Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Conservatives' Vision of an America Without Cities

By Jeremy Adam Smith, Public Eye. Posted December 12, 2006.


Rural Americans tend to see city culture as a haven for loose morals. Lucky for them, the Electoral College, Senate and federal budget have tilted power toward the heartland.
12122006story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jeremy Adam Smith

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

One Nation, Two Futures?

The formula that emerged from the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections was provocative: The less dense the population, the more likely it was to vote Republican. Republicans appeared to have lost the cities and inner suburbs, positioning themselves as the party of country roads, small towns and traditional values. Though Bush was often mocked for the time he spent on his ranch, sleeves rolled up, gun in hand, the image was widely promoted and became a cornerstone of his identity among Republican voters.

Conversely, it looked like Democrats had lost the country -- that is, until November 2006 when Democrats won decisive victories in the Midwest and Great Plains, often by leveraging their candidates' rural identities against a national Democratic Party that local voters saw as being overly urban, secular and affluent. By November 8, the electoral map looked a whole lot bluer. Yet Democrats could not have won without appealing to libertarian, anti-urban sensibilities.

"Millions of rural people have come to reject the larger framework of urban life," writes public radio reporter Brian Mann in his compelling new book Welcome to the Homeland: A Journey to the Heart of America's Conservative Rural Rebellion. "They despise the liberal modernism that shaped metro culture in the twentieth century and see it as an ideology that is every bit as foreign and threatening as communism."

Voting is just the tip of the iceberg. Antagonism toward cities is an under-recognized, under-analyzed factor in right-wing organizing, but now more and more writers are struggling to understand the rural/urban divide, how it has shaped national politics, and what it means for progressive organizing.

Mann coins the term "homelander" to describe largely white, anti-urban conservatives and says the homeland is a state of mind. You hear the homeland ethos not only in George W. Bush's acquired Texas twang, but in the voices documented in recent books from Mann, Steve Macek, and Juan Enriquez.

"Urban America breeds things that will probably never be here [in Perryton, Texas], but it scares people," Jim Hudson, publisher of Perryton Herald, tells Mann. What kinds of things? asks Mann. "Gay culture," he replies. "HIV sure wasn't bred in rural America."

The City and the Tower

Homelander ideologues of all stripes, from religious to libertarian to neoconservative, agree that cities, like governments, should be small enough to drown in the bathtub. Their hostility has deep cultural roots.

The homelander vision of the city starts with a story in Genesis 11:1-9. When God saw the first city of humankind and the tower its residents had built, He destroyed the tower and confused their language, "so that one will not understand the language of his companion" and "scattered them from there upon the face of the entire earth, and they ceased building the city."

Later in Genesis, God destroys the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah for gross immorality, which many Christians have interpreted as homosexuality. (Classical Jewish texts specify economic greed, not sexuality, as the cause of God's wrath.) Thus begins the Christian history of urban life.

Now let's skip ahead several thousand years, to the birth of the American Republic. "Enthusiasm for the American city has not been typical or predominant in our intellectual history," writes Morton and Lucia White in their 1962 study, Intellectuals Against the City. "Fear has been the more common reaction." Thomas Jefferson described "great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health and the liberties of man"; Henry David Thoreau preferred his cabin in the woods to "the desperate city"; in 1907, the Rev. Josiah Strong called the modern city "a Menace to State and Nation."

This is not to say rural politics was (or is) always conservative, or even anti-urban. From the Sierra and Rocky Mountains to the Appalachians, rural progressives built a great, creative tradition of civil disobedience, multiracial organizing, and cultural dissent. Yet in recent political history, that heritage was obscured by conservative organizing that promoted a race-based depiction of the city as "chaotic, ruined, and repellent, the exact inverse of the orderly domestic idyll of the suburbs," as Steve Macek writes in his recent book Urban Nightmares: The Media, the Right, and Moral Panic Over the City. In such a view, urban poverty is a natural byproduct of unnatural urban life; it is slack morals, not racism or capitalism, which create the urban underclass and its affluent liberal enablers.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: rural, urban, population, elections, homeland

For six years, Jeremy Adam Smith was a student and community activist in North Central Florida. Today he lives in San Francisco and works as the managing editor of Greater Good magazine. He blogs about the politics of parenting at Daddy Dialectic.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
this is news? or a bad thing?
Posted by: edith on Dec 12, 2006 12:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how did this "article" become a published item in a national e-newspaper? If you read the Supreme Court decision in the Sixties that madated one man(and woman), one vote, Baker v. Carr, you understand that America's republican structure never was intended to be pure democracy. The Electoral college and the equal votes for all states in the US Senate are vestiges of the consciously established indirect govt that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 deliberately established.

The extra voting power of relatively empty states preserves cultural diversity, and as literacy declines and even awareness of values fostered by the communes and social movements of the 1960's vaporizes into time even as the WWII generation is now but a whisper, it is not a bad thing to have places where nonconformists can live and remain part of the national conversation even if a numerical minority nationally.

rural dwellers in the long run should be advocates of conservation and meaures to offset effects of climate change and water contamination caused by exploding populations. the Thoreau concept rested not on convincing masses of voters to protect Nature, but on having places of Nature to which the nonconformist can escape, meditate, and from which, refreshed, the modern prophets can return to the suburbs or cities and spread the Word.

Do you really want pure one person one vote in an atmosphere of cultural illiteracy, failed assimilation of new immigrant groups, large segments of the population dependent on the MIC for livelihood and even more on medical monopolies? suburbs are as the article admits, becoming more like cities, and parts of cites are renewed and become havens from the idiocies not of rural areas but of suburbs and malls. The threat to America is not from rural areas which cherish privacy and human rights as much as an social activist, but from the malls, beltways and circumferential highways, office parks, military bases and the vast network of military, NIH, NSA and other govt contractors that comprises a new Welfare State for the middle class. That network is oblivious to traditional values cherished by rural folk and urban neighborhood activists, as well as those who love the arts and culural diversity. The land has been covered with concrete, swimming clubs and health complexes, and townhouse community after townhouse community. Where will our chldren learn where food and Life come from?
Cities are cultural gems; they also encourage conformity as much as the massive suburban sprawl that surrounds most American cities. The Gap and Starbucks culture is found in city cores as well as in the Malls.

This is a complex issue. Do we want one body, one vote? I don't know? The answer is not obvious an this article oversimplifies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: this is news? or a bad thing? Posted by: lorenkahle
democracy
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 12, 2006 1:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no doubt that multiple reforms are necessary in how power is politically distributed in our various states/cities and in how votes are tabulated and counted if we are to have a real democracy. The feds/states/counties/cities should make sure there is no significant vote fraud and the distribution of power among various legislators/governors/white house needs to be reformed. The status quo is status bullshit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remark on Quoted Statistic
Posted by: khalilg on Dec 12, 2006 2:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"'Low-population states such as Wyoming and North Dakota received forty dollars per person to arm themselves against the impending al-Qaeda menace,' Brian Mann notes. 'Meanwhile, the big I-have-a-bulls-eye-on-my-forehead states like California and New York managed to pocket about five dollars per capita.'"

To some degree (probably less than 8:1), you might expect per capita spending to be larger in less populous states, in an optimal distribution, even despite vague notions about what population areas are more likely targets. Also, the context of this statistic is important, I think. So, it should be taken with a grain of salt. However, that less populous states might benefit disproportionately, at least, perhaps especially, from homeland security spending, due to our political structure and environment sounds distinctly plausible to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: emark on Quoted Statistic Posted by: VannaLaRoche
And the point was?
Posted by: anothername on Dec 12, 2006 4:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This commentary was too long and too rambling; I was not sure what the specific point was supposed to be other than some general whine that cities tend to vote Democrat instead of Republican.

I have lived in small villages, large metropolises, and probably everywhere between those two. I did not grow up on a farm but was only a generation removed and had cousins who experienced that life. The truth is, neighborhoods and even apartment buildings in large cities can have the same dynamics as a rural community. Rural communities have the same issues as large cities, from hunger to need for health care to HIV to individuals not identical to each other. The difference is that individuals have a limited selection of opportunities to connect with other people of like minds or preferences.

Besides, as cities become too pricey for the middle class, which statistics have shown has already happened in San Francisco and in New York City, the cities are likely to become more conservative. For example, look at how funding for public transportation in San Francisco is faring (pun intended).

As population flees from rural America to cities, big businesses are luring coastal workers with promises of coastal salaries that will buy more house and more service at heartland prices.

I am tired of hearing about blue states, red states; blue blocks, red blocks; rural vs. city; and other divisions. Yes, it does have some importance in playing the electoral college game. However, it has a far more important role in making me feel as though individual citizens, whether in the majority or in the minority, no longer matter to government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Backlash
Posted by: Camin Harner on Dec 12, 2006 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The backlash narrative has been building (and not just since the mid-'60s) for a number of complex reasons. Some of those we on the left are responsible for, such as the gains in legal rights and social prominence for women, non-whites, gays, and others that are seen as zero-sum losses for those whose opposites have been gaining ground. Some the left has abetted, such as elite cultural disdain for working class people and their values, particularly the rural working class.

Others the left has been fighting, but not as much as we should, including the hollowing-out of the manufacturing base in rural America, the disappearance of the middle class in small towns, and the accelerating industrialization of agriculture.

If the left wants to win in rural America, then we'd better start working to help rebuild it: good blue- and white-collar jobs, opportunities for kids, durable family farms, decent health care, schools, and cultural programs. And we'd better learn to respect them as thinking, feeling, caring human beings. We'd better learn to work with them as partners. And we'd better stick with it, through electoral ups and downs and through the good years and the bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Backlash Posted by: hms2004
A parable of locks and keys
Posted by: hagwind on Dec 12, 2006 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More than 20 years ago I left the big city for a small-town/rural area. One of the first things that whapped me upside the head was how overwhelmingly urban feminist, progressive, and liberal assumptions were. Their generalizations no longer included my experience or those of the people I was getting to know. Over the years I've been more and estranged from feminism and progressivism, not to mention the Democratic Party (with which my relationship has rarely been more than tenuous). At the same time -- if I'm not a feminist, and a progressive, what am I? Since the "red state" bashing and general caterwauling that followed the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, however, I'm less and less willing to yield feminism, progressivism, and (gasp!) the Democratic Party to the city people. I'm even coming to suspect that we out in the various hinterlands have important insights and experiences to add to the progressive and feminist cauldrons: maybe we can take the lead in interpreting the city people to the country people and vice versa?

Here's a start: My last few years in the big city, I was never without my keychain. It had 10 keys on it, and I didn't even own a car. Four were for getting into my apartment, two were for my primary workplace, another two were for my part-time job, one was for my bicycle, and I can't remember what the tenth one was. These days my keychain can usually be found in my pickup's ignition. I can leave home for hours -- or days -- and not lock my front door. I still remember what it was like unlocking and locking four locks on the way out, unlocking and locking four locks on the way in. It was a crazy way to live -- but I didn't realize it till I didn't have to do it any more. If I hadn't lived so long in big cities myself, I'd tend to assume that all city people are crazy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A parable of locks and keys Posted by: katyalynn
THis piece seems a bit thin on historical context
Posted by: Jesse on Dec 12, 2006 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I recall, Bob LaFollette was from a largely rural state -- Wisconsin.

So was a big, big chunk of the traditional progressive movement early in this century.

To say that rural voters are naturally more right-wing or whatever ignores this history completely. It also ignores the fact that GOP gains in rural areas are due to a concentrated political strategy of race-baiting, for one. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.

The idea that city-dwellers disdain working people (or that "urban elites" do) is just hogwash. Most of the radical people I ever knew were working class people. They didn't work in academia, they worked at General Electric on the shop floor.

I'd say there are two issues going on: first is fear. Back in the early part of this century--really up until the 1920 census-- most people int he US were rural people. The 1920 census changes that--the number of peopel necessary to work on a farm drops below 50% and kept dropping. Currently the number of people involved in farm work is something like 2-5% of the population depending on what you count as farm work. So all of a sudden the clout that rural America had was cut down, even with the additional power in the Senate.

(There is another historical note to make here: the electoral college was set up, and the Senate as well, to preserve the power of slave states. This dynamic obviously changes after 1865, but the old power structure remained and has effects to this day, as the article points out).

Another thing that should be cited is that in most countries, leftist movements have been either urban or rural, but almost never both. The Bolsheviks in Russia were fundamentally an urban movement, as were most European Socialist parties, while the Mexican revolution was once led in urban areas (ca. 1910) and once in the countryside (Zapata), while in Guatemala and China it was rural. (A lot of this depends on where a country is in its industrialization, of course, but it also seems to be largely historical contingency).

The US is no exception here--I can think of only a couple of periods when both the rural and urban left were ascendant at the same time, and one would be in the 30s. I might go with the period around 1910 or so.

Anyhow, the fact remains that a part of the country --if we are to be a democracy--with a relatively small part of the population should have less influence. That's the point, as it were. Now, if one wants to get wonkish about reforms, I mght suggest proportional representation as a start, since that means that no winner takes everything, it removes the ability to get electoral control with a plurality of the vote, and better reflects what people want. No claiming mandates with 51% of the electorate.

But that would require some constitutional changes that I don't think are coming.

Another suggestion is simpler: split the electoral votes. People forget that states decide who the votes go to when they are tallied--that is, there is no law that says all the electoral votes must go to a single candidate. Maine and Kansas currently split, Colorado had it on the ballot in 2004 (and it might have made a difference if it had been on the ballot in 2000). That as least is a start.

I certainly don't think that one should write off rural people as part of a progressive movement. That seems plain silly. Especially when one considers that all those government programs do disporportionately affect rural voters (farm subsidies for a start). I don't think those who disdain government help would want their price supports cut or federal highway money to go away. It's just a mater of the old saw, "cut the subsidies for them, not for me."

But there is no law that people have to think that way, and there are many areas of common cause people can make.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Destroying Biblical Cities Posted by: derfb1
» RE: Destroying Biblical Cities Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» Sure was... Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Sure was... Posted by: Jesse
» RE: Sure was... Posted by: MatthewSavage
GOP tells rural folks: "Urbanites are scary!" Dems tell urbanites: "Rural Folks are Scary!"
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties on Dec 12, 2006 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Each side tries to scare its client interest groups into voting for them. They find it easier and more convenient to scare the voters rather than actually DO something good for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is news? I guess Alternet authors went to a new age school?
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Dec 12, 2006 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, surprise! The USA is a Constitutional Republic! When did that happen! I'm so surprised! Idiots.
1) Progressism started in rural America and was always strongest there.

2) People that own land, work land, and live on land understand better than city folk on how to take care of it, use it, and have a vested interest in its preservation.

3) City-people, even if well meaning, don't understand nature since all the do is read about it in books and on tv. You see what happens all the time when they decide to retire in the country or go hiking (suddenly tax payers have rescue team out looking for them, the local police need to explain to them about coyotes, snowed in roads, power lines go down occassionally, etc. They expect 'rural' living to be some idealistic Walton Pond thing.)

4) Don't write off rural America. There is more chance for progressive voters coming from there than in the big cities where wages are on the increase and attention is satiated with sports franchises, booze, 'gentlemen' clubs, drugs, bars, etc. People in rural America are losing their farms to big banks, getting their crop prices manipulated by monopolies, getting environmental rules changed on them (only big corps get loop holes), watching the land get ruined, and watching their children flee to the cities because rural American is being taken over by big agriculture, Hollywood 'liberal' people's private ranches, and UN-controlled parks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» from sister cupcake Posted by: Beck
» I wholeheartedly agree Posted by: AdamG
» RE: I wholeheartedly agree Posted by: Vyking
» RE: Progressive votes from the country? Posted by: albrechtkrausse
No Monopoly on Values
Posted by: michaeltwatson on Dec 12, 2006 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mistake that we must all be wary of making is to assume that values (whether moral ones, family ones, religious ones or cultural ones) are all possessed by only one, but not the other, of the groups. I moved from rural Texas to New York City, all of my own free will. I get respite from the city when I go back to Texas or to upstate New York; but I get invigoration and empathy for other cultures when I return to the city. What is wrong with a recognition that both have inestimable value, whether one is a proponent of urban, suburban or rural culture? I wonder if the characters depicted in "Brokeback Mountain" share an identity with the guys in New York who are more open about their sexual preferences. I witnessed the same genuine compassion for others in the people with whom I shared pews in my 50-member Episcopal church in Texas as those with whom I share a pew in the 3,000 member church in New York City.
Cultural diversity is, itself, a value. Whether one is Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Morman or Muslim, it should be hard to believe that our supreme being would have given us the knowledge to build big cities if he (or she) did not also want to give us the choice of those cities or the more open, greener spaces. Even agnostics would argue that there is no supreme being that requires us to make that choice a war between cultures. That choice does not always have to be one that necessitates the antagonism toward others' preferences and choices. Michael Townes Watson, author of America's Tunnel Vision--How Insurance Companies' Propaganda Is Corrupting Medicine and Law.. www.AmericasTunnelVision.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No Monopoly on Values Posted by: hms2004
Banana states of America
Posted by: Ghoulman on Dec 12, 2006 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Enriquez notes that it is curious "that the most productive, high-tech states tend to vote Democratic. The most dole-dependent tend to be hard-line, antigovernment, antispending Republicans. Seventy-five percent of Mr. Bush's votes came from taker states."

Of course, truths like these are never spoken of in Washington or the newsrooms of America.

The payola and pork barrel going to a "few" in the rural states is exactly how Washington props up other dictitorial regimes. Note, rural America uses religion to suppress dissent with as much gusto as a Saudi Mula.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My experience has been totally opposite
Posted by: Beck on Dec 12, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grew up in the kind of rural, white, conservative area described in the article; heartland state, not an ethnic soul to be seen. I now have lived for over 20 years in a huge city nationally reknowned for its supposed crime problem. Yet I have never experienced here the things I saw there. The only two times I was close to a person who had just been shot were in my rural village. My extended family, all of whom have remained in that area, live in safe-seeming rural neighborhoods, and all have seen robberies in their neighborhoods, some houses being robbed again and again. There were mafia-type crime families that everyone was afraid of, a huge drug problem, and many welfare cheats. Here, I am not afraid to leave my house or car unlocked. No one there would do that. Yet my family will tease me about being afraid to live where I live. Americans believe many things that simply are not true. For example, Kerry was repeatedly mocked about being "the most liberal Senator from the most liberal state of Massachusetts" yet he never bothered to point out that his state had, by every measure, one of the most family-friendly cultures; extremely low divorce rate, low crimes, better schools, etc. The whole country is like this. Red states have higher divorce, murder, abortion, crime rates, yet pat themselves on the back for upholding moral values. But since Americans and humans in general are quite able to believe what they want to believe, rather than what the facts show to be true, books portraying liberals as godless continue to be bestsellers. As Stephen Colbert says, "The facts can change, My opinion will never change."

I was part of a very small graduating class, in a very small farming community high school. Yet 11 or 12 of the people I hung around with in my youth are dead from overdoses, murder, or drunk driving. That's about 10% of the class. When my sister was in 11th grade, almost 40% of the girls in her class became pregnant. The idea that the rural heartland is a moral place is one of our most cherished myths, but that's all it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow... well, okay.. not so wow. Pretty unsurprising.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Dec 12, 2006 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... I guess if you have never lived outside of a city this article was possibly a surprise.

.. but I do have to say this.. if only some of these folks would figure out the relationship between industrialism and the rise of large urban cities we might start to get somewhere.

Also, wouldn't it be a whole lot more interesting to have an article like this about more radical folks.. like.. sayAnarcho-primitivists? Maybe then you wouldn't just be regurgitating the fact that you, being an urbanite, simply don't know much about or understand non-urbanites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ave Fabianus ... Thank GAWD I'm a Country Boy ... ho hum
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Dec 12, 2006 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This Virtuous Country vs Degenerate City thingie has been a popular trope since Rome was a Republic, too. The Romans took it tio the point that Senator's income was expected to be land-based. To advance his career he needed to be rich, but his wealth could not come from urban rents, industry, trade, or transportation.

The same theme is repeated in early Islamic stories. As a child, The Prophet (pbuh) is sent to the Pure Desert to escape the 'contagion' of the City. City people are grasping and impious; bedouin are noble, free and illiterate.

I hope we all know that the poor dear Founding Fathers DID intend that agricultural states would be disproportionately powerful influential -- and they did regard it as 'protecting' Noble Farmers from the base and popular city slickers.

Fast forward ... Abe Lincoln isn't a "Railroad Lawyer" ... dear me no -- he's a 'rail splitter.'

Fast forward a bit more William Jenning Bryan is nattering on about how if all the Cities were torn down, they would rise again ... but if the Farms were destroyed 'grass would grow in the City streets.

OK we get it already: Farm Good -- City Bad.

The 'rubes' just love it when their politicians give them that "you are the salt of the earth" line, which didn't help Jesus all that much ... but which took Huey Long straight to the State House.)

BUT WE 'SHOULDN'T WRITE THEM OFF' .

And I'm wondering how we do that ... Oh yeah, I get it now ... continue the farm subsidies ... endorse the Family Values Agenda ... and boycott the Dixie Chicks.

THEN they'll vote Democrat, I bet ya !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE WELFARE STATE threat from the GOP
Posted by: Ghoulman on Dec 12, 2006 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... no one has posted this yet soooo...

The GOP is famous for slapping down anyone who even suggests medicare or welfare.

"THE WELFARE STATE, you stinky commies!", they'd say.

Yet, no one ever pointed out the facts presented in this lefty website article - not the press nor anyone in Congress. Shouldn't they be aware of these facts? Do they care?

No, partizan dog and pony shows are what it's all about. Lobbies. Pork. War and the Military Industrial Congressional Complex, $$$.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

too much stereotypcial thinking
Posted by: xenacat on Dec 12, 2006 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that to characterize all rural folks as one thing and all urban folks as another is missing the point. The mistake this author makes is in assuming that rural people are deeply conservative. Many are, many aren't. The key is economic hardship and that is something the Repubs have very skillfully manipulated. Anytime a group of people are economically depressed, undereducated and without hope of breaking that cycle, they are easy exploited by those who offer even semi-plausible explanations for thier misery. So the Repubs swooped in, provided support for lunatic religous hypocrisy, fringe racism, etc. The issue of "values" is just a smoke screen for an elite group manipulation of a depressed group. Nothing more, nothing less. Toss the values thing aside - it just keeps us divided for no real reason. Provide economic parity and I think you will see less and less "red" in any area.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do we want a Democracy?
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Dec 12, 2006 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my opinion; No. Rampant Democracy is as dangerous as unbridled Capitalism. Government whether tribal, monarchy, dictatorship, or democracy, has always been rule by an elite. I think that the ruling elite should be from the majority of working class people, those who are politically aware, those who will steer the government justly between the interests of the rich and the poor to the long run benefit of all.

The Lincoln Initiative is a grassroots strategy to put this elite in control. The strategy is to dictate the platform planks of both parties by a majority of this elite. No more, no less.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Do we want a Democracy? Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Do we want a Democracy? Posted by: jmp3954
Interesting faith-based treatment of the topic. Small point of contention...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Dec 12, 2006 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Homelander ideologues of all stripes, from religious to libertarian to neoconservative, agree that cities, like governments, should be small enough to drown in the bathtub.

Wrong. Libertarians don't give two hoots in hell where you park your freight, so long as you don't subvert people's right to choose where they land. Pro-choice: it's kind of in the charter, in ways that go well beyond the one-issue wonders that other (supposedly) pro-choice groups draw their advocacy lines around. One can see where an author advocating the clusterification of humans might confuse a group with an ideological disinterest in where you hang your hat for being an opponent, if one holds true to the "your either with us or against us" meme.

When did the progressive mantra shift to, "You're either with us (in the city), or against us (out in the sticks)", anyway? A very Bushian article this was; very Bushian indeed.

There are 300M folks out in this country, with lots of room for a spectra of lifestyles and opinions. Just because someone chooses not to live just like you does not mean they can't look at national policies, priorities, and causes that promote a free and liberal society in much the same light. Libertarians are liberal fundamentalists--they just don't believe in making people live their daily lives and conduct their daily business according to nuanced intrusive policies, and they are naturally distrustful of intrusive government (hint, hint, have you looked around you?).

In short, just because some folks don't choose to live in a urban high-rise high rise, doesn't mean they are "anti" urban, as the author so tritely suggests:
Mann coins the term "homelander" to describe largely white, anti-urban conservatives and says the homeland is a state of mind.

Isn't there room for choice in a progressive forum anymore?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rural progressivism
Posted by: Paul Cardwell on Dec 12, 2006 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To the useful bibliography presented in passing through this essay should be added Democratic Promise: the Populist moment in American history, by Lawrence Goodwin, University of Chicago Press. The Populists came out of the Farmers National Alliance, organized in Lampasas, Texas, plus to a lesser extent the Knights of Labor, an early attempt at a labor union when they were still essentially illegal.

You could take the Populist platform as expressed in the Farmers National Alliance Cleburne (TX) and Ocala (FL) Demands and the 1892 People's Party Omaha Platform - update it a bit, like direct election of President rather than the achieved direct election of Senate, equal rights for women rather than votes for women, and you would have a platform that today people would say was very idealistic but had no chance of getting into law.

Far from the censored history books, Populism was mainly active in predominately rural Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Kansas, Minnesota, and the Oklahoma territory. It had a heavy influence on New Deal legislation, particularly through such rural Congress members as Sam Rayburn, Brook Hays, etc.

In the last election, Sam Rayburn's home Fannin County didn't even have an organized Democratic Party - no county chair, headquarters, regular meetings, etc. The Green Party, kept off the ballot by racist measures enacted to destroy Parti la Raza Unida back in the 1970s, had all but the headquarters, and the right to have people vote for them.

Yet, scratch the Fox-indoctrinated surface, and you will find Populism is still running strong as an ideological foundation.

Paul Cardwell

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ural progressivism Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: rural progressivism Posted by: jmp3954
The Worm Will Turn
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 12, 2006 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aside from all the essay above describes, a number of things are happening that will change this pattern. These changes to the American demographic will shift the voting in America if the NeoCons and DLC-types don't destroy our country first.

1- Immigration is making America is becoming a much browner and more multi-cultural nation. Maybe the folks in Fargo haven't sen it yet, but most of us know that America is in the midst of a large and sustained immigration boom. Even discounting 'illegal' immigration, the numbers and impact are significant. Immigrants strongly tend Democratic in their voting.

2- America is becoming a more racially and ethnically mixed nation. The number of multi-racial people is steadily on the rise and not just in Hollywood or Madison Avenue projects. Today's young adults are dating cross racially and ethnically at a rate far greater than ever before and that portends a continued growth in this pattern. If you are white, the chances that one or more of your grandchildren will be of mixed race or ethnicity rises every year.

3- The suburbs and rural america are for the first time feeling the impact of the demography. Our big cities have been multi-ethnic for quite a long time, but the smaller cities and communities of the heartland are starting to change. Otherwise; Sioux City, Omaha and Grand Forks are beginning to experience this demographic shift as well.

4- America is becoming less religiously homogenous and less dogmatic. For every new MegaChurch there are a couple of dozen older churches in decline. Even as our nation's population increases, average attendance at our nation's churches is declining. In communities across the nation other faith groups have sprung up in places one would have never imagined. America is becoming more diverse in matters of faith and opinion survey show that most have become less dogmatic.

5- The white birth rate is low compared to the non-white birth rate. Enough said.

America is becoming more ethnically diverse due to immigration, birthrate, intermarriage and demographic distribution. As our country becomes more intermingled, it will become harder and harder for political types to use xenophobia to divide and conquer. As that old time religion loses it's grip, the heartland will soften the socially conservative tendencies that the G.O.P. exploits.

Time is on our side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Worm Will Turn Posted by: DaBear
» RE: The Worm Will Turn Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: The Worm Will Turn Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Ostrich,USA
Posted by: kathat on Dec 12, 2006 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all have a choice where we want to live. In my experience , small towns are hiding their heads in the sand.
Small towns tend to not like anything or anybody who is 'different'...in my town that meant a family who's father had deserted them, a family who mother was tremendously obese, any 'poor' family, anyone who looked or acted gay, anyone who dressed differently than the 'norm...the list goes on and on.
I have always despised the Republican use of "Family Values", because what they are really saying is that if you don't have their values, you don't have any values. It is a ploy to get votes from the heartland and it always has been.
They play on people's fear of the larger unknown, and on familes that are different than a standard set a hundred years ago.
Big cities are born from people who left small towns because of intolerance, from immigration, from financial need of a job.
The result is that there is no 'one way of thinking' in big cities and that is intolerable to many people.
I think Senators and votes should be representative of population, not geography.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» kathat - Ostrich? Posted by: MAD
» RE: Ostrich,USA Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Ostrich,USA Posted by: jmp3954
» RE: Ostrich,USA Posted by: Beck
» RE: Ostrich,USA Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Question for thought?
Posted by: FightTheGiant on Dec 12, 2006 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't so-called rural morality really an under-exposure to differing cultures and thus really an absense of diversity.

People in small towns really do believe that everyone is the same. On the outside many people do seem the same. I think if you did a probe into many small towns you would find the same percentage of "immorality" as in large cities but that it would be covered by a facade. People in urban areas are more likely to express what they feel as there are more opinions like their own. This is studied heavily in communication theory. The spiral of silence refers to a minority groups willingness to speak out.

Crazy Christians will single handedly rip our democracy apart if nothing is done.

Hello Theocracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Question for thought? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Question for thought? Posted by: FightTheGiant
Life in the US is more complex, so we retreat into old cliches like rural/city antagonisms.
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 12, 2006 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Politics is about priorities, since the problems always outnumber the solutions. Looking back, I think that liberals gave it away as much as they had their leadership taken away. However, the incredible public debt run up by Reagan and now W Bush makes a lie of the accusation of Demos as the big spenders.

The farmers I knew in Iowa during the ten years I lived there were happy to sell their land to agri-business. New technology threatened the family farm in the same way the automotive industry ended buggy whips.

We need leadership that shows people how to believe their eyes. Otherwise it's the blind leading the blind, neither forward nor backward but just shifting our weight from the left to the right foot and back again. I hope that at least it's a dance rather than just a version of the thorazine (prozac?) shuffle. In one case we can hear the music; in the other if there's music, it's just the voices in our own heads.

If we open our eyes, we might see that all the talk today about *values* boils down to taxes, subsidies, markets, and capitalistic monopolies. Who gets 'em, and who don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd rather...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Dec 12, 2006 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd much rather hear a discussion of John Zerzan's vision of a world without civilization than this boring drivel.

www.greenanarchy.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It takes Big Brother about 1/2 an hour to read Peaceniks emails
Posted by: wawa on Dec 12, 2006 1:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was on the phone today with my webmistress-
I had emailed her the following to post on WAWA's right margin.

It took 1/2 hour before she received:



Whistelblower's
Freedom of
Speech Trial in
a Middle East
Democracy

Jerusalem- During this reporter's March 2006 interview with Mordechai Vanunu, he stated, "This administration tells me I am not allowed to speak to foreigners, the Media, and the world. But I do because that is how I prove my true humanity to the world. My freedom of speech trial began January 25, 2006 for speaking to the media, the same day as the Palestinian elections."

Only three journalists were present to cover the first day of this historic case which continues on without MSM coverage.

Although 'freed' in April 2004, Mordechai Vanunu has been forbidden to leave Israel, forbidden to speak to media and to foreigners under the draconian restrictions of the Emergency Defense Regulations which were implemented first by Britain against Palestinians and Jews after World War II.

After WW II, Attorney Yaccov Shapiro, who later became Israel's Minister Of Justice, described the Emergency Defense Regulations which denies Vanunu the inalienable rights of freedom of speech and movement as "unparalleled in any civilized country: there were no such laws in Nazi Germany."[ N.S. Ateek, Justice and Only Justice p.34]

On February 22, 2006 in a Jerusalem court it was revealed that Israel had asked Microsoft to hand over all the details of Vanunu's Hotmail account before a court order had been obtained.

Read More:

http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jeremy Adam Smith
Posted by: Jeremy Adam Smith on Dec 12, 2006 2:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the author of the article. Thanks for all the comments thus far; supportive or critical, thoughtful and not-so-thoughtful, they help me (and hopefully others) think through the problems and questions posed in the essay. Keep 'em coming.

I don't intend to respond to every point made so far, but there is one that demands a response from me.

Several commentators appear to be under the impression that I believe rural folks are automatically conservative and city folk reflexively progressive. For example: "It seems to me that to characterize all rural folks as one thing and all urban folks as another is missing the point," writes one person. "The mistake this author makes is in assuming that rural people are deeply conservative. Many are, many aren't."

Though I might have made mistakes in this piece, that is not one of them. Such statements misunderstand and mischaracterize the points I do make. Let me be clear: I do not believe that to be the case and there is nothing in the essay that supports such a case. Quite the opposite.

I start with a single fact: that in 2000 and 2004 rural areas voted overwhelmingly for Republicans, while the cities and inner suburbs went to Dems. This does not mean, and I do not say, that every single person in any given area adheres to a single ideology. But it does add up to a striking pattern that very few people have tried to intelligently analyze.

Nothing is ever static. Cities are a process, full of contradictions. So are suburbs. So is the countryside. As I point out in the essay, rural areas were once the scenes of tremendous progressive ferment: the Populist, socialist, and civil rights movements all had roots on farms and small towns. As an activist, I learned from people who spent their whole adult lives working in rural places.

In recent decades, however, the right has made enormous gains in sparsely populated areas. In this essay I try to answer why -- finding part of the answer in long-term economic and social trends -- and ask how, given the facts, we can rebuild liberal or progressive majorities outside of urban centers. Far from arguing that the suburbs and countryside are irredeemably conservative, I am actually saying that we need to recapture and leverage a history of progressive rural values and organizing which survives but has been on the run for decades. See the quote in the essay from my friend and colleague Chris Kromm. To me, that's the last word.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jeremy Adam Smith Posted by: Camin Harner
As Long As Greenspan Blames The Fall of Berlin Wall...
Posted by: pelle_in_goal on Dec 12, 2006 3:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Long As Greenspan Blames The Fall of Berlin Wall...

...for everything that didn't happen on his Fed watch -- we might as well throw blame at the feet of our cities as well. [Poor Alan. If only we'd given him another 25 years.]

The implication about Greenspan is not as ludicrous as it sounds. The Interstate Highway Network wasn't the only result of the Cold War that devastated once great cities. Public transportation went south as well -- especially in The Rust Belt -- as urban sprawl taxed meager financial resources. Besides, better to keep the riff-raff out of the suburbs. Anybody who's spent 3 hours getting to and from work these days knows this. For this I thank the author for his insights.

Add to it the other role that strait-jacketing the cities had in America's global struggle against Communism. Chalk the latter up to keeping the peace via "mutually assured destruction." The MAD scenario needed urban hostages to keep the peace -- and the defense contracts fat and juicy.

Their reward for being a vanguard against The Apocolypse? Our older cities are to suffer even more now that the Cold War ended -- thanks to American Conservatism. In the 80s, Sociology joined an expanded list of liberal sciences to get the ax at most major universities. "Keep the rats, get rid of the streetcars and buses -- but above all keep urban dwellers ignorant." Those damn "Liberals" keep harping about the moonscape in the Inner City like they were timberwolves howling in the night. Enough already! At least until people of color start showing some personal responsibility.

That's the mantra of the Conservative Movement. After 1970 it could be found in the Powell Memorandum. Few progressives paid attention to the vast overhaul of urban living that Powell called for until it was too late. One of its goals was to kill off the cities as we once knew them; sooner or later the Cold War would end, anyway. Meanwhile, avoid the the truth about class and race in our society at all costs. Powell and his followers found the remedies far too expensive and complex for the American Experience.

The impending death of the American city wasn't just plotted and isn't just being carried out by rural hypocrites and self-righteous fundamentalists. And it doesn't need the Electoral College to exist. Check out the makeup of the next Congress philosophically. It's more conservative than ever and this is not exactly good news at Broadway and Main.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

today is like 1880
Posted by: john henry on Dec 12, 2006 7:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the rancher an the farmer of pass feeded the townes an they traded with them an they bought from them of then now in 1955 or so when i was in school if your mother an farther were farms you were nothing or very little standing the town we all were poor to there standards an we didnot know anything but we builded there roads,homes,there factors an we feeded,clothed them up to the 1960's or so now all the power has changed to them townes an they have had it for over 40years an now we as a nation can not feed,cloth ourselves they have to make big buck off of our backs so its time for us country folk to take back if they want build a big shopping center let then buy the land an build there store not the tax payers an factorys want tobuy an build let then but at there cost not the tax payers an we should get all the tax bercks that corps. get we should try to get them removed an any company doing buienss in another country should pay a 50% higher tax this is on there profited ,if they want to have there offices hee an there plants there they this will make them in or out of our country

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We libertarians are Homelanders
Posted by: ericdondero on Dec 13, 2006 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]