Michael Kinsley on the GOP's geographical chauvinism

Attack Geography

By Michael Kinsley
Friday, November 21, 2003; Page A45

Republicans have had a talent for geographical chauvinism since Nixon's Southern Strategy. Wherever a Democratic candidate happens to be from, that place turns out to be isolated and unrepresentative and not part of the real America. They are having a good time at the moment dissing Vermont, home of former governor Howard Dean. It's way up there in the Northeast somewhere. (Yeah, not too far from the Bush family hangout in Maine.) It doesn't have any black people. Its best-known product is some hippie ice cream. Worst of all, it's (gasp!) "bucolic."

Odd, but I don't recall these points being made by any politician, Republican or Democrat, about New Hampshire, which is adjacent to Vermont. In the next few months, as always in election years, we will be hearing repeatedly about what a wonderful place New Hampshire is. Second only to Iowa. But Vermont -- now, that's a different story.

In 1988 Republicans painted Massachusetts as a foreign country and Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis as an elitist, compared with that po'boy from Texas, the elder George Bush. Massachusetts, to its credit, is a bit south of Vermont. On the other hand, it is full of universities. Need we say more?

When Bill Clinton emerged as Democratic frontrunner in 1992, Republicans went to work denigrating Arkansas. "A failed governor of a small state," was the sound bite summary. "Failed" was disputable, and disputed. "Small" was beyond dispute. But so what? "Mine is bigger than yours" is the subtext of a lot that goes on in politics, but getting all puffed up about the size of your state seems especially ridiculous. Should mothers in small states go back to their children and say: "Sorry, I was wrong. You can't grow up to be president. Our state's too small"?

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2168-2003Nov20.html

:kick: