Le rouge et le bleu, Part 1

Cross posted at Political Arguments

As Erik rightly points out, political scientists don't understand values. Or rather, one might say, they understand "value" as something that can be paid, as an interest that may be met, or a need that could be satisfied. Enamoured as many of them have been of economic analysis, they seem unable to comprehend why a sizable portion of the population seems to "vote against their interests". The claim may be extended to social scientists generally. Tommy Franks' What's the Matter With Kansas is the whipping boy of the day, seemingly for good reason, but the problem goes all the way back to Marx, and even Plato. That some may be deluded, or be victims of false consciousness is not only condescending (which liberals are often accused of being) but also unbearably reductionist. Why must the interest of the stomach and the purse trump those of the the heart?

Read more!I do not think that red states are mistaken about their interests, because I think their actual interests are plural—both of the purse and the heart—and that they are genuine. But I also think they're wrong, and dangerous to liberal democracy (emphasis on the liberal).

This leads me, perhaps, to a position that I believe at once more respectful of red-state America—and even through the purple haze we see that there is one— and more hostile to it. It is truly insulting to try convince "values voters" that what they should really push for is their piece of the Washington pie. It is just as insulting as the repeated attempts at conversion that those same "values voters" foist upon us who'd find our own way to Purgatory.

It is also pointless. As Erik rightly point out, maps make things clearer. Those to which he points show, for instance, that Democratic power is concentrated in the cities and Republican power in rural America. As Al Franken said last night on the Late Show with David Letterman, Wyoming has five people: two senators, a representative, and the five members of the Cheney family. (Actually, it should have over half a million by now, but you get my point.) New York had 8 million in 2000, Los Angeles had 3.8 million and Chicago 2.8 million. All were pretty solid blue, as were nearly all major metropolitan areas in the United States. Maps make things clearer, and these two together tell a hell of a story.


© 2004 M. T. Gastner, C. R. Shalizi, and M. E. J. Newman
Via Mark Newman



© U.S. Census Bureau.

Now, major cities happen to be on the Pacific coast, around the Great Lakes, and on the northern Atlantic coast. The great centers of the population of the United States have been there for quite some time. And the distribution between the secular and the evangelical vote has mapped the urban-rural divide for quite some time, even as both parties trades positions on "values".

So there's something to be said for the effect of urbanization on political attitudes, especially for the effect of large, rich, coastal cities. The Athenian Stranger in Plato's Laws raged against them:

For if [the city] was to be right on the sea, with a good harbor, and not productive in all respects but lacking many things, why, with such a nature it would have required some great savior, and some lawgivers who were divine, to prevent it from coming to have many diverse and low habits. [...] For although a land's proximity to the sea affords daily pleasure, the sea really is a "briny and bitter neighbor." It infects a place with commerce and the money-making that comes with retail trade, and engenders shifty and untrustworthy dispositions in souls; it thereby takes away the trust and friendship a city feels for itself and for the rest of humanity. (704d-705a)

Now, one philosopher's low habits are another's virtues, and I side with David Hume on the salutary effect of luxury and trade. Voltaire, I think, puts it best:

Enter the London stock exchange, that place more respectable than many a court. You will see the deputies of all nations gathered there for the service of mankind. There the Jew, the Mohammedan, and the Christian deal with each other as if they were of the same religion, and give the name of infidel only to those who go bankrupt; there, the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist, and the Anglican accepts the Quaker's promise. On leaving these peaceful and free assemblies, some go to the synagogue, others go drinking; this one goes to have himself baptized in the name of the Father, through the Son, to the Holy Ghost; that one had his son's foreskin cut off and Hebrew words mumbled over the child which he does not understand; others go to their church to await the inspiration of God, their hats on their heads, and all are content.

This is the effect of life in a major metropolitan center—diversity is lived in daily dealings, it cannot be escaped, it inspires forms of cooperation and reciprocity grounded on something other than common belief and common tradition.

Now, sharing a common faith is a good thing, and its value cannot be denied. And the pace and rootlessness of life in an urban center can be confusing, frustrating, even overwhelming. But the rural life makes for a different ethos than the urban; each produces, in effect, a different world-view. My point is not to praise the urban life unqualifiedly (With some qualification, I willingly defend it, and would emigrate to red America only to the blue colonies that are college towns.) My point is that there are different value systems clashing in this country, and that the conditions that produce them are enduring and probably insurmountable. I believe we are indeed in the midst of a "culture war", a religious war, and we should bid the lessons of Westphalia before we find ourselves in a Thirty Years War. No, I don't mean secession, but I do mean a return to federalism, especially when it comes to the collection and use of taxes. But on that later; even the haughtiest heathens need their sleep.