Red and Blue States
David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 26, 2004; 2:00 p.m ET
How closely divided is the United States politically? What brought about this sharp contrast? What does it mean for the November elections?
The Post's David Von Drehle discussed the deep political divide in the U.S. -- what it is, where it came from and what it will mean for the 2004 election.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Dulles, Va.:
David-- Your Sunday piece does a good job of describing how the two parties have become polarized, and the two follow-up articles are planned to dig more deeply into the extremes. But I think you are mistaken in projecting party polarization onto the electorate as a whole.
There are surely voters who mirror the polarized views of each party, but it does not follow that the broad electorate is thus polarized. What ABOUT the purple states? The problem is the candidate selection process. In the end, purple voters do not have any choice but to hold their noses and vote for the lesser of two evils. That doesn't mean the electorate's VIEWS are divided, only that their choices are.
Shouldn't this series have four parts, not three? If the parties have thus become so polarized, what about moderate voters who like neither candidate and end up going to the polls to vote against the worst of the choices? How do you explain that no centrist party has emerged from within the chasm you describe to represent the broad middle? You describe moderate politicians dropping out of the system. You're right, and this is tragic! What has gone wrong with American politics that the huge body of moderates in the electorate never get a chance to vote for a satisfying candidate? Partisan primaries and gerrymandered voting districts -- not a divided electorate per se -- is what is causing the so-called Red-Blue divide. This is a consequence of what the politicians have done to us, not what the electorate itself represents or wants. Is there no one anywhere in politics to lead us out of the chasm? After you visit Sugar Land on Monday and San Francisco on Tuesday, please visit somewhere else on Wednesday where, six months before the election, the majority of voters are already disgusted with the presidential choice they face this coming November.
David Von Drehle: Let's dive right in to the long lsit of great questions -- and let me apologize in advance that I won't get to all of them ...
In a way, the fourth piece you're talking about was written in 2002; Dan Balz and I traveled to Minnesota (an increasingly purple state) and looked in depth at the way the polarization of the parties leaves a large swatch of centrist voters adrift. Obgviously, I don't expect readers to have this stuck to their refrigerators -- but maybe we could post it in this chat for people who are interested. It is sort of the other side of this same coin.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
It was a great story by David Finkel that I read today, is the Post planning one on the latte drinking blue states?
washingtonpost.com:
For a Conservative, Life Is Sweet in Sugar Land, Tex. (Post, April 26)
David Von Drehle: Yep. Tomorrow.
_______________________
Harlingen, Texas:
Your article was great. I come from a physical sciences background and have been puzzling over the very, very close balance between conservative and liberal voters. In systems I know about, such exact and persistent balance needs some sort of negative feedback arrangement to sustain it. It doesn't just happen.
Dr. Noel's game-theoretic idea, "In a democracy, to win you need a majority... But you don't want a lot more than 50-percent-plus-one, because if your majority gets bigger, you have to share the spoils with more supporters," provides such a negative feedback loop.
Do you know of other proposed mechanisms that try to explain how such a knife-edge equilibrium is maintained?
David Von Drehle: The Noel game-theory idea was one of the most provocative I've heard, and on his advice I tried to read some very theoretical political science texts laying out the applications of rational choice theory to voting. I could feel the moecular bonds of my brain matter straining to the breaking point and gave up just before my head exploded.
_______________________
Annapolis, Md.:
Hi.
Isn't the divide now a matter of urban vs. suburban/country, and that the states that tend to go with Democrats happen to have large urban populations?
David Von Drehle: It is a bit more nuanced than that. But certainly the urban vs. rural split--and inner 'burbs vs. outer 'burbs--is one of the most basic elements.
_______________________
Toronto, Canada:
Many years ago in Toronto, Canada, I was listening to a debate on radio, as to whether Canada should become part of the USA (I'm sure that the debate was more of an intellectual exercise than anything else, but I was quite young at the time). The Radio Commentator, an obvious opponent of the ideas of the guest speaker, went on to say that whereas Canada has three distinct political parties, America’s two parties are almost identical. I estimate this debate to have been in the early to mid seventies.
These days, the Republican Party is associated with business and lower taxes, and the Democratic Party is associated with social reform and heath care. Has there really been such an divergence in policy between the Democrats and the Republicans over the last 30 years, or are the distinctions between the two still mild compared to most other western countries?
David Von Drehle: I used to say the same thing -- that the ideological spectrum in America was much narrower than in most countries. I imagine that is still true: there is no major socialist voice in the US, for example, and the GOP has signed on over the past 30 years to most of the Democratic social agenda. (Bust just signed a major expansion of Medicare, for instance.)
But the sort of cultural spectrum, if you will, seems to have gotten bigger and cerainly the differences there far more inflamed along party lines that them seemed to be a generation ago when conservatives could and did reside comfortably among the Ds and liberals among the Rs.
_______________________
washingtonpost.com:
GOP, Democrats Locked In Race Toward Decline (Post, Aug. 4, 2002)
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
How many voting precincts actually have results as extreme as the Sugarland district profiled today (and San Francisco?) Aren't the margins usually much closer and speak to the differences that exist within communities from family to family?
David Von Drehle: Some precincts are much closer than these. As I tried to suggest earlier in the chat, there are many ways to slice this set of data--for this time through, we decided to look at the red and blue image in concentrated form.
_______________________
Mr. Von Drehle:
Do you think the fact that we are at war polarizes the country more than if we were at peace?
David Von Drehle: I don't think so. The anger, bewilderment, resentment etc. I see reflected in the war debate feels similar in many ways to the polarization over the Clinton impeachment.
_______________________
Portland, Ore.:
The Sunday Post article discussed a kind of
political "segregation". How much of this
is cultural vs. economic?
I perceive the kind of neighborhood I live in
as determined by economics, namely what kind
of home I can afford determines where I can
live.
However the article seemed to be saying that
people live where they feel more comfortable
with other like-minded people, and I think
that's more of a cultural statement.
David Von Drehle: I think there is a real cultural element--not just economic. You know, the data now suggest that the old image of the GOP as the party of the rich is no longer true, and large swaths of the rich are ardent Democrats. Here in Washington any real estate broker could tell you which neighborhoods are for superrich Republicans and which are for superrich Democrats--without much cross-pollinization.
I mentioned a really interested data analysis published a couple of weeks ago in the Austin American-Statement. They specifically demonstrated that racial segregation has declined measurably over the past 25 years, while political segregation has intensified.
_______________________
Roseland, N.J.:
Good afternoon David, thanks for taking our questions.
Prior to the 1992 election, people were talking not about 'red vs. blue states' but about the 'electoral lock'. That refered to a huge block of states that had voted for Nixon twice, Reagan twice, and Bush once, and were numerous enough, it was thought, to practically guarantee victory to a Republican candidate.
Then Clinton was elected. We don't talk about the electoral lock anymore.
Isn't it possible "red v blue" is just a product of the single, extraordinary, historic election of 2000, and may not reflect any great lasting divide of any significance?
David Von Drehle: I don't think so. I agree the "electoral lock" idea was a crock. But 2000 was the third consecutive election in which the presidential candidates all failed to win a majority of the popular vote. Clinton won two pluralities and Bush did not win at all in the popular vote (and Gore failed to get over 50 percent). The last time we've gone this long without a president chosen by a majority of Americans was in the brutally divisive period after the Civil War.
_______________________
Pensacola, Fla.:
Mr. Von Drehle, thank you for your articles and for hosting a discussion on this critical topic. As a blue voter in a very red county in a purple state, I agree with your first article that the political divide is really a clash of cultures and that there is little interaction between members of these cultures—even where they live in the same town. George Bush deserves much of the credit for energizing our Democratic voters, and that may prove decisive in a swing state like Florida. But for the long run, I fear we have lost our ability to conduct civil dialogue across the political divides. Sure, political discussions have often been passionate. But judging by our letters to the editor here, strong feelings for one’s own convictions have turned to abhorrence for the convictions of others. Do you have any ideas how we can regain some of the old-fashioned respect for each other I believe we once had?
David Von Drehle: Boy, I love this question -- and I wish I knew the answer. Civility and humility, right? The willingness to hear other positions and the ability to see that other positions may have wisdom to them.
Anyway, no, I don't have the answer. But as a Washington resident, I feel acutely the tensions you describe.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.:
David,
So far, if seems as if the majority of the population has already decided how it is going to vote. Those who support Kerry aren't likely to change -- those who support Bush are just as loyal.
So what do you think it is going to take for the remaining people to make up their minds? I grow concerned that this small percentage of the population will be making their decisions based upon last-minute campaign commercials, political rhetoric, and potentially false or misleading accusations right before the election.
David Von Drehle: I think you're probably right. My sense is that the dwindling group of decisive voters in the middle tend to make very negative and ephemeral judgments about whyich candidate, or which party, is "less bad."
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
If you were to extrapolate the existing divide into the future ten or twenty years, what would you predict? The extreme (and probably fanciful) scenario of civil war, or something more moderate such as increasing voter disillusionment in the center and continuing gridlock in Washington as neither party allows to other to act? Just imagine what the judiciary would look like at that point -- a bunch of old guys (and girls) trying not to die and open up another vacancy.
Great article.
David Von Drehle: You know, I've been thinking a lot about this. If you had asked me this question three or four years ago, I would have thought a devastating attack by hostile forces on the American homeland would be a gridlock-breaking moment. Yet so far, we don't see that. So I find myself wondering what could do it. It will take a really singular political talent to get through, I think--a once-a-century type maybe. America has been fortunate enough to get such people when needed thus far, maybe we will be blessed again.
_______________________
Charlotte, N.C.:
How do you suppose folks segregate themselves politically. Of all the questions I asked my real estate agent, politcs never came up. I honestly could not tell you whether I live in a heavy Republican or Democrat area.
David Von Drehle: But did you inquire into the number of churches in your new neighborhood, or scan the nearby streets for a organic grocery store? Such markers sort of serve to bring like-minded people together.
I had an interesting e-mail from a professor at Vanderbilt who said he asks his students where they intend to move after they graduate. If they say Atlanta, Orlando or Dallas, he said, chances are they are Republicans. If they say Boston, New York or San Francisco, Democrats.
Let me hastened to add here that these are very rough tools indeed and can't possibly describe everyone.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
As a moderate-left-leaning blue-stater who's never set foot in Texas, the thing that struck me reading today's article about Sugar Land is how reasonable the people seemed. They were uncomfortable with gay marriage but didn't seem to demonize gay people. The statement "They'd think we want to hurt the poor, hurt the environment, do away with the school system" implies that they do have concern for these issues. I wonder if at some level most Americans really want the same things, but that all the bickering over how to get there is hyped and inflamed by politicians and the media. At least I hope that's the case.
David Von Drehle: Hear, hear.
Most voters, even with strong partisan convictions, strike me as good, decent people.
_______________________
Lewisville, Tex.:
The Noel Game Theory aside, if either party cannot attain victory with greater than 51 percent they are bound to be unable to enact their agendas. In your view, why have both parties set aside the idea of holding power to enact their policies in favor of simply holding titular power?
David Von Drehle: Great question. I think it's because of something that my simplistic sentences about rational choice theory did not account for--namely, the next election. When control of the legislature and/or the White House is on the knife's edge, you have to be careful about using your power too extremely, because it is easy for the electorate to boot you out.
Having said that, some of the key legislation of the Buch years--on taxes, abortion, etc.--have moved on pretty narrow and partisan votes.
_______________________
Elkridge, Md.:
With all the talk of the election centering on the 18 battleground states, why is there such little publicity on state by state polling? All we hear is the national polling, which as the 2000 election showed, can be misleading, and can hugely impact voter turnout. Its very possible for Bush to have a huge lead in the red states, but for Kerry to be marginally ahead in the key battleground states, resulting in an electoral majority for Kerry. Why doesn't state polling get more play?
David Von Drehle: I think it will as the election gets closer. Definitely it should. You have put your finger on a very important fact. Thanks.
_______________________
Atlanta, Ga.:
Twelve years ago Ross Perot broke through the dominance of the two major parties to win 19 percent of the popular vote, running in part on the theme that Republicans and Democrats were ignoring major issues like the federal deficit. What has happened since then to make a rupture in the red/blue dichotomy less likely?
David Von Drehle: Perot was such a sui generis phenomenon--I mean, he sort of tried to leave a party behind but nothing came of it. For proof, just look at this year's campaign, at least so far. The deficit is back in a gigantic way, but there is no third-party rising up to slay the beast.
_______________________
Southern Maryland:
Do you see the red/blue divide as part of the legacy of the social changes of the '60s? Writers such as David Broder have described how the baby-boom generation has become polarized over that eventful decade. Kerry/Bush is a great example--two Yalies with smilar backgrounds who aren't very far apart on most policy issues. Yet even most rank-and-file party voters act as though the election is about good versus evil.
David Von Drehle: Absolutely. Gerat point.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
The problem with this Red/Blue analysis is its simplicity to the extreme. Worse, I detect a huge bias towards white culture. As a person of color who comes from a simple working class background -- and there are MANY of us -- I have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to "latte sipping blues" or "main street reds." These analogies may resonate with white voters in Sugarland or Bethesda, but they are meaningless in the District of Columbia, the South Side of Chicago, the Iron Range of Minnesota, and so on with populations that are continuously marginalized by our political institutions and by simplistic, culturally biased political analogies therefrom...
David Von Drehle: Well, I agree this is simplistic. Books are often nuanced, newspaper articles are usually pretty simple. We just can't get every facet of the American electorate into 3,000 words. I can't, anyway.
But having said that, this analysis deosn't leave out those places. They are all BLUE, which as I tried to say in my piece is a coalition of the cities, state capitals, college towns, New England, the Great Lakes necklace and the West Coast. You won't find "latte-sipping" or "Main Street" in the piece I wrote.
_______________________
Munich, Germany:
A learned Texan here at work once told me that the strong association between the Republican Party and Military wasn’t always the case, and that the Democrats were once perceived as the more militaristic political party in America. As long as I can recall, however, the Republican Party has always been more closely aligned to the military than the Democratic Party.
When exactly and why did the Republican Party achieve this stranglehold on military culture in America?
David Von Drehle: Years ago, that great Republican leader Bob Dole got in trouble for saying that the wars of the 20th Century were "Democrat wars." Your colleague is right that the Ds used to be considered the more bellicose party.
The change seems to be of post-Vietnam vintage, really rooted in the anti-war campaigns of McCarthy and McGovern, the nuclear-freeze movement, the Carter hostage debacle, etc.
_______________________
Springfield, Va.:
Is this a good example of what the Electoral College was intented to do? For example, in 2000, rural america (and parts of suburbia) voted very much the way the people in your article did, for George Bush. If not for the Electoral College, the urban voters, who are to be described in the Tuesday article, would have won out simply due to thier greater numbers caused by geography.
David Von Drehle: The way I was taught to understand things, the Electoral College was useful mainly because it could take relatively small popular vote margins and magnify them into solid mandates. This was good, my teachers said, because it gave presidents a solid leg to stand on--at least in most elections.
Take 1996, for example. Bill Clinton was reelected with less than half the votes--historically speaking, a pretty rare event suggesting some electoral weakness. But in the Electoral College, he won a solid landslide.
_______________________
New York, N.Y. -- Big Blue:
I agree with you that most people, whatever their partisan positions, are decent people. But many people in this forum have remarked upon the demonization of the "other side" by advocates and, increasingly, politicians (like the two major party candidates now running for President).
What, in your view, would happen if a major candidate acknowledged that most people hold complex views and refused to polarize the debate?
David Von Drehle: Boy, I'd like to find out.
_______________________
Sugar Land, Tex.:
I have no question, simply a comment. I am from Sugar Land, Tex., born and raised. Further, I actually attend the same catholic church and Life Teen mass mentioned in your article. However, as opposed to the extreme character in your article, I don't own a gun, I do care about the environment, and I don't believe that all liberals are just a bunch of whiners. (although I do not consider myself conservative or liberal -- perhaps a moderate by default) I realize to prove a point, your article takes a look at an extreme personality. My only problem is that you equate that personality with the entire city of Sugar Land simply because a high percentage of voters signed on for the Bush team almost 4 years ago. Simply because an individual voted for Bush does not mean they are a gun crazed, closed minded, homophobic who drinks beer at Hooters. In closing, I would like to add that I attended law school in Washington, D.C., studied abroad on multiple occassions, and gather my news from a broad variety of sources (none of which include any of the sources referenced by the lead character of your article) All of this from a girl born and raised in the same Sugar Land, Tex. you have reported on this morning. I just wanted to clear the record for those individuals not fortunate enough to visit this Houston suburb on their own.
David Von Drehle: Great post--thanks.
_______________________
Kennesaw, Ga.:
The impression I have after reading the Post's coverage of this story is that senior elected officials are much more focused on the mechanics of the electoral process -- polling, fundraising, positioning -- than they used to be, and that this has contributed to the "red/blue" division of the country.
Is this fair?
David Von Drehle: I don't think that's true. Politicians have always spent time on politics. What I think may be true, though, is that the new technologies of politics allow them to know A LOT more about people than they used to. And that's bad, from a centrist view.
Here's why: People tend to be moderate and civil and polite around people they don't know. I mean, you rarely see people spouting extreme views to the person beside them in the grocery store line. But they might do so to members of their families or to their friends.
When politicians were doing more GUESSING about what voters might think and want, I believe they tended to seek common ground. When they know a voter's hot buttons, they will push 'em.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.:
The sort of anectodal stuff that we see about the red/blue split is entertaining, but not very edifying. What about the argument that it's the politicians in DC that are polarized (and polarizing)-- rather than the U.S. population?
David Von Drehle: I think it is a feedback loop. I certainly don't blame the American people for thinking what they think, believing what they believe, or voting as they vote.
Sometimes readers think we are "blaming" when we are just "describing."
_______________________
Paris, France:
Hi, David. Great stories. I live in Europe, which is closer culturally and politically to the "blue" states. and it raises a question: Isn't a main difference religion? I mean, the "reds" tend to be more religious people, while the "blue" states, like the Europeans, are far more secular. That seems an impossible gulf to bridge, and explains why Europeans don't understand or feel comfortable with this administration, whose members wear their religiosity publicly. What do you think?
David Von Drehle: The data suggest this is exactly right. One of the biggest distinctions between "red" and "blue" is how often people attend church. This is far less true among African-Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic whether they are religious or secular. And it's less true among Catholics than Protestants.
_______________________
College Park, Md.:
David, very interesting article. Have Americans really lost the ability to compromise? What can the average voter do to encourage politicians to recognize the value of compromise, when all they do is shout "I'm this and my opponent is that."
David Von Drehle: Gosh, good question. I wish I had a prescription. Any ideas out there?
_______________________
Boston, Mass.:
It would seem that the major "cultural" difference between Red and Blue Americans is this idea that you and Stan Greenburg decsribe as moral absolutes, or absolutes in general I suppose. Red Americans beleive that what's "right" or "best" or "true" for them is "right" or "best" or "true" for everyone, whereas Blue's would never be so quick to make such a claim. Would you agree or disagree? I would love to hear whatever thoughts you have.
I love the articles and can't wait for tomorrow when me and my "latte sipping" foreign language speaking brethren are discussed.
David Von Drehle: I disagree. Judging from the general tenor of the e-mail I get (not in this chat, which has been great) is that both sides have their share of appallingly close-minded people.
The difference, I'd say, is WHAT people are close-minded about.
_______________________
Rockville, Md.:
I was in the Giant Food Store on my lunch break, when I looked down the drink aisle there were 30-40 different kinds of sports drinks, lemonade, Snapple’s and Gatorade’s. How come we live in a country with soooo many choices, but only 2 political parties? Other countries, like Israel of at least 3,4 or 5. What can be done to break the 2 party only system.
Personally, I would be embarrassed to be in the same party as either Chairman Terry McAullefe or Sen. Rick Santorum (PA) so I think the most patriotic thing an American can do is burn their party ID cards.
David Von Drehle: Careful what you wish for. Multi-party democracy often produces chaos. Sometimes it's a glorious chaos--Italy comes to mind. But still, chaos.
I personally believe the track record of America's two-party system is pretty good, measured over a couple of centuries. We just don't happen to live in an obvious heyday.
_______________________
Melbourne, Fla.:
Interesting, but you've almost totally ignored the role of the media in splitting this country into red and blue camps. The overwhelming tendency of the media to portray Anericans in sterotypical black and white (red and blue), that pushes people away from the center. And that's just lazy reporting. For example, when moderates are portrayed as "conservative" because they happen to believe than capitalism is -- has been and always will be -- the true strength of this country, they tend to react with disdain and say "fine, I will embrace the total conservative package, because I sure as hell don't agree with what the media describes as the "liberal" agenda." It is the media that is driving Americans to opposite polls.
David Von Drehle: Well, I spent a lot of time trying to be precise, so I may be wrong, but I ain't "lazy."
Nor have I read or seen a piece of serious American political journalism in years that suggested there was anything strange about capitalism. So maybe you might want to read all the way to end of some newspaper stories before you let them drive you in any direction.
_______________________
Re: Gridlock Breaking Moment:
Is it possible the reason why the Taliban attacks with airplanes did not unite the country has more to do with President Bush using the moment to capitalize politically and not try to unite the country ? The best leadership requires a big picture perspective and not a political advantage perspective.
David Von Drehle: That's the way Blues see it, for sure.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
A bit of Post history on this topic -
Literally every word in your stories to date was foreseen by your colleague Joel Garreau in his seminal Nine Nations of North America, which remains the most important U.S. socio-political geography think-piece of the twentieth century.
David Von Drehle: Hi, Joel!
Seriously, having worked for several happy years alongside Garreau in Style, let me say I haven't the candlepower to beat him to any idea, this one included.
_______________________
Redistricting?:
Would non-partisan redisctricting (like Iowa, I think) move more politicians to the center?
David Von Drehle: I think maybe so. Couldn't hurt. I mean, shouldn't we have more than 10 or 20 competitive House races each year?
_______________________
Chesapeake Beach, Md.:
There is a very interesting photo on the net showing how
people on Amazon.com don't read the same books. They
are either red or blue books. Also, much of the growth in
channels like Fox News and some of the websites you
wrote of today were the result of a preceived "media bias"
on the part of conservatives. Was the polarization of
media (tv, books, internet) a cause of the split or simply
representative of the split.
David Von Drehle: I think it's both, as I tried to say in my piece of this series. I think the niche communications of today both draw on the split and deepen it.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Deep breath, please...Or so I suggest to at least to some of your writers.
Yes there is polarization, and a lot of malice in the political debate. And the splintering of mass media into outlets in which people talk mainly to each is a new phenomenon.
But the divides of the current era are nothing remotely like we saw in either the 1960s or the 1930s.
To me, they are more akin to the earlier 90s, when conventional politics seemed briefly to fail, and was indeed prodded into reform by the unconventional eccentric, Ross Perot.
Assuming the bad guys don't blow us up, the U.S. political system is resilient and self-correcting.
David Von Drehle: Very true. The 1930s were a HORRIBLE time in politics, here and abroad. And even then, the U.S. did a whole lot better than most places.
_______________________
Hartdford, Vt.:
Couldn't this bitter divide between the reds and the blues be a product of the Bush administration's failure to pursue a moderate, cenntrist course? Compare him to Nixon, for instance. Barely winning in '68, by late 1971 he'd managed to neutralize Wallace on the right, governed as a centrist on domestic issues, and appeared at least to be winding down a war he inherited. By 1972 the election result was a forgone conclusion and Nixon carried 49 states. Granted a lot has changed since 1972 but certainly Clinton demonstrated that it's possible to govern as a centrist.
David Von Drehle: Interesting.
Let's take, for the sake of argument, the Clinton-as-centrist view, which is one shared by many but hotly disputed by the anti-Clintonists. Even after doing so, he could not win a majority of the votes. So that suggests to me quite different from 1972.
_______________________
Re: Compromise:
"How Can We Do Both ?"
We can ask our politicians to address ways on how they can address concerns from both sides. Of course, that means we citizens have to be willing to listen to both sides and try to see both sides of an arguement.
David Von Drehle: Thanks.
_______________________
Germantown, Md.:
I think Melbourne might have had a small point about the media. The newspapers can be precise and nuanced (your article was), but TV and radio is not able to be usually for time constraints.
David Von Drehle: Which is why I work for a newspaper.
_______________________
Inner-'Burbs:
I know it is more simple and fun to dash off stories filled with cliches and stereotypes about the good 'ole boy who, ohmygod, actually believes LITERALLY in the Bible and the edgy, latte-drinking sophisticate with the "Amnesty International" sticker on the back of her Hybrid, but how 'bout a story on what some at the National Review have called "crunchy conservatives." Otherwise known as folks who never, ever live in a McMansion OR vote for John Kerry this Fall.
David Von Drehle: I expect The Post will do lots more politics stories this year. Maybe even more than the National Review.
_______________________
Harrisburg, Pa.:
Re: Previous question. In some ways, we have compromised past political debates and moved onto new issues. We are no longer debating whether there should be civil rights, whether we should be an isolationist or an interventionist nation, whether the government has a role in protecting the environment, etc. but government should conduct foreign and domestic policies. In some ways, we have become more divided over narrower issues.
David Von Drehle: Yes. All very true, and important. There was a question from Canada early in the chat that referred to the relative agreement between American parties, and you've shown us some of the convergence.
I guess I wouldn't have predicted that as so many of the substative differences faded, the intensity and bitterness of the partisan debate would intensify. That has been a surprise.
_______________________
Hillsboro, Ore.:
One political phenomenom we see in my state is a rural vs. urban split on many issues.
How much of this divide is due to that? Will increasing city populations tilt the split towards the "blue"?
Also, any comments on our aging population and whether older folks are more "red" or "blue"? As we age will a clear majority emerge?
David Von Drehle: Ruy Texeira and John Judis, in their book "The Emerging Majority" say yes, the phenomenon you point to will help create a Blue majority. We'll see.
As for older folks, the oldest of the olds are pretty Bloue--theya re the original Roosevelt Democrats. Then as you come down in age they redden up--you can almost watch the Eisenhower years pass through the poll data.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Is the profound split in the American public unique among modern democracies? Are there any examples, say, from Europe, of similar situations with roughly equally strong, but opposed, factions in a country's political scene?
David Von Drehle: The Red side of my perfectly balanced half-red/half-blue personality leaves me woefully ignorant of foreign lands.
A joke! Just a joke!
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Two questions:
(1) Are we seeing internal immigration patterns to mirror the blue/red state split -- i.e. are blues from red states moving to the coasts, and reds from blue states moving to the sunbelt?
(2) It seems like the cultural/moral issues are really undergirding the divide, so why do people keep talking about the economy and the War on Terrorism as their top issues?
David Von Drehle: Good ones.
Several professors say they are starting to develop data suggesting that yes, the blues are migrating and so are the reds. We'll watch that emerge and see what it amounts to.
I think if you slice down through the broad "War on Terror" and "economy" answers, you find the moral/cultural questions underneath. For instance: Do you worry about civil liberties being abused in the War on Terror? What do you believe to be the "underlying causes" if any of the attacks on the US? Etc.
_______________________
David Von Drehle: Thanks for great questions, and thanks for reading. Wish I had time to post more.
David
_______________________
Automatically Update Page
Get New Responses
Submit Question
| 
