Separatist movements are sometimes fueled by differences in political culture. Political beliefs are a bit like religion because most people inherit their political attitudes from parents and from the community in which they live. Certainly, there are individuals who think for themselves or rebel against their parents and/or community, but for the most part, regions rarely change their political orientations. For example, the Lowland South region of the US has been politically conservative for the last 200 years. San Francisco has been politically progressive from its birth during the Gold Rush. How a region develops its political culture is very interesting to geographers, but it is difficult to determine the origins of political culture.
Sometimes, it is difficult to even categorize a region’s political culture accurately. Some of the blame for this difficulty can be placed with the news media because it does a poor job of accurately characterizing political beliefs in the US. The US news media tends to only use “liberal” and “conservative” to describe political beliefs in the US, but those terms inadequately describe even the most basic elements of the American political spectrum. Also, politicians and media pundits have overloaded those terms with conflicting meanings making them difficult to use in an academic setting where precision is important. This text uses more useful, alternative, spatially-sensitive set of terminology.
Western Libertarians
Americans who have strong opinions about personal liberty are best characterized as libertarians. So, if you are a fan of Las Vegas, with its very relaxed regulation of gambling, prostitution, and alcohol, you probably think government has no business regulating your personal behaviors. Staunch libertarians also think the government should take little from you in the way of taxes, minimally regulate economic and business activity, and provide little assistance to individuals (welfare, college tuition, free highways, and free beaches). Libertarians most often vote for Republicans, which prompts the news media to refer to them simply as “conservatives”, which is a misleading oversimplification.
Figure 7-12: Slab City, CA. This building, formerly a sentry station marks the entrance to Slab City, a nearly anarchist community living in the Low Desert of California. Few laws regulate behavior or ensure a quality of life here.
Libertarians argue that the government should be as small as possible; interfering and intervening in the lives of individuals as infrequently as possible. Personal responsibility and low taxes are central themes of libertarian doctrine. Distrust of the government is high among libertarians, and they think dependency on government programs is a widespread social-ill. The right to own guns and low taxes are rallying cries in this philosophy. Libertarians generally cling to a classical economic theory calling for very low taxes and minimal regulation on private enterprise and property. Libertarians also dislike government intervention in environmental matters. Ironically, in this region, many people make their living by drilling for oil, ranching and cutting timber on government-owned lands. Many of those who exploit government lands, pay far less for the use of government-owned land than they would in a truly free-market environment.
There are some serious libertarians in the US, but they probably are not a majority in any region of the United States. The Mountain West, where cultural diversity and population densities are both low is probably the region of the US where libertarians are most numerous. Recall from the Agriculture chapter how lands in this region of the US are completely divided according to the Township and Range cadastral system, which seems to encourage a sense of individualism and undermine collective social action.
Southern Traditionalists
In the Upland and Lowland South, there lives another group of mislabeled “conservatives”. These conservatives should be considered political traditionalists instead. Sometimes, traditionalists are called social conservatives or “the Religious Right” by the media, which is more accurate. Traditionalists seek to maintain a traditional value system they consider necessary for the continuance of traditional cultural practices.
Figure 7-13: Vernon, LA - This abandoned nightclub offers a landscape clue into the evolving role of religion in the maintenance of moral law. Alcohol was illegal in the county in the foreground, so those wishing to drink had to cross County Line Road to visit this establishment. The club went out of business when beer was legalized in both counties.
Traditionalists frequently say they oppose “big government”, and there is has been true for policies involving civil rights are concerned. However, traditionalists have also advanced a great number of laws that regulate even highly personal behaviors of individuals. Abortion is the most well-known issue motivating traditionalists, but they also strongly favor laws promoting prayer-in-school, laws banning alcohol consumption, and some laws that undermine the civil rights of specific groups (gays, minorities, women, etc.).
For a century following the Civil War, the states of the former Confederacy were referred to as “the Solid South” because of their unwavering support for the Democratic Party. For many decades after the Civil War, Southern animosity lingered for Republican Party (Abraham Lincoln was a Republican). In the years after the Great Depression, Southerners embraced the progressive economic programs of the Democrats that helped the poor, especially during the presidency of Franklin D.
Figure 7-14: Map of Sexual Privacy in the United States. States in blue overturned sodomy laws earlier than purple states. The map demonstrates that Social Conservatives embrace "big government" when it suits their cultural values. Wikimedia
Roosevelt. They even called themselves “Boll Weevil Democrats”, referencing insects that infested cotton plants.
Southern traditionalists first began leaving the Democratic party in the 1950s when northern Democrats pushed hard on their Southern partners to grant more Civil Rights to African-Americans in the South. Battles over abortion laws, women’s rights, prayer in school and other hot-button issues continued to alienate southern Democrats from their northern allies until 1980, when Republican Ronald Regan managed to get Southern Democrats to leave the party to join forces with pro-business Republicans, a feat now known as the Regan Revolution.
Though traditionalists have overwhelmingly voted for Republicans since the 1980s, they occasionally find themselves at odds with the Western libertarians within the Republican Party. A great example is evident in the significant difference in the way libertarians and traditionalists seek to govern sexual privacy. Libertarians would argue that the government has absolutely no right to govern sexual activity among consenting (especially married) adults. Traditionalists, on the other hand have regularly passed laws regulating the sexual behavior of married couples. As recently as the year 2000, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the right to privacy within the bedroom was not guaranteed in instances where the state’s legislature had chosen to regulate sexual behavior of married adults. In 2003, the US Supreme Court invalidated the so-called “sodomy laws” in all states, but in Baton Rouge Louisiana, the Sherriff’s continued to arrest gay men for agreeing to engage in “unnatural acts” with undercover police officers, even though court authorities refused to prosecute the cases. Several states have refused to remove these bans. Texas’ Governor Rick Perry even called for the US Congress to remove such cases from the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court so that local Texas courts could decide such matters.
Figure 7-15: Chillicothe, OH. Patriotism and politics mix quite easily in the United States, despite an official separation of church and state. Some regions more actively seek to infuse religion into political policy. Others suggest politics is degrading to true faith.
New England Progressives
Sharply contrasting with both traditionalists and libertarians are the beliefs of progressive-moralists who dominate the politics of New England, the Pacific Northwest, and various, scattered urban areas. Progressive-moralists place a high value on social equality, economic and environmental justice, and they are confident that collective social action, carried out by the government, is both an effective and rational means to meet their goals. The media sloppily labels this group liberals, but the term “liberal” has become so corrupted by multiple and often contradictory layers of meaning that to use the term in a college course often clouds understanding of the term more than it clarifies it.
Progressive moralist ideas have a very long history in New England. Early Puritans sought to improve the quality of life of the entire community through collective, or government, action. Village Greens are common landscape features of New England towns that geographers immediately recognize as evidence of the long-standing Yankee commitment to communal action. Early New Englanders often built these grassy areas in the center of towns where villagers, most of whom were also farmers, could corral and graze livestock, especially at night. These green spaces were sometimes called “cow commons”. These prime pieces of downtown real-estate were held in common by all the residents of each village. Cow Commons were open to abuse by any farmer who fed too many of his/her own cattle on the common pasture. They might over use the common field to preserve, or even plow, their privately-owned pastures. When individuals abuse or over-use commonly held goods/services like pastures, parks, or even free napkins at McDonald's, they undermine the long-term success of the resource for their personal gain. This behavior leads to what is called the tragedy of the commons. Fear of and anger about the abuse of common resources is a central theme in American politics, one that divides progressives who are willing to risk abuses for the greater good, from libertarians who are not willing to risk sharing resources that might support abusers. The free-rider problem presented in the chapter on health geography similarly describes a situation where people benefit from the contributions of others around them.
Figure 7-16: Salem, MA. This village green is a landscape that evokes the community spirit of cooperation and collective political action that still characterizes much of New England.
New Englanders are generally willing to risk the abuse of government goods and services by individuals and are willing to share more of their personal wealth in order to create what they consider a better society for all. Taxes are higher in regions dominated by progressive moralists. Massachusetts, a state dominated by progressive-moralists, is often mocked as “Taxachusetts” by anti-tax libertarians. Progressive moralists tend to embrace Keynesian economics, an economic philosophy that calls for higher taxes, especially on the wealthy, to properly fund public services like education, parks and health care systems. Keynesian economics also encourages government intervention to ensure robust wages for the working people, so worker’s rights, minimum wage laws, and worker unions are welcomed by progressive-moralists. The environment is another concern for progressive moralists, who are willing to regulate industries in order to reduce pollution. The stricter regulations on economic policy and industrial pollution, along with higher taxes scare some industries away. The higher standard of living often evident in these regions, on the other hand, attracts industries that seek well-educated workers and high living standards for employees and executives. This effect is discussed at greater length in the economic geography chapter.
In addition to most of New England, people living in coastal Washington, Oregon, and California, along with those in Minnesota, tend to favor progressive-moralism. The cities of the Northwest and California were common destinations for migrants from New England in the 18th and 19th centuries, who established a political culture that subsequent generations have adopted. Minnesota’s collectivist traditions were probably established by the numerous immigrants to that region from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Scandinavian created a political-economic system called, the Nordic Model. It’s a system considered by many progressive moralists as the international ideal for government. Scandinavian countries have, by most measures, the best standard of living of countries on earth.
Centrists
Often situated in the middle of all these political philosophies are the people of the Midwest who seem to find some value in many of the political philosophies favored elsewhere. Midwesterners cling to traditional values, not unlike Southerners, but they are far less willing to deny political rights to individuals on religious grounds or historical customs. Midwesterners seem to prefer small government but are not particularly distrustful of it like libertarians.
The geography of the Midwest is critical in creating this situation. Part of the reason for the centrist beliefs of Midwesterners stems from the historical pattern of domestic migration to this region. The first Midwesterners started arriving in the early 1800s from New England, the Mid-Atlantic and the Upland South. International migrants came from all over Europe for generations afterward. Together, those migrants brought with them a vibrant array of political ideas from Colonial America and the Old World. Political compromise and open-mindedness became necessary in this heterogeneous society.
Figure 7-18: Infographic - Political philosophies in the US tend to be toward the center of this diagram, and despite the US two-party system, American political values fall into all four
There is some measure of variability in political philosophies within the Midwest, some significant differences can be found even within Midwestern states. Ohio is a classic example of an intra-state left-right-center battlefield, making it the classic Swing State.
Ohio is located geographically between several of America’s political traditions. Kentucky, on Ohio’s southern border, tends to be socially conservative, but New York isn’t far away. To Ohio’s west are vast stretches of lonely farmlands that seem to produce more libertarians.
Because Ohio is populous and contains a relatively even number of voters favoring elements of each of the major political orientations, it has been for many decades critical in deciding presidential elections. Columbus, in the middle of the state, is moderate, a bit more conservative in the suburbs than it is in the inner city or around Ohio State’s campus region. Cleveland, in the northern part of the state, is more progressive; thanks in part to its Yankee heritage and a strong history of unionization. Cincinnatians, on the other hand, act more like people from southern cities. They are socially conservative and resentful of government intrusions, perhaps more like their neighbor in Kentucky just across the Ohio River than their fellow Buckeyes across the state.
Origins of Political Orientation
How and why these political regions developed are questions that have prompted geographers to offer several theories. Some would point to historical migration patterns from Europe, alluded to earlier in this chapter, as the principle driving force behind American political culture. The excellent volume Albion’s Seed suggests that even the earliest waves of English colonists arriving nearly simultaneously in Massachusetts and Virginia brought radically different political philosophies with them from different parts of England. The collectivist, Puritanical Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock were very, very different from the colonists who established a class-conscious, commercial colony at Jamestown, Virginia.
Figure 7-19: Vietnam Memorial, Washington D.C. (1982) Consider how differently this monument commemorates war than the statuary in the images above. What does it say about contemporary nation-building process in the United States?
The various cadastral systems used in the United States also may have contributed to the development of differing ideas about the rights and responsibilities of individuals and the communities in which they live. See the Agriculture chapter for an extended discussion of cadastral systems.
The contrasts between the political philosophy within the United States sometimes make the country hard to govern, especially in recent years when the influence of gerrymandering has exacerbated the inflexibility of elected representatives. Americans think their political differences are vast, but compared to the political heterogeneity found in many parts of the world, we are rather homogenous and generally centrist. Europeans suggest that American politicians all seem just right of center; only as dissimilar as Pepsi and Coke. The European style parliamentary systems provide space for a far wider spectrum of political parties and philosophies than the American two-party system.
Environmental Roots of Political Difference
Other geographers would point to the varying environmental conditions in the United States as significant factors in the evolution of American political traditions. In New England, naturally occurring waterfalls provided locals with a great source of inanimate power to drive textile mills. Here factory-style industrialization occurred much earlier than elsewhere in the US. It is probable that a more progressive, socially inclusive political philosophy developed to deal with the rapid changes brought on by industrialization, urbanization and the massive influx of European immigrants.
In the South, where poor soils and the lack of a viable coastal source of industrial energy undermined widespread industrialization for many generations, large-scale plantation-style agriculture developed instead, alongside a rigid, race-based class system. Lacking a significant industrial, middle class and job-seeking immigrants, but faced with a large, potentially dangerous racial underclass, the agricultural south adopted a conservative, faith-based political philosophy to maintain the precarious status quo.
In the wide-open spaces of the Plains and the Mountain West, the sparse population invested (attracted?) people with a sense of individualism that grew far stronger than elsewhere in the country. Ranchers and homesteaders on isolated farms created an insular society, where neighbors might live a mile or more apart from each other. Unlike New England, where “all for one and one for all” collective action was the rule, in parts of the Midwest and West, people adopted a more “every man for himself” attitude. This is not to say that farmers and ranchers are/were incapable of caring deeply for their neighbors on a personal level, but rather that it is evident they prefer the government not to involve itself in negotiating how the relationship between neighbors in a community plays out.
It’s important not to take these nature-based arguments too far lest you fall into the trap of environmental determinist thinking. Still, it’s impossible to deny the role of soil, water, and climate on the evolution of political thinking in the United States. A reasonable approach to understanding why regions cling to a specific political order is to consider a host of causal variables, such as ethnicity, religion, economics and the environment.
