Two Americas: The “47 percent” versus the bitter-clingers
A reelected President Obama may well find himself with almost no Plains or Southern Democrats in Congress outside of a few House members in Dixie’s handful of overwhelmingly African-American districts. With little reason to make compromise or common cause with solid red-state Republicans, the administration could leave the denizens of these states to bitterly cling to their guns and religion, while the president expands on his first-term practice of bypassing Congress to legislate by decree on everything from environmental policy to immigration and the implementation of health-care reform.
Already, notes National Journal’s Ron Brownstein, Democrats hold congressional majorities in only three noncoastal states—Iowa, New Mexico, and Vermont. Much of the country inside the coasts may find themselves with little sympathy from or access to a president whose reelection they will have rejected, often by lopsided double-digit margins.
This could impact, in particular, energy policy since American fossil-fuel production is increasingly concentrated on the Plains, the rural Intermountain west and the Texas-Louisiana coast. Virtually all the mineral-rich economies excepting green-dominated California now lies well outside the electoral base of the president and his party. In a second Obama term, these states could well propel the national economy but could have little say on energy policies. Farming and ranching concerns will also have little political leverage with the White House. And traditional social concerns, most deeply felt in the Southern and more rural states, would lose all currency in a second-term administration whose worldview stems from that in big-city-dominated, deep-blue coastal states.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The bitter clingers are armed. My money’s on them.
platypus on October 5, 2012 at 7:07 PM
Actually it’s BC vs BC.
Dusty on October 5, 2012 at 7:11 PM
Not only that, we also control access to nearly all the food production, mineral production and the energy faucets.
Yoop on October 5, 2012 at 7:18 PM
Guns & Bibles vs. OBAMAPHONE!!!1!1!!!
Left Coast Right Mind on October 5, 2012 at 7:19 PM
If there are such a thing as “bitter clingers,” they’re the ones paying for the 47%.
Rixon on October 5, 2012 at 7:23 PM
As a fellow bitter clinger, we are better armed, we know where to hunt for meat, and we know how to vanish if we need to.
Beastdogs on October 5, 2012 at 8:04 PM
I’m not putting money on the other side, but I’m doubting the ability of the average BC to suddenly be able to stand up to a howling looting mob.
MelonCollie on October 5, 2012 at 8:24 PM
Are you “city” or middle-of-the-country rural?
Yoop on October 5, 2012 at 8:34 PM
Ah, I see what you’re saying. Distance won’t fix everything (it’s a small world & getting smaller) but you do have a point.
My family came from absolutely-middle-of-nowhere rural – I mean REALLY out there – but dad had to move to the city because there were too many heirs and not nearly enough land. Pretty old story.
I don’t live in a huge city and wouldn’t want to, currently I’m in what you could call “semi-suburbs”. Not out on the borders but sure as heck not in the middle of the skyscrapers.
MelonCollie on October 5, 2012 at 10:00 PM