Election: Urban vs Rural

I checked the major texas cities first, and I was pleasantly surprised that Harris (i.e. Houston) and Dallas counties were 50/50.. and I'm guessing Austin is in the slightly blue Travis county?

More than SF?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03kris.html?th

One of the Republican Party's major successes over the last few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor to vote for tax breaks for billionaires.

That's a very neat way of putting it.

well, duh, kristof is saying things we've all known for a long time. anyone dumb enough to get caught by the "values" argument deserves what they get. except that all of us who know better and don't deserve it are gonna get it too. i love america!

Oh well, so much for the DC gun ban and any chance of voting representation.
Screw this.

yes o.nate but what about the anthrax cropdusters

More seriously, I think o.nate is right. It's a pride issue, rather than an actual fear of something specific happening to them.

The Democrats haven't been able to put together a genuine national coalition since they exploded in Chicago in 1968. (Carter's election was a direct reaction to Watergate, rather than a true coalition.)

Let WalMart Nation reap what it sows. Increased interest rates, weaker American dollar, higher unemployment. Recruiting offices will fill up. No need for a draft.

http://www.rotovibe.com/images/newmap2.jpg

I think there are certain urban bogeymen that play beautifully to rural people, despite the fact that city folks have stared such bogeymen in the face and realized they're not very important at all. A lot of the key conservative issues over the past few decades have basically been threats that "city" "problems" are coming to take over the remainder of America, things like urban "Superpredator" crime (aka, umm, black guys?) or the "gay agenda" (aka, umm, two ladies walking their dog?) or selling our security out to France (aka, umm, I have met people from other countries and they are not weird or insane and possibly we should be friends with them). My rhetoric is dead here, and I apologize, but that seems to me to be near the core of it.

Yes, this is wholly correct...but I really don't see why after the initial consolidation-get-bigger-prevent-invaders period of the country, being a united country or one that plays overly nice with underpopulated areas was still held as an important ideal--let's be honest here. We kind of proved with the Civil War that we don't give a fuck about the will of quite a few of these states we're continuing to play nice with with, for example, the electoral college (to bring up the issue of the last electino that brought us to here, this special point in time). So, like, why the reacharounds constantly?

OTOH I never really saw what was wrong with letting the fucking South secede to begin with and I still don't see why there shouldn't be two countries here.

Also your definition of the gay agenda made me laugh hard, real hard, crazy hard. And yes, we were discussing that last night, they're worried about these things like terrorism and "gay agenda" and all sorts of things that, like, kind of seem irrelevant in rural Mississippi to be totally honest.

http://theonenetwork.com/playvideo.asp?type=music&videoid=tobykeith_courtesyoftheredwhite

Anyway, my question is: is this what is occuring in the US? Has the Democrat's move towards the centre left the poor out in the cold, to have their most ignorant fears pandered to by the right?

On MARTA (which is Atlanta's mass transit system) all day it was eerily quiet. You could hear a pin drop. It felt like the city was holding its breath. Ugh.

Norman Mailer, The Armies of the Night, 1968 (pp. 153-154).

They always have been. George Orwell talks in one of his books (one of the political journals) about when he was working as a miner in S Yorks, and how appalled he was when Moseley came to town. Moseley was hailed as some kind of hero, and the town hall was full when he spoke.

Some commentators have argued this. For example, Thomas Frank in What's Wrong With Kansas?. Basically the idea is that the Dems have gone hard after the middle-class professional vote, and as a result they have alienated many of the poor. This idea seems to suggest that if the Dems return to a message of economic populism that they will be successful. This is the sort of message that Gore tried in 2000, and that Kerry also attempted this election. Both of them had Bob Shrum as a political consultant and speechwriter, who is known for speaking the language of economic populism (remember "the people vs. the powerful"?). However, I think this election has confirmed for us once again that the people cannot be counted on to vote their economic interests.

In other words, liberalism was okay while it helped the whites. When it started helping blacks it became a dirty word. Kick away the ladder, make common cause with those a million miles above you (the rich, who are at least the same colour) rather than those a couple of inches below. Freud's 'narcissism of minor differences' is really a bitch.

Living in an urban area like NYC, you accept that a certain amount of life is out of your hands — your subway might not arrive, you have no personal space, you might get mugged, you might get accosted by homeless or drunk people, etc. And so terrorism is definitely a concern in the cities, but it's somehow incorporated into the rest of the clamor. Living in a rural area, it's much easier to feel like your entire life is in your control — you drive yourself to work, you have all the space you could ever need, there are few dangers to your community, your neighbors wave hello, etc. Rural areas are typically more supportive of the status quo, more resistant to any change, any doubt, any ambiguity. So even though there is no chance of terrorism in those areas, this frightens the rural voter. It's something out of their control, another boogeyman, a snake whose head must be chopped off. John Kerry won the support of urban voters by an insane margin. George Bush won the support of rural voters by an insane margin. One group deals with the issue of terrorism every single day; the other uses terrorism to scare their children straight. And more of us urbanites are going to die as a result.

On the upside, the big old sad binge I tied on was very therapeutic.

-- Yanc3y (ystrickle...), November 4th, 2004 11:35 AM. (ystrickler)

could you be more oversimplifying and melodramatic? just how have you "dealt with the issue of terrorism every single day"? i really don't recall hearing of ANY terrorist attacks, bombings, etc since 9/11. so it is as much a bogeyman to you as it is to someone in rural kansas, for instance. and how exactly is this fear of terrorism in rural areas going to cause the death of city-dwellers? please enlighten me. and i also love how you have deeply penetrated the mind set of the rural community. believe it or not, there are dangers there. sure, they are different but they are every bit as real as muggers or homeless people. when was the last time you had a pack of coyotes outside your door? or when did you last worry about whether it would rain enough for your farm to survive another year? those are things much more out of ones' control than how to get to work in the morning. as much as urbanites have yammered on about their "broader mindset" i have yet to see much evidence of such.

and most of us who are objecting to the political impact of certain rural people or christians are not saying so. I am questioning, however, the potential favorable political utility of using this trope. perhaps it would be preferable to do the reverse, however, i.e. Democratic candidates should go along with Republicans in attacking urban people and secularists.

clearly neither should be doing so, i am merely saying that it is more detrimental to the left to further alienate such are large segment of the electorate. and i am sorry but it seems that the left is more guilty of this sort of snobbery than the right.

if it is more detrimental to the left to do so, then it is a bad thing. i am questioning whether the assertion that it is detrimental is true. clearly the tactic works well for the other side.

speaking of which i heard terrell owens called dan patrick "a member of the liberal white media" how fucking depressing is that in light of last year's limbaugh-mcnabb fiasco?? ok mayve it's totally irrelevant, i just hope it's not typical of a still-metastasizing mindset

anyway i don't see how blaming bush's election on irrational fears (of gays or taxes or terror) is ridiculous or hateful, and since it wasn't urban areas who voted for bush the blame for his re-election (in the most direct sense, i know there's plenty to go round) lies squarely on the shoulders of...

actually, "moral values" i believe trumped "terrorism" on why people voted for bush in any area. and it is just time that we realize that there is no political "truth". there are only various perceptions of it colored by individual opinion. sure, it may not seem to make any sense to you that someone would vote for bush. but to them it did, and it would behoove all of us that didnt to realize that more people did. for whatever reason. and we can't simply call them stupid and wash our hands of them. it is dangerous to do so. and it would be sounding the death toll on any progressive agenda.

john-do not patronize me. you make the exact assumptions that i am arguing against. i have hardly fallen prey to the republican propaganda machine. however, you are refusing to acknowledge any truth but the "liberal truth". i think that too many of you refuse to look outside your boxes and see the rest of the country in an unfiltered light.

-- John (johndahle...), November 5th, 2004 1:30 PM. (jdahlem)

i didn't say blaming bush's re-election on them was ridiculous or hateful, i said blaming them for the deaths of urbanites was. and i really dont think you want to argue with me on that point.

on the contrary, it occurs to me a senible thing to do would be for me to quit my job and move to a rural red state and one by one try to convince everybody how bad Bush is for them. But I'm agnostic and could never imagine how one could put God before everything else, primarily their own welfare. But that's just it, that's where the priorities of anyone who votes for "moral values" lay. But I will say that, to be rural and fully educated, to know that Bush's policies are bad for the economy and bad for international relations, but good for the rights of the unborn and the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, and to vote for Bush thusly, just seems stupid to me.

But then again, I'm not religious.

i think i do - what yanc3y meant by "deaths of urbanites" was "[possible future] deaths of urbanites as a result of bush's foreign policy", and who were his enablers?

i really can't argue w/ anything else you said because you've taken to platitudes and baseless accusations. no one is calling anyone stupid here, but fear is often a result of ignorance.

you can blame any future terrortis attacks on many things, john. but you can't blame some farmer in north dakota because he thought that bush would be a better protector of our safety. blame the administration, yes. blame the apathy of those who agree with you but did not vote, yes. oh, and maybe you could even blame the terrorists if you were feeling frisky. but you cannot blame the farmer.

and i don't feel that i have "taken to platitudes" nor have i made any "basedless accusations." and i think we can all admit that there have been plenty of insults and calling people stupid going on. please don't make me repost all of them for you.

it is illogical to assume that ALL educated people think that bush's policies are bad for the economy and international relations. and the point that you are missing about the christian voters is that you refuse to look at it through their eyes. they see nothing illogical about putting their values before everything else, even economic issues. this is simply a way of life. it is why even the poorest of families tithe at church. and though i am not religious myself, i can see THEIR logic. i don't try to force their actions into mine.

"you can blame any future terrortis attacks on many things, john. but you can't blame some farmer in north dakota because he thought that bush would be a better protector of our safety. blame the administration, yes. blame the apathy of those who agree with you but did not vote, yes. oh, and maybe you could even blame the terrorists if you were feeling frisky. but you cannot blame the farmer."

why couldn't i say that "the farmer's" irrational fears or misguided faith in the president's "resolve" led to a vote for bush which led to his reelection which led to his ignorant, reckless foreign policy being continued which led to a few NYC muslims strapping some bombs onto their chests and detonating themselves in times square?

if "the farmer" hadn't voted for bush, we wouldn't have had the times square slaughter, or so runs the thinking

since we do live in a something of a democracy, some of the blame for our country's more misguided policies lies with the people, and with some people (specifically, the ppl who directly enable them via the ballot box) more than others

my question was about pre-election. your answer is about post-election.

rather, it's different from what you inferred from yanc3y's statement. how do you know what he implied?

Well, the interesting thing would have been how the response is phrased in turn.

"How do you feel about lying?"

"What do you mean?"

"Well, did either of the candidates lie?"

"Certainly. Kerry lied about his record and many other things."

"But consider--" (*various Bush examples cited*)

"Those were distortions by the mass media, etc."

This being the potential mindset, the concern is to change it. (Refer to Dee's moving posts over the last few days as to how she changed her mind over the past four years -- not specifically on this particular subject, but it can be seen as part of it.)

Yes, now I'm going to bully you, you sissy.

i think yanc3y was trying more for understanding than blame w/ his post, but i hope he'll come around cuz i'm sure he can much better set you at ease than i in his absense

emily, what i was trying to speak directly to with that graf was this idea that we are all targets. whenever there's a terror alert and i speak to friends and family at home, they all repeatedly list all of the things that could be potential terrorist targets ("well bj's going to the [high school football] game on friday, but with that fbi warning, there's no way i'm going"). and, ironically, even though i voted for kerry, my parents use ME as their reason to vote for bush, pointing out to their family and friends that because i was here on 9/11 and could have died, they have to vote for bush to protect me. which i find hilarious, but i try not to get into these talks with my family, because we disagree so strongly.

you are right that "moral values" decide how people vote. if my parents were faced with a candidate who would give them a million dollars but also keep abortion legal vs a candidate who would TAKE a million dollars and their children but make abortion illegal, they would choose the latter. but the reason why the terrorism issue is important in understanding the huge strata between red and blue states are those polls numbers that showed bush being favored on the issue much more.

in areas far away from anything even close to metropolis, terrorism should be the very last concern anyone should have. i would wager there's a better chance of drowning in your own bathtub than being the victim of an attack. yet the threat of "terrorism" has given the bush administration and the justice department a whole fucking fort knox-load of political capital (i was surprised to hear bush use the phrase yesterday), and red state-america has rallied behind him for precisely this reason (e.g., look at his poll numbers on every domestic issue vs. his poll numbers dealing with terrorism).

i'm not even sure what i'm saying anymore, because there were so many things to respond to, but dan was absolutely correct as to how someone in nyc is faced with terrorism (or, to be more precise, the THREAT of terrorism) every day. i mean, shit, in the rest of the country the rockaway plane crash in 12/2001 was nothing, but here in nyc it was yet another tragedy. and in the three weeks following 9/11 my office had a bomb threat called in EVERY FUCKING DAY. when there are holidays here i don't ride public transportation, just in case something happens. since we have to live our lives, it's another nuisance, but it's the sort of nuisance that keeps you from ever being fully relaxed anywhere outside of your own home. i can't tell you how angry i was getting last christmas with all of the terror warnings, none of which gave any specific information. every fucking day my life was being rearranged by their bullshit, all so they could keep americans scared and thus firmly in-pocket. well fuck that shit. i am not about to submit to being his political pawn.

will i blame bush voters if a terrorist attack yet again kills someone i love? not publically, but i may very well think it.

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

2. I think Tom Frank got brought up and misinterpreted up there. My take on the whole issue he's raising is that it dies directly into this "values" issue. Working-class voters don't vote based on economics because so far as I can tell only people with lots and lots of time on their hands vote based on economics: it's an abstraction. Even when you're talking about hidden value issues like economic justice, it's an abstraction -- it's numbers in columns. Republicans have consistently sold to working-class middle-American voters based on what they frame as value issues, whereas Democratic attempts to try and turn economic issues into value ones (populist "fighting for you" rhetoric and all) have mostly fallen flat.

3. That's one of the problems of being a centrist party, really: you get to a point where you can't visibly stand up for any of those gut-hit values. There are a lot of instances where a farther-left candidate could, even though the stances would currently be considered political suicide: arguing for gay marriage is a gut-level value issue; arguing for a universal living wage can be framed as a gut-level value issue; etc.

they can't be blamed for all his future actions, but they can be blamed for electing him, because they did, and i think the past 4 years have painted an accurate enough portrait of the man as to render your argument obsolete except in the most literal sense

i'm not saying it's wise to take our fingers and jab them at bush voters in the event of another terrorist attack or disaster of some other kind, but we aren't politicking here and bush was reelected primarily because of their ignorance

that sounds harsh, and probably elitist, but until you explain why it isn't true i'm not going to rescind. and you won't be able to explain it away, because what really enables the republican party is the ignorance of the many and the greed of the few. eradicate ignorance, and you eradicate the republican platform as we know it, which was created by and for it. break the corporate overlords who back them, and you break the back of the republican party. that's why they resist these goals (in a nutshell, that's what conservatism is) and that's why we're trying to realize them. so no, i don't think it's ALL THEIR FAULT, i just think it's sad. when i hear about ppl in dire financial straits voting republican, or see a guy w/ a union sticker on one side of his truck and a bush/cheney one on the other, i don't get angry, i wonder what the hell would possess them to take these measures so obviously opposed to their own economic interests. and as far as i can tell it's almost always, as i said, a fear bred out of ignorance - whether it's gays or taxes or terror or god.

(hehe xpost w/ nabisco)

rural life probably inherently teaches certain kinds of intelligence as well that may encourage different 'values'.

I think the point I’m trying to make is that it’s not a matter of ignorance or intelligence—it’s a matter of the things you wind up valuing and/or fearing in different places. First of all, well, I’m not sure how to put this in any way that doesn’t sound incredibly awful or patronizing, but c’mon: there are people living in cities who are every bit as isolated, undereducated, and ignorance as anyone in the sticks. Cities are full of working-class people—including a portion of the inner-city minorities and immigrants and other sorts who are traditional Democratic bases—who aren’t college educated, who don’t sit around reading political magazines or even watching the news, who are mostly going around trying to feed themselves and their kids and aren’t mega-interested in any broad intellectual view of the world. It’s not a matter of how much they know or how smart they are in processing it.

You’re absolutely right up there, though, about how living in urban center will shift your concerns. It’s hard, for instance, in a major city, to have any particular weird fear of homosexuality: no matter how much you may loathe it, you see it all around, and at some point you have to realize that it doesn’t make much difference to anyone else’s life. It’s hard, for instance, in a major city, to harbor any huge resentment of government’s influence in your life, because the mere fact of moving around in a major city means constantly dealing with its regulation and management—if anything, you reach a point where you expect the powers above to take action and fix things that have gone wrong. There are countless things like this that affect your political views.

But consider the flip side: there are countless things you’d experience in a rural setting that would affect you, too. You come to see much more value in the traditional family unit, which is more of a cornerstone of rural life—and you’ll probably respond well to people who claim they’re trying to defend that. You’d come to place larger importance on things like property, and on the independence of the family unit on that property—and respond well to people who claim they want to aid that. And sort of stemming from that you’d find it easier to be suspicious of any perceived government meddling with your independent property-owning family unit, and respond well to people who claim to want to keep that from happening.

Point being that either of these environments can foster a certain kind of value system, regardless of the ignorance or education of the person.

You’re absolutely right up there, though, about how living in urban center will shift your concerns. It’s hard, for instance, in a major city, to have any particular weird fear of homosexuality: no matter how much you may loathe it, you see it all around, and at some point you have to realize that it doesn’t make much difference to anyone else’s life. It’s hard, for instance, in a major city, to harbor any huge resentment of government’s influence in your life, because the mere fact of moving around in a major city means constantly dealing with its regulation and management—if anything, you reach a point where you expect the powers above to take action and fix things that have gone wrong. There are countless things like this that affect your political views.

But consider the flip side: there are countless things you’d experience in a rural setting that would affect you, too. You come to see much more value in the traditional family unit, which is more of a cornerstone of rural life—and you’ll probably respond well to people who claim they’re trying to defend that. You’d come to place larger importance on things like property, and on the independence of the family unit on that property—and respond well to people who claim they want to aid that. And sort of stemming from that you’d find it easier to be suspicious of any perceived government meddling with your independent property-owning family unit, and respond well to people who claim to want to keep that from happening.

Point being that either of these environments can foster a certain kind of value system, regardless of the ignorance or education of the person.

"In contrast to other forms of capital (i.e., human, physical, and cultural), social capital is neither a single entity nor reflective of individuals' attributes. Social capital is defined by its function in group or network structures. [... social capital] comes into being whenever social interaction makes use of resources residing within the web of social relationships. Exchange relationships thus constitute social capital when they enable the attainment of goals that cannot be attained individually." (Valenzuela, Subtractive Schooling, p. 27)

I don't know if I agree with Valenzuela that individual attributes have nothing to do with it, but it's not urban people vs. rural people, rather it's living among strangers vs. living close to family. Who can live among strangers? People who are assimilated? People who can take risks? People who are outgoing? People who are driven? Does living in a city foster these traits?

George W. Bush, the security threat to America and the states that support him

but really, urban vs rural is no longer appropriate is it? most people live in subdivisions, spend irresponsible amounts of time in cars commuting, etc. i really wonder how many red staters actually farm, actually live lives almost wholly divorced from historically urban influences. honestly, with the domination by (republican) corporations of america's agricultural concerns, i doubt there is much rural out there, only corporate-owned property or the land that hasnt been sold to (republican) developers. given how much land use policy has changed over the last century, the most pro-rural position one can take is to live in the city, on already-developed land, so that the demand to turn whatever arable land is left in this country to split levels or mcmansions is lessened. as far as i can tell, especially in northern virginia, which has seen whole cities conjured out of farmland in less than 15 years, most republicans live in trad suburbs and are fucking farmers in uncomfortable places even while depending on the moral authority and nobility of rural life for political capital. democrats live in the burbs too (ts McLean VA vs Arlington VA) and are hypocritical in their own way btw.

is it me or is there something just fundamentally anti-social, anti-civic, and anti-democratic about the suburbs? and no, im not being a city snob. i love small towns. as long as i dont have to get in a car to get coffee in the morning ;-)

people who either don't have children or who can afford good child care and private schools. Or, those who must live in the city due to transportation/job reasons.

histrically urban agglomerations exist for a reason, whether its a preponderance of arable land, the proximity of a river or good port, etc., and even as these places are the product of massive government investment, they could exist regardless. if government were to collapse, the mississippi and hudson and atlantic and pacific would still be there. many people, especially people in western red states, depend wholly on the government for their existence. they want to live in arizona, and they demand the government to make it possible for them by building all the utilities they need then allowing private firms to plunk down subdivisions for them to buy. i know this applies to everywhere to some extent but it applies more heavily to places where people vote (though not really) for LESS government and LESS taxes.

xpost if its hard to have kids in cities its only because we have stopped designing them correctly. if its hard to educate kids in cities its partially because middle-class flight over the last 50 years has hurt tax revenues.

i really wish everyone could live for one month in park slope in brooklyn. its expensive as fuck now, but it wasnt always. regardless, its all three story buildings. its high density, but as easy as any place in the country to live in. nobody has a yard of any consequence, but everyone has prospect park. on my street, there was no violence, and no noise after about 10pm, yet, if i walked one and a half blocks around the corner, i could get pizza from two different places, coffee, books, music, videos, groceries, dry cleaning, and do my banking. the park was two blocks away, the musuem and library just a couple more, along with a subway station. it wouldnt be hard for any city planner to put this sort of neighborhood together, but there is no demand so it doesnt get built.

Live in Boerum Hill!

(it's cheaper! and cooler! and you can walk to Park Slope, if you want to go to Aunt Suzy's)

and for another glass of cold water in our collective face, here's the asiatimes' ruthless Spengler on the demographics of bluestate life: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FK09Aa02.html

what's sickening politically is that within all states there is a familiar red/blue voting pattern that maps on to the suburbs/urb-urbs. and since most cities are now almost completely decentered, it's not even a question of live out/work (commute) in anymore. ppl live their whole lives in the suburbs; industry, careers, entertainment. so conservatives have been able to imagine, to great political effect, the City not as the bustling hot heart of the metropole's life but as the sad violent parasite on their productivity. they don't even have to come in to get out anymore; the airports are in the periphery as well.

aside from the occasional foray into the belly of the beast for some pleasure unattainable Out There -- for ex: the strip of 1st and Hennepin avenues has refashioned itself in recent years as a revolting weekend party-zone, bar after bar after bar after bar, at closing time downtown becomes a police state, horse-cops & valet drivers jockeying against the crowd, last-second hookups finalized in the street as somali cabbies pick out those who look least likely to leave more vomit than tip, barricades thrown up to shunt them all onto the freeways asap -- aside from this they never come here. oh, and strip clubs.

but i'm not an economist or a demographer or anything... is the City still the thing that makes suburban life possible? do they really not need us, as they believe they don't? i mean, fuck, in official census/irs terms, the city i live in is no longer Minneapolis-St.Paul but Minneapolis-St.Paul-Bloomington -- Blmgton being the enormous megaburb that houses the Mall of America. It went blue as far as I could tell from the mn sec state website (this is stil mn, after all), but by much closer margins than the city proper

aaron have you read "geography of nowhere"?

Minnesota suburban morals: my sis is really tempting the Department of Stereotypes with her on-credit SUV, casino fetish, lucrative but unskilled job in sports bar, the soft bigotry of her views (agnostic sinner-loving on the gay front, jokes about immigrants, the whole other races are for friendship, not relationships because this would hurt the feelings of the other bigots in her life meme) and yeah she only goes downtown to go to stagette nights at the Gay '90s. She doesn't feel as safe in Downtown even with all the playpenning for tube-top girlies and their squarehead boypals on an exodus from suburban branches of TGI Friday's. They are the sea of purple novelty outfits at Vikings games: made in Taiwan, donned in Brooklyns Park and Center. Actually, I think Prestigious West Bloomington is a particularly red area (not known for high Jewish population before civil rights era, hint hint) but I imagine the pissed-off worker bees in Richfield and the rest of Bloomington kept it blue.

I worry a bit because the Democrats in my family all went to college and the Republicans did not or couldn't be arsed to finish because they either had or needed to get a job and money right now. This might be the more salient point in terms of winding up respecters of short-term thinking - often Republicans - because they think it's worked for them. Each side has to then justify the value in their personal choice and the college-educated will fall over on the 'knowing more facts' front with people who feel 'self-made' (see my dad going 'la-di-dah' when I say 'big words').

My sister voted for Bush for security reasons; two abortions and she can't even stand up for anyone else who might want one in the future. Watch out for this 'shame/denial' meme - because a lot of women feel that it couldn't happen here, or have made a disconnect from their own valid experiences, or are part of the security mom demographic. Mine thought that 'they' were going to 'get' the MOA 'target' in the week after 9/11 when she wants it not in her life anyway for being a ghetto/gang magnet). Moms who are Pro v. Wade and who worry about schools and are anti current healthcare situation forgot that in the ballot box too, as I'm sure mine did. My mom is better informed on issues than my sister but she regurgitates hella talking points which are distilled into pure essence of jingo by the time my sister repeats them, and kind of sees war without end in many areas of her world. She is inordinately disgusted by Bill Clinton's blowjob which is 'second base' in our schoolyard and logically not much cop.

Minnesota has a small-town churchy element EVERYWHERE (we 'under God' the Pledge at school yet stop pledging daily in 7th grade) but I do think the teachings take a backseat to the gathering/community aspect and the peer pressure that operates there (my town's religious life is significantly, but it's the same deal). It's not so much about following the Good Book as not getting dissed/judged at any point by a neighbour, and the best way to do this is to live a life that's totally rated PG. Minnesotans whatever background would probably die of shame if they even thought a neighbour had a moral reason to exclaim 'eeeeuwww!' about them. Y'know, it won't do for the pastor's daughter to be the town bike, all that (but she was).

Kids go quite heavily until they're confirmed (bugger-all else to do, safe place to meet boys/girls who have been vetted already) and then it's weddings/christenings/funerals/holidays in the main. This type of Minnesotan knows all his/her neighbours are knee deep in shit because THEY ARE TOO and we are a mightily passive-aggressive people as a result. If you point this out in mixed company everyone laughs and suggests change of name by deed poll to Cassandra.

Also, the more hardworking and exhausted the voter, the harder it is to retain salient points. Nobody can find their keys when they're tired, much less follow the news for real. It's tempting to say that a lack of education is the reason for a lack of awareness of substantive or global issues, but tired people in search of small comforts regress somewhat whatever their station to a mental place where they feel secure. And tired people have less attention-span or are annoyed at the time it takes to become really responsibly informed, so they're all 'fuck it, my mind's made up' in that defensive, snotty way (and they'll blame you for annoying them into voting for the bad guy, damn contrarian streak). I am convinced that our body politic has ADD and that's why only the things that provoke deep gut/sphincter/breathless sense-memory reactions in people get 'remembered' in turn. Being tired is the problem, and these fuckers just say all these things that make the insecure feel nice and tucked-in, or worse, reassured into not worrying about it because someone in authority says it will be taken care of, even though they hate outside authority in their own lives.

Sidenote: my grandfather had a property company called Westdale and with his brothers purchased a parcel of farmland in Bloomington in mid-50s which is now part of the MOA. I do think he was speculating to build a mall on it later hence 'dale' in company name as per MN tradition (he sold it when they built Metropolitan Stadium, please go to the home plate memorial in MOA if you want to know the coordinates of his former land). I'm pretty sure the last time he voted Dems was for Roosevelt.