[goodnesswins]

"One of the most interesting statistics that Mr. Brooks uses to contrast the two Americas is that only 53% of conservatives consider themselves intellectuals, while 75% of self-identified liberals do."

Boy....that one statement speaks VOLUMES about the difference between Red and Blue America.....the pompous, know-it-all liberals who try and tell the rest of us how WE should live, and then pull money out of someone elses (ours) pockets to PAY FOR EVERYONE ELSES PROBLEMS. Praise the Lord we have GW Bush for PRESIDENT.

PLUS, I wonder what the difference in definition of "intellectual" is between a conservative and a liberal.

[oldvike]

David Brooks would get eaten alive in my town. What a pompous jackass.

[cactmh]

I could not have said it any better had I tried. This is an excellent, and I mean excellent article. I've observed many of the differences that he notes...

[Free the USA]

good post

[Mike Darancette]

According to Mr. Brooks, "We in the coastal Blue areas read more books and attend more plays than the people in the Red heartland. We're more sophisticated and cosmopolitan--just ask about our alumni trips to China or Provence, or our interest in Buddhism.

Does that include the drug addicts, welfare cases, illegal aliens and mendicants that the Blue Zone Democrat press gangs manage to round up at election time?

[Alberta's Child]

With all due respect for the author of this piece, Alberta's Child had the whole issue of "Red vs. Blue" figured out in December 2000.

The Triumph of Little America

[SoDak]

Wow, great article. I'm passing this one along to some friends.

[bjcintennessee]

This reminds me of the differences in culture and economics that prevailed between the north and south before the Civil War.

This is not a good omen.

[Southack]

Well, it's certainly nice to know that Blue-Zone liberals consider themselves to be intellectuals. I'm not certain that I could have respected them if they hadn't informed me of that fact (snicker).

Let's see, liberals want to concentrate poor people into tight, government-built housing projects. Not clever.

Liberals want to release violent criminals early for good behavior in jail. Not clever.

Liberals don't like the death penalty for the guilty, but do believe in killing innocent infants via abortion. Again, not clever (or even consistent).

Liberals want the same "minimum wage" for people in high-priced San Francisco as for those who live in hyper-poverty on American Indian reservations and deteriorated inner city ghettos. Not my idea of clever, but I suppose they don't want people in those areas to have fair access to jobs.

Liberals want public transportation for everyone, but they want to suspend your license to drive if you miss a child support payment. Hmmm, not quite the impact for urbanites as that policy would have on rural Americans. Not clever or consistent.

Liberals claim that reduced tax revenue "costs" our government money (as if checks were written and funds were mailed out). That's not even right, much less clever.

Liberals want to ban guns, even though rural areas with guns have far less crime than urban areas without them. Not clever.

Liberals want to socialize medicine and nationalize healthcare, even though every nation that has tried to do either of those items has found the quality of its care has decreased faster than the cost of said care has increased. Once more, not clever.

Liberals want to ban new construction, yet complain when the lack of new electricity plants being built contributes to their power blackouts. Hmmm, cause and effect is apparently something that is a bit over the head of most liberals.

But hey, what do I know. I'm just some rural Alabama kid. Who am I to snicker whenever I hear conceited liberals pronounce that they are intellectually superior humans?!

[Jagdgewehr]

We Red America residents are much better informed about Blue America than the reverse.

That's true. Despite what they believe about themselves, "Blue" Americans demonstrate a greater proclivity towards ignorance and intolerance.

[libertyslegacy]

But he finds no indication that Red America is about to man the ramparts in a culture war.

Because most of us are far too engaged in minding our own business. After reading a bit of FR commentary the other night it occurred to me that it is this particular trait above all others that forces me to lean libertarian/conservative as opposed to moral/cultural warrior conservative.

Each day as I give thanks for the blessings bestowed upon my family and myself, it soon gives way to a deep appreciation of the awesome responsibilities that such blessings necessarily entail. What naturally follows is an all-consuming drive to measure up and fulfill those responsibilities.

On the face of it, it seems to me that the folks out there losing the drug war and otherwise making busybodies of themselves might ought to consider taking on some more tangible and personal responsibilities, as they apparently have the time.

Good article.

[lodwick]

Outstanding post - thank you! JL

[cactmh]

Bump for the lunch crowd...

[Wphile]

Great post. I've lived in both - I prefer the Red Zone. Brooks wrote Bobos in Paradise which is hilarious. I'm not sure if he intended it to be hilarious or not but it clearly points out the superficiality of the Blue Zone people.

This article is dead-on, especially about the military. Of course, now that the terrorists have hit the heart of the Blue Zone (NYC), their attitudes seem to be changing.

I'm not sure about the statement that they read more in the Blue Zone. In fact, my experience would suggest the opposite. The Blue Zone goes to more movies and plays but I don't think they read more.

As for the coloring of the maps, I have read that the Blue is always reserved for the incumbent and the Red for the challenger. So, next time around, the colors will be reversed.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Excellent article. Bookmarked for future reference. Having just returned from 5 weeks in CA, I really see the difference. I wouldn't trade my little Wisconsin town for anything CA has to offer (well, there was a lovely fountain at a statuary store). G. W. Bush is the man!

[NYCVirago]

On another thread about Brooks, vbmoneyspender had an excellent analysis about him. I'm reposting it here because it pretty much says it all about the author:

David Brooks is really kind of pathetic. He has basically made a career out of writing the same magazine article over and over again, the thesis of which is always that Middle Americans (Brook-speak for conservatives) are a bit dense; and Bi-Coastals (Brook-speak for liberals like Brook who are too chicken to acknowledge that they are liberals) are just quite a bit sharper and, thus, better able to 'run' the country.

[NYCVirago]

From David Brooks' original article: These differences are so many and so stark that they lead to some pretty troubling questions: Are Americans any longer a common people? Do we have one national conversation and one national culture? Are we loyal to the same institutions and the same values? How do people on one side of the divide regard those on the other?

But haven't we been hearing for the past twenty years or so about how homogenized this country is becoming, with people watching the same TV programs, listening to the same radio shows, eating the same fast foods?

[cactmh]

BTTT.

[cactmh]

bttt.

[McGavin999]

All my liberal friends identify themselves as "intellectual" and all feel that conservatives are dumb. Funny thing though, my IQ is 20 points higher than any of them, and......I earn more money ;o)