Posted on 11/16/2004 7:20:09 AM PST by white trash redneck
Look at the map on this page.
It should be familiar. It's one of those red-state/blue-state maps that have been tormenting Democrats, liberals, and progressives since November of 2000. That was the first presidential election in which states that went for the Republican candidate were colored red, and states that went for Democratic candidate were colored blue. As George W. Bush and Al Gore fought for the White House in Florida, "red" and "blue" became metaphors for America's divided electorate. Red vs. Blue--Republican vs. Democrat; conservative vs. liberal; pro-life vs. pro-choice; gun-huggers vs. gun-haters; gay-haters vs. gay-huggers.
This red-state/blue-state map shows the results of 2004's presidential election--red states won by George W. Bush, blue states won by John F. Kerry. But the red-state/blue-state map is misleading. If a Republican presidential candidate takes a slight majority in any given state, the whole state is colored red; if the Democrats take a slight majority, the whole state is colored blue. But painting an entire state one color or the other creates a false impression, an impression that we believe is hampering the Democratic Party's efforts to pull itself out its tailspin.
However, if this same map showed a county-by-county red/blue breakdown, it would provide a clearer picture of the bind Democrats find themselves in. The majority of the blue states--Oregon, Washington, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware--are, geographically speaking, not blue states. They are blue cities.
Look at our famously blue West Coast. But for the cities--Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego--the West Coast would be a deep, dark red. The same is true for other nominally blue states. Illinois is almost entirely red--Chicago turns the state blue. Michigan is almost entirely red--its cities turn it blue. And on and on. What tips these states into the blue column? Their urban areas do, their big, populous counties.
It's time for the Democrats to face reality: They are the heart of urban America. If the cities elected our president, if urban voters determined the outcome, John F. Kerry would have won by a landslide.
Urban voters are the Democratic base.
THE URBAN ARCHIPELAGO
It's time to state something that we've felt for a long time but have been too polite to say out loud: Liberals, progressives, and Democrats do not live in a country that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Canada to Mexico. We live on a chain of islands. We are citizens of the Urban Archipelago, the United Cities of America. We live on islands of sanity, liberalism, and compassion--New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Portland, Seattle, St. Louis, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and on and on. And we live on islands in red states, too--a fact obscured by that state-by-state map. Denver and Boulder are our islands in Colorado; Las Vegas is our island in Nevada; Miami and Fort Lauderdale are our islands in Florida. Citizens of the Urban Archipelago reject heartland "values" like xenophobia, sexism, racism, and homophobia, as well as the more intolerant strains of Christianity that have taken root in this country. And we are the real Americans. They--rural, red-state voters, the denizens of the exurbs--are not real Americans. They are rubes, fools, and hate-mongers.
Never mind civil unions, red Virginia prohibits any contracts between same-sex couples. And Florida bans gays and lesbians from adopting children. Compassionate? Texas allows the death penalty to apply to teenaged criminals and mentally retarded criminals. Dumb? The Sierra Club has reported that Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Tennessee squander over half of their federal transportation money on building new roads rather than public transit.
If Democrats and urban residents want to combat the rising tide of red that threatens to swamp and ruin this country, we need a new identity politics, an urban identity politics, one that argues for the cities, uses a rhetoric of urban values, and creates a tribal identity for liberals that's as powerful and attractive as the tribal identity Republicans have created for their constituents. John Kerry won among the highly educated, women, Jews, young people, gays and lesbians, and non-whites. What do all these groups have in common? They choose to live in cities. John Kerry won every city with a population above 500,000. He took half the cities with populations between 50,000 and 500,000. The future success of liberalism is tied to winning the cities. An urbanist agenda isn't a recipe for winning the next presidential election--but it may win the Democrats the presidential election in 2012 and create a new Democratic majority.
For Democrats, it's the cities, stupid--not the rural areas, not the prickly, hateful "heartland," but the sane, sensible cities--including the cities trapped in the heartland. Howard Dean had it wrong when he tried to woo the "Pickup Truck with Confederate Flag" vote. That's a waste of time. Again, look at the blue spots in red states like Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico--there's almost as much blue in those states as there is in Oregon, Washington, and California. And the challenge for the Democrats is not just to organize in the blue areas but to grow them. And to do that, Democrats, liberals, and progressives need to pursue policies that encourage urban growth (mass transit, affordable housing, city services), and Democrats need to openly and aggressively champion urban values. Focus on the cities. The Dems need a tribal identity to combat the white, Christian, rural, and suburban identity that the Republicans have cornered. And it's sitting right there, on every electoral map, staring them in the face: The cities. The urbanites.
We need a new identity politics, one that transcends class, race, sexual orientation, and religion, one that unites people living in cities with each other and with other urbanites in other cities.
Certain distressed liberals and progressives are talking about fleeing to Canada or, better yet, seceding from the Union. We can't literally secede and, let's admit it, we don't really want to live in Canada. It's too cold up there and in our heart-of-hearts, we hate hockey. We can secede emotionally, however, by turning our backs on the heartland. We can focus on our issues, our urban issues, and promote our shared urban values. The Republicans have the federal government--for now. But we've got Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, New York City (Bloomberg is a Republican in name only), and every college town in the country. We're everywhere any sane person wants to be. Let them have the shitholes, the Oklahomas, Wyomings, and Alabamas. We'll take Manhattan.
EMBRACING URBAN SELF-INTEREST
To all those who live in cities--to all those depressed Kerry supporters out there--we say take heart. Clearly we can't control national politics right now--we can barely get a hearing. We can, however, stay engaged in our cities, and make our voices heard in the urban areas we dominate, and make each and every one, to borrow Ronald Reagan's phrase, "a city on a hill." This is not a retreat; it is a long-term strategy for the Democratic Party to cater to and build on its base. To red-state voters, to the rural voters, residents of small, dying towns, and soulless sprawling exburbs, we'll say this: Fuck off. Your issues are no longer our issues. We're going to battle our bleeding-heart instincts and ignore pangs of misplaced empathy. We will no longer concern ourselves with a health care crisis that disproportionately impacts rural areas. Instead we will work toward winning health care one blue state at a time.
When it comes to the environment, our new policy is this: Let the heartland live with the consequences of handing the national government to the rape-and-pillage party. The only time urbanists should concern themselves with the environment is when we are impacted--directly, not spiritually (the depressing awareness that there is no unspoiled wilderness out there doesn't count). Air pollution, for instance: We have a right to meddle. If coal is to be burned, it has to be burned as cleanly as possible so as not to foul the air we all have to breathe. But if West Virginia wants to elect politicians who allow mining companies to lop off the tops off mountains and dump the waste into valleys and streams, thus causing floods that destroy the homes of the yokels who vote for those politicians, it no longer matters to us. Fuck the mountains in West Virginia--send us the power generated by cleanly burned coal, you rubes, and be sure to wear lifejackets to bed.
Wal-Mart is a rapacious corporation that pays sub-poverty-level wages, offers health benefits to its employees that are so expensive few can afford them, and destroys small towns and rural jobs. Liberals in big cities who have never seen the inside of a Wal-Mart spend a lot of time worrying about the impact Wal-Mart is having on the heartland. No more. We will do what we can to keep Wal-Mart out of our cities and, if at all possible, out of our states. We will pass laws mandating a living wage for full-time work, upping the minimum wage for part-time work, and requiring large corporations to either offer health benefits or pay into state- or city-run funds to provide health care for uninsured workers. That will reform Wal-Mart in our blue cities and states or, better yet, keep Wal-Mart out entirely. And when we see something on the front page of the national section of The New York Times about the damage Wal-Mart is doing to the heartland, we will turn the page. Wal-Mart is not an urban issue.
Neither is gun control. Our new position: We'll fight to keep guns off the streets of our cities but the more guns laying around out there in the heartland, the better. Most cities have strong gun-control laws--laws that are, of course, undermined by the fact that our cities aren't walled. Yet. But why should liberals in cities fund organizations that attempt to get trigger locks onto the handguns of NRA members and Bush supporters? If red-state dads aren't concerned enough about their own children to put trigger locks on their own guns, it's not our problem. If a kid in a red state finds his daddy's handgun and blows his head off, we'll feel terrible (we're like that), but we'll try to look on the bright side: At least he won't grow up to vote like his dad.
We won't demand that the federal government impose reasonable fuel-efficiency standards on all cars sold in the United States. We will, however, strive to pass state laws, as California has done, imposing fuel-efficiency standards on cars sold in our states. We officially no longer give a shit when family farms fail. As far as urbanists are concerned, fewer family farms mean fewer rural voters. We will, however, continue to support small organic farmers, as we're willing to pay more for free-range chicken and beef from non-cannibal cows.
We won't concern ourselves if red states restrict choice. We'll just make sure that abortion remains safe and legal in the cities where we live, and the states we control, and when your daughter or sister or mother dies in a botched abortion, we'll try not to feel too awful about it.
In short, we're through with you people. We're going to demand that the Democrats focus on building their party in the cities while at the same time advancing a smart urban-growth agenda that builds the cities themselves. The more attractive we make the cities--politically, aesthetically, socially--the more residents and voters cities will attract, gradually increasing the electoral clout of liberals and progressives. For Democrats, party building and city building is the same thing. We will strive to turn red states blue one big city at a time. And while we build the cities, you can continue to ruin the rest of the country. We're glad you live in areas where guns are more powerful and more plentiful, cars are larger and faster, and people are fatter and slower and dumber. This is not a recipe for repopulating the Great Plains.
And when you look for ways to revive your failing towns and dying rural counties, don't even think about tourism. Who wants to go to small-town America now? You people scare us. We'll island-hop from now on, thank you, spending our time and our money in blue cities. You can starve out there in red America for all we care. Hell, we already give you enough money anyway, you big government leeches. Although you like to complain about "tax-and-spend liberals," guess where that big-government money gets spent: North Dakota, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, South Dakota, Arkansas. These red states top the list of federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid. And who's paying the most? That's right, you government-handout parasites: blue states. New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, New York, Minnesota. We pay the most and receive the least. You've made your choice, red America, and we urban Americans are going to make a different choice. We are going to make Portland--and New York, Chicago, and the rest--a great place to live, a progressive place. To borrow Reagan's phrase again, we will make each of our cities--each and every one--a shining city on a hill. You can have your shitholes.
If that's the kind of love and tolerance I can expect in the urban areas, I think I'll be quite happy living in my suburban "shithole".
I say leave them alone in their cities. Let them freeze in the dark and eat concrete, while packed in like the rats they are.
Well, two can play that game. I say the red counties need to starve out the blue islands in their states. Cut off as many tax dollars as you possibly can and make the bloated governmental bodies shed bureaucrats like dead ticks. Vote against every tax increase and bond election. They are altogether too comfortable living on the blue islands. We red counties need to hold our politicians accountable when they go to the statehouses to spend our money. Who says the cities should get the lion's share?
It now seems probable that somewhere between 2000 and 2004 the networks decided to apply the color blue to democrat states. Maybe I'm overly suspicious but I suspect they know that blue is a symbol of truth, calm, and comfort and that red is symbolic of blood, danger, and emergency.
Oh, and in answer to this title, dear liberals: your terms are accepted.
Gee, this liberal really stereotypes all of us. But wait, I thought liberals were above stereotyping? I don't understand?
I'm one of those rubes. I guess having a Master's Degree, a professional certification, a good income, and having been to Europe twice don't lift me out of my rube status. Too bad, I tried so hard to better myself.
Haven't heard that saying since I was a Freshman in high school and left a church because of that topic.
Went to a youth meeting and was only one of two people who said they would stand up to Communism when the topic was "better dead then red" -- then I was chastised by our local minister -- never went back to the Church of the Brethren and became a Lutheran. Then found out my Uncle had done the same thing years earlier when he joined the Air Force and his minister objected. He became a Republican activist in years following and taught me a lot about Republican activism when I was a teenager.
My parents supported me 100% -- my Dad refused to go have anything to do with that Church as well so we all became Lutherans.
"In short, we're through with you people."
Prove it. Please, please, please, prove it....
So the 'urbanists' want to pull up their drawbridges and live behind their city walls? No problem. Let them eat words, and freeze in the dark. No crops, no power, no water...those things are all produced by the bigoted louts in the fly-over states, and sent w/gratitude to the blue cities. And in return, the blue cities give us...what?Michael Moore, Michael Jackson, and MTV? Drugs, rap, and 'reality' television? Britney Spears, Eminem, and Dan Rather? What part of ending that 'bargain' would be a bad thing?
Actually, the guy's point can be re-stated another way. It is well known in biology that if large numbers of members of virtually any species are confined together in limited space, they begin to exhibit pathological behavior----gratuitous violence, homosexual behavior, and other symmptoms. I'm sure the animals in those groups consider their behavior completely normal---even though it is at great odds with the typical behavior of the species in an un-crowded environment.
This can explain completely the irrational behavior of the urbanite leftists.
BOO! You girly man asshole.
BTW, we'll be happy to give you Detroit as long as you move that festering boil on the backside of Michigan's behind somewhere else.
See reply 49.
Yep, all 52% & 286 electoral votes of us!
Yet more love from an enlightened, tolerant, liberal. ;o)
And let me see, don't the typical Evening News scenes of a sobbing momma crying about how her son was cut down by those gang bangas, don't those usually come from the city?
Here, a quick quiz!
So I suppose real Americans are hateful, vulgar, concrete eating faggots that live in about ten places.
So the 'rats are the urban party? What is the surprise there? They are the WELFARE party. The cities are where the WELFARE checks go. Of course 'rats will always vote for the 'rat party, they promise more WELFARE.
Of course, if push comes to shove, they will simply freeze and starve to death in the dark. Without the red counties and the rest of the red nation, the blue ghettos could not survive a year.
In my city alone, there were over 1,000 enlightened registered sex offenders. The crime, pollution, smog, filth, and traffic congestion were hard to give up, but I pulled my family out of that utopia to start a business in a much less enlightened RED STATE.
If he says so, it must be true. I'm an unenlightened, intolerant b@stard.
darwinism is a self fulfilling prophecy to its adherents.
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.