As my wife and I watched the election results on the night of Nov. 3, it was clear looking at the maps that many, if not all, of the big cities in our country were going blue (Democratic). My wife asked the question Paul Krugman attempted to answer in his column Nov. 11. Mr. Krugman posited that more people are voting Democratic or are becoming more liberal as a result of being more educated. I quote from his article, “highly urbanized states — especially those containing large metropolitan areas — with highly educated populations tend to be democratic.” There is little foundation to suggest that large metropolitan areas have more highly educated people. In fact, the opposite may be more tenable.
Poverty, which may be an index to one’s educational level, and is certainly an indicator of someone who is unable or unwilling to provide for themselves or their families, is 3 to 7% higher in bigger cities than rural areas. (See census.gov and ruralhome.org.) At first glance, these percentages may look small, but with millions of people in these bigger cities it amounts to millions of people.
These are people who are using government social programs. People who are on housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and myriad other tax-funded redistribution of monies from working taxpayers to those unable to provide for themselves. These are the people more likely to vote Democratic.
The majority of working-class Americans who are supporting themselves and families and not using government social programs would be less likely to vote for liberal social policies. If education plays a role it would tend to put people in a position to make a decent wage and pay taxes and thus have something to conserve.
Steven Dewey, Woodland Hills