressed. I find it hopeful to see trends outside the US political bubble. I hope in the long term it won't be just a political descriptor or a convenient in-group label to wear, but may again be used primarily to describe a set of binding values.
If the author of this article thinks that all their political disagreements can be reduced to "I care about people and you don't", that precisely explains why they struggle so much to "reach across the aisle" and why they are burnt out on political debate.
If your political opponent wants the same things as you, but merely has differing values and perspectives, then reason and compromise should be able to cause some meaningful change in perspective or come up with some useful middle-ground policy.
But if your political opponent does not want the same things as you - they are, in fact, "callous" and don't care about the well-being of others - then there's no room for meaningful debate. Telling someone who disagrees with you "can you please stop being evil?" isn't going to convince them of anything. The other side simply needs to be removed from power so that you are unopposed in implementing your policies.
So I actually agree with the author: if that is what you believe about your political opponents, then debating about politics is probably a waste of your time.
> “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” -Barry Goldwater
Goldwater called it thirty years ago. That's exactly what happened, especially in the last few years.
It'd be one thing if there were any more free market (small "c") conservatives left to compromise with. All that remains in the GOP are the religious and Q-anon factions that genuinely believe that Democrats are Satanists and child molesters. These people expect total capitulation because they think god is on their side and that is not compromise in any sense of the word.
They're not even fit to govern with total control of three branches as shown during the first half of Trump's term, let alone compromise when they're in the opposition. The recent shitshow with the Speaker of the House election and the constant brinkmanship with the budget are just the latest symptoms of their degeneracy as a functioning political party. They can't even compromise within their own ranks because their religious fervor has turned terminal.
The Democratic party is literally torn in half over the issue of Palestine and Israel with the younger progressive wing fighting tooth and nail with the establishment of the party.
There is reasonable debate to be had on marginal tax rates, the correct rate of international aid to provide to whichever nation needs it today, the size of our military, and things like that.
There is very little room for debate on issues like book-banning, withholding rights from the LGBTQ community (civil marriage, healthcare), or most of the other issues the GOP uses as wedge issues.
Then there are issues where compromise should be possible, and the left largely wants compromise, but the GOP refuses. Abortion and guns come to mind. The GOP is currently hellbent on banning the former outright and ensuring easy access to the latter. Most of the political left would be happy with some reasonable compromise on both (and in fact, we had what most of the nation felt was a reasonable compromise on abortion until very recently).
If you want the other side, the perception on the right is that we have been compromising on guns since the 80's but every compromise is the next loophole to be closed. See the "Gunshow loophole" which the right perceives as one of those compromises.
But that loophole still exists - the right refuses to close it - so I'm confused by what you mean? And every attempt at gun control has been fought and challenged by the right (bump stock bans being a recent example).
Despite some state-level regulation, we're near the top of the list in death-by-gun. And the political right seems largely ok with this, which is baffling. Parts of Latin America are worse, but they have massive drug crime issues and often failing economics and governments. Greenland has lots of gun suicides. The US has all of the above.
There is no "gun show loophole". It's not a thing. Really.
The same regulations apply to gun sales at gun shows as anywhere else.
Yes, private citizens can sell guns at gun shows without performing a background check. They can also sell guns without performing a background check in Grand Canyon National Park, on a boat in the middle of Lake Michigan, or in the parking lot of the local McDonalds. "Gun shows" have nothing to do with it.
Gun dealers at gun shows likewise have to perform the same check that they perform at their normal place of business. Again, the fact that it is a gun show changes nothing.
You should try to remember who told you that the "gun show loophole" is actually a thing, and resolve to trust no further information from that source. To put it bluntly: they lied to you.
I’m aware. It’s a dumb name, but it doesn’t change that in most states, a private individual can sell/buy a gun without much/any paperwork. We can call it “private individual sale loophole” if you prefer, same damn thing - that’s the loophole - getting out of background checks and other paperwork because it’s a private sale (and not passing through an FFL).
And in any gun control conversation, most people know exactly what’s meant by the term - I didn’t pick the name (and have no idea who did).
Source? (I haven’t been able to find the first use of the term)
My understanding is the term came into use because it was common for unlicensed sellers to set up tables at gun shows. The law isnt about gun shows specifically, but gun shows were a common way for unlicensed sellers and buyers seeking to avoid background checks to do business.
"Source" for what? If someone who purports to be against eating fish (a legal activity anywhere) starts going off about the "Catholic Church fish fry loophole", there's no need for a source to conclude that the person is almost certainly trying to hurt the Catholic Church, rather than protecting fish per se.
Your understanding is wrong, by the way. If you sell more than a few guns per year (where "a few" is up to the ATF agent's discretion), the ATF is going to conclude that you are an unlicensed dealer and you will go to jail for a very long time (edit: five years in prison, $250,000 fine, or both).
A source for where the word was initially used as an intentionally deceptive term. It appears the term pre-dates the Brady Act, so it also pre-dates my political awareness (I was in high school in the early 90s).
This practice was closed by the Safer Communities Act in 2022. But, in the majority of states, this doesn't prevent a buyer from legally purchasing a gun from a private seller. Like I said above, it's a stupid name, especially given the changes in 2022, and I'm happy to call it "private sale legal quirk" or whatever you want. Changing the common name doesn't change the underlying law - private sales are unregulated at the federal level - and that (IMO) is silly - either the sale of guns should be regulated or it shouldn't (obviously I fall on the regulated side).
Do you think they got to that point without trying to "reach across the aisle" and talk to these folks? I promise you I didn't come to similar conclusions without having hundreds of conversations with people I disagreed with.
It's not that they're evil. It's more often that they're selfish.
Also, there are plenty of people "on my side" who I disagree with and I can have productive conversations because we have the same goals. I disagree with a lot of liberal principles (they're pretty god-awful and selfish people themselves, ahem Pelosi). But I think there's still enough of a range of views within the Democratic party that if you got rid of all of the Republicans, I would still disagree with like 80% of congress.
I would just also have a prayer that compromises could be made, because we're not starting negotiations from a position where 50% of congress is going to say 'no' no matter what regardless of who it hurts.
Have you seen the Tuberville thing where he claims our military is weak, but he refuses to allow any military promotions through? Republicans complain about the gov't not working, and then go work overtime to make sure nothing gets done.
If someone wants to do something that impacts my ability to live my life, that’s not something that should be a right, I.e. someone being gay doesn’t materially impact someone else’s ability to live their life but making their ability to exist as they are illegal does impact their ability to live their life.
I find it to be a fairly simple premise to guide myself by.
If I'm reading this correctly, you want to protect the right to "tell people what to do and believe." That's your top priority? Being allowed to dictate what other people do... and believe?
Wait, what? Want to read that again and take another stab. Someone having the "right" to control my life seems like a pretty big stomping all over my rights.
On the other hand, people doing whatever they want means more aggressive people stomp all people around them. Some limits are necessary to make a community work. Especially long term.
For example smoking. Smoking in public is more clear due to 2nd hand smoking. But even smoking in private sucks for community because it costs a ton in healthcare.
My experience reading comments over the past few years is that some people cling desperately to the both sides argument. It seems to provide them an emotional safety blanket that allows them to justify their views because "both sides are terrible so I'll just be terrible." Or they use it to abrogate their responsibility for political change.
It's a pretty weak justification.
I can appreciate that stuff we grew up with and laughed at might not be acceptable nowadays, but that's no excuse to dig one's heels in and refuse to grow up.
And even worse than that, what's happening in women's prisons. It couldn't be more obvious that this is rooted in male entitlement and dominance, yet somehow the oppressor gets painted as the oppressed and vice versa.
Is this honest ignorance or cynical rhetoric? One can never tell these days.
Nobody thinks that the left's liberal policies are creeping fascism, but rather its leftist, illiberal ones.
The right is criticized for 'fascism' for merely existing--the same policies they've advocated for decades without such accusations are suddenly 'fascist'! It's a matter of linguistic manipulation--of bad faith--and nothing more. It's frankly sad to see folks on HN who fall for this gutter sophistry, which is clearly aimed at people who have no conception whatever of history, whether of American politics or of fascism.
The left, on the other hand, is criticized for 'fascism' because they increasingly adopt, encourage, and condone the political program and tactics of fascist authoritarians. Because wherever they have control of institutions, they seek to use them to pursue political goals. Corporate DEI, corporate ESG policies, banks freezing assets of protesters, social media banning conservatives, corporations pushing the trans agenda--these are all examples of a now-familiar phenomenon in which captured corporations push unpopular progressive political goals. The merging of state, party and corporate power for the furtherance of progressive goals is, of course, the very heart of fascism. But that's not all! The left increasingly embraces the streetwise, strong-arm tactics of the brownshirts; by encouraging/defending the anti-social harassment of conservative politicians, remaining silent as conservatives were silenced on campuses around the country, defending corporations who censored conservatives (the only point on which progressives aggressively defend corporate power at the expense of the consumer), aggravating racial tension for political gain, openly encouraging riots that caused billions in damage and took many lives, and so on. Remember, on the eve of the 2020 election, city centers around the country were boarded up in fear that the mobs of angry people, masked and dressed in black, would swoop down and resume their months-long campaign of wonton destruction. And it wasn't the right that they were afraid of, but the left--and for good reason!
I'm vouching this because it impacts where populations of educated talent end up in the US, which factors in pretty heavily to where tech hubs end up, which will also end up influencing how various factions end up posturing towards both big tech and tech in general. We might not be interested in politics but politics is interested in us.
Where should the socially liberal / fiscally conservative live? Washington state passing the capital gains "excise" tax recently was a real disappointment.
Texas sounds like a good option except for some bizarre positions like no marijuana and no abortion.
Many socially liberal policies, by nature of caring for people or building new things, require funds that fiscal conservatives might not like, so it depends on your balance of each.
Come to Colorado! Not the most fiscally conservative but we have the TABOR law which greatly limits the government's power to tax. Reason magazine said our governor, a Democrat, "might be the most libertarian governor in America".
Unless you are cashing long held stock in amounts > ~$300k / year in long term capital gains, you aren’t going to feel this excise tax very much (and probably not at all), since it only applies in excess > $250k. This is purely aimed at very rich techies, and they can easily avoid it by moving and then cashing out stock (it doesn’t follow you like it does in CA).
Personal anecdote: I moved from my red home state over 30 years ago for these same reasons. A huge number of the people I know in my current and previous blue states have been, like me, transplants from red states. Many came for the jobs, but a lot confess to have been motivated by the social/political climate.
The implication is that the red states will get poorer and the blue states will get richer per capita which has already been true, but if the trend continues will become more pronounced. Ultimately, this can't have good consequences.
Yeah this doesn't seem like a new phenomenon at all, though the increasingly extreme politics of some red states does seem likely to push harder.
CA in particular also has the constant underlying filter of high QoL+CoL which will always be attracting those who can make the move (professionals). I left the Chicago suburbs for SV over a decade ago, and there was no shortage of folks among my peers wanting similar QoL upgrades with perceived cost being the barrier. No wacky politics necessary for that to have a brain drain effect outside CA...
> though the increasingly extreme politics of some red states does seem likely to push harder
The opposite is also true - the politics of blue states are becoming increasingly extreme as well.
I moved from a blue city in a purple state on the East Coast back to the very red state where I grew up primarily for that reason. The blue state was restricting homeschooling and making it increasingly difficult to legally carry a firearm, which are two critically important issues for me.
> CA in particular also has the constant underlying filter of high QoL+CoL which will always be attracting those who can make the move (professionals).
I could never move to CA given its political climate. A few years ago I was working for a company based in the LA area, and was offered an additional ~$120k base salary if I'd move there. It wasn't worth it to me.
An extra $120k? Damn, they're straight up paying your rent on a 3-4 br condo in Santa Monica/Beverly Hills/Hollywood Hills/Downtown, with cash left over to pay for $6/gal gas from Shell and groceries from Gelson's.
I'd be hard pressed to turn down that offer, and I vehemently _hate_ LA after living there some 20 years ago.
My (former) neighbors here in North Carolina have a trans kid and they just moved their whole family to Maryland which is a trans sanctuary state. Two terrific parent with professional careers who were born and raised in NC.
There have been articles about Idaho shutting down hospitals and maternity wards due to lack of qualified workers. The jobs are there, the professionals don't want to be there.
The article contradicts your assertion with some actual numbers - salaries for physicians are frequently higher in very red areas (market forces at work), but those red areas are still unable to fill positions. Many physicians, especially those workings in women's health, would rather live in a blue states and earn $100k less than they could earn in a red state.
Farming states produce two exports: recruits for the military, and transplants to blue states. Farms produce children, but there is no where for them to go; only one child can inherit the farm. The bright ones leave for the city and the dull ones enlist or take over the farm. If they farm, they wallow in their bubble. Farming doesn’t take a lot of smarts these days, so there’s no selection pressure to keep the population sharp.
79 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 29.5 ms ] thread"The larger population may prefer to move—on those rare occasions when it does move—to a red state, but the college-educated minority, which moves much more frequently, prefers relocating to a blue state. There are 10 states that import more college graduates than they export, and all of them except Texas are blue. (I’m counting Georgia, which is one of the 10, as a blue state because it went for Joe Biden in 2020.) Indeed, the three states logging the largest net population losses overall — New York, California, and Illinois — are simultaneously logging the largest net gains of college graduates."
But without absolute or per capita numbers, it's hard to gauge this.
I wish this weren't the case, but I think it's less due to a blue shift and more indicative of the factional split between the Kemp (or older, Deal) type of Republicans who just vote for the good ol' boys they recognize and the MAGA wing (that has eaten the whole party in most of the country), with a sprinkling of confused "middle of the red" Repubs who don't think they can trust voting anymore at all.
I'll take the effect it has, sure, but I don't think we get to hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner until more than 10 years out.
[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/i-dont-know-how-to-explain-to...
It's only like 10% or so that are thriving and practicing core tenants of faith.
Exactly how does one ignore all that evidence because people favor the effectiveness of these orgs over the bloat of government programs?
All the things you list are wonderful, but the churches can not do it alone nor should they be expected to. I think it weird that the same people (and let's face it, it's not the same people) wouldn't vote for a more careering government.
We can all freely donate our money and time to organizations that make a difference and we also have the freedom to stop if we don’t believe they are effective anymore.
The moment a government program exists, that freedom to choose goes away and you’re stuck with whatever the result happens to be.
"Christian" has, in the US, become increasingly synonymous with "Republican" rather than "follower of Jesus Christ". It's slowly becoming just another label that does the job "Traditional Values" used to do before that one lost its stickiness: it's increasingly just a dogwhistle.
As a Christian in a red state, it makes me pretty depressed. I find it hopeful to see trends outside the US political bubble. I hope in the long term it won't be just a political descriptor or a convenient in-group label to wear, but may again be used primarily to describe a set of binding values.
[1] https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/august-web-only/ch...
If your political opponent wants the same things as you, but merely has differing values and perspectives, then reason and compromise should be able to cause some meaningful change in perspective or come up with some useful middle-ground policy.
But if your political opponent does not want the same things as you - they are, in fact, "callous" and don't care about the well-being of others - then there's no room for meaningful debate. Telling someone who disagrees with you "can you please stop being evil?" isn't going to convince them of anything. The other side simply needs to be removed from power so that you are unopposed in implementing your policies.
So I actually agree with the author: if that is what you believe about your political opponents, then debating about politics is probably a waste of your time.
Goldwater called it thirty years ago. That's exactly what happened, especially in the last few years.
It'd be one thing if there were any more free market (small "c") conservatives left to compromise with. All that remains in the GOP are the religious and Q-anon factions that genuinely believe that Democrats are Satanists and child molesters. These people expect total capitulation because they think god is on their side and that is not compromise in any sense of the word.
They're not even fit to govern with total control of three branches as shown during the first half of Trump's term, let alone compromise when they're in the opposition. The recent shitshow with the Speaker of the House election and the constant brinkmanship with the budget are just the latest symptoms of their degeneracy as a functioning political party. They can't even compromise within their own ranks because their religious fervor has turned terminal.
Both parties are fascist in different ways.
There is very little room for debate on issues like book-banning, withholding rights from the LGBTQ community (civil marriage, healthcare), or most of the other issues the GOP uses as wedge issues.
Then there are issues where compromise should be possible, and the left largely wants compromise, but the GOP refuses. Abortion and guns come to mind. The GOP is currently hellbent on banning the former outright and ensuring easy access to the latter. Most of the political left would be happy with some reasonable compromise on both (and in fact, we had what most of the nation felt was a reasonable compromise on abortion until very recently).
Despite some state-level regulation, we're near the top of the list in death-by-gun. And the political right seems largely ok with this, which is baffling. Parts of Latin America are worse, but they have massive drug crime issues and often failing economics and governments. Greenland has lots of gun suicides. The US has all of the above.
The same regulations apply to gun sales at gun shows as anywhere else.
Yes, private citizens can sell guns at gun shows without performing a background check. They can also sell guns without performing a background check in Grand Canyon National Park, on a boat in the middle of Lake Michigan, or in the parking lot of the local McDonalds. "Gun shows" have nothing to do with it.
Gun dealers at gun shows likewise have to perform the same check that they perform at their normal place of business. Again, the fact that it is a gun show changes nothing.
You should try to remember who told you that the "gun show loophole" is actually a thing, and resolve to trust no further information from that source. To put it bluntly: they lied to you.
And in any gun control conversation, most people know exactly what’s meant by the term - I didn’t pick the name (and have no idea who did).
My understanding is the term came into use because it was common for unlicensed sellers to set up tables at gun shows. The law isnt about gun shows specifically, but gun shows were a common way for unlicensed sellers and buyers seeking to avoid background checks to do business.
Your understanding is wrong, by the way. If you sell more than a few guns per year (where "a few" is up to the ATF agent's discretion), the ATF is going to conclude that you are an unlicensed dealer and you will go to jail for a very long time (edit: five years in prison, $250,000 fine, or both).
Here's a documented case of the gun show loophole in practice at a gun show as recently as 2019... https://gunsandamerica.org/story/19/01/29/what-the-so-called...
This practice was closed by the Safer Communities Act in 2022. But, in the majority of states, this doesn't prevent a buyer from legally purchasing a gun from a private seller. Like I said above, it's a stupid name, especially given the changes in 2022, and I'm happy to call it "private sale legal quirk" or whatever you want. Changing the common name doesn't change the underlying law - private sales are unregulated at the federal level - and that (IMO) is silly - either the sale of guns should be regulated or it shouldn't (obviously I fall on the regulated side).
It's not that they're evil. It's more often that they're selfish.
Also, there are plenty of people "on my side" who I disagree with and I can have productive conversations because we have the same goals. I disagree with a lot of liberal principles (they're pretty god-awful and selfish people themselves, ahem Pelosi). But I think there's still enough of a range of views within the Democratic party that if you got rid of all of the Republicans, I would still disagree with like 80% of congress.
I would just also have a prayer that compromises could be made, because we're not starting negotiations from a position where 50% of congress is going to say 'no' no matter what regardless of who it hurts.
Have you seen the Tuberville thing where he claims our military is weak, but he refuses to allow any military promotions through? Republicans complain about the gov't not working, and then go work overtime to make sure nothing gets done.
Sitting here in europe looking in, its fairly obvious that 'Both sides' is just an excuse to explain away persecuting people as a political choice.
Your rights end where mine begin.
If someone wants to do something that impacts my ability to live my life, that’s not something that should be a right, I.e. someone being gay doesn’t materially impact someone else’s ability to live their life but making their ability to exist as they are illegal does impact their ability to live their life.
I find it to be a fairly simple premise to guide myself by.
- Benito Juarez
"The" definition of fascism nowadays is what someone else believes
For example smoking. Smoking in public is more clear due to 2nd hand smoking. But even smoking in private sucks for community because it costs a ton in healthcare.
It's a pretty weak justification.
I can appreciate that stuff we grew up with and laughed at might not be acceptable nowadays, but that's no excuse to dig one's heels in and refuse to grow up.
Nobody thinks that the left's liberal policies are creeping fascism, but rather its leftist, illiberal ones.
The right is criticized for 'fascism' for merely existing--the same policies they've advocated for decades without such accusations are suddenly 'fascist'! It's a matter of linguistic manipulation--of bad faith--and nothing more. It's frankly sad to see folks on HN who fall for this gutter sophistry, which is clearly aimed at people who have no conception whatever of history, whether of American politics or of fascism.
The left, on the other hand, is criticized for 'fascism' because they increasingly adopt, encourage, and condone the political program and tactics of fascist authoritarians. Because wherever they have control of institutions, they seek to use them to pursue political goals. Corporate DEI, corporate ESG policies, banks freezing assets of protesters, social media banning conservatives, corporations pushing the trans agenda--these are all examples of a now-familiar phenomenon in which captured corporations push unpopular progressive political goals. The merging of state, party and corporate power for the furtherance of progressive goals is, of course, the very heart of fascism. But that's not all! The left increasingly embraces the streetwise, strong-arm tactics of the brownshirts; by encouraging/defending the anti-social harassment of conservative politicians, remaining silent as conservatives were silenced on campuses around the country, defending corporations who censored conservatives (the only point on which progressives aggressively defend corporate power at the expense of the consumer), aggravating racial tension for political gain, openly encouraging riots that caused billions in damage and took many lives, and so on. Remember, on the eve of the 2020 election, city centers around the country were boarded up in fear that the mobs of angry people, masked and dressed in black, would swoop down and resume their months-long campaign of wonton destruction. And it wasn't the right that they were afraid of, but the left--and for good reason!
(i.e. is over education a darwinian dead end and 'Is it stupid to be smart' ? :))
Texas sounds like a good option except for some bizarre positions like no marijuana and no abortion.
The implication is that the red states will get poorer and the blue states will get richer per capita which has already been true, but if the trend continues will become more pronounced. Ultimately, this can't have good consequences.
CA in particular also has the constant underlying filter of high QoL+CoL which will always be attracting those who can make the move (professionals). I left the Chicago suburbs for SV over a decade ago, and there was no shortage of folks among my peers wanting similar QoL upgrades with perceived cost being the barrier. No wacky politics necessary for that to have a brain drain effect outside CA...
The opposite is also true - the politics of blue states are becoming increasingly extreme as well.
I moved from a blue city in a purple state on the East Coast back to the very red state where I grew up primarily for that reason. The blue state was restricting homeschooling and making it increasingly difficult to legally carry a firearm, which are two critically important issues for me.
> CA in particular also has the constant underlying filter of high QoL+CoL which will always be attracting those who can make the move (professionals).
I could never move to CA given its political climate. A few years ago I was working for a company based in the LA area, and was offered an additional ~$120k base salary if I'd move there. It wasn't worth it to me.
I'd be hard pressed to turn down that offer, and I vehemently _hate_ LA after living there some 20 years ago.