The leak of the Supreme Court decision overturning a woman’s right to choose has resulted in deserved outrage. One response, however, has popped up a few places and represents a very dangerous line of thinking, in my mind. That line of thought: Give up on red states if you are a Democratic voter and move to a blue state, or help someone move.
Long term, this is an absolute disaster for the party. It sells out party principles and it virtually guarantees oppressive government in large blocks of states, and eventually, nationally. Before we say “Let’s abandon red states,” let’s think this problem through.
Let me explain the fundamental problems with this analysis.
First, each state receives two United States senators. Making red states redder just means that those states will stay with the two senators they have, no matter how low their population goes. The Republicans will be more in the minority in regards to actual voters, but their power in the Senate would likely increase because it would make it easier to win back seats by defeating Democratic senators like John Tester, for example.
These states also represent electoral votes that help determine the president. By calling for abandoning ship in red states, you are writing off electoral votes before we even start, making it more and more difficult for Democratic presidential candidates to win swing states where state legislatures have worked against the Democratic cause. It would be fantastic if a Democratic presidential candidate could win Texas or Ohio, and to keep winning Georgia. If we encourage abandoning states that go the wrong way, we are writing states off—and the residents within them as well.
Second, there is a lot of privilege in the statement of “let’s help people move.” Right now, the housing market is so hot that properties sell above the asking price frequently. I’ve seen homes and ranches near us go for tens of thousands over asking price. Rental rates are also on the rise. It is difficult to say to anyone that they should pick up and leave. Despite what The Atlantic wants to promote, moving across the country or to a different state is a major ordeal. Families can have children in school, they can have a current home with a locked-in rate, or just family ties they do not wish to leave. The prospect of leaving their current residence to move at a distance, unless they are assured employment, is a nonstarter for most. This also leaves out the fact that for those in section eight housing, or who have a disability, such moves are almost entirely impossible.
Third, our Democratic values are not okay with such a strategy. Outside of the fact that such a strategy presents a case where we write off states and guarantee radical conservativism has a market to grow in while assuring a near majority of senators will always be Republicans, the Democratic values we stand by say that we do not abandon people’s rights in any state. We don’t simply say: “Oh, you’re from Texas/Oklahoma/Florida/Alabama and you get what you deserve if you don’t leave.” How miserable of an opinion is that? While The Atlantic does not delve into that side of the argument, it argues that the biggest issue is that the cost to move is prohibitive. This is most certainly part of the equation, but overlooked is the fact that youth do not have this choice at all. Many who care for their own family do not want to abandon family members to move across the country.
Are you a young person in a red state and you find your rights are crushed by the Supreme Court or state laws because of anti-LGBTQ laws or anti-choice legislation? You can’t compel your family to move. You also shouldn’t have to do that—you should know that the Democratic Party stands to fight for your rights in every single state in every mile of the United States because we stand for our values everywhere, full stop.
Don’t fall prey to the idea of “you should just move.”
That’s the argument Republicans want, and if we embrace it, it abandons millions along with our own core values.