The Two-Way Street

Paul Krugman asked a question near and dear to this native-born New Yorker's heart:

I understand why it’s political poison to show disrespect for small-town values — dignity is precious to all of us, and often trumps material interest. But why is it OK to disrespect big city values, even to suggest — as Bush has — that big-city dwellers aren’t part of the “real America”?

I think the answer is that it isn't okay. Not only was I born in New York City, but both of my parents were and three of my four grandparents were. The great-grandparents all came from foreign countries. That's a very American story, an American Tail, if you will, yet the conservative movement in America treats it as some kind of elitist put-on that my dad has the temerity to live in the city where he was born:

I think you can see in the election results that GOP rhetoric of this sort has the expected effect. Look at the 1988 election results and you'll see Bush's dad winning California and dominating in the New York suburbs -- carrying New Jersey & Connecticut and Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk counties in New York. Some of that's issues, but some of it is surely metropolitan America not liking GOP atmospherics and condescension.

But the press covers this stuff in different ways. Obama made a gaffe, whereas Bush has a masterful political strategy to exploit Democrats' out-of-touchiness. That's because Republicans have dominated recent American politics, so the press is primed to find Democratic blunders and GOP masterstrokes. If we wake up in January 2009 and the government is dominated by a Democrat named Barack Obama and a congressional leadership from San Francisco (Pelosi), Las Vegas (Reid), Chicago (Emmannuel and Durbin), suburban Maryland (Hoyer), and Brooklyn (Schumer) I assume we'll start hearing more about potential downsides to GOP political tactics. But they would need to lose first.

Comments

That in part explains Fox News' amazing success story, given that it was based in and their corporate directorship overwhelmingly lived in rural farming towns and the staff tended to split their time between important journalism and judging livestock at county fairs.

Posted by El Cid | April 16, 2008 12:44 PM

I don't know if that will stop the TradMed. One can hope. If the Democrats ever get fair treatment from the TradMed, then the Republicans are toast for the next fifty years.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 16, 2008 12:45 PM

Looking askance at "city folk" has deep roots in our culture. Pioneers, cowboys, yeoman farmers, Jack Palance, all that jazz.

Posted by Bill | April 16, 2008 12:46 PM

That's a very American story...yet the conservative movement in America treats it as some kind of elitist put-on that my dad has the temerity to live in the city where he was born:

Blood and soil, baby. Immigrants who live in paved cities don't qualify. I'm not sure that's a Republican affect as much as a Southern conservative affect.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 16, 2008 12:47 PM

Matt,

Durbin is from Downstate Illinois (Springfield, precisely), not Chicago.

Posted by hK | April 16, 2008 12:50 PM

FWIW, it's not clear that this is entirely a two-way street. DeLong points out that farm subsidies per farmer grow, even as the number of farmers drops, which is contrary to what usually happens with interest group subsidies. Everywhere. He thinks maybe we need to go over to the Sociology or Anthropology department for an explanation of why the work of the farmer is deemed to be more worthy than the work of the city-dweller.

Now, why this seems to also transfer to medium-town factory workers is still unclear to me.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | April 16, 2008 12:55 PM

Because the republican party relies on selling fear and hysteria about the proverbial "other," and that message only sells to people who don't interact with a lot of other people on a daily basis.

Thus, the message sounds ludicrous to anyone who lives in a multicultural urban environment, but plausable to someone who's only information on the rest of the country comes from the bobbleheads on Fox News.

Posted by WinSmith | April 16, 2008 12:55 PM

Urban votes are simply worth less than rural votes at the federal level.

Take the 2000 Presidential election where Al Gore won a majority of the popular votes. Despite winning more votes, here how that majority translated into federal results:

Gore won 20 states while Bush won 30. That means the Gore coalition won 40 Senate seats while the Bush coalition won 60 Senate seats.

Gore won 194 Congressional districts while Bush won 241 Congressional districts.

Again, this was in an election where Gore won more popular votes. And this is primarily explained by the fact that Gore's majority relied on big urban margins.

Take a look at the 2004 election where Kerry lost the popular vote narrowly to Bush:

Kerry won 19 states while Bush won 31. That means the Kerry coalition won 38 Senate seats while the Bush coalition won 62 Senate seats.

Kerry won 180 Congressional districts while Bush won 255 Congressional districts.

Again, this is largely a result of Kerry's underperformance in rural areas.

Bashing cities is simply good federal politics.

Posted by Petey | April 16, 2008 12:57 PM

understand why it’s political poison to show disrespect for small-town values — dignity is precious to all of us, and often trumps material interest.

As one of Krugman's commentators observes, this wouldn't be an issue if small towns (more precisely, I guess, less-densely populated states) didn't have disproportionate numbers of electoral votes. Do Republicans running for state-wide office in big-city states have a habit of running down the values of the people living in the cities? (I actually don't know the answer to that.)

Posted by RSA | April 16, 2008 12:58 PM

Because there has been a pervasive, well-funded 30 year effort by conservatives and the GOP to create a cartoonish image of the country split between two irreconcilable groups, split as follows:

Liberals - urban, minority, condescending, out of touch, effiminate, homosexual, weak, pacifist, atheist, fake, unpatriotic, lazy, radical, wasteful, reckless, sexually immoral, etc.

Conservatives - rural, white, fair, authentic, religious, strong, manly, patriotic, religious, family orientied, hard working, moderate, responsible, chaste, etc.

This effort has been going on so long, and has been beat into everyone's heads so succesfully, that urban has become associated with everything bad in this country; it is has been placed in the "vice" column, whereas rural has been placed in the "virtue" column. To criticize urban life is to attack vice; to criticize rural life is to attack virtue, America itself.

Posted by blah | April 16, 2008 12:59 PM

I'm constantly amazed how the elite conservative media can throw around 'San Francisco' as a pejorative and nobody ever calls them on it.
The speakers implication is ALWAYS i'm way more sensible and American than those left-coasters are.

Posted by dj spellchecka | April 16, 2008 12:59 PM

People vey consistently look for any reason to disparage or condescend to those who are different, and the rural/urban or urban/rural divide is jut another manifestation. Pathetically status-seeking, relatively hairless, primates in search of reasons to mentally place ourselves higher up in the social hierarchy. That pretty much sums up politics, economics, entertainment, and other aspects of human behavior.

Posted by Will Allen | April 16, 2008 1:01 PM

dj: actually, the speaker's implication is invariably "My opponent is a faggot."

Posted by phil | April 16, 2008 1:05 PM

“Why, I think there aren’t enough good country people in the world!” she said, stirred. “I think that’s what’s wrong with it!”

Posted by rm | April 16, 2008 1:09 PM

the rural/urban or urban/rural divide is jut another manifestation.

It's a particularly old, well-rooted, and troublesome one.

OK, so, as I understand it, rural votes get increased weight because of the Senate (and the electoral college votes associated with them). Assuming Republicans win rural states and Dems win urban ones, how much of an electoral college advantage are Republicans starting with? Petey's numbers suggest it's about 10, or one good-sized state. And, IIRC, as a nation, we continue to move from the rural to the urban.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 16, 2008 1:10 PM

You mean, you don't like condescending labels applied to "who you are" and where you live? I think you're on to something here.

Whose provincialism is worse-- the urban city dweller who refers to flyover Jesusland (everything west of the Hudson except Chicago, Madison, WI and the west coast), or the red-stater who holds the views very aptly summarized by blah, above? I guess it depends on who's doing the labeling.

Posted by Beer Here | April 16, 2008 1:11 PM

I agree with your sentiments. However, Steny Hoyer is not from the burbs but from Southern Maryland, which is largely a rural/agricultural/bay area and not really suburban at all.

Posted by John | April 16, 2008 1:12 PM

Hey! Petey made a rational point, instead of spewing venom!

Seems primary season must be drawing to an end.

Posted by Pithlord | April 16, 2008 1:12 PM

The urban/rural tension is so deeply ingrained in the public consciousness thatwe shouldn't be surprised by it. However, it modern society, it always struck me as odd that people would continue to exploit it in the public sphere without a hint of irony. Politicians express the sentiment acting as though this was some grand insight that no one came up with before, rather than a retreat to cliche.

My family history is similar to MattY's, and I never quite understood that it wasn't universally considered to be "The American Dream" to come to America via the big city to make your way in the world. Then again, kids grow up reading "Little House on the Prairie" and have the pioneers as the main characters of their myths, rather than the fresh-off-the-boat city dweller.

Posted by Tyro | April 16, 2008 1:15 PM

It's not just the press being 'primed' to peddle mindlessly the tropes favored by those who are dominating politics these days. Really, it's the fact that we have a press corps whose economic interests align with Republican policies, and so they go casting about for reasons to undermine Democrats' claims to power, and this one is ready at hand.

It's ready at hand because as Bill points out, there has ALWAYS been a line of argument out there that associates cities with decadence. In some ways this idea is stronger in the US than in other Western countries because the US was founded by farmers for whom the root of America's awesomeness was the (imagined) emptiness of its land and its wide open spaces. This ideal got firmly embedded in US political culture by the policies and rhetoric of a string of southern and western leaders in the early republic as well as by the entrenchment of an agrarian economy in the South (in part thanks to the anachronism of slavery).

Well, that's the rough-and-ready short version anyway. The point is, this shit has much, much deeper roots than just who's on top at the moment.

Posted by Ryan | April 16, 2008 1:18 PM

Beer Here: you forgot to mention Ann Arbor.

Plus, as any city-dweller knows, the cities are overrun with people who moved there from their exurban/rural homelands, so one could argue that they're either in better touch with what goes on "out there" or that metro areas are heavily influenced by those who came to those metro areas in the first place because they didn't like "small town america."

Posted by Tyro | April 16, 2008 1:19 PM

Using "San Francisco" as a pejorative is also using dog-whistle gay-baiting.

Posted by wwc | April 16, 2008 1:21 PM

sheer fantasy on your parts -

1) electoral college votes more heavily weighted (by population)?? huh -- except for the fact that each state gets at least one EC vote (so the population behind ND's vote is less than one of CA's votes) -- there isn't that much difference. Is there THAT much citizen undercount in the decennial census? (not really).

2) is voting more difficult in cities? probably is.. longer lines.. inconvenient hours .. more time consuming etc? For example, many people will not vote in the rain or snow, particularly if they have to walk outside to get to the voting booth. As a suburbanite, I get to drive and walk 200 feet into a middle school gym (end to end, 10 minutes tops).

3) the "won the popular vote" rubbish is .. rubbish. Many don't vote in shoe-in states like MA because there is a certain inevitability in the outcome. If every vote was suddenly counted, there would be a significant number of additional votes. Somehow this might be split equally between repub and dem states.

The electoral college at least focuses vote counting in a few areas -- could you imagine an all-50-states recount?

Complaining about the EC is like complaining about the height of the basket in basketball -- useless.

Whining about the disparagement of city-dwellers is ... whining and counter-productive.

Posted by mike c | April 16, 2008 1:22 PM

Beer,

It's not a matter of which brand of provincialism is worse - obviously they're both bad because they reduce people to gross stereotypes.

What Matt's getting at here is that for some reason it's perfectly ok to denounce city dwellers without batting an eye, but people living in rural and small town areas are sacred.

Hell, I remember they used to have these salsa commercials back in the day where the punchline was "Says here this stuff's made in New York City!" One doesn't see stuff advertised with a jokey line like "Says here this stuff's made by Tennessee hillbillies!"

Also, you forgot Austin.

Posted by Just Another Greg | April 16, 2008 1:24 PM

We all know why the Republicans sell the myth of "real America". The question is why do so many "liberal" or even centrist journalists buy into this drivel. Is it because so many of the "liberal media" consists of people of Irish, Jewish and Italian heritage? Have these people all inherited their ancestors' insecurities about not being "American enough"?

Posted by vanya | April 16, 2008 1:24 PM

And, IIRC, as a nation, we continue to move from the rural to the urban.

Is that right? Not from rural to suburban? Or exurban?

BTW, it appears to me that Krugman likes to attributes views to Bush that Bush doesn’t hold. Where's the evidence that Bush was saying that city-dwellers in general are not "real Americans"? People from Green Bay and Oklahoma City are certainly real Americans. Just people from 13th and U are not.

Posted by Al | April 16, 2008 1:29 PM

Prospectively, I stand partially corrected on my above post under #1. Each state gets at least 3 votes which might provide a bit of advantage to lower density states. Not enough to necessarily matter in the face of winner-take-all states.

Posted by mike c | April 16, 2008 1:32 PM

Isn't the rutal bias at least in part a function of the over-representation of rural interests through the Senate? As long as one-half of the legislature is structurally dominated by rural interests, there will exist a rural tilt in our political dialog that will reflect itself in both the tenor of our debate and actual policy choices.

Posted by doug | April 16, 2008 1:32 PM

Correction on Electoral College -
The number of electoral votes of each state is the sum of its number of U.S. Senators (always two) and its U.S. Representatives to which that state is entitled.

This means every state will alway have at least 3 electors, so residents of less populous states actually do carry more weight.

Posted by CParis | April 16, 2008 1:32 PM

Is that right? Not from rural to suburban? Or exurban?

All your suburb belong to us.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 16, 2008 1:33 PM

Mike C, you really don't get it.

At the federal level citizens of Wyoming, North Dakota and Alaska are afforded far more representation, proportional to their population, than California.

That is pretty much the whole point.

Posted by mpowell | April 16, 2008 1:37 PM

Kung Fu Monkey (the screen writer of transformers among many other films) had a great post about this during the 2004 election. As he put it there are probably more people drinking lattes in NYC at any given time than their are farmers in the entire midwest. The majority of Americans stopped working on farms over 100 years ago yet we still persist with this myth about "the real America"

Posted by Eric k | April 16, 2008 1:38 PM

For example, the 670,000 Alaskans get as many US Senators representing them as the 36,457,549 Californians. One Alaskan voter has as much political power as 54.4 Californians. Not a bad deal for them.....

Posted by Stefan | April 16, 2008 1:44 PM

Green acres is the place for me.
Farm livin' is the life for me.
Land spreadin' out so far and wide
Keep Manhattan, just give me that countryside.

Posted by Mike | April 16, 2008 1:44 PM

BTW, it appears to me that Krugman likes to attributes views to Bush that Bush doesn’t hold. Where's the evidence that Bush was saying that city-dwellers in general are not "real Americans"? People from Green Bay and Oklahoma City are certainly real Americans. Just people from 13th and U are not. - Posted by Al

Green Bay and Oklahoma City aren't real cities, so what's your point?

Posted by TH | April 16, 2008 1:53 PM

But why is it OK to disrespect big city values, even to suggest — as Bush has — that big-city dwellers aren’t part of the “real America”?

Because of the composition of the Senate and the electoral college. Big city votes are worth less.

But why the media permits this trope to hold is an interesting question. It is certainly part of the media's narrative of the American people.

Posted by jayackroyd | April 16, 2008 1:55 PM

mpowell: and winner-take-all states (all but maine?) bounces some, not all, of the advantage back to higher density areas.

My main point, which I obviously buried, is that the EC is the law of the land -- learn to adapt to it or change the EC by amendment or fail to win.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

Posted by mike c | April 16, 2008 1:56 PM

Or dissing San Franciscans...

Posted by Jay | April 16, 2008 2:00 PM

I thought you city boys were all a bunch of tough guys. But look at you: mommy, mommy, they're making fun of me again! Well boo hoo hoo.

Posted by ostap | April 16, 2008 2:06 PM

Correction on Electoral College -
The number of electoral votes of each state is the sum of its number of U.S. Senators (always two) and its U.S. Representatives to which that state is entitled.

This means every state will alway have at least 3 electors, so residents of less populous states actually do carry more weight.

Posted by CParis | April 16, 2008 2:07 PM

Ostap, personally I would relish the chance to kick your ass.

Posted by WinSmith | April 16, 2008 2:14 PM

In some ways this idea is stronger in the US than in other Western countries because the US was founded by farmers for whom the root of America's awesomeness was the (imagined) emptiness of its land and its wide open spaces.

'Founded' in a loose, mythical sense, of course. There have been foundings and re-foundings, and there's a curious conflation, whereby the signatures on the books at Ellis Island aren't seen as the underpinnings of urban America, but yoked to the covered wagons of the Western pioneers.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."

But the georgic myth is definitely as much sociology/anthropology as it is politics. And Blazing Saddles is part of that cultural mix.

That said, legislative distributions play their part beyond the Senate's structural bias. Urban voters frequently get targeted by redistricting -- e.g. the Texas map that divvied up Austin. In addition, state legislatures often bristle with antipathy towards urban politics: they're either based in urban areas that earn the ire of rural representatives (Raleigh, Atlanta) or in small cities that are outshadowed by larger ones (Albany, Springfield).

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 16, 2008 2:22 PM

And those newspapers are sold to people in big cities.

On the one hand, maybe the audience for the paper just likes being insulted.
On the other hand, maybe the papers aren't written for that audience, but for a second audience of thuggish wheeler dealers making money in war and oil, and needing, at every turn, to keep their talons on the American population as they grind out extortionate sums of money from the national misery. Maybe this second audience is people like self anointed bowling diva Maureen Dowd hangs out with.

I don't recall other businesses - say, Walmart - making a point of insulting their customers. Of course, Walmart is growing, while the readership of the big papers is shrinking. I wonder why?

Posted by roger | April 16, 2008 2:23 PM

Whose provincialism is worse-- the urban city dweller who refers to flyover Jesusland (everything west of the Hudson except Chicago, Madison, WI and the west coast), or the red-stater who holds the views very aptly summarized by blah, above? I guess it depends on who's doing the labeling.
Posted by Beer Here

Comparing one hypothetical provincial rural asshole from the country to a hypothetical provincial urban asshole (is that an oxymoron?) maybe they're equally bad. But overall, comparing the total of one type to another, which is worse depends on a lot of things, and who's doing the labeling isn't one of them.

It depends on which one is more common. (Name three instances of someone in America complaining about "Jesusland" non-anonymously, Hell, name two.) It depends on which one of them is more widely broadcasted. (Assuming you found two examples of urban provincialism, did they come from someone with a cable TV show named after them or a national elected office? Because there are dozens of examples of rural provincialism from people like that.) It depends on which of them has a more substantial, and more harmful, impact. (If Bush's election and reelection don't count as harmful impacts, or if you don't think rural provincialism contributed to them, then we aren't living in the same reality.)

So overall, no provincialism is something people should aspire to, but hell yes, rural provincialism is worse than urban.

Posted by Cyrus | April 16, 2008 2:56 PM

Al writes: "BTW, it appears to me that Krugman likes to attributes views to Bush that Bush doesn’t hold."

Al, the link you provide goes to an article that doesn't mention Krugman.

Posted by dj spellchecka | April 16, 2008 3:18 PM

"Hey! Petey made a rational point, instead of spewing venom!"

Matthew is fully aware of the underweighting of urban votes at the federal level, but intentionally neglects to mention it in his post because he understands it is a valid reason for nominating Clinton over Obama.

And given that Matthew is a trust fund scumbag who is willing to repeatedly lie about the nomination race to enhance his career prospects, this doesn't exactly come as a surprise. Matthew would rather the Democrats lose with Obama than win with Clinton, since he knows his daddy will pay if he has healthcare woes, since he knows he has an inheritance to fall back on if Social Security is gutted.

Happy now?

Posted by Petey | April 16, 2008 3:23 PM

Sorry, dj spellchecka, I suppose my link could have been more clear. The link went to a post by Matthew in which he complains that that someone "likes to attributes views to me that I don’t hold". And so Krugman (cited approvingly by Matthew here) is likewise attributing views to someone that such person doesn't hold. That was the only point to my link.

BTW, further as to who are "real" Americans: the New York Times says right here that "almost anyone not in the media or a campaign qualifies as real". I think it likely that Bush meant something similar, rather than Krugman's assertion that "real" Americans excludes all city-dwellers.

Posted by Al | April 16, 2008 3:29 PM

Hey! Petey made a rational point, instead of spewing venom!

I was going to say this in a more diplomatic way. Positive reinforcement, dontcha know.

Posted by washerdreyer | April 16, 2008 3:29 PM

"Cyrus" wrote:

It depends on which one of them is more widely broadcasted. (Assuming you found two examples of urban provincialism, did they come from someone with a cable TV show named after them or a national elected office? Because there are dozens of examples of rural provincialism from people like that.) It depends on which of them has a more substantial, and more harmful, impact. (If Bush's election and reelection don't count as harmful impacts, or if you don't think rural provincialism contributed to them, then we aren't living in the same reality.)

Are public references (always "joking", of course) to "white trash," "mullets," "Cletus," "West Virginia," and "rednecks," to name but a few, uncommon, or becoming less common? You could have fooled me. Your argument seems to boil down to: Rural parochialism is worse because their party has won some elections recently. Oh, and they still exist. On the other hand, from the perspective of the rubes, city folk have been winning every other battle in the United States since about, I don't know, at least the 1840s, and at an accelerating pace in the 20th and 21st centuries, and this sort of carping from the ever-victorious side in the culture wars that their enforced enlightenment of the pagans hasn't been more appreciated sounds like, well the self-absorbed whining of every other imperial class. The (insert pagani, wogs, white trash) just don't appreciate all we're doing for them! Did Charlemagne's knights complain to each other about the Saxons lack of gratitude?

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | April 16, 2008 3:34 PM

The reason why American politicians pour smarm all over rural voters as opposed to urban ones is perfectly simple, and it goes back to this country's very origins: the way the Senate is grotesquely misapportioned in favor of small states (and thus against voters in large cities) -- which the small states literally blackmailed the large ones into, by publicly threatening at the Constitutional Convention to ally treasonously with some European power against the infant Republic if they DIDN'T get such disproportionate power. During all the two centuries since then, American political parties have recognized perfectly well that their crucial acquisition of power in the Senate depends on their buttering up rural voters relentlessly.

What can we do about this? Precisely nothing right now, but come the Revolution...

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | April 16, 2008 3:39 PM

Robert Orsi's introduction to Gods of the City (and by "introduction" I mean "78-page-long essay") puts forth a really compelling historical/sociological account for how big cities (NYC first and foremost, obviously) have been shut out of "real America" and how the rest of America has tried to invade big cities in turn. In your abundant spare time, I'd recommend picking it up.

Posted by DaraL | April 16, 2008 4:15 PM

Are public references (always "joking", of course) to "white trash," "mullets," "Cletus," "West Virginia," and "rednecks," to name but a few, uncommon, or becoming less common?

So you're saying you don't have any actual examples, then? I mean, I'm looking for people who offer anti-rural rhetoric, people who would be counterparts to pundits like this.

Your argument seems to boil down to: Rural parochialism is worse because their party has won some elections recently.

This is false. My argument is that which parochialism is worse is determined in large part by which type "has a more substantial, and more harmful, impact." Did you not notice that in my comment? And if you don't think that is generally a fair and useful definition of "worse," can you explain why?

On the other hand, from the perspective of the rubes, city folk have been winning every other battle in the United States since about, I don't know, at least the 1840s, and at an accelerating pace in the 20th and 21st centuries,

Then the real, salt of the earth Americans in the red states have been misled. For all that they complain about losing the culture war, they're winning the money war pretty decisively.

Posted by Cyrus | April 16, 2008 4:16 PM

Are public references (always "joking", of course) to "white trash," "mullets," "Cletus," "West Virginia," and "rednecks," to name but a few, uncommon, or becoming less common?

So you're saying you don't have any actual examples, then? I mean, I'm looking for people who offer anti-rural rhetoric, people who would be counterparts to pundits like this.

Your argument seems to boil down to: Rural parochialism is worse because their party has won some elections recently.

This is false. My argument is that which parochialism is worse is determined in large part by which type "has a more substantial, and more harmful, impact." Did you not notice that in my comment? And if you don't think that is generally a fair and useful definition of "worse," can you explain why?

On the other hand, from the perspective of the rubes, city folk have been winning every other battle in the United States since about, I don't know, at least the 1840s, and at an accelerating pace in the 20th and 21st centuries,

Then the real, salt of the earth Americans in the red states have been misled. For all that they complain about losing the culture war, they're winning the money war pretty decisively.

Posted by Cyrus | April 16, 2008 4:18 PM

Whoops. Sorry for the double-post. I know it can take a while to reload and I don't click the button multiple times, but this time it showed some kind of error. My mistake.

Posted by Cyrus | April 16, 2008 4:22 PM

It is simple: people in small places are more moral. As we all know, amphetamine is much, much worse that cocaine. Sorry, opposite, of course, opposite!

Or look at stores with pornography. In cities, you can find them close to schools, churches, while in rural areas you have to drive to a log cabin without windows and in the middle of nowhere. (And not just because everything there is in the middle of nowhere, because they really are in spots that are a bit emptier).

Lastly, there is something to recommend about people working in the soil, raising (growing?) crops and husbanding animals. (Does it mean pretending that a cow is your wife?) For this reason, immigrant vegetable picker is a national cult figure.

Posted by piotr | April 16, 2008 4:38 PM

Matthew is fully aware of the underweighting of urban votes at the federal level, but intentionally neglects to mention it in his post because he understands it is a valid reason for nominating Clinton over Obama.

Petey, do you really think that was my motive? Meanwhile, it seems to me that overall Obama's done better than Clinton in rural areas. But one way or another, not everything on this blog is about my secret careerist plan to secure the nomination for Obama. Incidentally, can you explain to me sometime how Obama getting the nomination helps my career?

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | April 16, 2008 5:21 PM

Are public references (always "joking", of course) to "white trash," "mullets," "Cletus," "West Virginia," and "rednecks," to name but a few, uncommon, or becoming less common?

Give us some examples of public political figures making those kinds of jokes.

Posted by Stefan | April 16, 2008 5:42 PM

Incidentally, can you explain to me sometime how Obama getting the nomination helps my career?

Um, I won't presume to respond for Petey, but wouldn't the scenario be: Obama gets the nomination, wins the Presidency, and somebody looking to fill the position of speechwriter to the Deputy Secretary of Whatever hires you?

I mean, you've repeatedly suggested Michael O'Hanlon is angling for a job with his various op-eds.

Posted by Al | April 16, 2008 5:56 PM

"Because there has been a pervasive, well-funded 30 year effort by conservatives and the GOP to create a cartoonish image of the country split between two irreconcilable groups"

Ask yourself this question: If the simplistic Red State v. Blue State dichotomy had been promulgated by the GOP or conservatives, would they have made the Republican-voting areas red, given that color's association with Communism?

Posted by Fred | April 16, 2008 6:01 PM

Matthew, your belief in the principle of charity is admirable, but I'd just ban him.

Posted by novakant | April 16, 2008 6:04 PM

this is a fantastic post.

Posted by joshua | April 16, 2008 6:58 PM

I recommend that Obama begin every speech, from NY City to San Fransisco with these words, 'It's great to be here in Americas heartland.

Posted by rapier | April 16, 2008 8:30 PM

If we wake up in January 2009 and the government is dominated by a Democrat named Barack Obama and a congressional leadership from San Francisco (Pelosi), Las Vegas (Reid), Chicago (Emmannuel and Durbin), suburban Maryland (Hoyer), and Brooklyn (Schumer) I assume we'll start hearing more about potential downsides to GOP political tactics. But they would need to lose first.

This is a key point: the underlying premise of nearly all mainstream media narratives is that Republican Americans are representative of America simply because they have managed to win by hook or by crook. No points off for questionable tactics.

Let a Democrat win in November 2009, no matter how tiny the margin of victory, and the narrative will begin to shift gradually towards something more sympathetic. If our economy hasn't taken a turn for the better by then the narrative might start catching up with public opinion quite rapidly.

What your typical mainstream media "player" wants most? To be on the winning team.

Posted by STS | April 16, 2008 8:30 PM

Er ... let a Democrat be *inaugurated* in 2009 ... PLEASE!

Posted by STS | April 16, 2008 8:32 PM

"Petey, do you really think that was my motive?"

I think that if Clinton turned water into wine on camera, you'd ignore the event for 36 hours and then post about how it really helps Obama.

Meanwhile, it seems to me that overall Obama's done better than Clinton in rural areas.

Sleazily disingenuous or astonishingly ignorant?

Who the hell knows. A year ago, I would have chosen ignorant. Given your behavior over the past month and a half, disingenuous seems more likely now.

Posted by Petey | April 17, 2008 1:06 AM

Um, I won't presume to respond for Petey, but wouldn't the scenario be: Obama gets the nomination, wins the Presidency, and somebody looking to fill the position of speechwriter to the Deputy Secretary of Whatever hires you?

But why Obama specifically? A Clinton White House would have speechwriting jobs, too, so if that were Matt's only motive he could have endorsed either one or -- better yet -- hedged and praised them both. You're pathetic, Al.

Posted by Ryan | April 17, 2008 7:49 AM

Are public references (always "joking", of course) to "white trash," "mullets," "Cletus," "West Virginia," and "rednecks," to name but a few, uncommon, or becoming less common?

I grew up in a small town in rural Wisconsin, but have since moved on to live in such liberally-approved cities as Madison, Chicago, and Washington DC. I find the above comment amusing in that this sort of redneck-bashing is amazingly commonplace among rural folks, but I never hear it from city-dwellers. People in cities, by and large, don't spend their time obsessing about rednecks in the way that rural conservatives apparently obsess about city folks.

Posted by J.B. | April 17, 2008 9:05 AM

Ask yourself this question: If the simplistic Red State v. Blue State dichotomy had been promulgated by the GOP or conservatives, would they have made the Republican-voting areas red, given that color's association with Communism?

Questions answered: In order to avoid favoritism, every presidential election year the networks would switch the color on the maps for election night coverage. In 1992 Republicans were red and Democrats blue, while in 1996 it reversed and Republicans were blue and Democrats red. Then in 2000 it reversed again, but due to the Republican electoral coup the electoral map stayed up for weeks and the colors became indelibly associated with the parties, so now they've stopped switching and Republicans are red and Democrats blue (even though in the rest of the world, red is the color of the left and blue the color of the right).

Still, good for me, since I look better in blue.

Posted by Stefan | April 17, 2008 11:40 AM

Petey says:

Who the hell knows. A year ago, I would have chosen ignorant. Given your behavior over the past month and a half, disingenuous seems more likely now.

Not sure why he's talking to himself, but maybe it's some progress. Awareness is the first step.

Posted by John Edwards is an out-of-touch elitist, Hillary Clinton is really rich | April 18, 2008 6:38 PM