Last week, The Economist reported on a new academic study that ranks how liberal or conservative the 67 biggest cities in the U.S. are. Fifty-three came out liberal, including Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Los Angeles, Denver, Austin and Portland — in other words, pretty much every vibrant city. Just 10 leaned to the right, with the right-most being Mesa, Ariz., followed, in order, by Oklahoma City, Okla., Virginia Beach, Va., and Colorado Springs.
This week, J. Adrian Stanley drills down into another new study that included the Colorado Springs metro area, this one from the Brookings Institution, in an effort to better understand the growth and persistence of poverty here.
While no one seems to have a proven remedy for inequality, some seem to seek one more than others.
Why do these dynamic cities rank as liberal? Is it because a conservative approach to government seems to put liberty before collective welfare, while a more liberal approach sees the needs of the many before the sanctity of free enterprise?
It's not necessarily true that as the cities go, the country goes. There are still plenty of rural areas and suburban homes in gated communities where the needs of the less-privileged are less evident.
But for how long? According to the Brookings study, 16.5 million people in U.S. suburbs are now considered poor, compared to 13.5 million in cities.
Just wait until the liberals find them.