Conjugating Ideology
Below, Jesse links a piece by John Tierney attempting to deflate the "great divide" meme that's making the rounds this election season. Much of the argument is persuasive, and certainly it's likely a necessary antidote to some of the more hyped-up rhetoric about fundamental value chasms.
But this graphic showing how Blue and Red state voters rank themselves and the parties on a liberal-conservative gradient reminded me of that old quip about perspectives: "I am principled; you are stubborn; he's just pig-headed." Everyone thinks they're moderate; indeed, the more segregated your local community actually is by ideology, the less likely you'd be, at least intuitively, to peg your own views as to the left or right of the national median. Recall Pauline Kael's astonishment when Nixon beat McGovern—she didn't know anyone who'd voted for Nixon, and it was precisely the insularity of the circles she moved in that allowed her to think her relatively leftish views were more widely shared, more "centrist," than they really were. I also wonder whether that chart mightn't look different if respondents were broken down by Red and Blue counties rather than states, since there's some pretty significant internal variation there.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Whereas the opposite, Democrats defining themselves in opposition to certain areas of the country, is almost unheard of.
Uh...
You're right Joe, when I lived in Boston/Cambridge area, I've never noticed Democrats/Leftists defining themselves in ideological opposition to the "Midwest" or the "fly-over-states", from where I hail.
Please.
I don't think there can be much taken from these graphs other than that people have a bizarre fondness for the number 6.
Or maybe that people see either of the political parties as more extreme than themselves. Given the quote on the chart, that voters are presumably more idealogical than non-voters, wouldn't the parties also presumably be more idealogical than the voters?
Maybe if the survey had asked people what they thought of people who voted for either party, rather than the what they thought of the actual parties it would support Julian's conclusion. I don't see how this survey, as executed, does. There is a pretty common sentiment that "they're all jackasses in Washington" which may be what people think of when you ask them what they think of Democrats or Republicans.
The argument made by several Democratic pundits is that Edwards will be a good running mate because he can help "deliver" the south. In short, Edwards is the Democratic Edwards.
In fairness, Democrats (like any political animals) use geography when it suits them. There isn't a politician in Congress who cannot deliver immediately a speech on how the sun shines a bit brighter and longer on his humble District.
Farm country Democrats will talk about "family farms" values whenever agricultural subsidies arise. Urban democrats will wax about the unique value (and problems) of the city... problems that can only be solved by hard work, dedication and great heaping mounds of cash.
In a representative republic based on physical jurisdictions, geography will inevitably influence political culture. So it goes.
What's ironic is the result, w/ everyone pretty much thinking "I'm a moderate, they aren't" yet for the most part the "moderates" are the problem -- people who run and get elected based on little more than vague platitudes with no indication of what they're actually for, if anything.
I'd venture an educated guess that a lot of the "moderation" out there is from a deliberate limiting of what actually gets attention.
Joe, you are killing me.
"Democrats defining themselves in opposition to certain areas of the country, is almost unheard of."
Obviously you have never heard a native New Yorker talk about the South or the Mid West. Or New Jersey. Or anywhere.
mitch and wellfellow,
There's a difference between what you expect to hear from some mass college student, or a man-on-the-street in NY and what you expect to hear from a politician on a national stage, with the microphones on. Joe's point is valid -- the right's opposition to the coasts has moved further into the right mainstream than the left's denigration of the heartland has.
yeah, everyone picks on new jersey.
NJHC! NJHC!
I see Republican denigration of the East/West coasts as being reactionary and populist, while Democratic denigration of the Midwest/South is more smug and condescending. Both are nasty in different ways.
It is absolutely true that people in "blue" areas (whatever that means) frequently sneer at people from "red" places.
However, those sneers tend to not be incorporated into political speeches, or at least not directly. When they are, they frequently (but not always) backfire. (e.g. Howard Dean's statement about wooing voters with Confederate flags on their pickups, all it did was get Southerners justifiably offended by the stereotype and liberals angry that a Democrat would woo Confederate flag wavers.)
Sure, there are a lot of indirect sneers and snobbery, but nothing as loud and blatant as the talk of "real Americans" and "heartland values."
Then again, maybe the obnoxious chest-thumping in "Red America" is just payback for indirect and thinly veiled sneering...
Anyway, I think the whole thing is ridiculous. Pundits and extremists can battle away all they want, but in my experience people have a lot more in common than the media would have you believe.
Thank you c and thoreau. I don't deny the existence of anti-rural or whatever feelings among certain people who vote Democratic. I was talking about the incorporation of that type of regionalist prejudice into political discourse.
Please, feel free to contradict me, conservatives, but please come armed with an example of such discourse - the Democratic "back to Vermont where it belongs" ad, if such a thing exists. Talking about the way some jerk at an airport made you feel doesn't count.
It's urban vs. rural more than left vs. right. It's the perception of the urban northeast's lack of regard or seemingly condescending maternalism veiling contempt concerning the rest of the country that puts off non-urban types. Big city Democrats like Kerry and joe give off that aura. Just because it's not blatant doesn't mean it's not there.
I think it is disingenuous to ask for specific examples when you have not provided any of your own. Perhaps you can cite a "Sodom and Gomorrah" speech by a Republican saying that cities are urban cesspools of filth and degradation? I prefer excerpts from political speeches to quotes from the 700 club.
It seems to me some posters are taking the praise of the "values of the heartland" rhetoric somewhat personally. In two hundred years, America has moved from a more rural, agrarian society to a more urban/suburban society. In the clash of cultures, urban/suburban has won by a landslide.
In my opinion, one reason for the strident rhetoric from rural politicians is the sense of losing the cultural battle. If you wish, I can elucidate on this... it may prove somewhat interesting to those who's experience with rural America is limited to a single book by James Dickey.
Perhaps you can cite a "Sodom and Gomorrah" speech by a Republican saying that cities are urban cesspools of filth and degradation?
Joe cited the "take your freak show back to Vermont" ad. He specifically asked for the Democratic equivalent of that ad. I can't think of one, although if Air America becomes more intertwined with the DNC in the future, it won't be hard.
"Big city Democrats like Kerry and joe give off that aura. Just because it's not blatant doesn't mean it's not there."
First of all, I'm a small city guy.
B, let's posit that your statement is true, and urban/coastal Dems feel just as much prejudice as rural/landlocked Pubs. The latter consciously incorporate that position into their politics, as evidenced by the "latte drinking freak show" Howard Dean ad, the "Hollywood/Media Elites" blather, etc etc. Democrats, on the other hand, seek to avoid this schism as much as they can. If those Dems actually feel regionalist prejudice as much as conservatives, who are constantly hammering it, then their efforts to avoid the issue become even more significant.
Why, if Democrats are just as prejudiced as Republicans, do they talk about so much less, Geotech?
Well, Joe, perhaps the ad you cited was in fact produced by a third party group and not an official ad of a candidate.
Would you like examples of third party groups that have similar approaches on the Democratic side?
"Why, if Democrats are just as prejudiced as Republicans, do they talk about so much less, Geotech?"
They know that their regional preferences/prejudices would hurt them more than help at the polls if they talked about them, so they keep quiet about it.
I think joe may be right. Any casual perusal of any leftie blog or magazine will tell you that the level of regional prejudice is roughly equal, but that prejudice doesn't find its way into DNC sanctioned pieces in the same way the Vermont piece passed muster in the other camp. I at least can't think of an example.
What I do recall is the infamous ad depicting the racists dragging the black man behind the truck in TX.
Hypothesis: A weak incumbent or same party heir is attempting to energize their base more than anything else. The poles are energized by playing to their prejudices about the other team. The home team, if vulnerable, is more likely to have an ad that goes after regional prejudices. The attacking team already hates the home team after four years of being left out. They are playing to the swing voter rather than the base. An inflammatory ad might irritate a fence sitter.
I just made that up, but who knows ...
Maybe because the urban constituents' votes aren't enough anymore. Maybe it's strategic. Maybe Democrats are every bit as scheming as Republicans, God forbid.
The regionalist bias by Democrats is manifested less in rhetoric than in public policy. I am reminded of the movie, "The American President," a film that seems to run on cable every few hours. The fictional president is a liberal (as are nearly all fictional presidents) who promises to "get the guns" among other things.
Firearms are woven into the culture of rural America... yet the national policies to restrict 2nd Amendment rights are driven by urban/suburban America. (An irony given the fact that a firearm is much more potentially useful in areas with much higher rates of crime.)
Environmental legislation often has a huge impact on rural communities. From whence does this legislation come? Urban/suburban America. There are those in Washington who would make Utah (and several other western states) theme parks to be preserved for summer backpacking and winter skiing trips. Why federal legislation... the people who live in this natural areas are not so wise or knowing as those who live elsewhere. Only a New Yorker truly understands the importance of saving a natural feature of Utah.
I can give you example after example of "city" decisions that effect rural life. When it comes to unfunded mandates, the federal government does not distinguish between Boston and East Backwater, Wyoming. In short, Joe, it is not what Democrats say that bothers many in rural America... it's what Democrats do. It is the pervasive sense in rural America that people elsewhere are making the rules.
I respectfully suggest that until you spend some time in rural America, you will have some difficulty understanding the depth of this resentment.
I'd have to say that so called "regionalist" policies of both parties are a bit all over the map. Maybe democrats favor gun control, despite the fact that you'd think gun ownership would benefit them more. Maybe republicans support cutting social spending, despite the fact that red states are the benefactors of a disproportionate amount of gov't largess. Let's just say "the ironies abound."
While Joe is looking through Republican speeches, perhaps you could provide the supporting citation for the assertion that "red" states receive a "disproportionate" amount of government "largess."
Oh, gosh, the fact that red states are the union's welfare queens is pretty well established:
http://taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html
"Oh, gosh, the fact that red states are the union's welfare queens is pretty well established"
How about red counties, towns, neighborhoods, or more importantly, voters?
Here's one broken down by county for the 2000 election.
It might also be interesting to see the red vs. blue divide broken down by profession.
Say certified public accountants vs. journalists 😉
I think what's more interesting in the second set of charts is the *two* spikes: there's one around 4 and one around 6, without a corresponding spike at 2. So most people think of themselves as moderate, but a good number of people -- 20% or so -- who consider themselves "conservative, but not *too* conservative". It reenforces the common wisdom that "liberal" has become a bad word, while "conservative" is fine -- as long as you don't go too far right.
Now what would be interesting is to take people, show them a description of *someone else*, and have them place that person on the spectrum. You could then slice the data and see how, say, self-described pro-life voters view self-described anti-death penalty voters. People don't agree on what is liberal or conservative enough to have these charts be particularly useful.
On a slight tangent, and this may have already had its own thread at some point in the past few weeks (if it didn't it probably deserves one), the Project For Excellence in Journalism recently released its 2004 Journalist Survey. It can be viewed or downloaded (PDF) at
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/journalist_survey.html
From a very quick look and from a discussion about it on the Diane Rehm Show this morning, the most striking difference I came across between journalists and the country at large (and the most disturbing commentary about the country at large) is that almost 60% of the country thinks belief in God is necessary to be moral, while only 6% of the national press thinks this is true.
Also, while significantly fewer journalists that Americans in general self-identify as conservatives, the pollsters on the radio this morning made a specific point of saying a surprising number of journalists have libertarianesque tendencies.
Personally, I kind of WANT a divided, red/blue, America. The thought of our nation's politics being decided by mushy, milquetoast anyway-the-wind-blows, moderates to be down-right unsettling. For all their excesses, at least I can count on an ideologue to defend a particular freedom to the death. The moderate search for "compromise" will do nothing except wear away our freedoms in the name of finding a nonexistent middle ground.
When it comes to the "red/blue" issue I am reminded of "Peace" versus "Peace with honor." There are some interesting cultural distinctions between rural and urban America. I agree that many U.S. states contain both cultures. For example, the Eastern Shore of Maryland differs in culture from Baltimore City or western Maryland. I agree that counties offer a more appropriate granularity of detail.
I also note that these cultural differences are not always easily translated into political differences. Some rural areas have strong union traditions (read Democrat). Urban areas are often mosiacs that include immigrants, minorities, the affluent, native working poor, etc. The "blue" culture of Montgomery County (supposedly the quintessential "blue" county) is actually the reflection of the personal culture of an affluent person living within one piece of the mosaic.
Another issue with "red/blue" is that the colors suggest differences much greater than the culture or politics. America is not a nation of communists versus facists versus capitalists versus anarchists. There is a natural inflation (usually regional pride) of cultural differences. The simple truth is that there are a great many places where, if one were dropped from the sky, one would have a hard time making an immediate identification of place. It is also true that America no longer has states advocating slavery... or much of anything really controversial. The federal government will not tolerate anything very experimental.
Sense of place often influences sense of self. Many people find some comfort in sharing a regional identity. Some (consider the French) make it into quite production. The red/blue discussion is an interesting topic for drinks, but adds little in terms of political discourse.
I don't feel that graphic alluded to in the second paragraph proves that voters are less moderate than they think. Because of the primary system, the more extremist members of each party tend to get nominated... so the parties would tend to be more polarized than the people they allegedly represent.
I'm with Jose: the geographical distinctions are played up by politicians. Republicans/Conservatives, in particular, play towards regional pride, with all their talk about "real Americans" and "heartland values" and "...take his tax raising, latte drinking, body piercing freak show back to Vermont (Vermont!) where it belongs."
Whereas the opposite, Democrats defining themselves in opposition to certain areas of the country, is almost unheard of. Who is the Republican John Edwards, for example, telling GOP base voters that they should support him, because he can deliver the Great Lakes or Pacific Northwest? Which Republican primary candidate ever said the GOP should be the party of, I don't know, guys with peace sign bumper stickers on their hybrid cars?
I note that the alleged "welfare queen" states are generally large, sparsely populated states where the federal government owns large amounts of land and/or infrastructure. One can argue that placing military bases, vast lengths of federal highway or large Indian reservation in sparsely populated states is a form of "welfare." Were I a resident of Montana, I would support moving nuclear missile silos to New Jersey... all in the interest of sharing the wealth, of course.
The bigger issue is income. I think there is a strong parallel between the low median family incomes in the top ten welfare states like Mississippi and Alabama and the much higher median family incomes in places like New Jersey. There are also issues with federal policies that have limited rural growth and development. We can talk about the vast national forests of the west or the Endangered Species Act on another day.
I suspect Mr. Sanchez has spent little time in the American west. The federal government is a large employer in many small western towns, simply because there are so few large employers left, particularly with the decline of natural resource based industries like timber and mining. In a small western town (which I am very familiar), the large lumber mill shut down. The largest employer in town is now the U.S. Forest Service... the federal government managing its vast land holdings in a County where 95% of the land is under public control.
The underlying assumption of the pejorative term "welfare queen" is that the so-called queen benefits, even seeks, the welfare in question. Much of the federal largess "given" to the "red" states comes not as benefits, but in the form of federal employees, regulations, and control. Of course, since Mr. Sanchez lives in (or near) DC, he might have some understanding of why many fear the phrase,
"We're the government and we're here to help you."