Well-Regulated Militias, and More

Michael Hoover hoov at freenet.tlh.fl.us
Wed Nov 3 10:44:51 PST 1999



> Doug wrote:
> >And it says in the Constitution that the Senate, which by giving
> >small (rural, conservative) states exactly the same weight as large
> >(urban, less conservative)
>
> Woah there, big fella. I agree with your ends, but your means (little
> state=conservative, big=less conservative) are a little wacky. Florida and
> Texas skew that equation quite a lot. And what about Pete Wilson, Rudy
> Guiliani, and George Pataki? On the other side, Vermont, Washington,
> Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, even Iowa, have been, both historically and
> contemporaneously, the locus of lots of radical political action.
> Eric

More appropriate, perhaps, to consider *interests*: for example, Mountain states with 5% of total population have 16% of Senate seats, Middle Atlantic states with 16% of total population have 6% of Senate seats, east north-central states with 18% of total population and 10% of Senate seats. Figures account for disproportionate influence that mining interests have exerted on Senate legislation.

As for Florida and Texas, they stand in contrast to Richard Hofstadter's remark about the US being born in the country and moving to the city. In F & T, move has been to suburbs. Sunbelt cities bear little resemblance to concentric-circle urban formations associated with industrial era. Instead of areas with dominant core and recognizable boundaries, growth has been sprawling, creating multitude of housing developments, shopping malls, office complexes, and entertainment facilities that rise where major highways cross or converge. Suburban-rural alliances hostile to urban interests are major force in politics of these states as historical rural resistance to growth-oriented policies has weakened. And, of course, politics in both F & T remain linked to racism in spite of enormous changes. Michael Hoover



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list