Red State Babylon (Vanity Fair) lead the nation in violent crime, divorce, illegitimacy, and incarce

[Omaha Steve]

My wife is a long time subscriber. They really are on our side over there.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/11/wolcott200611

Red State Babylon
If the blue states are sinkholes of moral decay, as right-wing pundits insist, how come red states lead the nation in violent crime, divorce, illegitimacy, and incarceration, among other evils? To a bus-riding innocent on Manhattan's stroller-filled Upper West Side, it looks like a case of hypocrisy meets stupidity.
by James Wolcott November 2006

In contemporary lore, the good people of the red states walk in Jesus's sandals while the rest of us are following Satan into the licking flames. Twenty-plus years of conservative propaganda have convinced millions of Republicans and their pet Beltway pundits that they inherited the legacy of frontier values and dwell in baptismal light, unlike modern Democrats, who crawled out from under rocks and prefer the ambiguous dark, where there's no right or wrong, only "personal choices." Newt Gingrich once spouted that Susan Smith's murder of her two children in 1994 was a sign of the evil that liberal Democrats had wrought: "I think that the mother killing the two children in South Carolina vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things.... The only way you get change is to vote Republican." According to the gospel of Saint Newt, William J. Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and similar blowholes, the dying raptures of Sodom and Gomorrah can be found in the cultural duchies of the blue states. Here sin and moral sloth have set up shop, and venereal outbreaks of trendy ideas go unchecked. Conservative pundits and politicians regularly jeer that these Jurassic Parks of geriatric do-gooders and brainwashed college students don't represent the "real" America—the God-fearing, flag-waving, decent-living, high-octane, steeped-in-common-sense, everyday-low-prices heartland. Yet even as blue states hug the coasts and red states spread like a bloodstain across America's outstretched body, the influence of these elitist enclaves remains pervasive, corrosive, rotting away the pillars of moral order and foisting abortion, divorce, pornography, gay marriage, snail-darter environmentalism, secular humanism, dovish appeasement, moral relativism, and Rosie O'Donnell's TV comeback upon a once virile nation. The very names of the enclaves breeding such bacteria make the nostril hairs quiver. Hollywood. Berkeley. San Francisco. Madison, Wisconsin. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Martha's Vineyard. Georgetown. And, worst of all, New York City, especially Manhattan, most especially its Upper West Side, disparaged by its critics as the outpatient clinic for last-gasp liberalism.

It's so unjust.

As a resident of the Upper West Side and a regular bus rider, I must protest that the truth has been perverted and inverted. Yes, the Upper West Side is liberal, socially conscious, multi-culti, gay-friendly (Rosie's brother Daniel—also gay—is our state assemblyman), and occasionally itchy with political correctness. And, yes, it's true that we care, perhaps care too much, rattling our Zabar's bags as we nag the nation's conscience to no avail. Really, though, such little harm we do, what unracy lives we lead. It's like Jewish-Hispanic-Amish country up here! The broad sidewalks present a wholesome cavalcade of baby strollers, Columbia University students, diabetics on canes, and tourists posing in front of Tom's Restaurant, the diner made famous on Seinfeld. It isn't the cultural bastions of the blue states such as the Upper West Side that are greasing America's slide into the disco inferno. It's the Republican red states that are lowering the country's moral standards and dragging us through muck and malaise, the red states that are pustulating with horny hypocrites, rampant crime, polygamy, crystal-meth labs, federal handouts (The Economist recently christened Alaska "America's welfare state"), illegitimate births, blimping waistlines, and future generations of dumb bunnies. JonBenet Ramsey, dolled up and immortalized in her beauty-pageant footage, is the pre-pubescent red-hot-mama mascot of red-state Babylon.

FOUR full pages at link above!

[texpatriot2004]

1. K & R nm

[Miss Chybil]

2. Holy cripes, Batman! Who'd of thunk it? nt

[femrap]

3. Great article to send to those

friend/relatives that are still drinking the Kool Aid.

Thanks for posting....it's a keeper.

[happyslug]

4. This is the Standard North-South Split.

Basically when the US was founded in the 1600s, you had two sets of Colonies. The Northern, Puritan ran colonies, and the Southern, Cavalier ran Colonies. Puritans, while religious, also believe that it was the duty of both the Individual and the state to better the condition of its residents. Thus you had the start of Education, Voting rights, Public Welfare, etc in the American North. You have people working to establish Public Parks, Charities, improved highways, etc. One of the famous comments about the North as it expanded Westward was the idea of building the Community Church before any other building in a New Community. This was a religious duty BUT ALSO THE CHURCH WAS A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO MEET AND DISCUSS LOCAL TOPICS. In Fact you had situations where two religious would share the same Church Building so that the CHurch building could be built and used as a Public Meeting Place (and the Common name for such churches tend to be "Meeting Places" as opposed to "Church"). The thrust of the people is what they, by themselves or through the Community, could improve the Community as a whole.

The American South tend to view each other as Individuals and the State as something that enforces PRIVATE rights as opposed to the Public Good. In Colonial times these tended to be "Un-churched" i.e. did not belong to any religions group per se but called themselves Christians. When Churches were built they were build be Individuals or by members of one religion only and only used by that religion. Meetings were held in the home of the local gentry as opposed to a Public Building. Private investments was preferred to public Investment, least the rich get taxed to high. You ended up with low participation in Community affairs compared to the North (And this helps explains the much lower Voter Turnout in the South compared to the Rest of the Nation).

Foreigners have commented on this diverges since the 1600s. At the time of the Revolution some Britons believed that the Americans would dissolve into two Nations do to this difference in outlook. The big push for separation of Church and State came from the South, more to reduce taxation by Shifting the cost of taking care of the Poor to the Churches, than any real belief in Separation of Church and State (As a result of this adoption and the lack of funds the Churches had to provide for the Poor, the real shift was from Church Based, but taxpayer paid for Welfare, to shipping the poor to the Frontier and told them they were on they own). In fact that last state to separate Church from the state was Massachusetts in 1837 (During the height of the worse recession In US History between the 1790s and the 1870s). Massachusetts adopted Separation of Church and State for the Same reason the South did so in the 1790s, to cut taxation during a major depression, not to separate Church from the State. While Massachusetts was the last state to Separate Church from the State, it was one of the first state to set up a Modern Welfare program in the 1870s during the next major Depression in US History.

Now My point is the tendency of the North and South NOT what happens in both. For Example as to the shifting of the costs of the poor to the Frontier, New York City continued to do such that till the Great Depression of the 1930s (and most States continued the Practice long after the Frontier was closed in the 1890s). On the other hand for all practical purposes the Frontier had become closed in the 1870s and do to that fact most Northern States started to set up Welfare agencies, but the South did not set up welfare Agencies (outside of the Big Cities) till the Federal Government agreed to pay for part of Welfare in the 1930s.

Thus you see the difference in the North and the South, more COMMUNITY action on parts of the North and more dependence on the Individual on part of the South. People of the North are more willing to pay (in the form of Taxes) for community Improvements, while the people of the South do not.

Now, when the Present Political parties were formed in the early 1800s, the Democrats dominated the South and the West while the Federalist, then the Whig and Finally the GOP dominated the North. The GOP was able to combine the pro-Business elements of US with the pro-Community elements of the Rural North to form the Strong GOP of the post-Civil War Era. The Democrats were based on the Rural South and other Rural Areas (Southern Illinois and Southwestern Pennsylvania for Example). Urban areas (Outside of New York City) were overwhelmingly GOP till the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Democrats knowing they needed Allies to win election tended to support the reform elements in most Urban Areas starting in the 1890s, but these did not lead to control of most urban areas till the Great Depression. Thus by WWII you start to see a shift in the Political situation. The Democrats still Controlled the South, but the Party was more and more based on Urban Northern Areas where the Northern Puritan Tradition was still Strong. As the South became more and more GOP starting in the 1960s (Do to Civil Rights more than any other factor).

In many ways the combination of Commercial business that is the true backbone of the GOP and the anti-Government philosophy of the South was a better fit than the Pro-Business GOP and Pro-Government policy of the US North, but people often vote like their parents did, for example you can see where people supported the King and where people support Parliament during the English Civil war based on almost any election in England till the late 1800s (i.e. almost 200 years later). The same with the US, many people vote the same way their ancestor shot during the Civil War. The South has Shifted from that by going GOP, the American North is just beginning to do the same (Thus the comments about the upcoming Democratic Majority). The parities have rationalized their bases, with the Democrats more concentrated in the North than the South and the GOP dominating the South.

While the parties have shifted, the people themselves in many ways have not. The South still does NOT believe in community actions, they still do not believe in working together for the common good (And thus prefer Tax cuts to community improvements). The North WANTS Government to improve their Communities, and are willing to pay taxes for such improvements. We are still seeing the effect of the Puritan Settlement of New England and the Caviler settlement of the American South.

[bloom]

5. That's interesting.

It seems that the wealthier people in the South pre-Civil War would not have needed to think about community - helping each other - since they had slaves to do what they wanted done. (Plus it's easier to be an "individual" when you have help). I'm sure that made it all the worse after the Civil War - that they were not able to adjust their attitudes about that.


My parents are Republicans with Northern attitudes. I think that they like some community/public projects - as long as they are limited. (They were raised closer to the coasts).

My siblings seem to have more Southern Republican attitudes (my brother has become anti-Lincoln) - we were raised in the middle of the country. And I'm the oddball. I don't know why I'm so different from them. (I think I may have picked up on my father's latent liberalism that his parents had- that he tried to ignore :shrug: ).

It took my parents awhile - but in the last 6 months or so - they have started turning away from the whole Bush nonsense. Not my siblings, though.

[happyslug]

6. The above are TRENDS not Absolutes

For example, after the Revolution Virginians moved into Western Pennsylvania giving it a more "Southern" Feel (and this is true all along the Ohio River). New Englanders settled along the Great Lakes (and even in Canada, which is why Canada and the area along the Great Lakes tend to think like New Englanders). AS you get closer to the Ohio you lose more and more of the New England Influence and get more of the Southern Influence (Which to a degree was modified by the German Influence coming west from Pennsylvania, most "American" Farming techniques, except in the south, are German in Origin).

This is further Complicated by the movement to Northern Cities of Southerns during and following WWI. These "Hillbillies" tended to replace and substitute for the Foreign immigrants workers banned under the Immigration Law of 1921. In turn blacks moved to Northern cities starting During WWII. Both of these Groups brought with them traditional "Southern" outlooks (Which explains the increase in Crime during the same time periods). Now people, no matter where they live, tend to adopt what ever are the habits of the largest group in their area. Thus in the North you see people slowly change from what they ancestors had been to adopting the attitudes and outlook of the old Puritans as to community standards. The classic view of this is the DECLINE of Crime in inner cities since the 1960s. Blacks, with their Southern outlook moved to the inner cities in the 1950s and brought with them the traditional Southern high crime rates. Since the 1960s most blacks in the North were born in the North and have slowly adopted Northern standards as to crime which has lead to a slow but steady decline in Crime in the inner Cities since the 1960s. The Inner Cities are almost in the same position they were in the early 1960s, with less than average crime and murder rates (The Rural South has always had HIGH murder and Crime rates. thus prior to the 1960s ALL major American Cities had lower than Average rates do to the extremely high Rural Southern Crime Rates and we are slowly returning to that pattern).

A further complication is that our Entertainment Industry is 100% derived from the South. The Puritans tend to dislike public displays (The Puritans liked drinking, Partying, going to the local Tavern etc, even permitting racing and gambling, but drew the line when in came to professional entertainments, like Theaters etc. Thus our Entertainment industry came from the South. New York City was the big Northern Exception to this rule, getting professional entertainers from England and Europe even in Colonial Times (And this was expanded during the period between the Revolution and the Civil War do to the connection between New York Bankers and Southern Plantation owners, with many a New York Bank holding mortgages over Slaves, for Slaves were often more valuable then the Plantation the slaves were working on).

Thus the country has mixed these two traditions. They have mixed over the last 400 years, often unevenly. The real difference is how people view themselves in relations to they fellow Humans? Are we one big Community who must work together? (The Puritans outlook) or people who work together as needed but otherwise on one's own (The Southern Caviler outlook).

Another factor is Slavery. The White Community did work together to keep the Slaves in check, but that was out of fear of a general Slave revolt NOT a sense of Community. This required Southern to often work together on "Patrols" where group of whites would work together to make sure any black off someone's land had a pass from the slaves master to be on the roads. This made the males closely together for they always worked together but in the sense of being on guard NOT working to improve the Highways. Such groups would hunt together and later during the Civil War fight together. Thus the old comment Southerns have more Friends than Northerns do to the tradition of doing things together (Including Hunting to this day) but they do LESS as a community then Northerns do.

[Vorta]

9. They had slaves in Massachusetts

It seems that the wealthier people in the South pre-Civil War would not have needed to think about community - helping each other - since they had slaves to do what they wanted done.

It's more accurate to view the southern aristocracy as a large stratified family. At the top is the family of the eldest son, and at the bottom is the peon who is related in some way and so distantly that his tie is to the land without claim to it. The first slaves in British America would in my opinion have been the orphans in the Plymouth Colony who were made servants by their "adoptive" family. This wasn't confined to the north and lasted a lot longer than colonial times. Orphans have been "adopted" as farm labor well into the 20TH century.

Virginia and Maryland had "Alms houses" where the poor, decrepit, and often handicapped lived. They weren't nice places, but not much was back then. Virginia (possibly others) also had laws regarding the care of freed slaves- if they fell upon the public welfare system or penal system their former master would be responsible for the cost.

The primary difference between Virginia and later Plymouth was that the Virginians came for economic oportunity and while the 'pilgrims' did the same, they cloaked it in religious nonconformism and their loss of rank in British society.

[katty]

7. the basic North-South split-this story is long overdue

[happyslug]

8. The North-South Split

Is this the product of Religion (Puritanisms in the North, Anglicans/Fundamentalism in the South? A product of ancestry? Most Puritans came from Southern England who were farmers, most Southerns in the Colonial Period came from herders in Scotland, Ireland and Northern England. Herding societies tend to be more violent than farming communities for Herders can lose they whole herd in a night unless they are willing to fight for the herd, Farmers know they money is in their crops and it takes time to harvest a crop, thus it is hard to lose a crop to another farmer who steals it. Thus Farmers tend to like Law and Order and look down on fights over property (preferring them to be resolved by the Courts not fists). On the other hand herders may have no court to file in, given that once the herd is lost who knows where it went off to. Thus herding societies tend to be much more violent than farming communities.

Another factor is where the orginal settler of the South and North came from. In many ways the Herders of Ireland, Scotland and Northern England went to the American South for the Western Frontier in the South tended to be herding/hunting societies which they could identity with. Farmers tended to go to the Puritans dominated areas for the Puritans understood the concept of having an active Court System.

A third factor is that during the Colonial period the South were willing to pay for any slaves, even white slaves from Europe. Now whites were made free before the Revolution even in the South, but the fact that many a Southern had gone to the South as a slave stayed with them. Most such slaves (and their related indentured servants) became slaves do to criminal activity. I.e. they were criminals and brought their criminal/violent ways to the American South (About 1700 Virginia and the Carolinas outlawed this practice but then England stop shipping Convicted Felons but instead told an accused felon that the charges against them would be dropped if they agree to be sold as an indentured Servant. Thus this practice contained till the time of the American Revolution.

Lets us not forget the Indians. In the North the Indians were reduced to the working poor by the middle of the 1600s. Under Puritan concepts they had to be taken care of by whatever town they were in. Thus most towns "banned" "New" Indians from moving in to heir town, not for racist reasons but for economic Reasons. Thus while the Indians lost control of their lands, they still retains some sort of right within the White Society. In the South, the Indians were on their own, viewed as NOT part of White Society and thus having no rights (Which lead to tension between Whites and Indians).

The big factor was slavery, and the needs of Society to keep slaves in their place. This required a very viscous attitude to slaves which spread to other people. Slaves and Free Blacks were looked upon with suspicion AND subject to harsh on the spot punishment by whatever white wanted to subject the black to (and this included the right to kill the slave and free Blacks). Violence begets Violence and the violence needed to keep the slaves in their place (and later the post Civil war Blacks in their place) lead to violence not only against blacks but also whites. Slave societies are violent Societies and it takes generations for that to work out of any societies traditions.

[Vorta]

10. most Southerns in the Colonial Period came from herders in Scotland, Ireland and Northern England.

After a few false starts, on December 20, 1606, the London Company, established by Shakespeare's patron, Henry Wriothesley, 3d earl of Southampton, sent out three ships - Susan Constant, Discovery and Godspeed - carrying 143 adventurers, most of them, according to the 18th century Virginia writer, William Byrd, "reprobates of good families".