pafret Loc: Northeast

Why Does Manhattan V**e Overwhelmingly Democratic?
Shaun Roberts, lives in New York City

I spent 20 years in law enforcement in New York City and many of those years were spent working in Manhattan. Most people in living in Manhattan live in a vacuum and have little knowledge or concern for how rural or suburban Americans live. Most residents are low income, sometimes below poverty levels for generations, and know only how to live on what the Government provides. Some are very wealthy, usually multi-generational or inherited wealth. Or more recent immigrants are on one extreme of the income spectrum or the other.

I think there are many other factors that cause Manhattan to v**e Democrat. One person said something like “fly-over” states were less exposed to different types of people and therefore they are fearful and can be manipulated as the Republican party exploits this fear. This is viable, all people can be leery of what they don’t know or what they aren’t exposed to everyday. But the knife cuts both ways on this. Democrats instill fear on inner-city minorities with tales of a police state the Republicans will impose. Democrats paint a picture to immigrants of deportation and families being torn apart. They talk of how social services will be slashed for the poor and the rich will never pay their fair share in taxes (while oddly enough, most of these Democrats are quite wealthy). They create divides between law enforcement and minorities instead of building bridges as civil unrest is a lucrative business for some major Democratic Party supporters.

Manhattan dwellers express a lot of concern over c*****e c****e, and maybe rightfully so. Therefore they v**e for the party that prioritizes c*****e c****e. But, Manhattan’s energy consumption and carbon footprint can rival any city in this nation. No one in Manhattan is willing to limit their hot showers or air-conditioning to save energy; that’s for someone else to do. Instead inhabitants ride bicycles around town or take the subway (it’s way easier to get around on a bike or by public t***sportation). Most don’t even need a car for anything, so of course, they want more regulation on vehicles while never quite understanding that people in rural areas cannot get to their jobs via a bicycle and regulations on vehicles hurt their ability to earn a living. They never consider how their social causes effect other people in this Country. They v**e for the party that is for very strict energy regulations.
Note: They are also adept at getting their expenses diverted to the surrounding counties, as in a 0.25 cent per gallon tax to subsidize New York City subway riders, outside of the city restrictions on property usage, water usage in lakes and minimum lot size to build a home. All imposed to protect NYC water supplies such that no filtration and treatment plant need to be built and supported with NYC taxes

Sure, Manhattan residents are much more educated. There are universities all over Manhattan to choose from and social programs to send lower income people to them for free. Higher wage job competition is fierce so degrees matter in Manhattan, whether you learn anything while obtaining them or not. If you have one, it goes on the resume (ironic how people with such a socialistic calling fight for such capitalist jobs; just a thought). I know many people with advanced degrees, who you would find it hard to believe made it through high school. Advanced degrees just aren’t as important, and in many cases aren’t as accessible in certain areas of America. Trust funds aren’t as popular outside of Manhattan nor are 32 year old “children” still living with their parents and attending school. Plus, I think it’s a rule that every third person in Manhattan has to be a lawyer.

Yes the rich and poor live in close proximity to each other but they might as well be miles apart. Manhattan is truly a tale of two cities. The poor people are there to serve the rich and the tourists. The poor drive the taxis, wait the tables and maintain the facilities. They certainly don’t eat in the same restaurants, live in the same buildings or see the same doctors. Manhattan elite are firmly behind ObamaCare but none of them are on it, it is way beneath their class. They see private doctors and don’t wait in clinics and emergency rooms. If they do go to an ER, phone calls are made and their wait time is limited. I use the words rich and poor for Manhattan because most middle class people don’t live there. Most middle income people live in the suburbs, outer boroughs, surrounding counties and New Jersey. The working middle class that do live in Manhattan struggle and don’t v**e because they feel it is useless.

Reliance on Government, police, courts, fire department etc. is massive in Manhattan. Suing people is a way of life, people pick-up the phone and call 911 like they are ordering a pizza and if you don’t feel well, just call an ambulance; it’s cheaper than a cab. There is very little self-reliance.]

“Fly-over” state residents are tired of getting their taxes raised to support inner city programs while they see nothing in return except social service programs grow in Democrat run cities like Manhattan. Manhattans’ elite simply hand the raising of taxes off to their tax attorneys and accountants to shelter their money or, my favorite, they just establish residence in a State that has no income tax and lower their overall effective rate while they enjoy the benefits of a “second home” in Manhattan.

Immigration? Well if you are the Manhattan elite, you don’t have to worry about people entering this Country illegally, you will never lose your job to them. There are plenty of low-level jobs here that you don’t want and they can have. You certainly don’t have to worry about your company leaving and going overseas because you probably already work for a big multi-national. So what does a Manhattanite care about your company in the mid-west moving to Mexico?

Democrats don’t care either.

Socialized medicine? Immigrants are for it because they just don’t know any better. Hours long wait, see a different doctor each time you visit, wait months for a specialist appointment, just ask anyone from Eastern Europe. They didn’t get to visit a local doctor who knows your name and your family, like people do in more rural areas. I’ve already touched on how most Manhattan dwellers do medical.

I keep referring to the “Manhattan elite” and not really mentioning the lower income residents because the poor can qualify for social programs, free education and medical and reduced cost or free housing. It’s when they try to breakout of that lower income class they feel the crush of taxes and full cost housing and education and the affordable care act and they can’t make it. So they move to a suburb and v**e Republican.

I’ve worked in all of the boroughs of NYC and I have lived in two of them. I can tell you that Manhattan is a magical place and a playground if you can afford it. It’s an island packed with brilliant, worldly and exotic people but as a v****g group, you would be surprised at how little they know about rural America or how few of them have ever been to Ohio or Indiana. They have never seen where their food is produced, nor do they care to. They settle disputes in courts and use police as their private security. Their garbage “disappears” and the lawns in their parks are maintained by civil servants. They are completely dependent of government services and Democrats love big government.

Why wouldn’t they v**e Democrat? Democrats focus only on the big Cities of America to the detriment of the little guy.

Yes, people in the “red” States aren’t as educated, but they sure aren’t dumb.

F.D.R.

Good post. And when the sh*t hits the fan they'll all be running to the red states for survival.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

Hahaha,yeah but our Red borders will be closed!!!!

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Excellent post, Pafret. The following provides an equally interesting read about the view from the other side...

https://www.edge.org/conversation/jonathan_haidt-what-makes-people-v**e-republican

A long article, as are the accompanying comments...but, well worth the read...all of 'em.

mactheknife

Good post, people like those that you describe live there because someone else pays for it. Just like San Francisco, it is as simple as that.

Mike Easterday

I am in the red state of Arizona. I want make sure it stays red!

pafret Loc: Northeast

I read about half of this author's (Jonathan Haidt) article and it immediately pressed my argument button. Haidt starts out with implying that Conservatism is a result of overly strict parents and then proceeds to ameliorate that by imputing a genetic predisposition. This bad inherited gene set causes some people to be "cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death" i.e. Conservatives. His conclusion is that people v**e Republican because the Republican simplistic vision of morality activates deep seated fears (unspecified) in the e*****rate.

He repeats the canard that because Conservatives are reluctant to abandon their principles and practices for new principles, without evidence that the new is better, it is a sign of lesser mental capability. Especially when contrasted with Liberals who exhibit greater "mental flexibility". The Conservative will tell you that this vaunted flexibility is a sign of mental incompetence because a Liberal is incapable of thinking through any circumstance. Instead a Liberal embraces wh**ever faddish nonsense comes along all the while proclaiming his superiority while sinking into the mud hole he just leaped into

That was in just the first three or four paragraphs but Haidt got really silly when he began to examine the simplistic morality that is so appealing to those who v**e Republican. I have extensive training in moral theology and moral philosophy and I will tell you that this Doctor of Anthropology is an obvious dev**ee of Wittgensteinian relativism. After he admitted to being an atheist it became apparent that like all Liberals who claim the moral high ground he had absolutely no concept of morality.

I will put it to you in a nutshell -- Without GOD there is no morality

Haidt Went on to postulate the principles of his feel good relativistic morality and it would take far more time than I am willing to dev**e to refuting each assertion. When I was twenty one and fond of tilting at windmills I would have taken him on, but at the end of my life there is no time to waste on morons.

I scanned the comments and while the sociology pedants had all sort of learned references to Emile Durkheim, who with Karl Marx was the Father of modern sociology, how many are going to know that outside of those who follow the fields of sociology and anthropology? Similarly references to Noam Chomsky conveniently overlook his c*******t agenda

There was one l*****t with whom I was in partial agreement:

"We don't try to get the average child to think in this society so why, as adults would we expect that they actually would be thinking? They think about how the Yankees are doing, and who will win some reality show contest, and what restaurant to eat it, but they are not equipped to think about politics and, in my mind, they are not equipped to v**e. The fact that we let them v**e while failing to encourage them to think for themselves is a real problem for our society."

I have sung this song many times as well.

Too many of the comments are in this vein:

"Ultimately, reflection like Haidt's is useful and there certainly is a lot worthwhile in it. But, once again, I am skeptical that much, if any, of this is innate. And I doubt that we will ever know whether it is or not without a greater empirical coverage, taking into its scope diverse tribal societies."

The question to be answered was "Why do people v**e Republican" and the answer must be sought in "tribal societies". This is an example of Liberals belief in sympathetic magic. There is some universal t***h which underlies all, making one thing which resembles another its identical equal.

Another commenter had this to say:

"When I travel, I live the life of an intellectual. In Florida, I hang out with jocks and retirees. I try not to talk politics with them. When, it happens that I have no choice but to hear what they think about politics I take note of it. Here is what I have heard:

Obama is a Muslim. His pastor h**es America. In fact nearly everyone outside of America h**es America. If you travel outside of America, go on a cruise, so you won't have to eat wh**ever it is one eats in those places. You don't want to talk to the people either, but that’s not a problem because none of them speak English. And, anyway they all h**e us for our freedoms. Obama will put Al Sharpton in the cabinet. Dick Cheney was the greatest Vice President in history. The Jews are running the country anyway.

I am not making this up. This is not a caricature. I wish I carried a tape recorder.

Why do these people v**e Republican?"

Who says they v**ed Republican? For that matter do you think that only Republicans hold those views? Do you believe there is no t***h in any of those statements? I would say that a Pastor who calls upon God to damn the United States pretty much h**es this country and its people. Eating in Mexico and some South American countries can be problematic, everyone has heard of Montezuma's Revenge. During the Bush/Gore contest the Florida v**e see-sawed between both candidates and was essentially 50/50.

Basically I don't want to defend Republicanism but there is only one game in town and that includes two parties. If one cannot stomach the amoral principles of the Democratic party then perforce one must be a Republican. Talk of third parties is non-sense, they have never done anything other than to ruin one party or the other's chances at winning an e******n .

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Thank you for reading so much (all?) of the article and the following commentaries. Due to their lengths, I had doubts as to whether anyone would. You presented a very fair summation of what was written. I tend to be centrist, but lean more to the left on this matter...yet, I found little to no real disagreement with you.