Abandon all talk of "red states" and "blue states"

Here is something I just wrote for Democratic Underground:

Resolved:  We shall abandon all talk of “red states” and “blue states”

The time has come for every clear thinking American to drop all reference to states as either “red” or “blue”. These artificial terms serve no purpose other than to exaggerate and reinforce whatever cultural divide already exists in this country. And that purpose plays right into the hands of the GOP and the Bush administration.

The GOP and the Bush administration have divided the country and emerged with the larger half. If we in the opposition party participate in cementing this divide, we will be relegated to a long-term minority status, even if only by the barest of margins. So, to restore our majority, it is up to us to take the lead in trying to repair the divide, to undo the damage done over the last four years. The first step in that long process is to abandon the artificial terms “red state” and “blue state”.

From now on, like we did before November 7, 2000, we all will live in simple “states”.

To understand how meaningless the “red state” and “blue state” terms are, consider first Iowa, New Mexico, and New Hampshire. These states voted barely in one direction in 2000, and barely in the other direction in 2004. What color are they supposed to be?

Consider next Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. These states voted slightly in one direction in 2000 and slightly in the same direction in 2004. In each of these, if one out of every forty voters had voted differently, the state would be colored differently on the ubiquitous Electoral College maps. Why is it meaningful to permanently label some of them “blue” and the others “red”?

Finally, consider states like Texas, California, New York, Illinois, Georgia, and North Carolina. These states apparently voted decisively for one candidate or the other. Yet even in Texas, the adopted home state of the incumbent and where state pride is a gargantuan factor, if merely one out of every eight voters had changed their mind, the political world would be turned upside down. Is it worthwhile to label an entire state based on the voting decisions of such a small fraction of the electorate?

So who will join me in rejecting these terms and forging forward, no longer as “red state Americans” or “blue state Americans”, but as pure and simple “Americans”?

Comments

[LB]

That's seems like an good plan, but people will probably complain that they need a simple way to identify the states that voted for Bush and the ones that voted for Kerry. As you point out, the designation of 'red' or 'blue' does more than that, and not necessarily in a representative fashion that is fair to democrats. Can we just redefine 'red' and 'blue' states to mean something other than diehard republican or diehard democrats - something very specific, such as which party got the electoral votes from that state in the last presidential election?

[Peter]

How about "states won by Kerry" and "states won by Bush"? That was how we used to refer to this concept before November 7, 2000.

Trying to re-define "red" and "blue" is not going to work anymore after four years on their meanings being beaten into people by repetition. We just have to drop those terms.

[LB]

Okay. Let's say I'm sold. Now, how do we sell this to the Republicans?

[Peter]

We can't. This rhetoric benefits them, so they will use it and encourage it all they can. (Perhaps amongst the less partisan Republicans, just pointing out how misleading it is to label whole states like California "blue" when there are millions of Bush voters there will help.)

We need to stop playing along, and if we catch anyone in the media using this terminology, we should write to them and point out why it is so inadequate and misleading.

[jdc]

I support the abolishment of the Electoral College, and the institution of a National Primary Day. If playing up the Red/Blue divide will hinder that effort, then I agree with you. But perhaps it helps?

[Peter]

Hi jdc. I don't understand how playing up the red/blue state talk will help abolish the Electoral College. To do so, we need the support of 38 state legislatures. Artificially dividing the country in 30-31 "red states" and 19-20 "blue states" would seem to me to hinder that effort.

But the benefits of dropping this talk go far beyond the effort to eliminate the Electoral College.