I Wouldn't Be Caught Dead in a Vermont Winter, So I Guess We'll Just Write the Whole State Off

Peter Ross Range never fails to annoy me:

Part of the Democrats' problem has been cultural. Still notionally tied to the 20th century glory days of strong urban working class and ethnic voting blocs, some Democratic activists have trouble imagining themselves as the car-pool and mega-mall party. Educated elites in the core cities, university towns, and inner suburbs often reject the exurban lifestyle -- big yards, big cars, big churches, big families -- and thus refuse to embrace a politics based on their concerns. "I wouldn't be caught dead in the suburbs," one 20- something urban liberal told me recently in Washington's leading political bookstore.

Seriously? That's the evidence? One twentysomething liberal in Kramerbooks or Politics & Prose told him that he wouldn't be caught dead in the suburbs and this is the source of the Democratic Party's political woes? Obviously, though, the suburban lifestyle isn't supposed to appeal to single young professionals. If the Democratic Party's electoral fortunes genuinely hinge on convincing twentysomething activists that they find suburban living personally appealing then the party is fucked. But maybe if Range thought about this for ten minutes he'd see that his account doesn't make sense. It's just that he's writing in Blueprint so he needs to find a way to take a random personal swipe at liberals.

Comments

It's a DLC hype magazine. Will reading Glamour really teach you how to turn your Man Into an Animal? Probably not, but nobody feels betrayed or misled by the story. So he took a shot at liberals--he's DLC, and that's his job.

Blueprint should consider having relationship quizes in it. It might help move some product.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 4, 2007 12:37 PM

Do you push away moderate men with your undesirable progressivism?

Do you ruin relationships by being too forward with your ideals, instead of letting your moderate man decide?

In a way, this sort of gets at the twisted gender politics of DLC-ism. On the one hand, Democrats need to stop being such namby-pamby liberals and be real men. On the other hand, in order to appeal to real men - defined as moderates and swing voters, if not outright conservatives - Democrats need to be demure and retiring, and they need to let these real men lead the way. To be "real" men, Democrats need to be "real" women.

(It's the same logic that just gets inverted when Kos-followers call for Democrats "with balls" - now up-front liberalism is the real masculinity. And it has similar illogic, that masculinity is what is prized, but one of the tenets of this new masculinity is, well, feminism, which at its heart rejects the whole privileging of masculinity.)

Posted by DivGuy | February 4, 2007 12:45 PM

The notion that a party can suffer from deep existential flaws and still get roughly 50% of the vote when you hold elections only makes sense if you believe that that 50% is somehow less real than the other 50%. I'd wager that for every urban liberal who wouldn't be caught dead in the suburbs, there's at least one exurban conservative who wouldn't be caught dead in the cities. The difference is that conservatives have spent a long time convincing the nation that the latter is a virtue and the former a flaw, if only because the exurban conservative is more real of an American. That they've been so successful with this on their side of the aisle is sad enough but a lot of liberals have, for some reason, internalized this. I always think of a (liberal) friend of mine who, when I pointed out that Bush could hardly be called "very popular" with only a 50% approval rating (this was way back when), responded, "Well, yeah, but that's only because of the coasts. If you took them out..."

Posted by Victor Freeh | February 4, 2007 1:22 PM

Eh, same old, same old. American culture was nattering on about the "wicked cities" and the "virtuous rural areas" way back in 1890. Go read Thomas Beer ('The Mauve Decade') for a juicy, sardonic look at the whole shebang.

Posted by grumpy realist | February 4, 2007 2:38 PM

Re: Educated elites in the core cities, university towns, and inner suburbs often reject the exurban lifestyle -- big yards, big cars, big churches, big families

Big yards, check; big cars, yep; and big-churches, sometimes, yes (although many of those people with the big yards have made sure local zoning keeps those big churches at a distance). But bvig familiesd? Unlikely. People living in McMansions in the exurbs are usuyally working their butts off to affords all that "big" this and that. It doesn't come cheap. Most of them are lucky if they have time for one kid, let alone a six pack of them. Many in fact are classic "DINKs". If you're looking for big families the most likely place you will find them are out beyond the exurbs, in rural areas where there are still people who marry right out of high school and have a child every two years in their 20s.

Posted by Jonf | February 4, 2007 3:01 PM

Here's an idea. Separate out the racist vote -- however you want to define a racist. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that, while not all Republicans are racists, all racists are Republicans. How does the remaining suburban vote break out? I'm just guessing that racists tend to flee to suburbia, and the more distant the higher the proportion gets. Do Dems get less than half of the non-racist votes, even in Kansas and Utah? I'd be surprised.

Posted by Alan in SF | February 4, 2007 4:27 PM

Which party has a former Klan leader in a leadership position again?

Perhaps you want to rethink that "all racists are Republicans" line? Not to mention the fact that anti-semitism seems to cross ideological boundaries with ease.

Posted by James Robertson | February 4, 2007 4:45 PM

JR: I assume you mean Robert Byrd? Do you have any indication that he's been a racist at any time in the past quarter century? Do you think there might be a reason why, unlike all of the actual Dixiecrats, he didn't defect to the Republicans.

Democratic anti-semites? Name names, JR.

Posted by Alan in SF | February 4, 2007 4:54 PM

Which party has a former Klan leader in a leadership position again?

Perhaps you want to rethink that "all racists are Republicans" line?

I'm sorry but, no, the fact that "All racists are Republicans" is stupid doesn't make what you said any less stupid. Thanks for playing though.

Posted by Anon | February 4, 2007 4:56 PM

Was someone contending that all racists are not Republicans? (By "all," I mean 90 percent plus; let's be reasonable.) Why would racists vote for a Democratic candidate? Are they stupid or something?

What proportion of the racist audience do you suspect watches Keith Olbermann instead of Rush Limbaugh. probably a lot, huh?

Posted by Alan in SF | February 4, 2007 5:08 PM

Seven posts to the "Robert Byrd was in the KKK!" argument. Perhaps a new record for poor logic.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | February 4, 2007 5:56 PM

The Republicans would also have more former Dixiecrats in Congress these days if it wasn't for the fact that pretty much all of the old Republican Dixiecrats are either dead or fully senile. Byrd is only about 98% senile, therefore he is able to get elected by West Virginia to Congress. That really tells us something about West Virginia. Meanwhile their other Senator is a Rockfeller who majored in Far Eastern Studies and Japanese. Go figure.

Posted by Reality Man | February 4, 2007 6:15 PM

I'm a racist and a Democrat (though I try to minimize my racism as much as possible).

Posted by Julian Elson | February 4, 2007 11:19 PM

Bobology, science devoted to the study of all things suburban, claims that humans undergo methamorphosis not unlike many insects. After chrysalis-like urban stage, for the purposes of reproduction they move to suburbs where they houses, cars, churches etc. grow, while brains become Republican.

Of late, this neat scenario is being undermined. Some reserchers spotted compact cars in the suburbs, while some denizens move around (at least in warmer weather) on bicycles. Some churches are not all that big, and not all that Republican (say, Jewish Reform temples), plus, many former urbanites fail to "reconnect to faith" upon moving to suburbs. Some corners of suburbia have as funky bussinesses as one can get: micro-bussiness district near my dwelling features an artist cooperative, holistic body massage, herbal medicines and incence, besides more staid vacuum cleaners, tombstones and flooring materials. Big malls are flanked by big bookstores with caffes supplying suburbanites with espresso, latte etc.

In short, "educated elites" move to suburbia without changing their personal mental outlook, and convert some locals in the process. New subdivisions are connected to bicycle trails to increase property values! What is happening to the rugged individualism!

While latte-swilling elites vote Democratic, young Republican staffers loose their campaign documents in Starbucks. In time, latte (or is it green tea or chai?) is affecting their brains and Democratic Party gains more voters. Even more senior Republicans are affected. Former Senator Santorum had a personal PAC, and a major part of expenditures were Starbucks bills. While he did not loose any documents, he lost his hard-edged populism, and, in turn, lost election.

Posted by piotr | February 4, 2007 11:52 PM

"In time, latte (or is it green tea or chai?) is affecting their brains and Democratic Party gains more voters."

Ah yes, I love being part of the Seattle-Latin-Asian axis to take over American politics. Next stop: Belgium!

Posted by Reality Man | February 5, 2007 12:57 AM

If anything, I think the more common, more problematic elitism cuts the other direction. Many suburbanites and exurbanites, both liberal and conservative, wouldn't be caught dead in an inner city neighborhood. Often, they seem to take that expression literally.

I've personally found myself afraid to canvas certain areas of Phoenix, so I'm not sure what to do about this problem beyond stating it clearly.

Posted by Jalmari | February 5, 2007 2:51 AM

Also, David Byrne said he wouldn't live there if you paid him, so QED.

Posted by Matt McIrvin | February 5, 2007 8:30 AM

Any of these guys ever look at the election returns from the suburbs? Since Clinton I, the Dems have been pulverizing the Republicans in Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk Counties around NY, the Northern NJ suburban ring, the Fairfield County in Conn., in the Philly burbs, the Detroit burbs, the DC burbs in Maryland and Virginia, the Baltimore Burbs, the Cleveland burbs, Chicago burbs, LA burbs, SF burbs, Seattle burbs, Portland (Oregon and Maine) burbs, and on and on. There is only one GOP US Rep. left in New England and the only big city in the region is Boston, which has about the same population since as it did in 1960.

Posted by Edward | February 5, 2007 9:34 AM

But maybe if Range thought about this for ten minutes he'd see that his account doesn't make sense.

But thinking is hard, and ten minutes is such a long time.

Posted by Ben Dueholm | February 5, 2007 10:12 AM

Ummmm...I think that African-American racists could easily vote Democratic.

Posted by Chris Anderson | February 5, 2007 11:22 AM

Another hole in the generalization -- the upscale, safe areas of major cities (Upper East Side and increasingly Upper West Side in Manhattan, Georgetown and Kalorama in D.C.) are so expensive that I find it hard to believe many hard-core liberals inhabit them. Bond traders, lobbyists, etc. Of course, at that scale of wealth they also have houses in Long Island, Loudon County, etc.

This breaks down by family members: the paterfamilias who makes all the money is a Republican, his wife is a liberal Democrat, and their son is the guy in Politics & Prose, living in an U Street sublet while he tries to start an "urban" magazine.

Posted by sara | February 5, 2007 11:28 PM