The Synthetic States of America
The interesting thing about sundry rightwingers branding increasing swathes of the United States as either “unreal” or “un-American” is that I think there’s a real honesty about this. Progressives are prone to becoming upset about things that happen in our country, with people sometimes letting this boil over into hysteria and firm vows to flee to Canada. But to conservatives, it’s actually integral to their conception of the United States that it be governed by conservatives. A period of progressive political power would mean not that America had erred, but that America had somehow ceased to be America.
Mark Steyn wrote the other day that “With a few exceptions (such as Vermont), ‘blue states’ mostly turn out to be red states with a couple of big blue cities (Pennsylvania, for example, or even California).” But what does this mean? Illinois isn’t a blue state if you don’t count Chicago? New York’s not a blue state if you don’t count New York? But of course Illinois isn’t Illinois without Chicago nor is New York, New York without New York. And mutadis mutandis for the entire United States of America. The country would not be the same country without its great cities and their suburbs. To say that this hypothetical US of Ruralia constitutes the “real” country makes no more sense than to pretend that the country is “really” a small island city-state that happens to be connected to some great wild beyond.
69 Responses to “The Synthetic States of America”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 19th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Remember the “My President Is Charlton Heston” bumper stickers from the Clinton era? There are definitely people out there whose gut sense is that a Dem in the White House is simply illegitimate.
They’ll be back in force if Obama wins.
The good news is that we’ve got better pushback to the loons of the right than we did in the 1990s. We’ll need it.
October 19th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
A period of progressive political power would mean not that America had erred, but that America had somehow ceased to be America.
As I thought you’d previously noted before, they think it ceased to be America a while ago. What ceases now is the hope to get back to that thrilling yesteryear. The Reds hate today’s America.
October 19th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
By that logic, Georgia is a blue state — if you only count Atlanta and the other metropolitian areas.
djbwillthinkforfood.blogspot.com
October 19th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
By this logic, we weren’t really attacked on September 11.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
One crucial point on this, I think, is that the US has long been an urban country. If you look at the 2000 census results, almost 80% of the country lives in urban areas. And if I remember my US history correctly, a majority of the population has lived in urban areas since at least as far back as the 1893 world’s fair. That’s a lot of people who don’t live in “real” parts of the US.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
As big cities and most suburban areas are not Real America, and “sharing the wealth” is apparently an incredibly evil thing to do, those of who live in Fake America will stop sending our money to Real America anytime it wants.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Yep, great election strategy Republican party — keep insulting and dividing the electorate. That’s putting Country First…
October 19th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I seem to remember JK Galbraith used to point out that as a major agricultural producer and exporter, the USA was in many ways the world’s largest Third World country and ought to vote as such in international treaty organisations.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I imagine that Steyn is picturing a map…there is alot more red area than blue area (especially in a state like Pennsylvania), which makes it more legitimately red in his mind – ignoring the fact that the blue areas are so much more dense.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I think this whole “not my president” stuff happens on both sides. I seem to remember “not in my name” bumperstickers in the runup to the war in Iraq.
But you’re right, the real American v. fake America crap is endlessly pedaled by the right, and it really makes no sense.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
The country would not be the same country without its great cities and their suburbs.
In general, I think people tend to believe the areas where they live are real and important, and the areas where other people live are unreal and unimportant.
The R’s are on the losing end of the stick this time, so they’re the ones rattling on about it.
max
['Rhetorical excess.']
October 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
You mean that the country isn’t a small island city-state that happens to be connected to some great wild beyond??!?
October 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I suggest Steyn tackle the project of discussing how the “real” Roman Empire shouldn’t include Rome.
I’d like to see what this America looks like. How much of the population does the US lose if you take away the major cities in each state? How much GDP is lost? What percentage of the US farm subsidies that support much of rural America would disappear without the metropolitan tax base? Does “real” America have any professional sports teams? Any stock exchanges? Do any movies get made in real America?
I am not arguing that it is the cities that make up “real” America, but to me, America is AMERICA. All its parts, all its cultures, and all its population densities. You cannot talk of this country without both sides of the urban/rural equation.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Oops, almost forgot…
October 19th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
A period of progressive political power would mean… that America had somehow ceased to be America.
Ironically, it was under the conservatives that America ceased to be America.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I imagine that Steyn is picturing a map…there is alot more red area than blue area
There were a bunch of maps like this after the 2000 election (though R was represented in blue in the ones that I see). I remember them getting some attention during the aftermath.
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe2000USA2.png
Of course, I always thought that if you bought the argument that this meant something, then you actually believe your vote should be proportional to the amount of land you own, or something.
I’m glad to see the “real America(ns)” meme unravel. It’s long overdue for people to call this crap out for the stupidity it is.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“With a few exceptions (such as Vermont), ‘blue states’ mostly turn out to be red states with a couple of big blue cities (Pennsylvania, for example, or even California).”
With few exceptions, populated regions turn out to be mostly unpopulated agricultural land and wilderness with a couple of densely settled areas around big cities.
Can somebody explain again why the rightwing is under the perpetual misconception that we have “one acre one vote” in this country?
October 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
If you don’t count the places where people vote Democratic, lots and lots of people vote Republican.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Yep, great election strategy Republican party — keep insulting and dividing the electorate. That’s putting Country First…
The thing is that such a strategy works when one part of the electorate is hypersensitive and willing to vote out of spite while the other part of the country remains less susceptible to such demagoguery and votes their interests. The former group responds to such “insulting and dividing” of the other half, while the other half doesn’t take it personally or thinks it’s “no big deal” and is willing to go along with the demagogues. “Real America” hates “Fake America,” but not the other way around, giving “Real America” a natural electoral advantage.
Case in point: very few people are publicly willing to start rattling about how Palin has very little knowledge about what life is like in the “lower 48″ and is thus out of touch with how the rest of us lived and how American history shaped our lives here.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
It irks me to say this, but I think you are misunderstanding Steyn’s point in this post. He isn’t (at least here) asking who makes the “real America”, and arguing that Pennsylvania isn’t “really” liberal because Philadelphia somehow doesn’t count, which is what you take him to be doing. He’s asking who makes the “real conservative America”, and he’s arguing (against people like Ross Douthat) that it is overwhelmingly likely that conservative leaders are going to come from rural America, since that where the conservatives actually are. Hence it makes no sense for conservatives to complain about having people like Sarah Palin on the ticket.
Is that really such a bad argument? Of course, Ross Douthat would presumably counter that this is as good a reason for any for the conservative movement to want to broaden its base to include the big cities too. But surely Steyn is right about the implications of conservatives criticising Sarah Palin for provincialism given the conservative movement as it is at the moment.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
This is part and parcel of conservative blackmail: if we don’t let them rule, they will make life intolerable for us. It’s time to see them and raise them.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
We all choose where we want to live, learn, and grow. Show me a serious RW pundit who lives in place of under 50,000 (and i’m not talking about suburbs) and maybe i’ll start believing their baloney about the “real” America.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
What’s interesting about this phenomenon is the fact that its rooted not in strategic failures, but in visceral hatred of cities and city dwellers. In Canada, where the urban and rural populations are roughly proportional to the population of the United States, first-past-the-post parliamentary elections deny Conservatives majority mandates for exactly this reason. Elections are contested solely in the suburbs and, disproportionately, rural areas. Conservatives must know that moderate stances on the environment, infrastructure, and fiscal flexibility for cities will make them competitive amongst urban voters under certain circumstances. Instead, conservative politicians use unfounded stereotypes to characterize urban voters and suffer massive losses as a result.
I mean, someone in the GOP has to realize at some point that moderate conservatives live in cities, and get elected as mayors and representatives all the time, right?
October 19th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Nylund Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I suggest Steyn tackle the project of discussing how the “real” Roman Empire shouldn’t include Rome.
I’d like to see what this America looks like. How much of the population does the US lose if you take away the major cities in each state? How much GDP is lost? What percentage of the US farm subsidies that support much of rural America would disappear without the metropolitan tax base? Does “real” America have any professional sports teams? Any stock exchanges? Do any movies get made in real America?
I remember seeing a great map a few years back indicating which states paid more into the fed than they got back and which got back more than they paid. Amazing that the red states turned out to be mostly welfare cases while the blue states were getting looted. Of course, that is the result of population density and certain things, like roads and whatnot, being needed at a certain level even in low population areas. But it’s still something I like to bring up.
Also, I would add that even though “real” America may not have any professional sports teams, they do have most of the college football powerhouses (best sport). Except, you know, for the whole liberal college campus in a sea of red thing.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Isn’t it questionable that conservative leaders are going to come from rural America? Conservative ultra-right maybe, but not conservative in the sense of moderate conservative that Ross Douthat or Andrew Sullivan would mean. Moderate conservatives believe in prudent fiscal policy and have a cautious approach to overseas adventures.
What was “rural” about the two Bushes, Colin Powell, Pat Buchanan, Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich or Ronald Reagan? Dick Cheney’s father worked for the US Dept. of Agriculture so I suppose he qualifies. It would be more true to say that Christianist conservative leaders come from a rural background, so Palin qualifies there.
Besides, I think Americans are heartily sick of the sterile, divisive “culture wars”. So the powerful movement of the future needs to be ready to coalesce with other groups, necessarily to dilute its message. Fine if the GOP wants to turn to Sarah Palin as its ideal leader and finally become an ultra-right rump party.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I agree with Dave’s assessment. But (anecdote alert!) among the conservatives in my family and peer group, this fear:
“A period of progressive political power would mean not that America had erred, but that America had somehow ceased to be America.”
is absolutely, utterly real. They usually point to Obama’s economic policies as a sign that “the American way of life as we know it” will be over under Democratic leadership. That is an exact quote from a friend’s email the other day. Obviously, I struggle to understand this mindset, but these people are honest-to-God SCARED.
Pointing out that a) the financial markets’ collapse has already altered American life more emphatically than any president could, and b) our “way of life” managed to survive Democratic leadership through huge swaths of the 20th century, has no impact at all. They don’t care. Obama is going to turn us into Europe by 2010, and they can’t do anything but sit by and tear their hair out by the roots. They won’t be welcome in their own country!
Maybe this is how the anti-Bush sentiment looked to the red folks – sorry, “real America” – through the early 2000s. But damn, the man started a war. All Obama has done is talk about income inequality.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
But a lot of this does go back to Jefferson idealising the agrarian basis of political life:
Of course, he wrote that in 1787, when he was serving in pre-revolutionary Versailles.
Additionally, it’s unsurprising that Shit Steyn thinks rocks should vote, since he’s as dumb as one.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
dB
I mean, someone in the GOP has to realize at some point that moderate conservatives live in cities, and get elected as mayors and representatives all the time, right?
As was pointed out above, the only people that have tended to respond to this nonsense, as well as the pervasive anti-intelligence (I refuse to use anti-intellectualism, as they have moved far beyond that at this point), are the people they are trying to appeal to in very rural areas. The rest of the country basically ignores it and it has cost them very little up to now, as we don’t take it seriously.
October 19th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Goddammit, you agrammatical hippie, that’s not how you spell “mutatis mutandis,” and in any event mutatis mutandis is not a predicate. “And the same is true, mutadis mutandis, for the entire United States of America.
October 19th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Hmm… an angry comment where I criticize your copy-editing is really not the time to forget a close-quote. Oops.
October 19th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
It’s as if these wingnuts don’t believe in the “one man, one vote” doctrine.
October 19th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
By this logic, we weren’t really attacked on September 11.
Exactly. For many* in the red states, terrorism is a reason to waive the flag and chant “U-S-A” like they’re at a college football game or something. Here in NYC, terrorism means dead friends and relatives, 9/11 widows and orphans and giant, toxic smoking hole in the ground. I agree with Obama that we are the United States of America, and an attack on any of us is an attack on all of us. But the rightwing needs to decide whether we count or not in their America. If not, then I’d thank them to shut the f up about 9/11. Keep the name of our city out of their mouths, etc., etc.
(* Note that I said “many” and not all. For example, many service members are from red states and, for them and their families, terrorism is obviously something very real and deadly serious.)
October 19th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I went to school with people like this, but in the wealthy suburbs of Philadelphia, not in any rural area. Believe me, the nub of the whole thing is that “real America” is composed of white male landowners.
Those are not, of course, assumed to be the sole inhabitants, but rather the sole decision makers. The rest are just the ones who work the land and take care of the houses and children of those who own the land and, by extension, own the country.
October 19th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
While your point is correct. I agree that this is not a “real” U.S. of “rurulia.” But so what.
Stein is also correct.
If you leave the Chicago area, the rest of Illinois resembles Mississippi more than Chicago. I think that is noteworthy. As noteworthy as saying Illinois is not Illinois without chicago.
October 19th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Well, I think that’s the crux of conservative patriotism. It’s basically about asserting ownership of the entire country based on a very selective appreciation of certain parts of it.
Personally, as a liberal–and I think this is true for most of us–when you ask if I love America, I dither. There’s a lot of people in this country, some of whom I don’t like much. Our history has been remarkable in many ways, but tragic in many others. So, I don’t know if I can say that I love the country. But, it is my home, I’d happily defend it, and I certainly want the best for everyone here.
Now, ask a conservative the same question, of course, and they’ll answer in the most affirmative of affirmatives. But the difference isn’t that they actually do have some sort of superior, unconditional love of country, it’s that their answer is based on this implicit assumption that the parts of America they don’t like don’t count.
October 19th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“Obama is going to turn us into Europe by 2010″
If only…
October 19th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
“If you leave the Chicago area, the rest of Illinois resembles Mississippi more than Chicago. I think that is noteworthy. As noteworthy as saying Illinois is not Illinois without chicago.”
Not really. I used to live in downstate Illinois, and it really doesn’t have much in common with Mississippi except maybe down in the extreme Southern tip. It’s far too white, for one thing, and the white voters are only about 60% Republican instead of 90% Republican. I mean, sure, all the corn and soybean fields bear no resemblance whatsoever to The Loop. But Chicago casts a shadow across the state.
A far more accurate way to put it is that the major political difference between Illinois and Indiana, a solid Red State, is that the overwhelming majority of of the Chicago metro area is in Illinois.
October 19th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I think this whole “not my president” stuff happens on both sides. I seem to remember “not in my name” bumperstickers in the runup to the war in Iraq.
The left said “Bush isn’t my president” over the invasion of Iraq as an answer to 9/11. Seven years later, no Osama–what a surprise. And the “not in my name”? All the fun stories told to whip the country into a war fever for Iraq; the left skeptics seem to have been proven correct.
The right said “Charlton Heston is my president” over, what incredible threat again?
October 19th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Ohio isn’t blue, if you don’t count Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. It’s so weird to live in Cincinnati and be considered “un-American” by the likes of Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin.
Missouri isn’t blue, if you don’t count St. Louis (100,000 turn out for Obama yesterday) and Kansas City (75,000).
I’m starting to think Missouri might just be “The October Surprise” which might come as a surprise to people like Mark Steyn.
Strange days, indeed.
October 19th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
80% of us live in metropolitan areas of over 100,000. Most of the really wild and woolly folk who live way out have no interest at all in politics.
The Sarah Palin rural-values crowd is just play acting. Like modern “country” music, they don’t even know the words or tune for real country.
Scratch your modern poorly dressed pickup truck driver and you’ll find a vet who traveled all over the world before setting up their little nest of new cars, cell phones, and satellite telly from which they play their rural values game. In reality they’re an urban poison, filling rural areas with the rootless cosmopolitan ooze of big-box retailing, NASCAR race days, and fried fat on a stick.
October 19th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Indiana is not so solid red any more.
October 19th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Out in the places that get 2 senators just for showing up, in the places that suck Washington dry while cursing welfare, dirt is the real America.
October 19th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
There’s some truth to what Matt’s saying. When Clinton was in power, the right-wing nuthouse was always complaining about Janet Reno and black helicopters.
Then, when George W. Bush took over, we got John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, warrantless wiretapping, and Guantanamo. Not a peep from the nuthouse.
If Obama becomes president, expect a revival of all that “This isn’t America anymore! Where’s my tin-foil hat?” rhetoric.
October 19th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Am I the only one that see this conversations as “surreal” …the stereotyping of “conservatives”, “rural”, etc. in regards to a few conservative pundits stereotyping “urban” liberals as un-American? How does a few people’s simplistic, childlike mutterings (exception granted when it’s a person running on a presidential ticket) so suddenly get everyone else to process the same illogical generalizations. Rural politics between rich and poor, town dwellers and farmers. hunters and non-hunters, are as diverse and extreme as any that exist between liberals and conservatives on a national scale. That more rural’s like to own guns and worry about self protection (given that 911 is not even an option)whewas more urban’s worry about traffic problems and clean water is not just natural it’s logical. The fringe like the Congresswomen from Minnesota looking for un-Americans, or her liberal counter-parts from some urban center looking for unlimited entitlements are both extremests that always scream the loudest when they are losing. We don’t hear the Jessie Jackson left this year becasue he has been shut up by the fact that his side is winning and they shut him up knowing he was not a part of the solution but part of the problem. McCain has lost the election for the very reason he not only didn’t shut up the ultra right he pandered to it… and now he’s to proud (some would call it stupid) to back down. To read all the above is to believe that this country will never exscape the need to polorize and eventurally it will come down to blue eys versus browns eyes … hopefully some of you recall the study.
October 19th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Well, I lived in Chicago for about 24 years, and we certainly regard southern Illinois and “downstate” to be considerably different. And while downstate votes may be better than Mississippi, I’m not too sure southern IL is within the Chicago’s glow.
If I’m not mistaken, Southern Illinois actually drew most of its migrants from the south and tends to resemble its ethnic heritage and dialect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Illinois
And if I recall correctly, Southern Il used to serve as a bastion of white supremacist and other fringe groups. Not to mention hillsboro’s courthouse emblazonment reading “The World Needs God” until the ACLU brought suit.
Not that this characterizes the rest of Il, but taking rt 57 through Illinois and encountering “the world’s largest cross” and the various god for guns signs are a far cry from the shadow of Chicago.
I do reckon it is a bit different. More akin to its southernly neighbors than its Northern patrician (I kid).
October 19th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
the stereotyping of “conservatives”, “rural”, etc. in regards to a few conservative pundits stereotyping “urban” liberals as un-American?
First of all, it’s not just pundits: the real anger came out when it was actual office-holders that started talking about people being un-American. It’s one thing to hear David Brooks spout nonsense. It’s quite another to hear it from Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin. Or, here in Virginia, George Allen when he welcomed “Macaca” to “real Virginia.” I’m proud that fake Virginia kicked his ass out, but it was only barely accomplished.
Second, this is not a new or rare phenomenon. Think about the language describing the old agrarian sections of America, like “Heartland.” Think about the idea of “values-driven” voters. This language is just plain insulting in its implications. And this contest over who is the “real” America, complete with accusations of being un-American, is the rotten fruit from these bitter seeds.
This idea needs to be called out at every turn.
October 19th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Guess I better go take down that Obama sign here in rural Arkansas. Since I’m in real America and all. And that I need to change my vote because I am a real American and real Americans support John McCain.
No, I guess I should just say, “This the real American I live in and it says that I vote for Obama.”
October 19th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I live in a hamlet of 300 people in upstate NY. We live the old ways and things haven’t changed all that much since 1900. It’s a wonderful way of life. We’ve never locked the doors, and you can always count on neighbors to pitch in and help when you need it. It’s the best quality of life in America. (admission: I lived in the east 60s in the City for 20 years too).
Sometimes I think this is the real America , and all the rest of you folks live in some kind of Disneyland. But the fact is, we are 10% of the population. We are, alas, the Disneyland.
Sarah Palin could never win election to Town Council here, and I doubt McKain could get elected road commissioner even though we are rock solid Republican. We are a stable community, unlike Wasilla, and we know too much about our neighbors.
October 19th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
We took a road trip this weekend through some rural areas of Washington and you see signs which suggest that Seattle and the surrounding metropolitan areas are not part of the “real” Washington. To which I say, good riddance, secede and form your own poor backwater state. Without the tax revenue from the metropolitan areas which provides more in infrastructure to the more rural areas of the state, you end up with, well, Idaho.
October 19th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
The National Review, mirabile dictu, is now echoing William Jennings Bryan, who famously said in the Cross of Gold Speech:
October 19th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I find it ironic that, should Obama win, the logical place for really angry conservatives to go is . . . Canada, who just elected a second Conservative government. I never liked the argument “leave if you don’t like it”, because it denies that we are all really in this together.
October 19th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
That’s the most exciting thing I’ve heard all day!
October 19th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
How many of the bloggers at the Corner live and work in red America? And no, living in a Republican suburb in NJ does not count.
Interesting all these NYers and DC people who rail against the elite. Face it, they’d never live anywhere else.
And this is why they get so upset about the NYTimes. They crave the blue state approval — the Columbus Dispatch and the Indy Star are not good enough, even if they serve competitive regions of competitive states.
October 19th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
The more things change . . .
From John M. Barry’s history of the 1927 Mississippi flood, “Rising Tide,” Chapter 10:
The Klan’s message combined the binding forces of hperpatriotism and moralistic Christianity with the excluding forces of disdain for elites, cities, and intellectuals . . .
The message struck home. By the early 1920s at least 3 million Americans belonged to the Invisible Empire; some estimates were as high as 8 million . . . It had 300,000 members in Ohio . . . It seized control of state governments in Colorado and Indiana . . .
There were two Americas now, one accepting and advancing into the insecurity of an uncertain age and one holding back and searching for something to grasp onto. And the two nations were growing further apart.
October 19th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
How many of the bloggers at the Corner live and work in red America? And no, living in a Republican suburb in NJ does not count.
Put it another way: how many of the bloggers at the Corner live and work in white America?
October 20th, 2008 at 2:32 am
The comma between New York and New York was misplaced. One correct way to put it would be: [...] nor is New York New York without New York, New York.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:14 am
And if I remember my US history correctly, the rural-urban balance tipped about 1920. And for about half a century before that, there was a lot of anxiety about urbanization.
October 20th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Real America is white America. The realest real America is people whose ancestry is English, Scotch-Irish, or German.
October 20th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Is that really such a bad argument? Of course, Ross Douthat would presumably counter that this is as good a reason for any for the conservative movement to want to broaden its base to include the big cities too. But surely Steyn is right about the implications of conservatives criticising Sarah Palin for provincialism given the conservative movement as it is at the moment.
I don’t know about that. It reminds me of the joke/counterargument to fears that McCain can automatically count on the vote of senior citizens. Old people know what it’s like to be old and don’t want someone like them running the country, the theory goes. I’m sure some rural conservatives are touchy enough to be annoyed by criticism of provincialism, but I think a lot more realize that small town life really isn’t sufficient preparation for the presidency. Fred Tuttle, we miss you.
The realest real America is people whose ancestry is English, Scotch-Irish, or German.
Hey! We don’t want no stinking Irish here!
Steve Sai/er or Bill O’Reilly or whoever might say that there’s nothing wrong with white people being proud of their own race and preferring the company of their own kind, and that may be true in theory, but in the real world it’s usually not about that. It’s about having an “other” to define themselves against. If current conservatives got their wish and exiled liberals, sooner or later they’d turn on Catholics, and so on.
October 20th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Real America is white America. The realest real America is people whose ancestry is English, Scotch-Irish, or German.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:02 am
viagra
Incredible site!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:19 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:54 am
Incredible site!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 3:44 am
After reading through this article, I feel that I really need more information on the topic. Can you suggest some more resources ?
April 15th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
This is very up-to-date info. I think I’ll share it on Twitter.