NationStates Jolt Archive

Given the tedious nature of the multiple threads on why Barack Obama eats babies and John McCain wants to enforce creationism as the sole subject taught in schools, I thought this article interesting, and something I suspect most are entirely aware of, in providing context.

...like it or not, the American heartland is not so much a political ideology but an actual place with people living in it. Small-town Americans have values and a lot of those values are good ones: neighbourliness, family life, a knowledge of the land and what grows in it. The other America they see on TV seems without ethics - crime, violence, drug addiction, pornography and prostitution - and they don't want any part of it.

In one thread, someone, I think it's Balderdash, talks about different values with little compromise in between, which I can understand.

The conviction by the left that the right is stupid is one of the defining and least attractive characteristics of contemporary politics. Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is too dim to get your point is not itself a particularly brainy way to win others over to the essential correctness of your views. But it is true that to small-town Republicans the world is not a complicated place, because they have seen so little of it.

I'm not American but I've tried to make a go of it in NY, I've been out to small town Ohio and down to Virginia, I had a lovely time in Amish country and I've spent an awful two days in San Jose. Although I've certainly not made in-depth studies of America, it becomes apparent that there's wild contrasts, which should be obvious.

He described growing up "dirt poor" in a small town in Northern California where joining the military was your sole ticket out; where the people in his family who depended on welfare stayed where they were and the ones who worked their fingers to the bone managed to make a better life for themselves. For him, joining the army led directly to an education. In fact, it led all the way to Princeton. But how, I asked him, baffled, could someone as intelligent as he is believe that George W Bush was anything but a cretin?

Because, he explained, people in small towns don't like or trust intellectuals, particularly ones who appear to be sneering at them for their supposed stupidity. They admire a plain-speaking man; it's what they know and what they are used to.

They always assumed Bush was a regular guy who could keep his thoughts concise.

Yet I sometimes feel that this point is lost, debates seem unaware of this fact.

So America is stuck. Two countries, mutually irreconcilable, who never meet each other and don't want to, either. Who distrust each other at best, despise each other at worst. And who have absolutely no understanding of the other.

Would people say that this next paragraph is a fair statement?

The problem is that when they're [small town America] running the whole country, they want to take away abortion rights, drill for oil in Alaska, ignore climate change, and start unwinnable wars. With the small-town Republican mindset in charge, the rest of America and the rest of the world is forced to live by small-town values, which aren't much help when you're trying to decide what, if anything, can be done about Iranian nuclear ambitions or more humbly, workplace date rape.

Is that fair?

Fun fact: George W. Bush is not, and has never been, a stupid man. In fact, when he was running for Congress back in the 70's the concern was that he sounded too intelligent and too pedantic for the region. The truth is, that whole folksy, "good ol' boy" demeanor is a carefully constructed facade that he used quite successfully to win two elections. His administration, for better or for worse, has accomplished a lot of the things it set out to do so his efficacy is hardly something to question.

I guess the real concern is whether or not those policies were a good thing for the country. Good perhaps for the interests he was undoubtedly aiding, but not so good for everybody else. But then again, something like 72% of the US population supported the Iraq War in 2003 so it begs the question of where the hell that remaining portion was...

Truth be told, drilling for oil in Alaska seems like a pretty good idea. It's rather disingenuous for environmentalists to oppose domestic drilling using the modern, efficient, and much more environmentally neutral techniques of the US oil industry but to have no problem with importing more oil from the developing world where environmental laws are scarce or nonexistent and the effects of pollution are far more devastating and widespread than anything that has ever happened in the US, Exxon Valdez included. We need oil for the foreseeable future, and nowhere will it be produced in such quantities a cleaner and safer manner than in the United States.

I think it's also important to note that the majority of the Democratic voting bloc consists of "small town America"; the party leaders consistently praise the working class despite the fact that many of them are wallet Democrats, including the Reagan Democrats of yore, that vote on the basis of the party's economic policies while retaining conservative social views. No doubt there are more than a few religious conservatives in the party drawn to its economic message, let alone all of the working class people who likely share the religious right's distrust of intellectuals. The same is true with a lot of wealthy, well-educated Republicans as well; they vote on the basis of their wallet, not social issues, which explains quite readily the existence of gay, pro-gay rights and pro-choice Republicans.

In conclusion, it's economic issues that fundamentally drive politics. That's a rather Marxist view, to be quite honest, but it's one that I think is fundamentally true. People vote first and foremost on the basis of economic reality, and it's the small-town mindset that is most in tune with the concerns and decisions of Americans. People don't want to hear about abstract economic theory or the empty rhetoric of politicians trying to talk up the economy when they're standing in unemployment lines or seeing their paychecks eroded by inflation and their home equity by a collapsed bubble...they want people who speak their language and understand their concerns.

Is this mindset a good thing? Hell no, not by a long shot. However, it's something educated and professional Americans need to realize and accommodate in order to make in tune with the short-term concerns of average Americans the long-term thinking that is absolutely necessary for the survival and continued prosperity of the nation.

Apologies for rambling, but it's a rather thought provoking post and I've got a lot of continuous free time for the first time since the academic year ended.

Apologies for rambling, but it's a rather thought provoking post and I've got a lot of continuous free time for the first time since the academic year ended.


You mean you are not looking at porn for hours on end? Isn't that what most guys your age with free time do now days. :p


Btw good points in the post. ;)

You mean you are not looking at porn for hours on end? Isn't that what most guys your age with free time do now days. :p

Btw good points in the post. ;)

That's not until a few hours later...

...nevermind, I can't find a smilie that fits.

Is this mindset a good thing? Hell no, not by a long shot. However, it's something educated and professional Americans need to realize and accommodate in order to make in tune with the short-term concerns of average Americans the long-term thinking that is absolutely necessary for the survival and continued prosperity of the nation.

The last time short-term concerns of average Americans won out, the New Deal happened. This time it'll be socialized healthcare.

Hey, what are you saying about San Jose? *breaks bottle*

Can you link to the article? Also, I apologize on behalf of NorCal for... well, 80% of NorCal.

*long, rambling but good post*

I've gone back and forth in replying to this post, which is a thought-provoking response.

I wonder if it's more a difference in terms of how each party looks to advertise itself. You say GWB acts folksy but the fact is that he has to do that. John McCain has to reach out to the pro-life, value-driven church establishment.

To be fair, Barack Obama has to baulk at nuclear, I wonder whether it's sense or a nod to environmentalists who have a gut reaction against nuclear.

If they have to do this, there must be reasoning, there must be the mindset that people fall into in general and in refining that message on either side, they possibly force the split wider.

In terms of small-town Democrats, I'd say they live mostly in the more industrial states where a big city mentality has some sway. Where the news is dominated by major cities in your state, and those cities are Democratic in the main, I'd say it has some effect.

I somewhat agree on economics but I suspect it's slightly divorced from the vote. I'd still say the vote is based on the gut in terms of 'my kind of guy'.

'My kind of guy' speaks to certain values not to economic plans.

Hey, what are you saying about San Jose? *breaks bottle*

It's a dump *lives safely overseas*

Can you link to the article? Also, I apologize on behalf of NorCal for... well, 80% of NorCal.

Ammm...I chose not to link the article because sometimes I find people start commenting on the article itself rather than the question or point I want to make. If you really want it I"m sure you can google and if that fails I can TG it.

It's from a mainstream newspaper rather than communistsunite.com or such.

Fun fact: George W. Bush is not, and has never been, a stupid man. In fact, when he was running for Congress back in the 70's the concern was that he sounded too intelligent and too pedantic for the region. The truth is, that whole folksy, "good ol' boy" demeanor is a carefully constructed facade that he used quite successfully to win two elections. His administration, for better or for worse, has accomplished a lot of the things it set out to do so his efficacy is hardly something to question.


He did the for "country first?"


I guess the real concern is whether or not those policies were a good thing for the country. Good perhaps for the interests he was undoubtedly aiding, but not so good for everybody else. But then again, something like 72% of the US population supported the Iraq War in 2003 so it begs the question of where the hell that remaining portion was...

Truth be told, drilling for oil in Alaska seems like a pretty good idea. It's rather disingenuous for environmentalists to oppose domestic drilling using the modern, efficient, and much more environmentally neutral techniques of the US oil industry but to have no problem with importing more oil from the developing world where environmental laws are scarce or nonexistent and the effects of pollution are far more devastating and widespread than anything that has ever happened in the US, Exxon Valdez included. We need oil for the foreseeable future, and nowhere will it be produced in such quantities a cleaner and safer manner than in the United States.

Are we guaranteed this production will only be for the US or will it go overseas? it's a "free" market afterall.

How is more drilling a good idea? Isn't rather disingenuous to suggest this will solve our problems! It was presented as such until people pointed out it will take 10 years before anything comes from a new drill site. Then it quickly turned into "it's wrong to not start somewhere"

Why not take the 10+ years for a new energy source?



Is this mindset a good thing? Hell no, not by a long shot. However, it's something educated and professional Americans need to realize and accommodate in order to make in tune with the short-term concerns of average Americans the long-term thinking that is absolutely necessary for the survival and continued prosperity of the nation.


What I find interesting is listening to the people on top of the economic ladder talk about how we must sacrifice for the greater good.

Why don't the wealthy class lead by example?

He did the for "country first?"

Just a caveat since, although your post conclusion is a sound question, I'd rather this didn't devolve into defense/attack of GWB, though I have no real control, it's more about why people vote for a particular party than the parties themselves.

Are we guaranteed this production will only be for the US or will it go overseas? it's a "free" market afterall.

How is more drilling a good idea? Isn't rather disingenuous to suggest this will solve our problems! It was presented as such until people pointed out it will take 10 years before anything comes from a new drill site. Then it quickly turned into "it's wrong to not start somewhere"

Why not take the 10+ years for a new energy source?

Hence I wonder whether the policy is about economics or causing an ideology split over environmentalism/resource use, Made in America/Importing and etc., over and above whether it's truly useful - or whether it's a nod to lobbyists alone.

Is policy aimed at people or is it aimed at the best way forward or, if it's a mixture, what's the ratio?

What I find interesting is listening to the people on top of the economic ladder talk about how we must sacrifice for the greater good.

Why don't the wealthy class lead by example?

A lot of the double standards displayed by both sides, I feel, stems from correlating 'my kind of guy' to specific policies.

How much can one separate 'my kind of guy' from 'what's good for me', plenty of instances of people following leaders without duly considering the consequences.

I've gone back and forth in replying to this post, which is a thought-provoking response.

I wonder if it's more a difference in terms of how each party looks to advertise itself. You say GWB acts folksy but the fact is that he has to do that. John McCain has to reach out to the pro-life, value-driven church establishment.

To be fair, Barack Obama has to baulk at nuclear, I wonder whether it's sense or a nod to environmentalists who have a gut reaction against nuclear.

If they have to do this, there must be reasoning, there must be the mindset that people fall into in general and in refining that message on either side, they possibly force the split wider.

In terms of small-town Democrats, I'd say they live mostly in the more industrial states where a big city mentality has some sway. Where the news is dominated by major cities in your state, and those cities are Democratic in the main, I'd say it has some effect.

I somewhat agree on economics but I suspect it's slightly divorced from the vote. I'd still say the vote is based on the gut in terms of 'my kind of guy'.

'My kind of guy' speaks to certain values not to economic plans.
The political discussion of cultural values is a luxury. Cultural values only become an important political factor when people feel prosperous and financially secure. When a voter has a job, can afford to pay his mortgage, and can afford his car payments, he can debate abortion and gay marriage all he wants.

But cultural values swiftly and decisively take a backseat when the economy is in trouble and people are worried about their financial security. When someone sees his neighbors lose their jobs, sees his own job prospects shaky, and hears horror stories on the news every night about rising oil prices and bank failures, whether or not gay people can marry is the last thing on his mind. Contemplation about gay marriage becomes trivial and stupid compared to the real-world, real-life stresses of the average voter who needs to put food on his family's table.

Discussion of cultural values played an important role in 2000, when the US was buoyed by the internet bubble, and 2004 when the US was in the middle of the gigantic real estate bubble. It remains to be seen whether cultural values will be so important in the 2008 election, when all the bubbles have long burst, and American voters are feeling increasing pressure from massive economic forces they have little control over.

Given the tedious nature of the multiple threads on why Barack Obama eats babies and John McCain wants to enforce creationism as the sole subject taught in schools, I thought this article interesting, and something I suspect most are entirely aware of, in providing context.



In one thread, someone, I think it's Balderdash, talks about different values with little compromise in between, which I can understand.



I'm not American but I've tried to make a go of it in NY, I've been out to small town Ohio and down to Virginia, I had a lovely time in Amish country and I've spent an awful two days in San Jose. Although I've certainly not made in-depth studies of America, it becomes apparent that there's wild contrasts, which should be obvious.



Yet I sometimes feel that this point is lost, debates seem unaware of this fact.



Would people say that this next paragraph is a fair statement?



Is that fair?
it cant be fair. if its a small town thing, the small town loses. there arent enough small towners to override the will of the big town people.

The political discussion of cultural values is a luxury. Cultural values only become an important political factor when people feel prosperous and financially secure. When a voter has a job, can afford to pay his mortgage, and can afford his car payments, he can debate abortion and gay marriage all he wants.

But cultural values swiftly and decisively take a backseat when the economy is in trouble and people are worried about their financial security. When someone sees his neighbors lose their jobs, sees his own job prospects shaky, and hears horror stories on the news every night about rising oil prices and bank failures, whether or not gay people can marry is the last thing on his mind. Contemplation about gay marriage becomes trivial and stupid compared to the real-world, real-life stresses of the average voter who needs to put food on his family's table.

Discussion of cultural values played an important role in 2000, when the US was buoyed by the internet bubble, and 2004 when the US was in the middle of the gigantic real estate bubble. It remains to be seen whether cultural values will be so important in the 2008 election, when all the bubbles have long burst, and American voters are feeling increasing pressure from massive economic forces they have little control over.

I'm just not sure, there's plenty of studies to show that voters vote against their economic interests where values take precedence, often heightened where the conflict between the two opposing ideologies is raised, often purposefully.

Hence, the reason attack politics works well is that it raises emotions on the subject over rational decision, 'my kind of guy' becomes more important.

Indeed there is much currency to the idea that white members of America's working class foolishly vote for values at the expense of their economic interests. But is this thesis correct? The answer, it turns out, is complicated. If the white working class is defined as those without college degrees, then yes, these voters have been crucial to Republican successes since the 1960s. In 1972, Richard Nixon deliberately aimed to "make patriotism and morality the issue and get above the material things." GOP strategists Lee Atwater and Karl Rove later led their party to success by appealing to uneducated voters on the basis of issues like religion, patriotism, gun ownership and opposition to welfare and race-based affirmative action.

Today's Republicans offer white working-class voters traditional values but not economic progressivism. Contemporary Democrats offer economic progressivism but not traditional values. While neither party gives white working class voters the blend of moderate social conservatism and moderate economic progressivism that they want, Republicans continue to benefit from the fact that in the United States, as in much of the world, identity-defining values outweigh material interests. When there is a conflict between people's pocketbooks and their values, most voters choose the latter. People who would not risk a blister for a raise will die for a creed.

Link (http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/winning_over_values_voters_7098) - again, I hesitate to link since people can attack motive of article over substance but I think the full article provides further information for those who want to read it.

EDIT: Information that also disputes my claim in parts.

it cant be fair. if its a small town thing, the small town loses. there arent enough small towners to override the will of the big town people.

In fact most Americans live in "technical" small towns, by which I am referring to the suburbs - traditionally settled by middle class white families fleeing the inner city and the black people who inhabit it.

I'm just not sure, there's plenty of studies to show that voters vote against their economic interests where values take precedence, often heightened where the conflict between the two opposing ideologies is raised, often purposefully.

Hence, the reason attack politics works well is that it raises emotions on the subject over rational decision, 'my kind of guy' becomes more important.

The "economic interests" that voters vote against tend to be abstractions thought up by the chattering classes. In all American elections besides possibly 1932, the great majority of Americans are quite optimistic about living a prosperous life themselves, or passing on a prosperous life to their children. Besides the Great Depression generation, Americans simply have never experienced actual hardship or even pessimism. In the 60s and 70s when small town whites were flocking to Goldwater and Nixon, people still felt financially secure, if not for themselves then for their children. Recent polls suggest that the current American population is the first generation to actually believe the American standard of living will decline, and it will be quite interesting to see how this psychological shift will affect society.

those suburbs are not small towns and they dont carry the values that real small towns have because of the mobility of the residents. they dont know each other they way the residents of ..... wasilla alaska do.

In fact most Americans live in "technical" small towns, by which I am referring to the suburbs - traditionally settled by middle class white families fleeing the inner city and the black people who inhabit it.Not is the other way around.

Whites fleeing the uptight suburbs and pushing the blacks into the suburbs, due to higher house prices. From there the whites in the suburbs move into the city to avoid blacks. Eventually it will reverse itself and prove the old badger saying that everything bites itself in the ass.

Not is the other way around.

Whites fleeing the uptight suburbs and pushing the blacks into the suburbs, due to higher house prices. From there the whites in the suburbs move into the city to avoid blacks. Eventually it will reverse itself and prove the old badger saying that everything bites itself in the ass.

Well, only as long as transportation costs remain high. If prices fall, they'll just keep moving farther and farther away until...

...until they meet up and form new cities that will proceed to suffer the same urban decay, eventually pushing those same white people back to the old inner cities that are now somehow the exurbs.

those suburbs are not small towns and they dont carry the values that real small towns have because of the mobility of the residents. they dont know each other they way the residents of ..... wasilla alaska do.

Starting from their history in the "white flight" era, suburbs share a lot of the same cultural background as the rural small towns - feeling threatened by affirmative action, entitlement programs, etc. Suburbanites might not be so doctrinaire about abortion or gay rights but in the suburbs there are a substantial number of Republicans , which is the topic of the thread.

Not is the other way around.

Whites fleeing the uptight suburbs and pushing the blacks into the suburbs, due to higher house prices. From there the whites in the suburbs move into the city to avoid blacks. Eventually it will reverse itself and prove the old badger saying that everything bites itself in the ass.

Lol did you watch "End of Oil"?

those suburbs are not small towns and they dont carry the values that real small towns have because of the mobility of the residents. they dont know each other they way the residents of ..... wasilla alaska do.

Yet they still get to live the way they want to, they have choice. The difference seems to be that they aim to impose their insular, traditional values on all others - actually they don't, I doubt they really look to impose anything, but to gain their vote the R's promise this on their agenda, thus imposition by default.

Those values are fine for small town America but that doesn't necessarily work on a national scale and certainly an international scale.

It's not that they're intrinsically bad values, it's that they work on specific locality. They're exclusive of other values, values that don't necessarily affect them overall, they simply disapprove of them.

The point is that, by reaching out to those votes on value alone, it creates a two-part America rather than a rational choice of 'what's best for me'. In return, it creates a fairly conflicting atmosphere that means that the Democrats become judgmental in terms of debating with this strand of thought and both sides essentially degenerate, as witnessed by the multiple threads on various value arguments rather than policy.

My own POV is probably becoming a little clear :)

One side needs some mass murder.

Lol did you watch "End of Oil"?

Hey, I'm still waiting for the complete collapse of industrial society. According to the Olduvai theory, we're already a good eight years overdue and per-capita energy consumption is still rising and hasn't peaked yet. This is not good for the survivalist industry.

What the shit. I mean, it's great for those of us who like modern technology and don't like death, but still...

of course not.

Truth be told, drilling for oil in Alaska seems like a pretty good idea. It's rather disingenuous for environmentalists to oppose domestic drilling using the modern, efficient, and much more environmentally neutral techniques of the US oil industry but to have no problem with importing more oil from the developing world where environmental laws are scarce or nonexistent and the effects of pollution are far more devastating and widespread than anything that has ever happened in the US, Exxon Valdez included. We need oil for the foreseeable future, and nowhere will it be produced in such quantities a cleaner and safer manner than in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_in_order

United States have currently confirmed oil reserves of 21 billion barrels.

The consumption of the United States is 7 billion barrels a year.

Well, I think comments are unnecessary.

of course not.

You're clearly wrong.

Palin, while beginning with a soft-focus potted bio of her life as a mother of five in small town Alaska, soon shifted from folksiness into full frontal attack. She framed the argument against the Democrat, Barack Obama, along a cultural divide between left and right, urban and rural, secular and religious, that was readily recognisable to the crowd.

An extract from her speech, which she's just given, coming after I started this thread.

"A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.

I grew up with those people.

They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories and fight our wars.

They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town."

It's a clear 'them and us' speech rather than a policy speech.

We're straight talkers not like them educated folks who look down on us...

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

This is a vote on 'my kind of guy', and America is divided ever more down the lines of two perceived types of people, the folksy town boy and the intellectual city type.

Compare to Barack Obama's speech...

Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America — there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Of course, having said that, they've both gone for character not policy, one can compare both, very similar format.

1. My humble beginnings
2. The other candidate's a bastard
3. I'll make your life better

Barack Obama (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-27-obama-speech-text_x.htm)

Sarah Palin (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/04/uselections2008.sarahpalin)

We await John McCain with interest.

I'd say both sides resort to this, it's about character not policy and when you go through policy details, to be really honest, they're not wildly different, not different enough to affect the average person.

It's as though it's all a big con game where they huddle together to determine America's roadmap and then throw out two candidates for each party in the pretense that the public has any control other than choosing its Prom King & Queen, divide and conquer.

The difference is between moving backwards or forward; traditional + religious or progressive + secular. It's as though the elections are merely a barometer of public attitudes to these and that's actually what any of you are voting for.

So, all bickering aside, there's the choice, more closed, nationalist and regressive or open, global and progressive.

I'd say both sides resort to this, it's about character not policy and when you go through policy details, to be really honest, they're not wildly different, not different enough to affect the average person.


Candidates never talk about policy in the US - except in the vaguest generalities like 'fighting for issues like employment - because if they say anything concrete the retarded attack dog media jumps all over them if even the slightest misjudgment is seems to have been made. Look what happened to BHO with the iraq surge.

So it's just easier for both sides to say nothing.

Also, if you say anything specific, like unveiling a detailed plan before you are elected, it's far too easy for the lazy media to fill up air time and column inches asking 'experts' why said plan is shit.

So all you'll ever hear is 'morning for america' tripe. It's all about presentation.

Once you are elected its no longer a problem, because those plans are treated differently in that no-one is going to seriously offer counter proposals as people are just too interested in stopping you flat.

Candidates never talk about policy in the US - except in the vaguest generalities like 'fighting for issues like employment - because if they say anything concrete the retarded attack dog media jumps all over them if even the slightest misjudgment is seems to have been made. Look what happened to BHO with the iraq surge.

So it's just easier for both sides to say nothing.

Sure, except the media simply report what sells. Since the switch from owners with a political agenda to corporate profit-oriented owners, reporting is simply a brand exercise.

We're the consumers.

I'm just here to make a pedantic joke don't mind me...

Of course theres two Americas!
North America and South America

The problem is that when they're [small town America] running the whole country, they want to take away abortion rights, drill for oil in Alaska, ignore climate change, and start unwinnable wars. With the small-town Republican mindset in charge, the rest of America and the rest of the world is forced to live by small-town values, which aren't much help when you're trying to decide what, if anything, can be done about Iranian nuclear ambitions or more humbly, workplace date rape.

It's not fair to say. I appreciate you're trying to look at it objectively but this paragraph assumes certain truths believed by the left, which the small town American right disagrees with, and still characterizing them as being wrong for not agreeing, which was one of the problems mentioned earlier in your post.

1)"Take away abortion rights" Assumes it's a right, which is the matter under debate with these very people.
2)"Drill for oil in Alaska" implies this is an inherently bad thing in the context of the paragraph
3)"ignore climate change" assumes they'd ignore it, which they do not. They simply don't see it the same way.
4)"start unwinnable wars" Which unwinnable wars? Even Congressional Democrats are admitting that we're winning in Iraq.

This is just an example of the "they're stupid because they don't see things as we do" mentality, trying to be kinder by characterizing them not as stupid, just uninformed by virtue of living on a farm.

I'm curious as to what causal link the author assumes exists between proximity to a city center and an understanding if world issues. They do have computers, Internet and television in small towns just as they do in big cities, you know. ;)

One side needs some mass murder.
It'd be a lot easier to kill the urbanites, as we're already in tight quarters already. It would probably take less than a million dollars to purchase the needed chemicals to gas us all.

Although I've certainly not made in-depth studies of America, it becomes apparent that there's wild contrasts, which should be obvious.
Well, yes. That's what happens when you try to have 300 million people spread across 3.5 million square miles run the same democratic system.

All I'll say on the matter is that there are some Americans I get on with and there are some I don't, and that I hope the two don't split up, because although I'd really like one of the resulting nations, the other would seriously try my ability to remain neutral with regards to the American state.

They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories and fight our wars.

This line from Sarah Palin's speech has been bugging me. The Republicans talk through myths, those they aim to reach with this message and those they actually describe are different and these are, in truth, the very people they screw utterly. Those who grow food are the immigrants that the Republicans demonise, those that work the factories are told unions are a menace and those who fight the wars.... well it almost beggars belief.

It's not fair to say. I appreciate you're trying to look at it objectively but this paragraph assumes certain truths believed by the left, which the small town American right disagrees with, and still characterizing them as being wrong for not agreeing, which was one of the problems mentioned earlier in your post.

1)"Take away abortion rights" Assumes it's a right, which is the matter under debate with these very people.

It almost makes me laugh that those who call for less government control accept such intrusion into the family life, to control and define the family and how people should behave, who they should be with and what they should do...

...until it applies to them.

Don't you see the branding? Don't you see that it relates in no way to those devising that brand?

2)"Drill for oil in Alaska" implies this is an inherently bad thing in the context of the paragraph

I wouldn't honestly know the absolute need for such drilling, maybe it's necessary maybe it's not. I'm not sure why it's an issue and I suspect it's more a problem of Democratic gut reaction against big oil, it's a brand issue not a real issue.

3)"ignore climate change" assumes they'd ignore it, which they do not. They simply don't see it the same way.

Please explain, in what way do they see it? Nearly every scientist says it's a problem that needs addressing now. Politicians seem to think they know better but who are we to trust those looking to divide opinion with outright lies for a vote compared to those who are looking at the evidence. I'm sure the Democrats lie as well to profit from this issue but surely the scientists are the ones to listen to here?

4)"start unwinnable wars" Which unwinnable wars? Even Congressional Democrats are admitting that we're winning in Iraq.

This is open to future knowledge I suppose, it wasn't to defeat Al Qaeda though.

This is just an example of the "they're stupid because they don't see things as we do" mentality, trying to be kinder by characterizing them not as stupid, just uninformed by virtue of living on a farm.

We're all pretty stupid in this regard, the difference lies in the brand advertised, progressive or regressive.

I'm curious as to what causal link the author assumes exists between proximity to a city center and an understanding if world issues. They do have computers, Internet and television in small towns just as they do in big cities, you know. ;)

It's not about proximity, it's about mentality, does one have small-town mentality, one can live anywhere but electoral lines seem to suggest the trend. I'm also not sure whether a connection to the Internet automatically confers enlightenment rather than connection to similar mindsets. Just because the information is there does not mean that people either listen or are even receptive to it.

Seriously, why do people vote the way they do, vote against their interests, is there really a rational reason?

Why do people choose between Coke or Pepsi, which are also similar products with mere brand identity to differentiate them?

The difference in politics is not just ingredients though, it's about the society you choose to live in.

Progressive or regressive.

I think I'm staying out of this one. Why? I'm not American and I don't think I have the right to comment on the country's politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_in_order

United States have currently confirmed oil reserves of 21 billion barrels.

The consumption of the United States is 7 billion barrels a year.

Well, I think comments are unnecessary.

I don't think anyone is arguing that we can meet our domestic needs through drilling. That is not and has not been possible since the 1930's; even if we used CO2-enhanced recovery on old fields and developed all of the recoverable conventional oil, oil shale and kerogen out there, we'd still come up short due to the physical limitations on those fields. However, the less we have to import, the less money that goes overseas to potentially hostile and unstable nations and the more that stays at home, strengthening our dollar and bringing down commodity prices. Our economy needs all the investment it can get right now, and oil production is one key component of that plan.

Plus, environmentally, there's no comparison between US oil production and Nigerian or Saudi production. We actually make and enforce laws that keep environmental abuses in check. Overall, it benefits us to produce more oil domestically, especially if we use taxes on that production to encourage further development in alternative/renewable energy and mitigating the environmental costs of fossil fuels.

However, the less we have to import, the less money that goes overseas to potentially hostile and unstable nations and the more that stays at home, strengthening our dollar and bringing down commodity prices.
Money is worthless, only commodities have worth. You can print money if you need it and have commodities backing it. BTW, more money generally makes prices go up.
In the case of US, it's cheaper to produce commodities to exchange for oil than oil itself. Thus you have more people left to produce more commodities [after those exchanged for oil]. So the prices go down with an active export-import economy rather than a protectionist one.

Furthermore, most of these commodities are services and "intellectual property", i.e. ones particularly profitable to export.

Plus, environmentally, there's no comparison between US oil production and Nigerian or Saudi production.
I'm not sure there's much difference. Also note that these nations drill basically in the desert anyway.

Overall, it benefits us to produce more oil domestically, especially if we use taxes on that production
Then gasoline prices go up.


And then this small oil reserve, drilled "for the sake of patriotism", is exhausted, and US becomes absolutely dependent on imports. Including in case of war.

i grew up in a blue state that was really a red state, and i now live in a blue state.

i can attest that there really are two americas out there right now.

my life's journey, in a nutshell, will tell you my credentials:

i grew up on a farm in central illinois; illinois would be a red state, if it wasn't for chicago, let me tell you. most of illinois (geographically) is as red as kentucky and iowa, and that's where i grew up. chicago's just so huge in population that, in a general election, it totally skews the vote. yet, illinois is considered to be---based on statistics relative to at least twenty geographic and demographic factors---the best microcosmic representation of the u.s. as a whole. (i think that's on wikipedia!)

i lived several years in a downstate major college town, which was still pretty red for a college town---because it's in the middle of illinois.

then i lived in chicago for seven years. i worked for an ambulance service for part of that time and really got to see how everybody is living---from the suburbs to the projects. i understand why the big cities are so blue.

now, i live in the bluest part of a blue state---madison, wisconsin---a college town (small city) so liberal that it used to be called "the berkeley of the midwest". obama spoke down the street from me, during the run-up.



i have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that there really are two americas out there. it's even dividing my family.

"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."
-- George Bernard Shaw

I am a small town man. I am a Republican. I get angry when America is insulted. I think everyone on this world should be able to worship, vote, and associate as they please without governmental intererence. I think that any regime that opposes those freedoms is the enemy of the United States.

I think that America has done some terrible things like abandoning Vietnam. We have done some terrible things during the Cold War where we got into alliances with dictatorships merely so that those dictatorships would not ally with the USSR.

I see good and evil in the world. So does George Bush. People that do not understand that good and evil exists in the world make me uneasy. I do not consider my beliefs to be the result of a lack of intelligence. I am a well educated man. I have noticed that a lot of professors are liberals today. I think this does not mean that liberals are smart and conservatives are dumb. I think that a lot of people who opposed the Vietnam war enrolled in grad schools to avoid their military duties to their nation and to freedom of their foreign brethren.

If there is anyone that really disagrees with the idea that hard work is noble, that freedoms are worth fighting for, and that evil must be opposed with violence if necessary, I would not be comfortable associating with them. The only exception is people who are consciencious objectors.

To the extent that there are liberals who oppose these core beliefs, there are two Americas. People who oppose these core beliefs seem completely alien to me.

I never understood why hard work was noble. If you can get the same thing done without breaking a sweat, is that somehow less moral than if you used a lot of effort?

I think that America has done some terrible things like abandoning Vietnam. We have done some terrible things during the Cold War where we got into alliances with dictatorships merely so that those dictatorships would not ally with the USSR.
It baffles me that you can write those two sentences one right after the other. One of those "alliances with dictatorships" was the one with that godawful clique in South Vietnam, on behalf of which we blew up the country for years on end-- and you apparently think we should have continued doing so?

Is that fair?

I don't really think it's fair to say that this dichotomy necessarily exists. Yes, that is how the politicians want to paint it. Those who seek to legislate personal values (ie. anti-gay, in favor of banning abortion) will try and paint anyone who doesn't as "elitist" (which is often a stand-in word for intellectual) and clearly opposed to other "small town values", such as friendliness and strong families, but no such dichotomy actually exists. Likewise, those on the other side often paint their opponents as stupid, when one need not be unintelligent to be authoritarian.

In truth, nobody thinks small town voters are stupid because they value the strength of their family, neighborliness, etc. No one looks down on them for that. But if it gets painted that way, it makes a difference in voting patterns.

Quote:
The problem is that when they're [small town America] running the whole country, they want to take away abortion rights, drill for oil in Alaska, ignore climate change, and start unwinnable wars. With the small-town Republican mindset in charge, the rest of America and the rest of the world is forced to live by small-town values, which aren't much help when you're trying to decide what, if anything, can be done about Iranian nuclear ambitions or more humbly, workplace date rape.
Is that fair?

Flip the problem on its head. Liberal America can and does force small town America to live by its values, namely a large, expensive federal government at the expense of the states and individuals. The taxes required to support such a government fundamentally disrupt the way most small-town folks like to live their lives. Not to mention a federal government at the expense of state government means that the government is even more far-removed and alien to the people of the small towns. And for the small town folk in the US, liberal foreign policy doesn't make much sense either, given that virtually all US wars have been won with that bullheaded, stand strong attitude, while liberal foreign policy ideas like making concessions to the "enemy" has yielded Neville Chamberlain.

I'm not saying I agree with Republicans (I don't), but I certainly understand where they're coming from. It's not that one-sided.

It's not about proximity, it's about mentality, does one have small-town mentality, one can live anywhere but electoral lines seem to suggest the trend. I'm also not sure whether a connection to the Internet automatically confers enlightenment rather than connection to similar mindsets. Just because the information is there does not mean that people either listen or are even receptive to it.

This is certainly true. My in-laws have been introduced to sites like snopes and factcheck.org multiple times, and yet they still only seem to read (or believe) extremely biased and generally near-completely false articles.

And one only has to look to conservapedia to recognize the fact that having information out there does not mean that people look at it. Some just declare it "liberal" and make up their own "truth".

The problem isn't the small-town attitude of many republicans, or the urban mind-set of many democrats. It's the inability of our politicians to reconcile both of these beliefs.

Neither side is completely right. Neither side is totally wrong. However, when one side or the other takes power, they act as if the other side has their heads stuck up their rectum and set about "fixing" the world to reflect their particular world-view.

The only way to solve this problem is to have truly bi-partisan efforts towards changing the way things are done. Unfortunately, neither side wants this, they simply want power to hammer their ideas into the heads of Americans. I don't believe either McCain or Obama are capable of the type of reform needed in our politics.

Flip the problem on its head. Liberal America can and does force small town America to live by its values, namely a large, expensive federal government at the expense of the states and individuals. The taxes required to support such a government fundamentally disrupt the way most small-town folks like to live their lives. Not to mention a federal government at the expense of state government means that the government is even more far-removed and alien to the people of the small towns. And for the small town folk in the US, liberal foreign policy doesn't make much sense either, given that virtually all US wars have been won with that bullheaded, stand strong attitude, while liberal foreign policy ideas like making concessions to the "enemy" has yielded Neville Chamberlain.

I'm not saying I agree with Republicans (I don't), but I certainly understand where they're coming from. It's not that one-sided.

Come again? Neville Chamberlain was British. I suppose I'll return to that. . .

Suffice to say however, that there is one glaring problem with your analysis: red states are net importers of federal dollars (i.e. they receive more in financing than they pay in taxes), and vice versa blue states. So yes, there is a disruption, but it's life support, not some kind of detriment.

Because, he explained, people in small towns don't like or trust intellectuals, particularly ones who appear to be sneering at them for their supposed stupidity. They admire a plain-speaking man; it's what they know and what they are used to.

They always assumed Bush was a regular guy who could keep his thoughts concise.
I like the point made by one of the comics on Lewis Black's Root of All Evil.
"People liked George W. Bush because they felt he was some one they could have a beer with. Maybe you are watching this in a bar right now. Look around; see anyone presidents there?"

[QUOTE=Gift-of-god;13984069]I never understood why hard work was noble. If you can get the same thing done without breaking a sweat, is that somehow less moral than if you used a lot of effort?[/QUOTE

Work is noble. Slacking really is not. If you are able to work more efficiently that is fine just keep working. Even if you are retired and spend your time working by doing hobbies at least put some effort into them.

It baffles me that you can write those two sentences one right after the other. One of those "alliances with dictatorships" was the one with that godawful clique in South Vietnam, on behalf of which we blew up the country for years on end-- and you apparently think we should have continued doing so?

South Vietnam had room for improvement but it was a sovereign nation invade by its commie neighbor who was much worse.

It'd be a lot easier to kill the urbanites, as we're already in tight quarters already. It would probably take less than a million dollars to purchase the needed chemicals to gas us all.

But then the wrong side would be exterminated! Will someone please think of the unaborted Foetii?

Suffice to say however, that there is one glaring problem with your analysis: red states are net importers of federal dollars (i.e. they receive more in financing than they pay in taxes), and vice versa blue states. So yes, there is a disruption, but it's life support, not some kind of detriment.

What's your source? I don't doubt you, just wondering. I've found always this very ironic given the supposed self-sufficiency Republicans seem to advocate along with small government.

Money is worthless, only commodities have worth.

Commodities have the same innate value as money, ie zero.

But then the wrong side would be exterminated! Will someone please think of the unaborted Foetii?
Neither me nor Firefox believe that the last two words you used exist. So, no, I won't think of them. Or it. Or her, whatever it is I might think of.

Suffice to say however, that there is one glaring problem with your analysis: red states are net importers of federal dollars (i.e. they receive more in financing than they pay in taxes), and vice versa blue states. So yes, there is a disruption, but it's life support, not some kind of detriment.

But how much of that has to do with the distribution of military bases and other federal facilities? Don't forget, of course, that many red states also have poor minority and white populations that vote Democratic and which receive a significant amount entitlement funds from Medicare/Medicaid and welfare.

Blue states are generally wealthier, so they pay more taxes as a share of income. More educated populations tend to earn more money and vote Democrat on the basis of social issues; since they don't need to make decisions on an economic basis, they have the comparable luxury of voting solely based on social issues and so those Democratic social liberals tend to have an edge. However, it's also important to note that most of the fastest-growing states are more conservative, at least economically, compared to the more economically liberal Rust Belt states. There are so many entangling issues that it's hard to really make any associations either way.

Very few people honestly believe small-town people are stupid. I know I don't. I think they are ignorant of some things, and they are, just like I'm ignorant of some things. Ignorance is not shameful.

Willful ignorance is shameful. Refusing to think critically is shameful. Encouraging both of these--which most politicians do--is the most shameful of all.

But how much of that has to do with the distribution of military bases and other federal facilities? Don't forget, of course, that many red states also have poor minority and white populations that vote Democratic and which receive a significant amount entitlement funds from Medicare/Medicaid and welfare.

Blue states are generally wealthier, so they pay more taxes as a share of income. More educated populations tend to earn more money and vote Democrat on the basis of social issues; since they don't need to make decisions on an economic basis, they have the comparable luxury of voting solely based on social issues and so those Democratic social liberals tend to have an edge. However, it's also important to note that most of the fastest-growing states are more conservative, at least economically, compared to the more economically liberal Rust Belt states. There are so many entangling issues that it's hard to really make any associations either way.

Indeed it's far more complicated than we choose to think about. Yet most of us can only take in simple messaging and, frankly, I don't think there's much movement in the tax situation for the majority of citizens regardless of which party's in power. $20 here, $5 there.

The main difference in philosophy, I think, is whether lowering taxes on the rich and on corporations causes job growth over funding into social areas.

Frankly, I just don't think it's the former because I don't think the average worker sees the gains. When a company makes good profit, those benefits are not seen down the chain, the raises and bonuses accrue to the top, in ever increasing numbers.

Where one company is growing, another is dying so we get a balance, how much difference have we seen in the average unemployment figures over the last 30 years? Under which administrations were they better or worse and, really, does the president have that much influence?

The marked change has been the discrepancy between wages at the top and the bottom.

So, for me, education is the true key to stimulating jobs and that requires investment, the general health of the nation is also a key and that requires investment. Ultimately this should help businesses to progress, innovate and gain efficiency of hours among its workers.

I just feel that those the Republicans reach out to on values are those who are screwed economically overall.

Alas, people think on an individual basis not an overall basis.

Encouraging both of these--which most politicians do--is the most shameful of all.

I pretty much agree, I don't doubt that a lot of good, hard work is done in government and, shame to say, I don't think we give them too much credit. I suspect they'd like to do more but hit the barrier of ideological opposition.

Lacadaemon made this point earlier, it's a vicious vortex where the media has to attack one side or the other and the voice of reason is lost. Beyond that, readers rarely get past headlines and headlines, as we've seen only too often on these boards, very rarely encompass the truth of the matter or even the article it heads.

What's your source? I don't doubt you, just wondering. I've found always this very ironic given the supposed self-sufficiency Republicans seem to advocate along with small government.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html