ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Divided we stand

| Saturday, April 27, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
David Fitzsimmons | The Arizona Star

In the week since modest gun control died in the Senate, those of us who don't think guns make the country safer have been inclined to blame a few cowardly senators whose votes could have shifted the outcome.

Unfortunately, the problem is bigger than that.

Contrary to what then-Sen. Barack Obama told us in his inspiring breakout speech to the Democrats' convention of 2004, there is a blue America and a red America. And the colors have been deepening over the decade since Obama spoke.

And the red-state/blue-state fissure seems to be turning into a chasm in the months since President Obama won re-election. After the Newtown massacre, Connecticut and Maryland enacted sweeping bans on assault weapons and other gun-control measures. South Dakota enacted a bill authorizing school employees to carry guns.

As Ronald Brownstein and Stephanie Czekalinski point out in the National Journal, the chasm doesn't run through only social issues. Blue-state governors such as Jerry Brown in California and Martin O'Malley in Maryland have engineered tax and budget increases while red-state governors such as Sam Brownback in Kansas are cutting the income tax, the budget and the state workforce. The Kansas Legislature is now so far to the right that conservative Brownback finds himself trying to moderate its enthusiasm for budget-slashing.

There are still a handful of purple states. In a few (such as Virginia), the parties have compromised and made progress; in others (Wisconsin), they have gone to political war. But as The Washington Post's Dan Balz pointed out recently, the number of states that are divided evenly enough for presidential candidates to fight over has been steadily dwindling. In 2012, only four (Florida, Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina) were decided by five percentage points or less.

On many issues the country is sharply divided, as it was between Obama and Mitt Romney (Obama won just 51.1 percent of votes). And while congressional gerrymandering amplifies the effect of the division, even fair redistricting would not bridge the chasm, as Rob Richie explained in a Washington Post op-ed last fall. (Richie's solution: Create multi-member House districts, so that the minority party in any given region could elect at least one out of three legislators.)

One result is that purported adherence to states' rights has become more situational than ever. Red-staters want to ignore Roe v. Wade while insisting that the most permissive state's concealed-carry law be accepted across the country. Advocates of gay marriage find themselves simultaneously against the federal Defense of Marriage Act because it doesn't recognize Massachusetts' primacy in allowing same-sex marriage and against California's ban on same-sex marriage because it violates the U.S. Constitution.

On some issues, liberal and conservative policies may get a chance to compete. Will the well-funded schools of Maryland help attract business and maintain the state's prosperity despite higher taxes, as O'Malley maintains? Or will Brownback's tax cuts more effectively drive growth? As red states resist ObamaCare and blue states embrace it, where will people be healthier?

Unfortunately, across a range of issues state diversity won't work very well. A ban on assault weapons in Maryland is of limited use if you can buy a gun in Virginia. But with Americans living in two separate worlds, that may be the reality we face for some time to come.

Fred Hiatt is the editorial page editor of The Washington Post.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me