Is there an inherent fallacy in the political aspects of 'regionalism'?

[Stinky The Clown]

Back in my youth, I recall reading a book by Vance Packard called A Nation of Strangers. Anyone my age (older than dirt) probably also remembers it. The essential premise was that we were a nation of people always on the move. Easterners moving west, southerners moving north. The book was more about the impact of moving on us as persons, and not so much on the politcal aspects of the phenomenon.

I cite the book here merely as an introduction. I wonder how important, really, is American regionalism. One can go to Dallas and hear northeastern accents everywhere. One hears the melodic lilt of a Virginia accent in Boise.

Fundamentalist churchs abound in New England as they do in Alabama as the do in Kansas. The Klan's held rallies virtually everywhere. Democrats get elected in the south as they do in the north, albeit at somewhat different rates. The national red/blue map, when pixelated down to the county level is a remarkably even shade of mostly purple. Blue states aren't. Neither are red states.

In the northeast, you're more likely to hear 'youse guys' instead of 'y'all', but is that important?

The 'Silent Majority' was pretty vocal where I grew up in sourthern New England, just outside New York City. That was as national a phenomenon as was the 'Moral Majority'. And the two groups were largely the same people.

People are people and, across the board, they're more alike than most will admit. To be sure, there are some minor regional differences. A Waffle House in the northeast is far less likely to offer grits than one in Ft Lauderdale, but the accents of the waitresses are pretty damned similar!

I wonder - and I wonder how you see it - if we make too much of the regional differences from a political perspective. The fact is, from north to south, east to west, the margins of victory are pretty damned narrow - for either party. Yes, we have Massachussetts/Rhode Island. Yes we have Mississpppi/Alabama. But are we being best served as a Party and as a nation by playing to one or the other?

I think not.

[NMDemDist2]

1. i think it breaks down more as an urban/rural situation

the states with the largest urban centers are "Blue" the rural states more "Red"

I remember a chat I had with my BIL about guns. He thought the Dems wanted all the guns and he truly needed them for coyotes and other vermin on the farm

I explained to him in urban Phoenix how many people get shot who just are in the wrong place at the wrong time by gangbangers showing off with their guns. I was in favor of urban pistol enforcement but understood how he would need a rifle or shotgun to protect his livestock from predators

his eyes were opened as I explained about the 35 year old mother of three who was shot and killed in her car driving down the street by some teenager taking a pot shot at another car for "dissing him in front of his girlfriend at the mini mart"

so it's not regional IMO rather rural v urban that divides us

[Boojatta]

2. Accents and political policy

In the northeast, you're more likely to hear 'youse guys' instead of 'y'all', but is that important?

No, it's not important. What you have to watch out for is people speaking German. Fortunately, German is actually just English spoken with a bit of an accent. So you can understand them without an interpreter (and without subtitles).

The problem with people who speak German is that they shoot at Americans. Fortunately, their aim is terrible. They shoot and miss. So you have a chance to kill some and force the rest to surrender. That's why they lost World War II. If you don't believe me, just rent a movie.

[Syncronaut Seven]

3. Has someone secretly replaced your tobacco

With a pale green immitation? :smoke: