What if.
What if, posed John Tierney in a New York Times op-ed, what if the red states and blue states were divided into different countries? What if the Confederacy had won the Civil War and been allowed to secede?
"Northern liberals wouldn't be ranting at George W. Bush and Pat Robertson," Tierney wrote. "They wouldn't be frantically trying to find a candidate who appealed to the Bible Belt."
He continued, "Southern conservatives wouldn't have to fight for moral values against Godless Yankees. �Politics in both countries might be less partisan, even civil."
Imagine that world. We could leave that counterfactual Confederacy to battle Mexican immigration and impose fascist Christian rule. The North would have more equality and thus a richer culture.
Let's ignore the small inconvenient fact that red states stretch up to the northern border in the Great Plains and mountain states and imagine that a Civil War the United States lost would be a Civil War that divided us nicely in half, with the blue liberals on top and the red conservatives swimming along beneath.
Our more liberal United States would have stopped fighting over abortion years ago. It would be a non-issue now. We'd teach science in schools without ever having to explain why we weren't also teaching creationism; we'd have socialized health care like our neighbor to the north; we'd have had a woman president.
Plus all those benefits for gays and lesbians. Gay marriage would now be a given, and we would be serving openly in the military. There would be gay equality everywhere. It would be like living in Canada.
But here's the thing.
Canada's not the paradise it seems.
Last week, for example, thousands of Christians descended on Ottawa to pray for the overturning of the country's gay marriage law. Seems like something that would happen in the South, doesn't it?
Then I started thinking about trouble areas.
Illinois went easily to John Kerry. We're blue. Lincoln made his home here, for heaven's sake-we'd be the proudest of the Northern United States. Yet in Springfield, our capital, the Episcopal bishop recently signaled strong distaste for the church's new presiding bishop because she's in favor of blessing same-sex marriages.
And it's well known that southern Illinois might as well be Tennessee.
And those Southern states? They're not all as anti-gay as we imagine. A federal court recently ruled that a gay-straight alliance must be allowed to meet in Gainesville, Ga. The Supreme Court in Arkansas affirmed that there must be no ban on gay foster parents. The University of Louisville, in red Kentucky, voted to offer domestic partner benefits. The Tennessee Supreme Court challenged a proposed ban on same-sex marriage.
Let's take a look at our blue states, shall we?
A Rochester, N.Y., judge ruled that a transgender man couldn't change his name from Sarah to Evan. Connecticut's legislature said no to same-sex marriage, because residents already had watered-down civil unions. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill giving California same-sex marriage last year. The Massachusetts legislature took up a gay marriage ban.
And New York ruled that gays and lesbians didn't deserve marriage because-and this is the strangest thing I've ever heard-their unions are too stable.
The lesson?
Life for liberals-and gays and lesbians-wouldn't in fact be easier if America had no red states, because America isn't so easily divided between red and blue, conservative and liberal, Christian and secular, homophobic and gay-friendly.
Instead, we are a patchwork of local feeling, with blue municipalities tucked within red counties hidden in states that are more purple than primary-colored.
Gays and lesbians are in a battle for equality. To win any sort of battle, you need first to see the enemy truly. So let's dismiss the myth that blue states are good and red states are bad-or that red and blue states even exist as solid entities.
If the South had seceded, the North would have the same troubled mix of conservatives and liberals it does today, as would the Confederacy. Red and blue is an easy shorthand, but it's a false one. We are not a divided country. We are families struggling over issues that are important to us; we are individuals trying to get our communities to see things our way.
There is no magic bullet-not now, not in a counterfactual world where the North lost the Civil War.
There is no what if.
There is only what now?
15 Comments for “The Myth of Red and Blue”
posted by Gay in Florida on
What you wrote is so true, Jennifer. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans are color sensitized in more ways than one. If only they would embrace the rainbow flag with its multiple colors and all-embracing mantra.
posted by Craig2 on
Not so fast. You do realise that the US Christian Right is in the business of exporting its rancid prejudices, rhetoric, tactics and strategies overseas?
Note that one of the primary opponents of Canadian lesbian and
gay rights is Focus on the Family Canada,
subsidiary to a certain Colorado based fundamentalist
multinational corp-
oration?
We have our own ideological divisions in New Zealand- they tend to be rural and urban.
Craig
Wellington
New Zealand
posted by dalea on
There is an excellent series of science fiction, subcatagory alternate history, on this very topic. The author is Harry Turtledove, and the series runs to at least 12 volumes now. It depicts a world of constantly recurring wars between the north and south, with genuine fascism rising in the south. Very well delineated works of alternate history.
posted by Jamie on
It’s true that we Canadians are by no means of one mind about same sex marriage, as that demonstration in Ottawa suggests, but polls are telling our politicians that it’s not one of the most important issues for Canadians now. (And hey, did you hear that two male Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers had a big Maritime wedding last month?) We’re a much less polarized society than yours; I just hope we can remain so.
Jamie,
BC (Canada)
married 3 yrs.
posted by Mike on
Very good article. Let’s continue being honest with ourselves about how America really works. Bigotry is everywhere, all you have to do is look. As a gay man I from time-to-time hear comments like “the gay scene is so shallow”. [As I’ve said before, my answer is: Oh yeah? Ever seen a heavy girl at a straight nightclub?] I think more Americans need to simply own up to their prejudices. For example, I am a white, gay, man. For years I harbored a medium-level prejudice against young, male African Americans. See a young black man in a nice car and … must be a drug dealer … or an athlete … but never an attorney or a doctor or a stockbrocker. I also harbored a much more significant prejudice against young Asian men. [Never had a problem with African American women, middle-aged black men, or middle-aged Asian men or women.]
As a gay man, I’ve only ever had white partners. I often wonder if this is or isn’t racist. I suppose I can cop out and say “well I’m just not attracted to black men” but I don’t think that’s the entire answer. Maybe it is institutional racism. I still don’t know what to make of this.
At any rate, I finally admitted my own prejudices and they began to dissolve. Not completely, but in part. I think the world would be a better place if people … all people … were simply honest with themselves. Once I confronted my own prejudices, I couldn’t hold on to them without feeling like a hypocrite. Maybe this is pie in the sky. I realize that there are bigots who won’t or cannot let go of their prejudices. I hope I’m not one of them.
posted by kittynboi on
I’m attracted to young asian men myself.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
We’re a much less polarized society than yours
Not to get too much into a “my country is better than yours” match, but as someone who lived in Montreal during the 1996 referendum, I can assure you this is most definitely not the case. All that’s required to destroy Canada is 12,000 newly-angry French Canadians, and the federation is history, with the rest of the mess tumbling into the United States, province by province.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
As a gay man I from time-to-time hear comments like “the gay scene is so shallow”. [As I’ve said before, my answer is: Oh yeah? Ever seen a heavy girl at a straight nightclub?]
The fact that the “straight scene” is also shallow doesn’t undermine the criticism of the gay scene, however. What I find most hilarious is that (some) gay men who choose to live a promiscuous Peter-Pan existence of drugs and sex think they’re being so original and edgy — when in reality, there’s nothing very new, edgy, different, or gay about promiscuity or drug use.
Could we treat each other a lot better? You betcha. Will we? I doubt it. Treating people better means an appreciation for real diversity — points of view — and that’s unlikely to happen in the land of screaming matches between Donahue and O’Reilly.
posted by kittynboi on
I don’t do drugs and haven’t had sex in ten years.
Does that mean I’m not part of the gay “scene”?
posted by Mike on
I am in full agreement with your comments, NortheastLibertarian. Criticism of the gay scene isn’t undermined by the fact that the straight scene is also shallow. Bigotry and/or prejudice is endemic in human culture. Unfortunately, most forms of prejudice are “closeted” because even admitting to prejudice, as I did in my previous post, is often controversial in and of itself. An “appreciation for diversity” won’t happen as long as prejudice is hidden away in the closet. That’s a familiar story for gays and lesbians everywhere.
posted by David on
I realise I’m pushing it a little, calling myself a European, but (hopefully without getting into too much nationalist rivalry) I’d like to thing there isn’t this devision to quite the same extent in Europe, because we’re more urbanised. Even if people have these prejudices, an “appreciation for diversity” is almost thrust upon them in a more metropolitan society. Also, (this sounds very defensive, even hypocritical, but) I’d like to think urbanisation, and globalisation, are destroying religion; the biggest enemy of liberal views.
David,
London.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
urbanisation, and globalisation, are destroying religion; the biggest enemy of liberal views
I wouldn’t say that, either. Religion, particularly radical Islam, is resurgent in Britain and the rest of Europe, and “urban socialist” parties like Labour have moved swiftly and aggressively to censor critics of various religious leaders.
Yusuf al Qaradawi was welcomed from Qatar with open arms by Ken Livingstone, the mayor of Europe’s largest city (London) and wined and dined on taxpayer expense while he ranted about gays (they should be executed, according to him) and women (they should be chastized — but chastized “lightly” with a stick no thicker than an inch). Criticize Livingstone or al Qaradawi and you’re “Islamophobic.”
If that isn’t bad enough, the Labour Party “hate speech” law passed earlier this year makes it a crime to criticize “legitimate religious views.” So if al Qaradawi comes back and calls for gays to be executed again, and someone criticizes his hateful rhetoric, he could end up in prison facing charges from the CPS.
Urbanization killing off religion? I wouldn’t be so sure.
posted by kittynboi on
Its unfortunate that Europe is going so far with the “multiculturalism” that spawns these laws. Much of the push from it seems to come from overly sensitive muslims with thin skins.
There needs to be a major push in Europe for free speech.
My blog.
http://toucanfiles.blogspot.com/
posted by marko on
i dont know how good it works, but to get back into your groove, there is the ballbra they call it…. not sure, but check it out http://www.ballbra.com … says it will re-energize anyones relationship.
posted by Rocco on
“I realise I’m pushing it a little, calling myself a European, but (hopefully without getting into too much nationalist rivalry) I’d like to thing there isn’t this devision to quite the same extent in Europe, because we’re more urbanised. Even if people have these prejudices, an “appreciation for diversity” is almost thrust upon them in a more metropolitan society. ”
Brits or Germans or Scandinavians who talk about “Europe” from their Northern comfort make me smile. I think you would be in for a terrible shock if you moved to Italy, let alone many eastern European countries or the Balkans. And urban mix has nothing to do with it – to know is not to understand, and to understand is not to like. Cities, or any places, carry the prejudices of their populations who have different levels of education, religions, and cultural attitudes. Visiting some countries for a week as a tourist doesn’t let you see how it is for a citizen, who is held to a different standard of behavior than a foreigner. British gays who walk hand-in-hand may not get attacked out of respect for foreigners, so they think it is open-minded, but that doesn’t mean the locals are so lucky.
One sample: in 2006 Rome, workers for state-owned transportation companies have to sign a statement that they are heterosexual, in order to be considered “mentally stable”. To even enter a gay bard, you have to give your name and national ID card number , which is added to a registry apparently given to the police. And you can be fired for being gay.
There are tolerant countries – I think Spain and Holland for example – but don’t forget that most European countries have no gay rights and it was illegal to be gay in many (eastern) European countries into the 21st century. Most of them repealed these laws just out of economic interest, to get into the EU, not out of any softening of public opinion on gays.
Hope this doesn’t get me into any Euronationalist rivalry.