Grand Rapids: Liberal Unfriendly?
Posted by Jim at March 15th, 2005
I don’t regard myself to be a liberal (or conservative), but I definitely don’t regard liberalism to be the source of all evil (or good).
While looking for something else, I ran across a website that appears to list cities, rating them on their friendliness (or lack thereof) to liberal ideas.
Reading the entries makes me think that most of them are at least 4 years old and overstate the level of hostility. In the most recent presidential election, Kent County swung Democratic, something that made a friend of mine (who’s on the executive committee of Kent County’s Democratic party) very happy. He’s hoping to make it a trend.
Whatever the case, though I’m willing to entertain ideas from both the right and the left, I’m not particularly wild about websites that make the other side sound evil. Pointing out the other side’s faults is fine, but I tend to draw the line at generalizations about a large group’s personal qualities.
Whether the Grand Rapids entry commits that particular error is something I leave up to the reader.
I believe the city of Grand Rapids, like most big/large cities, has been predominantly Democratic for years. When Republicans win in West Michigan, it is primarily because of the suburbs surrounding Grand Rapids, which tend to vote overwhelmingly Republican. Perhaps those who commented on this website were really speaking of the greater Grand Rapids area.
I agree that there is far too much judgment of *motives* on both sides of the political spectrum. Liberals/Democrats hate the “red states” and conservatives/Republicans despise the “blue cities.” Each side (or at least a vocal minority) thinks the other side is seeking to actively oppress the others. I have largely stopped blogging politics on my web site because some would accuse me of great evils because I hold a certain political view. It used to be (or so I remember it) that Democrats and Republicans (or liberals and conservatives or however you wish to draw the line) both wanted to alleviate poverty, for example, but disagreed on the solution. Now, one side accuses the other of not desiring to end suffering, but rather seeking to *increase* it! It used to be that both groups wanted to guarantee personal freedoms but now the other group accuses the one of seeking to deny freedoms. I long for the day when the debate returns to the best solution for the various problems rather than the motives of the “other side.”
jtr
I’d agree that Grand Rapids leans farther left than the surrounding suburbs and that at least some of those who commented probably were speaking of the greater Grand Rapids area.
I’ve heard people suggest that the current level of nastiness in political life results from the fact that the country is so close to evenly split. Once the US consistently picks one party, the tone of the discussion might get better.
If true, it might be nice for variety, but I’ve got to admit that I definitely do not want either party to dominate. Thus if the Republican party does dominate, I’m hoping for a group of Republican congressmen analogous to the Southern Democrats (who often voted Republican when the Democrats controlled Congress) to come into being.
Jim Zoetewey