The American Prospect

Ezra Klein of The American Prospect gives his take on the whole Suburbs vs. City parenting debate. He notes that most families opt to raising their children in the suburbs citing it as the most ideal place to raise children. Although I may be biased since I grew up in the city, I concur with Klein's final assessment . . .  the kids will be alright.

We can debate about the advantages and disadvantages of both settings but when it comes to it at the end of the day . . . as long as parents are proactive in their children's lives, everything will be okay. That is said in the most simplistic terms of course, much more is needed. There is no real advantage to growing up in the suburbs. If anything it is an illusion created to justify why people should move out 30 minutes outside of the city. Many of my college friends that grew up in Suburbia felt deprived of the city. They were intimidated by the chaotic concrete jungle and confusing parking signs. As they grew comfortable with their new settings, they grew to love the urban lifestyle. I speculate that they will run back to the suburbs to raise their own families though. I don't blame them. It is a comfort zone they wish to relive for their children. If the advantage is mental, then let it be. There is no secret though that the Suburbs are worst for the environment . . . but that is a different story.

Princeton University Political Science Professor Larry M. Bartel is causing a stir in the blogosphere with his new book "Unequal Democracy" which will be available June 2008. The matter at hand actually is a chart that visually plots the how the economy differs under Democrat or Republican Administrations. The books purpose is to show that the "increasing inequality [between the rich and poor] is not simply the result of economic forces, but the product of broad-reaching policy choices in a political system dominated by partisan ideologies and the interests of the wealthy."

The chart illustrates that income growth during Democratic presidencies is more beneficial to the poor but higher for everyone as whole compared to those of Republican administrations. Democrats as opposed to Republicans, are better on economic growth and distribution for Americans. It seems odd that there is data that supports this since the first lesson I learned in my American politics class was that the President has little control over economic policies. In fact, most policy does not have enough time to have a direct impact within an administrations tenure. This is perhaps the most perplexing issue with the chart.

Ezra Klein at The American Prospect theorizes that perhaps, "It may be that the election of Democratic executives happens, in general, in times when the culture is trending in a more egalitarian direction, and so the Democrat is being elected for the same reason distribution is improving. And, conversely, it can be the example set by presidents -- as when Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers to usher in the era of union busting, or Bush cut taxes for the rich and opposed increases in the minimum wage -- that help steel the will of the greedy and lower the working class's expectations and estimation of their own power."

Whatever is the reason why Americans as whole do much better under a Democratic Administration, the real question is: How do Republicans explain that the economy suffers under their power? As Dick Gephardt once said, "If you want to live like a Republican, you have to vote for Democrats."