David Brooks and cultural generalizations. Sasha Issenberg, writing in the Philadelphia Magazine, does a nice dissection of Brooks' fallacies in describing the cultural differences between red and blue states. First an example, then a word on the larger problem.

A few years ago, journalist David Brooks wrote a celebrated article for the Atlantic Monthly, "One Nation, Slightly Divisible," in which he examined the country's cultural split in the aftermath of the 2000 election, contrasting the red states that went for Bush and the blue ones for Gore. To see the vast nation whose condition he diagnosed, Brooks compared two counties: Maryland's Montgomery (Blue), where he himself lives, and Pennsylvania's Franklin (a Red county in a Blue state). "I went to Franklin County because I wanted to get a sense of how deep the divide really is," Brooks wrote ...
Franklin County was a place where "no blue New York Times delivery bags dot driveways on Sunday mornings ; [where] people don't complain that Woody Allen isn't as funny as he used to be, because they never thought he was funny," he wrote. "In Red America churches are everywhere. In Blue America Thai restaurants are everywhere. In Red America they have QVC, the Pro Bowlers Tour, and hunting. In Blue America we have NPR, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and socially conscious investing."


Brooks, an agile and engaging writer, was doing what he does best, bringing sweeping social movements to life by zeroing in on what Tom Wolfe called "status detail," those telling symbols -- the Weber Grill, the open-toed sandals with advanced polymer soles -- that immediately fix a person in place, time and class. Through his articles, a best-selling book, and now a twice-a-week column in what is arguably journalism's most prized locale, the New York Times op-ed page, Brooks has become a must-read, charming us into seeing events in the news through his worldview.

There's just one problem: Many of his generalizations are false. According to Amazon.com sales data, one of Goodwin's strongest markets has been deep-Red McAllen, Texas. That's probably not, however, QVC country. "I would guess our audience would skew toward Blue areas of the country," says Doug Rose, the network's vice president of merchandising and brand development. "Generally our audience is female suburban baby boomers, and our business skews towards affluent areas." Rose's standard presentation of the QVC brand includes a map of one zip code -- Beverly Hills, 90210 -- covered in little red dots that each represent one QVC customer address, to debunk "the myth that they're all little old ladies in trailer parks eating bon bons all day."

So you get the theme- the article spends much ink debunking the cultural generalizations Brooks asserts as differences between red and blue voting areas. The larger problem is this:inaccuratee stereotypes.
And I don't mean to submit an entry into the tried and true, Oprah audienceclappingg, we-shouldn't stereotype argument. Rather, I want to pinpoint this particular generalization, because it's particularly problematic.
it is made to promote the liberals are elitists not worried about real America. The generalization would have you believe all military members and family are republicans orindependentss that always vote republican.
For some reason, if you mow a lawn, don't drink latte, and don't read the Times, you are more genuine and more likely to vote republican.
Somehow, the latte drinkers are responsible for our moral decay. They are the reason business can't rely on a sturdy handshake. Thanks to them, lawyers are killing small business and mature lawyers (judges) are making up laws.
This red state blue state, idealized small town church vs big city tea house crap is stupid and tiresome. Stupid, because its simplistic and wrong. My favorite Republican loves a cappuccino. Tiresome because its stereotyping for political purposes. Its good for your party if you can manipulate the popular generalization that republicans (red states) are genuine, down to earth folk.