Red States/ Blue States

[Kooperman]

Talking Points by Joshua Micah Marshall

(November 09, 2004 -- 02:54 PM EDT)

A few years ago, before the 2000 election, I did a lot of research for what I thought might be a long article or a book on the cultural and social distinctiveness of what we now call Blue and Red America. One motivating interest of mine at the time was a widespread perception in at least a segment of elite public opinion that the Red States were the source of the country’s moral ballast.

‘Elite’ has many meanings. But here I was thinking of the talking heads on the Sunday shows, the best-read newspaper columnists, authors of well-read books and so forth. It was certainly the self-perception of the political voices of Red State America (Remember Newt Gingrich’s claim that Susan Smith, who murdered her two young sons in South Carolina and then tried to pin the blame on a black man, was a product of the Great Society.) But what struck me even more was that it was a perception shared by many --- at least many of the elite opinion-makers of the sort I discussed above --- in Blue America.

It was a window into an odd sort of self-loathing or self-critique that interested me greatly.

The oddity of this Red State moralism argument emerges most clearly when you look at statistics for virtually every form of quantifiable social dysfunction. Divorce, out-of-wedlock birth, poverty, murder, incidence of preventable disease --- go down the list and you’ll see that they are all highest in the reddest states and lowest in the bluest.

There are exceptions certainly --- the Prairie states being the key examples. But the pattern is striking and consistent.

The issue that interested me most were the statistics on murder, in part because they seemed to have the most interesting historical roots. Murder rates are also least affected by cultural bias. For instance, non-reporting of rape varies widely from country to country and region to region. The same can be true of assault. Murder, on the other hand, tends to get reported, regardless of the cultural context.

Thankfully, murder rates in the United States have dropped rapidly over the last decade. But the regional patterns remain. Broadly speaking, New England and the parts of the country originally settled by New Englanders have low murder rates --- some only a fraction of the national averages. The South on the other hand, and the parts of the country originally settled by Southerners, have higher murder rates. (The highest homicide rates are in the Old Southwest --- Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.)

The regional patterns get even more interesting when you drill down deeper into them.

Commonsense would probably tell most of us that big cities have higher murder rates than suburbs and small towns. And that’s true. But not everywhere. In the North and in much of Blue State America, for instance, big cities have higher rates of homicide. But in the South the pattern is turned on its head. The murder rate is highest in the small towns and rural areas.

Digging deeper still we find another difference --- though here the evidence becomes a bit murkier and less definitive. In the North, where murder rates are higher in urban centers, they tend to track with the commission of felonies.

In other words, people get killed by people who are in the process of committing felonies --- whether those be drug sales, muggings, robberies gone bad, organized crime, or something else. But in the Southern states, where murder rates are higher in small towns and rural areas, this isn’t the case. Rather than happening in the process of committing other crimes, these murders tend to be rooted in what are best described as violations of honor, personal slights that escalate into violence or in the simplest sense, rage.

The role of honor, or rather status and respect, caught my attention because it dovetailed with issues I’d dealt with in my academic research in graduate school --- comparisons between how the early northern and southern colonies were organized in the 17th and 18th centuries, really obscure stuff like how violence was used to organize society and discipline labor.

In any case, with the regional political cleavages so marked now and apparently even more entrenched than before, it got me to thinking over these issues again, about the historical roots of the cultural cleavages we now see before us.

I want to return to that point. But let me finish this post on a slightly different, but related, note.

Coming out of this election we hear again and again that folks in the Blue states have to give up their attitude of condescension toward those in the Red. The story comes in different flavors and intensities, ranging from admonitions to ‘reach out’ to folks in the Red states to more acidy claims that folks in the Blue states need to get over their alleged hatred of religion and Red state culture.

At some level, something like this is certainly necessary. I can do the math as well as anyone. And what these last two elections have shown (particularly this last one) is that if the country is divided more or less evenly, that ‘more or less’ isn’t working in our (i.e., the Blue states) favor. We’re in the minority for the moment, even if it’s a close run thing. And Democrats can’t keep going into elections in which so many states are simply out of play. As I wrote a couple days ago, Democrats need to find a way to put a good half dozen more states into play in every election.

Yet, the immediate political question isn’t the only one to discuss.

The talking point about Red State ‘culture’ is often bandied about as though the Red States were the only ones which had one --- as though the Blue States were living in some deracinated post-cultural secular-dom. But at the risk of stating the obvious the Blue states --- to the extent we can talk in such broad brush strokes --- have one too.

You can define it in a variety of ways. I’d say it’s based in modernity and tolerance. But once you see it in that light, is it simply a matter of the Blue States having an attitude of condescension toward the Red ones? The country has become sufficiently divided that there is a good deal of mistrust and animosity on both sides. And I think it is fair to say that that ill-will on the part of the Blue state America does sometimes express itself as condescension.

But the bad feeling of Red State America toward the Blue is just as often expressed as contempt, moral denunciation or simple rage. To the extent that one hears Blue Staters dissing Red Staters as holy-rolling trailer park denizens, the Red staters routinely portray their fellow countrymen as corrupt, deviant, rootless perverts who express their flipflopper-dom by oscillating between being limp-wristed whiners on the one hand and signing up to work for Osama bin Laden as terrorist fifth-columnists on the other.

All joking aside, I don't think either side in the Blue-State/Red-State face off has a monopoly on unkind views of the other, though given the 51%-48% it is a more pressing concern for those on the Blue parts of the map.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003958.php

[DudeAsInCool]

Interesting, though I think religion probably plays a bigger role than murder statistics. Isnt this also really a conflict between urban and small town America?

[DudeAsInCool]

Here's a more accurate mapping representation via Robert Vandervbai:

[Shawn]

Here's a more accurate mapping representation via Robert Vandervbai:

Was there any explanation of the black squares?

[DudeAsInCool]

Was there any explanation of the black squares?

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

Yes.

Using County-by-County election return data from USA Today together with County boundary data from the US Census' Tiger database we produced the following graphic depicting the results. Of course, blue is for the democrats, red is for the republicans, and green is for all other. Each county's color is a mix of these three color components in proportion to the results for that county.

Counties shown in black represent either missing election data or a mismatch between the US Census data and the USA Today data. For example, the New England states' election return data is given for each municipality and/or district rather than for each county. Hence, it couldn't be easily matched with the county boundaries.

[Kooperman]

Here's a more accurate mapping representation via Robert Vandervbai:

?More accurate than what? The article expresses cultural and sociological aspects of the dividing points between Donkeys and Elephants, with comparisons and contrasts of morality and murder revealing some basic underlying reasons why the numbers look like they do. It's not intended to be a red/blue/purple map.

[DudeAsInCool]

?More accurate than what? The article expresses cultural and sociological aspects of the dividing points between Donkeys and Elephants, with comparisons and contrasts of morality and murder revealing some basic underlying reasons why the numbers look like they do. It's not intended to be a red/blue/purple map.

More accurate than the Red-Blue state map product that we have been seeing

[slum_goddess]

thanks for this--i saw it yesterday and sent it out to people. i think jonah micah marshall is the voice of reason, a national treasure.

[Amber]

I don't have many thoughts on this other than....when the older 60+ population passes on, we will turn into a very Democratic run gov't . If you think about it...their generation were raised that you have EVERY kid you get pregnant with{rape or not} women are to stay home and raise them, man works, church going, and straight up high browed peoples :bigsmile:

When you get down to the younger generations they become more and more liberated and want "the best" so, we will see.

[Redneck4sure]

Cool map dude. Now I know where the highest concentration of targets is to be found. :good job:

[DudeAsInCool]

Hollywood's feeling blue and seeing red

Tue Nov 9, 2:11 PM ET

Online Staff, STAFF

HOURS AFTER John Kerry (news - web sites) conceded to President Bush (news - web sites), a map began making the email rounds that renamed the great crimson mass of Republican states as its own breakaway nation, "Jesusland."

That same day Tim Winter, exec director of the Parents Television Council, suggested that Hollywood shouldn't ignore the influence of "moral values" on the election -- that is, the theoretical "Hollywood" in New York and L.A. that tends to dismiss the fly-over territory between them.

For a week I've absorbed scads of analysis about the great cultural divide, much of it emanating from media folks lamenting the need to co-exist with the pitchfork-waving rabble. As "The Daily Show's" Lewis Black put it last week, Americans remain free to pursue their dreams, "so long as that dream doesn't make Midwesterners feel 'icky.' "

Still, whatever people may tell pollsters, I'm not convinced that pop culture, at least, can be dissected quite so readily into the red and blue.

CERTAINLY, THE IMPACT of religion and so-called traditional values has been evident long before this election, from CBS' success with "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman" and "Touched by an Angel" in the 1990s to the controversy-into-cash miracle of "The Passion of the Christ." Such surprise hits are usually attributed to a backlash against the licentiousness of big media, fostering pent-up demand for such fare.

As with most multilayered issues, however, the search for black-and-white answers yields perplexing shades of gray. For starters, except for the most vocal minorities, the "outrage" over permissiveness in entertainment runs wide but not especially deep, as people often express support for one thing but view another.

In that respect, New York Times columnist William Safire got it half right on "Meet the Press" Sunday when he cited Janet Jackson (news)'s great boob escape for having mobilized those alarmed by the coarse drift of popular culture. Yes, that was a significant moment, but it took an event with the Super Bowl's massive reach to briefly awaken that group, even with all the orchestrated letter-writing campaigns and ineffectual boycotts in the past designed to marshal those forces.

By the same token, at a time when "Will & Grace" is well established, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" became a cable hit and Ellen DeGeneres (news)' chat show is thriving, the Democratic presidential candidate so feared alienating voters that he expressed opposition to gay marriage. In other words, fans might sing along at Elton John (news) concerts (and, if ABC has its way, laugh at his sitcom), but the singer's glass platform heels offer as much transparency as many wish to see.

DURING HIS KEYNOTE address at the Democratic National Convention, newly elected Illinois Sen. Barack Obama downplayed the notion of a geographic fissure by emphasizing areas of common ground. "We worship an awesome God in the blue states ... and yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states," he said, characterizing talk of division as a choice between "a politics of cynicism or ... a politics of hope."

Cynicism too often reigns supreme in Hollywood, but in terms of popular tastes, Obama has a point. Plenty are watching trashy-good TV like "Desperate Housewives" and "Nip/Tuck" in red states, and tuning in the wholesome "7th Heaven" in blue states. They rent "Kill Bill" in red states and take kids to see "The Incredibles" in blue states. California's conservative Orange County, for that matter, surfs the same wave of channels as bluer than blue L.A.

The ultimate challenge remains how best to connect with both the red and the blue, delivering a spectrum of choices catering to more libertine and libertarian views while creating havens for those who fear MTV is making teenagers gay, nymphomaniacal or both.

Hollywood actually does a pretty good job of doing just that, assuming one bothers to look -- which, of course, political opportunists seldom do. While auteurs yearn to impress friends by testing boundaries with edgy R-rated fare, studios know Christmas is merrier with a "Harry Potter (news - web sites)"-like franchise under the tree, and Robert Zemeckis used his A-list muscle to direct a lavish G-rated children's movie, "The Polar Express."

Granted, media power brokers nestled in blue states have much to learn about their brethren in the heartland. Yet despite the venom that cultural warriors spew to inflame passions and sell books, there is enough shared experience, enough overlap, to find a happy medium.

Let's call it "The Color Purple."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._and_seeing_red

[Kooperman]

The fact is that at least one of the political parties stands to gain more from a divided America and does everything in it's power to create an us-against-them atmosphere. The falsifications of the discredited Swift Boat For "Truth" group, the constant attacks on John Kerry's supposed moral deficiencies by the GOP attack dogs (remember the ludicrous "affair" that Drudge breathlessly bannered? Another total fabrication.), and the almost daily reminders that Kerry was rich, and not like us (anybody ever take a look at George Bush's family finances? They make Kerry's parents look like beggars). The Republicans thrive on division of the voters....it'll happen every four years, like clockwork. Set your watches now.

[rastaX]

Ya gotta wonder what the hell the Republicans have been doing for the last 10 years they've been in power. They have a concentration of power that has been unprecedented and yet it seems all they can do is whine that the liberals have screwed this up or the left wing biased media is unfair. Well, if the Democrats were able to have all this socalled tax and spend legislation passed in spite of the fact that there were always pretty large numbers of Republicans in the house and senate as well as Republican Presidents in the White House, it would seem like more of the Republican agenda would have been easily passed. I would think that the pro life agenda would have been pushed and easily passed, if they wanted to that is. The fact of the matter is they are more interested in destroying their opposition than of actually accomplishing anything they have promised. To suceed with repealing abortion rights would eliminate a very strong outspoken anti Democrat movement.

To discredit the media will allow them the freedom of operating without the scrutiny that a free press affords. The first duty of a free press is to question the government in power and to hold them accountable. This is a big part of the checks and balances of a free nation. Once this scrutiny is gone, we become a nation of state run information.

The Republicans don't seem to be concerned with enacting the changes that brough them to power as much as consolidating that power. It is very disquieting that not only are they able to do this, but are doing it with the wholehearted approval of a great number of Americans. They have been able to tap into the Super Bowl mentality of Americans supporting their team and winning at any cost. The weakening of the 2 party system and the discrediting of Americas free press can only lead to progressively less and less freedom.

[Redneck4sure]

Koop, once again I respectfully disagree with that baseless diatribe.

But I still admire your adamant steadfast support of a flip-flopper. :bigsmile:

You know Koop, we really are worlds apart but what the heck. :Here's to you:

[Kooperman]

Koop, once again I respectfully disagree with that baseless diatribe.

But I still admire your adamant steadfast support of a flip-flopper. :bigsmile:

You know Koop, we really are worlds apart but what the heck. :Here's to you:

What exactly do you find baseless?

[Redneck4sure]

The fact is that at least one of the political parties stands to gain more from a divided America and does everything in it's power to create an us-against-them atmosphere. The falsifications of the discredited Swift Boat For "Truth" group, the constant attacks on John Kerry's supposed moral deficiencies by the GOP attack dogs (remember the ludicrous "affair" that Drudge breathlessly bannered? Another total fabrication.), and the almost daily reminders that Kerry was rich, and not like us (anybody ever take a look at George Bush's family finances? They make Kerry's parents look like beggars). The Republicans thrive on division of the voters....it'll happen every four years, like clockwork. Set your watches now.

That part.

[Kooperman]

you've breathed way too much gunpowder, you know that?

[Kooperman]

But I still admire your adamant steadfast support of a flip-flopper. :bigsmile:

How you think I support the flip-flopping bushie is beyond me...here's a couple dozen or so of his policy flip flops

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site...WJcP7H&b=118263

[Redneck4sure]

you've breathed way too much gunpowder, you know that?

It's not the gunpowder. It's the lead in the bullets that causes brain problems such as slow learning, poor memory and I forget what all else, besides some of the words I didn't understand.

I hate to have to keep correcting you but you need to blame it on the lead......not the gunpowder.

Seriously, I highly respect your opinions and I know that you are very intelligent and well read. :good job:

Since I am not too bright and can't read, I will still have to respectfully disagree with you politically.

[Kooperman]

Seriously, I highly respect your opinions and I know that you are very intelligent and well read. :good job:

Since I am not too bright and can't read, I will still have to respectfully disagree with you politically. 

Beware of political possums.....they roll over and play dead while you pick them up by the tail and throw them over the fence...but the next morning they've turned over your trash cans and crapped on your newspaper.....and they're lying in the weeds getting the last laugh.

[Redneck4sure]

Vote Republican and you don't have to hear all that laughter. :bigsmile:

Btw, I have a possum problem and have recently discovered that the varmints will eat rat poison. It just takes more of it. You recon it would work on a politician?

[slum_goddess]

I still admire your adamant steadfast support of a flip-flopper. :bigsmile:

y'know redneck, i think you're pretty funny and clever and all, but when you post shit like kerry's a flipflopper, i know you're woefully uninformed (or reading only big media propaganda to the exclusion of any other point of view which, to me, means you have swallowed the official story, not good, especially these days).

moving right along, an interesting POV over at loaded mouth: are we really the problem? (on red v. blue states)

[method77]

Yes. The people ARE the problem. I hate people that claim that they are not the problem.

They choose to read paper, they choose to watch the news and they choose the sources. They also don't do nothing when the goverment fucks them so blame the others.

[DudeAsInCool]

Old times there are not forgotten

John Wilkes Booth, the South's romantic villain, refused to accept the triumph of Northern values. Some things never change.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By David Talbot

Nov. 19, 2004  |  In the bitter aftermath of the latest red vs. blue presidential election,secession is in the air again. Liberal and conservative commentators alike compare the current great divide to the War Between the States -- only this time it's the emancipation of a sexual minority instead of racial minority that is fanning the flames, among other cultural conflicts. And it's not just Southern conservatives who are openly discussingsplitting the Union. It's increasingly resentful blue-state liberals, who complain they are shackled to reactionary Southern cousins who delight in reviling big government while soaking up more than their share of public largesse.

So in the midst of these cannon blasts of fiery rhetoric, it comes as something of a relief to read "American Brutus," the illuminating new history book about John Wilkes Booth and the plot to kill Abraham Lincoln. If you think our house is divided now, check out America 140 years ago.

"American Brutus" was written by political historian Michael W. Kauffman, who has studied the Lincoln assassination for more than 30 years. Kauffman is one of those ardent independent historians who seem especially drawn to sagas like the Civil War and who enliven the field with their energetic, outside-the-walls-of-academe endeavors.

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2004/11/...ooth/index.html

[slum_goddess]

Yes. The people ARE the problem. I hate people that claim that they are not the problem.

They choose to read paper, they choose to watch the news and they choose the sources. They also don't do nothing when the goverment fucks them so blame the others.

i don't know who you're talking about exactly, method, but the person who wrote that is a young activist in rhode island. i don't know if you read his article but AFAIC, he makes a very good point.

by your own terms, he's perfect to write that piece--he spent the last 3 1/2 years knocking on doors, giving out leaflets and working w/his local democrat party and in the weeks before the election, was in ohio, doing the same.