Debunking Glenn Beck is Time-Consuming, but Rewarding
By Jesse Singal - Aug 21st, 2008 at 11:55 amGlenn Beck is a huge tool. We all know that. So I shouldn’t be surprised by his column on the front page of CNN.com today, in which he examines the vexing problem of urban poverty and comes to a characteristically nuanced, nonpartisan conclusion: Democratic mayors are a big part of the problem.
Is there a perfect answer? Probably not. But what bothers me is that people stubbornly stick to their solution, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it’s not working.
For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn’t stopped since.
Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they’re not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn’t had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.
…
I consider myself a conservative, but I consider myself an American and a human being first. When people whom I normally agree with screw things up, I call them on it. Yet the people in these cities apparently don’t. Newark keeps drinking the Kool-Aid, electing the same people with the same ideas, slipping down the poverty list (along with the “Places Never to Visit Unless it’s the Airport” list) and wondering why.
He’s right! Run them out of office! Clearly, they’re blowing their cities’ impressive revenue streams on some combination of crack, abortions, and gay indoctrination programs. Except… hmm, this is weird. I just took a look at Forbes‘ 2005 list of the ten U.S. cities with the highest median incomes, and then checked out the political affiliation of the mayor of each:
1. San Jose, Calif. - Chuck Reed (D)
2. Anchorage, Alaska - Mark Begich (D)
3. San Francisco, Calif. - Gavin Newsom (D)
4. Virginia Beach, Va. - Meyera E. Oberndorf (a quick search didn’t reveal her affiliation, but she donated to the Virginia Democratic Party)
5. San Diego, Calif. - Jerry Sanders (R)
6. Anaheim, Calif. - Curt Pringle (R)
7. Raleigh, N.C. - Charles Meeker (D)
8. Seattle, Wash. - Greg Nickels (D)
9. Washington, D.C. - Adrian Fenty (D)
10. Honolulu, Hawaii - Mufi Hannemann (D)
So Democrats are mayors of the poorest cities. And the richest cities. Maybe they just tend to be the mayors of bigger cities in general? Could that be the only thing we’ve really found out today, something we already knew? And did I really just waste this much time debunking Glenn Beck?
Anyway, really good point, Glenn. Keep up the thoroughly reported, intellectually honest work.
I don’t really buy this if DC is on the highest income list. The poverty there is overwhelming.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:08 pmWord. I was doing an article on how big of a tool John Hagee was and had to watch a one hour interview he did Beck’s tv show. I am still not entirely sure who came out looking more like an idiot.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:08 pmRussell…its called gentrification and DC has a whole lot of it.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:09 pmgood post.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:20 pmGenerally, the more urban the populace, the more liberal.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:46 pmDC actually has the highest income gap in the country. Even without the gentrification people here are pretty well off.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:45 pmMaybe it is difficult for people in those areas to vote for the guy who isn’t promising to give them more money. A Democrat trump card has always been their ability to throw out empty promises of wealth redistribution to the poor and desperate.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:13 pmGreat point Sean… Agreed!
While I understand the point of this post is trying to make I do not see how it somehow would debunk the point that Beck is making, which, in and of itself, is a valid point. Just becuase there are high-median income cities with Decomocratic mayors doesn’t mean all together that Beck’s point is not valid. It is a very good point he makes the more I think about it actually. Thanks for pointing this out.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:56 pmthe point of this post is that beck draws a causal relationship between the political affiliation of a city’s mayor and the wealth of its inhabitants.
this post proves that having a democratic mayor does not, in fact, cause poverty and therefore beck’s point is horseshit.
this should come as no surprise.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:23 pm[...] we already knew? And did I really just waste this much time debunking Glenn Beck? source: pushback Blog Archive Debunking Glenn Beck is Time-Consuming, but Rewarding __________________ If you’re good at something, never do it for free. SAI EMP 1911 9mm SAI [...]
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:18 am“the point of this post is that beck draws a causal relationship between the political affiliation of a city’s mayor and the wealth of its inhabitants.”
I’ve read the entirety of Beck’s column and, while that may be a biproduct of the assertion he’s trying to illustrate, I believe the focus of his column can best be summed up by this sentence: “But what bothers me is that people stubbornly stick to their solution, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it’s not working.” Perhaps I give Beck too much credit, but the point that he appears to be making is not “Democrats cause poverty” (as I’m sure he is privy to the information posted in this blog) but that you don’t solve a problem with more of the same.
It makes sense to repeatedly vote for the team that’s gameplan is working (i.e. cities like Seattle). Maintaining wealth is vastly different than correcting poverty. The Democrat gameplan may be absolutely ideal for maintaining wealth, but it is clearly ineffective in correcting the poverty that exists in our nation’s poorest cities.
So, yeah. Beck’s a conservative, and he’s suggesting that conservative policy would do the trick. Obviously, that remains to be seen. But the indisputable, nonpartisan fact of the matter is that these folks repeatedly elect a gameplan that’s been failing them.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm[...] we already knew? And did I really just waste this much time debunking Glenn Beck? source: pushback Blog Archive Debunking Glenn Beck is Time-Consuming, but Rewarding Simply showing that the median income for those cities does not address the proverty issue [...]
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:01 pmStupid argument. Median income and % in poverty are not a direct link. More information on the nature of the distribution of income is required to make this arguement work. My guess is that the more liberal the city, the wider the income gap. Middle class people can’t afford to live in most of these places, leaving the rich libs and the poor.
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:05 pmHow long have Democratic mayors been at the helm of these “wealthy” cities? Democrats have been running the worst cities in the country practically since the beginning of time.
Who exactly did more research here?
October 20th, 2008 at 1:41 pm