In my mind, this is the most important blog post you probably haven’t read. If you are not a Salon subscriber, you will need to watch an ad or subscribe. Watch the ad or subscribe, either way, read it.
The idea that Americans of the Midwest and South are somehow more “American” than the rest of us, is one that has intrigued and disturbed me for a great while. I can recall, as a child, watching the spectacle of Dan Rather, on the CBS Evening News, donning his checkered shirt and denim jeans to interview a group of these “real Americans” for some reason or another. I surely can’t recall. I’d venture to guess that every major and minor news program broadcasts, at least a few, significant pieces each year, on the great people of the heartland and their “real” American values, “real” American lifestyle and “real” American work ethic.
Don’t get me wrong here. That’s great. We should celebrate Americans, regardless of who they are or where they live or what their story is. We should be excited about our countrypeople.
Here’s the root of my problem. As I’ve stated over and over on this blog, my neighborhood is a cemetery. The people buried in my neighborhood, died fighting for their country’s independence or died as prisoners of war in that revolution. From my roof, I can very nearly see the building where America declared its independence and where its constitution was written. I walk by that building on a regular basis, doing regular errands or going to the movies or whatever. Does that make me more American than somebody from Kansas? Of course not. It is what it is.
I live in a rowhouse, on a block of rowhouses, in a city of rowhouses. Like most of my neighbors, I only occupy a small portion of my rowhouse, as most of the houses were divided into apartments long ago. A typical block in this part of my city has somewhere between 200 and 500 residents, and sometimes as many as several thousand. Each block is about a tenth of a mile long and not too many feet wide. Does living in this close of a proximity to so many people make me less of an American than an Iowa resident who lives miles from his nearest neighbor? Does it make me more of an American than him? Does it somehow corrupt my values? Of course not. It is what it is.
To the best of my understanding, my ancestors settled in Kensington long before it was a part of Philadelphia and long before there was a United States of America. Does that matter? Does that mean anything or add anything, in real terms, to me or to my value as a citizen? Does it take anything away? Of course not. It is what it is.
At a bare minimum, I work ten hours a day, and during the winter months, I never see my home by daylight, save for weekends. I take 10 vacation days a year, along with 3 paid sick/personal days. Is there something wrong with my work ethic? Is it somehow un-American? Am I working hard enough to qualify as a full voter? A great many people in my part of the country put my work hours to shame. They work some 70 to 90 hours a week. Is their work ethic good enough? Are they “real” Americans?
Anyway. Here’s a taste of Gary Gregg’s National Review article that got me so pissed off and which is ripped so nicely in Salon:
Take a look at the results of the 2000 election and it becomes radically clear that the electoral college that produced the Bush victory is having an important and salutary impact on our political system. Its the electoral college that keeps the values of traditional America relevant in the 21st century and the electoral college that helps rural America balance the immense cultural, economic, and social power of urban centers.
Abolishing the electoral college would mean transferring near complete political power to metropolitan areas who are already producing the candidates and funding them as well. Al Gore demonstrated in 2000 that the national popular vote can be won by appealing to a narrow band of the electorate heavily secular, single, and concentrated in cities.
In 2000, Al Gore won the vote in major cities 71 percent to 26 percent for George Bush. Alternatively, Bush won rural communities 59 percent to 37 percent. These are very large margins showing a drastic difference in the geographic centers of the divided electorate.
That narrow band he’s referring to is, of course, the majority of Americans.