Good point, najida. It can also be argued that the blue states are "waterlocked" and are therefore "internationalist," believing they are more a part of socialist and communist foreign countries than they are a part of America. The heartland is just as "in touch" with the world as the "waterlocked" regions. It has full access to all the media. It has telephones. It has roads, rail and airports to facilitate travel just as the red zones do. It has libraries and schools that produce better results than in the big coastal cities.
So the "landlocked" disparagement really doesn't have much meaning. It's just another liberal put-down of red-staters. The most significant difference between the "landlocked" and the "waterlocked" areas is to be found in the red states' acceptance of those things that have made America great and the blue states' rejection of them.
"It can also be argued that the blue states are "waterlocked" and are therefore "internationalist,"
The way I see it, the blue states are the outer provinces, huddled around the coastal inlets, far from the heartland and ignorant of its vital energies.
Largely made up of traders, middlemen and moneychangers, they never have truly embraced the values of the great nation to whose margins they cling, and which supports their existence.
Mix in a few centers of tourist interest, exotic bazaars and entertainments, and there you have it--the essence of the Blue Fringe.