Not Red vs. Blue States, But 'Retro' vs. 'Metro'

Inside ?'The Great Divide'
Inside ?'The Great Divide'
The author of a new book on politics explains his theories about red- and blue-state America
By Rebecca Sinderbrand
Newsweek
Updated: 1:56 p.m. ET Aug. 21, 2004


Aug. 21 - This week, billionaire John Sperling launched the latest salvo in the war between red- and blue-state America: "The Great Divide", written by Sperling and four Democratic co-authors. If you've been reading the major national newspaper lately, you've seen the ads promoting the book: pictures labeled "Retro" (say, Mel Gibson) paired with their "Metro" counterparts (Michael Moore). The advertising promotes the book's (not entirely original) take: America has become two separate nations with competing worldviews.

But the authors take the "two nations" argument more seriously than most, exhaustively documenting the ways they believe a backward-looking "Retro" America, characterized by conservative religious values and lockstep Republican loyalty, is taking financial advantage of innovative, free-thinking "Metro" America. Retro states, they claim, disproportionately control the federal government and claim an unfair share of taxpayer-funded handouts. All Democrats need to do, they argue, is target their appeal to voters in progressive-leaning coastal and Great Lakes "Metro" states, and they'll hold a permanent majority without the need for a single vote from the southern and Western states of "Retro" America.

Sperling, 83, and team spent a year-and-a-half working on the project, now available for free on the Web site retrovsmetro.org, or for $39.95 on amazon.com. Twenty-four hours after its release, the book had already cracked Amazon's top 25 list. The founder of the for-profit University of Phoenix spoke to Newsweek about his vision for a new Democratic majority.

NEWSWEEK:Your book seems to suggest that Democrats should stop even trying to appeal to voters in what you call "Retro America."

John Sperling: Well, what they have to do is stop counting on getting any of those votes. The Republicans own those votes. They just have to face reality; if they're going to become the majority party, they're going to have to build their own base. The Republicans have been brilliant; they have fantastic discipline, and they have an absolutely dog-loyal base that will vote for them no matter what happens. So they only have to add on the margins to win. The Democrats, at this point, they don't really have a base anymore. They need to target their message like the Republicans do, so they solidify their constituency. If they do that, the numbers are on their side.

The other point you seem to make is that the Democrats have been trying to be all things to all people while the Republicans have more straightforward about what they believe.

Well, yeah. The other day in Des Moines?-and the Democrats laughed at him?-George Bush said ?'We Republicans believe in things.' And that was very powerful. He didn't even have to say what those things were: everyone knows he meant God, flag and family. Everyone knows what the Republicans stand for. So you know what you're getting when you vote for them.

Over the past couple of decades, Metro America will vote for Retro candidates, but the reverse doesn't seem to happen. Massachusetts is still kind of a dirty word in some places. Do you think that's ever going to change? Is this book an acknowledgement that it won't?

It won't unless the Democrats change their focus. Name me the last two Democratic Northerners that won an election.

John Kennedy, and before that Franklin Roosevelt.

That's right, you got it. That's a long time ago. I certainly hope it happens again this year. If it doesn't, it doesn't mean the Democratic party is doomed, but it sure has to reform, and I think that what we've done is lay out the path of reform.

But if Democrats target Metro-state voters only, wouldn't that be sort of a unilateral secession from Blue-State America? Don't you think it's a bit unhealthy not to even try to appeal to a huge bloc of voters who may have different concerns?

Well, in some ways that's already happened on the other side. I would say what Democrats should do is articulate a program that appeals to what I would call the "enlightened citizens" across the nation. Of course, first they'd have to be able to establish the discipline in the party. The Republicans are disciplined. Except for [House Speaker Dennis] Hastert, every one of their leadership is from a Retro state. They're all deeply conservative and they exercise discipline in the House and Senate. Well, the Democrats can't do that. The reason they can't do that is, they don't have a solid bloc of votes that they can count on. They have to water down their progress, so they end up triangulating like Bill Clinton. They need to have a clear message, which would bring them that solid majority.

In his latest column in the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne says it's a mistake to assume that those Red State-Blue State dividing lines of 2000 are set; he thinks the truth is that we're a more united nation than we realize. Do you think he's wrong?

In this case, I think he's wrong, according to our data. We did a poll: guess what percentage of both Retro and Metro Americans believe they live in two different worlds? The number is about 64 percent on both sides. That's a big number, isn't it?

It is. But it's the same on both sides. So they have that in common at least.

Right. We both think we live in different worlds.

Many suburban and rural voters during the '70s and '80s thought big cities were these giant cash drains that didn't really represent American values. Your book seems to say just about the same thing, but in reverse.

That was the Reagan message, that the welfare queens were sucking the heart out of America. Well, it wasn't the welfare queens, it was the welfare states, the Retro states, that are sucking up those dollars, that are sucking the heart out of America.

So you're saying they had the right idea after all, but…
That's right, they had the right idea, but they pinned that tail on the wrong donkey.

One of the issues I know is very important to you is liberalizing the drug laws.

That's right. If you look at it, where does the drug war come from? It comes from the same place prohibition came from. It comes from conservative Christians who believe that these things are immoral, and that demon rum has now become demon drugs.

Have you always had ?'Metro values,' or is this something you came to later on?

I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household in Missouri. So I did not have Metro values. I was raised in a poor household that was probably Republican. Then I went to sea, and met a lot of left-wing sailors. Not the Navy; these were the Merchant Marines. They were all loyal union members. That was starting in 1939.

So someone told me that you cloned your cat. Is that true? That's definitely not Retro.

Well yes, but actually it wasn't my cat. I happen to have two companies: one is a company that clones companion animals, and one is a company that clones farm animals. One company has only cloned two cats. The one that clones animals for the farm has cloned dozens and dozens of animals. So we cloned a cat, but it wasn't mine.

I see. How's the cat doing?

Oh, fine. It's going to be a big business. As soon as we cloned that cat, we got ten orders for clones at $50,000 a pop.

You know, it seems like this book plays into the fantasies a lot of people in both camps have right now, about being able to write off the other side ?- one half of the country being able to just ignore the other.
Maybe. But what I think people everywhere are looking for is, I hate to use the word new ?'paradigm,' but I think a new ?'framework.' Almost every day you meet someone who says, Well, I've just given up voting. You can't change anything. It's all sort of frozen. And I think that people are desperately looking for some way to analyze the political system, a way that they can have some sort of impact. This just gives them a good place to start.

You've put $2 million of your own money into this effort. One of the big stories this year has been all the independent voices getting involved in the campaign, on behalf of President Bush and on behalf of Sen. Kerry. Do you think all these independent voices and all this money entering the picture is a good thing, a healthy thing, or do you hope the party will step in and take up efforts like yours at some point?

Look, this is an important message that needs to get out there. When this thing first started, we saw it going for at least five years, starting a dialogue… but look, I hope the party reforms, and the Democrats come in and take this over, and I get to retire. You know, I'm 83 years old. I don't know how much longer I can keep this up.
------------------------------------------

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5781627/site/newsweek/

A friend of mine sent me this.

The Concession Speech by comedian Adam Felber that should have beenmade by John Kerry

My fellow Americans, the people of this nation have spoken, and spoken with a clear voice. So I am here to offer my concession.

[Boos, groans, rending of garments]

I concede that I overestimated the intelligence of the American
people. Though the people disagree with the President on almost every
issue, you saw fit to vote for him. I never saw that coming. That's
really special. And I mean "special" in the sense that we use it to
describe those kids who ride the short school bus and find ways to
injure themselves while eating pudding with rubber spoons. That kind
of special.

I concede that I misjudged the power of hate. That's pretty powerful
stuff, and I didn't see it. So let me take a moment to congratulate
the President's strategists: Putting the gay marriage amendments on
the ballot in various swing states like Ohio... well, that was just
genius. Genius. It got people, a certain kind of people, to the polls.
The unprecedented number of folks who showed up and cited "moral
values" as their biggest issue, those people changed history. The
folks who consider same sex marriage a more important issue than war,
or terrorism, or the economy... Who'd have thought the election would
belong to them? Well, Karl Rove did. Gotta give it up to him for that.

[Boos.] Now, now. Credit where it's due.

I concede that I put too much faith in America's youth. With 8 out of
10 of you opposing the President, with your friends and classmates
dying daily in a war you disapprove of, with your future being
mortgaged to pay for rich old peoples' tax breaks, you somehow managed
to sit on your asses and watch the Cartoon Network while aging
homophobic hillbillies carried the day. You voted with the exact same
anemic percentage that you did in 2000. You suck. Seriously, y'do.
[Cheers, applause] Thank you. Thank you very much. There are some who
would say that I sound bitter, that now is the time for healing, to
bring the nation together. Let me tell you a little story. Last night,
I watched the returns come in with some friends.

As the night progressed, people began to talk half-seriously about
secession, a red state / blue state split. The reasoning was this: We
in blue states produce the vast majority of the wealth in this country
and pay the most taxes, and you in the red states receive the majority
of the money from those taxes while complaining about 'em. We in the
blue states are the only ones who've been attacked by foreign
terrorists, yet you in the red states are gung ho to fight a war in
our name. We in the blue states produce the entertainment that you
consume so greedily each day, while you in the red states show open
disdain for us and our values. Blue state civilians are the actual
victims and targets of the war on terror, while red state civilians
are the ones standing behind us and yelling "Oh, yeah!? Bring it on!"

More than 40% of you Bush voters still believe that Saddam Hussein had
something to do with 9/11. I'm impressed by that, truly I am. Your
sons and daughters who might die in this war know it's not true, the
people in the urban centers where al Qaeda wants to attack know it's
not true, but those of you who are at practically no risk believe this
easy lie because you can. As part of my concession speech, let me say
that I really envy that luxury. I concede that. Healing? We, the
people at risk from terrorists, the people who subsidize you, the
people who speak in glowing and respectful terms about the heartland
of America while that heartland insults and excoriates us... we wanted
some healing. We spoke loud and clear. And you refused to give it to
us, largely because of your high moral values. You knew better:
America doesn't need its allies, doesn't need to share the burden,
doesn't need to unite the world, doesn't need to provide for its
future. Hell no. Not when it's got a human shield of pointy-headed,
atheistic, unconfrontational breadwinners who are willing to pay the
bills and play nice in the vain hope of winning a vote that we can
never have. Because we're "morally inferior," I suppose, we are
supposed to respect your values while you insult ours. And the big
joke here is that for 20 years, we've done just that. It's not a
"ha-ha" funny joke, I realize, but it's a joke all the same.

As well as conceding the election today, I am also announcing my
candidacy for President in 2008.

And I make this pledge to you today: THIS time, next time, there will
be no pandering. This time I will run with all the open and joking
contempt for my opponents that our President demonstrated towards the
cradle of liberty, the Ivy League intellectuals, the "media elite,"
and the "white-wine sippers." This time I will not pretend that the
simple folk of America know just as much as the people who devote
their lives to serving and studying the nation and the world. They
don't.