I just came across this New York Times story written two days after the 2004 election. One John Kerry voter, a retired psychiatrist, says, "I’m saddened by what I feel is the obtuseness and shortsightedness of a good part of the country - the heartland. This kind of redneck, shoot-from-the-hip mentality and a very concrete interpretation of religion is prevalent in Bush country - in the heartland. New Yorkers are more sophisticated and at a level of consciousness where we realize we have to think of globalization, of one mankind, that what’s going to injure masses of people is not good for us." He acknowledged that these are the kind of sentiments that cause the heartland to resent New York, but . . . so be it. "People who are more competitive and proficient at what they do tend to gravitate toward cities."
Another New Yorker, an art dealer, explained that Bush got a majority of the votes in the rest of America while getting one-sixth of Manhattan’s by saying, "New Yorkers are savvy. We have street smarts. Whereas people in the Midwest are more influenced by what their friends say. [Midwesterners are] very 1950’s. When I go back there, I feel I’m in a time warp."
A third New Yorker, a film producer, spent election night at Harvey Weinstein’s party at The Palm. As Barack Obama would do four years later in his assessment of the small-town Americans who bitterly cling to guns and religion, "she explained the habits and beliefs of those dwelling in the heartland like an anthropologist." "What’s different about New York City is it tends to bring people together and so we can’t ignore each others’ dreams and values and it creates a much more inclusive consciousness," she said. "When you’re in a more isolated environment, you’re more susceptible to some ideology that’s imposed on you." There’s hope, however. Those who have been saved can do missionary work among the heathen. "If the heartland feels so alienated from us, then it behooves us to wrap our arms around the heartland. We need to bring our way of life, which is honoring diversity and having compassion for people with different lifestyles, on a trip around the country."
I think it might be salient that the respondents were a psychiatrist, an art dealer, and a film producer.
"New Yorkers are savvy. We have street smarts. Whereas people in the Midwest are more influenced by what their friends say."
John Kerry got 84% of the vote in Manhattan. Eight-four percent! Now THAT is a hive-mind in action.
"What’s different about New York City is it tends to bring people together and so we can’t ignore each others’ dreams and values and it creates a much more inclusive consciousness," she said. "When you’re in a more isolated environment, you’re more susceptible to some ideology that’s imposed on you."
It's hard to believe that even a New Yorker could not see the blatant contradiction in those statements. There is vastly more ideological diversity in small town America than in the conformist intellectual wastelands that are our big cities.
Pointing out examples of liberal condescension is a form of conservative condescension.
Both of JOHN's comments are bullseyes!
One thing to say in favour of Manhattan though, --------- there are some really good looking women up there.
Pointing out examples of liberal condescension is a form of conservative condescension.
I see that you still have not bothered to inform yourself about the meaning of the word. If you ever get around to it, you will understand that pointing out examples of liberal condescension cannot a form of condescension.
Given your stupidity and dishonesty though, I think we're not in any danger of you ever arriving at that knowledge.
there are some really good looking women up there.
If you like the tall skinny model look. I've heard that this particular look was popularized by the gay men in the fashion industry, whose ideal woman looks a lot like a teenage boy - tall, skinny, slim-hipped, flat-chested.
Hold it there JOHN. There were others, not emaciated, curvy, --------- from head to toe, indisputably a woman, all woman. And it was those that I was referring to.
But you may know much more than I about Manhattan, for I've not been up there much.
I knew a guy from college who had to go up there several times a week, for his job, and he mentioned women like those you described.
I've heard conflicting reports.
These three hand-picked examples of New York thinking must certainly represent all thinking in New York. And furthermore, they demonstrate the closed-mindedness and stereotypical cognitive processes of New Yorkers as opposed to the writer who hand-picked and offered these exemplars, and the readers who hungrily lapped them up.
"Boy, those New Yorkers all think we're all the same! Aren't they all narrow, compared to us?"
We, in the small-town, religion-clinging, gun-toting Midwest, LIKE our towns and don't feel the need to engage in tokenism for the sake of feeling better about ourselves or uplifting our values above anyone else. We are fiercely competitive, turn out in droves when our neighbors need help, engage in face-to-face conversations out the car window (even in winter), and greet total strangers with a smile because we take seriously the idea of entertaining angels unaware (literally or not).
Dan, drive through the Midwest if you're interested in curvy girls - I'd wager you'd be happier with a country girl who baits her own hook than a city girl who thinks "fishing" is something you do when you want information. Just a hunch...
"When you’re in a more isolated environment, you’re more susceptible to some ideology that’s imposed on you."
Urbanites (wrongly) think rural Midwesterners are isolated because they don't have exposure to racial and socio-economic diversity, when, in fact, they do.
On the other hand, many rural residents believe that they are enlightened because they work hard and view the city as full of elite intellectuals just out to misrepresent them. Most small-towners on this anti-urbanism kick seem to forget that the vast majority of urban residents are just like them -- trying to find a way to raise a family and make ends meet. Obviously, people need to do a better job of understanding each other.
(By the way, who or what are considered Midwesterners anyway? Everyone from east of Philadelphia? I'm from Ohio, but I don't think that's the Midwest, though I think many on the east coast would disagree.)
Most small-towners on this anti-urbanism kick seem to forget that the vast majority of urban residents are just like them -- trying to find a way to raise a family and make ends meet.
I'm sure that most big city residents are trying to do just that. But the issue here is the astonishing ideological conformity of the big cities, which is not really a matter which is up for debate. They may not all look alike, but they sure as hell all think the exact same thoughts. And rather ugly thoughts they are.
I now live in a big city and tend to agree with you, though I don't think it's "astonishing" to see the conformity. Here's the reason why: I also spent the majority of my life in a small town, and it's pretty much the same level of conformity, though often a different set of ideals.
In all my life, however, I have never seen the "diversity" of ideologies in small towns that you mentioned before. Perhaps you have a different experience, though.
"But the issue here is the astonishing ideological conformity of the big cities, which is not really a matter which is up for debate. They may not all look alike, but they sure as hell all think the exact same thoughts. And rather ugly thoughts they are. "
John, I have read this blog for years, and you just made it into the quarter-finals for the single most stupid collection of words ever posted on NLT.
You are suggesting that the ideological conformity of big cities is not up for debate? You have decided that the issue is resolved, all by yourself, and that it has been somehow proven that "THEY" all think the exact same thoughts?
I remember a few years (and a week) ago,all across the country there was a great deal more sympathy for, and identification with New Yorkers. Must be all the good ones are gone, huh John?
By the way, in your thirst for intellectual diversity, are you posting comments on a number of liberal websites, or just "No Left Turns?" Hive mind my eye.
In all my life, however, I have never seen the "diversity" of ideologies in small towns that you mentioned before.
The election data makes it very clear that small towns are a good deal more ideologically diverse, politically speaking, than are the big cites.
I now live in a big city and tend to agree with you, though I don't think it's "astonishing" to see the conformity.
Then I'm not sure why you disagree with me in the following sentence.
By the way, in your thirst for intellectual diversity, are you posting comments on a number of liberal websites, or just "No Left Turns?" Hive mind my eye.
No, you fucking moron, I'm not. The hive-mind of the left does not permit different viewpoints. Or did you think that you never see conservatives on left-wing sites (unlike the way we see trolls such as yourself on right-wing sites) because of our fear of matching wits with intellectual titans such as yourself?
andrew, did the small town you lived in vote 90% for one party? I doubt it very much.
Wow John.
First, voting for one particular candidate doesn't mean that there is a lack of ideological diversity (and the same goes for "small towns" that don't have such an obvious interest in the election of one particular candidate). I think that's a pretty silly way of justifying your previous statements.
The hive-mind of the left does not permit different viewpoints.
Yes . . . of course! The left's hatred of myopic absolutism clearly means that absolutists are not welcome!!! Grrrr! What diversity haters!
And I don't know how you can "troll" on a site that clearly wants to have decent political discussion. I'd say your comments (not to mention your profanity) are more of a bother than Fung's (or anyone else's) leftist critiques.
And I don't know how you can "troll" on a site that clearly wants to have decent political discussion.
Fung has never said anything that contributes to a "decent political discussion".
I'd say your comments (not to mention your profanity blah blah
Thanks for sharing your moronic opinion.
voting for one particular candidate doesn't mean that there is a lack of ideological diversity
Then by all means dig into your vast reservoir of knowledge and explain what it does mean, and what would constitute evidence of such a lack. I'll check back later for what I'm sure will be an enlightening reply.
Btw, it's amusing to see you people who read Kos and other lefty sites on a regular basis suddenly turn into prissy old maids at the site of a four letter word.
But "do as we say, not as we do" has always been the MO of the left.
John,
About 80 percent of my county voted Bush in 2000, and about 70 percent voted Bush in 2004. It's not 90 percent, but I don't know how diverse most people consider an 80-20 or 70-30 split.
On the one hand, you try to use misunderstood electoral numbers to support your simplistic, stereotypical, and just-plain-wrong asssertion about the differences between all cities and all small towns. All the while, you are blissfully and comically unaware of the irony of generalizing about those who generalize.
Then you add a layer (or two) of irony by dissolving into an hysterical temper tantrum, complete with over-the-top language, because some readers don't allow you to spread your tripe about intellectual diversity without voicing their divergent opinions!
Would you mind posing for a poster that I'm designing? You're a human perfect storm: The anger management of John McCain, the rhetorical skills of George Bush, and the maturity of Pee Wee Herman.
I would think that those who choose to support one of our two parties should realize that by doing so they are all united in their support of the Council on Foriegn Relations. If we look at American politics in this sense we will see that gun toting flag waving crowd actually agrees on so many levels with the arrogant liberal. Here is what you are both are voting for
https://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/sovereignty_and_globalisation.html
Just look at two polarizing figures: Bush and Obama. Bush was in the CRF and all the other Rockefeller funded groups along with his handlers and cabinet people. Obama's main handler is brzezinski who has been a leader in these groups since he made Jimmy Carter. Do yourself a favor and ask if it makes sense that both parties come from the same source?
About 80 percent of my county voted Bush in 2000, and about 70 percent voted Bush in 2004.
Are you from Utah? Give me the county and I'll check out your claim. It sounds very unlikely.
Foolish Fung
misunderstood electoral numbers
What, precisely, did you not understand about the numbers I gave you? Don't be afraid to ask, I'll be happy to explain it to you.
hysterical temper tantrum
Oh, spare me your bitchy, whiney, infantile complaining, you fucking moron. If I get angry at you, you won't be in any doubt about it.
divergent opinions
You don't have a "divergent opinion", you fucking moron. Having an opinion takes a certain minimum level of intelligence, one which you conspicuously lack.
Your unfortunate students may have to play along with your delusions of intellectual grandeur. Don't expect me to.
Out of consideration for the other readers, I will stop pretending that this jerk is capable of sustaining a conversation.
i checked the numbers. it's 63-31 in 2000 for Bush and 64-34 in 2004. there were a few stragglers for write-ins. a little off my claim but still sends a pretty clear message... Repubs outnumber Dems 2-1 on our quick and dirty survey.
Foolish, foolish Fung.
In all the many pathetic comments you have left like mouse-droppings on this site, you have never once demonstrated the ability to engage in "conversation". Your entire rhetorical arsenal contains one trick - the sneer. Don't cry like a baby if it's used against you.
it's 63-31 in 2000 for Bush and 64-34 in 2004. there were a few stragglers for write-ins. a little off my claim but still sends a pretty clear message... Repubs outnumber Dems 2-1 on our quick and dirty survey.
That's a far cry from Manhattan, isn't it? Where Dems ountnumber Repubs by close to five to one! Can you explain why that happens, other than saying something like "liberals are smart"? Isn't it a hive-mind in action?
I'm pretty sure that your district has rather less then the population of Manhattan. There is a very strong relationship between population density and politics. Where people live like ants in an ant-hill, left wing politics dominate.