DeWitt Clinton

7 Responses to “One State, Two State, Red State, Blue State”

1. sean Says:
   October 10th, 2005 at 7:56 pm

   * i grew up in the #4 state
   * i received my undergraduate degree in #6
   * i moved back to #4
   * i met you in #1
   * i moved back to #6 and then #4
   * and now that my public education needs are obviously through, i move in with my girl in the #25 state.

   my kids *will not* have it easier than me! haha.

2. ZF Says:
   October 13th, 2005 at 5:41 pm

   If you knew anything about demographics, you would know what a horse’s ass this post makes you look.

3. DeWitt Clinton Says:
   October 13th, 2005 at 9:44 pm

   I’m not going to dispute that. I’m upset about what’s going on the White House, and frankly, I’m not expecting to stop caring, either. And I am still seeking an explanation on how it happened in the first place. I openly wonder if education played a role in electing this administration. Of course, a simple colored list doesn’t provde any points — it just raises the question.

   But what do you mean by if I “knew anything about demographics?” What am I missing here?

4. Ken Thomas '93 Says:
   October 14th, 2005 at 7:41 pm

   DeWitt,

   The top states are upper in income and lack substantive underclasses, for a variety of historical reasons. Kentucky (which is in the mid-forties by the indices I read) has been historically and predominantly Democratic until recently, ruled for forty years by a corrupt Democratic Party, and more-or-less unconcerned with increasing its position; that we now have a Republican governor has been the first gleam of hope in increasing that dismal history.

   Of course, anyone around me knows that I spend roughtly a quarter of my time thinking how to move Kentucky into the top ten.

   Demographically, as American Demographics has pointed out in red-and-blue maps, the past two presidential elections have been straight urban-versus-rural contests. If you’re upset about the current White House, I hope you realize that the Democratic Party needs to find a new base in a new century.

   Cheers,

   Ken

5. Ken Thomas '93 Says:
   October 14th, 2005 at 7:52 pm

   As a PS, note the remarkable historical change in status for California– a combined result of defunding with demographic and social changes. I started teaching at Berkeley on one edge of this change: my sophomores didn’t know how to write, and Berkeley had been similarly defunding, but everyone involved still had the impression that they were the best of the best.

   Those were not the best of years; “demoralized” would be a good word for large segments of the campus when I left. I can only hope Chancellor Birgeneau has the hand of God in reinvisioning the world’s greatest public university under such difficult circumstances.

6. DeWitt Clinton Says:
   October 14th, 2005 at 8:20 pm

   First, thank you for your insights and comments, Ken. I wish that I could live up to my end of a dialog here.

   While I won’t claim to understand the politics or demographics of Kentucky, I can say that part of my concern is precisely what you allude to. Specifically, that the Republican party has come to power (albeit narrowly) by adopting a policy of “look after the home first.” Or at least that is what garnered the votes — a platform of religious values, defense (against terror), and putting chickens in your pot (not other people’s pots).

   My issue is simply that this “home first” policy is disingenuous. First, this is supposed to be a country that protects religious freedoms of *other* people, whereas the adminstration is clearly prioritizing a Christian agenda, both domestically and globally. Second, our “defense” is all offense. Some may justify that policy of “we attack them there so they won’t attack us here,” but for those of us who live in major metropolitan areas, we are fucking terrified by the hatred the Bush administration is stirring up around the globe. And third, the fiscal policies, all couched in terms of personal advantage, are disastrous in the long-term for all of us.

   No party is free from scandal, and the Democratic party would likely fare no better than what is happening with Rove, DeLay, Frist, Libby, etc. But it is not fair to justify the failures of the Bush administration by saying that the Democrats aren’t well organized. Besides, the Democrats are getting organized, and they probably will have a cohesive platform in 2006 — will those that are defending the White House today later recant and switch sides tomorrow?

   Regarding Berkeley, I know little — I just hope that you comment here more frequently, Ken. It is a pleasure hearing your perspective.

7. Ken Thomas '93 Says:
   October 15th, 2005 at 10:50 pm

   DeWitt,

   Thanks for your perspectives, and for hosting this forum, as well.

   As will my blogging post, everything behind this is very complex. You may check ephBlog for my some of my perspectives on Iraq– there will be a much longer post under my Mexico City idea when I have a chance, where I will make it quite clear that I am very concerned with the rising resentment and hatred towards the US. You may also note my firm belief in Noah Feldman’s multi-lateral vision for the Middle East, the acceptance of many religious traditions in his vision for both the Middle East and the US, and an underlying vision of multi-lateralism which is very similiar to my own.

   None of this is ultimately compatible with the naive religious pandering of the current Republican party, a position that is internally criticised in the Party, and which, in my opinion, cannot lead but to destruction. And while I will also rehash them in longer terms elsewhere, note that in my memories of Edward Teller and others, I am raising the spectre that if America as a nation fails to solve these problem, fails to become part of a just and fair multilateral world, the consequence is most likely a nuclear conflict.

   Of course, absolutely, I would wish that we had never invaded Iraq and opened that Pandora’s Box. I think the process that led to that decisions was dismal. But it’s equally hard for me to take the position of second-guessing that decision when Bill Clinton said he would have also invaded. The point is, in the place of the very poor rhetoric above, in place of a naive jingoism that reminds me of late Weimar Germany, how do we develop a better understanding of our national security and distribute it on the public stage?

   How do we solve the problem? Edward Teller asked me to do that some time ago, and it unfortunately only in the wake of 9/11 that I have come to some understanding of those messages and some respect for how he sought peace. Looking at the direction of our world– the coming Chinese superpower, for instance– it seems to me abundantly clear that the foolish mutterings of the Republican Party you mention above must give way to a multilateral world in which the US plays one role; the long “pax Americana” must give way to a multilaterally interdependent world in which the US plays a significant role– but a role of one among many.

   As to the re-organization of the Democratic Party– I am not a partisan to either Party, and I sincerely hope Parties godspeed in understanding the real needs of our people and world. In the above, I would agree with you that Bush/Rove are often disingenuous, and many of their policies more than questionable along the above line. From my position as a trained Rhetoritician and sophist, I really wish the Democratic Party would stop resenting Karl Rove long enough to take a close look at what Karl Rove acheived, why and how. Underneath Bush’s rapidly dropping approval rate, I can tell you that those around me in this non-urban area have very similar concerns and those you express above– so why do they support the Republican Party?

   Values, first; not to comment on the reality of either Party’s values. Trust, second– non-urban Americans take George Bush at his word, for whatever that’s worth, and Rove has absolutely exploited that effect. (It’s also been said that Bush cannot function without Rove, and it will be very interesting if that occurs in the coming weeks).

   But there is a larger picture here. I were to paint that picture very vaguely, it would be that the last two elections have been about choosing between very different visions of the American future– between elite, conjested and socially problematic urban areas, and impoverished and socially problematic rural areas which (at the moment) represent a more “authentic” America. If you look at who is voting for whom, Bush was thus the populist candidate and Gore/Kerry the reactionaries. This picture, if I could paint it, would indicate that both parties have exhaused their current paradigms and stories. It would note that powerful new forces, from technological change to demographic shifts to globalization, are shaping this field and demand new responses.

   It would also note the striking parallels between this period in the history of the United States, and the Weimar and Nazi periods in Germany. It would trace the questions of who we are and how we live, of economics and identity, of demographic shift and entering a world of nations. It would note that the United States is not the only nation now facing such crisis, rather, that this is now a world problem.

   Back to demographics, currently, the Hispanic vote is Republican, a fact which is absolutely unbelievable to me. But why? Because, between two candidates barely able to represent the largest growing language group in our electorate, Bush seemed the better choice. It is only a matter of time before any viable Presidential candidate will have to speak Spanish fluently and master the bi-lateral relationship between the US and Mexico, and any party which rises to meet this need will reap an electoral advantage.

   The next direction here would be to look again at American Demographics and that the US population is about to become very young, very poor and very uneducated if we don’t begin taking action now. But I’ve bent your ear enough.