No question about it - this is a diverse nation characterized by multiple divides that evolve and change over time.
Although our nation has some distance to go, much progress has been made in affording equality under the law to all races. Similarly, much progress has been made regarding women's rights and opportunity in the work place.
Perhaps most dramatic is the recent turn-around regarding attitudes toward the gay/lesbian community. This might well be attributable to the fact that many, if not most, people have a relative, friend, neighbors, or co-workers in that community, and realize that it makes absolutely no sense to discriminate on that basis.
Most of us see the nation as better off for progress made in these areas. It's not just a matter of fairness or equity, but also a matter of pragmatic economics. No nation can afford to neglect the talent of any of its citizens.
While the nation is less divided regarding these three areas, there are other areas where divides are becoming more acute. In previous columns, I have discussed the increasing cultural divide between personnel in the armed forces and the majority of civilians who have not had that experience. I attribute this to endless war and the all-volunteer armed forces that deploy the same men and women multiple times; all while the vast majority of civilians feel no personal impact from the war. The same men - and women - do the fighting while the majority of men, including professional athletes, stay home. With lack of broad participation, one must question the legitimacy of these wars.
In my recent column, I discussed the divide between the majority of citizens who have access to affordable health insurance and care, and the politically unconnected - disenfranchised for all practical purposes - that do not have such access.
There are other divides that have become more acute in recent years. These include Democratic/Republican, liberal/conservative, red state/blue state, rural/urban, belief in role of government/anti-government in all forms, and "haves" vs. "have nots," the latter referring to the increasing disparity in wealth and income between those at the very top and everybody else.
Critics often lump some of these together, such as Democratic, blue state, liberal, urban, belief in government vs. Republican, conservative, rural, red state, anti-government. While occasionally illustrative for a broad-brush approach, these issues, and this nation, are more complex than that. Such an approach often precludes useful discussion and resolution of public policy issues.
Commentators who should know better often point to the "blue" West Coast and the Northeast, dismissing the entire interior as "red." Hey, look at the map. There are five northcentral states - Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin -that are consistently "blue" for presidential elections. And New Mexico, albeit small in terms of electoral votes, is an interior state that is often "blue."
Perhaps the "blue" of Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois can be largely attributed to the Twin Cities, Detroit, and Chicago. But what about Iowa?
Which reminds me, critics of Iowa's predominant place in presidential primaries like to gripe about Iowa being "too old," "too rural," and "too white," to select candidates representative of the nation. As one whose roots are rural-upper Midwestern, I confess to some bias, and chaff when coastal snobs dismiss the Midwest as "flyover country." But if Iowa is "too old," "too rural," and "too white," how come Iowa launched a young urban African American on his successful presidential run?
And our own Wisconsin? "Blue" in presidential elections, but with a distinct red tinge with a Republican governor, Republican legislature, a Republican U.S. senator, and five of eight Republican congressmen. But even this is deceiving. We still have a Democratic U.S. senator, and three of eight Democratic congressmen. And regarding our Republican State Assembly, when votes are totaled statewide, Democratic Assembly candidates received more votes than Republican candidates. But the computer-aided redistricting process of 2010 drew new legislative boundaries such that Republicans captured a majority of Assembly districts, if not the majority of votes for Republican candidates.
And the divide on the role of government? Knee-jerk negative reactions on the role of government are tempered when it comes to specifics. Those who advocate for "smaller government" are quick to defend expenditures for programs for which they and their particular interest groups benefit.
There are some activities of government that result in an alliance between libertarian Republicans who advocate a "smaller government," and more liberal Democrats who don't see government as necessarily "bad." An example is the recent controversy over the NSA monitoring emails and phone calls. Both of these groups believe such monitoring is government over-reach, producing an alliance of sorts, however temporary and issue-specific.
An interesting and, to some, puzzling, phenomenon is that Republaicans who traditionally are the party of the affluent, do well in states of low per capita income, Appalachia and the Great Plains, for example. Thomas Frank in "What's the Matter With Kansas?" argues that cultural conservatives of lower income areas vote Republican along with affluent Wall Street bankers and CEOs, cultural values trumping economic considerations.
Another explanation goes back several decades. As LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he observed that even thought this was the right thing, he had just given the (historically Democratic) South to the Republicans.
And finally, we note that even though racial divides have diminished, the hard fact is that minorities, including affluent Asian Americans, tend to favor Democrats. Some analysts have even suggested that blood-red Texas with its increasing Hispanic population could in the future turn blue - that is, unless Republicans change their tune. We'll see how the current internecine Republican squabbling on these matters turns out.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
Although our nation has some distance to go, much progress has been made in affording equality under the law to all races. Similarly, much progress has been made regarding women's rights and opportunity in the work place.
Perhaps most dramatic is the recent turn-around regarding attitudes toward the gay/lesbian community. This might well be attributable to the fact that many, if not most, people have a relative, friend, neighbors, or co-workers in that community, and realize that it makes absolutely no sense to discriminate on that basis.
Most of us see the nation as better off for progress made in these areas. It's not just a matter of fairness or equity, but also a matter of pragmatic economics. No nation can afford to neglect the talent of any of its citizens.
While the nation is less divided regarding these three areas, there are other areas where divides are becoming more acute. In previous columns, I have discussed the increasing cultural divide between personnel in the armed forces and the majority of civilians who have not had that experience. I attribute this to endless war and the all-volunteer armed forces that deploy the same men and women multiple times; all while the vast majority of civilians feel no personal impact from the war. The same men - and women - do the fighting while the majority of men, including professional athletes, stay home. With lack of broad participation, one must question the legitimacy of these wars.
In my recent column, I discussed the divide between the majority of citizens who have access to affordable health insurance and care, and the politically unconnected - disenfranchised for all practical purposes - that do not have such access.
There are other divides that have become more acute in recent years. These include Democratic/Republican, liberal/conservative, red state/blue state, rural/urban, belief in role of government/anti-government in all forms, and "haves" vs. "have nots," the latter referring to the increasing disparity in wealth and income between those at the very top and everybody else.
Critics often lump some of these together, such as Democratic, blue state, liberal, urban, belief in government vs. Republican, conservative, rural, red state, anti-government. While occasionally illustrative for a broad-brush approach, these issues, and this nation, are more complex than that. Such an approach often precludes useful discussion and resolution of public policy issues.
Commentators who should know better often point to the "blue" West Coast and the Northeast, dismissing the entire interior as "red." Hey, look at the map. There are five northcentral states - Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin -that are consistently "blue" for presidential elections. And New Mexico, albeit small in terms of electoral votes, is an interior state that is often "blue."
Perhaps the "blue" of Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois can be largely attributed to the Twin Cities, Detroit, and Chicago. But what about Iowa?
Which reminds me, critics of Iowa's predominant place in presidential primaries like to gripe about Iowa being "too old," "too rural," and "too white," to select candidates representative of the nation. As one whose roots are rural-upper Midwestern, I confess to some bias, and chaff when coastal snobs dismiss the Midwest as "flyover country." But if Iowa is "too old," "too rural," and "too white," how come Iowa launched a young urban African American on his successful presidential run?
And our own Wisconsin? "Blue" in presidential elections, but with a distinct red tinge with a Republican governor, Republican legislature, a Republican U.S. senator, and five of eight Republican congressmen. But even this is deceiving. We still have a Democratic U.S. senator, and three of eight Democratic congressmen. And regarding our Republican State Assembly, when votes are totaled statewide, Democratic Assembly candidates received more votes than Republican candidates. But the computer-aided redistricting process of 2010 drew new legislative boundaries such that Republicans captured a majority of Assembly districts, if not the majority of votes for Republican candidates.
And the divide on the role of government? Knee-jerk negative reactions on the role of government are tempered when it comes to specifics. Those who advocate for "smaller government" are quick to defend expenditures for programs for which they and their particular interest groups benefit.
There are some activities of government that result in an alliance between libertarian Republicans who advocate a "smaller government," and more liberal Democrats who don't see government as necessarily "bad." An example is the recent controversy over the NSA monitoring emails and phone calls. Both of these groups believe such monitoring is government over-reach, producing an alliance of sorts, however temporary and issue-specific.
An interesting and, to some, puzzling, phenomenon is that Republaicans who traditionally are the party of the affluent, do well in states of low per capita income, Appalachia and the Great Plains, for example. Thomas Frank in "What's the Matter With Kansas?" argues that cultural conservatives of lower income areas vote Republican along with affluent Wall Street bankers and CEOs, cultural values trumping economic considerations.
Another explanation goes back several decades. As LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he observed that even thought this was the right thing, he had just given the (historically Democratic) South to the Republicans.
And finally, we note that even though racial divides have diminished, the hard fact is that minorities, including affluent Asian Americans, tend to favor Democrats. Some analysts have even suggested that blood-red Texas with its increasing Hispanic population could in the future turn blue - that is, unless Republicans change their tune. We'll see how the current internecine Republican squabbling on these matters turns out.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
