Happy Friday, everyone. I was off for most of this week at a Three-Gun camp, which is my kind of vacation. It was interesting to me that most of the people who attended appeared to be happy suburbanites, especially in light of this comment that I saw from Stanley Kurtz today at NRO:
A few days ago, John Hinderaker asked why President Obama was putting so much effort into a seemingly futile political push on gun control. An article in today’s Washington Post, provides a possible answer. The piece suggests that the growth of suburbs in key states is changing the political calculus on guns in Congress. As population in many large states shifts from rural areas to suburbs, attitudes toward gun control shift accordingly.
I’d encourage you to go read both pieces embedded above as well. The lovely bride has been positing for a while that the liberal tendency is to want to push country people to the suburbs, and suburban people into the cities. Of course, when a model liberal city is Detroit… maybe they still have to work the plan a bit. But I do believe that there’s a push to drive a more solid concentration of people in large urban and suburban areas so that the rest of the land can be used for… well, I have no clue what they want to use it for. Probably let it lay fallow until they figure out how to use tax money to build another city.
But back to my first point. The suburban vote is in no way homogeneous, and I wonder if a push to concentrate there might not end up creating a backlash against homogeneous policies. I’m not surprised that the view is that a greater concentration of people would engender more civility, but from some of the stories I could tell you about my neighborhood (and you yours, I’m sure), well, we all know it’s not that monolithic yet.
Pay attention to the suburban/urban movement, though, folks. This one will be a trend-setter that will change quite a lot of political calculus… we just can’t predict the vector yet.