There Really Are Two Americas: Republistan and Democravia

[cali]

If you've watched the high-profile legislative fights of the last few years and found yourself thinking the two parties in the House of Representatives must represent separate countries, you might not be too far off the mark.

In the Senate, the two-lawmakers-per-state structure creates the moderating possibility of legislators from different parties representing the same set of voters. But the House's single-member districts divide it into a body of two separate countries that do not overlap. That separation is exacerbated by rampant gerrymandering and America's increasingly ideologically ghettoized geography. The result is that when it comes to the U.S. House, John Edwards was right to say there are "two Americas" and Barack Obama was wrong to insist that "there is not a liberal America and a conservative America."

In practice, this means that when trying to pass legislation, Speaker John Boehner and his party's leadership only have to market their ideas to the specific nation that lies within Republicans' 234 districts. It means, in other words, that Republicans are empowered to embrace positions that differ from both House Democrats and America as a whole.

<snip>

With this in mind, we spent the last few weeks digging through Census data on congressional districts to get a CIA World Factbook-style portrait of the two countries in the House—the one within all the GOP districts (Republistan) and the one within all the Democratic districts (Democravia). The full results are in a table at the bottom of this post.

<snip>

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/there-really-are-two-americas-republistan-and-democravia/281412/

[eridani]

1. Reading far too much into percentages that are not that different for most categories

The one category they ignore was that states voting Democratic are net taxpaying states, and those voting Republican are net takers.

[HereSince1628]

2. That's probably because the article wasn't about -states-, but rather

gerrymandered congressional districts.

[eridani]

9. The very same thing applies there

State of WA shows the same patterns in both counties and state legislative districts. The principle is granular down to the city and town level.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. I agree.

I knew Obama's speech was bullshit when he made it back then and it's still bullshit. It was wishful thinking, not reality. I also didn't think the speech was particularly germane to anything going on at the convention that year. I knew the purpose of it was to showcase a rising star in the party.

Edwards, for all of his personal faults, made a lot of good observations when he ran, which is why so many of us were so supportive of him and why we were so disappointed in him when his personal life was laid bare. It's quite obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that there are two Americas. Every so often they come together, in moments like 9/11, but it's not very long before the old divisions return.

I think the differences go all the way back to the beginning of the country, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, Jefferson and Hamilton. There are good points and bad points on either side and there is some mixing of the two sides, but old divisions have carried on to our time. Some people would say the differences are Yin and Yang, light and dark, but that's a whole other subject.

[el_bryanto]

4. Democravia? Really? I think it should be Demotopia.

Or Great Democracy (to borrow from Great Britain).

Bryant

[RoBear]

5. Thank you...

I knew a correction was called for, but I was uncharacteristically unable to come up with the words.

[fadedrose]

11. I like "Democracia" - it's pretty enough to set to music

[Fumesucker]

6. That wasn't quite what Edwards meant with his "Two Americas" comment I think

Edwards was talking about the haves and the have mores vs the rest of us.

[LuvNewcastle]

7. Yes, the artificial division of the two parties masks the true divide

between rich and poor. Now we have poor people in either party, although the Democrats have traditionally been seen as the poor man's party, and the rich are also in either party, though the Republicans traditionally favor policies that favor the rich. Due to social issues and confusion of rhetoric carried out by media, the have-nots are split.

There have been times in our history when the differences between the parties have been pretty stark, like the Jacksonian period and the Great Depression. Now is a time of struggle for control of each party, so we'll see how things shape up after that. Now that the percentage of have-nots has grown and is still growing, maybe we'll see a clearer difference between the parties, like during the Depression. I really hope so, because nothing is being done for the people as things stand now.

[fadedrose]

8. Two different species

Last edited Wed Nov 20, 2013, 08:17 PM - Edit history (1)

They should do DNAs from everybody and find out what makes the Reps so mean. Some animals kill for food, and some just for the hell of it. The reps seems to do it for both.

[YoungDemCA]

10. I thought it was the rich and poor....

nt

[Glassunion]

12. You forget my enclave "Glassunbestonia"

[Johonny]

13. And yet on many issues Americans are vastly closer to each other

in their opinions. If you remove the political propaganda it is surprising how popular somethings considered politically toxic actually are.

[hfojvt]

14. I don't believe the districts are that solid

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4936813

Those are seats I thought Democrats might have a shot at winning. If I wanted to, I could make another list of Democratic incumbents who are vulnerable.

Incumbents rarely get beat, but that is more about the money and name power of the incumbentocracy than it is necessarily about gerrymandering. Partly because Congressional districts are so big.