Balkinization: Jefferson lives (alas)

Comments:

Shoot, 6000 people? I grew up in a town of 171 (according to the 2000 census), deep in Utah red-rock country. It was one of those rotting from the inside out, where my friends used to get in fights because they weren't Mormon.

In short, a repository of all virtue and down-home thoughtfulness.

Then I moved to a town of about 6000 where a transvestite Navajo guy was beaten to death with a rock in 2001.

Yeah.

# posted by

Ryan : 2:42 AM

The city I was born in, and mostly grew up in, had during that period a population of some 100,000 -- probably at least double that by now. Obviously the inhabitants didn't come from small towns, yet somehow their attitude fit the stereotype of "backwoods" or "backwater" or "burg": a view that was tantamount to believing that if one were to cross the city line one would fall off the edge of the earth.

So I guess all intelligence and virtue is located in small town folks after all -- which is perhaps why those city folk endeavored to emulate them.

# posted by

JNagarya : 3:01 AM

Not to get too constitutional on this post of urban versus rural (or suburbia or ex-urbia) - nor to reincarnate Johnny Carson "My town was so small ... " jokes in the form of comments, was agriculture considered by the founders/framers to be within the purview of the commerce clause? We do have a Doubting Thomas out there on SCOTUS. So let's start the real battle, between originalism and living constitutionalism. What would America look like today if agriculture did not constitute commerce? Or, "How're you gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree?"

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 6:10 AM

though it has a deep American pedigree.

Only America? Just off hand I would say that England, France and Germany put their small town wisdom on a pedestal, and think about how much of Euro policy is devoted to saving family farms.

A harder question - is there a country which claims that true wisdom is found in the big city? And I am not talking street smarts here. Hong Kong seems like a cheap answer; I don't know about China and Japan, but Japsn's rice policy also fetishizes their farmers.

Or going back in time, who was that famous Roman leader who left Rome and went back to his farm (not famous enough for me to recall, but everyone else will...)

It was ever thus.

Tom Maguire

# posted by

JustOneMinute : 7:01 AM

at the risk of offending friends of mine, i note that i split my time between new york and a small town of about five thousand people in wyoming. my guess about small town values comes from the fact that in a small town, people are more likely to know their neighbors than in a large city, and therefore look out for them. there is a certain level of friendliness that you don't see in the big cities; however, this does not mean that the townfolk are necessarily more virtuous than the big city slickers.

it does mean that in a town where everyone knows your name, they are more likely to band together and stick up for one another. if they are sticking up for something worth fighting for, that's great, but if the fight is to protect somthing shameful, such as inherent racism or bigotry against gays, all that the small town value does in that case is perpetuate something wrong, which is pernicious in and of itself. the statement quoted by sandy is not necessarily one of those. it just shows that people in small towns tend to insulate themselves from the outside world, believe that they have it right (just as the city slickers do), and will defend their values to the core.

while it may or may not be right, obama did not calculate this factor prior to opening his mouth, and is now paying the price.

# posted by

phg : 8:11 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Unknown : 9:23 AM

Or going back in time, who was that famous Roman leader who left Rome and went back to his farm

The leader was Cincinnatus, Tom. Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus

# posted by

Unknown : 9:31 AM

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:53 AM

Regardless of what one thinks of the relative merits of each side of our political and cultural divide, that divide does appear to cut pretty neatly between the cities on one hand and the suburbs and rural areas on the other.

If that were entirely true, Hillary wouldn't have spent the weekend chewing on straw and telling anecdotes about learning to shoot.

Furthermore, you've only made a description. Now take it to the step of explanation. Why does the cultural divide cut neatly between cities and rural areas?

# posted by

PMS_CC : 10:17 AM

The Wall Street Journal assures me that megacities are the wave of the future. Link. Perhaps the real divide is within the conservative movement.

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:42 AM

pms_chicago said...

BD: Regardless of what one thinks of the relative merits of each side of our political and cultural divide, that divide does appear to cut pretty neatly between the cities on one hand and the suburbs and rural areas on the other.

If that were entirely true, Hillary wouldn't have spent the weekend chewing on straw and telling anecdotes about learning to shoot.

Hillary is seeking the votes of Reagan Dems using the GOP playbook. These are the voters who have telling pollsters that they will vote for McCain if Obama is the Dem nominee.

Furthermore, you've only made a description. Now take it to the step of explanation. Why does the cultural divide cut neatly between cities and rural areas?

We could discuss this one for dozens of posts. Here is a thumbnail sketch of the primary differences between our cities and the rest of the country.

Cities are disproportionately (not universally) rich and poor, single, do not attend church, do not own their own housing or means of transportation and are compelled to have higher taxes and regulations to run a dense urban area.

The rest of the country is disproportionately (not universally) middle class (which I define more as property owners rather than as a measure of absolute income), married with families, attend church, own their own housing and means of transportation and are not compelled to have high taxes and regulations because they tend to be more self sufficient.

I know there are specific exceptions to all of these factors, but these are the valid general differences.

In sum, I would suggest that the major factors in the cultural divide are the responsibility of owning property and providing for a family, church attendance and the amount of freedom from government you are used to.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:45 AM

mark field said...

The Wall Street Journal assures me that megacities are the wave of the future. Link. Perhaps the real divide is within the conservative movement.

I think not. Folks have been voting with their feet for more than a generation now from urban areas to the heartland.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:48 AM

I think not.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 10:48 AM

Baghdad, the other article is also from the WST. What part of "the real divide is within the conservative movement" confused you?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:08 AM

Elitism is the new "uppity".
Best,
Ben

# posted by

Benjamin Davis : 11:13 AM

they tend to be more self sufficient

How exactly are they more self sufficient? Do they grow their own TV's? Weave their own pickup trucks? Carve their own guns? Raise their own computer herds?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:15 AM

Raise their own food, to a variable extent. Provide their own self defense, due to long travel times for police. Privately contract for basic utilities, instead of their being municiple services. (We have 3 competing garbage collection services here.)

And, I think this is the biggest bit: Have room to swing a cat, so whether or not you swing a cat is of little concern to your neighbors.

Yes, people are, perforce, required to be less interdependent where population densities are lower.

# posted by

Brett : 11:46 AM

Raise their own food, to a variable extent.

That was probably more significant 100 years ago.

Provide their own self defense, due to long travel times for police.

Defense from what? Cows?

Privately contract for basic utilities, instead of their being municiple services. (We have 3 competing garbage collection services here.)

Having a more difficult time arranging for services does not mean you are more self sufficient. In fact, it just highlights the fact that you're NOT self sufficient.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 12:09 PM

I grew up in an Eastern Washington farming community of 2800. I've since lived in 3 major cities and another hamlet of 808 people. In my experience (anecdotal, admittedly), the original poster has a valid and poignant point and one which has not been addressed, to my knowledge, in this whole Godawful brouhaha regarding "god and guns."

The only real difference I have experienced in the values of urban "dwellers" and rural "folks" is in their own self-aggrandizing perceptions of such. Urban persons view themselves as more worldly, erudite, etc., while the rural think themselves more family-oriented, morally observant, etc.--in general.

My experience, however, has convinced me that when it comes down to it, both urban and rural--Americans (when did we forget what unites us?)--act in both decent and dastardly ways in equal proportion. This whole red state/blue state, rural/urban dichotomy is largely an artifice of political forces. We are all Americans and humans and largely seek to be moral and decent people.

This is the attraction of Mr. Obama for me, that he appeals to our better angels, asking us to seek to see the good in one another and work towards common goals rather than observing (and obsessing about) divisive differences.

Nothing is so simple as the politicians (which Obama, I realize, is one) would have it.

# posted by

Unknown : 12:22 PM

In fact, if there is one thing the hicks in the sticks are realizing right now, it is how much they depend on someone supplying them with gasoline.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 12:28 PM

Yes, people are, perforce, required to be less interdependent where population densities are lower.

Brett hit my point on the head. To give a couple examples:

When you own your own home, you are responsible for its upkeep. I you live in an apartment, you look toward the landlord and landlord tenant law.

When you live in a suburb or rural area, you are generally responsible for your own transportation by automobile. In a dense city, you rely upon government mass transit.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:56 PM

In a dense city, you rely upon government mass transit.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:56 PM

If you live in a dense city you can walk most of the places you need to go, or you drive far shorter distances, which means you rely much less on the oil companies.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 1:17 PM

Yes, people are, perforce, required to be less interdependent where population densities are lower.

This seems inconsistent with phg's point about the greater social cohesiveness (or homogeneity, if you prefer) of smaller towns. People in small towns are MORE interdependent in many ways.

The truth is, though, that in a capitalist system, the division of labor assures that everybody depends on everyone else. Then, too, there's the fairly well-known fact that tax dollars typically flow from urban areas to rural areas, which means that rural areas tend to be economically dependent on cities (a fact generally true throughout history).

Personally, I think there are trade-offs to both. I used to prefer small towns, now I've come to appreciate the advantages of cities. Converting these preferences into claims of moral superiority strikes me as silly.

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:52 PM

For once, I agreee totally with Mark Field, that it is pretty silly to attribute moral superiority to either city or country. I also agree with vridar that people do attribute such superiority to their own side pretty regularly. Where I do have a problem is with Prof. Levinson: in my experience, academics are pretty quick to attribute moral superiority to higher levels of formal education, to explain their political beliefs (which on average diverge pretty far from the mainstream) as being the product of greater intelligence, etc. So if we are going to go around puncturing such foolish claims, Prof. Levinson might be better advised to start with the plank in his chosen community's eye rather than the motes in the eyes of the people he left behind.

# posted by

sean : 2:21 PM

If small towns provide such moral clarity and personal independence, why are people fleeing from them like rats from a sinking ship?

And can I get my tax dollars back from those rural deadbeats? There is a long list of goverment mass transit improvements my fellow city slickers would like to implement.

# posted by

Hebisner : 3:45 PM

If sean and I agree, it's time to declare victory and go home.

# posted by

Mark Field : 4:33 PM

If sean and I agree, it's time to declare victory and go home.

# posted by Mark Field : 4:33 PM

I suspect there are still a few dead-enders for you to deal with.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 4:41 PM

Bart wrote: "I think not. Folks have been voting with their feet for more than a generation now from urban areas to the heartland."

I don't think the article you link to says what you think it said. If you meant people are moving from one large metro area to another large metro area then, yes, you were right. If you meant people are moving from urban areas to non-urbanized areas, you're wrong.

# posted by

steveh46 : 5:29 PM

Bart speculates --

"When you own your own home, you are responsible for its upkeep. I you live in an apartment, you look toward the landlord and landlord tenant law."

I've both owned and rented. The burdens though different are of equal weight. I.e., the self-serving crock that rural "folks" are more responsible and virtuous is exactly that: bunkum.

"When you live in a suburb or rural area, you are generally responsible for your own transportation by automobile. In a dense city, you rely upon government mass transit."

Not necessarily. Just shows to go how little you know of the actualities about living in cities. Many walk. Many use alternative forms of transportaion, such as bicycles. And, in fact, many -- probably most -- own and use motor vehicles, including SUVs.

# posted by

JNagarya : 5:46 PM

"Where I do have a problem is with Prof. Levinson: in my experience, academics are pretty quick to attribute moral superiority to higher levels of formal education, to explain their political beliefs (which on average diverge pretty far from the mainstream) as being the product of greater intelligence, etc."

I believe you mispoke, sean, especially about that divergence "pretty far from the mainstream". The correct name is "Yoo".

As for most other allegedly "liberal" professors, their views tend to be representative of the suburban middle class.

# posted by

JNagarya : 5:59 PM

I think this rural-urban dicotomy is a little too sharp. More accurately, it should be a rural-suburban-urban tricotomy, if there is such a word. Our basic cultural divide is rural areas (including small towns) on one side, urban on the other, and suburbs as a mushy middle. Seen from this perspective, rural and urban areas are both losing population to the suburbs, so maybe our cultural divide will weaken over time.

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 7:31 PM

steveh46 said...

Bart wrote: "I think not. Folks have been voting with their feet for more than a generation now from urban areas to the heartland."

I don't think the article you link to says what you think it said. If you meant people are moving from one large metro area to another large metro area then, yes, you were right. If you meant people are moving from urban areas to non-urbanized areas, you're wrong.

I do not count suburbs as urban areas.

The Blue Megalopolises have been hemorrhaging the middle class to the Heartland suburbs since the 70s and those suburbs have expanded to become exurbs in small rural towns like the one I live in outside of Colorado Springs. The Blue Megalopolises are only maintaining population because of the influx of foreign immigrants.

The problem is that many of these refugees fleeing from the problems in the Blue Megalopolises still vote Blue and are bringing their problems with them. The California refugees are turning my Red Colorado Purple. Thank heaven, our state constitution has strict spending and taxing caps.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:20 PM

enlightened layperson said...

I think this rural-urban dicotomy is a little too sharp. More accurately, it should be a rural-suburban-urban tricotomy, if there is such a word. Our basic cultural divide is rural areas (including small towns) on one side, urban on the other, and suburbs as a mushy middle. Seen from this perspective, rural and urban areas are both losing population to the suburbs, so maybe our cultural divide will weaken over time.

The urbanites have spread to the near suburbs. However, the suburbs and exurbs are still the preferred domain of married with children, church going, home owners. These folks shun the cities, thus the cultural divide.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:35 PM

Bart bares his bigotry --

"The Blue Megalopolises are only maintaining population because of the influx of foreign immigrants."

This is pure extremist nut-fringe racist horseshit. (And what are "foreign" "immigrants" if not the same thing -- oh, right: Bart is against everything foreign, including US citizens from other jurisdictions than his, and including those noted below -- and their "immigrating" to his insulated little hamlet).

Boston, MA as the location of numerous colleges swells in population some 150,000 every year. I'll wager your pro-war crimes stance against my bet that the vast majority of those students are from the US, and a significant minority, with advanced degrees, from other countries which have a long history of contributing more to world culture, in terms of literacy and civilization, than has the US. And that includes peoples you love to hate on dictat from your racist demogogic comrades located in such places as the not-so-White House.

The same can be said for many other cities with abundant universities.

If the US were not comprised of "foreign immigrants," ass, you'd still be from wherever it is your ancestors came. Perhaps illegally.

Want to get rid of all the "foreign immigrants," Bart? Then start with yourself: grab yourself by the collar and throw yourself the hell out of a country for which you spew nothing but hatred.

# posted by

JNagarya : 8:49 PM

The Blue Megalopolises have been hemorrhaging the middle class to the Heartland suburbs

I'm guessing that most of the stupid ones who couldn't compete with MIT and Harvard grads headed for Colorado.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 9:24 PM

I do not count suburbs as urban areas. . . .

The urbanites have spread to the near suburbs. However, the suburbs and exurbs are still the preferred domain of married with children, church going, home owners. These folks shun the cities, thus the cultural divide.

The suburbs, like rural areas, are dominated by families, home owners and car owners. (I do not know about relative church attendance). But they are not as homogenous as small towns, not as tight-knit, more mobile (and less familiar with guns). Suburbs are not rural in the sense of being places where "They know you by name and greet you like family; a man's good word and a handshake is all you need." They partake more of the impersonality of the city and require more of the sort of regulations that (you acknowledge) are needed when so many strangers live close together.

Truly rural areas are leaking population even more than major cities. The suburbs are the future.

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 2:05 AM

el:

The remote rural areas are indeed emptying out because agriculture has consolidated into a big business whose work is done mechanically or by immigrant labor.

However, farming is not a appreciable factor in our cultural divide. Agriculture only employs a couple percent of of the population.

I maintain the key factors in our cultural divide are the responsibility of marriage, family and property ownership combined with church attendance.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:07 AM

I maintain the key factors in our cultural divide are the responsibility of marriage, family and property ownership combined with church attendance.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 10:07 AM

Rightwingnuts do enjoy pretending to love the Baby Jeebus. The rest appears to be crap.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:12 AM

maintain the key factors in our cultural divide are the responsibility of marriage, family and property ownership combined with church attendance.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 10:07 AM

Rightwingnuts do enjoy pretending to love the Baby Jeebus. The rest appears to be crap.

And I'm sure, being good Christians and all that, they agree with Jesus that torture is a good thing -- so long as done to "them" [brown folk who also happen to have a "wrong" "religion"].

That is, of course, during the hour or so on Sunday when they are in church. During the rest of the week, exercising their weekday morals, they leave out the Jesus part of it.

# posted by

JNagarya : 7:18 PM

Yes, I'm very late to the party. I was hoping that someone else would make these points, but, since nobody has, I'd like to point out a few things:

The real issue is opportunity. It probably comes as a surprise to Bart, but people gravitate towards opportunity and away from places where there is no future -- if they can.

Opportunity in the rural areas has, traditionally, been in short supply since early in the 20th century. There's a bit of a resurgence, of sorts, with the ethanol boom, but this is merely the flourishing of fungus, a parasitic growth entirely supported by government subsidies.

Those who have remained on the farm and in the small towns are those who were either uninterested or unable to pursue opportunities. What this says about them you may decide for yourselves.

As for the suburbs, these are largely a reflection of the desire of many people to get something for nothing. There are many reasons for people to move to the suburbs, of course, some honorable, but, at the heart of the flight from the cities is the desire to get the advantages of living in a metropolitan area without having to put up with the negatives or work at making the city a better place to live.

To imagine, as Bart does, that suburbanites are like people who live on farms or ranches is an insult to all who actually live far from cities. No doubt his belief is based on his own experience of independence, as demonstrated by his camping out on someone else's blog, day after day.

# posted by

C2H50H : 2:30 PM

" ... camping out on someone else's blog, day after day."

Does blogging under the influence give rise to prescriptive rights in Net-urbia? At least there are no deer ticks to worry about. I am envisioning little Lisa on her saxophone blaring into her bro's tent "Camptown Racers," especially the "Doo-dah, Doo-dah" riffs.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:28 AM

Shag from Brookline:

... camping out on someone else's blog, day after day.

"Does blogging under the influence give rise to prescriptive rights in Net-urbia? At least there are no deer ticks to worry about. I am envisioning little Lisa on her saxophone blaring into her bro's tent "Camptown Racers," especially the "Doo-dah, Doo-dah" riffs."

Ouch!

Sounds almost "racy". ;)

# posted by

JNagarya : 9:25 AM

C2H50H --

"Opportunity in the rural areas has, traditionally, been in short supply since early in the 20th century. . . ."

I just got an idea for a song . . .

"How ya gonna keep 'em down home rural
After they've seen Colorado?"

The rhyme is a bit off; but it's first draft . . .

# posted by

JNagarya : 9:30 AM

I'm pretty sure that, while the principles of Jefferson and other founding fathers could've been summed up as "rural is better than urban" there are a lot of principles underlying that statement which are not present in today's rural areas.

The rural areas of Jefferson's day manifested neighborly assistance, community, hard work, perseverance, self-determination, and ingenuity. Most of those values have been degraded, if not utterly destroyed or diffused.

Do not confuse today's "redneck" rural culture with the rural "freeman" culture of 200+ years ago. Entirely different animals.

On the other hand, urban cultural values haven't changed all that much other than becoming more intense and manifest.

# posted by

Unknown : 11:51 PM