Voters in New York and California Personify the Definition of “Insanity”

Although the legal and clinical definitions may differ, popular conception defines “insanity” as repeating the same behavior and expecting different results.  

By that definition, leftist voters in New York City, California, and elsewhere recertified themselves as insane last week.  

Year after year, election after election, voters in “blue” cities and states follow the same recipe that has brought self-imposed economic and demographic decay for decades:  bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation, unsustainable benefits, and sprawling public-sector obligations.  They keep repeating their behavior, even as jobs evaporate, families leave, and businesses take investment elsewhere.  

Decades of left-leaning politicians and public policies in those locales have steadily driven the cost of living upward, saddled employers with higher taxes and labor costs, and made relocation the rational option for millions of residents and enterprises.  In obvious contrast, “red” states like Florida, Texas, and Tennessee practice more conservative governance via lower taxes, less regulation, business-friendly climates, and more modest public-sector footprints.  

Those aren’t abstract principles.  Voters’ choices determine population shifts, Congressional reapportionment, cost of living variations, and economic growth.  

Start with the most vivid manifestation, population.  After the 2020 census, California lost a Congressional seat for the first time in its history – an irrefutable sign even to someone as shameless as Governor Gavin Newsom that growth and optimism in California had plummeted relative to competitor “red” states like Texas and Florida, whose populations surged and whose Congressional seats increased.  As the Census Bureau map shows, higher-tax, higher-regulation states like California and New York suffered outmigration and loss of Congressional power, while lower-tax and deregulatory states enjoyed net inmigration and increased Congressional representation.  

Economic data parallels that population dynamic, as dollars and jobs follow people.  

For example, the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) shows unambiguously that while economic growth at the state level can obviously vary year-to-year, the highest levels of long-term growth in recent years have clustered in more conservative states that enact more growth-friendly tax and regulatory environments.  Employers and businesses relocating headquarters and centers of operation routinely cite regulatory burdens, business costs, and talent availability as the reasons for their moves.  

Those reasons flow from public policies deliberately pursued by their citizens and elected leaders.  Simply put, pro-growth laws and regulations attract investment, while punitive tax and regulatory policies repel it.  

On that note, remember when California was the “Golden State,” and everyone wanted to move there?  It was the stuff of Beach Boys paeans and Randy Newman’s “I Love LA.”  

Today, California offers a cautionary tale, not an idyllic destination.  

So why do voters in places like California and New York keep voting for the same policies and sorts of leaders that have steadily produced these results for decades?  

In large part, it’s cultural identity, a virtue-signaling equivalent of flashing a gang sign.  It reflects a misguided faith that more government and spending will magically correct their declining states and somehow bring renewed prosperity.  The hard metrics, however, push right back.  Congressional apportionment, net migration tallies, economic growth trends, and affordability remain stubbornly clear.  Vote for the same leaders and policies, and the same outcomes will follow.  Or worse.  

None of this constitutes mere moralizing about red state virtue or blue state vice.  It’s a straightforward, practical illustration of results from deliberate policy choices.  When a state’s voters on tax policy, regulatory posture, labor mandates, and other matters make it increasingly costly to live and conduct business, markets will respond.  Families, entrepreneurs, and capital don’t tend to base their decisions on moralistic slogans and virtue-signaling; they base them on simple math.  

Voters in states like California and New York nevertheless keep doing the same things and getting the same results.  

Voters in every jurisdiction possess a choice over whether to embrace more responsible, pro-growth policies and leaders, or to continue a cycle of higher costs, lower competitiveness, and shrinking opportunity.  Whether or not voters in places like California and New York correct course, at least they provide a helpful warning to the rest of the country, and an illustration of the perils of voluntary insanity.

Timothy H. Lee is Senior Vice President of legal and public affairs at the Center for Individual Freedom (www.cfif.org).

Reprinted with permission from cfif.org by Timothy H. Lee.

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.