Why are the Berkshires in Mass so liberal?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:24:11 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Why are the Berkshires in Mass so liberal?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why are the Berkshires in Mass so liberal?  (Read 9445 times)
pa2011
Rookie
**
Posts: 234
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 25, 2012, 11:10:57 PM »

Are they just an extension of Vermont, or is there something that describes why an area that is fairly rural votes so strongly D
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2012, 11:19:03 PM »

More like Vermont is an extension of the Berkshires.  Tongue

But, seriously, the Berkshires are liberal for all the same reasons Vermont is liberal, with the added factors that you have a lot of depressed postindustrial mill towns (Pittsfield, North Adams), and additionally a large sector of the current economy is centered around education (Williams), arts & culture, and tourism (Tanglewood, Mass MoCA, Lenox, Stockbridge, etc.).  I suspect tourism is in fact the Berkshires' main industry these days, and not just any tourism, but tourism of a specifically cosmopolitan bent.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2012, 07:42:00 PM »

Like most liberal/Dem leaning areas, much of the answer can be summarized in two words: social issues. 

Plus, it's in Massachsuetts, one of the most (if not the most) liberal state in America.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,065
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2012, 07:45:23 PM »

Like most liberal/Dem leaning areas, much of the answer can be summarized in two words: social issues. 

Plus, it's in Massachsuetts, one of the most (if not the most) liberal state in America.
No, but the Berkshires are a special kind of liberal; they voted for Coakley, when equally liberal areas voted for Brown.

I'd say that other posters are right when they describe it as a southern Vermont appendage.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2013, 10:58:32 AM »

Like most liberal/Dem leaning areas, much of the answer can be summarized in two words: social issues. 

Plus, it's in Massachsuetts, one of the most (if not the most) liberal state in America.

Democratic Single-Issue-type voters seem to be approaching the same amount of clout that Republican Single-Issue-type voters have had since at least 1992 and definitely by 2000.  These type of LGBT and Planned Parenthood-style voters probably devisively swung Nevada, Colorado (where exit polls showed that the average voter was pretty neoliberal) and maybe New Hampshire the same way the Evangelical vote may have swung Ohio in 2004.
Logged
Benj
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 979


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2013, 11:33:40 AM »
« Edited: January 01, 2013, 11:36:43 AM by Benj »

Like most liberal/Dem leaning areas, much of the answer can be summarized in two words: social issues.  

Plus, it's in Massachsuetts, one of the most (if not the most) liberal state in America.
No, but the Berkshires are a special kind of liberal; they voted for Coakley, when equally liberal areas voted for Brown.

I'd say that other posters are right when they describe it as a southern Vermont appendage.

Hmmm? No equally liberal areas came close to voting for Brown. The areas that voted for Brown were less Democratic (and far less liberal) suburbs and exurbs of Boston and smaller cities (Worcester, Springfield, Lowell, etc.). The swing is not completely uniform; generally, the less Democratic an area is, the greater the difference between its 2012 Presidential and its 2010 Senate vote. But the super-liberal areas, whether in the Berkshires or in Cambridge, were all solidly for Coakley. As were the rich liberals on the Route 2 corridor; Belmont, Arlington, Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, Acton, etc. all voted for Coakley, as did the comparable Newton and Brookline.

Coakley was also from the Berkshires (North Adams), so even if her performance had been unusually strong there (it wasn't), that shouldn't be a surprise.

If you're having trouble remembering, here you go:

http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2010/senate/results.html
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2013, 10:37:36 PM »

Cultures rarely respect state lines. Western Mass and Vermont are of the same political culture. Neither is an extension of the other. But this is a question I have never seen satisfactorily answered. A cold climate does seem to have an liberalizing effect on white people, so long as they are not living in an energy extraction region. Beyond that I have nothing to offer, and I would love a better answer from somebody more familiar with the region.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2013, 11:21:18 PM »

A cold climate does seem to have an liberalizing effect on white people


generally true but L.A. is pretty liberal.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2013, 12:36:47 AM »

A cold climate does seem to have an liberalizing effect on white people


generally true but L.A. is pretty liberal.
Are there any non-Hispanic, non-gay, non-Jew, run of the mill white people there? A large enough population to make any sort of generalization anyway?
Logged
ottermax
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,789
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -6.09

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2013, 01:57:56 PM »

A cold climate does seem to have an liberalizing effect on white people


generally true but L.A. is pretty liberal.
Are there any non-Hispanic, non-gay, non-Jew, run of the mill white people there? A large enough population to make any sort of generalization anyway?

Most of West L.A./Santa Monica is fairly liberal and White, but this is more a factor of urban density than anything else.
It's true that small town/rural liberalism seems nonexistant in warmer areas, except maybe in parts of Hawaii, Asheville, and New Mexico. Am I missing anywhere else?
Logged
Enderman
Jack Enderman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,380
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2013, 02:03:26 PM »

Like most liberal/Dem leaning areas, much of the answer can be summarized in two words: social issues. 

Plus, it's in Massachsuetts, one of the most (if not the most) liberal state in America.

what about New York, Maryland, and California?
Logged
Benj
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 979


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2013, 02:14:34 PM »

A cold climate does seem to have an liberalizing effect on white people


generally true but L.A. is pretty liberal.
Are there any non-Hispanic, non-gay, non-Jew, run of the mill white people there? A large enough population to make any sort of generalization anyway?

Most of West L.A./Santa Monica is fairly liberal and White, but this is more a factor of urban density than anything else.
It's true that small town/rural liberalism seems nonexistant in warmer areas, except maybe in parts of Hawaii, Asheville, and New Mexico. Am I missing anywhere else?

Nowhere that I can think of other than college towns, which shouldn't really count. Of course, that's misunderstanding cause and effect: The rural South is conservative because of its climate and thus its agricultural history, rather than the rural North being liberal because of its climate. (As the Plains and Mountain states show, being cold and inhospitable is hardly a guarantee of rural liberalism.)
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 02, 2013, 03:52:20 PM »

A cold climate does seem to have an liberalizing effect on white people


generally true but L.A. is pretty liberal.
Are there any non-Hispanic, non-gay, non-Jew, run of the mill white people there? A large enough population to make any sort of generalization anyway?

Most of West L.A./Santa Monica is fairly liberal and White, but this is more a factor of urban density than anything else.
It's true that small town/rural liberalism seems nonexistant in warmer areas, except maybe in parts of Hawaii, Asheville, and New Mexico. Am I missing anywhere else?

Nowhere that I can think of other than college towns, which shouldn't really count. Of course, that's misunderstanding cause and effect: The rural South is conservative because of its climate and thus its agricultural history, rather than the rural North being liberal because of its climate. (As the Plains and Mountain states show, being cold and inhospitable is hardly a guarantee of rural liberalism.)

Well, Montana is more liberal than Wyoming and North Dakota is more liberal than Kansas.  Tongue

It's not a guarantee, but it is a factor.  Perhaps it is mostly a factor of Scandinavian immigration, perhaps colder weather means more cooperation is necessary, perhaps it's more a matter of not being the South.  Perhaps all of these play some sort of role.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2013, 06:38:55 PM »

A cold climate does seem to have an liberalizing effect on white people


generally true but L.A. is pretty liberal.
Are there any non-Hispanic, non-gay, non-Jew, run of the mill white people there? A large enough population to make any sort of generalization anyway?

There was, and they either voted Republican or were generally conservative working-class and middle-class Democrats.
Logged
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2013, 07:17:10 PM »

To move a bit beyond the "cold climate liberalises white people" thesis (the only possible bit of thruth which I may detect in it is that cold climate means less outdoor life = less / more difficult to exert social control):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_American : "Walker (1962) examines the voting behavior in U.S. presidential elections from 1880 to 1960, using election returns from 30 French American communities in New England, along with sample survey data for the 1948-60 elections. From 1896 to 1924, French Americans typically supported the Republican Party because of its conservatism, emphasis on order, and advocacy of the tariff to protect the textile workers from foreign competition. In 1928, with Catholic Al Smith as the Democratic candidate, the French Americans moved over to the Democratic column and stayed there for six presidential elections. They formed part of the New Deal Coalition. Unlike the Irish and German Catholics, very few French Americans deserted the Democratic ranks because of the foreign policy and war issues of the 1940 and 1944 campaigns. In 1952 many French Americans broke from the Democrats but returned heavily in 1960".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_County,_Massachusetts
"16.5% were of Italian, 16.4% Irish, 10.8% French, 10.3% English, 8.0% Polish, 7.1% German, 5.8% American and 5.1% French Canadian ancestry according to Census 2000."  In other words - you won't find very many WASPs up there!
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2013, 09:19:50 PM »
« Edited: January 03, 2013, 12:54:24 AM by memphis »

To move a bit beyond the "cold climate liberalises white people" thesis (the only possible bit of thruth which I may detect in it is that cold climate means less outdoor life = less / more difficult to exert social control):
It has been my experience that hot climates mean less outdoor life. It's unbearable to be outside several months of the year in the South.  You have to live in an air conditioned bubble. Outside of being off school as a child, there is no joy in summer. The insufferable heat must be tolerated along with the humidity and mosquitos. Thankfully, the government has eradicated the tropical diseases that used to kill so many. Yellow fever. Malaria. We still get cases of West Nile and encephalitis, but they are not the avalanche of death that summer used to bring to this area. Nonetheless, driving a car, an activity I usually enjoy very much becomes a veritable struggle for survival before the moderating effects of A/C as temps inside are frequently in the 140 degree range when one first opens the door. It's just a psychological stab in the dark. I sincerely was hoping somebody with actual knowledge of the region would chime in.
Logged
soniquemd21921
Rookie
**
Posts: 137
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2013, 04:10:34 PM »
« Edited: January 03, 2013, 04:25:17 PM by soniquemd21921 »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those towns (along with Wellesley, Needham, Dover, Weston, Melrose and Reading) used to all be rock-ribbed Republican well into the 70's. Have the demographics changed in those towns since then? And even Newton, Brookline and Boston's Back Bay neighborhood were strongly Republican until the early 60's.

Do many of the Republicans that now live in New Hampshire "exurbs" like Bedford, Salem, Derry  or Hudson use to live in Concord, Lexington and Wellesley - suburbs that were 70% Republican half a century ago?
Logged
Franknburger
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,401
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2013, 08:13:30 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those towns (along with Wellesley, Needham, Dover, Weston, Melrose and Reading) used to all be rock-ribbed Republican well into the 70's. Have the demographics changed in those towns since then? And even Newton, Brookline and Boston's Back Bay neighborhood were strongly Republican until the early 60's.

Do many of the Republicans that now live in New Hampshire "exurbs" like Bedford, Salem, Derry  or Hudson use to live in Concord, Lexington and Wellesley - suburbs that were 70% Republican half a century ago?

Do you have any town-level voting data at hand? Middlesex county, in which all of the towns listed in the first quote box are located, as a whole has not gone Republican once in the last 50 years, even not during the Reagan landslides (though 1980 and 84 were quite close, with only 1-2% D margin).

I would especially be interested in Concord / Mass., where my Godfather lives, but which I never felt to be particularly republican during my visits there.
Logged
soniquemd21921
Rookie
**
Posts: 137
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2013, 08:34:41 PM »
« Edited: January 03, 2013, 09:04:42 PM by soniquemd21921 »

Arlington: 55.0% (1948), 42.2% (1960), 42.3% (1972)
Belmont: 65.1% (1948), 49.2% (1960), 50.5% (1972)
Lexington: 70.7% (1948), 58.0% (1960), 46.5% (1972)
Lincoln: 74.4% (1948), 63.6% (1960), 46.8% (1972)
Concord: 70.5% (1948), 59.2% (1960), 51.1% (1972)
Acton: 77.4% (1948), 69.5% (1960), 58.2% (1972)
Littleton: 72.5% (1948), 58.1% (1960), 56.7% (1972)

And just for fun, I'd like to throw in:

Cambridge: 32.8% (1948), 28.6% (1960), 25.4% (1972)
Amherst: 68.5% (1948), 60.0% (1960), 31.2% (1972)
Logged
Ptk80
Newbie
*
Posts: 1
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2013, 03:39:41 PM »

I think there are a lot of reasons why Western Mass is so liberal, but one that has been left out in the discussion so far is that the region is very non-religious. It's very similar to Vermont in that sense. White, middle- and working-class people in more religious and specifically evangelical parts of the country tend to vote Republican for a whole host of reasons. They are anti-gay rights, anti-women's rights, and so social issues are big, but evangelical religion also tilts economic stances in a very conservative fashion as well in that they believe in personal salvation and that you, alone, or perhaps you and your family are solely responsible for your spiritual fate, and that then gets intermingled with social and economic well being, specifically that government programs take away from personal progress. I know it sounds goofy, but if you are interested, Max Blumenthal, goes into this in depth in his book. It's a weird theology that is actually very antithetical to church history in that traditional religion is very communitarian which in many areas in Europe actually facilitated the rise of socialism.  But these new evangelicals and fundamentalists are in these mega-churches and in these new non-denominational churches which have no sense of history or actual traditional church teaching.  They call themselves traditional, but they are not traditional - they are ultra-conservative reactionaries. This is not the culture that Vermont and Western Massachusetts have had historically. The people there aren't persuaded by the evangelical bullsh**t. The old Republicans in these regions were never evangelicals and as the Republican Party went off into fundamentalism in the 1980s these people became Independents and Democrats.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.242 seconds with 12 queries.