America: A Nation Divided?

Over the years we've been told that ours is a nation divided. People ask whether Barack can unite the nation, which implies that it is now divided. John Edwards told us in 2004 that there's two America's (which I think he's right about, but nobody wants to hear that, so I don't think he'll use that again, and anyway that has nothing to do with this post).

Ever since 2000 and 2004 they've told us about red states and blue states. I think in 2000 it was something like half the nation was republican and the other half was democrat, and Florida was half and half. Here's the map they used to explain it to us:


So as we saw in 2000, American states were either burning hot or freezing cold. 2004 looked even more divided:

Now this one really freaked me out, man. At least in 2000 we were kind of integrated, with New Mexico a blue among reds, and New Hampshire a red among blues. At least back then red states and blue states could get along with one another and live among one another. In 2004 it was pretty clearly geographically divided, as if we're divided into two countries. I considered secession for a moment but then I remembered that George Clooney was from Kentucky, and him being my fellow countryman was always one of the things that kept me going in this world. I was still freaked out though. I don't want America to be two countries, what the crap? In the last year I have been to Florida, North and South Carolina, Louisiana, Texas, and Arizona, and all of those places are freaking awesome. But it's these freaky maps that make me fear that I'm venturing into a foreign country when I go down south, and not just any foreign country but one of those hostile, anti-American foreign countries where they'll hear my Yankee accent and see my Yankee black t-shirts and think I'm some kind of Yankee douchebag. By the way it's a good thing I'm not a Red Sox fan because then I would really be offended by this. Now if the red and blue electoral maps weren't enough to spread this "divided America" theme around, along came this:


So there you have it. Red states and blue states, democrats and republicans. Or at least this is what the politicians would have us believe as they try to energize their base, and this is what the media and the pundits would have us believe as they try to get people interested in their drivel. The problem is that we see these electoral maps and most of us are like "geez, we're pretty divided," without thinking about it much more. The media and the politicians do the same. I guess it's more interesting that way, but to me it is dangerous, counterproductive, and just plain stupid to act like every single person in the red states vote republican and every single person in the blue states vote democrat.

First of all, in 2004, only 55% of eligible voters even voted! So much for this coloring scheme that's only based on half of the country. Furthermore, the winner-take all voting style completely distorts the picture, which colors in an entire state either red or blue. Of those that actually voted, 37 of our 50 states were split between 50-60% for one candidate, and 50-40% for the other. Only 13 states plus DC were real landslide contests in which such a large majority (of half of the eligible voters) voted for one of the parties.

The low voter turnout and the relatively even 60-50% - 50-40 split% suggest that there are 37 swing states, and that our country is not as divided as everyone says. In fact, some are even saying that America is not red and blue, but purple.

Here is a map that portrays things more accurately, showing % of vote by county:


And here is one of the 2006 elections:


Now of course we have our differences, and we should recognize them and celebrate them. But we shouldn't necessarily exaggerate them and think that people from the north can't get along with people from the south, or republicans can't get along with democrats, because the north and south is full of both, and we do live together and we do get along.

Guerrillas in the Fog of War

"You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations! There are no peoples! There are no Russians. There are no Arabs! There are no third worlds! There is no West!" - Ned Beatty's monologue from Paddy Chayefsky's Network.

For anyone who has watched the movie Network, it would do little good for me to remark on how prescient the film remains, and how strangely deaf we have been to its warnings. I, myself, often catch....myself thinking in the context of nations and peoples -- a mode of thinking now obsolete since the Cold War.

With the war in Iraq as it is, with our current administration continuously proving their inept world-view and many of our potential candidates still deliberating a plan for this prolonged struggle, it appears as though I am not the only one who has difficulty contextualizing the threat of terrorism and the quagmire of Iraq. How can we even think of Iraq as a nation or its people a people? The borders of what is now Iraq were drawn not by its inhabitants, but by the Western powers of England and France after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire(which as we know was based entirely on putting your feet up).

As is painfully clear today, the people of Iraq were never fellow citizens, but sects of Muslims each harboring an animosity towards one another that predates the founding of their "nation". Since the partitioning of the Middle East, Western powers have fallen prey to their own misunderstanding of the region, its religious past, and its peoples' wants. To compound our present predicament, we have begun our war in the pretext of an ideological battle, our War on Terror. While this has lead many to draw analogies to our failed war in Vietnam, the comparison remains scant at best; at least the ideological battle against Communism was drawn with borders.


If you want to compare this war with any, I suggest we take a look at some more movies. Let's take it back to Summer 1996, when we as a nation got our first glimpse of Will Smith battling (not yet getting jiggy with) aliens in the uber-patriotic blockbuster, Independence Day. The people of earth were outmatched, outgunned, and taken by surprise by the alien occupiers. How did we defeat these insurmountable odds, reclaim our planet, not go gentle into that goodnight? We did the same damn thing that the terrorists today are doing. Hell, we even sent Randy Quaid on a suicide bombing mission, remember. Let's not forget that this is how we defeat aliens, because we come up with a plan that they could not possibly foresee with their vastly superior technology and telepathy (see Signs, when it turns out that the "primitive means" we use to defeat the aliens is nothing more than splashing water on them).

So how come we understand the basic drive of guerrilla warfare on summer movie screens, but fail to comprehend its use against our vastly superior technology? I can guarantee that President Bush has seen and enjoyed Independence Day, yet how does he believe that sending in more troops will do the job? This isn't the Western Front, the DMZ, or the 39th Parallel; there are no landmarks to define victory, and there appears to be no end in sight to this conflict.

After the terrorist attacks on September 11th, French (who would have guessed?) cultural theorist, Jean Baudrillard commented that the suicide bombings were a "definitive act that is also unanswerable". Think of your own personal shock and speechlessness while watching the events of that Tuesday morning. Now imagine being in charge of our catatonic nation. Baudrillard continues: "the global superpower totally disarmed. Fighting itself, it can only founder in its own logic of power relations, without being able to play in the field of symbolic challenge and death, as it has eliminated the latter from its own culture."

As many have commented, the attacks in 2001 resembled a high-budget movie, which we watched endlessly repeat for months sitting glued to our televisions for news on the latest threat. So if the attacks seemed like a movie, then all I'm saying is that maybe we should take a look at a few movies in order to comprehend them, for only in high-budget movies do we seem to understand the type of war that is being fought.

Well, I Do Declare

If Thomas Jefferson were around today and loved his blogs, he may have included these complaints into his off-the-cuff, man of the people, style punditry:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
...
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
...
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
...
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
...
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
...
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

You tell 'em, TJ. Show me what you're working with. It seems a little to fitting that these accusations were aimed towards a ruler named George within the lines of The Declaration of Independence, though perhaps this connection should embolden us to speak out a little more -- not with useless, flailing spite, but, like Jefferson and his peers, with poised indignation properly distilled into some powerful prose. For any who might be wondering, I am not implying that we wage war against the administration or even impeach President Bush, though there certainly are grounds for such an action. Check out this video for Bill Maher's opinion on the subject: