Posted on 11/24/2001 7:55:06 PM PST by tpaine
Dec. Issue: One Country, Slightly Divisible
Sage Stossel - Nov 15, 2001
In "One Nation, Slightly Divisible" (December Atlantic), David Brooks, (the author of Bobos in Paradise,) looks at the differences between small-town Middle America (which he dubs "Red America" after the Presidential Election-night maps which showed those areas as red), and upscale urban America (which he dubs "Blue America"), and considers how significant those differences are to America's sense of having a unified national identity. Brooks's informal research involved spending time in rural Franklin County, Pennsylvania, talking to people and observing everyday life there, and comparing it with life in his own home county of Montgomery, Maryland.
Montgomery County, he explains, "is one of the steaming-hot centers of the great espresso machine that is Blue America. It is just over the border from northwestern Washington, D.C., and it is full of upper-middle-class towns inhabited by lawyers, doctors, stockbrokers, and establishment journalists like me--towns like Chevy Chase, Potomac, and Bethesda (where I live)."
Franklin County, on the other hand "is Red America. It's a rural county, about twenty-five miles west of Gettysburg.... The joke that Pennsylvanians tell about their state is that it has Philadelphia on one end, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in the middle. Franklin County is in the Alabama part."
The differences Brooks observes are legion.
Everything from food to clothing, to recreation, education-levels, and life aspirations are dramatically different in Red as opposed to Blue America. In Red America people eat meatloaf, dine at Crackerbarrel, shop at Walmart, attend Church and participate in Church-related activities regularly, live near family, obtain minimal educations, hold conservative views on issues like homosexuality and abortion, and enjoy a close-knit community life. In Blue America people eat "sun-dried-tomato concoctions," wear designer clothes, get graduate degrees, enjoy ideas, compete with one another for prestige, money and recognition, and tend to be openminded about social issues such as homosexuality and abortion, and open to other cultures.
In light of these many differences Brooks asks, "Are Americans any longer a common people? Do we have one national conversation and one national culture? Are we loyal to the same institutions and the same values?" Some observers, Brooks explains, have expressed concern that such differences are problematic. Many social critics and political analysts, for example, have suggested that the Red America vs. Blue America cultural divide represents an antagonistic chasm between the haves and the have-nots. Brooks argues, however, that this seems not to be the case because the inhabitants of Red America don't see themselves as have-nots:
Rather, the people I met commonly told me that although those in affluent places like Manhattan and Bethesda might make more money and have more-exciting jobs, they are the unlucky ones, because they don't get to live in Franklin County. They don't get to enjoy the beautiful green hillsides, the friendly people, the wonderful church groups and volunteer organizations. They may be nice people and all, but they are certainly not as happy as we are.
Other observers have argued that Red America and Blue America represent opposing moral systems that are bound to clash with one another as they compete to determine how America will be run. But here, too, Brooks disagrees:
Certainly Red and Blue America disagree strongly on some issues, such as homosexuality and abortion. But for the most part the disagreements are not large. Tolerance of other points of view on most issues seems to be the norm both for Red and for Blue America.
Indeed, Brooks suggests, the overarching similarities between Red America and Blue America probably override their many less-significant differences. The differences, he writes, are mainly ones of "sensibility, not class or culture." Inhabitants both of Red America and of Blue America appreciate the fact that this country allows them to make their own choices about what they will believe and how they will live, and that other Americans are free to do so as well: "Although there are some real differences between Red and Blue America," he writes, "there is no fundamental conflict. There may be cracks, but there is no chasm. Rather, there is a common love for this nation--one nation in the end."
What are your thoughts on the differences between "Red America" and "Blue America"? Which culture do you identify with more? Do most of your family and friends identify with the same sector of America as you do? Do you agree with Brooks that the differences are mainly surface ones that don't divide the country in any significant way? What are your gut feelings about Red America vs. Blue America? -- Do you find Red America depressingly provincial? Refreshingly community-oriented and non-competitive? Do you find Blue America exhileratingly progressive and challenging? Competitive and impersonal?... Post your thoughts here.
-------------------------------------
???? - Makes no sense to me.
My convictions about the constitution make me the target of many intolerant freepers.
Go figure that, - on a site dedicated to restoring a free constitutional republic.
The intensity on both sides in the last election demonstrated that there is more than minor differences of opinion between the Red and Blue Zones, and it doesn't necessarily fall along party lines. Although the dead weight bovines in the middle constitute a large block of contested voters, the voters moving away from the middle in both directions are growing in number and noise.
Conservatives could probably tolerate the leftists much better, if the leftists would only stay in their decaying urban sewers and not steal the land and capital from the Red Zone.
The left will tolerate conservatives only if the conservatives are completely disarmed and subjugated to the leftist welfare state, which also includes stealing their land, relocating them to the urban sewers, and destroying their culture, livlihood, and families.
We experienced a short period of "unity" during the first few days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but here just a few weeks later, the mouthpieces of the left have fully embraced the terrorists as their spiritual allies, and are once more in full attack mode against the lives, liberty, and property of the right. And the RINO police-state facists are actually pursuing the same goals as the leftists, whether they realize it or not.
These gentlemen (Brooks and Stossel) would have to be in a very insulated environment to believe all is peachy-keen among the masses.
While it is important to identify tendencies, correlations and other results of statistical models, it is a false leap to ascribe universality to those conclusions.
These gentlemen (Brooks and Stossel) would have to be in a very insulated environment to believe all is peachy-keen among the masses.
-----------------------------------------
Thanks for your clarification. We essentialy agree.
But I would stress, that growing up in a small town does make you more tolerant [in a 'civility' sense] of your peers.
Illigitimi non carborundum.
Regards
Too bad we can't say the same about many on this forum.
22 posted by tpaine
---- Okay, so there's a handful of malsentients whose lot in life seems to be limited to distilling concoctions of bile, venom and crap down to it's vital essence, and hurling great, vapid handfuls at anyone who threatens to upset their narrow little view of the world.
Illigitimi non carborundum.
--------------------------------
Me thinks the 'Illigiimi' are grinding a bit to close to edge, once again. They may remove needed supports, and end up in another xmas stew.
[if you know what I mean, & I bet you do]
I've heard that folks once were able to engage in civil discourse with their enemies before and after gun battles with them. Perhaps packing larger populations into smaller geographic areas has diminished the capability or willingness of people to put forth such effort. I must admit to major shortcomings in the diplomacy department in the last decade or so.
Like watching them crawl out on a limb and then start hacking it off behind them.
The vast middle income taxpayers pay for the schemes anyway.
The class weasels are still scorned by all.
I am a true hybrid of red and blue-- educated, relatively affluent, read a lot of books, interested in art and ideas. On the other hand I live smack-dab among the church-goers and Little League, and I very much appreciate my small town on beautiful Clear Lake, next to Galvaston Bay. We have become a suburb of Houston (where I was raised) but I would be quite pleased to never have to drive into the city again-- I only do it to see a couple of friends, and attend a few art events, or shop at REI. I used to buy all my clothes at SAKS and Marshall Fields, but now I prefer Target (although I can still afford SAKS, I just don't feel like it's worth it anymore. I did that already!)
I don't think the divide is all that large between the big city and the small town-- it's difference of degree, not type, and most of us know how to bridge the divide. My most urbane friend is really from a small town in Wyoming, and she still knows how to go home. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.