After characterizing inequality in places like Boston and San Francisco as “blue inequality,” America’s most famous pop sociologist and schlock demographer decides to enlighten liberals about conservative America:
Then there is what you might call Red Inequality. This is the kind experienced in Scranton, Des Moines, Naperville, Macon, Fresno, and almost everywhere else.
I’m not sure “Red” means what he thinks it means. If he thinks it means “places that vote Republican,” he should spend a few minutes looking at county election results on this nifty site run by his employer. If he did, he’d find his pop sociology was yet again inconsistent with, you know, whaddya call it? Oh yeah: data:
|City||County||Obama||Margin of Victory|
|Des Moines||Polk||56%||14 points|
It was long said that the main problem with the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page was that was written by people who didn’t read what was reported in the Wall Street Journal’s news pages. [Of course since Rupert Murdoch bought the WSJ the “news” pages are being changed to be consistent with the unreality of the editorial page.] At least at the New York Times David Brooks is in the minority of those who write opinion pieces inconsistent with the facts reported elsewhere in their own newspaper.