Southern Captivity

Mark Kleiman has some wise thoughts on the conservative establishment's hatred of Mike Huckabee. It should also be said, however, that on a more basic level a Huckabee nomination would be an electoral fiasco for the Republican Party. Not just in the race for the White House, but down ballot as well. If you're Gordon Smith or Susan Collins or Norm Coleman the difference between the Republican nominee being Romney/Rudy/McCain or being Huckabee is enormous.

Whenever the Republican Party is in trouble, it's always worth revisiting Christopher Caldwell's classic 1998 Atlantic piece "The Southern Captivity of the GOP". The past nine years have, in many ways, run against Caldwell's thesis. But I think the best way of reading him is as offering not a prediction as such, but a kind of warning: Given the size and distinctiveness of the South as a region, and given the GOP's dominance of that region, the party is perpetually runs the risk of becoming a merely southern party.

The most successful Republican politicians of the "southern strategy" era, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, were Californians who were personally indifferent to religion and both led political coalitions that extended far beyond the south and its brand of evangelicism. Bush, in keeping with the more modest nature of his political coalition, is a Texan able to present himself as southern to fellow southerners. But on the national stage he overwhelming identifies himself with the iconography of the West -- cowboy boots, clearing brush, a ranch -- rather than with the south. And, again, for all his political reliance on evangelicals, he's actually a Methodist.

A Huckabee-led Republican Party would, even if it got its act together and started offering a well-briefed candidate with cutting-edge policies out of the conservative think tax universe, be very very very Southern and not even in a particularly "New South" kind of way. You could pull this off, perhaps, under generally favorable political circumstances, but given the bad overall climate it'd be a recipe for disaster.

Comments

George Bush is in fact not an evangelical, but it is most certainly not because he's a Methodist, and there is absolutely no conflict between the two. This is a really, really, really basic mistake to make and if a lazy reporter made as obvious a mistake on a subject you knew/cared about you would be baying at the moon.

Posted by Some dude | December 16, 2007 2:55 PM

And, again, for all his political reliance on evangelicals, he's actually a Methodist.

As both an ex-Texan and ex-Methodist, I'd submit that this distinction lost much of its meaning over the last 20 years. Growing up, I certainly watched my historically traditional & centrist-to-liberal Methodist church get gradually co-opted by the God Squad. These days it's basically a bunch of holy rollers.

Posted by Bill | December 16, 2007 2:56 PM

Methodists were always the most proletarian of the so-called mainline churches. Once upon a time this was a good thing, as anyone familiar with the ministry of John Wesley, or even with the novel Adam Bede, can attest.

Posted by kth | December 16, 2007 3:01 PM

Texas is as much a part of the West, as it is of the South.

One has to give credit to Bush for so convincingly shedding his New England/Ivy League upbringing.

Posted by David | December 16, 2007 3:02 PM

1. although most American Methodists are considered "liberal" (like all liberal churches, their numbers are dwindling), a substantial component are, in fact, evangelicals.

2. Reagan was personally (unlike Nixon), quite religious. His personal piety was nowhere near as formal or orthodox as his public persona would suggest, but it was genuine.

Posted by Nathan | December 16, 2007 3:06 PM

Unfortunately, someone else seems to have coined this term already, but in any case I'll henceforth by refering to MattY using the nick "SansAClue".

Huck is very definitely "new south", and not in the good way.

David: Western Texas is about as much a part of the South as NM and AZ are; the change is quite obvious. As SansAClue would tell you, "the sky's so blue".

Posted by TLB | December 16, 2007 3:25 PM

matt and his ilk just don't get it, do they?
maybe candidate huckabee is a disaster because he ultimately comes off as an embarrassing, backwards redneck from a deliverance-style movie.
i wouldnt count on it.
years ago, after the first couple of times i heard huckabee on the imus show, i googled him to see if he was a democrat or a republican. i recall thinking, gee, he sounds like such a reasonable guy. i couldnt tell if he was a dem or a republican.
again, please read matt tiabbi's article in rolling stone about huckabee and his weird charm. that article says it all.
like tiabbi, i am definitely not a huckabee voter, but, like tiabbi, i also got sucked in by his strange ability to almost hypnotize listeners into believing that he is a reasonable guy. when in reality, he really is a rightwing nutcase.
what pundits keep forgetting is that this is a political race and the political skills of the candidates will factor in at some point. huck has the best skills of any candidate in either party. he is a master.
if huck got the nomination, while i'd believe that he'd lose to just about any dem, i do not believe that it would be a rout or a disaster.
huckabee is just too good of a politician for that to happen.
if he can charm someone who would never think of voting for someone with his views, someone who is extremely well-informed on issues, i know darn well, there are millions of americans who will be taken in by his siren song.
the sooner the pundits and dems understand that, the better informed their views will be.

Posted by frankie d | December 16, 2007 3:27 PM

The past nine years have, in many ways, run against Caldwell's thesis.

Uh, what? Count your Republican leaders by region over the last nine years.

But on the national stage he overwhelming identifies himself with the iconography of the West -- cowboy boots, clearing brush, a ranch -- rather than with the south.

I have a hard time believing that your boy Kriston can't help you distinguish between Western, Southwestern, and Texan (which is, by any reasonable accounting, pretty Southern).

And, again, for all his political reliance on evangelicals, he's actually a Methodist.

Good lord.

Maybe the Atlantic could hire Kriston (or, hell, Matt Welch) as some sort of not-exclusively-from the-Northeast consultant. Just to check local color angles.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 16, 2007 3:28 PM

Methodists were originally THE evangelicals, although the national Church does take a liberal stance today. Rather than being "the most proletarian of the mainline churches," they started out proletarian and worked their way into the mainline through sheer force of numbers. Demographically, although not doctrinally, the Methodists were historically closest to Huckabee's denomination, the Baptists.

Posted by James Kabala | December 16, 2007 3:33 PM

OT: FORCE CONGRESS TO IMPEACHMENT: Call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT.

Posted by Mike Meyer | December 16, 2007 3:35 PM

Re: Reagan was personally (unlike Nixon), quite religious.

Reagan's religiosity appears to have been a form of Neo-Deism: sincere and even deep faith in a Supreme Being, but not so much in Jesus or the tenets of orthodox Christianity. Since that's pretty much the faith of the Founding Fathers and several other great presidents (e.g., Lincoln), it's not a criticism of Reagan-- though a political liberal who evinced this sort of faith would be pilloried by the Religious Right.

Posted by JonF | December 16, 2007 3:47 PM

I agree that becoming too Southern is a big danger for the Republican party, but it is far from obvious to me that Huckabee is too culturally Southern for national elections. First of all, Arkansas isn't Alabama - it is much closer to the political center of the country (particularly if you are comparing whites in both states - Alabama looks less far out there because of the large D voting black population, but if you are looking at whites from the deep south I would submit that this is pretty different from Arkansas). Secondly, a lot of swing areas of the country have a lot in common with the upper South (basically areas of Scotch-Irish settlement): south MO, southern OH, western VA.WV. These areas are not southern in the way that MS, AL, or SC are, but I do think that have more in common with Arkansas than you might think. Obviously, if Huckabee wins MO and OH, he has a great chance.

Huckabee also seems to have the ability to come off as a reasonable guy. So I wouldn't assume that he is an electoral disaster. He could be (lack of foreign policy experience or knowledge could be a problem), but I think it would be a huge mistake to assume that at this point.

Posted by ikl | December 16, 2007 3:49 PM

Anti-Hucks from right and left can’t make up their minds: Right-wing nut, tax ‘n spend liberal, professional politician, backwoods preacher?

Mike’s campaign is based on a radical idea, that voters will see him for what he is, not how he’s defined.

Mike is where most swing voters are, with conservative instincts and a desire to solve problems. Elections are decided on the future, not on what someone is reported to have said in a negative hit piece 15 years ago.

Posted by bob | December 16, 2007 3:54 PM

I think Matt's absolutely right about the Western iconography. The press room at Bush's Crawford ranch has a sign hanging behind the podium that says "The Western White House." If Texas is "as much a part of the West, as it is of the South" as David suggests above, why not call it "The Southern White House"?

Surely the Bushies have thought about this. And I think the answer is that they want to place themselves in the Western tradition of Reagan.

After all, the last Republican president from the South was ... James Madison, no?

Posted by Frank | December 16, 2007 3:56 PM

Reagan was personally (unlike Nixon), quite religious.

You could say "spiritual," (assuming you believe his public statements were genuine) and this statement would have some level of credibility, but none of Reagan's public statements or activities peg him a "religious," which implies a certain level of practice and dedication/adherence.

Reagan's attitudes struck me as reflecting a deep and abiding belief/nostalgia in a certain idea "Americanism" and he saw evangelicalism as a authentic manifestation of "the American spirit" even if that wasn't "his thing" (in the same way he probably appreciated farming and being a pioneer, even though he did neither of these things).

Posted by Tyro | December 16, 2007 3:59 PM

Does anyone else think Huckabee sounds a little bit like a southern Kevin Spacey when he talks (in a movie where Kevin isn't playing a total weirdo)? He even looks a *slight* bit like an aged version of Spacey.

Posted by pjgoober | December 16, 2007 4:07 PM

This is a fine article, but one of the things that all this religion talk has done is demonstrate that our "journalistic class' doesn't know the most basic things about the the topic. I thought the point of a liberal arts education was to help people be well rounded enough to discuss a wide variety of topics. Evidently religion is not one of those topics at our "finer" schools. It's really stunning.

West Texas Methodism is definitely evangelical.

Gaffs like this only add to the perception that our media types think everyone of faith is a loon, and the topic isn't worth the time to study or understand.

Eighty to ninety percent of our nation has some sort of faith in God and 40 - 60 percent have a faith that gives central meaning and purpose to their lives.

Even if you have chosen to be a skeptic, it would be valuable to us all if you would make time to educate yourself on the ins and outs of the core values of your audience.

Again great article, but I would like to see Atlantic's staff get a better grip on religious topics. Whatever you may feel about the wall of separation of church and state, most Americans do not hold to a separation of church and life. Any religious man or woman in this nation is going to see a connection between his/her faith and the voting box.

Posted by Brett | December 16, 2007 4:14 PM

pjgoober,

you nailed it!!!
if he's elected president and they need to cast the role, it is kevin spacey without a doubt.
spacey even has that low-key, i'm-just-a-normal-guy thing that huckabee uses.
in fact, i wonder if huck might have even patterned himself after spacey, the usual suspects edition.
huckabee as keyser soze!

Posted by frankie d | December 16, 2007 4:27 PM

There is no solution for the Republicans to the Huckabee problem. If he is nominated he is an electoral disaster for the Republicans and there is nothing he or the party can do to change that inevitability. His positions are just too...weird and his history riddled with disqualifiers (DuMond, wife submitting to her husband, etc.) that no amount of money and advertising gloss can overcome.

On the other hand, if he is to be stopped by the Republicans, it will of necessity be done in a way to alienate the base. He will be painted as a weird, out of touch, fringe figure for the good people of Iowa and NH and Florida but that the Bubbas in Alabama and Ohio and Virginia will say, "uh, he is just like me and they are calling him weird?" They are, unless a miracle intervenes, screwed.

Posted by dmh | December 16, 2007 4:34 PM

Methodists were always the most proletarian of the so-called mainline churches.

Not in the US. Tradition hierarcy is:

Episcopalian
Presbyterian
Methodist
Baptist

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 16, 2007 4:51 PM

Whatever being a Methodist actually means, many people outside of the evangelical/southern tradition have associations with "Southern Baptist" as a catch-all term for evangelical and would be surprised to learn that Bush, unlike Huckabee, isn't a Southern Baptist.

The important distinction is that the Southern Baptist Convention is the conservative, centralized group that regularly issues proclamations that women should submit to their wives or that the in the coming year we're all going to target the Mormons/Jews/Muslims for conversion and that's what scares people.

Posted by Brittain33 | December 16, 2007 4:53 PM

To Brett's comments, I would add that I'm old enough to recall when Democrats and Republicans alike believed that a Reagan nomination would spell disaster for the GOP. Then we watched as not only Reagan won also a bunch of Republicans down ticket -- it wasn't even close.

I'm not saying that Huckabee is in that class but the past twenty seven years are an object lesson in the inability of BosWash pros and pundits to predict what people in the rest of the country will do or even understand how they think and feel.

Posted by Roberto | December 16, 2007 5:08 PM

God, the Yglesias-envy is getting hard to take. Yes, Matthew is a respected commentator who has used his charisma and connections to get a perch at the Atlantic that he's using to nail your wife and daughter. Get over it.

I live in Texas, Matthew, and your point about Bush using Western as opposed to Southern imagery is astute.

Posted by Walt | December 16, 2007 5:20 PM

Obviously, Texas is both Southern AND Western. Bush has spent substantial time in both the more Western section (Midland) and the more Southern one (Dallas). Moreover, a tendency on the part of Texas pols to identify as Western or Southern depending on their momentary needs is nothing new. LBJ did this a lot.

Also, Huckabee doesn't have a very strong accent (weaker than fellow Hope resident Bill Clinton's even), which I think will make him less off-putting to some than Bush's style was.

But the larger point is that commenters above are right to nail Matt for his cluelessness about contemporary Christianity and politics. Having spent his entire very short and privileged life in elite institutions in the Boston-Washington corridor (along with vacations in Maine) and not being much of an observer even of his own religious tradition (as blogged pictures of target-shooting Yom Kippur document) really is a hindrance when opining on these matters is concerned.

But regardless of one's background it is possible to learn. Matt is a very sharp guy who produces many observations worth reading. If he actually spent any serious time as a reporter outside his home turf, the way David Halberstam went to the South early in his career, or even working on a Democratic campaign in a red state he might do a better job in this respect. Even the much sneered at GFR, whose background is rather privileged and -dare I say it-cosmopolitan like Matt's, spent some time in Iowa and learned something about what some call "flyover country" as a result.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | December 16, 2007 5:52 PM

Re: I would add that I'm old enough to recall when Democrats and Republicans alike believed that a Reagan nomination would spell disaster for the GOP.

In 1976, when Reagan challenged Ford from the far Right, it would have. In 1980 it didn't because Reagan ran on a fairly run-of-the-mill Republican platform to which he gave his own special panache.

Re: Bush has spent substantial time in both the more Western section (Midland) and the more Southern one (Dallas).

Dallas is not a Southern city: it is a Great Plains city and it has more in common with Chicago than Atlanta. The Old Dixie city of Texas is Houston.

Posted by JonF | December 16, 2007 6:30 PM

Sez Frank: "the last Republican president from the South was ... James Madison, no?"

No. James Madison was a "Democratic-Republican", the party that was a precursor to the modern Democrats. The modern Republican party originated right before the Civil War as the party of the Abolitionists and (then) western farmers and business interests, and mainly comprised former Whigs. Because of the racial politics, there were, in effect, no white southern Republicans between the end of Reconstruction and the Nixon Southern Strategy, and since blacks were denied the vote, the black southern Republicans in that period didn't count.

Posted by bemused | December 16, 2007 6:35 PM

Anyone interested in a funny (but it really happened) column about what Huckabee is really like face-to-face should try:
http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/02/title_14

Posted by lane filler | December 16, 2007 6:42 PM

But on the national stage he overwhelming identifies himself with the iconography of the West -- cowboy boots, clearing brush, a ranch -- rather than with the south.

Umm ... MY ... the Southern Strategy has always made itself more palatable outside the South by clothing itself in Western iconography. Especially under Reagan. Anyway, the South itself does it: after all Southrons listen to music from the South but call it "Country and Western Music" and wear cowboy hats whilst listening to it.

*

Regarding Reagan and the GOP: my very conservative (and very Western) great-grandparents broke with the GOP shortly before they died 'cause they couldn't stand Ronald Reagan. It may have been personal: evidently he snubbed my great-grandmother once. But then again, while they generally didn't like "gummint" (also, while militantly anti-commie, they were anti-Vietnam and thought it a plot by military-industrial complex ... remember it was a Republican who made that speech), they did think gummint should protect the environment, so Reagan, with Watt, et al., was right out for them.

*
the Methodists were historically closest to Huckabee's denomination, the Baptists. - James Kabala

What's the line from A River Runs through It? "Methodists are Baptists who can read"?

Posted by DAS | December 16, 2007 6:47 PM

If you're Gordon Smith or Susan Collins or Norm Coleman the difference between the Republican nominee being Romney/Rudy/McCain or being Huckabee is enormous.

I dunno if it'd work in the direction you'd think it would work, though. People who are voting for Gordon Smith or Susan Collins are voting for a "kinder, gentler GOP". They may be closer ideologically to Romney/Rudy/McCain than to Huckabee (i.e. socially more liberal, economically more conservative rather than socially right wing but economically populist), but, outside of the media establishment, who thinks of Rudy or McCain as representing a "kinder and gentler" anything?

OTOH, Huckabee does seem to be a genuinely nice guy (btw, did any of y'all catch Paula Poundstone's take on that on Wait! Wait! Don't Tell Me! ?), so having him at the helm might help out Susan Collins or Gordon Smith more than having St. Rudy or St. John McCain if not more than having Romney.

Posted by DAS | December 16, 2007 6:51 PM

John F:

>Re: Bush has spent substantial time in both the more Western >section (Midland) and the more Southern one (Dallas).

>Dallas is not a Southern city: it is a Great Plains city and it has >more in common with Chicago than Atlanta. The Old Dixie city of Texas is Houston.

Bush also lived in Houston , where he attended the Kinkaid School and which was his father's political base. It's where his parents live now.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | December 16, 2007 7:04 PM

Oh please, the "ideal" ticket that could help the Gordon Smiths and Susan Collins' can't win GOP Presidential primaries! Let's get real.

What happens is that as we move towards the general election the issues that appeal to the midddle will be emphasized, which might help moderates down-ticket.

No matter how much he is demonized, it won't stick to Huck. Voters will sense he is a reasonable person. He's had a lot of experience in prevailing in a very unfavorable political environment, just watch...

Posted by Bob | December 16, 2007 9:04 PM

Does Bush belong to or attend a church? I don't think so, thus he shouldn't be identified with any particular demonination. His faith is very personal to whatever degree it exists.

Posted by Eric | December 16, 2007 10:09 PM

Does anyone else think Huckabee sounds a little bit like a southern Kevin Spacey when he talks (in a movie where Kevin isn't playing a total weirdo)? He even looks a *slight* bit like an aged version of Spacey.

We have a winner! You nailed this one.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | December 16, 2007 10:55 PM

Re: SansAClue's Wanderjahr, let me suggest conducting it in L.A.'s charming PicoUnion neighborhood.

Also, re: Dallas being a GreatPlains city, Waco reminds me of Kansas in some ways.

As for GFR, if she's reading this I'd just like her to know that there's at least one person out here who doesn't "sneer" at her.

Posted by TLB | December 16, 2007 11:04 PM

@Eric: Why go to church when you can talk directly with the big guy?

Posted by ben | December 16, 2007 11:05 PM

Whaterver Huckabee's flaws, he is the GOP's strongest possible nominee (except maybe for John McCain). Huckabee would be formidable among evangelical Scots-Irish Southerners which means he can boost GOP turn-out in 90% of the swing states (Southern Ohio, Southern and Central Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, and Arkansas). The only place Huckabee could be a disadvantage vis a vis Rudy McRomney Thompson is in the Southwestern swingstates-NM, CO, AZ, and NV.

Posted by Joe | December 16, 2007 11:43 PM

"the party is perpetually runs the risk of becoming a merely southern party. "

so why Huckabee is leading in Iowa.
Iowa is not Southern and not very conservative.
If Huckabee is winning Iowa he could win : of course all the south (30% of US Population) and Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Indiana...

Posted by JLS | December 17, 2007 8:06 AM

JLS: winning the primary is not the same thing as being able to win the general election in that state.

"Mike is where most swing voters are, with conservative instincts and a desire to solve problems. Elections are decided on the future, not on what someone is reported to have said in a negative hit piece 15 years ago.

Posted by bob | December 16, 2007 3:54 PM"

Most swing voters want to replace the income tax with a national sales tax? What are you smoking?

Posted by Reality Man | December 17, 2007 9:01 AM

Also, Texas, California, Florida, Utah and Louisiana are a bit hard to classify into regions (of course, nobody tries to do this with Alaska and Hawaii). Both Texas and California used to be something along the lines of independent states, have a large population and have their own character to a greater degree than most states. While there is cultural influence from the surrounding states, they are also heavily culturally influenced by Mexico, which helps to differentiate Texas from the South and make it more like California in some ways. Louisiana shares much culturally with the rest of the South, but the combination of Catholicism, French Cajun culture and a Franco-Spanish colonial legacy differentiate it to a greater degree than the Carolinas are different from each other. Florida still has cultural influence from Spanish colonialism (much like California and Louisiana) and is heavily influenced by Cuban and Puerto Rican culture to a greater degree than its neighbors. Utah, of course, is full of magic underwear. All of these states are probably better talked about as independent entities when describing regional politics while states like Georgia and South Carolina easily fit into the South, Nebraska and Kansas easily into the Midwest, Massachusetts and Connecticut easily into the Northeast, etc.

Posted by Reality Man | December 17, 2007 9:10 AM

I'm prepared to go to Vegas on McCain/Huckabee.

Lot's of good, factual comments, but I think Roberto and dmh wrap it up with a bow. Too bad no post #'s for ease of reference as in post/riposte.

It's starting to look like a potential realignment election if the Dems play their cards right. But who would go to Vegas on that?

Posted by Robert Powell | December 17, 2007 9:16 AM

A Huckabee-led Republican Party would...be very very very Southern and not even in a particularly "New South" kind of way.

On reflection, I'm not sure that's true. After all, Huckabee was successful in Arkansas, and Arkansas has always seemed fairly soft-South to me: reluctant on secession (weirdly, along with NC, TN, and VA--that's a pretty good collection of the southern states in which I can imagine Dems making substantial inroads), voted Dem for President in the 90s, etc. I think a GWB Republican Party might be, given his Texas roots, more hard-South than a Huckabee-led Republican Party. It is, after all, the Texas GOP platform to which people always look for crazy planks.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 17, 2007 10:06 AM

Re: Texas

To simplify things, the corner of Texas bounded on the west by I-45 and on the south by I-10 is "southern." Though the "south" part of Texas bleeds towards I-35 in places. South of I-10 is more Mexico than anything. West of I-45/I-35 is either the southern plains (north of I-20) or southwest (south of I-20).

Dallas is basically at the three-way corner where the southern part becomes the plains or the southwest. Which, if you are familiar with the city and its burbs, should make perfect sense. Houston is at the corner where the south becomes "Mexico." Austin and San Antonio are firmly southwestern. Amarillo is firmly part of the great plains.

Posted by Joe | December 17, 2007 11:32 AM

You could also follow the traditional social science guidelines of where to define Southern vs. Not Southern in Texas, and point to the areas where cotton was grown & slavery practiced as "Southern", and the other areas, as Not.

http://www.texasslaveryproject.org/maps/hb/

Posted by El Cid | December 17, 2007 11:47 AM

Joe,

To say Texas "south of I-10 is more Mexico than anything else" is about as dumb as saying Texas north of I-10 is like Canada. Scary brown people live all across this great state.

Posted by Oso | December 17, 2007 11:55 AM

Dominance?

What is this dominance of which you speak?

As I sit here in Raleigh, NC, looking out my office window and down towards City Hall, where the Democratic mayor presides over a City Council with ONE Republican, and past the old Capitol building, where our Democratic Governor is working the last 2 of his 8 years (after 8 years of his Democratic predecessor), past the buildings housing the various Cabinet secretaries, only two of whom are Republican, and to the Legislative building, where democrats have solid majorities in both houses, and then further out to see Democratic mayors in every major city except Charlotte (where the powerless mayor goes along with Democratic majorities on the City Council and the County Commission), I wonder what in the heck you could be talking about.

Posted by drfranklives | December 17, 2007 1:11 PM

"Republican think tax" -- I like that, keep it, Matt. At the moment, it's prohibitive.

Posted by SqueakyRat | December 17, 2007 3:32 PM

"To say Texas "south of I-10 is more Mexico than anything else" is about as dumb as saying Texas north of I-10 is like Canada. Scary brown people live all across this great state."

Except I wasn't referring to the presence and/or absence of "scary brown people." Obviously Dallas or Austin (or Chicago for that matter) have large percentages of Latinos.

I was referring to culture, language, economy, climate and geography. South Texas has a much more agricultural-based economy, much like you would see in northern Mexico. The hot-and-dry climate is fairly similar. You go from Spanish being spoken as the dominant minority language to it sharing a co-billing with English (and in some cases, superceding English as the primary language in entire metropolitan areas).

I'm not quite sure what offends you about it, but saying that Laredo seems closer to Monterrey than it does to Dallas isn't really controversial. If it makes you feel any better, I think western New York is more "Canadian" than anything.

Posted by Joe | December 17, 2007 3:38 PM