Political regions

[Beet]

This is the only map I know that has Utah and Massachusetts in the same "political region". Angus used to talk about this stuff, but I could never quite figure out what he was trying to say. Anyway, anyone want to take a stab at this map?

[A18]

That's one crazy map. I wouldn't really consider the far northeast "moralistic."

[Alcon]

This looks more like a weather map than a political map to me. What exactly is "traditionalistic" versus "moralistic"? And what is "ethnic" - French politics? I'm not quite sure I'd label Seattle as moralistic and then West Virginia as "individualistic."

The fundamental problem here is that none of these are mutually exclusive properties.

[Rob]

That map looks good. I agree with most of it.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Actually this map is fairly accurate, it's specifying areas based on what they vote on. That doesn't mean they vote the same way. What I disagree with is where Minnesota and the rest of the upper Midwest are, we should be under Individualistic.

[Beet]

Actually, here is a good explanation of what the terms are supposed to mean.

[Rob]

That's one crazy map. I wouldn't really consider the far northeast "moralistic."

It's very moralistic... just not in a Bible Belt manner. New England, the upper Midwest, and the Pacific Northwest are full of devout liberals who support their causes (anti-war, environmentalism, "social injustice", etc.) with messianic zeal. They are the True Believers.

[Alcon]

That's one crazy map. I wouldn't really consider the far northeast "moralistic."

It's very moralistic... just not in a Bible Belt manner. New England, the upper Midwest, and the Pacific Northwest are full of devout liberals who support their causes (anti-war, environmentalism, "social injustice", etc.) with messianic zeal. They are the True Believers.

I suppose this is true, but can't you say this about nearly any part of the country? It's all just a different set of moralism, ranging from right-wing Christian moralism (Oklahoma)  to Darwinistic moralism (Montana) to haughty vegan hippie envrionmentalist moralism (Bay Area). What differentiates them?

The other problem I have with the map is that it goes overboard with smooth edges. It's pretty, but I'd like to see more touches like the Individualistic part in northern Idaho. There is not much difference from my experiences between the areas in western South Dakota labeled as individualistic and moralistic, nor am I quite sure that I'd call Lakeview, Oregon, individualistic but Klamath Falls moralistic.

[Cubby]

This map is wicked retarded. The categories are too broad and ill-defined. The last thing the Northeast is is moralistic.

What does New Jersey have in common with Nebraska that it doesn't share with CT?

The Idaho panhandle blob is probably for the Aryan Nation crazies that the region is unfortuately known for.

[Gabu]

BC is "moralistic"?

Yeah, try again.

[Cashcow]

I agree with Bob, as usual.

[minionofmidas]

Bob has at least understood what the map is all about, which can't be said of some other posters on this thread.
That said, the map is very impressionistic and full of errors. And I think considering Québec nationalism as something totally different and alien to the US (as this map does) is wrong.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Generally speaking the map has it right... but it generalises too much and has too many damn errors. Still... it's better than the whole red state/blue state crap.
It could do with a "collectivist" catagory as well, although perhaps that would be harder to define (not in some cases, like Saskatchewan, though).

The map is dead right in some places though (look at Oklahoma).

[minionofmidas]

Yes and No...if Utah is rightwing moralistic, then so is at least part of a place that elects Tom Coburn. If you split Oklahoma into an "individualistic" and a "traditionalistic" part, though, their boundary is spot on.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If you split Oklahoma into an "individualistic" and a "traditionalistic" part, though, their boundary is spot on.

That's what I meant

[angus]

it's pretty much the same map they taught us in university Political sciences classes when we discussed the concept of "Political Culture" and Daniel Elazar's usage.  yes, I'm flabbergasted as well that no one seems to remember this, but I gave up long ago on this forum of trying to convince these posters that they don't seem to know what the hell they're talking about.  Moralistic is very clearly defined, and has always resided predominantly in New England and comes from Puritanism and leads to excellent public schools, public transit, abolition of slavery, prohibition of alcohol, burning of witches, etc.  Traditionalism comes from Virginia and the planters, is associated with Elitism, and involves a heavy mistrust of government.  It leads to Libertarianism and general rightism.  These are the two "english" holdovers.  The middle group comes from the Dutch/Germans in New Amsterdam (later New York) and the rest of the middle atlantic.  It also mistrusts government and leads to a different brand of libertarianism.  Apparently the exact borders of the IMT regions have shifted since I was in college (putting colorado with California, for example, instead of with Wyoming is a bit surprising), but the general trend hasn't changed.  Hopefully, this will start us on the right track of using terms like "moralism" correctly, but don't get your hopes up, factor.  I've been beating my head against this for about a year and a half trying to straighten some of these posters out.  I guess Bob, Vorlon, myself, and you are the only ones who didn't sleep through our political science classes in college.  The problem is that things like Chris Matthews, Wikipedia, Bill O'Reilly, and the Weblogs have replaced real information.  I know librarians and professors are constantly fighting an uphill battle to teach these kids the difference between junk information and authoritative information, but we're losing.  I respect that you are at least trying.  End of rant.

[minionofmidas]

I guess it has something to do with the fact that "moralistic" sounds like an insult. I guess no liberal would have complained if they'd called the same thing "idealistic" instead.

[angus]

well, let's mention several things.

1.  Elazar's model should not and cannot be applied to Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else.  US "political culture" is a product of history specific to the USA.

2.  some posters, migrendel for example, who are familiar with the model have suggested that it was valid, but because of mobility isn't so appropriate anymore as it was.  "That's defunct and it's getting old; get another model" he once wrote to me.  Fair enough.  But anyone who wants to intelligently discuss regiospecific voting trends really needs to learn Elazar's Model of Political Culture.  Particularly if they're going to bandy about words like "moralism" and "individualism" and "traditionalism"

3.  This is another problem:  because our nation's highest office requires a majority, not just a plurality, of "electors" and because we do divide our government into 3 branches, two of which are elected, we have evolved a "Two-party system"  (Required majority will have this effect, whether or not you consider it desirable.)  Thus we have two parties superimposed upon three "political cultures" and that's a big part of the difficulty reconciling the two.  Right now, the GOP has the edge among traditionalists, and a slight edge among the individualists.  It wasn't always so, and will not always be so.  This is because the defining characteristic of the GOP is, and has always been, Nationalism.  At various points in history this will appeal more to the Massachusetts Moralist and less to the Virginia Planter, but at other times it may appeal less to the Massachusetts Moralist and more to the Wyoming Cowboy (individualist), etc., etc.

4.  "ethnic" can be used, but it's a catch all.  a fudge factor.  it is true that you can't explain voting trends in Texas, Florida, and California without resorting to some "ethnic" fudge factor.  largely because the original model depended heavily on saxonoid philosophy.  (the english in Moralist and Traditionalist regions of New England and the Southern Colonies, respectively, and the Dutch/Swede/German settlers of Nieuw Amsterdam, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.)

And no, moralism doesn't sound like an insult any more than "socialism" does or "racism" does.  It's just one of those "emotionally charged" words your sociology professor talked about.  If we can get past the political correctness, and simply define terms and stick with them, we can intelligently discuss these phenomena.

Moralism is exactly that.  It is moral to want to protect the environment, to ensure the survival of endangered species, to feed the poor, and not to kill.  That's easy to understand.  (of course, we can and will argue over what constitutes "killing"  e.g., capital punishment, abortion, etc.)  It is traditional to think in terms of an elitist (some races are "better" than others.  some jobs are "more important" than others.  etc.) and not to trust governments, lawyers, politicians, etc.  It is individualistic to simply say screw everyone else.  As long as no one commits a crime against me, I have no reason to get involved and report it.  That's an oversimplification, but if you think about it, it's easy to understand trends.  The challenge becomes, how do you exploit this for political gain?  Richard Nixon understood how very well.  Karl Rove also.  And FDR.  And many others. 

on a final note, one regional "political culture" model is being developed.  Actually it was presented just before the 2004 general elections, and is being continually revised.  a work in progress.  It takes into account not only Elazar's wonderful and historically-based model, but also partisan trends and "social" issues as well.  I posted it several times, usually in response to questions about Elazar's model, but here it is again:


http://www.massinc.org/commonwealth/new_map_exclusive/beyond_red_blue.html

you don't have to buy into any of this, and it's not a religion.  but we can't intelligently discuss regiospecific voting trends unless you at least understand the terms being used.

[Beet]

So, an explanation comes to light.

I have seen the 10-region map before but not the three-region map. Anyway, Elazar bases his classifications on ethnic migrations which may over time becoming less and less relevant. Again, he ties his divisions along natural geographic systems defined by agriculture. I would agree with migrendel, but not so much for mobility reasons as that the spatial distribution of electoral cleavages has moved away from agriculturally-based definitions.

In other words, communtarian, individual farm, and plantation cultures are harder to sustain without the agricultural systems that back them up, due to technology's impact on modes of existence. This has implications in terms of not just physical mobility but also lifestyle, mass media, social homgeneity, etc. To the extent that they create geographic cleavages, artificial systems are more defined by the relation of one's spatial location to hubs of economic activity, or the cities. Thus, one would expect Elazar's model, the North-South partisan divide, as well as the 10-region model you linked to, to gradually become complimented and supplemented by an artificial regions model that takes into account new interactions between social organization and spatial composition.

[minionofmidas]

The ten region model is very interesting...unfortunately the map is gerrymandered to make a political point. (We had that issue up a couple of times before... )

[angus]

So, an explanation comes to light.

I have seen the 10-region map before but not the three-region map. Anyway, Elazar bases his classifications on ethnic migrations which may over time becoming less and less relevant. Again, he ties his divisions along natural geographic systems defined by agriculture. I would agree with migrendel, but not so much for mobility reasons as that the spatial distribution of electoral cleavages has moved away from agriculturally-based definitions.

In other words, communtarian, individual farm, and plantation cultures are harder to sustain without the agricultural systems that back them up, due to technology's impact on modes of existence. This has implications in terms of not just physical mobility but also lifestyle, mass media, social homgeneity, etc. To the extent that they create geographic cleavages, artificial systems are more defined by the relation of one's spatial location to hubs of economic activity, or the cities. Thus, one would expect Elazar's model, the North-South partisan divide, as well as the 10-region model you linked to, to gradually become complimented and supplemented by an artificial regions model that takes into account new interactions between social organization and spatial composition.

my thoughts as well.  maybe I'm overcompensating, like the closet queer who hoots and hollers at every chick that walks by so no one will think he's gay.  except that somebody realizes that no straight guy would make cat calls at some of these beastly chicks, so he's busted.  Yeah, obviously I would agree that the model served well to understand us politics in a regional frame of reference beginning in the early 1800s and ending in about 1950s.  But you can still explain much.  It's just that when someone pretends to be so dense as to not see the obvious connection between "Moralism" and "I want to feed poor and protect the environment" or the obvious connection between Traditionalism/Elitism and "Hey, poor people are poor because they're lazy or genetically inferior" then I just gotta pull that Naked Emperor schtick.  That said, you can still see that public transit/good schools, etc., come in the same places where witches were burned and slaves were freed early.  (note:  MA became the first state to free its slaves, and did so in around 1781, several other New England states followed.  Also note that the "temperance" movement was huge here.  'nough about that).  Also note that wyoming cowboys don't necessarily follow the same line of reasoning when choosing, say, George Bush that the descendants of the Virginia Planters do.  Clearly something other than the tired Left/Right model is needed.  Elazar attempts to make that model, and does a pretty good job.  I agree that the ten-region model is somewhat heuristic, but then I never bought into the idea that there are benefits of geopolitical bigotry/stereotyping to begin with;  I only put it up for your edification.   For example, I can assure you my parents were Moralists of the first degree.  Anti-capital punishment, anti-Vietnam war, pro-socialized medicine, pro-welfare, good catholics, the like.  But I turned out to be largely Individualistic.  (my many contributions to the Sierra Club, for example, come from the selfish desire to enjoy the wonders of nature and not from some notion that it's sinful to kill rabbits, etc.)  So if it can't even hold for one generation, it's not valid for more.  (unless, like baldness, it skips a generation.)

[minionofmidas]

You know, when I said some liberals were reacting the way they were because moralist sounds like an insult, I wasn't referring to myself.

But I still don't see what the Salem Eugenics Experiment has to with all that.

[angus]

no?  witches are immoral.  like capital punishment, slavery, genocide, bad public schools, and the like.  or so the line would presumably be among the Moralists.  (as opposed to the traditionalist, for whom a "witch" would just be the weird bugger on the next plantation who wants a better yield from next year's crop.  or to the individualist for whom the lexicon "witch" probably wouldn't even exist.)  that's my take, though.  take it with a grain of salt. 

[minionofmidas]

Except that a traditionalist might kill a weird bugger.
You know that all but two or three of the "witches" came from families carrying Huntington's Chorea?

[angus]

I did not.  but I do know that the first witch killed at Salem was the slave of a massachusetts minister.  A minister owning slaves!  weird, but true.  (no, I cannot fit that into the Elitism versus Moralism scheme, obviously.  this particular minister musta been a little of both.  or he may just have been the odd individualist minister.  they do exist.)