Virginia Republicans Are Reaping What They Sowed

For twenty-six (26) years Virginia Republicans arrogantly held the Commonwealth back and catered to the extreme interests of the rural minority of Virginians and Christian extremists in particular.  During the last decade the Virginia GOP's power and arrogance was emboldened by almost obscene gerrymandering (some districts were so egregious that they struck down by the courts).  Like the national GOP, the Virginia GOP had no long term plan in the face of rapidly changing demographics and the growth of urban areas that one need not have been a psychic to realize would eventually be able to out vote the rural and knuckle dragging GOP base.  Indeed, the most recent example of Virginia Republican arrogance was their quick suppression of the special session on gun control called by Governor Northam in the wake of the mass shooting in Virginia Beach last May.  In the 2019 state elections, the majority of Virginians said "enough" and elected a Democrat majority to the General Assembly to enact the policies and legislation the majority has long wanted.  Now, Virginia Republicans are apoplectic about significant changes on many issues that they thwarted for decades.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at Virginia Republicans whining over a sea change their arrogance and disregard for the majority of Virginians brought about.  The ultimate irony? Republicans claiming Democrats are abusing their power even as Democrats are nowhere near as arrogant and dismissive of others as Republicans were for decades. Here are article highlights:

RICHMOND — One Republican delegate warns that Virginia is splitting in two. Another would support returning liberal Arlington and Alexandria to the District of Columbia. Lawmakers in West Virginia have offered to annex rural Frederick County, outside Winchester, to liberate it from its rapidly urbanizing home.

The change that Democrats promised in last fall’s election campaigns is hitting Richmond with full force, casting new light on political and cultural divisions that have simmered for years. As leaders quickly advance gun control, women’s rights and LGBTQ protections, many Republicans charge that they’re trampling on the interests of a new minority: rural conservatives who long held sway in the Capitol.

Last week’s massive gun rights rally was the rawest reaction yet to the demographic shifts turning Virginia from red to blue. While the state’s electorate has been tilting Democratic for more than a decade, this year’s General Assembly session shows what consolidated power looks like, with blue majorities in the legislature joining forces with Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam.

The abrupt change is playing out in ways large and small. Democrats grabbed national attention for approving the Equal Rights Amendment, while also changing the pronouns in official House rules from “he/him” to “she/her.” The weekly “Speaker’s Bible study” has become an “interfaith devotional” that kicked off with a rabbi. The word “Militia” is gone from the name of the House Public Safety Committee.

Democrats say the changes are meant to be more inclusive. “We’re telling people, ‘Yes, you belong here, you have someone you can relate to here,’ ” said Del. Danica A. Roem (D-Prince William), Virginia’s first openly transgender state lawmaker.

The upshot is that white men from red parts of Virginia hold less power this year than any time since Reconstruction.

In a sense, the change addresses old imbalances — and not just racial ones. Northern Virginia has never had positions of influence equal to its proportion of the state’s population and wealth, particularly in the House of Delegates. And Republicans over the past quarter-century have used their majorities to pass measures that Democrats found extreme, such as requiring ultrasounds before abortions or undoing any hint of restrictions on guns.

Northam’s predecessor, Terry McAuliffe (D), vetoed more bills than any governor in state history in what he called a “brick wall” against the excesses of a Republican-controlled legislature. In the House, which was under GOP control for 24 years, the shift has been painful. Former House speaker Kirk Cox (R-Colonial Heights) opted not to take over as minority leader and sits quietly during floor sessions, grimacing and whispering with colleagues. [M]any Democrats said they bristled at the optics of Gilbert, a white man, seeming to question the competence of female and black leaders. The phenomenon repeated Monday when Gilbert led an attack on a bill loosening abortion restrictions as a large crowd of women waited in the House gallery to witness final passage of the ERA. Lobbing repeated questions at House Majority Leader Charniele L. Herring (D-Alexandria), the bill’s sponsor, Gilbert at one point suggested she had missed something because she was consulting a colleague. Earlier this month, with one eye on history and the other on the gun rights movement sweeping across Virginia, Republicans in the West Virginia legislature advanced a resolution inviting neighboring Frederick County to cross the border and join the mountain state. Such an offer had technically been on the table since the Civil War, when West Virginia broke away from Richmond rather than secede.

While no one in Richmond seems keen on the idea, the proposal got LaRock thinking about how Alexandria and Arlington were originally included in the District of Columbia, until changing laws on slavery caused them to leave in the 1840s. Maybe, he told a local newspaper, they should go back.

But the problem for Republicans is that the values LaRock sees in Arlington and Alexandria have spread throughout the state. In last fall’s elections, it was suburban districts in places such as Prince William County, Chesterfield County outside Richmond and parts of Hampton Roads that gave Democrats their majorities in the legislature. “This is them realizing and being disappointed that they didn’t get more votes than they did,” Del. Jerrauld C. “Jay” Jones (D-Norfolk) said. “We are executing the will of the people of Virginia who came out to the ballot box.”

Northam, who has become the focus of rage from pro-gun activists for his promise of gun control, said through a spokeswoman that his agenda is more in step with the values of people across the state.

“Virginians have long supported things like universal background checks, ending the attacks on women’s rights, and ensuring workers can support themselves and their families,” the governor said in a written statement. “The difference is now, our legislature is finally listening.”

It’s ironic that Northam — who hails from the Eastern Shore and used to vote for Republicans — has become the bane of conservatives. When he ran for governor in 2017, some Democrats worried his rural roots and country accent would alienate suburban voters.

[H]is agenda for the coming weeks of the session is unabashedly blue. Even before Democrats have finished approving gun-control bills, they will move on to measures that expand voter access and ban discrimination against LGBTQ people. Democrats in the legislature also hope to raise the minimum wage, decriminalize marijuana, eliminate cash bail and more.

Roem, who in only her second term is now the first openly transgender person to chair a subcommittee, said Republicans need to get over it. . . . Now that the state’s most populous and wealthy region is in charge, she said, the message isn’t separation; it’s inclusion.

One can only hope a similar day soon sweeps America and the Republican agenda of hate and division and ignoring the wishes of the majority of Americans comes to a similar harsh end.

Prospect of Virginia Gun Control Exposes Insanity of Far Right

Gun nuts in Richmond back in July 2019.

Some studies indicate that right wing extremism is now a far greater threat in America than any sort of threat from Islamic extremism.  Given the lunacy on display by far right groups and the gun fetish crowd in response to proposed sane gun control laws, this scary reality is now in open view with threats being made against the governor and one rural county in Southwest Virginia taking measures to allow the establishment of a county militia to oppose the state laws (one more example of why no one sane wants to move a business to that region of the state).  Added to the general insanity of the gun crowd is the deliberate dissemination of untrue conspiracy stories on the Internet by groups that exist in some bizarre alternate reality.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at the situation which, to me, underscores why proposed gun control laws are needed now more than ever.  Here are article highlights:

Gun rights advocates and militia members from around the country are urging thousands of armed protesters to descend on Virginia's capital later this month to stop newly empowered Democrats from passing gun-control bills.

What began as a handful of rural Virginia counties declaring themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries” has jumped the state’s borders and become an Internet phenomenon. Far-right websites and commenters are declaring that Virginia is the place to take a stand against what they see as a national trend of weakening gun rights.

[A] Nevada-based group called the Oath Keepers said it’s sending training teams to help form posses and militia in Virginia. The leader of a Georgia militia called Three Percent Security Force has posted videos and calls to arms on Facebook, urging “patriots” to converge on Richmond. The right-wing YouTuber “American Joe Show” warned without evidence that Virginia will cut the power grid to stop the army of protesters — one of a host of false and exaggerated rumors spreading online. Law enforcement and public safety officials say they are monitoring the situation, including several instances of threats toward Gov. Ralph Northam (D). Even some gun enthusiasts expressed concern about the potential for violence at a rally planned for the state Capitol on Jan. 20. State police briefed Northam for two hours last week, according to one state official, and the governor plans to lead an all-staff meeting this week to go over increased security procedures. “Hopefully it’ll not be another Charlottesville,” Van Cleave said, blaming police and state planning for the violence that erupted during 2017’s Unite the Right rally around a Confederate statue.

[F]irepower is a concern for gun-control advocates, who also plan to turn out on Jan. 20 — Martin Luther King Jr. Day — for what is a traditional day of citizen lobbying at the state Capitol.

“There’s a dangerous intersection here of speech and guns, and what I think is critically important is that we don’t see the sort of armed intimidation and even violence that resulted . . . in Charlottesville,” said Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and policy director at Giffords Law Center.

Democrats won their majorities in November elections, ending a 26-year period where Republicans were able to quash any proposed restrictions on guns. After 12 people were killed at a Virginia Beach municipal building by a gunman on May 31, Northam vowed to pass some form of gun control. Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D) issued an opinion that militia members presenting themselves as peacekeepers could be violating state law. Beginning in rural counties, boards of supervisors — usually with hundreds of local residents looking on — have passed resolutions proclaiming that they would not enforce any unconstitutional effort to seize or restrict guns.

Tazewell County in Southwest Virginia went a step further, passing an ordinance that would enable it to raise a militia.

One white supremacist blogger wrote a widely disseminated post claiming that Northam planned to call out the Guard and cut power and Internet service to thwart gun supporters. That led to a meme with a fabricated quote in which Northam is made to say, “if you still refuse to comply I’ll have you killed.”

The conspiracy theory site Natural News posted an angry tirade about Northam, accusing him of starting a new civil war and suggesting vigilantes would kill any officials who tried to take their guns.

An anti-Semitic website said Jewish Democrats were “gun-grabbers,” including former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, the presidential candidate whose gun-control organization has poured millions into Virginia.

State officials declined to directly address the threats. “Our Administration is taking serious precautions to protect the safety of all visitors, policymakers, and staff during the upcoming General Assembly session,” Clark Mercer, Northam’s chief of staff, said via email. “This issue evokes strong feelings, but spreading lies, rumors, and misinformation is irresponsible and dangerous.

Northam is backing eight bills, the same package he submitted ahead of the aborted special session in July. Among them are measures to ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, bump stocks and silencers; require background checks on all firearms sales and transfers; cap handgun purchases at one per month; and create a “red flag law” to temporarily remove guns from people deemed a threat to themselves or others.

The proposed assault-weapons ban has been one of the most controversial measures, since the original bill bans not only the sale of those guns but possession — meaning people who already own them would have to give them up. Amid an uproar, Northam said a grandfather clause would be added to protect existing owners, but they would have to register their weapons.

All the outside attention has overwhelmed some of the homegrown gun rights advocates. Troy Carter, who helped rally support for a sanctuary proclamation in Amelia County outside Richmond, said he has seen the fiery language on social media.

“I am worried people will come here to Virginia and look for that opportunity to cause trouble,” he said. “It’s not going to be the sanctuary guys, because we just want peace and to be left alone.”

As noted, these insane forces underscore why Northam's package of laws is needed now more than ever,  These gun nuts are a clear and present danger to law abiding citizens.

Red and Blue Economies Are Heading in Sharply Different Directions

I have long maintained that part of the economic problems facing "red states" and red rural areas is that their social reactionary nature and hostility towards non-whites, non-straights and non-Christians makes them unattractive to the business of the 21st century and the future.  Here in Virginia, Southwest Virginia is a prime example.  That region continues to demand that state monies be used to turn around the region economically yet the residents (and, yes, there are exceptions) continue to embrace social, religious and political views that are anathema to the economic change they claim to want.  Now a study, as reported in the New York Times looks at the diverging paths of so-called blue economies associated with rising urban areas and those of red economies associated with rural and reactionary regions.  And yes, the red areas tend to be far more white and perhaps more racist.  Here are article highlights:

At a quick glance, red and blue metropolitan areas are performing equally well on average in the most watched indicators of labor market health. . . . Silicon Valley (blue) is booming. So is Provo, Utah (red).

But below the surface, red and blue local economies are worlds apart on enduring, fundamental measures that determine their future prospects and their biggest economic challenges.

The correlations between deeper economic measures and how the contrasting metro areas voted in 2016 are striking.

In bluer metros, more residents have college degrees: The 10 large metros with the highest educational attainment each voted for Hillary Clinton by at least a 10-point margin. Median household incomes are higher in bluer metros even after adjusting for the cost of living, which is higher in bluer metros as well. (Metro area is a better measure for a local labor market than a neighborhood, city, county or state.)

And bluer metros have a more favorable job mix for the future, with fewer manufacturing jobs, a higher share of harder-to-automate “non-routine” jobs, and a higher share of jobs in occupations projected to grow faster.

These measures — education, household income, cost of living, non-routine jobs and projected job growth — are highly correlated with one another, and with voting Democratic.

Other economic measures are less strongly correlated with partisanship but still show a pattern. Bluer metros have less year-to-year volatility of job growth. In part that’s because goods-related sectors like manufacturing and mining are more volatile and are clustered in Republican-leaning areas.

Home values have risen more in bluer metros than in redder ones. And blue metros have a higher prime-age employment-population ratio, even though the unemployment rate varies little by partisanship. That’s because red metros have a higher share of prime-age adults who are not in the labor force and therefore aren’t counted in the unemployment rate.

But there are a few places that vote differently than you’d expect from their local economic fundamentals. Colorado Springs and the Provo-Orem area, for instance, have education levels and an occupation mix more typical of blue metros but voted for Donald J. Trump in 2016 by a wide margin. On the flip side, Stockton, Calif., and El Paso look more like red metros economically but voted for Mrs. Clinton.

Why do some metros vote differently than their economics might suggest they would? Race, ethnicity and religion. Metros that vote Democratic despite having lower education and a job mix more typical of redder metros tend to have large Hispanic populations, including many in inland California and on the Texas border. Metros that vote more Republican despite having higher education and a blue-metro job mix tend to be whiter.

[I]ncome inequality — and all the social and political challenges that come with it — tends to be lower in redder metros. And while cost-of-living-adjusted household incomes are higher in bluer metros, cost-of-living-adjusted salaries for a given occupation are typically higher in redder metros.

There’s a reason for this difference: Bluer metros tend to have higher-paying occupations and fewer prime-age adults out of the labor force, which increases household incomes. But if you move from a bluer to a redder metro and find a job in the same occupation, you’re likely to get an increase in salary after taking living costs into account.

The economic challenges of blue metros — unaffordability and inequality — are different than those of red metros, which face lower living standards and greater risks of job loss. Even if the economy takes a back seat in the 2020 election to health care, immigration and President Trump’s record, these economic differences won’t be far from the surface. And if national economic conditions soften, these differences will become more reason for partisan disagreement on urgent policy priorities.

If the places that moved left between 2012 and 2016 continue getting bluer — and the places that swung Obama-to-Trump keep getting redder — the local economies of red and blue America will keep growing further apart.

Innovation and progressive thinking gravitates to blue regions while "conservatism," closed mindedness and an unwelcoming atmosphere toward those who are different concentrates in red regions. Both bring economic consequences. 

Virginia on The Brink of Cementing Its Democratic Status

Click image to enlarge: Republican voting strength is increasingly concentrated in the areas
that have stagnated or which are losing population while the Democrat base grows in growing areas.

Virginia's elections on Tuesday, November 5, 2019, are getting a lot of national attention and many hope that the elections will be a reprise of the 2017 bloodbath suffered by the Virginia Republican Party which remains in lock step with Donald Trump, perhaps the most hated politician/demagogue in the Commonwealth - at least outside of knuckle dragging rural areas of the state which continue to see a continued downward spiral because of the backwardness and religious extremism of so many of its inhabitants that modern, progressive businesses find repellent.  A piece in Huffington Post looks at what's at stake on Tuesday - including but not limited to increased minimum wages, LGBT non-discrimination protections, gun control, women's rights, and actions to address climate change -  and and how Virginia appears to be finally seceding from the old Confederacy as states like Alabama descend further into right wing/Christofascist lunacy.  For Virginia to continue to prosper, it is imperative that Republicans lose control of both houses of the General Assembly.  Here are article highlights:

Democratic takeovers in both legislative chambers would have far-reaching implications for the state’s policies and politics. The party, which also controls the governor’s office, would have the chance to pursue a host of liberal priorities like an increase in the state’s minimum wage, laws protecting LGBTQ rights and abortion rights and tougher gun safety regulations.

It would also mark the culmination of Virginia’s years long transformation from a conservative state ― which once was the seat of the Confederacy ― to a progressive one that is not only reliably Democratic in presidential elections, but whose state politics are heavily influenced by a cohort of liberal Democrats that would have been unrecognizable even a decade ago.

“This could be a watershed election for Virginia,” said Quentin Kidd, director of the center for public policy at Christopher Newport University.

And don’t expect the Democrats in Virginia to be moderate quasi-Republicans. The state party has been winning its elections with candidates who are more progressive than the traditional Southern Democrats, touting policies like gun control.

“There will still be [Southern-style] Democrats in Virginia after November 5,” Kidd said, putting Gov. Ralph Northam (D) himself in that category. “But if Democrats win it will because of Democrats who are” more liberal.

Many of the top priorities for Democrats once in power would be the sort of socially liberal reforms for which there is broad support in the increasingly affluent, suburban state.

Tougher gun regulations would almost certainly swiftly become law. In the wake of a mass shooting in Virginia Beach that killed 12 people in May, Northam sought to pass a package of reforms to close background check loopholes for private sales and transfers and forbid the sale of assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and silencers, among other things. The Republican-controlled legislative chambers blocked the measures in a special legislative session in July. 

Legislation aimed at protecting LGBTQ residents from discrimination is also likely to pass very quickly. . . . “LGBTQ rights are on the ballot,” said Lucas Acosta, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, which has contributed over $41,000 to Roem’s reelection and tens of thousands more on other Democrats. “Literally, it will take a flip of two seats and new leadership in the House of Delegates and the state Senate for LGBTQ residents to have the most basic protections.”  

Virginia Democrats would have the chance to adopt more expansive protections for abortion rights and ratify the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  

What makes this potential Democratic takeover different from previous legislative wins is that in addition to socially liberal legislation, the party is seriously considering bills that run counter to the state’s mighty business establishment. The clubby, ethically lax and business-friendly consensus in both parties is so ingrained in the state’s political culture, it has its own name: the “Virginia Way.”

But this time, not only have Democrats vowed to raise the state’s minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour, many are also on record in support of repealing the state’s anti-union “right-to-work” law. Virginia was one of the first states in the country to adopt a law barring unions from compelling the workers it represents to contribute dues.

“We’ve been saying since 2008 that Virginia’s been trending purple, trending blue,” he said. “It could very well be the case that Virginia cements itself politically as a mid-Atlantic state after November 5.” 

Another sign of the shifting consensus against big business is a greater appetite among Democrats to take on the state’s twin monopoly electric companies, Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power. 

Forty incumbent Democrats and 47 challengers have pledged not to accept campaign contributions from the two monopolies or own stock in them, according to the progressive nonprofit Clean Virginia, which is seeking to combat their power.

Whether and how much a Democratic legislature is willing to act to combat climate change is likely to depend in particular on lawmakers’ willingness to buck Dominion, long one of the state’s most deep-pocketed campaign donors. 

With the support of Dominion and Appalachian, Northam has proposed a clean energy standard that would make the state 100% carbon-free by 2050. 

But some environmental advocates argue that the deadline for decarbonization is too late. Others worry that climate policies that fail to confront the monopolies’ power will simply extend their dominance into emerging renewable energy sectors, while hurting ratepayers and suppressing the sort of clean energy entrepreneurship that would help Virginia hit its climate targets sooner and more effectively.

“The idea that renewables, which are inevitable and should be mandatory, only come by a utility that has abused its monopoly is a false argument and one that Virginians should reject on the face of it,” said Brennan Gilmore, executive director of Clean Virginia. 

The explosion of the state’s northern suburbs outside Washington brought an influx of highly educated and racially diverse voters more likely to vote Democratic. As a result, Republicans have been losing ground in Virginia for the better part of a decade; their last statewide wins were in 2009.  

The election of President Donald Trump, who lost Virginia by 5 percentage points and repelled many of the educated professionals from the business-friendly wing of the state’s Republican Party, turbocharged that trend. 

The liberal anti-Trump “Resistance” raged as hot in Virginia as any state in the country, sparking a major uptick in candidates for elected office, young voter participation and volunteer door-knocking. What’s more, the exodus of socially liberal, suburban Republicans from the GOP in the Trump era created a vicious cycle wherein the state’s party increasingly catered to a right-wing populist base that further alienated it from swing voters. 

The result was a wave election in November 2017 that was the first real demonstration of Trump’s toxicity in battleground states. . . . . the enthusiasm didn’t let up. In November 2018, Virginia Democrats continued to capitalize on suburban discontent with the president, flipping three Republican-held U.S. House seats.

When Virginia voted for Barack Obama in 2008, it was the first time the state had voted for a Democratic presidential nominee since 1964. 

Some observers characterized that outcome as Virginia’s de facto political secession from the South, Kidd recalled.

Flipping the legislature this year with a more diverse, more progressive group of Democrats, he said, “would be a reaffirmation of that secession from the South ― and it would be on the shoulders of a newer America.”

The New Economy and the Trump Economic Rump

A billboard in West Des Moines, Iowa, in January 2016.

Time and time over the years I have argued that rural areas that reject modernity, cling to right wing Christianity and remain outwardly racist are cutting their own throats economically and thriving businesses increasingly locate in urban and/ suburban areas that offer better educated work forces and are more hostile to racial bigotry and religious extremism.  Here in Virginia, both the McAuliffe and now the Northam gubernatorial administrations have pushed a "welcoming to all" effort to attract new businesses to the state.  Sadly, it's a hard sell to parts of Virginia like Southwest Virginia or the area along the southern border from Emporia westward where racism and right wing religion predominate.   Yet, as a column in the New York Times lays out, right wing Republican areas are slowly dying - in no small part because of their hostility to diversity and political liberalism.  The recent announcement by Amazon of its new headquarters locations and the results of the 2018 midterm elections underscore the argument of the column.  Here are column highlights:   

A little over a year ago, Amazon invited cities and states to offer bids for a proposed second headquarters. This set off a mad scramble over who would gain the dubious privilege of paying large subsidies in return for worsened traffic congestion and higher housing prices. (Answer: New York and greater D.C.)

But not everyone was in the running. From the beginning, Amazon specified that it would put the new facility only in a Democratic congressional district.

O.K., that’s not literally what Amazon said. It only limited the competition to “metropolitan areas with more than one million people” and “urban or suburban locations with the potential to attract and retain strong technical talent.” But in the next Congress the great majority of locations meeting those criteria will, in fact, be represented by Democrats.

Over the past generation, America’s regions have experienced a profound economic divergence. Rich metropolitan areas have gotten even richer, attracting ever more of the nation’s fastest growing industries. Meanwhile, small towns and rural areas have been bypassed, forming a sort of economic rump left behind by the knowledge economy.

Amazon’s headquarters criteria perfectly illustrate the forces behind that divergence. Businesses in the new economy want access to large pools of highly educated workers, which can be found only in big, rich metropolitan areas. And the location decisions of companies like Amazon draw even more high-skill workers to those areas.

In other words, there’s a cumulative, self-reinforcing process at work that is, in effect, dividing America into two economies. And this economic division is reflected in political division.

In 2016, of course, the parts of America that are being left behind voted heavily for Donald Trump. . . . . But this was, it turns out, fighting the last war. Trumpism turned America’s lagging regions solid red, but the backlash against Trumpism has turned its growing regions solid blue.

Why have lagging regions turned right while successful regions turned left? It doesn’t seem to be about economic self-interest. True, Trump promised to bring back traditional jobs in manufacturing and coal mining — but that promise was never credible. And the orthodox Republican policy agenda of cutting taxes and shrinking social programs, which is basically what Trump is following in practice, actually hurts lagging regions, which depend a lot on things like food stamps and disability payments, much more than it hurts successful areas.

As documented in “Identity Crisis,” an important new book analyzing the 2016 election, what distinguished Trump voters wasn’t financial hardship but “attitudes related to race and ethnicity.”

Yet these attitudes aren’t divorced from economic change. Even if they’re personally doing well, many voters in lagging regions have a sense of grievance, a feeling that they’re being disrespected by the glittering elites of superstar cities; this sense of grievance all too easily turns into racial antagonism. Conversely, however, the transformation of the G.O.P. into a white nationalist party alienates voters — even white voters — in those big, successful metropolitan areas. So the regional economic divide becomes a political chasm.

We can and should do a lot to improve the lives of Americans in lagging regions. . . . . . But restoring these regions’ dynamism is much harder, because it means swimming against a powerful economic tide.

And the sense of being left behind can make people angry even if their material needs are taken care of. That is what we see, for example, in the former East Germany . . .

So the bitter division we see in America — the ugliness infecting our politics — may have deep economic roots, and there may be no practical way to make it go away.

But the ugliness doesn’t have to win. Most rural white voters still support Trumpism, but they aren’t a majority, and in the midterms a significant number of those voters also broke with the white nationalist agenda. . . . the better angels of our nature can still prevail.

Richard Florida who coined the term the "creative class" also noted that the more accepting a city of region was of gays, the stronger its technology based economy (Florida called this the "gay index").  If one looks at the economically lagging red states - or regions of Virginia - the common thread is that they are anti-gay and racist.   These aren't traits forced on them by outsiders.  Rather, it is the inbred bigotry and right wing religious extremism of the local populace which is the root of the problem.  True, Republicans play to these prejudices to win votes, but in doing so, they and those who vote for them are merely making the downward economic spiral accelerate.  Blacks and Hispanic immigrants are not the source of these regions' economic problems.  If they want to see the real cause, the locals need only look in the mirror.

Will Southern Suburbs Abandon the GOP?

One of the keys to turning Virginia blue in statewide elections has been growing support for Democrats in suburban areas, particularly Northern Virginia.  The reality has become that if a Democrat carries the so-called "urban crescent" from Northern Virginia southward to Richmond and then southeaster to Hampton Roads, there simply are not enough votes in the rural, reactionary regions of the state to overcome the deficit.  One aspect of this change has been the flight of college educated whites from the GOP, a party that now is overtly racist, panders to Christian extremists, and embraces ignorance - all thing deemed offensive by a majority of college educated whites (and I would argue, decent, truly moral people). As the 2018 midterms approach (and 2020 two years from now), one of the questions of the day is whether the flight from the GOP in other southern suburbs can propel Democrats to statewide victories and flipping congressional districts.  A piece in CNN looks at the phenomenon.  Here are excerpts:

One key measure of any Democratic wave in the midterm elections will be whether it crests high enough to overcome the formidable Republican defenses in the growing suburbs across the South. The answer will have implications that extend far beyond 2018.

While Democrats have notched significant gains since the 1990s among white-collar suburban voters in most parts of the country, they have until recently made very little progress at loosening the Republican hold on affluent and increasingly racially diverse suburbs around such Southern metro areas as Atlanta, Houston and Dallas. But suburban unease with Donald Trump's turbulent presidency may finally provide Democrats an opening to establish a beachhead in such places -- a development that would rattle the electoral map. Although the recoil from Trump among white-collar suburbanites inside the South is not as great as outside of it, both public and private polls signal that enough suburban voters are pulling away from him to create much greater opportunity than usual for Democrats this fall in the governor's race in Georgia, Senate races in Tennessee and Texas, and several suburban House seats across the region.
 [W]e are also definitely making inroads first and foremost with college-educated white women, but also college-educated white men." Many of the most vulnerable Republican House seats around the country are centered on white-collar suburbs. Democrats have strong opportunities in suburban seats from New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia through Northern Virginia, Chicago, Minneapolis, Detroit, Denver and Los Angeles. That vulnerability is rooted in the unusual resistance Trump faces among well-educated white voters: Three national polls last week each found that around 60 percent of whites holding at least a four-year college degree disapproved of his performance.
 In addition, gains in white-collar suburbs will be critical to Democratic prospects in the Georgia governor's race between African-American Democrat Stacey Abrams and Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp; the highly competitive Tennessee Senate contest between former Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen and Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn; and the more uphill, but still competitive, challenge by Democratic Rep. Beto O'Rourke against Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in Texas.
 Even if Democrats fall short in some or all of these races, a significantly improved performance in white-collar suburbs could offer them a roadmap for seriously contesting North Carolina, Georgia and perhaps even Texas against Trump in 2020 -- when African-Americans, Latinos and other minority voters, who mostly lean Democratic, will likely comprise a bigger share of the electorate than this fall. But in virtually every state in which Democrats have grown more competitive since the early 1990s, increased minority participation has been only part of the equation -- it has been necessary, but not sufficient. Whether in California, Illinois and New Jersey, which tilted toward Democrats in the 1990s, or Colorado, Virginia and (more equivocally) North Carolina, where the party strengthened its position in the 2000s, the winning Democratic formula has combined both an increase in minority participation and improved performance among college-educated white voters. In the states where Democrats have gained ground in recent decades, those two changes have offset lackluster, and an often deteriorating, performance with evangelical, rural and non-college educated white voters. [Wendy] Davis pointed to two principal reasons Southern suburbs have remained so difficult for Democrats.  "One is that we've had a booming economy and it's the economy stupid as the saying goes, so people have felt pretty satisfied with where things are," Davis said. "We also suffer the problem of being absolutely ignored in presidential election contests which means that we haven't built the infrastructure that's necessary to communicate with a lot of the voters that are needed."
 The Democratic improvement in white-collar suburbs in other regions has been keyed largely by cultural affinity, since many college-educated voters, especially women, take more liberal positions on social issues from abortion and gay rights to gun control. But fewer Southern suburbanites are social liberals, probably because more of them than elsewhere are evangelical Christians or otherwise religiously traditional. Democrats still confront all of these barriers this year. But Trump's rise has provided them a new opening. With his racially infused nationalism and belligerent personal style, Trump conspicuously lost ground across many Southern suburbs in his 2016 race against Hillary Clinton when compared to Mitt Romney's performance in the same places in 2012. . . . in key suburbs around the major metropolitan areas, such as Gwinnett and Cobb counties outside of Atlanta, the shift away from the GOP was undeniable and ominous for Republican strategists. . . . Basically we've traded the smaller, slower growing more rural counties for larger fast growing suburban counties." In last November's Virginia governor's race, Democrat Ralph Northam posted big advances not only in suburbs outside of Washington DC, which politically behave more like Northern suburbs, but also the suburban communities around Richmond, which have tilted more reliably Republican. A more immediate problem for Texas Democrats, he said, may be improving their performance among Latino voters, among whom Republicans have retained a significant minority of support even under Trump. Still, the most recent statewide poll conducted by the University of Texas and the Texas Tribune in June shows some clear openings for Democrats among well-educated white voters who have previously resisted them.
 [N]ow in Georgia, he adds, "If you are the business community, you have to think twice about do you get behind a Republican as you normally would, or would Kemp scare away business?" . . . Whether or not Abrams makes history as the nation's first female African-American governor, November's results in suburban Atlanta will provide one revealing measure of whether Democrats can truly pressure Trump in 2020 in Georgia -- and perhaps elsewhere across the South.

I truly hope that Democrats replicate Northam's ground game which resulted in a surge of Democrat turn out across demographic groups.  Of course, Gillespie's decision to tie himself to Trump made that all the easier.  

The Health Care Crisis in Rural America

Grafton, West Virginia

Here in Virginia, many feel that West Virginia's exit from Virginia during the Civil War was a net positive for Virginia.  That belief is re-enforced daily by West Virginia's near basket case status and its residents' constant voting against their own self-interest. Throw in the embrace of ignorance and religious extremism, and it is perfect recipe for a never ending downward spiral.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at the dental care crisis in West Virginia but which is common in other rural areas.  One comment on the piece summed up my views:

It's an old story. Poor rural whites depend on the government but try to destroy it by voting for the worst people they can find. Republicans exploit their ignorance and bigotry to get them to vote against their own self-interest. It's hard to feel sorry for them.

Harsh?  Perhaps, but nonetheless descriptive of the problem.  The Post article looks into the causes of the crisis and the difficulty of finding a solution.  Here are article excerpts:

Lynnel Beauchesne’s dental office hugs a rural crossroads near Tunnelton, W.Va., population 336. Acres of empty farmland surround the weathered one-story white building; a couple of houses and a few barns are the only neighbors. But the parking lot is full. Some people have driven hours to see Beauchesne, the sole dentist within 30 miles. She estimates that she has as many as 8,000 patients. Before the office closes at 7 p.m., she and her two hygienists will see up to 50 of them, not counting emergencies.

About 43 percent of rural Americans lack access to dental care, according to the National Rural Health Association, and West Virginia, among the poorest and most rural states, is at the center of the crisis. All but six of the state’s 55 counties include federally designated “Health Professional Shortage Areas,” “Medically Underserved Areas” or both. 

One seemingly obvious solution is to persuade more dentists and other oral-health providers to come to places like West Virginia, a goal of various public efforts. The federal National Health Service Corps program, for example, offers up to $50,000 in loan assistance to doctors and dentists willing to work two years in a designated shortage area. And several states have passed or considered legislation authorizing “dental therapists” — midlevel providers akin to nurse practitioners — to provide certain kinds of primary dental care in areas where dentists are scarce.

[A]dding more providers will not solve the problem of rural oral health. People don’t go to the dentist if they can’t afford to, no matter how many dentists there are. “Affordability is the big thing,” said Richard Meckstroth, chair of the department of dental practice and rural health at West Virginia University.

And affordability cuts both ways. Recruiting more providers into shortage areas can compound the problem, said Meckstroth, putting local dentists into tougher financial straits by increasing competition for a relatively small pool of paying patients. The dentists who arrive under loan forgiveness programs also tend to leave after their two-year obligation is up, what Meckstroth calls a “revolving door” that deprives patients of continuity of care.

According to the state’s Bureau for Public Health, only 40 percent of adults in West Virginia have access to dental benefits of any kind, compared with about 65 percent of working-age adults nationwide.While the state’s Medicaid program covers preventive care for children, adults get no coverage except for extractions or treatment for infections. Medicare offers no dental benefits, either. As a result, according to the West Virginia Oral Health Coalition, 43 percent of West Virginians ages 55 to 64 have lost six or more teeth because of disease or decay; 61 percent of residents older than 65 without a high school diploma have lost all their teeth.

The lack of affordability and access to dental coverage in West Virginia is of course tied to the state’s overall economic precariousness. Bruce Cassis, a dentist who practices in Fayetteville, said access to high-quality dental insurance in his area has declined along with the fortunes of coal. “Less than 5 percent of my patients are affiliated with the coal industry,” Cassis said. “Thirty years ago, they used to be 60 percent of my patient base.” Today, the major employer in his region is the county school board. “They have the best insurance in the area.”

The same is true for the Perrines and Beauchesne, whose best-insured patients typically have government jobs, such as with the school district or the fire department.

Still, the dental-care crisis in rural America is closely linked to the broader economic challenges in the parts of the country that have not yet caught up in this recovery. “How you improve access in rural America,” says Meckstroth, “is to get people jobs.”

Bringing jobs, of course means (i) accepting the reality that the coal industry is moribund, and (ii) an area must be attractive to new business, often those that would be relocating from elsewhere.  This, of course, where West Virginia's (and much of Southwest Virginia) embrace of ignorance, racial bigotry and religious extremism and hate makes the likelihood of businesses moving to the area remote. Meanwhile, those suffering continue to embrace the very things and politicians that have brought on their misfortune. 

How Racism Carried Trump to Victory

Trump supporters at Macomb Community College in Warren, Michigan

In some ways the ongoing Virginia 2017 statewide campaigns are a mirror of what happened in the 2016 presidential election with Republicans pandering to racists, religious extremists and aging, reactionary rural white populations, especially in Southwest Virginia and the southern tier of the state exclusive of the Hampton Roads region.  Meanwhile the Democrats are running inclusive forward looking campaigns.  Hopefully, Virginia's demographics will prevent GOP victories and hopefully Democrats will recognize the fact that ultimately the outcome of the 2016 presidential contest ultimately hinged on rural white racism and animosity toward non-whites.  It is far past time that the false meme that "economic uncertainty" is what flipped prior Obama voters to Trump in key states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  True, many in the mainstream media do not want to call these voters out for what they are: racist bigots who are outraged over their declining white privilege and by extension the fact that their backwardness is increasingly causing younger generations to migrate to liberal urban areas where employment opportunities exist and accepting communities abound.  But reluctance to speak the truth does not change the facts.  A column in the New York Times looks at the data that confirms racism and hatred towards immigrants were the key motivation for these Trump voters.  Here are excerpts:

What Democrats missed was the profound political impact recent immigration trends were having on the more rural parts of the once homogeneous Midwest — that the region had unexpectedly become a flash point in the nation’s partisan immigration wars.

In a Brookings essay published last month, John C. Austin, director of the Michigan Economic Center, a local think tank, writes that the region is experiencing a “steady stream of immigrants from Mexico, Central America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.”
As a result, Austin continues,

Immigration has become an unambiguous factor in this racially charged Midwestern landscape. While immigrant-rich states like Arizona, California, and Florida are often at the center of immigration policy discussions, the political debate about the role of immigrants burns hottest in the heartland.

Austin went on, in an email, to provide more detail about the power of immigration to move white voters into the Trump column:

The "rural” voters here are some farmers, but more likely, as in the hinterlands outside Flint, Monroe, Toledo, Erie, or Janesville, Wisconsin, they are mostly white, working class blue collar workers or retirees, many, sadly, who fled their small cities to escape blacks. They are anxious about the economic prospects for their future, their aging communities (the kids have fled), making folks mad. And now all these immigrants come and are changing the society!! Just as Macomb County, where working class white voters fled Detroit in advance of blacks, now sees nearby communities like Hamtramck becoming (in their view) a Bangladeshi bazaar — and they don’t like that. And they are easily fanned to blame those folks.

In February 2017, Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster and strategist, conducted four postelection focus groups with white voters who had cast ballots for Trump in Macomb County, Michigan, an area he has been studying since 1985. The participants were not Republicans. They were whites without college degrees who identified themselves as independents, as Democratic-leaning independents, or as Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008, 2012 or both.

Three developments are taking place in the rust belt simultaneously.

First, as recently as 2000, many of the key Midwestern counties that moved from blue to red in 2016 had very few minority residents. Since then, their immigrant populations began to increase at a rapid rate well above the national average. Second, at the same time that immigrants are moving in, younger native-born residents are leaving in droves to seek employment elsewhere, while the remaining white population is aging and is often hostile to change. It is the perfect formula for cultural conflict, and Trump proved to be the perfect candidate to exploit it. Finally, these changes are taking place in a region that Austin points out is home to “15 of the nation’s 25 major metro areas with the sharpest black-white segregation,” making it even more unreceptive to nonwhites than other sections of the country.

Arrayed on a diversity index, Michigan with an index of 42, Wisconsin at 35, Ohio at 36, and Pennsylvania at 41, all rank in the bottom twenty — i.e., the least diverse — of the fifty states. The diversity index for the entire country is substantially higher at 63. Examples of states with very high diversity indexes include California at 79; Nevada at 73; Texas at 70; and New York at 70.

A rapid rate of growth in the percentage of immigrants in communities that have in the past experienced little diversity is particularly explosive.

In other words, communities that are close to 100 percent white will react intensely to a modest increase in foreign-born residents, while highly diverse communities will shrug it off.

Exit poll data from 2016 shows how critical opposition to immigration in the Midwest was to Trump’s victory.

In Michigan, for instance, exit poll data showed that those who believe immigrants to the United States “hurt the county” voted three to one for Trump. Those who said illegal immigrants should be deported voted for Trump by better than five to one. The same pattern can be seen in exit poll data from Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which, while not part of the Midwest geographically, resembles it politically.

At the same time, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and, to a lesser extent, Pennsylvania, have each experienced a net out-migration of native-born residents. The effect of this exodus is twofold.

First, the people leaving tend to be younger and more open-minded, willing to risk moving to a faster growing section of the country. Second, those left behind tend to be older, more closed-minded and more set in their ways.

William Frey, a demographer at Brookings, emailed me:

These “left-behind” populations tend to be older and more backward rather than future oriented — less likely to embrace the nation’s new diversity and the emerging global economy. This was surely the case among 2016 voters in rural parts of swing states that helped to elect Trump as president.

Further compounding the rightward movement of these white voters is their animosity to nonwhites. . . . The task for Democrats is how to come up with a non-xenophobic, non-racist answer to this problem.

Many of these Trump voters pack the pews of their churches every Sunday and regularly feign piety and give lip service to "family values."  But do not be fooled.  They are not nice or moral people and their most certainly do not follow the Gospel of Christ.   Structuring a means to reach out to foul and morally deficient voters will not be an easy task for the Democrats.  One obvious effort that is needed is to educate minority voters that they MUST turn out and vote every Election Day because those who hate them will be turning out.

P.S., yes, I may be biased since many of these same voters hold animus towards LGBT citizens.