DISPATCHES: Stereotyping electorate bad for democracy

DISPATCHES By Hank Kalet Let’s get past the red and the blue sterotypes.

   Election results are like an abstract painting. No two viewers see the results the same way.
   Over the last week and a half, we’ve been subjected to a host of analysis offering takes on the national results, most simplifying the decisions of 120 million voters to meet a rather pat script originally written four years ago.
   But does the script represent reality? According to the experts, there are blue states and red states and never the twain shall meet. The blue states, generally the states along the West Coast, the Northeast and New England, are liberal bastions where the residents are educated and elitist, the story runs, while the red states — the broad swath of America — are socially conservative, Christian, straight-talking folk without pretensions. The liberal blue states support government programs; the red states are for small government. The blue states are suspicious of the military; the red states support it wholeheartedly.


Read Hank Kalet’s daily musings

on his Web log:

href="http://www.packetonline.com/site/news.asp?brd=1091&pag=460&dept_id=514
778">Channel Surfing


   I’m not going to argue with the broad outlines, though I have to say I don’t drink latte or drive a Volvo even though I voted for Sen. Kerry. It’s not that the broad outlines are wrong, but that they turn reality into a cartoon.
   For instance, Colorado went for George W. Bush this time around so, in the formulation of the pundit class, it is a red state and must demonstrate the basic red-state characteristics. Voters there did back a state constitutional ban on gay marriage, but they also sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate to occupy a seat formerly held by a Republican and they did hand both houses of the state legislature over to the Democrats. Red state or blue state?
   Nevada also sent a Democrat to the Senate, though it backed the president with 50 percent of the vote — and it also endorsed a Republican-opposed minimum wage hike with a remarkable 68 percent of the vote.
   Two other states carried by President Bush — North Dakota and Arkansas — backed Democrats for Senate and one Kerry state — New Hampshire — backed a GOP Senate candidate. So, which state is red and which is blue?
   There are other examples. Florida, which gave President Bush a respectable 52 percent of the vote, also backed a state ballot initiative boosting the minimum wage in a landslide — a full 72 percent of the state’s voters endorsed the hike.
   Then there are Oregon and Michigan, both of which supported Sen. Kerry, making them blue states under the current media narrative. Both states endorsed state constitutional bans on gay marriage — Oregon by a 57-43 margin and Michigan by 59-41 margin.
   There seems to be a lot more nuance here than the broad stereotypes we’ve allowed to grow into an accepted narrative would indicate.
   The trouble with this simplification is that it exacerbates the cultural and geographic divide that does exist. As I said, the broad outlines of the narrative being pushed by the television pundits have some validity — the South, for instance, is more culturally conservative than the Northeast, but not to the degree that the talking heads seem to believe. And the Northeast maybe a bit more culturally liberal — though not nearly as much as I might like.
   By allowing our political story to be defined by easy stereotypes, we are creating a climate that makes finding common ground between the folks in Kansas and the folks in New Jersey exceedingly difficult.
   After all, what could we latte-sipping, Volvo-driving elitists living up here in the Northeast have in common with those narrow-minded, Bible-toting, gun nuts down in the Deep South?
   A lot more than anyone wants to admit.
Hank Kalet is managing editor of The Cranbury Press. His e-mail is [email protected].