Two weeks ago I returned from visiting my family in the Mississippi Delta. My youngest son and I went to my uncle‘s funeral. His ashes were to be buried in the cemetery that contains the graves of my family going back to my great-great-grandmother (or was it three ‘greats’?) who was born in the first half of the 19th century. I dug the hole that would serve as my uncle’s grave close to my grandparents’ graves, and I led the prayer for the nine of us who came to the burial. Nine people attending a funeral in a cemetery bordered by a church and corn and soybean fields, in the Delta’s summer heat and humidity, the musical accompaniment courtesy of the cicadas rubbing their legs together. Not bad, not bad at all.
After the funeral we all came back to the house, and I barbecued some pork and beef ribs for those who came with us. My youngest son listened as my older brother and I talked with one of the attendees, a woman who was a distant cousin, and who, along with her husband, is a community leader. My youngest son later asked me why we were all talking about corn and other crops with such enthusiasm; after all, he’s a young scion of what I refer to as the Age of Wonders, the days of the Internet, cell phones, stem cells, practical applications of quantum physics, and miracle drugs. As I listened to my son (who thought the whole discussion was silly; pointless in the modern world), I couldn’t help but be reminded of a scene in the movie, Deliverance, in which Burt Reynolds and his sole surviving friend are at a dinner table with some locals, and two old women are discussing just how big their cucumbers and squash were in the past season. I told my son that just as grown folks in industrial areas will often talk about what they see as the finer points of industry, those who make their livelihoods in farming communities will talk about the fruits of the soil.
But while the woman and my brother and I were talking, I could see the conversation going in a direction I wasn’t comfortable with, so I told my son that if he wanted he could go play on the Playstation, and he happily complied. I did so because the woman was starting to talk about her opinions of blacks, and while I wasn’t afraid of her influencing my son in any way, I was certainly concerned that he might speak up against her. After all, a dinner after a funeral was no place for a political discussion. My brother watched me as I politely listened and struggled to keep a sincere smile on my face. He knows my political leanings and my opinion of racism, and he had to be laughing to himself about it.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - roger nowosielski
Great article, Glenn. I think it's a more sensible account of the relevant differences in ideologies. Your point about having grown up in the country, and a level of self-reliance that comes with it, is especially well taken.
I don't think you'll find as many detractors this time, but I'm not betting.
2 - Doug Hunter
I have mixed feelings about this article, you hit on a couple of good points including the one on self reliance with which I would fully agree. Some of the other points are not as clear as you would suggest. For example, the cities can disguise pockets of extreme poverty with a couple billionaires taking residence there skewing the income data. Although I don't think rural areas earn as much they don't need as much to have the same standard of living.
You mention diversity. Are you talking about the same cities with their gated communities with it's own school and their blighted neighborhood with it's own school and the wealthy downtown district with a private prep academy for the rich? Rural areas might self segregate by skintone more but that's only one aspect of diversity. I'd say a rural school where everyone, regardless of income, goes has another type of diversity often not found in the city.
Where did you get your data on rural vs urban crime rates? Data from the US DOJ seems to disagree with you on both property and violent crimes.
As to the lack of reception to mass media and the corresponding propaganda in the country, I'd also count that as a positive . I know you need to get em mad about their race, and their class, and the world to recruit em into your liberal revolution lite, but there is something to be said about leading your life based on real experiences and real perceptions rather than fantasies being spoon fed to you by those with an agenda.
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Doug -
In my article I referred to an earlier article wherein my conclusion was wrong due to a logical error...and I believe I've corrected that error in this article.
If you'll click on the link provided in the previous paragraph you can peruse that article which provides links to official and reliable sources that back up not only the claims I made in this article, but much more.
In fact, if you'll peruse that article, you'll find that blue states are better off than red states in the following categories:
* the percentage of the population with health insurance was higher in blue states
* life expectancy is generally higher in blue states. The very blue District of Columbia was in 51st place...but nos. 37 through 50 were ALL red states.
* Blue states have healthier overall living conditions, according to the United Health Foundation, who figured the rankings according to a combination of factors including the rate of high school graduation, the violent crime rate, the percentage of children in poverty, the per capita public health funding, ready access to primary care, the disparity of mortality rates within the state, the premature death rate, the obesity rate, the preventable hospitalization rate, and rate of infectious disease. Once more, the top of the list is almost completely blue, and the bottom of the list is almost completely red.
* Blue states generally have a higher level of education
* And blue states generally median household income
* crime (in fact, I post a link showing a strong correlation between higher median household income and lower crime...which of course gives the nod to the blue states)
* the top five states topping the list of homicide rates were all southern anti-gun-control red states
* if you look at the national rate of violent crime and the national murder rate, the ONLY region that was above the median national rate was the South.
* the divorce rate is generally higher in red states
Now, are all the statistics weighted against the red states? No. I post a link showing that there's a greater prevalence of drug use in blue states.
Perhaps the most interesting link I post is one from the Census Bureau showing that the top ten recipients of federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are almost all red states...and the ten states that receive the LEAST federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are almost all blue!
But what was my error? My error was blaming these statistics on conservative politics...and I've since realized that the conservative leanings of those states was NOT the cause of all of the above statistics. Instead, I believe those conservative leanings are actually the RESULT of the low level of urbanization of those states.
The more rural a state's population, the more likely that state is to be a red state.
Conversely, the more urban a state's population, the more likely that state is to be better educated, have life insurance and a longer life expectancy, have a lower violent crime/murder rate, have a higher median income, have higher rate of drug use, and the more likely that state is to be a blue state.
That's what the statistics clearly show: in the BIG picture, the more urban the population of a state, the better off that population is...and the more likely that population is to be a blue state.
The differences between the states aren't because of the difference between political leanings...but the political leanings of the states are definitely a result of the level of urbanization in those states.
And where does that leave us? As urbanization in America increases, life will generally become better, and our politics will become bluer...
...sorta like what's happened to Europe over the past century.
4 - roger nowosielski
Say mea culpa three more times and you'll be exonerated, my son.
5 - Christine
Glen, very interesting article...
"What leads someone to lean to conservative or liberal views? Is it nature or nurture?"
How would you classify those of us who were orphans and adopted by a bunch of idiots, raised in Southern California and in poverty to boot, yet went to Catholic school? Could go on...
Sounds scary doesn't it?
How do we find our political views?
6 - roger nowosielski
poverty in Southern California?
7 - Christine
Yes, Roger in Palm Springs to be exact!
8 - Christine
Oh and throw this into the pile of shit, three step fathers, two of which were racists, whom I despised because it.
9 - roger nowosielski
Christine,
It's a recipe for disaster. Thank goodness you're no worse than a Republican. I'll shut up from now on.
10 - Glenn Contrarian
Christine -
Look to see why I call myself 'contrarian'.
I'm white, a strong Christian, retired military, and was raised in the MS Delta, at ground zero for racism in America, my grandmother used to work for someone who became the most powerful racist in America for a generation.
Demographically speaking, I oughta be a rabid racist right-winger...but I'm a proud liberal - and the fact drives my family in the Delta to distraction.
11 - Christine
Roger you do make me laugh, but it was and is my faith (strong Christian) that pulled me through and am actually quite sane, believe it or not.
Glenn thanks for responding, I was just being rambunctious. Sorry about your uncle.
12 - Silas Kain
Glenn, what a great piece! And in reading through the narrative a second time it dawned on me, would you not say that in more rural areas of the country there is a real sense of community? Take the Amish, for instance, and the barn raisings. Or Mormons in Utah who really do work together for each other in extraordinary ways. Couldn't these acts of community support just be its own brand of socialism?
I agree that education is a core factor but in a simpler sense, rural folks will go an extra mile to help out their neighbor in the context of their environment. Sure, urbanites are more prone to "social" programs -- but just what is classified as a social program? Are they only government sponsored? Would not church programs be a form? This article of yours is very thought provoking.
13 - Silas Kain
How do we find our political views?
Christine, don't you think Catholic education has something to do with it? For all intents and purposes I would say the majority of Catholic educated folk tend to be quite liberal. My Mom's side of the clan were all Jesuit educated. While their personal views are very conservative, they vote liberal, support liberal causes and are rabid Democrats.
14 - Christine
Silas, the Catholic Priests and Nuns were my saving grace and the true inspirations of my life when I was growing up. I think most Catholics are Democrats, however, I am Republican and lean toward conservatism, with a few liberal views. Oh well, so much for the norm...
15 - roger nowosielski
Christine,
How else can one respond to such a revelation?And in light of this, believe you me, all is forgiven.
16 - Doug Hunter
Glenn, you switched from rural-urban to red state-blue state on me. The crime statistics are very clear that urban areas have higher violent and property crime rates. You were wrong and changing the subject doesn't change that.
I know that's not PC to point out but there are more than just political differences between the lilly white bastions of liberalism in New England and the old slave states. Whatever the cause, African Americans rank poor statistically in all the categories you mention and are much more prevalent in the south. Additionally, many areas also have recent hispanic immigrants who have about a 50% dropout rate and low incomes.
If you could take Connecticut politics and infrastructure and import 25% of the population from southern blacks then drop a couple million non english speaking immigrants off in the home depot parking lot for a grand social experiment and maintain the wonderful income, poverty, and crime stats for the next generation then you'd have something to preach about. I suspect you'd end up with stats much like the south, a few more grumbling racists, and alot more conservative whites. Until then you're comparing apples to oranges.
** The closest you have come to that would be Maryland (great income and poverty stats) but it's crime rate is through the roof and even with it's high income it's a net taker on federal funds at $1.44/$1 taxes.
17 - Glenn Contrarian
Christine - thanks.
Silas - I would agree that those in the countryside do have a greater sense of community, of 'neighborliness' than those in the city...but only for those within what they see as 'their' community.
For instance, where I grew up, we'd all bend over backwards to help someone who went to the local Baptist or Methodist churches, but not so much for the ones who went to the Church of God, and certainly not the ones who went to the 'black' churches that the African-Americans attended.
What's more, we were very careful about anyone who lived in the 'city' - which in this case referred to four nearby towns that were in a radius of about 20 miles, which had populations of about 2500, 6000, 11000, and 15000...and the more we were suspicious about those who were from the 'hills' (outside of the MS Delta), out of state, from 'out West', and especially anyone from that national quadrant east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon.
It's not without reason that when we speak of "someone from the wrong side of the tracks" with suspicion, for where I went to high school, the 'good' families (almost all white) were on one side of the railroad tracks, and everyone else was on the other side of the tracks.
Those who grow up in the country, IMO, tend to be more insular about whom they'll accept as 'one of us'...whereas those from the city, having been exposed to many people of many different colors and cultures and nations and languages more readily accept them into the 'community'.
Lastly, here in Puget Sound, a biracial couple doesn't raise an eyebrow. Even same-sex couples aren't unusual anymore here. However, in the Delta I saw one biracial couple - a white man and an Asian woman - but no black/white couples. Not a single one, despite the everyday proximity of the blacks and whites who each make up close to 50% of the populations of Bolivar and Sunflower counties.
To most of the white community in the Delta, the idea of a black man with a white woman is...heretical, and the idea that a white woman would actually want to be with a black man, well, they can tell you all about what kind of woman SHE is, can't they?
In my household, there are four full-blood Asians, one black/white mix, one Hispanic/white mix, and myself. We did have a full-blood Native American, but he passed away a couple years ago. A household like mine would be unthinkable in the Delta.
Mississippi - it's a great place to be away from. I'll always miss the land there...but I'll not expose my family to the racism that is still rampant in the heart of the conservative political base.
18 - Doug Hunter
Here's a map of US poverty. It also allows you to map areas by different demographics: Census Poverty Map
It becomes clear that poverty is explained much more by racial makeup than voting status. There are a couple of intersting things. The very rural kentucky/West Virginia area is very white yet has really high poverty. It seems most likely to fit the picture you were painting in the article (i.e using rural status to define voting and income patterns). A counterexample would be Utah, very conservative with lots of positive stats.
Also, here are two quotes and the link to back up my assertion that rural crime rates are lower from the USDOJ: USDOJ Crime Stats
"Urban residents had the highest violent victimization rates, followed by suburban resident rates. Rural residents had the lowest rates."
"Urban households have historically been and continue to be the most vulnerable to property crime, burglary, motor vehicle theft and theft in the United States. In 2005 urban households experienced overall property crime at rates higher than those for suburban or rural households."
19 - Glenn Contrarian
Doug - when it comes to the human condition you can always, always, ALWAYS point out exceptions to the rule...
...but those exceptions do not disprove the rule.
Look again at everything I've posted - it's all "GENERALLY SPEAKING", which means that YES, there will be exceptions to the rule...but the rule is STILL valid.
Can you disprove my contention that rural areas tend to be conservative, while urban areas tend to be liberal?
No, you can't.
Can you disprove that, GENERALLY SPEAKING, urban areas have longer life expectancies, higher wages, lower violent crime rates, higher education?
No, you can't. Again, while there ARE exceptions to the rule, the significant majority of the time my contentions are TRUE.
You can point out exceptions to the rule all day long, but you canNOT disprove what IS the case the significant majority of the time.
And here's something else for you to chew on - what I posted is true not only for America, but for the world as a whole. The more rural the human population, the more conservative their outlook TENDS to be. The more urbanized the population, the more educated, better paid, longer-living, less affected by violent crime they TEND to be.
"Generally speaking", Doug. Tendencies. Likelihoods in the BIG picture - not this or that single city or state, but across the nation AS A WHOLE. All strongly backed up by statistics from good, reliable and (mostly) non-partisan sources.
It's not-so-simple math - but math nonetheless...and absolutely correct.
20 - Clavos
Can you disprove that, GENERALLY SPEAKING, urban areas have...lower violent crime rates...?
Yes.
He just did.
21 - Doug Hunter
Yes, Clav, I did.
As for the others, you don't need the same income to live in rural areas where the cost of living is much lower. Life expectancy, again, depends more on racial demographics than rural/urban status. Hawaii, Utah, and Minnesota are the top three, not exactly the urban centers of the universe. The lowest are basically straight by their black populations: DC, MS, LA, AL, etc.
I think he is right on higher education, although those professionals are likely the ones filling out the suburbs trying to hold their job in the city and also gettin a glimmer of the peaceful rural life.
I live in the country on acreage in one of the reddest counties of the country. My wife is Puerto Rican and no one has ever given a shit. She's actually quite the sociable community member. The world is much more complicated than red state = bad, blue state = good.
22 - Glenn Contrarian
Doug -
Gee, look at this! From a different page on the US DOJ site:
* Rates of murder, and especially those involving guns, are higher in southern regions of the United States--in the East South Central, West South Central, and the South Atlantic regions.
* For over 20 years, the rates in the Pacific region were above average; in 1998 they fell below the national norm.
* The rates of the Middle Atlantic and East North Central regions were closest to the national average of all regions.
* Relatively low rates exist in the New England, Mountain, and West North Central regions. Rates in the mountain region have moved from below the national average to slightly above in recent years.
So the Pacific, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, New England, Mountain, and West North Central regions were ALL near or below the national average.
What was left, the ONLY region significantly above the norm? The South.
Like I posted, generally speaking, in states where a higher percentage of the population is urbanized, the lower the violent crime rate is.
Now an interesting question might be, exactly WHY is it that, if people within urban areas have a higher rate of violent crime victimization, WHY do states where the population as a whole is more urbanized have a significantly LOWER crime rate than those states where the population is less urbanized and more rural?
But work with me here, Doug, because here's a blurb from the FBI that backs you up: "The law enforcement agencies in the Nation’s cities, collectively, reported 577.0 violent offenses per 100,000 in population in 2004. By population group with the city label, law enforcement agencies in the Nation’s largest cities, those with 250,000 and over inhabitants, reported the highest rate, 932.6 violent crimes for each 100,000 inhabitants in 2004, and agencies in cities with 10,000 to 24,999 inhabitants reported the lowest rate, 303.7. Law enforcement agencies in the Nation’s metropolitan counties reported a rate of 331.1 violent crimes per 100,000 resident population; those in nonmetropolitan counties reported a rate of 215.6 violent crimes per 100,000 resident population."
So you're right that the urban areas have more violent crime...but the more urbanized STATES (most of which are blue) have significantly LESS crime. So what's the answer to this particular conundrum?
I'm serious, now - you pointed out a good counterstatistic, so let's look for the explanation.
Also, bear in mind that you've only made inroads against the crime statistic. You've got nothing against the stats posted about education level, life expectancy, median income level, divorce rate.
As far as I'm concerned, my points still stand. Good effort, but you've got a long way to go.
But take your time - I'm offline till tomorrow.
23 - Doug Hunter
Ok, life expectancy. The only papers I can find in the US are one study shown here.
The study covered a cohort of already older people so it doesn't cover youth and infant mortality. It shows than in seven of eight demographics rural residents had longer lifespans than their urban counterparts.
"Among a cohort of Americans aged 65 to 69 in 1982, in seven of the eight subgroups, individuals in rural areas lived longer lives than those in urban areas."
There is a Scottish study showing longer lives in rural areas. Once Canadian study shows urban residents living longer but admits that it is skewed by poverty stricken indigenous people in the rural north.
The results are mixed there but I wouldn't say it's a given that urban folks live longer (especially in light of the fact that the only US study I can find says exactly the opposite)
Now, I've knocked your crime claim down, I've at least cast doubt on your longevity claim. What else do you have?
(I know you don't want to hear it but the answer to your crime question lies largely in racial demographics not political alignment. For now high minority polulation = high crime area. That is a serious problem that needs fixing but it is the truth)
24 - Glenn Contrarian
The "only one you can find"?
What about the one I linked to in my first article? Actually, I just checked that one and found it's a copy of the link just previous to that one - sorry.
So I Googled "list state life expectancy" and voila! Just what I said about life expectancy, courtesy of Business Week!
And have you 'knocked' my crime claim down? As I said above, yes, you're right that the urban areas have more violent crime...but the more urbanized STATES (most of which are blue) have significantly LESS crime.
WHY, then, do the more urbanized (mostly blue) STATES have significantly LESS crime than the less urbanized (mostly red) states, even when most urban areas have higher levels of crime?
That's a puzzle indeed! How about taking a crack at it and telling us why this is?
25 - Glenn Contrarian
And when it comes to racial demographics, yes, areas with higher percentages of minorities DO have higher violent crime rates...but I remember something interesting in the FBI stats I mentioned earlier - the violent crime rate for MS was a bit over three hundred per one hundred thousand people, not much different from that of Washington state. However, the violent crime rate for Tennessee was over seven hundred per one hundred thousand - more than twice the rate of MS, even though the blacks make up a higher percentage of the MS population than in TN.
So...where did this one come from? And what does this do to your "racial demographics" point?
And WHY, then, do the more urbanized (mostly blue) states have significantly LOWER crime rates than the less urbanized (mostly red) states?