Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Alex F's avatar

A historical example with a different spin on your thesis: Alaska and Hawaii were together admitted into the union in 1959 as a compromise between Democrats and Republicans. With a large military base on its soil, Hawaii was supposed to be a Republican bastion (although it was moving left starting around the mid-1950s). Indeed, its only ever Republican senator, Hiram Fong, was elected the year that statehood was granted. Alaska, meanwhile, elected exclusively Democrat senators and representatives for a decade.

Nowadays, of course, Alaska is seen as solid red (despite a confusing ranked-choice poll in 2022 that resulted in the election of a Democrat representative); and Hawaii as virtually uncontested blue.

I have heard it said that the reason DC and Puerto Rico have not yet been made states is because there is no compromise to be achieved: it is assumed both would heavily favor Democrats during national elections. And indeed I have trouble seeing the city of civil servants swinging Republican in remotely near future (although if, as David points out, the Republicans were to take control of the federal government for an extended period of time, I suppose that's possible). But I believe Puerto Rico is quite open to being contested if Republicans were to give it a try.

Expand full comment
Doctor Hammer's avatar

I fear that what we are seeing is the demise of limited government power and a focus on markets instead of government intervention. It seems that the argument has gone from whether there should be someone wielding a lash to merely who that should be.

Expand full comment
14 more comments...

No posts