In the past 40 years, landslide counties — where the Republican-Democrat vote divide is more than 20 points — have increased from just 391 counties in 1980 to 1,726 today. According to The Wall Street Journal, the split manifests in everything from attitudes toward guns, COVID-19 and even church attendance. How can a U.S. President hope to lead a nation torn along partisan, ideological and even geographical lines?
Background Resource:
How Politics Has Pulled the Country in Different Directions
[The Wall Street Journal, November 10, 2020]
Right Angle with Bill Whittle, Stephen Green and Scott Ott is a production of a growing band of liberty-lovers committed to restoring this magnificent republic to its founding vision. Join us now: either become a Member or make a one-time donation.
https://youtu.be/LeM1a2YzJk4
Listen to the Audio Version
Bill Whittle Network · Landslide Divide: Republicans and Democrats Physically Separate into Partisan Counties
44 replies on “Landslide Divide: Republicans and Democrats Physically Separate into Partisan Counties”
On the fragmentation of our culture: As I remember it, Bill said that in the first half of the 20th century, our common culture was shaped by the radio, and in the second half by the television. But in more recent years we have become more fragmented by cable tv and the internet, both of what have no common set of values and culture.
I suggest that there is an institution that promotes a common set of cultural values and that is the Church. The Church is where people of disparate views gather around a common set of values and a common Savior, especially in the orthodox [lower case “o”], evangelical, and fundamentalist worlds. Then add in the RCs,the Greek and Eastern Orthodox, the Christian-like cults, and even the secularists who describe Western Civilization as “Christian civilization” (i.e., not Hindu, or Bhuddist, or pagan, or Islamic, etc.), and you have a common Christianoid (!) culture. The western world still gives lip service to the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mountain, and even takes their solemn vows in the name of God (“so help you God”), and even of the Triune God (“in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”).
Gents, to a conservative, that which is not forbidden is permitted. To a progressive, that which is not permitted is forbidden.
I often use this analogy to explain the difference between English law (negative liberties) and European law (positive rights)
You have to be careful with that around leftists because they apply it to government, believing that the first part applies to the Constitution.
I made this comment on today’s video about the COVID-19 vaccine but it is better applied here.
My grandson’s birthday is this coming Friday. Every year since he was born, my son (the older of two) has put together a big birthday party for him. There have always been somewhere between 20 and 30 people attending.
This year, “COVID being what it is,” (he told me in a text), there will be no party. Instead, there will be a sort of dinner celebration at his house with a total of about four guests, plus him, his wife, and my grandson.
Since the arrival of COVID-19, my son has been one of those frightened kittens who believes that the only alternatives are to “stay home or die gasping” (another quote, from one of his texts in the spring). I’m shocked that he’s even having the small dinner thing. I’m invited (as an afterthought, as always, but that’s a long, boring story that doesn’t belong here), and I’ve indicated that I’ll attend, but I’m not actually going. (I have a ready, authentic excuse as I’ve been having serious muscle problems in my legs – under investigation – often leaving me barely able to move).
I could call him out on his hypocrisy in having any guests at all since, as he believes, there’s a near certainty that they’ll all mutually sentence each other to inevitable, gruesome death. There’s no point to that, though, as in this matter he is impenetrable to all reason – he has had many other guests over the past nine months and has visited many others, yet still clings to his terror.
I would move away from Pennsylvania to self-segregate to a place where people aren’t socialist sheep but I stay for my grandchildren (two girls and a boy). I’m the only source of sanity for them – I effectively, by myself, raised the older girl for the first 6 of her 11 years – and I love them far more than enough not to give them up to the madness surrounding them. I’m not optimistic about succeeding at that; still, I remain.
I realize you are not a believer but I am going to pray for your health team to figure out what is going on with the muscle problems you are experiencing in your legs and to give you some relief and hope.
Thank you. I appreciate the good wishes, however we differ in beliefs.
Steve, it doesn’t matter whether it’s Republicans or Democrats doing the self-segregating. If one moves away from the other, what remains behind is just as one-sided as the counties moved to.
I have no problems whatsoever coming together with ‘Kennedy’ democrats. Those are few and far between anymore. I don’t see myself coming together with lefties as there are just too many areas that I simply can’t come to agreement on and vice versa. As long as we have communist indoctrination in our schools, the divide will only get worse.
I’m sorry Scott, but it IS a “war”. There are people who are trying to impose their will on the rest of us by extra-legal non-Constitutional means. They are trying to make this country into something the rest of us do not agree with and does not even remotely resemble the intentions of the Founders They are trying to do this by negating the US Constitution which is the Law of the Land and they are not following the laws that allow for that change to be effected.
If they want to change things, they have to change the Constitution and that document has built into it methods to accomplish that kind of change. The mechanisms for changing the Constitution require that they convince the rest of us that such a change is necessary and desirable.
Without the Constitution all the things that made this nation a record breaking endeavor of governance in human history become null and void. If they succeed in ignoring the Constitution and just implement whatever changes they like by ignoring it … Then there is de facto NO US Constitution.
Then we have a form of anarchy or even worse we have a form of tyranny that cannot be resisted by civil non-belligerent means. Thus the imposition of the will of others upon the rest of us by unlawful and unsound means is the very definition of “war”.
This is a wonderful post and I agree with it. I have one caveat about this paragraph
If they want to change things, they have to change the Constitution and that document has built into it methods to accomplish that kind of change. The mechanisms for changing the Constitution require that they convince the rest of us that such a change is necessary and desirable.
The paragraph is true and factually correct. But here is how the left gets around this factual truth — they tell us that the Constitution is a “living document.” That sounds reasonable at first glance, but what they really MEAN is “Times have changed, this is no longer 1797. Therefore we have to re-interpret the Constitution so that it fits our needs today.”
The changes made by such “re-interpretations” have been small, and subtle, and nearly unnoticeable. But over time people’s perception of what the Constitution says (and what it does not say) has become muddled and confused. Ergo, the Constitution has effectively been changed without going through the process specified in the paragraph quoted above. Even judges are confused, it would seem!
I’m not sure I understand what you mean here. It seems to me like you’re saying that somehow the meaning of the U.S. Constitution “has become muddled and confused”? If so …
That’s not so. Lying about something does not change that thing. When I swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same …” that is the very same exact document General Norman Schwarzkopf, Generals Eisenhower, Patton and McCarthur, Admiral “Bull” Halsey, General “Chesty” Puller, Colonel Teddy Roosevelt, Generals William Tecumseh Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant… and all the rest of the people who have worn an American uniform since the U.S. Constitution was ratified — have sworn that oath to.
The application of sophistry –
soph·ist·ry
/ˈsäfəstrē/
noun
noun: sophistry
-Oxford English Dictionary
1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation.
-Merriam-Websters Dictionary
Does not alter a thing. It changes nothing material or substantial in any way and the U.S. Constitution is both material and substantial.
Constructive and creative re-interpretations do not alter meaning nor intent. Try as they might, the Left cannot alter that immutable fact., They might ignore it, which may lead to criminal actions, but they can’t change it. Unless by the mechanisms and provisions the Constitution itself specifies for modifying itself. That’s the beauty of the document, it’s either all valid or it’s all invalid, you can’t pick the parts you want to ignore. You can’t drag it out and selectively deploy it as a weapon against political adversaries while disregarding the parts that thwart your own agenda. At the end of the day, that’s all there is to it no matter how many people they manage to dupe.
So I’m missing something here, I think I’m not understanding what you said in the way you meant it.
Sorry ACTS, for not being clear. I’m trying to say that some people (the Left) reads the Constitution differently than you or me, They say its a “living document” which needs to be read according to the world we live in today — not the world of 1797. For instance, Article I section 8 specifically gives CONGRESS the power ” . . . . to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal . . . ..” According to Constitution.org this is their definition
Letters of marque and reprisal are commissions or warrants issued to someone to commit what would otherwise be acts of piracy. They will normally contain the following first three elements, unless they imply or refer to a declaration of war to define the enemies, and may optionally contain the remainder:
So when Osama bin Laden was killed and hard drives, etc. taken from his compound, did Congress issue a Marque and Letter of Reprisal? No. Why not? Because there was a “reason” not to share any information with Congress. (I’m not arguing whether it is right or wrong, just pointing out that the Constitution wasn’t followed). Leftist would say that this is a good example of the Constitution being a “living document” and needs to be “re-interpreted” to follow the way we live now. But there was NO AMENDMENT to change hits — this part of the Constitution was simply ignored (at least in the example I gave).
Here’s another one: “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation” (Amendment 5). Yet how many times have you heard of a Sheriff pulling over a motorist and then discovers $20,000 in cash in the car? The officer TAKES the cash and it is used as part of the budget of that Sheriff’s department (or police precinct, etc.). The citizen is deprived of his property with no compensation. The Constitution was not followed, there was no amending of the Constitution, but it seems to happen over and over. A leftist would probably respond with something like “that was written so that public roads, military forts, etc. could be built. It doesn’t apply to anything else.”
I’m trying to say that leftists “bend” the Constitution (without amending it!) so that it fits “today’s world.” And they get away with it little by little. If the Constitution no longer means what it SAYS it means, then a lot of the practices going on today make a mockery of the Constitution. And that saddens me immensely.
I apologize for the length of this reply.
9;38 Bill explains why we come here.
Scott, at the end you say that both sides basically agree that they feel we need to somehow come together. The problem is that conservatives believe in individual rights and freedoms, the left in societal restrictions for the greater good. And neither the twain shall meet.
I have a thought on how we can unite. Any Lefty who calls for unity, healing, etc. should get a response along the lines of, “OK, you finally got me to come around. How do I join #TheResistance”, and what’s our first task?
Na, tell them to join the Space Force. Then we put them in a rocket….
Please eliminate the terms “liberal” and “progressive” from your vocabularies. These are words that have positive connotations for most people. (I know, I grew up thinking “liberal” was a pejorative term too, but the vast majority of people think it’s a compliment.) We lose this culture war when we allow the other side to choose the terms.
I agree, don’t cede ground on their favorite battlefield: manipulating language. I avoid use of “liberal” because it no longer means what it once did (permissive). “statist” and “collectivist” might be apt substitutes?
I prefer “leftist” or more accurately “Neo-Marxist”.
It doesn’t matter what we call them, they’ll just redefine. I say we turn the tables and call them ‘Nazis’ – which is basically what the lefties are and they’ll have a really hard time redefining that one.
I like “fascist,” too. Basically, we need to shove their Alinksy-ite projections right back on them. THEY are the racists who are judging people by their skin color. THEY and the people wearing black shirts and masks beating up people who disagree with them. THEY are the people who do not follow science. THEY are the people who think they have the moral authority to tell other people what to do. THEY are the ones who colluded with Russia and China to interfere in a presidential election. THEY are the ones who pledged not to concede the election and bragged about their team of hundreds of lawyers ready to file lawsuits. THEY are the ones cheating. THEY are the ones ignoring the rule of law. THEY are the ones openly censoring anyone they don’t like. And so on.
Unfortunately hanging the monikers of Nazi or Fascist on someone has about the same effect today as calling them a racist. All are overused terms that no longer pack a punch.
Miserable, vomitous masses? Warthog-faced buffoons?
For years now I only refer to them as “The Radical Left”. They deserve nothing less
For the most part, I could follow the discussion. We don’t live in a “normal” state, we live in Texas. In Texas, we live in a rural county (having escaped Austin). In this county my wife and I reside in a community of nudists. Of the 50 or so that live here full time and the visitors that come in with RVs or rent cabins for a weekend or a week, probably 98% are little “l” libertarians. Don’t tell us what to do and we won’t tell you what to do. Now, having said that, if you put us in danger or try to impose your will on us, we will make it so that you want to move on. Bottom line, live your life the way you want, don’t impact mine and we’ll get along.
Ad a fellow nudist I had to chuckle at your use of the term “bottom line” 🙂
Quit shattering the “uptight puritanical conservative” stereotype, you two. That’s not allowed! 😁
Many people would be surprised to find out how many nudists lean libertarian. I might say most.
I would have guessed it was a requirement! But I guess one could expect substantial crossover with the Left on this too.
We’ve traveled to many nudist parks and while there have been a few “conservatives” and “liberals”, most of the people we have met have been non hard-core, little “l” libertarians. my kind of people.
I was pretty “straight laced” at one time but it came untied.
Didn’t cross my mind as I typed it, but I’m glad it brought a chuckle. We need more of those.
Scott’s vision is limited by the fact that progressives not only want to change things, they want to change them by using the coercive force of government making their vision of equal and uniform outcomes universal. Conservatives are ill equipped to prevent this destruction of a federated constitutionally limited government because we don’t insist on universal structures, preferring liberty and personal connections. If you are limited to fighting a rear guard campaign, you will lose ground, which we have done for decades.
If you have the numbers on the conservative side, you might be able to actually reverse course and deconstruct the damage at the national and state levels over time. This surface was scratched over the past four years. We don’t have those numbers and as the conservative people of a certain age pass on to be replaced by the progressively educated up and coming generations, the balance will grow worse.
We needed to deconstruct the progressive stste/public educational system and that opportunity of permitting choice and incentives for choice looks to effectively be gone for now.
I mostly agree Michael, but I’ve seen recent, rapid, cross-party-line changes in attitudes toward schooling due to heavy-handed COVID response and the impact on kids and families that seem to indicate the school choice issue is still in play. My wife and I differ politically, but neither of us hesitated to move our 8-year-old son, who was struggling grievously with online instruction, to a private school that he can attend in person 5 days a week and that has made him a whole different kid again. My wife, who just a couple of years ago ran for school board to help support the teachers’ union, was shocked by the union’s behavior in pushing to keep schools closed while wailing about teachers being in mortal danger when grocery checkers, truck drivers, health care workers, et. al. had been back to work for months under much riskier conditions. Between that and working at a state university where public sector unions have made her job a nightmare, she’s come around and begun to see the light. “I never knew unions could be so awful,” she said to me last September. The sentiments I’m seeing from other parents seem to likewise cross the usual left/right boundary. My sister-in-law (also a Democrat) observed that it’s the so-called “progressive” towns here in NJ that are fighting to keep schools closed. So take some heart in that, maybe. People can only disregard or blind themselves to obvious truths for so long. Recent events may have put enough strain on a broken school system to get the attention of every single parent who cares about their kids’ well-being, independent of political affiliation. I would love to find ways to leverage this awakening to make real improvements while the iron is hot.
COVID and the Lockdowns have awakened many in our town as well. People are much more open to school choice, charter and private schools. Those who still seem so opposed I’ve noticed tend to be single and/or childless and yet so happy to lecture the rest of us about education and how to raise our children.
We have become The Untied States of America. The Dems are not the cause, they are simply taking advantage of a Culture War. “Politics is downstream of Culture.” This will not be pretty.
It is with great sadness, Scott, that I have to inform and correct you on a specific point. Rhode Island and Providence Plantations is no more! We (collectively – NOT ME) voted to abandon our historic name in favor of political correctness, and pandering to the blm crowd. We have severed “and Providence Plantations” from our name. We are now merely Rhode Island. It makes me sad.
That’s a shame. When did this happen?
Probably recently. I somewhat remember them talking about that extra part of the name on one of the shows.
The Republicans want to bring our country together because that would be a good thing.
The Thug Democrats want to bring their country together because they need a sub-country to subject to the lash. (And they need someone to grow their food, fix their toilet, and similar).
Bingo!
There is an unbridgeable divide. It is the primacy of existence vs the primacy of consciousness.
Those of us who think existence is primary do want to live and let live, who interact only with the willing for mutual benefit, keep their word, and take care of their own. They think in the long term about what really is in their best interests and not just a momentary whim.
Those of us who think consciousness is primary live by wishing things to be so, by naming things what they are not, and by defining their concepts by using characteristics they don’t have. They wish others to take care of them so they demand the government do so. They want to have with out producing so they demand the government give them what they want. They also believe that others, outside of their sacred collective, do not really exist, so they are willing to take the product of the producers lives and make it impossible for the producers to produce. They cannot think in the long term. They want what they want when they want it and they want it for free. They are willing to pillage, burn, and destroy anything they feel is in their way. That they are destroying the very thing that keeps them alive is no concern of theirs. They believe there will always be more to take, burn, and destroy. How? Somehow.
The first perspective is the perspective that was used to found this nation. The second perspective is the perspective that has resulted in the collapse of every civilization that ever existed and is seriously risking our technological civilization that sustains us all. It is a matter of life or death and THAT choice is not a matter of opinion. It is a difference that makes all the difference that counts.
If the corrupt cities think they know so much, make them live with ONLY what they produce. They think that by stealing an election, they get to pillage the entire country and take anything that is not locked down. As they do this, they expect the rest of the country to feed them voluntarily. I say LET THEM STARVE TO DEATH! They need us, we DON’T need them. They can go to HELL!