My Blue Heaven (or, Go Fuck in a Red State)Conservatives keep showing me that silly blue-and-red map, and crowing about how much red there is, as if this is proof that my beliefs and ideologies are erroneous. But that is deeply flawed reasoning, and not just because a lot of those red spots have, like, thirty (related) people in them.
One thing that map does show is that the more people there are in one place, the more likely those people are to lean toward progressive thought. Why?
Diversity.
Greater population density tends to mean greater diversity (racial, economic, religious, etc.). People in urban centers also tend to come into contact with more people (and more different people) each day. People who regularly come into contact with gays, or foreigners, or Jews, or African-Americans tend to be less likely to support stances that may affect those groups, and more attuned to different ways of looking at things.
Information.
A lot has been made of the poll that showed that a majority of Bush supporters were completely misinformed. Of course, the same poll also showed that Kerry supporters (a far smaller percentage, to be sure) also were misinformed. There really is no justification for the elitist canard that Bush won because Americans are stupid. There is, however, some merit to the idea that people in urban centers tend to be more informed because the flow of information is both quicker and broader. If you don’t believe me, take a drive from New York to Florida on I-95, and cycle through the radio. Once you hit “red” country, you won’t hear nothing but Rush and the reverends. Maybe O’Reilly, if you’re moving through one of the pockets of blue-ishness.
Government.
People in urban areas have much more contact with government than their rural counterparts. My ballot, in a suburb of Silicon Valley, was two pages long and had over a dozen different races. Urban areas have more courts, more social services, more post offices, more bureaucrats, more crime, more sexual activity, more children, and sometimes maybe even more guns. In short, people in places with higher population densities tend to be more conscious of and dependent upon government and the services it provides—and therefore more likely to experience the consequences of various policies. This makes them more likely to pay closer attention to more issues—and to care more about how they are resolved.
Change
People in urban areas may also have more progressive attitudes toward change. Change comes more often and more rapidly to urban areas, which have a much higher “metabolism” than more rural areas. In a sense, time moves faster in direct relationship to the population density (my own upside-down version of the Theory of Relativity). Thus, people in urban areas may be more sensitive to the possible effects of change, and more capable of perceiving the long-term effects.
My observations lead me to conclude that on a majority of issues, people in urban areas may simply have more at stake—directly, anyway—than those in rural areas, and therefore favor more progressive positions. It therefore is easier for someone in a red state to have 1 or 2 “key” issues, whereas blue-state voters may necessarily have a more expansive view of policy and politics.
This can have subtle, if ironic, effects. For example, areas of high population density ("blue" areas) are far more likely targets of terrorism, and far harder to secure, than “red” areas. Yet most “blue” areas voted for Kerry, not Bush. Because liberals are stupid? No, because, with less at stake, it is easier for those in Red States to be less critical of this administration’s handling of Homeland Security.
I think that the inclusiveness and openness that is common to progressive ideologies may grow best in a high-population medium. It may also be that such are not the traditional values of Protestant America, and so they are fostered most often in centers of cultural and informational exchange (i.e, cities). I celebrate the openness, the objectivity, the eagerness to see all sides of any issue that characterizes progressive thought. But it may be our greatest political handicap. As we have seen, particularly when manifested in the persona of a career panderer politician, this liberalism lends itself to unclarity, “wishy-washiness”, or even “flip-flopping”. This is no match for a “steadfast” political animal like the modern Republican, who is uninterested in compromise (particularly where none is necessary), and demands loyalty above all else (see, e.g., Arlen Specter). Stil, it is our best and defining feature.
So, my suggestion to despairing progressives working out their VISA applications is this: don’t move to Canada or Australia—move to Kansas or Wyoming. If you’re already there, invite your friends to join you. Convince people from other towns, other countries, other cultures, to move in next door to you. Since Red Country is bound to ban contraceptives pretty soon, it will be no time at all before little blue spots start cropping up all over that map. Besides, there’s some pretty nice country out there.
Read Less...
