CONNECT
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Monday 23 January 2012
“According to the data, only 10 ‘blue states’ were net recipients of federal subsidies, as opposed to 22 ‘red states.’”
Blue States Make, Red States Take
We’ve all heard it: “Dress for the job you want, not the one you have.” I often wonder if the same logic applies to electoral politics. Though conflating “the political” with “the sartorial” isn’t at all my intention, I cannot help but believe that we vote for the lives we want, not the ones we have. Politics, broadly understood, helps to bridge the chasm between the immediate and the aspirational, to negotiate the oscillation of our material needs and our magical desires. To this end, I think there is sufficient evidence to argue that politics is what we do when metaphysics fails, what we do when transhistorical categories of supposed universality become unlaced.
So what exactly constitutes the ground for our political calculus? And what happens when voting for our future aspirations negates our current needs?
Traditional scholars in the field of political science often suggest that our unobstructed self interest (premised on rational choice theory) tends to produce policy preferences and electoral outcomes largely reflective of our material interests. Regrettably, however, according to a 2007 report published by the Tax Foundation entitled “Federal Spending Received Per Dollar Paid by State,” U.S. states that rely most heavily on federal subsidies for public programs routinely elect politicians who are determined to excoriate such funding sources. The articulation of policy preferences and, indeed, the creation and maintenance of a deeply democratic society are co-premised on free and equal access to reliable information, but even a cursory exegesis of the Tax Foundation data compels one to conclude that the particular states most dependent on aid from the federal government are the very same states whose residents voted overwhelmingly for John McCain in 2008. How could this be?
According to the data, only 10 “blue states” were net recipients of federal subsidies, as opposed to 22 “red states.” Only three “red states,”—Texas, Florida, and Nevada—were net payers of federal taxes, as opposed to 14 “blue states.” And only one “blue state,”—Rhode Island—paid as much as it was remitted. In 2008, eight of the top ten net recipient states voted for John McCain over Barack Obama by an average margin of 10.2 percentage points. Please see below:
Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State / 2008 Presidential Election Margin by State
1) New Mexico: $2.03. / Obama +15
2) Mississippi: $2.02 / McCain +13
3) Alaska: $1.84 / McCain +22
4) Louisiana: $1.78 / McCain +19
5) West Virginia: $1.76 / McCain +13
6) North Dakota: $1.68 / McCain +8
7) Alabama: $1.66 / McCain +21
8) South Dakota: $1.53 / McCain +8
9) Kentucky: $1.51 / McCain +16
10) Virginia: $1.51 / Obama +7
A democracy presupposes an informed citizenry. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates the right of all persons to free expression and a corollary guarantee to receive the constitutionally protected expression of others. Such lofty rhetoric is inescapably troubled by the role of ideology. Why would voters in red states elect lawmakers who promise them small government when they benefit disproportionately from federal dollars? And why would voters in blue states elect lawmakers who support policies that redistribute their income to red states?
Aristotle once referred to ideology as “those beautiful lies.” Although not far from untrue, the role of ideology today is a bit more nuanced and multidimensional. According to Jeannie Oakes, a scholar of education policy at UCLA, ideology refers to the ways in which culturally based meanings serve, in particular circumstances, to establish and sustain relations of power that are systematically asymmetrical. Thus, ideology, broadly speaking, is cultural meaning in service of power. That is, insofar as ruling ideas are internalized by the majority of people and become a defining motif of everyday life, they appear as common sense- that is, as the traditional popular conception of the world. Common sense notions, for example, of small government as a social panacea reflected in Ronald Reagan’s linguistic detritus that “government is not the solution to our problems, government is our problem!” is necessary to explain the contradiction between our country’s espoused ideology of equality and meritocracy and the reality of extreme iniquities.
Further, in culturally diverse societies like the U.S., meanings and ideologies that tend to dominate are those that have been constructed by actors with the most power within the social structure. Therefore, the ideology of “small government” becomes enlisted to make the particular cultural capital of the white and wealthy seem not only more valuable than others. Dominant ideologies provide a coherent and systemic world view which not only influences the mass of the population but serves as a principle for organizing social institutions orthogonal to the interests of those whose voices are most systematically silenced. If politics pluralizes our atomized interiorities, then we must insist upon those that can balance the exigencies of our needs with the satisfactions of our dreams. Let us vote for the lives we have, but organize for those we want.
Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT Christopher Petrella
Christopher Petrella is a NationofChange contributing author and a doctoral candidate in African American Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. He writes on the contradictions of modernity and teaches at San Quentin State Prison. His work has appeared in such publications as Monthly Review, Truthout, Axis of Logic, NationofChange, and The Real Cost of Prisons. Christopher also holds degrees from Bates College and Harvard University.
Top Stories
By Aviva Shen
13 comments on "Blue States Make, Red States Take"
March 12, 2012 8:01pm
Calijim, I think that Christopher should thank you for taking the time to edit his essay above. The article at times was so nonsensical that I had to wonder what he actually was trying to say. When an average reader has to reread or guess what the author is conveying, then it is poorly written. This reminds me of the past President Bush's impromptu speeches with grammatical errors and slang that made me feel shutter for 8 long years. Even Mrs. Bush would use words like "dudn't" ; but informal southern slang seems to get excused by most people. I do think that people in the public eye, and those writing informative essays as above should try to make an effort to use proper English grammar. ....Just my 2 cents worth.
Hi Dennis, tankhs for the reply! I don't have that file or something like that, only: lighttpd.conf. How can i install PHP? Thanks again grtz
January 30, 2012 9:51am
Christopher,
After re-reading my post, I agree that it comes across as somewhat “vitriolic” in nature – and I apologize. I believe the tone is a result of a combination of my higher expectations of someone with your educational background (and the evident intelligence that such a background requires) as well as my frustration that it was such a poorly written piece that I had hoped (expected, actually, from your other pieces) would be something much, much better.
Attempting to “stretch the imagination and lexicon” of your readers is certainly a worthwhile objective, and I personally deplore the frequent lack of knowledge and limited vocabulary (which, of course is the more accessible and generally understood variant of the word “lexicon”) in society today. The lack of emphasis on language over the last few decades has created a society where the average person has almost no knowledge of language and literature – as well as feeble reading, comprehension and logic skills that leave them essentially functionally illiterate…and the rapid spread of texting and tweeting is putting the final nails in the coffin, in my opinion.
On the other hand, there is a time and place for that effort – and an article that purports to be attempting to convey specific information and the reason it is important is not the time or place to be forcing the reader to look every other word up in a dictionary (or Lexicon, if you will), since people with an already limited vocabulary are unlikely to take the time and effort required - or to have the knowledge needed to be able to understand even the definition of some of the more esoteric terms, much less the convoluted sentence structure you utilize. The problem is compounded by your errors in sentence construction and simple misuse of words, as I pointed out in my original post. I’m also curious how you feel that “reading more slowly” would somehow improve the failures or faults in your writing style?
Your response to the postings illustrates the same problem, specifically with your comment “form is argumentation”, which appears to me to be a variation on the idea that “The Medium is the Message”. While the quotation marks imply that it is either a commonly used term or a direct quote from something (as is my use of the title of Marshall McLuhan’s work) – I am unfamiliar with it and unable to find any reference to it that would appear to fit your usage…which causes me to have to guess at your actual meaning.
Assuming that you do, in fact, mean that the medium (form) is the message (argumentation) what, then, are we to take from your form of discourse? If a form of writing or speech is perceived as pedantic, pretentious, muddled and error filled – then what does that convey about the specific facts and relevance of the facts being presented? Would you, for example, place much faith in the knowledge and expertise of someone who said “That ain’t no proper way a usin’ that word, no how”?
I agree with you about the horrible tendency of our culture to use “talking points” and “bumper sticker” sloganeering. As I’ve often said about many such things “You know, that is cute, catchy, likeable, easily remembered, repeatable – and totally, totally illogical and incorrect”. Still (as much as I dislike the phrase) “it is what it is” – and our educational system has dumbed down the discourse in this country to the point that you have to keep the limitations of the people you are addressing in mind…particularly if you want to convey information to them and get them to agree with your ideas regarding that information…which is exactly why I included that quote from George Carlin.
Clarity of meaning and rejection of simplistic sloganeering does not require inordinate use of pretentious and/or obscure synonyms as your statement seems to imply – and which I interpret as defensiveness and unwillingness to accept appropriate criticism of your writing in this particular piece, despite your perfunctory “appreciation” of it. Frankly, the piece came across as lazy (or careless), self indulgent and pretentious. You’ve shown you are capable of better writing and everyone screws up occasionally – the important thing is to learn from it. If I didn’t think you were worth the effort it took me to write a response, I wouldn’t have bothered with it - but truly learning from a mistake requires the ability to acknowledge the fact that a mistake was made, rather than finding a rationalization to excuse your actions.
January 24, 2012 6:32pm
Dear Readers,
I appreciate your helpful (though at times oddly vitriolic) criticism. As you know, writers of all stripes often take rhetorical liberties in their work to stretch the imagination and lexicon of their readers. I am no different.
The piece was intended, in part, to induce readers to R E A D M O R E
S L O W. L Y. Since "form is argumentation," discourse isn't always reducible to the genre of the bumper sticker or to cheap sloganeering. For that we have CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc...
Appreciatively,
Christopher Petrella
January 24, 2012 1:20pm
Thank you, CaliJim! As a technical writer/editor, I was amazed (and saddened) that this article did not receive the hard hand of an editor before being published. Mr. Petrella, you lost me after the second paragraph. Please pardon the teen-speak, but I even LOL'ed a bit here at work. I would rather trudge through a more than "cursory exegesis" of the Tax data, than wade through the awkward phrasing and "25-cent" words in your writing. I was looking to this article for substantiation of an important truth and was hoping to forward to my husband and like-minded friends. But I won't forward such a muddled message. Please, Mr. Petrella, find an experienced editor — one who can keep your ego in check and ensure that the message is communicated in a manner that does NOT distract the reader. I feel like I've taken a trip back in time to when I worked for the government as a writer. We used to edit this type of writing — most often sent to us from the Department of Redundancy Department.
January 24, 2012 11:37am
I think you have something there.
January 24, 2012 9:16am
Doug Hoffer's comment (above) cuts to the core by laying bare the "logic" of Reagan's the "government is the problem" ideology (more vividly imagined by wingnut Grover Norquist as "making government small enough to drown it in the bathtub").
In reality the huge government subsidies for "defense" (the gigantic military war machine) and "security" (militarized police armed to the teeth) are a silent given for the right.
The "government" they wish to drown in the bathtub is the part providing public education, public health programs such as health clinics for women and children, public infrastructure programs such as urban transportation networks, and safety net programs for dislocated families or laid off workers, etc..
Of course they also are big on government tax deductions and exemptions for "private" schools, winger religious groups and activist sects, and for their multi-million-dollar "donations", which fuel their election propaganda machines (better known as Super-PACs).
And of course no right-wing ideology would be complete without support for government welfare and subsidies for the 1-percenters for their Wall Street banks or their multinational corporations both in health and, even more, when these teeter on the edge of bankruptcy.
Sadly, we are making relentless progress toward becoming a third-world society running on greed, militarized at home, wealth-stripping around the globe, and ready at the drop of a hat to invade, bomb, search and destroy when and wherever any resistance is offered.
And since last week we're being led by a constitutional lawyer who has now signed into law a bill authorizing the indefinite internment of US citizens in military-run gulags without trial.
January 24, 2012 8:29am
There were a few sentences that were written with words that some people didn't understand. I am pretty sure that there was some sort of secret code in there. This is like the Davinci Code. If only there were some sort of book that might offer insight into what was being said in those sentences (oh, a dictionary).
January 24, 2012 2:12am
Excessive propensity for utilization of exuberantly syllabic vocabulary obfuscates rather than elucidates pedantic dissertation.
January 23, 2012 5:04pm
Your heart's in the right place, Mr. Petrella, but your writing style needs improvement. I'm afraid I felt much the same as Calijim. Write in English, please, not in Latin. Your article contains far too many polysyllabic words and tortured sentences. Yes, we all know that Churchill was a hidebound conservative, but he could write in English that we all could understand. You might do well to read one or two of his speeches, and note that he deliberately preferred short, vivid English words over long ones from Latin and French.
Many of us already knew that the Red States were, for the most part, takers, the Blue States givers, because that's rather old news. I couldn't help but contrast your style to articles on the same subject published by TRUTHOUT, Alternet, etc. in 2007 and 2008, which I still vividly remember. Unfortunately your article is too verbose to communicate the simple facts memorably, and had me saying "Huh?" Try again! Take your readers' constructive criticism and you'll do much better next time.
January 23, 2012 7:04pm
"Orthagonal"? Did you mean "at cross purposes"? Why not just say so?
"If politics pluralizes our atomized interiorities, then we must insist upon those that can balance the exigencies of our needs with the satisfactions of our dreams."?
Really? Are you deliberately attempting to "obfuscate" the message or just attempting to appear more intellectual than you seem to be from your misguided use of "25 Cent" words?
"Pluralizes"? Since this word refers to the grammatical or linguistic method of expressing the plural form, I doubt that you actually meant what you said. I think you probably meant something like "multiplies" or more prosaically, "increases".
"Atomized" I assume you mean fragmented or dispersed?
"Interiorities"? You mean essential beliefs or sense of self?
"Therefore, the ideology of “small government” becomes enlisted to make the particular cultural capital of the white and wealthy seem not only more valuable than others." - This isn't even a complete statement, since the use of "not only" implies at least two items - so it should be followed by "but" and another option than "more valuable than others".
"Satisfactions of our Dreams"? I think the plural is incorrect...it should be the satisfaction of our dreams, or possibly the satisfying of our dreams.
"Exigencies" Since the definition of the word is the plural form of "An urgent need or demand", there's no point in following it by the redundant "needs". It would have been much more understandable if you had simply used some form of the phrase "our/their urgent needs".
Finally, I believe you meant "Inequities" (lack of equity; injustice; unfairness) rather than Iniquities, which would be "Wicked acts or Sins" in a more religious sense.
When you want someone to read and understand your meanings and conclusions, it’s best if you don’t make it more difficult for the average person to understand. I have a better than average vocabulary and I was hard pressed to make any sense of your intent and had to re-read it several times, which most people are not going to do. Articles like this are a classic example of why so many people consider liberals and/or educated people to be "uppity, know-it-all, arrogant and condescending elitists". If you want them to even understand your point, much less agree with you...KISS!
This is an important topic - and I was hoping to use your article to communicate the essential facts of the situation to others. Unfortunately, that important information is lost in the torrent of synonyms and poorly written blather. You need to find a good editor or be more careful to edit it yourself in a manner that makes it accessible to the people you are trying to reach with your message.
“Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!”
George Carlin
January 23, 2012 4:13pm
Well if your state isn't close to its primary you should register as a Republican and vote for Ron Paul - for he is the only one who will try to fix our totally corrupt Federal Government by eliminating most of it and returning power and funding to the states where it is supposed to be under our Constitution.
January 23, 2012 2:32pm
A closer look shows that most of the states that are big winners are recipients of substantial per capita defense spending (bases and/or contractors). Thus, since the Right never talks about cutting defense spending, sympathetic voters assume an end to those pesky welfare programs, not cuts in defense.