Nick Gillespie | August 19, 2004
One of the more interesting ad campaigns in recent memory is currently unfolding in national newspapers. Under the rubric of Metro vs. Retro, the ads pose, say, The Dixie Chicks vs. Hank Williams III, Michael Moore vs. Mel Gibson, Joycelyn Elders vs. Laura Schlessinger, etc.
In today's Washingon Post, among the facts listed in an ad were that 60 percent of Retros (i.e., religious Americans in less-urbanized areas) believed the Bible was the literal word of God. Amazingly (to me, anyway) was that 44 percent of Metros (religiously less observant, urbanized Americans) felt the same way.
The Metro vs. Retro dichotomy, a variation on the blue state/red state conception, is at the heart of the new book The Great Divide, which can be sampled here. Written by University of Phoenix head John Sperling and several others, it is an explicit attempt to rejuvenate the Democratic Party and give it an electoral majority by focusing on urban and suburban Americans. (Full disclosure: I know Sperling, who I interviewed for a 1997 story on ballot intiatives aimed at changing drug laws, and one of his co-authors, Samuel George, who spearheaded those and other initiative campaigns.)
I've only skimmed the online sample chapter and, unsurprisingly, it's a fiercely partisan book. I don't know that I'll find it convincing in either its analysis or its policy recommendations, but the chapter does include this bit that warms the cockles of my heart:
The authors of this book are dedicated to the Enlightenment principles of rational discourse,the application of logic,and the scientific method.The data and arguments we present fol-
low these principles.As for politics, we are committed to the separation of church and state,the rule of law, and a political culture of civility and tolerance,all of which are necessary for a healthy democracy.
Whole chapter here.
Update: We've been having server problems; otherwise I would have corrected the Hank Williams misfire a couple of hours back. Yes, it's Bocephus, aka Junior, aka "Are You Ready for Some Football," who's Retro, not HWIII, who's a little bit country, a little bit Metro (e.g., "Are You Ready for Some Foosball?"?)
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Cash is Retro, but beloved by Metros. You see that a lot - "Oh
Brother Where Art Thou?" for example. Setting up Paris Hilton and
Nicole Richie to compare poorly with that nice Arkansas family is
another.
You seldom see the opposite.
we are committed to ... a political culture of civility and
tolerance
Ah. So tolerance and civil discourse means implying that your
opponents are neanderthals and saying 'we want happy kids in class
- they want nasty bombs'? Just because they're calling them the
relatively tame name of 'retro' rather than calling them rednecks,
they're still resorting to namecalling.
Don't get me wrong. I grew up in a tiny southern town and was on
the outside for my metro ways (except for my support of gun
violence and greed). I'm not saying there aren't rednecks or that
we shouldn't call them that. But if we do, don't claim to be all
about civil discourse and tolerance. Tolerance is only tolerance if
you tolerate folks you otherwise wouldn't tolerate.
we are committed to ... a political culture of civility and
tolerance
Ah. So tolerance and civil discourse means implying that your
opponents are neanderthals and saying 'we want happy kids in class
- they want nasty bombs'? Just because they're calling them the
relatively tame name of 'retro' rather than calling them rednecks,
they're still resorting to namecalling.
Don't get me wrong. I grew up in a tiny southern town and was on
the outside for my metro ways (except for my support of gun
violence and greed). I'm not saying there aren't rednecks or that
we shouldn't call them that. But if we do, don't claim to be all
about civil discourse and tolerance. Tolerance is only tolerance if
you tolerate folks you otherwise wouldn't tolerate.
Tolerance doesn't mean thinking everything people do or say is
ok, either. Nor does it mean silencing yourself when faced with
that you disagree with.
I tolerate the sort of people labelled as "Retros" on the site.
That doesn't mean I'm not going to call them on their bullshit.
joe,
The 44% number doesn't surprise me at all. I know quite a few
(actually a lot) of people that believe the Bible literally that
are very metro.
dan,
I dunno, seems to me that Bono has already slipped into retro. Once
you become a staple on the oldies station, it's official.
Johnny stayed hip to the end. We're still years away from hearing
Nine-Inch Nails when someone puts on hold.
we are committed to ... a political culture of civility and
tolerance
Ah. So tolerance and civil discourse means implying that your
opponents are neanderthals and saying 'we want happy kids in class
- they want nasty bombs'? Just because they're calling them the
relatively tame name of 'retro' rather than calling them rednecks,
they're still resorting to namecalling.
Don't get me wrong. I grew up in a tiny southern town and was on
the outside for my metro ways (except for my support of gun
violence and greed). I'm not saying there aren't rednecks or that
we shouldn't call them that. But if we do, don't claim to be all
about civil discourse and tolerance. Tolerance is only tolerance if
you tolerate folks you otherwise wouldn't tolerate.
we are committed to ... a political culture of civility and
tolerance
Ah. So tolerance and civil discourse means implying that your
opponents are neanderthals and saying 'we want happy kids in class
- they want nasty bombs'? Just because they're calling them the
relatively tame name of 'retro' rather than calling them rednecks,
they're still resorting to namecalling.
Don't get me wrong. I grew up in a tiny southern town and was on
the outside for my metro ways (except for my support of gun
violence and greed). I'm not saying there aren't rednecks or that
we shouldn't call them that. But if we do, don't claim to be all
about civil discourse and tolerance. Tolerance is only tolerance if
you tolerate folks you otherwise wouldn't tolerate.
I've been staring at these Metro vs Retro ads in the Washington
Post all week and resisted logging onto the website. The underlying
message is pretty obvious: We (the modern liberals) are so
enlightened and those bible-thumping conservatives aren't. This
seems to perpetuate the whole "we vs. them" duality in our current
system, as if there aren't any other viewpoints. Absolute fucking
arrogance.
When I look at side-by-side pictures of Newt Gingerich (sp?) and
Hillary Rodham, it shouldn't be assumed that I am automatically
going to take one side or the other. Why can't I simply hate both
of them?
Larry A,
Those terms you quoted look like a typical End User License
Agreement for proprietary software, or the agreements that large
financial institutions have with their customers. Sure, sometimes I
cringe when I read them, but I want the service they provide, and
click through or sign, anyway.
I thought one of the more unintentionally funny quotes in the
chapter was, "The Democrats wonder, Why do we lose elections when
we are right on all the issues?" Well, Sherlock, maybe you aren't
"right on all the issues." Maybe advocating for a policy that
involves spending my money on things I don't want has something to
do with it, hmmm?
Don't confuse anyone's take on whether or not the Bible is
literal with politics or idiocy. I am acquainted with lots of
ordinary people from all walks of life who pay little or no
attention to things religious but if asked by some pollster will
respond that the Bible is literally God's word.
They aren't freaks, they aren't Retros or Metros, and very few of
them are of the mindset of the "Sin Killer". Many don't vote and
often don't give a shit about politics. Some are conservative, some
liberal, some apolitical, and few of them ever set foot inside a
church, unless the kid is getting married.
My gripe with this kind of thinking is that people who make these
claims, observations, and studies don't seem to know any ordinary
people. They've never shared a cold beer in a cheesy bar with a red
neck or slept with a chick that kicks the pickup door open to turn
on the lights after sex. The insular world they surely must live in
has got to be filled with others who share their worldview, because
the people they describe don't seem to match anyone in real
life.
In many respects this ongoing obsession with the evils of modern
religion reminds me of old time John Birchers looking for Commies
under the bed. Look under enough beds and you'll find a few things
that need shootin�, but they certainly don't have anywhere near the
power and control that we all imagine that they do. Otherwise we'd
all be living by Rummy's Religious Rules (pick up yer copy at Gene
Berkman�s Bookstore today).
Don't confuse anyone's take on whether or not the Bible is
literal with politics or idiocy. I am acquainted with lots of
ordinary people from all walks of life who pay little or no
attention to things religious but if asked by some pollster will
respond that the Bible is literally God's word.
They aren't freaks, they aren't Retros or Metros, and very few of
them are of the mindset of the "Sin Killer". Many don't vote and
often don't give a shit about politics. Some are conservative, some
liberal, some apolitical, and few of them ever set foot inside a
church, unless the kid is getting married.
My gripe with this kind of thinking is that people who make these
claims, observations, and studies don't seem to know any ordinary
people. They've never shared a cold beer in a cheesy bar with a red
neck or slept with a chick that kicks the pickup door open to turn
on the lights after sex. The insular world they surely must live in
has got to be filled with others who share their worldview, because
the people they describe don't seem to match anyone in real
life.
In many respects this ongoing obsession with the evils of modern
religion reminds me of old time John Birchers looking for Commies
under the bed. Look under enough beds and you'll find a few things
that need shootin�, but they certainly don't have anywhere near the
power and control that we all imagine that they do. Otherwise we'd
all be living by Rummy's Religious Rules (pick up yer copy at Gene
Berkman�s Bookstore today).
I scanned the book's first chapter, and I can state with some authority that everything bad that the authors claim happened to Alabama because voters here rejected a whopping big tax increase is false. They have quoted the scary predictions that were made before the vote as if they were the results of the vote. For example, the state's education budget is currently in surplus, despite the tax hike's not passing. Meanwhile, there has been no flood of nursing home closings, no mass layoffs of state employees (unfortunately) and, in fact, no real restrain in state spending.
Don't confuse anyone's take on whether or not the Bible is
literal with politics or idiocy. I am acquainted with lots of
ordinary people from all walks of life who pay little or no
attention to things religious but if asked by some pollster will
respond that the Bible is literally God's word.
They aren't freaks, they aren't Retros or Metros, and very few of
them are of the mindset of the "Sin Killer". Many don't vote and
often don't give a shit about politics. Some are conservative, some
liberal, some apolitical, and few of them ever set foot inside a
church, unless the kid is getting married.
My gripe with this kind of thinking is that people who make these
claims, observations, and studies don't seem to know any ordinary
people. They've never shared a cold beer in a cheesy bar with a red
neck or slept with a chick that kicks the pickup door open to turn
on the lights after sex. The insular world they surely must live in
has got to be filled with others who share their worldview, because
the people they describe don't seem to match anyone in real
life.
In many respects this ongoing obsession with the evils of modern
religion reminds me of old time John Birchers looking for Commies
under the bed. Look under enough beds and you'll find a few things
that need shootin�, but they certainly don't have anywhere near the
power and control that we all imagine that they do. Otherwise we'd
all be living by Rummy's Religious Rules (pick up yer copy at Gene
Berkman�s Bookstore today).
From the website:
"Retro-America, conservative and rooted in the past, and
Metro-America-progressive and focused on future"
These people self-delusion is the most frightening thing. Let look
at some items in the contemporary political debate:
Social Security:
Retro: Let's change the system. We need a new system based on
delayed consumption instead of redistribution. Most Americans in
the 21st century can manage their own retirement savings.
Metro: Let keep the same basic system we've had since the 1930's
but spend more on it. What worked in 1935 will surely work in
2035.
Education:
Retro: Let change the system. We should use some kind of voucher
system to decentralize education decisions and give more power
directly to the individuals.
Metro: Lets keep the same basic system we have had for the last 100
years but spend more money on.
Health Care:
Retro: Let's enhance the free market system. Let's give individuals
control over how they spend their government provided medical
dollars.
Metro: Let's keep the same kind of programs we have for the poor
and elderly but then we need to expand them to cover everybody. We
need a system like Canada created in 1950,
And so on. Metro's are Leftist and they haven't had a new idea
since 1973. If we use conservative and progress and synonyms for
pro-status quo and anti-status quo, then for virtually every major
economic issue the Metros are the conservative part of the polity.
Only on some social matters do they represent the progressive part
and even that has a sixties retread feel to it.
It's really frightening that they think of themselves as so future
oriented, innovative and risk taking when in reality that are the
polar opposite.
Would this make somebody like Jerry Falwell a retrosexual? If
so, what does he have sex with?
Yeah, whether it's Hank III or Hank Jr., neither should be trusted
with your daughter, liquor cabinet, guns, wife, or medicine
cabinet. If serious Bush-supporting Christians throw Monday Night
Football parties like Old Hank -- strippers in cheerleader
costumes, giant booze bottles, an implied mountain of cocaine on
the coffee table -- I would convert today. (Then again, young
George W. himself was known for such football parties. Why must
they get so boring by the time they run for president?)
Anyway, the truth is the Dixie Chicks are the kind of crap heard on
"country music" radio, not Hank Jr., Hank III, or Johnny Cash. A
liberal myth is that country radio plays country music. It doesn't,
and it hasn't for 15 years. It plays, as Jack Sparks harshly says,
"tampon jingles." Meaning, it's bright, poppy, heavily produced
muzak that you hear pretty constantly at Target or Walmart on
weekdays, when the target demographic of New Country (suburban
moms) is shopping. (On weekends, I've noticed my local Walmart
plays "classic country," presumably because men are in the store
buying tools, paint, hunting gear, etc.)
Shawn Smith: [Those terms you quoted look like a typical End
User License Agreement for proprietary software, or the agreements
that large financial institutions have with their customers. Sure,
sometimes I cringe when I read them, but I want the service they
provide, and click through or sign, anyway.]
Absolutely. But I don�t expect to run into them clicking on a
website where I�m getting nothing more valuable than a laugh, in
between grinding my teeth. These folks don�t understand either PR
websites or the Internet in general.
[I thought one of the more unintentionally funny quotes in the
chapter was, "The Democrats wonder, Why do we lose elections when
we are right on all the issues?" Well, Sherlock, maybe you aren't
"right on all the issues." Maybe advocating for a policy that
involves spending my money on things I don't want has something to
do with it, hmmm?]
Again I agree. Unfortunately political reality in the U.S. is
somewhat accurately reflected in the book. By dividing the
political landscape in two artificial parts, here metros and
retros, you end up with (for instance) the party that wants to do
away with guns against the party that wants to do away with
gays.
Left out of the �enlightened rational discourse� are all of us who
don�t want either legislated against.
What a crock of meaningless drivel. I'll file this away with "the jocks, nerds and preppies."
[The authors of this book are dedicated to the Enlightenment
principles of rational discourse, the application of logic, and the
scientific method. The data and arguments we present follow these
principles. As for politics, we are committed to the separation of
church and state, the rule of law, and a political culture of
civility and tolerance, all of which are necessary for a healthy
democracy.]
Hmmm.
http://m-w.com:
de�moc�ra�cy
Pronunciation: di-'m�-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia,
from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b
: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people
and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of
representation usually involving periodically held free
elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party
in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of
political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or
privileges
Rational discourse, the application of logic, and the scientific
method? It seems the authors missed the part about, uh, making
decisions by people voting for what they want.
Shannon Love: you said it all!
The "left" has completely stolen the word "liberal" and all the
related words that go along with it, which is truly a shame.
Don't forget Hank III's part-time gig, bass player for "retro" thrashers Superjoint Ritual.
Ackk. Sorry about the excessive multipostings above.
Joe - A key element of tolerance, in my opinion, is
non-vilification of the enemy. You vilify his actions if need be,
but you don't vilify him.
Tolerant - "The policies of the Christian Right are based on
falacies and will lead to disaster, wherease we have the right
answers and are compassionate"
Intolerant (but possibly true) - "The NeanderPals (ooh, I like that
term) don't want you to have an education, and we'll make every
school an Ivy League School"
If you want civility and tolerance, cool. You don't have to say "I
agree with everything you say" to do it. Stand up for what you
believe. But calling 'them' names, even clever names, ain't civil
discourse.
If you want to take the gloves off and tell it like it is, that's
ok too. But that sign you just passed said "Now leaving
Toleranceville (population 0), come back soon!"
After reading some of the text on their web site, I am at a loss
for words.
Have these people ever worked a real job?
If you really want to understand America, get a job at a retail
establishment. For one thing, you learn a little humility as you
wait on a customer. For another, you learn something about
people.
So long as were delving into a bunch of fallacious and silly
categorizations that bear no relationship to reality - try this on
for size:
Metros support gay marraige; which is of course new.
Metros also want to legalize pot, etc.
Metros have no problem with burning an American flag or marrying
someone of another "race."*
*Note that I consider the concept of "race" to be an entirely
cultural construct which has no basis in biology.
Mackey,
Well, I don't see why a Metro should neccessarily be a Democrat;
indeed, I think of myself as fairly "Metro," yet I'm not a Democrat
(or a Republican) - though at one time I was a Democrat (many eons
ago when I thought Neil Goldschmidt was hot - in other words, the
late 80s and early 90s). Furthermore, I've run into dozens of
"legalize it, don't criminalize it" Democrats over the years -
whether they were "status quo" Democrats I can't say.
I think this illustrates my original point however; that these are
silly and fallacious categorizations that bear no resemblence to
reality.
(Hank III is an ex-punk? Has he disbanded Assjack and cut off his dreads in the last month or two?)
Franklin Harris,
You are so right. It is hard to take the authors seriously when
they substitute the hyperbole of elected officials for facts. I
find it encouraging that Alabamans are so reluctant to throw good
money after bad. I only visit family there once or twice a year,
but usually leave with fresh stories of massive waste and
corruption involving the "education" system.
"As for politics, we are committed to ....the rule of
law..."
Oh then why did the Democraps wanted to violate Florida's election
laws in 2000 with illegal "recounts"?
Hmmmm. However sometimes....
Let's have a third zeitgeist; the political positions that
Shannon Love at 02:05 PM. staked out for the Retros with the
addition of non-interventionist foreign policy and victimless crime
legalization.
For cultural icons, we can have P. J. O'Rourke...
http://www.self-gov.org/orourke.html
...and Oingo Boingo!
http://members.aol.com/thegneech/elflib.htm
Gary,
I won't deny that our home state has its share of shortcomings. By
the way, vibrators aren't outlawed in AL - you just can't buy them
there. Well, legally buy them, anyhow.
An example of why Alabamans are justified in voting down tax
increases for "education" (assuming one accepts the premise that
schooling is a function of the state):
For years I noted the presence of pedestrian overpasses and tunnels
from schoolyards to empty fields on the other side of streets and
wondered why they were built. Then I discovered that in order to be
accredited a school in AL had to have a schoolyard of a certain
amount of contiguous land. The amount varied with the age of the
facility, and attendance and level of the school. If a street
passed through the land, it could still be considered contiguous if
the street were blocked during school hours, or if a tunnel or
pedestrian overpass connected the plots of land. It immediately
became obvious to me why urban kids have so many problems in school
- their schoolyards are too small.
What in the world made this website worthy of a mention?
Under the definitions given, virtually nobody in America is
"Retro". The Republican Party certainly isn't. Pat Buchanan isn't.
Hell, even the Klan is too left-wing to be Retro.
What a bunch of horseshit. Republicans are defined as the sum total
of every hateful thing believed by any Republican anywhere;
Democrats are defined as the sum total of every undefined
warm-and-fuzzy sentiment held by any Democrat anywhere. The fact
that some of you are actually taking these straw men seriously is
very disturbing.
Sorry to have to break it to you, Rick, but P.J. O'Rourke isn't exactly a non-interventionist.
Sorry to have to break it to you, Rick, but P.J. O'Rourke isn't exactly a non-interventionist.
I have to assume that a lot of the Metros didn't really understand the "literal word of God" question as meaning what the Retros thought it meant.
The Dixie Chicks vs. Hank Williams III
Uh ... which one is supposed to be metro and which one is supposed
to be retro? The pop-country trio that dissede Goerge Bush or the
ex-punk who listens to Black Flag?
The Dixie Chicks vs. Hank Williams III
Uh ... which one is supposed to be metro and which one is supposed
to be retro? The pop-country trio that dissed Goerge Bush or the
ex-punk who listens to Black Flag?
joe,
Why would you have to assume that?
It's clear that the metro/retro tags are stand-ins for left/right.
The left can be just as dunderheaded as the right and vice-versa.
Sometimes I think they delibrately try to out stupid each
other.
"Sometimes I think they delibrately try to out stupid each
other."
I think joe is familiar with that. See above.
The picture is of Hank Jr., not Hank III.
Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. Though Hank Jr. should make
the case that a lot of those metro habits are actually retro. "If I
get stoned and sing all night long/It's a family tradition..."
Yes, Warren, but they tend to have their own particular
varieties of dunderheadedness, don't they?
Taking the Bible literally is not a particularly Metro
dunderheadedness. Glibness towards religious question, on the other
hand...
i used to think they had different flavors of stupid.
now i'm starting to believe they all double dip in the same bucket
of nasty rainbow sprinkles.
i have the sinking feeling that the RNC debacle in waiting will
merely confirm that.
City mouse, country mouse.
I find it ironic that the authors feel compelled to invoke the "the
principles of logic and scientific method" in such a highly
partisan work (at least the first chapter). Not to quibble, but the
traditional Democratic platform is full of policies that fly in the
face of logic and science. Personally, I think the cause of science
better served by a salient graph or chart than a picture of a
crying Jimmy Swaggart.
Insofar as political analysis, I can understand the desire to dump
the so-called "retro" voters and build on a "metro" base. Working
class Americans have always been far too conservative for the
liberal intelligentsia. On the other hand, national elections are
won and lost by influencing an increasingly large group of swing
voters who do not have the traditional "vote the ticket" loyalties.
My impression is that these swing voters are not swayed by the sort
of issues that appeal to the proposed "metro" base.
Perhaps in some distant utopia there will be a political party
driven by better ideas... but probably not.
City mouse, country mouse.
I find it ironic that the authors feel compelled to invoke the "the
principles of logic and scientific method" in such a highly
partisan work (at least the first chapter). Not to quibble, but the
traditional Democratic platform is full of policies that fly in the
face of logic and science. Personally, I think the cause of science
better served by a salient graph or chart than a picture of a
crying Jimmy Swaggart.
Insofar as political analysis, I can understand the desire to dump
the so-called "retro" voters and build on a "metro" base. Working
class Americans have always been far too conservative for the
liberal intelligentsia. On the other hand, national elections are
won and lost by influencing an increasingly large group of swing
voters who do not have the traditional "vote the ticket" loyalties.
My impression is that these swing voters are not swayed by the sort
of issues that appeal to the proposed "metro" base.
Perhaps in some distant utopia there will be a political party
driven by better ideas... but probably not.
Oops... the dreaded double post.
And a musical question. Johnny Cash, metro or retro? As a overtly
Christian country singer, it's easy to drop him in the retro
category, but his work on the American label with Rick Rubin gained
him a fair amount of metro recognition.
I think these oversimplifications are typical of loyalists. And times like these bring out the loyalists in droves.
P.J. O'Rourke isn't exactly a
non-interventionist.
Sometimes he is:
http://www.cato.org/events/040623rec.html
Gary,
I didn't say outlawing the sale of vibrators wasn't bad. I was just
correcting your statement. You can say enough bad stuff about AL
without exaggerating.
How did you manage to so completely miss my point? I don't recall
ever suggesting that public or private schools in AL (or any other
state) don't "suck." In fact, my whole point was that most
Alabamans aren't willing to waste any more money on public schools
after seeing how the money is (mis)used. Maybe I am just an
optimist, but I find that attitude encouraging and hope it is
contagious.
Worst. Webpage/Book/Concept. Ever.
I cannot accept anyone attempting to define who I am (except
myself). That Metro/Retro debate is a disgrace to logical thought,
and a shame on anyone who considers those stereotypes to be
true.
Tolerance is leaving people alone. As long as they do NOT interfere
with anyone else's rights, they are free to do as they
please.
I find more evidence that liberals disagree with this than
conservatives.
"I find more evidence that liberals disagree with this than
conservatives."
nah, you're hallucinating. no more nyquil before breakfast!
"I find more evidence that liberals disagree with this than
conservatives."
Maybe in terms of taking your money, but socially, conservatives
interfere with people just as much as liberals.
KentInDC,
Hmm, vibrator sales are outlawed then. This is equally bad.
I hate to break it to you but most Alabama schools (public or
private) suck.
Dan,
The fact that Shannon Love would create even more strawmen is also
disturbing.
I think it's interesting that this site can't tell the
difference between Kentucky and Tennessee.
http://www.retrovsmetro.org/states/
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245