] Thanks to the GOP takeover of Washington, and the harsh
] realities of the Big Sort, economically lagging parts of
] the country now wield ultimate political power, while the
] creative centers--source of most of America's economic
] growth--have virtually none.

This is a very good article that gets off to a slow start. It resonates with a lot of the things we've been discussing here. The author is arguing that the migration of creative people from the midwest into the country's urban centers during the .com boom created the political situation which led to the Bush win in 2000. (The Democrats' political base is now concentrated into smaller geographic areas, cutting their electoral edge on the GOP.) Now the creative class is politically disenfranchised.

You can see this directly in the election. Bush is offering tax cuts to people who are handling multi-million dollar inheritances and who make most of their money from capital gains. Dean and the other Democrats are offering to help families who make less then $50,000 a year. They talk about manufacturing jobs and steel workers. This country's economic future is not going to be built by steel workers. It is also not going to be built by the bored and dull sons of sons of sons who have more money then you can count and no real ambition as a result.

This country's economic future has always been built by people who are both capable of building it and motivated to do so. This author is arguing that we might not see it at all. He is seeing brain drain out of the US to Canada, Europe, and Australia. We wouldn't feel that right now if we had it, as the US isn't using the people they have. What's cutting a little muscle when you aren't running at top speed? The authors suggest a serious risk that the next runner to the front of the pack is likely to be a country that creates opportunities for the creative class, and right now thats not us.

] Thanks to the GOP takeover of Washington, and the harsh
] realities of the Big Sort, economically lagging parts of
] the country now wield ultimate political power, while the
] creative centers--source of most of America's economic
] growth--have virtually none.

Decius's comments:

This is a very good article that gets off to a slow start. It resonates with a lot of the things we've been discussing here. The author is arguing that the migration of creative people from the midwest into the country's urban centers during the .com boom created the political situation which led to the Bush win in 2000. (The Democrats' political base is now concentrated into smaller geographic areas, cutting their electoral edge on the GOP.) Now the creative class is politically disenfranchised.

You can see this directly in the election. Bush is offering tax cuts to people who are handling multi-million dollar inheritances and who make most of their money from capital gains. Dean and the other Democrats are offering to help families who make less then $50,000 a year. They talk about manufacturing jobs and steel workers. This country's economic future is not going to be built by steel workers. It is also not going to be built by the bored and dull sons of sons of sons who have more money then you can count and no real ambition as a result.

This country's economic future has always been built by people who are both capable of building it and motivated to do so. This author is arguing that we might not see it at all. He is seeing brain drain out of the US to Canada, Europe, and Australia. We wouldn't feel that right now if we had it, as the US isn't using the people they have. What's cutting a little muscle when you aren't running at top speed? The authors suggest a serious risk that the next runner to the front of the pack is likely to be a country that creates opportunities for the creative class, and right now thats not us.

] Thanks to the GOP takeover of Washington, and the harsh
] realities of the Big Sort, economically lagging parts of
] the country now wield ultimate political power, while the
] creative centers--source of most of America's economic
] growth--have virtually none.

[ very interesting, if disheartening, article -k]