Remember that Retro Versus Metro Thing?

August 19, 2004 8:28 PM

Remember this, from a few days back? Retro vs Metro? Well, the book is out, and the publishers have made it available for free download in pdf format. I've read the first chapter and so far it's pretty good.[more inside]
posted by condour75 (21 comments total)

Essentially the gist of the book is as follows: The US is -- and has always been -- divided between two bases, rural/ white/ extraction economy /religious (retro) and urban/ multiethnic/ post-industrial/ secular (metro). Nothing new there. But the author's argument is that the Democratic party should essentially end its commitment to the "retro", and recreate itself as the party of the "metro" base, as that base is roughly twice the size and generates more than 71 percent of tax revenues. It's an interesting read, although the relatively even-keeled (if statedly partisan) editorial voice doesn't quite jibe with the facetious, snarky photos and illustrations. Think text=NPR, visuals=Air America, or at least that's my take. Also, The New York Times published this article on it today.
posted by condour75 at 8:29 PM on August 19, 2004

I can buy it from Amazon for $39.95, or just....download it for free? Hmmmm.
posted by dhoyt at 8:38 PM on August 19, 2004

Just the sort of crazy thing us metropolitan liberals will do: read for free online, then buy the coffee table version, at great expense. What's next, bottled water?
posted by condour75 at 8:42 PM on August 19, 2004

Wow, that was a fun news commercial!
posted by Mick at 9:26 PM on August 19, 2004

On chapter 4 now... so far, it's very good on analysis, less so on prescription, and some of the numbers seem to stack the cards against the author's strategy.

Favorite quote so far:

For those who might think that End Times beliefs are too weird to be held by 70 to 80 million evangelical Christians, consider the fact that 3 million Americans believe they have been abducted by space aliens.

posted by condour75 at 10:51 PM on August 19, 2004

Today's Radio West progam had as a guest one of the authors of Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, for contrast.

The contention is pretty much that most Americans aren't that distant in views, though some are. Think bell curve... lots in the middle, some opposites on the tails.
posted by weston at 11:13 PM on August 19, 2004

They probably wouldn't actually be too far apart; one of the contentions here is that the Republican party uses the issues that *DO* separate these two groups as wedges to gain the fundamentalist vote, which is highly overrepresented due to every state having only two senators. For instance, the voting power (in Senate) of one Kansas resident is equal to the voting power of about 13.15 Californians. Or, each Kansan has 12 imaginary friends with real power. Convince them that they need a no-gay-marriage law, and they'll help you get your upper class tax break.

So far that was the biggest shocker to me; I mean, I knew it but I didn't really think through the numbers like that. It makes a darned good case for splitting up into city-states.
posted by condour75 at 11:56 PM on August 19, 2004

The whole two-senator bicameral legislature debate was discussed pretty extensively back in the 1780s. The system is that way on purpose. States like Kansas get an even place at the table in the senate because they're nearly insignificant in the house -- and without that balance, the interests of people in Kansas would simply be run roughshod over, unless they fit the whims of the people in New York.

We do a lot of things in this country to protect the minority, even while trying to govern democraticaly, and that's probably not a bad thing at all.
posted by weston at 12:47 AM on August 20, 2004

Well see that's what I always thought, but this pointed out that membership in a smaller state is not in and of itself inclusion in a justifiably protectable minority. In an excerpt from a guy named Robert Dahl:

Beyond the protections provided by the Bill of Rights, the constitutional division of powers in our federal system, and an immense body of legislative and judicial protections for basic rights, do people in the less populated states possess additional rights or interests that are entitled to special protection by means of unequal representation? If so, specifically what are they?

Is there a principle of general applicability that justifies an entitlement to extra representation for some individuals
or groups? If so, what is it? If we were to formulate a general principle and apply it fairly, would not those most entitled to protection be the least-privileged minorities—rather than people who happen to live in the
smaller states? I am not aware of any convincing
answers to these questions and objections.

I'd be really interested to hear more about the current consensus (if there is one) of political science of this; it's been my impression that it was generally regarded as a foul-up, a bone thrown to the small states in order to keep them onboard, and isn't usually repeated in federal systems, but I really haven't studied civics since High School.
posted by condour75 at 1:04 AM on August 20, 2004

How does he operationalize "metropolitan?" By the U.S. Census definition, there are only a few states that are mostly rural - seven, if I remember correctly - but the author says metro areas dominate few states in the South and Midwest. And Maine is classified as "metro" because of its attitudes toward the environment and whatnot, but Tennessee is retro even if it's dominated by service industries, etc. This sounds like bad science and awfully abitrary. Even if, upon closer examination, the book is more serious, its title and pics and marketing have made the book's creation a deplorable exercise.
posted by raysmj at 7:05 AM on August 20, 2004

It's cool that the book is free, but I think Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas gets much closer to the root of the culture divide than this one, judging by its premise.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:21 AM on August 20, 2004

Quite frankly the books thesis seems like gross oversimplification, and it's playing to polarization. So screw it, says I.
posted by jonmc at 8:40 AM on August 20, 2004

But the author's argument is that the Democratic party should essentially end its commitment to the "retro", and recreate itself as the party of the "metro" base,

That's gonna further inflame already existing resentments and lose Democrats votes that are badly needed. How about (and here's a radical thought) maybe encouraging dialog and trying to bridge these cultural gaps. And blue vs. red is just the tip of the ice berg. There's plenty of division within these two groups as well.
posted by jonmc at 8:55 AM on August 20, 2004

I think jon's right.. this would play right into the resentment of the so-called 'red staters' as well as the smugness of the 'blue-staters'. I think I'll go read Barack Obama's convention speech again instead.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:57 AM on August 20, 2004

NTM, this breaking down by states is incredibly simplistic. I can tell you from personal experience that there's parts of NYC that are as red-statish as any hamlet in Oklahoma and I doubt that the multi-millionaires in Greenwich, (blue-state) CT, are that hot on repealing upper-class tax cuts even though they might be in favor of gay marraige. And there's plenty of college towns in Red States that swerve to the left. I know it's tempting to divide the world into binary camps, but that's not the way it is, and it's laziness to present it that way.

Plus breaking it down into either/or categories makes very serious stuff seem like high school clique-mongering.
posted by jonmc at 9:05 AM on August 20, 2004

Quite frankly the books thesis seems like gross oversimplification, and it's playing to polarization. So screw it, says I.

I think jon's right.. this would play right into the resentment of the so-called 'red staters' as well as the smugness of the 'blue-staters'. I think I'll go read Barack Obama's convention speech again instead.

um ... you can't judge a book by its cover? (or promotional campaign) so what's the matter with reading? it isn't voting. there is no instead. and it's free. i'll wait to read it until i agree/disagree with any second-hand conclusions. this is clearly a much better post than the earlier one for the ad campaign.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:02 AM on August 20, 2004

i think i see the sarcasm now. from one of you. maybe.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:04 AM on August 20, 2004

i think i see the sarcasm now. from one of you. maybe.

No sarcasm here. But yeah, I suppose I should read the whole book before making any judgements, but I'm sick to death of all this binary, us & them, blue vs. red shit, and the promo campaign emphasized that, so it was really off-putting. Plus the stated judgement of the book:But the author's argument is that the Democratic party should essentially end its commitment to the "retro", and recreate itself as the party of the "metro" base, as that base is roughly twice the size and generates more than 71 percent of tax revenues. annoys me. It's that kinda thinking that had the Dems putting up candidates like Mondale & Dukakis, and of course losing, rendering them somewhat useless.
posted by jonmc at 11:17 AM on August 20, 2004

Free stuff is free stuff, and i'll start reading it tonight. But I'm skeptical that it contains any new insights is all.

if the summary of what the democratic party should do is what is actually in the book it sounds like a second cousin to the southern strategy, in which case I don't think it's the way politics should go. Divisiveness: bad. Common ground and looking past wedge issues: good.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:21 AM on August 20, 2004

The argument is a bit more subtle, wouldn't result in Mondales or Dukaki, and certainly deserves a look and a real debate.

How does a wedge issue work? Republicans find an issue that places democrats at odds with the socially conservative portion of their base. It works because those differences are fairly irreconcilable; you can argue yourself blue in the face about teaching evolution to a creationist, and they're not going to compromise. Looking past these wedge issues is mandatory, but not sufficient. It places us always on the defensive; a republican strategist can always point to the fact that Dems are soft on sodomy or don't like the ten commandments in schools, and get a fairly hearty harumph from heartland fundamentalists.

But doing so places another sector of their base at risk of defection: Urban conservatives, who tend to be of a more libertarian bent, are ripe for the picking, and easier to compromise with. Clinton centrism was essentially just that; put cops on the street, balance the budget, and cut welfare a little, and Rush can scream all he wants: your approval rating will be blowjobproof.

So the question is, given a certain number of campaign dollars and days, who should the party woo? Should Kerry be posing with corn in Iowa, or making overtures to likely Stern voters in swing states and facilitating further senate defections (a la Jeffords)?
posted by condour75 at 1:30 PM on August 20, 2004

Is there a principle of general applicability that justifies an entitlement to extra representation for some individuals
or groups? If so, what is it?

We're not talking about some individuals and groups having greater representation, we're talking about regions have equivalent representation iin one venue. This is a very different thing because this advantage doesn't extend at all into two other equally important venues (presidential elections and the other legislative body, the House), so overall, Kansas still is at a disadvantage compared to any more populous state. It's just a smaller disadvantage.

But more importantly, this is different from individuals/groups getting preference because a region is not simply just an arbitrary geographic designation serving as a container for a group. Think a Wendell-Berry-ish community, a combination of people, place, and culture that are to a large degree woven together. I'd actually thing this concept would be easier for the environmentally conscious left, from which I often hear conversation about conservation as a place itself needs representation/voice.

Don't get me wrong. It bothers me immensely that striking a moral/socially conservative pose is all that's necessary for many Republicans to win support (and I actually share many socially conservative positions with republicans, but I consider it the height of laziness to make a decision about a candidate simply on their position about, say, abortion or gay marriage. Good policy is about far more than that). But I don't think that erasing checks and balances built into the country is the way to do that.

Should Kerry be posing with corn in Iowa, or making overtures to likely Stern voters in swing states and facilitating further senate defections (a la Jeffords)?

Do we really want one-or-the-other candidates?
posted by weston at 7:33 PM on August 20, 2004