The vanishing Republican voter

In today's NYT Magazine, conservative David Frum makes the case that the Republican party is losing traction with voters because of growing income inequality. Towards the end, though, he can't resist taking a shot a Democrats:

Unlike liberals, conservatives are not bothered by the accumulation of wealth as such. We should be more troubled that the poor remain so poor. (Emphasis added.)

Perhaps there was a time when the "Democrats are socialists who hate the rich" meme might've held some truth, but not anymore. In fact, Frum provides the evidence:

In 2000, Al Gore beat George Bush, 56-39, among the 4 percent of voters who identified themselves as “upper class.” America’s wealthiest ZIP codes are a roll call of Democratic strongholds: Sagaponack, N.Y.; Aspen, Colo.; Marin County, Calif.; the near North Side of Chicago; Beacon Hill in Boston. (Palm Beach, at least, remains securely Republican.) There is a long list of reasons for this anti-Republican tilt among the affluent: social issues, the environment, an ever more internationalist elite’s distaste for the Republican Party’s assertive nationalism. Maybe the most important reason, however, can be reduced to the two words: “Robert Rubin.” By returning to the center on economic matters in the 1990s, the Democrats emancipated higher-income and socially moderate voters to vote with their values rather than with their pocketbooks.

Let me go ahead and suggest that it's unlikely that rich people hate the accumulation of wealth. There is concern -- vocal concern -- about growing income inequality in the U.S., concentrated on the fact that, as Frum says, "the poor remain so poor." But he concedes that it's a legitimate concern.

So: If Frum really is looking not to eschew wealth, but still wanting to address the plight of the poor, let me suggest he might well find a home among Democrats. Probably wouldn't do much for his gig at National Review, though.