Purple Haze

Janet Elder's piece in the New York Times today about the "middle" of the US electorate incites thought. The theme is that the US is really not as politically divided as the popular "red-state-blue-state" model would lead one to believe. I do have to confess to falling into the trap of envisioning the country as two couple hundred mile-wide "blue" strips along the west coast and the northeast coast, with the rest of the country essentially being "red". But Janet says that it ain't really so - that US voters are all much closer than that on issues that matter, and presidential candidates would do well to recognize the similarities.

I wonder though. I have been in red and blue states a good bit over the past several years, and I have had occasion to discuss what I would consider to be important issues in both places. During my conversations, I am usually quite struck by differences that seem to me to be almost cultural, they are so stark. I can reflect on discussions with folks whose stomachs turn at the thought of the US activities in Iraq since 2003. And I can think of discussions with folks who think that the Iraqi operation is a laudable and altruistic attempt to export the American way of life to people who desperately need it. I remember discussions with businessmen who think of China as the next great frontier and as a country we should engage adroitly and from commercial strength. And I can remember discussions with businessmen who see China, and ongoing Asian and other immigration, as the greatest threat to US jobs and commerce in recent memory.

I can think of people who are awake nights worrying about what we are doing to the planet and whether it will be inhabitable for our kids' kids. And I can think of people who consider global warming to be a political ploy, only harmful to US commercial interests. I can think of conversations in which people were persuaded in their bones that Clinton should have been impeached for all of the shame that he brought on the White House and the USA with "that woman". And I can think of conversations in which people scream that Bush's pattern of perpetual blunders - linguistic or military - are cause for his impeachment. In each of these conversations, my counterparties were persuaded that the President in question is among the greatest national embarrassments in the history of the country.

I could go on and on. The differences appear to me to run the gamut of local to global, commercial to social, critical to mundane. And the differences appear to be wide indeed. And my perception is that the red/blue model is indicative and somewhat helpful, if not perfect. Janet, on the other hand, thinks this perception is distorted. To make her case, she focuses on polls (admittedly better than my anecdotal evidence, of course), and she focuses on issues like abortion, environment, and immigration. Really, she just discusses abortion; perhaps she has actually been having the same discussions I have on the subject of the environment and immigration. She suggests that folks in red and blue states are not as far apart as we might think.

I would agree that the American political spectrum is rather narrow - there are many globally important issues that Americans do not discuss. In that way, from a global standpoint, there may be merit to seeing US voters' attitudes as more similar than different, even if the issues I have observed are hotly debated within the US. Within that American landscape, however, I find Janet's assertion to be less than persuasive, though I admit I do not discuss abortion all that often. But one thing is for sure: I would love to be at the cocktail parties Janet attends. Kumbaya.