All states are purple states
Scott Alexander has a wonderful post reviewing Albion’s Seed. At the end he discusses how four groups of immigrants from Britain still affect our culture today, particularly the red state/blue state phenomenon:
Before I had any idea about any of this, I wrote that American society seems divided into two strata, one of which is marked by emphasis on education, interest in moral reforms, racial tolerance, low teenage pregnancy, academic/financial jobs, and Democratic party affiliation, and furthermore that this group was centered in the North. Meanwhile, now I learn that the North was settled by two groups that when combined have emphasis on education, interest in moral reforms, racial tolerance, low teenage pregnancy, an academic and mercantile history, and were the heartland of the historical Whigs and Republicans who preceded the modern Democratic Party.
And I wrote about another stratum centered in the South marked by poor education, gun culture, culture of violence, xenophobia, high teenage pregnancy, militarism, patriotism, country western music, and support for the Republican Party. And now I learn that the South was settled by a group noted even in the 1700s for its poor education, gun culture, culture of violence, xenophobia, high premarital pregnancy, militarism, patriotism, accent exactly like the modern country western accent, and support for the Democratic-Republicans who preceded the modern Republican Party.
If this is true, I think it paints a very pessimistic world-view. The “iceberg model” of culture argues that apart from the surface cultural features we all recognize like language, clothing, and food, there are deeper levels of culture that determine the features and institutions of a people: whether they are progressive or traditional, peaceful or warlike, mercantile or self-contained. We grudgingly acknowledge these features when we admit that maybe making the Middle East exactly like America in every way is more of a long-term project than something that will happen as soon as we kick out the latest dictator and get treated as liberators. Part of us may still want to believe that pure reason is the universal solvent, that those Afghans will come around once they realize that being a secular liberal democracy is obviously great. But we keep having deep culture shoved in our face again and again, and we don’t know how to get rid of it. This has led to reasonable speculation that some aspects of it might even be genetic – something which would explain a lot, though not its ability to acculturate recent arrivals.
This is a hard pill to swallow even when we’re talking about Afghanistan. But it becomes doubly unpleasant when we think about it in the sense of our neighbors and fellow citizens in a modern democracy. What, after all, is the point? A democracy made up of 49% extremely liberal Americans and 51% fundamentalist Taliban Afghans would be something very different from the democratic ideal; even if occasionally a super-charismatic American candidate could win over enough marginal Afghans to take power, there’s none of the give-and-take, none of the competition within the marketplace of ideas, that makes democracy so attractive. Just two groups competing to dominate one another, with the fact that the competition is peaceful being at best a consolation prize.
If America is best explained as a Puritan-Quaker culture locked in a death-match with a Cavalier-Borderer culture, with all of the appeals to freedom and equality and order and justice being just so many epiphenomena – well, I’m not sure what to do with that information. Push it under the rug? Say “Well, my culture is better, so I intend to do as good a job dominating yours as possible?” Agree that We Are Very Different Yet In The End All The Same And So Must Seek Common Ground? Start researching genetic engineering? Maybe secede? I’m not a Trump fan much more than I’m an Osama bin Laden fan; if somehow Osama ended up being elected President, should I start thinking “Maybe that time we made a country that was 49% people like me and 51% members of the Taliban – maybe that was a bad idea“.
I’d like to emphasize the exact opposite point, how woefully inadequate the red/blue distinction really is.
1. British immigrant groups were important, but are far from the entire story. Thirteen percent of Americans are of African descent. This group doesn’t fit neatly into either the red or blue culture. Neither do the 18% who are Hispanics. We also received a large number of Irish immigrants in the mid-1800s, and then even larger flows from Germany. Then came millions of Italians, Jews and Poles, in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Now we are receiving a large inflow of Asians. Each culture overlaps with the red on some issues and the blue on others.
2. Even within any state, there are big differences between the voting behavior of men and women, or married and unmarried women. Some states are male red and female blue.
3. There are huge urban/suburban/rural splits, within states. In coastal California, Orange County voted red in 2012. In Texas, the two most populous counties (Dallas and Harris) voted blue. These two counties are a mix of urban and suburban. Utah seems more like a Puritan-Quaker culture, and yet votes like a Cavalier-Borderer culture. Maybe because I grew up in blue Wisconsin (home of Scott Walker and Joe McCarthy), I just don’t see the differences as being that large.
Red and blue America seems very different to us, but only because human beings are really good at noticing very slight differences. Someone from Afghanistan would not notice much difference between (blue) Michigan and (red) Indiana, because there isn’t much difference. Both have lots of farms, and cities with fast food joints, auto factories, and shopping malls. Heck, even someone from Belgium wouldn’t notice much difference. But they vote differently. (Or substitute Minnesota for Michigan, if you want to remove race from the picture.)
Yes, there are some extreme cases, as you’d expect in a country of 320 million. Obviously coal country in Kentucky is really different from San Francisco, and both differ from Laredo. But these are atypical; there is a huge middle ground in America, which prevents the sort of 49/51 split that Scott worries about.
In the future we will alternate between red and blue Presidents, because we are a purple country. We achieved gay marriage and we will soon legalize pot and abolish the death penalty. But we’ll also keep guns legal, keep emitting lots of carbon, and continue to lock up huge numbers of our citizens for use of hard drugs. Each side can win on certain issues, because they can find enough supporters in the vast purple group in the middle.
On a related note, Bryan Caplan had a recent post that (in my view) exaggerates the differences between good and bad government:
I am deeply alienated from the society in which I live. I regard our policies as criminal, and politicians of both major sides as evil people. My assessment of our society’s opinion leaders is similar, though milder and less categorical.
Many thoughtful people I know regard my rejection of our society as childish. Rather than defend myself, I have two questions for all such people.
1. In what actually existing societies would my alienation be morally justified? Nazi Germany, I hope. North Korea, I trust. How about Saudi Arabia? Putin’s Russia? Napoleonic France? The antebellum South?
I like this post, and I often feel that way, but I think it exaggerates the extent to which society has failed. For instance, I consider California to be one of our worst governed states. Yet I hope to retire there because differences in quality of governance pale in comparison to other aspects of life in America’s various regions. Like weather.
In one sense I agree with Bryan, people of the future will be appalled by our society, just as we are appalled by the Roman Empire. On the other hand, perhaps the Roman Empire was an amazing achievement, offering the highest living standard for the largest number of people in any age up until that time, with the possible exception of the Stone Age (about which I know little—other than that it’s not called the Stone Age.) Maybe creating a good society is really hard, indeed harder than sending a man to the moon. I left an admittedly silly comment after Bryan’s post, trying to explain my views in glass half empty/half full terms:
I would NOT say that in all societies the glass is half full and half empty.
Rather I’d say that in all societies the glass is really, really large, much larger than we imagine when we think about the society. Indeed much larger than we are capable of imagining.
And I’d also say that in almost all cases this unimaginably large glass contains vast amounts of water, and vast amounts of air.
And I’d also say that when we think about a society we have a hard time making sense out of the proportions or air and water, because both portions are so vast. So our estimates of water and non-water reflect our mood at the moment.
I’d also apply this to Scott’s post. Individuals and cultures differ in a vast number of ways. We notice and blow out of proportion differences that are actually rather trivial, in the broader scheme of things.
PS. But if Trump wins, I’m moving to Antarctica.
Tags:
2. May 2016 at 12:06
Sumner tries to jump on some bandwagon, despite Albion’s Seed being published in 1989. Just now discovered it Scott?
Fashion is fashion, but Sumner still hasn’t figured out from Brad DeLong’s post that MM is dead. Sumner still wearing bell bottoms with a Nehru jacket…
2. May 2016 at 12:31
Red Orange County vs. poorer urban counties can be very easily explained if you take an economic approach. The same goes for Red States vs. Blue States. It’s not so much the states themselves but the voters within the states which can be separated easily into blue and red again if you just look at income and wealth.
You can pretty much explain the whole red and blue divide if you look at the economic rationale behind it: Rich voters tend to vote GOP, poorer voters tend to vote DP.
It’s not a 100% perfect explanation of course but it’s the best correlation you get if you could pick one criteria/information only.
You can even explain Trump in a similar way.
2. May 2016 at 12:58
@Scott,
Au contraire, I thought your comment on Bryan Caplan’s post was insightful.
2. May 2016 at 13:09
Scott Alexander really seems to hate the South. What a childish hit job. But let’s assume there’s some truth in his argument.
What would be the real questions then? Today of course, the future of course. So what about the immigrants of today? Who are the Puritans/Quakers of today and who are the Cavaliers/Borderers? Let’s sort them into regions: Southeast Asia, Japan, India and China. They seem to be Puritans/Quakers. The countries from Morocco to Pakistan?
Seem most like Cavaliers/Borderers to me, except maybe for Iranians. Hispanics? Seem to be Cavaliers/Borderers. Africans? Seem to be mostly Cavaliers/Borderers except for a few exceptions.
So what would this mean? It would mean that America is screwed and Central Europe is screwed even more.
Scott Alexander is even prediction the future:
“The Quakers basically tolerated themselves out of existence.”
Does this sound familiar?
2. May 2016 at 13:20
I am deeply alienated from the society in which I live. I regard our policies as criminal, and politicians of both major sides as evil people. My assessment of our society’s opinion leaders is similar, though milder and less categorical.
Good. Let’s load him into a trebuchet sand send him sailing over the border with Mexico.
2. May 2016 at 13:22
Public opinion is shifting in favor of pot legalization, but I don’t see how you would come to that conclusion on the death penalty. The height of opposition to the death penalty was decades ago. It’s not going away.
In response to Bryan’s comment, I would say that any society where a person can feel perfectly safe saying that our leaders are evil criminals is a society where our leaders aren’t particularly bad.
2. May 2016 at 13:25
Ray, I’m doing a Philippines post soon, you better be funny or I’ll be disappointed.
Christian, You said:
“Rich voters tend to vote GOP, poorer voters tend to vote DP.
It’s not a 100% perfect explanation of course but it’s the best correlation you get if you could pick one criteria/information only.
You can even explain Trump in a similar way.”
Actually the income voting correlation is quite weak. There are far stronger ones such as single women vs. married people. Or blacks vs. whites. Or Jews vs. Mormons. I’d guess that billionaires split pretty equally between the parties, can anyone confirm?
As far as Trump, his voters skew slightly rich, but not much.
Thanks David.
2. May 2016 at 13:29
FXKLM, You are wrong about the death penalty. Nebraska just eliminated it, and other states are moving in the same direction. The Supreme Court will outlaw it nationwide within 10 years, but even if they don’t it’s disappearing one state at a time. The public is turning against it. The entire world is turning against it.
I don’t view this as good or bad, I’m just describing reality.
You said:
“In response to Bryan’s comment, I would say that any society where a person can feel perfectly safe saying that our leaders are evil criminals is a society where our leaders aren’t particularly bad.”
I wish I’d thought to say that.
2. May 2016 at 13:34
The Supreme Court will outlaw it nationwide within 10 years,
The appellate courts are appallingly intellectually dishonest, so it would not surprise me. Given that the use of capital sentences is explicitly regulated in the document, it would take quite a bit of chutzpah for them to attempt to contend it was ‘unconstitutional’. (What’s the point of holding yourself out as a prognosticator regarding the courts?).
2. May 2016 at 13:47
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx
There’s ebb and flow in public opinion re capital sentences. Net change since 1975 has been nil. (It’s the general view of the legal profession and academe that ordinary people’s views do not count, of course).
2. May 2016 at 13:55
I suspect that if you did a survey of American academics at any time on the past 60 years, they would have generally agreed that the death penalty would be gone within 10 years. Anti-death penalty activists have scored a number of victories over the years, but there have been a lot of victories on the other side as well. The Effective Death Penalty Act was pretty significant. Even in countries that eliminated the death penalty decades ago, public support for the penalty is surprisingly high.
There are a handful of issues where public opinion moves in only one direction and the end result is inevitable. That was true of same-sex marriage. It’s probably true of pot legalization as well. I don’t think the death penalty is in that category.
2. May 2016 at 14:27
Art, I agree the death penalty is constitutional, but that didn’t stop the Supreme Court from outlawing it in the 1960s. The next justice will tip the balance 5 to 4 in favor of outlawing it.
Poll results are similar to 1975, but you omit the fact that support has been dropping over the past couple of decades:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165626/death-penalty-support-lowest-years.aspx
Typical of your dishonest approach to commenting.
FXKLM, You said:
I suspect that if you did a survey of American academics at any time on the past 60 years, they would have generally agreed that the death penalty would be gone within 10 years.”
I doubt it, I certainly would not have expressed that view, but I do now because it is correct. Illinois also recently abolished it, as did Connecticut. Only two states use it to any extent—last year Texas and Georgia did 18 of the 28 executions, compared to around 15,000 murders in the US, BTW.
The 28 executions last year were down sharply from the peak in the late 1990s. It’s on its way out, in the US and internationally. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, just describing reality.
2. May 2016 at 14:40
where public opinion moves in only one direction and the end result is inevitable. That was true of same-sex marriage.
Oh? Then what’s the point of the judicial fiats?
2. May 2016 at 14:42
but that didn’t stop the Supreme Court from outlawing it in the 1960s. The next justice will tip the balance 5 to 4 in favor of outlawing it.
The Supreme Court did no such thing prior to 1970. Even the 1972 decision in which it was the object of the appalling Justices Brennan and Marshall to do so did not make any categorical declaration of that character.
2. May 2016 at 14:46
The 28 executions last year were down sharply from the peak in the late 1990s.
The backlong runs to about 14 years, thanks to the legal profession. This is a lagged effect of the decline in homicide rates since 1990. If I’m not mistaken, murder by strangers has a larger amplitude than murder by acquaintances. There’s long been a bias in the use of capital sentences in the punishment of felony murder. Well, there has been over the last 25 years a 60% decline in the number of robberies as well.
2. May 2016 at 15:17
this is my favorite post of yours for the past month. don’t get me wrong, the monetarist stuff is interesting but posts like this always feel more substantial.
2. May 2016 at 16:09
Might I suggest the UK instead of Antarctica?
In seriousness, if you were exiled, where would you live?
2. May 2016 at 16:37
I have long liked to point out that in many contemporary societies, an American conservative would be a raging liberal.
And a nice opportunity to bring up this piece:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/trump-and-the-borderers/477084/
Reading through various “why I will vote for Trump” pieces by highly intelligent folk, the common theme seems to be cultural alienation. And the US in particular, and the Western world in general, does have a problem that IT folk/academics/media folk/entertainment folk tend to be much more conformist than they used to be AND much further from wider public opinion than they used to be.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/charts-show-the-political-bias-of-each-profession-2014-11
2. May 2016 at 16:41
In other words, Trump is Andrew Jackson redux without, however, any actual record of prior public service.
2. May 2016 at 16:49
“We achieved gay marriage and we will soon legalize pot and abolish the death penalty.”
-Justice Kennedy is not “we”.
“Maybe creating a good society is really hard, indeed harder than sending a man to the moon.”
-On the other hand, Yarvin says that people are really easy to govern.
“Red Orange County vs. poorer urban counties can be very easily explained if you take an economic approach.”
-Christian, it is extremely important to consider the source of income. Academics, for example, rely on state subsidies, so they vote reliably Democratic. The marriage gap explains more of America’s voting patterns than the income gap. And Whites in West Virginia and Mississippi now vote reliably Republican. It’s true richer people do tend to vote Republican and poorer people Democratic, but it’s not the most important correlation.
Cavaliers=Arab (and maybe Eastern European) Elites
Borderers=Afghans and related peoples
Quakers=Chinese?
Puritans=Swedes
Or maybe it should be reversed, with Quakers Swedes and Puritans Chinese?
“The Supreme Court will outlaw it nationwide within 10 years, but even if they don’t it’s disappearing one state at a time. The public is turning against it. The entire world is turning against it.”
-I don’t see it. And I don’t trust your views on America’s political future.
“As far as Trump, his voters skew slightly rich, but not much.”
-Trump voters skew poor, not rich. Kasich voters skew rich.
I like this post, and your silly comment. But it’s indecisive.
And all states are definitely not purple states, so the title is wrong. Vermont is a blue state, Mississippi is a red state.
2. May 2016 at 23:17
You think you have bad office holders in the USA?
Cupcake politics. Don Trump is a cream puff (whose trade proposals and protectionidm are dwarfed by what Reagan actually did).
Check out a certain Southeast Asian nation now run by men in green uniforms although they have adopted civilian clothing and demeanor and who seized the passport of the prior national leader.
How about a massive Asian nation led by a man we will call X where throwing political opponents into prison by the thousands under the cloak of fighting corruption may be the norm. No one knows because the media is shackled also.
Putin? Assad?
American politics is a cupcake factory.
3. May 2016 at 03:51
@E. Harding
“It’s true richer people do tend to vote Republican and poorer people Democratic, but it’s not the most important correlation.”
You might be right. I just trusted the book of Andrew Gelman. This might have been my mistake of course because you cannot really trust these guys on quite some issues – as we both know. It just sounded reasonable. I haven’t read the actual book though, only some reviews.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9030.html
@Benjamin Cole
“Cupcake politics. Don Trump is a cream puff (whose trade proposals and protectionidm are dwarfed by what Reagan actually did).”
Exactly. Thank you for pointing that out.
3. May 2016 at 04:01
Scott why would go to Antarctica? We need you as chief advisor of the Bundesbank or the ECB. Or even better as the head.
3. May 2016 at 07:30
“I just trusted the book of Andrew Gelman.”
-He’s pretty reliable, I think. He points out that there is no difference between how poor and rich White people vote in states like Connecticut, but the difference remains in states like Mississippi. He also says rich people in Connecticut still vote more Democratic than poor Whites in Mississippi. Again, the source of income is important. But Sailer’s marriage gap is, as far as I know, the most impressive correlation (with the two outliers being Iowa and Arizona).
3. May 2016 at 08:56
Art, You said:
“The Supreme Court did no such thing prior to 1970.”
You really are tiresome.
Alon, Thanks. But I feel my political posts are pretty weak.
Matthew, Australia. I’ve lived in both the UK and Australia, and while London is a wonderful city, I prefer warm weather and less congestion.
Or maybe Japan. Just to try something completely different.
Lorenzo, Maybe we should replace Jackson with Trump, on the $20.
Harding, One third of Trump voters make over $100,000, they are only 28% of all voters. Kasich skews even more strongly rich.
On the death penalty you will be proved wrong, the momentum against is getting very powerful. It will be ruled “cruel and unusual”. Perhaps by a Trump appointment to the Supreme Court. (I don’t think it is unconstitutional.)
Christian, Again, I’m not saying there is no correlation, Romney won the over $100,000 group by 54 to 44, I’m just saying there are far more powerful correlations. I think it was once true that the ultra-rich skewed strongly GOP, but no longer.
3. May 2016 at 10:29
You really are tiresome.
You make false statements. The people who point that out are ‘tiresome’. Impressive.
3. May 2016 at 11:17
“On the death penalty you will be proved wrong, the momentum against is getting very powerful. It will be ruled “cruel and unusual”.”
-Again, I’m not seeing it. And Trump is very pro-death-penalty, so his Supreme Court nominee will never, ever support it.
“Maybe we should replace Jackson with Trump, on the $20.”
-Only twenty years after Trump’s death.
3. May 2016 at 13:09
If Trump wins, Antarctica will melt. Only Trump can melt Antarctica! With his big mighty hands!
3. May 2016 at 14:32
@ssumner and E. Harding
Yes, you are both right. It’s nicely explained at The Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/does-your-wage-predict-your-vote/264541/
@Steve
If Trump wins, Antarctica will melt. Only Trump can melt Antarctica! With his big mighty hands!
I think Trump will build a big fat wall around Antarctica to protect us from the White Walkers.
3. May 2016 at 14:49
Many thoughtful people I know regard my rejection of our society as childish.
Oh yes that’s childish. But at least Caplan is realizing this partially.
people of the future will be appalled by our society, just as we are appalled by the Roman Empire. On the other hand, perhaps the Roman Empire was an amazing achievement,
…
So our estimates of water and non-water reflect our mood at the moment.
That’s a very good comment. Very true.
The Roman Empire might be the best example. The “people of the future” right after the Roman Empire fell and like 1000 years afterwards were not always appalled by the Romans. Quite the opposite might be true. A lot of people admired this Empire. The Dark Ages that followed threw a sharp shadow. The same is true today. We cannot know what will happen in the future. We like to think that we will reach one high after another when in reality really dark times can lurk right around the corner, ready to jump at us and prepared to last 1000 years again.
3. May 2016 at 15:31
In most cases Germans are the top ancestry in the regions Scott Alexander likes so much – while in the South Germans play no role – except maybe Texas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Americans#Demographics
3. May 2016 at 15:52
Quite the opposite might be true. A lot of people admired this Empire. The Dark Ages that followed threw a sharp shadow.
Germany and the later Slavic lands were never civilized to begin with. Sub-Roman and Anglo-Saxon Britain experienced a dark age of about 400 years in duration. Gaul hit bottom in the 7th century, then experienced the Carolingian revival in the 8th and 9th c, then was runined by the Vikings in the 10th, then had a comeback in the 11th. Italy may have experienced long term economic and demographic decline in Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, but the severe injury to Italy’s well-being was derived from Justinian’s cack-handed efforts in the 6th century to reconquer the territory, not the replacement of Roman power per se. Odoacer and Theodoric were satisfactory monarchs. IIRC, Italy’s nadir was in the 10th century when Europe as a whole was under siege from Vikings, not a threat in 250 AD. Illyria remained Byzantine into the occidental High Middle Ages. I’m not sure Iberia or North Africa ever experienced a dark age as such.
One might ask whether the agricultural system in the Roman period, which made heavy use of slave labor, contributed to demographic implosion during the period running from the 3d to the 7th century. Philip Daeleader has said that their single best guess is that serfdom began to replace slavery in 7th century Frankland around Ile de France. Hmmm…
3. May 2016 at 17:10
Boy, the silent majority really came out on election day, didn’t it?
4. May 2016 at 03:28
Scott,
What percentage chance do you assign to a Trump victory in November?
4. May 2016 at 08:44
So Scott, now that Cruz and Kasich gave up, when does house seeing in Antarctica start?
You need to be prepared just in case Trump achieves another miracle in November. In your case the “miracle on ice”, I guess. But wouldn’t Canada be closer? They also would have houses you could actually live in.
4. May 2016 at 16:56
John 27%
Christian and Harding, I meet teenagers who can immediately see that Trump is merely a con man. I won’t call him a con artist because it’s not like he’s smooth or subtle. I get great amusement out of imaging the look on your faces when you realize that Trump conned you. The only question is whether it happens before or after the election, and whether it happens when he is a President or not. But it will happen.
You are among the select few who are smart enough to read a blog about monetary policy and yet so childishly naive that they fall for a con artist that a half way intelligent 4th grader could see through. The funniest part is when you tell me what Trump believes on this or that issue, as if what he says provides some sort of “clue” as to what he actually believes. Here’s a hint. Demagogues listen to what lots of stupid taxi drivers or barbers say, and then regurgitate it back to the voters. The fact that you think he is somehow on your side is quite amusing. When he says that he’s going to pay off the national debt in 8 years via “trade”, he’s pulling your leg, just like all the times I make a comment obviously intended as a joke, and you two (or Art) think I’m serious.
BTW, I was just kidding about moving to Antarctica.
5. May 2016 at 02:04
A post that seems to have rather similar sentiments regarding The Donald as yourself.
https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/clinton-and-trump-are-scylla-and-charybdis/
6. May 2016 at 06:16
Thanks Lorenzo.