Steve:
Ouch. Its uncomfortable when you hold up a description of America....by
making us look in the mirror.
Ol' Pogo was right. (We have met the enemy and he is ...). Rant away,
my good man.
You have thought deeper on this than I have. My attraction to the 11
Nations Model is its nuances that
I would not have been able to find - even if I could do the research.
I also contributed with a vote for Reagan. Tho in my young case, he
just seemed more "with it" than
his opponent. Except for Mondale - natch in that election I voted for
the Hometown boy.
I also hope for a balanced give-n-take at the center. There are
moderate Republicans, but they dare not
speak out because of Duke Norquist. He will pile on obscene amounts of
money to take down any
Republican who doesn't hold the "party line" and kiss his ring on bended
knee. Notice how newly
elected Republicans all make the pilgrimage to the Duke's castle? So who
are these Republicans
representing anyway? Those who voted for them or those who give them
money?
With moderates on both sides of the aisle we could actually make
government work.
Your comments lead me to infer there are other demographic or political
models you use. I would
like to hear about them.
Thanks,
StephT
On 11/10/2013 10:44 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
StephT -
Thanks for more insight into your perspective, including your politics
and demographic embedding. I appreciate your thoughts about models in
this context.
What I think I appreciated most about Woodard's model was it's
richness as you call it, but that it seemed to have *little* if any
embellishment or gratuitous richness. My own myopia had me thinking
that his distinction of El Norte from Far West was gratuitous, but the
more I thought about it, the more it made sense to me.
I also think it is natural that each person making a set of
abstractions or model will generate one that reflect their
perspective. One person's perspective is another persons bias, if you
will.
While I think the model Woodard presents is relatively accurate and
useful for many purposes, I can see how his biases stated in his
narratives against the Conservatives (especially the ultra/teabunch)
would put off those sympathetic to them. But he is not alone, not in
the least. As I think I have stated before, the basic message of the
Tea Party or even Conservatives in general is not the source of my
challenge to them, it is their methods (as you speak of "soiling the
manger") that puts me at odds with them. Mean spirited, ruthless,
selfish.
<political rant based on personal anecdotes>
I may have a foot halfway down the Autism spectrum because I often
take things very literally, in this case, the stated ideals of
political parties or platforms. This allows me to (try to?) take
such things at pure face value... accept the story and ignore the
messenger and in fact the behaviour of the messenger... at least for a
while. But eventually my intuitive side screams at me to "notice the
behaviour" and I have to give up on them. I helped usher in the
Reagan/Bush 80's with my single little vote based on the ideals of the
Conservatives, but it wasn't long into that period that I realized
they didn't really mean what I heard them say. "Trickle Down
Economics" was probably the most blatant of it... "give to the rich
and they will take care of the poor".
While I worked at the gem of the military-industrial complex, and
believed in the principle of "someone has to have the big stick, it
might as well be us", I was still too young and naive to realize that
the problem with being the one holding the big stick is "who you
become" when you have power. Power *is* corruption... and we've been
building our relative power in the world for at least 100 years, and
for the most part what it has bought us is the (deserved) mistrust of
the world. Despite our inneffectuality in places like Vietnam and
now Afghanistan/Pakistan, we do have a very big stick and we seem to
like to use it, and if it isn't effective enough, that is good enough
reason to go shopping for a bigger stick.
Once the gild was off the Conservative Idealism, I found the Liberal
Idealism a refreshing embrace... I was naturally empathetic and even
with Conservative Ideals, wanted everyone to "be happy", so it was
easy for me to accept the social progressiveness of the Liberals even
though I had some doubts about *their* methods (especially fiscal
policy). At least it didn't seem mean-spirited. Then the Political
Correct movement caught hold, and I saw *that* side of the mean
spirit... a fairly strict code with specific prescribed terms,
activities and postures, and fairly significant penalty (strong
censure and even excommunication from the group) for small deviations
from the code, I was sickened. This left me happily, "a man without
a Party", but wiser for having taken the two dominant ones seriously
for a bit.
My personal experience, coming from Greater Appalachia rootstock but
raised in the Far West and El Norte made it easy for me to appreciate
the Libertarian's self-reliance model (but not THEIR mean-spirited
style either). I became (yet more) cynical about the political
process and the political milieu itself and subsequently sat out
nearly 2 decades of elections, sniping from the sidelines, ignoring
the trite "if you don't vote, you can't have an opinion" retorts. My
sympathies have always been socially progressive but my intellect
clung to more conservative fiscal models...
I now feel very heretical in my opinion that we are an incredibly
wealthy nation of spoiled brats, conservative and liberal alike, rich
and poor (to some extent) alike. Against the liberal position, our
biggest concern seems to be that our poor can't eat healthily because
all they can afford is McDonalds, or that we need to spend more money
on education because clearly too many children learn little or nothing
after 12 years in the system, or that everyone should have equal
access to a broken medical system? On the conservative side, it
seems to oscillate between the belligerence of "the Second Amendment
guarantees me the right to build, maintain and flaunt in public a
large arsenal of high tech weapons backed by an arbitrary large store
of ammunition" and "Sanctity of Marriage" and "Anti-Choice" rhetoric
and "if we test kids hard enough they will be forced to have learned
something". While I appreciate the Guy Fawkes style sentiments of
Occupy and the 99% rhetoric, I think we should examine that *we* are
the 1% in the world (well, maybe 10 or 20%) but nevertheless, while we
want to blame *our* elites for our troubles (and with good cause) we
seem to miss the fact that all but the most destitute among us *are
the elites* to the third world and are causing *them* the same
troubles, extracting their labor and their resources for our comfort
and convenience.
We have lost many of the self- reliant skills and make-do perspectives
that defined us during our expansionist/pioneer period and we have
distorted others (e.g. contemporary gun/vigilante culture). We are
not who we are proud of being for the most part, and I find that sad.
Each of those 11 nations in Woodard's model have a strong story about
what makes them unique, what they are proud of. I hope we might look
to those ideals and return to them, not as laurels to rest on, but
things to aspire to. I don't have enough direct experience with
Tidewater and Deep South to know exactly WHAT makes them proud of
themselves, but I'm sure there is some honest, deep goodness at the
roots of their story. The rest of it may only see them through a
caricature of slaveholding, mysogeny and racial violence, but I
suspect there is something less negative to work with there... and the
rest of our caricature of them doesn't help them aspire to it.
I believe that the only way out of our spoiled and usurious lifestyles
is to return to the roots of what we can honestly be proud of and
focus on that. In many ways, I feel we long ago threw out the baby
and kept the bathwater. It shows in virtually every walk of life.
We are now much more interested in what everyone else is "doing wrong"
than what "right we should be doing". We are more worried about how
ObamaCare is going to improve or hurt our personal lot than how it
might shape the country and the relations between the haves and have
nots, how it might reshape our entire medical system (for better or
worse).
I think the Tea Party has "shat the nest", I think they will never be
taken seriously again except by themselves, and the Republicans in
general will be tainted by them forever as well. I think that a
pluralistic voice of mature, thoughtful citizens can reshape our
political landscape, but I'm not sure we have many of those voices in
Politics or in the Media. We have a few, and they tend to be on the
Left side of the Aisle. It is their style of maturity and
thoughtfulness that I want to see spread, the right message
(Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, etc.) that will spring from a
larger thoughtful debate on all topics. I believe that the times may
be right for a return to responsible populism, but it does require
putting down our entitled perspective and many of our divisive
assumptions.
Woodard, by explaining more of what *actually* divides us in more
detail may have set the stage for that larger conversation. I won't
hold my breath for it, but I am seeking to open that conversation with
others where I can... to try to break the stalemate that has gripped
us for decades. The silver lining of the TeaParty's "brinksmanship"
may be that it is helping to force us to this position. I think also
that Obama's failures on so many fronts also helps force and inform a
better discussion. I think Obama's intentions were sincere, and I
believe that much of his failures reflect more on his opponents than
on his allies, but more than anything, it should show us how
deadlocked we are. Our next two elections need to make significant
qualitative changes, not just more of the same, each leaning further
and further out of the canoe trying to tip it their way.
</political rant>
- Steve
Also more insights, thanks. I consider the 11 Nations as a model.
With all models there
are abstractions in order to make it manageable to gain insights of
the domain. Mr. Woodard's
model is very rich as models go - certainly more so than the binary
scales you point out have
become trite.
My personal 'model" for models is a rough diamond in the process of
being polished. Each model
is a facet - rough or partially polished - of the diamond and
provides a point-of-view/insight into
the knowledge domain represented by the diamond. Multiple models are
appropriate with each
providing a set of abstractions.
I agree there are multiple ways to abstract a domain into a model. We
each have personal experiences
with portion(s) of the model and thus have opinions on how that
portion should be restructured.
But we also have to consider our perspective is limited to our
personal experiences. If the author applied
an "abstracting process" consistently and as objectively as possible,
then we should consider the
efficacy of the model as a whole.
I also did not expect the upper Midwest to be Yankeedom. I would
have thought it was thoroughly
Midlands. In Minnesota our cultural history is predominantly either
Scandinavian or German. We
are very community oriented - with a local public school in the midst
of and surrounded by
residential homes. Which I understand is a Yankeedom characteristic
of my Puritan ancestors.
(I do not condone the Puritan "violence" they committed against other
non-Puritan faiths) So I
look at Mr. Woodard's argument to assess why he considers my region
Yankeedom-based and not
an entirely separate "nation" of Scandinavians.
MSP - airport designation of Minneapolis-St Paul.
My attraction to the model is for its historical, layered,
montage-like perspective. Multiple layers
of tissue-paper provide a perceived color or shape that was not
anticipated or designed by any of the
underlying layers. My paternal line came from New England via Erie
PA and Chicago IL. My maternal
line is mostly German and Welsh (with a rumored Loyalist fighting for
the Brits). They came through
Kentucky, Indiana, and finally to Chicago. I like the 11 Nations
model for its historical perspective
on how our country came to be in its current form.
My part of this discussion is based on the book/model as a whole. I
have not focused much on
the specific articles using the model to critique the Tea Party and
gun-violence.
Thanks,
StephT
On 11/9/2013 10:37 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
StephenT -
I would like to hear your critique of the 11 Nations framework. I
recently read the book
and found it fascinating. The book is well researched and
documented - though the reading
style of the book is in the "popular-style" as opposed to an
academic textbook-style.
Thank you for asking. I appreciate that you have read his book.
No simple binary subdivision of this country (red/blue, north/south,
urban/rural, etc) is likely to be more than of limited use in
understanding "who we are" and in my opinion, of getting off the
high-centered position we've been in for a (very?) long time.
As for my quibbles:
I'd want to split TX (and perhaps the OK/KS parts of Appalachia) and
give them to a separate Texas itself... despite Daniel Boone and the
Alamo and all that. They are specifically bellicose enough to
demand their own identity and sadly, that alone might be enough to
grant it to them. I believe their affinities to the West and the
South are different than the rest of Appalachia.
I was surprised to see so much of the upper Midwest declared part of
Yankeedom. I don't have a lot of direct experience, so my opinions
here are very thin. I'd be inclined to coin a "Rustbelt Nation"
running from PA across OH, capturing Chicago and the WI/MI
industrial centers.
I think his distinction between the Far West and El Norte are
overstated but that is probably my own myopia, having spent my life
in those regions.
More importantly, I think he mischaracterizes the West's "dependence
on the Federal Government". The railroad and the post-civil war
strengthening of the Federal Government *did* lead the bulk of the
resources/land in the west to be owned by the US government and made
available to big industry at a discount to exploit.
The *people* of the west, however, were already operating small
scale, subsistence "extractive" industry... they were ranchers,
farmers, prospectors, hunters/trappers. Big money/industry
co-opted not only their labor but their hearts and minds to some
extent. It was still happening in MY youth (60's, 70's and beyond)
with big money/industry offering good/quick money in return for
support by the locals to do more and more invasive things in their
homelands. They pitted the locals against "the Feds", all the
while surely buying "the Feds" off back in DC. Gun culture in the
west derives from a very real recent (1-2 generations) utility to
most of it.
I think of the book as a modern day version of the layered
invasions of the British Isles over
the last 1500 years. The original Celts then the usual-suspects of
Angles, Saxons, Vikings,
Normans - and in the recent 50+ years - American Pop Culture. I say
modern-day as the
11 Nations formed in the last 400 years rather than the 1500 of the
British Isles invasions.
I think something similar can be found everywhere. For example when
you think of the Byzantine then Roman colonizations, then how the
various Mongols/Huns/Vandals/Goths etc. swept through Europe and
even Northern Africa, or the many peoples and influences in the
Indian Subcontinent, it is staggering.
I think we all see elements of his main thesis in our local areas.
In MSP, we have neighborhoods
that historically were settled by different ethnic groups - lots of
Scandinavians in this region.
In recent decades we have Hmong, Somali, and Mid-East cultures
settling in.
MSP? I'm not sure I know where you hail from.. the UK?
The article you linked referred to a Woodard article at Tufts. I
link it here. It takes the basic
11 Nations Framework and uses it to review gun violence in America.
Coming from a neo-frontier gun-culture, I am saddened by the texture
and the level of gun abuse/violence we have today. It is paralleled
(and surely eclipsed) by the violence we do to ourselves and
eachother through addiction and economic warfare (home and
abroad). I think much of our gun violence has roots in deeper
places (poverty, addiction, loss of identity)... one can say "guns
don't kill people" "people do" or "bullets do" but our socioeconomic
conditions are what set the stage for it in many ways.
I have seen other articles
by Mr. Woodard concerning the Tea Party in reference to the early
October Gov't shut-down.
See my thoughts on Tea Party under separate cover.
If this turns out to be a little (more than usual) ragged, it is
because my internet has been out most of the day and I'm now trying
to get this out in case I lose it again.
- Steve
At Tuffs on Gun Violence:
http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html
At Washington Monthly on Gov't Shutdown:
Oct. 15, 2013: Regional Differences Have Doomed the Tea Party
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/10/regional_differences_have_doom047323.php
Nov/Dec 2011: A Geography Lesson for the Tea Party
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novemberdecember_2011/features/a_geography_lesson_for_the_tea032846.php?page=all
Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029
I admit to lacking the chops to professionally "vet" Mr. Woodard's
theory. However, the book
has verisimilitude in its structure and is heavily documented. I
hope to hear more from you
for an additional point-of-view.
Thanks,
StephT
On 11/8/2013 11:27 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess'
cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree
with it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less
general than red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural
"melting pot" to be crufted into:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
