Tuesday, August 1, 2017

"Conservative Move"...

Have you heard of this?  I just became aware of this trend yesterday.  Basically, there are people in the United States who are supporting "political migration".  They move to areas where they can live and vote with like minded people.

Yesterday, someone shared a Web site called "Conservative Move", which is basically a service that helps people move to "conservative" areas of America.  This particular site is encouraging red state voters to move to Collin County, Texas... as if Texas needs any more help staying "red".  These folks are encouraging conservative voters to find homes in the county by lining them up with real estate agents, helping them find jobs, and welcoming them to areas where they will be expected to vote just like everyone else does.

Conservative Move is an initiative of Chabot Strategies, LLC, which is owned by a disabled veteran who apparently does political consulting.  I had a look at the Web site for Chabot Strategies and didn't feel like I learned a whole lot.  On the surface, it sounds good... but then you look at the Conservative Move Web site and it appears to be very...  whitewashed.  It looks like a bunch of white families with a lot of kids are banding together to force the will of the local government.  It's the same type of shit a lot of Mormons do when they move into languishing communities like Buena Vista, Virginia.  They come in, take over, and start changing laws to suit their world views.

I posted this last night on my Facebook page and a friend of mine in New Hampshire wrote that there is a similar initiative going on in her neck of the woods.  In New Hampshire's case, it's Libertarians who are being recruited.

I suppose if you think about it, it sounds okay... at least on the surface.  If you want to live a certain way, doesn't it make sense to live with others who have the same ideals?  Then you can vote in a way that will ensure you'll have government officials who think the way you do.  But what about the people who are already living where the group is settling?  Is it right to move en masse and just take over?

I have watched my mom's hometown being overtaken by Mormons.  It used to be a town full of protestants of Scots-Irish and English heritage.  A series of issues caused some of the people to move away where prospects for making money were better.  Then, when Southern Seminary Junior College went bust (my mom is an alum and I even considered going there myself), Mormon businesspeople came in and bought the school.  That brought a bunch of people from Utah to the area, where they've slowly but surely been infiltrating local politics and changing the culture.  It's gotten obnoxious enough that long time locals are leaving the area.

Something about the Conservative Move Web site doesn't sit right with me.  I think it's the overwhelming whiteness of it.  It smacks of a group of people who simply want to live among people who think and act the same way they do.  It reeks of narrow mindedness and shortsighted perspectives.  I think about the children who will grow up in that community and how sheltered and stupid they will be as they come of age... It seems very wrong to me.

Also... people can and do change their minds.  What if a group of people move to a city to vote a certain way and then end up changing their political views?  Could it turn out that a movement such as this could backfire?

I just think it's sad that people can't live and let live and let democracy do its thing without gaming the system.  I hope I never end up living in an area where people are doing this kind of shit.  


  1. I did a last-minute fill-in pianist at some fundraiser comedy club function right after the election in the San Joaquin Valley, which tends to be very conservative. At those functions, the hosts typically ask for audience patrticipation, sometimes just for suggesting topics. The host asked audience members to name something that depressed them. One guy said, "The election results!" A large number of audience members cheered. This was an indication that a large block of the audience was uncharacterically liberal (or, since it was Trump who was elected, perhaps uncharacteristically sane). The piano was positioned next to the bar, and I could hear everything said by the couple who was tending the bar. The fifty-ish lady got all huffy about the guy saying the election results depressed him. She was acting as though one of the liberals was going to knife her. She said, "I just don't feel comfortable here. I need to leave." Her husband told her to go if she thought it was necessary, but when he said he couldn't leave the bar unattended to walk her to the car until someone else got there to at least man the cash register, she sat and pouted. She is the sort of person who would use such a relocating service.

    I don't like to point fingers in this way, but it's the conservatives who fuel this mentality. Liberals will gladly live next to conservatives (though most would just as soon not be the sole liberal in a conservative enclave) because liberals recognize how bland life would be if everyone around had identical ideology and accept that a bit of diversity is a good thing. I'm lucky to live in a truly heterogenous area now. Berkeley and San Francisco are liberal enclaves, but the peninsula has a nice mixture of liberals and old establishment conservatives. (There's a lot of old money here.)The conservatives here are relatively sane, too. even though we have more conservatives here than anywhere in the Bay Area except for parts of Contra Costa County, voter turnout was high as it always is, but Trump was trounced as soundly here as in the more liberal locations.

    It's getting to the point that I can barely talk about anything loosely related to government or politics with my friend who is a sometimes-pundit for Fox News. (I don't want to use his name but I assume you know of whom I'm speaking.) Where he used to call himself and conduct himself as a moderate, I now feel as though he's totally drunk the Kool-Aid. I mentioned to him recently that I was afraid that if another nation attacked us, that our ability to respond would be compromised, and his response was that if our nation's capacity to respond were in any way compromised, it was only because of the members of the press who hate the president and are working against him. His answer alarmed me.

    I'm not a total anarchist, but I really feel that for a democracy to thrive, we must have a free and somewhat oppositional press. We can't have the media spouting whatever the president wants them to say, nor should all facets of the press automatically spout what the major party of opposition to the party in power wants it to say, either.

    1. Trump supporters are scary. You know, I think one can be conservative and not be totally crazy. When I was growing up, conservatives weren't nearly as rabid as they seem to be today. It seems like most things were more moderate back in those days. Nowadays, everything seems so extreme.

      I cannot stand Donald Trump. It really has less to do with his "conservatism", which I think is a total sham, and more to do with the fact that he's just a horrible person. I don't like Mitt Romney at all, but I would much rather see him as president. And that is saying a whole lot.

  2. I don't think Trumo is a conservative, either. his stance on every issue is whatever serves him and his various interests personally. Many politicians vary from one issue to the next, though none other than Trump in such a conflict-of-interest highlighting manner. I'm confident in stating that he doesn't hold a single position that isn't a benefit his own finances in some way.

    I think the Republican party and the conservative movement took a real hit when the rednecks bolted from the Democratic party en masse over issues of racism. When Republicans were in the party either because they had financial
    interests they wanted to protect or clung to the ideological premise of less government being a good thing, the whole party or movement was different than what I believe, but still sane. Now that the true conservaives have been joined by racists trying to ensure than no person of color or of an alternative sexuality gets any unfair advantage or even a level playing field if they can help it, the party or movement isn't serving sane people well any longer. Had they unified behind a modern candidate, we would be in a much better place today. (I'm not sure we'd be any better off with Ted Cruz sitting in the White House, though.)

    1. Honestly, I'm sad that McCain couldn't make a go of it. If he had chosen a better running mate, maybe it would have been president. If we had to have a Republican, that is...

    2. McCain was probably too old in the 2016 election. The year he ran, the Democrats actually offered a viable alternative. Why is it feast or famine with the two major parites? It seems as though in some years both parties offer decent candidates, and in other years neither party gives us an acceptable choice. Do they do this to us on purpose?


Comments on older posts will be moderated until further notice.