The false choice of Red vs. Blue

The StarTribune has an illuminating article on red vs. blue states, indicating what a pointless distinction it is. The myth is described thusly:

A frequent refrain of campaign coverage and commentary this year holds that America is deeply divided about politics, culture and religion. According to this view, we live in states that are either red (Republican) or blue (Democratic), so dubbed because of the color-coded maps used to illustrate the 2000 vote.

In Red-Blue America, you take your political cues from either Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore.

You are either a God-fearing, gun-toting, gay-bashing he-man, listening to Lee Greenwood in your pickup, in which case you love Bush and believe that the republic's survival hangs on his reelection; or you are a lattˇ-sipping professor of women's studies who frets about global warming and shudders to think people actually believe superstitions like Adam and Eve or Supply and Demand, in which case you detest Bush and will vote for Kerry in the hope that he is really further left than he pretends.

The reality, of course, is more nuanced. People live side-by-side with different political views, and not all of them are extreme. What's happened in this country is that the corporate media news have reduced political discourse to a contest between two sides, with a winner and loser. Red vs. blue is a dumbing down and oversimplification of reality. It's as if the news outfits have been taken over by sports departments. Actually, that's not fair because sports coverage tends to have much more depth than political coverage. Reporters actually look at long-term management issues and the conditions of athletes to understand all of the factors that can affect the outcomes of sporting contests. Sports coverage includes the single most important thing missing from political coverage—context.

Red vs. blue is fine for a video game like Halo, but it sure would be nice to have intelligent coverage of politics. Fortunately the American People tend to be smarter than the chattering class inside the television.

But plenty of Minnesotans are able to keep politics from spoiling a friendly meal. Barry MacDonald, 46, who publishes a conservative journal in Stillwater, is solid for Bush, complaining only that the president isn't fiscally conservative enough. Yet he amicably debates issues over breakfast each Saturday with a liberal friend.

“I'm passionate about politics but I don't let it get me riled up,” MacDonald said. “It's not a good idea to walk around powerless and angry all the time. That doesn't foster clear thinking.

“Sure we're polarized,” MacDonald adds of Americans in general, “but not more than in the past. At the beginning, we were polarized about whether we should fight King George III.”

From my perspective we are once again engaged in a debate over the future of this country. Do we return to the pursuit of the best ideals of democracy, or do we keep the current King George in place and watch the foundations of our country further dismantled? A secretive, lying government working as hard as possible to stifle free speech and curtail civil liberties is not what I want.

kherr @ 13:30 CDT | link | politics