The Coast vs. the Heartland
The seldom discussed polarization of American communities
I am not a political scientist. I want to be careful to note that I am merely stating an observation, not declaring definitively that I understand the causal process for why voters cast their ballot. Voters cast their ballot for a number of reasons. This article includes some oversimplifications that I am happy to enumerate on should questions arise.
Looking at the projected electoral map for the 2016 United States Presidential Race, the visual contrast is startling. The coasts are voting for the Democratic candidate. The heartland — the middle of the country — is voting for the Republican candidate, Donald Trump. This contrast warrants a closer look at American communities. The traditional electoral map does not tell the whole story.
The I-95 corridor, with the exception of South Carolina and Georgia (following characteristics of the South), is mostly in the Clinton camp (with Virginia and North Carolina on the border). Most of these states have large internationally-minded communities, consider diversity a fundamentally American value, and live and work near the “halls of power” in the United States: Washington, New York, Boston, etc. These values are consistent with America’s identity. The West Coast, holding historically liberal states, is diverse, more educated, and internationally-facing towards Asia, with large cosmopolitan cities like Los Angeles, San Francesco, and Seattle. In fact, 10 of the most diverse cities are on the West and East coast. Finally, the Northern states around Lake Michigan are voting for Clinton. You might think these Central communities would support Trump. Yet many larger communities, such as Chicago and Detroit, tend to be driven by diverse, cosmopolitan, and educated voters. America’s largest cities fall in these regions; the Economist finds that most of them are liberal.
The I-95 corridor, with the exception of South Carolina and Georgia (the South), is mostly in the Clinton camp.
The Heartland, consisting of states in the Midwest, the South, and the Southwest, is generally voting Trump in the Presidential race and many state and local races. These communities are committed to what they believe is fundamentally American: taking care of America first, securing our communities, and ensuring personal ownership through low taxes and low government involvement. These principles are admirable. The South has historically taken pride in states rights and the ability to control their own destiny. Many blue collar workers believe in a government that taxes less, is pro-business, and respects individual liberty by staying less involved. According to a Pew 2015 Pew poll, “Fully 80% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they prefer a smaller government with fewer services, compared with just 31% of Democrats and Democratic leaners.” Finally, these communities contain the most voters without a 4 year degree, according to Business Insider. Trump led among these voters 58% to 30% in July 2016.
This map of the most liberal and conservative cities also reflects the 2016 electoral landscape and the polarization of American communities:
The New York Times has recently reported that “the population density of a county has become a strong predictor of how residents vote in presidential elections.” Research has shown that urban communities are generally liberal, whereas rural communities are broadly conservative. According to the Washington Post, the nuance is even more specific to spatial location in towns. According to the Atlantic, “the new political divide is a stark division between cities and what remains of the countryside.” In fact, only 4 major cities voted Republican in 2012: Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, and Salt Lake City — all of which belong in the “Heartland.”
Does this difference between different groups of voters concern you? Donald Trump and his supports have certainly shown that there is a loud group of Americans that are not happy with the state of the country, and rightfully so. Hilary Clinton and her supporters, the mainstream establishment, have praised principles of tolerance, diversity, and equality that are also American values. However much you may disagree with either perspective, each group is part of the American community.
It seems that there might be a broad causal relationship between political preferences —their voting behavior — and the characteristics of one’s community, including diversity, international relationships, and education. Diverse and multi-cultural groups, if integrated well (the South, for example, has historical tension), breed a commitment to “tolerance” and compassion, with some intolerance to those who disagree. Largely traditional communities develop a unwavering duty to what citizens see as fundamental values that are integral to freedom and opportunity. As scholars Bill Bishop and Robert Cushing note, “America may be more diverse than ever coast to coast, but the places where we live are becoming increasingly crowded with people who live, think, and vote like we do.”
It seems that groups or clusters are voting one way or another, with the demographics of their communities revealing a possible explanation for that difference. In the Social Citizen, the political scientist Betsy Sinclair has found that peer networks, or the community with which you surround yourself, have a great impact on voting impact. For example, the Atlantic again notes that “the voting data suggest that people don’t make cities liberal — cities make people liberal. Here, courtesy of Princeton’s Robert Vanderbai, is an electoral map that captures the divisions.” Unfortunately, American leaders are not talking about these differences. If they are, they do so with rhetoric, hoping to enflame them to guarantee their own vote. The polarization of America does not end at political ideology — it stems from fundamental differences in human experience.
While some leaders and citizens recognize this divide, hardly anyone is thinking about a solution. Human psychology, American institutions, and social norms are firmly entrenched: the solution will not be easy. Perhaps partisanship and polarization is not solved in the hallways of the Capital, but in the streets of local neighborhoods. America needs to invest in cross-community efforts to bridge peer networks of different human experiences. We need to build vibrant local communities and exchange programs to expose people to new views in a less hostile environment. We need real, intimate dialogue. We have to recognize that America is by definition polarized, but our strength has come when we have found unity through that difference. We have seen this emerge through challenges like the Civil War, the great depression, the World Wars, the Civil Rights Movement, and 9/11. We have responded to crises; should we not try to come together when all is well, too?
Perhaps partisanship and polarization is not solved in the hallways of the Capital, but in the streets of local neighborhoods.
Coming together does not mean that you compromise your principles and values. Some days you will get your way and some days you will not. But leaders and citizens alike need to talk to each other, listen, and challenge each other to find a good, agreeable solution. Frankly, voters do not trust their governments to facilitate this process. Given the combination of unrealistic expectations and poor leadership, this is no surprise. America needs political institutions and a culture that facilitates collaboration, reflection, and collective action, particularly in local communities where people of every perspective can come together. We need to understand where each other are coming from. Our elected officials at the federal, state, and local can play a role in leading this effort. But ultimately, it starts with the way each American treats their neighbors near and far.
