Myth of Middle America

Who's idea was it that certain parts of the USA were somehow more "real" or "authentic" than others in the first place?

Despite ample evidence that regional divides are neither anything new, or unique to the US nobody seems able to give a definitive answer.

Perhaps a better question would be whether there is any truth in the idea that some parts of the US represent "patriotism and traditional values" (translation the Red States and the South) while others parts are, well, a little bit questionable at best (translation Blue States and more liberal areas). Some people would say that Middle America or the heartland refers to the middle of the country and to areas that are further away from the coasts and the borders, where there are too many, you know, foreign influences, liberal wackos, and those people. Of course, such reasoning may make sense for a country like France where the border has moved a number of times. However it not only makes less sense for a nation made up of immigrants, but also fails to explain why Texas would be considered a part of "middle America" and the "heartland" when it has a larger share of both the US-Mexican border and the Gulf coast in its outline than any other state.
Others have suggested that the key issue is more urban/suburban vs. rural. Fine if that is the case why would most people include the suburb Orange county, with a population of 3 million on top of it's proximity to both the coast and the Mexican border? Also why would so many exclude towns like Arcata, California or Jerome Arizona? Or smaller Midwestern cities such as Madison, Wisconsin?

To which many people would respond that it really comes down to having those Middle American Values (translation being a conservative).

And when you ask the self appointed authorities on who isn't and isn't an authentic Middle American whether or not skin color or ethnic background matters, they become a little more hesitant. Often they will insist that these factors are not in themselves important and that one needn't be white to be a middle American pointing to some of the more conservative African American churches or various signs that certain Asian and Latino demographics appear to have adopted those Middle American Values (translation voting Republican).

Also they will remind you just how many white people don't fit the bill by pointing to all those elitist Hollywood liberals, and coffee sipping Boston Democrats. Of course, once you point out tthat bluest of states Massachuesetts, gets this distinction more from Irish Catholics than coffee sipping Boston Brahmins, they may become a little hesitant. Usually they are prepared to accept that Irish Catholics are "Middle Americans" as long as they believe the myth that most of us, are single issue anti-abortion voters. But the minute you show them the evidence that Irish Catholics are among the most liberal of all the major white gentile ethnic groups, all of a sudden they start to look just a little bit "too ethnic" to be real Middle Americans. After all, can a people who's key historical ambition was freedom from England and it's imperial designs, really understand the motives upon which America was founded? Many cultural conservatives would doubt it very much.

Perhaps more troubling still are some of the double standards as to who can do what without having their patriotism called into question. A lifelong resident of Georgia can display a Confederate flag (a symbol of the South's attempt to leave the US entirely) and it is considered a sign that he is among the most salt of the earth, honest to God, hardworking of Middle Americans. Meanwhile a mother in Connecticut, a school teacher from Ohio, or a labor unionist from Seattle are likely to face accusations of being unpatriotic, disloyal, and basically marginal members of American society, for publicly stating that they believe wars such as Vietnam or Iraq are wrong. And that remains true no matter how much concern they express for American lives or their country's good name.

What is one to make of all this? In the final analysis it seems that the designation of Middle American is a massive act of social and geographic Gerrymandering in which populations, demographics, or communities that tend to vote conservative are portrayed as authentic Middle Americans. And their more liberal counterparts end up labeled as marginal, unpatriotic, flaky, lacking substance, and just plain not as "authentic". And believers in this designation can ALWAYS come up with some new rule, clause, or rationale to keep liberals out of the "Middle American" column, and conservatives out of the "unpatriotic flakes" column.

Certainly there may be no definitive moment where our country went from a sensibility where Woody Guthrie sang of a country that stretched from California to the New York Islands, and from the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters, to the divisions and double standards that marked the Bush years in particular.

But the botton line is that no matter what the origin of these notions, we don't have to believe it.

Say Goodnight Readers!!