Searching for the Spirit of the Midwest(newrepublic.com)
newrepublic.com
Searching for the Spirit of the Midwest
https://newrepublic.com/article/170700/searching-spirit-midwest-lauck-good-country-review
37 comments
I’m a huge fan of "Democracy in America. But you’re missing a critical point. By 1830 when de Tocqueville was writing, the seeds of the Republican Party were already sown in the Midwest. Ohio was (essentially) Republican then for the same reason it’s Republican now: it’s a culturally and religiously homogenous place. And it’s also the same reason it was an egalitarian democracy—high social trust and social consensus. The Midwest is the closest America has ever come to the egalitarian socialism of Northern Europe, which is similarly homogeneous.
By contrast, we have never seen that model of Midwestern democracy replicated in a multicultural society. When you have these different groups, you lose the social trust, you lose the consensus. You end up needing elites and top-down hierarchy to mediate those disparate groups. Contrast say Minnesota with New York. Or consider the history of machine and ethnic politics in Chicago, all the way up to the recent election.
By contrast, we have never seen that model of Midwestern democracy replicated in a multicultural society. When you have these different groups, you lose the social trust, you lose the consensus. You end up needing elites and top-down hierarchy to mediate those disparate groups. Contrast say Minnesota with New York. Or consider the history of machine and ethnic politics in Chicago, all the way up to the recent election.
You may find this diagram on Page 2 of this paper interesting:
https://dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/object/boreal%3A211443/d...
It theorizes how to build social trust, without top-down hierarchy / constant mediation, through the cultivation of strong institutions and a common identity. It's an interesting premise that opposes progressive ideology. However, I have yet to read the books it references, nor have I examined the history behind its findings: https://www.amazon.com/Strains-Commitment-Political-Solidari...
It theorizes how to build social trust, without top-down hierarchy / constant mediation, through the cultivation of strong institutions and a common identity. It's an interesting premise that opposes progressive ideology. However, I have yet to read the books it references, nor have I examined the history behind its findings: https://www.amazon.com/Strains-Commitment-Political-Solidari...
Massachusetts was remarkably homogeneous for the first 100yr and they ran the kind of authoritarian theocracy that the Taliban would be proud of.
I guess they voted for it in the same way that there are plenty of dictators that always win an overwhelming vote but it kind of begs the question what is democracy? Is it possible to consider a society in which the elites (clergy rather than landowners in this case) tell the peasants how to think and what to think and the peasants then turn around and vote for "yes we'd like more please" a democracy? Can it really be a democracy if the system all but precludes bottom up grassroots change? I think such a society is not a democracy. It's just a well run theocracy. It only "works" so long as the elite don't become out of touch and do things to run it all into the ground.
I guess they voted for it in the same way that there are plenty of dictators that always win an overwhelming vote but it kind of begs the question what is democracy? Is it possible to consider a society in which the elites (clergy rather than landowners in this case) tell the peasants how to think and what to think and the peasants then turn around and vote for "yes we'd like more please" a democracy? Can it really be a democracy if the system all but precludes bottom up grassroots change? I think such a society is not a democracy. It's just a well run theocracy. It only "works" so long as the elite don't become out of touch and do things to run it all into the ground.
I agree with your first point, but I think the Massachusetts Bay colony is actually a model of democracy. It was an authoritarian theocracy, but not a top-down one. It was built on distributed social consensus between autonomous congregations, a structure that survives to some extent to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregationalist_polity
And it was a vehicle for “grassroots change.” They came over here and built exactly the kind of society the people wanted. Maybe it’s not the kind of society you’d want, but it’s the kind they wanted.
The Taliban analogy is interesting. I think democratic theocracy would have been a much better model for our nation building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan than the secular liberal democracy we tried to impose on those countries.
And it was a vehicle for “grassroots change.” They came over here and built exactly the kind of society the people wanted. Maybe it’s not the kind of society you’d want, but it’s the kind they wanted.
The Taliban analogy is interesting. I think democratic theocracy would have been a much better model for our nation building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan than the secular liberal democracy we tried to impose on those countries.
Well, true.
All kinds of governments can form with all kinds of demographics. That's for sure.
I guess looking at stats, today Mass. does better than Minn. in almost every category as well. (College sports excepted.) I guess Mass. is the closest we have in the US to authoritarianism meets capitalism, and, yes, I suppose it worked out really well for Mass. as a historical practice. But I also wonder where you have the largest number of happy stories? Mass. or Minn.? That's not as easy to check as the stats.
By the way:
Can it really be a democracy if the system all but precludes grassroots change?
Yes it can. Democracy means everyone gets a vote. We can't say it's not democracy when people don't vote the way we want them to. That's the first step down an even darker path.. If the way people are voting precludes grassroots change, then the people have spoken.
All kinds of governments can form with all kinds of demographics. That's for sure.
I guess looking at stats, today Mass. does better than Minn. in almost every category as well. (College sports excepted.) I guess Mass. is the closest we have in the US to authoritarianism meets capitalism, and, yes, I suppose it worked out really well for Mass. as a historical practice. But I also wonder where you have the largest number of happy stories? Mass. or Minn.? That's not as easy to check as the stats.
By the way:
Can it really be a democracy if the system all but precludes grassroots change?
Yes it can. Democracy means everyone gets a vote. We can't say it's not democracy when people don't vote the way we want them to. That's the first step down an even darker path.. If the way people are voting precludes grassroots change, then the people have spoken.
>Yes it can. Democracy means everyone gets a vote. We can't say it's not democracy when people don't vote the way we want them to. That's the first step down an even darker path.. If the way people are voting precludes grassroots change, then the people have spoken.
If the rulers have designed a system where change the existing rulers have not condoned is all but impossible then have they really spoken? There's a reason I compared it to a dictator that keeps getting "elected".
At what point does it become not a democracy? There isn't an obvious distinction. It's necessarily a subjective judgement call.
Surely 2023 Russia isn't a democracy despite having elections. What about 1802 United states? 1859 Georgia? There are many factors that go into it and there's isn't a simple and easy answer.
I think it's probably easier to be a democracy in lower touch government systems simply because there's less axis of potential policy and therefore less potential for "I hate this but I'm voting for it anyway because of some other thing" combinations and therefore any expression of intent by the people is more clear. For example contrast a simple ballot measure with any given US presidential election that always begs the question "are people voting for one guy and/or party or against the other guy and/or party". The intent of the people is more clear in the case of the ballot measure (yes I know direct democracy vs representative induces an apples and oranges situation but it still illustrates my point).
If the rulers have designed a system where change the existing rulers have not condoned is all but impossible then have they really spoken? There's a reason I compared it to a dictator that keeps getting "elected".
At what point does it become not a democracy? There isn't an obvious distinction. It's necessarily a subjective judgement call.
Surely 2023 Russia isn't a democracy despite having elections. What about 1802 United states? 1859 Georgia? There are many factors that go into it and there's isn't a simple and easy answer.
I think it's probably easier to be a democracy in lower touch government systems simply because there's less axis of potential policy and therefore less potential for "I hate this but I'm voting for it anyway because of some other thing" combinations and therefore any expression of intent by the people is more clear. For example contrast a simple ballot measure with any given US presidential election that always begs the question "are people voting for one guy and/or party or against the other guy and/or party". The intent of the people is more clear in the case of the ballot measure (yes I know direct democracy vs representative induces an apples and oranges situation but it still illustrates my point).
What you're expressing a desire for is pluralism. Not necessarily democracy.
Athens was a democracy, but I'm guessing you likely would not have approved of it because it was anything but pluralistic.
You're talking about an ideological ideal, where the grassroots is as heard as the clergy. A laudable goal, but democracy is a mechanism. You use democracy to get to that ideal. But you may need more than simple democracy. You may need a rule separating church from state to stop what happened in the Commonwealth. Completely non-democratic, because you're precluding people from voting for certain people, but it's protecting pluralism, and pluralist thoughts and ideas. Of course that rule does you no good if people just ignore said rules, but that's another discussion.
Athens was a democracy, but I'm guessing you likely would not have approved of it because it was anything but pluralistic.
You're talking about an ideological ideal, where the grassroots is as heard as the clergy. A laudable goal, but democracy is a mechanism. You use democracy to get to that ideal. But you may need more than simple democracy. You may need a rule separating church from state to stop what happened in the Commonwealth. Completely non-democratic, because you're precluding people from voting for certain people, but it's protecting pluralism, and pluralist thoughts and ideas. Of course that rule does you no good if people just ignore said rules, but that's another discussion.
> If the rulers have designed a system where change the existing rulers have not condoned is all but impossible then have they really spoken? There's a reason I compared it to a dictator that keeps getting "elected".
I don’t think you’ve established that the Massachusetts Bay colony had a system that prevented change that wasn’t condoned by the existing rulers. I would argue it had a system of enforced social consensus that could change (and did change) as the consensus changed.
“Dictators” come in two varieties. One is someone like Putin, who enforces policies the majority may or may not support. But another is someone like Lee Kuan Yew, who presides over a consensus-oriented society that keeps getting elected because the consensus supports the direction of the country. The latter is still a democracy, and in a way a more perfect democracy. The authoritarian element serves not to oppress the majority, but to overcome the heckler’s veto and allow the government to actually do what the majority wants.
And, of course, the structure of power in the Massachusetts bay colony was much more distributed and democratic than Singapore. It was a sort of collective authoritarianism rather than top down authoritarianism.
I don’t think you’ve established that the Massachusetts Bay colony had a system that prevented change that wasn’t condoned by the existing rulers. I would argue it had a system of enforced social consensus that could change (and did change) as the consensus changed.
“Dictators” come in two varieties. One is someone like Putin, who enforces policies the majority may or may not support. But another is someone like Lee Kuan Yew, who presides over a consensus-oriented society that keeps getting elected because the consensus supports the direction of the country. The latter is still a democracy, and in a way a more perfect democracy. The authoritarian element serves not to oppress the majority, but to overcome the heckler’s veto and allow the government to actually do what the majority wants.
And, of course, the structure of power in the Massachusetts bay colony was much more distributed and democratic than Singapore. It was a sort of collective authoritarianism rather than top down authoritarianism.
A simple and obvious fact that has an incredible explanatory power in understanding the motivations and actions of the ruling class.
> ... It's become the most Republican state now
This is easily verifiable as false, so it makes the rest of your comment suspect. https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/most-republican-states/
This is easily verifiable as false, so it makes the rest of your comment suspect. https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/most-republican-states/
Based on the rest of that sentence you quoted, it is the most among midwestern states.
thanks, that wasn't clear at all. But even among Midwest states, that is not true. (KS, MO, SD, ND, NE are all more republican) https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/midwest.htm
Agriculture in general was Big Tech at the opening of the 20th Century.
I think manufacturing is more similar to big tech (it WAS tech) in both type and impact.
> it WAS tech
That’s a pretty small view of “tech”. Development of repeatable agricultural practices for predictable yield is absolutely a technological accomplishment (and not just because there were machines involved)
That’s a pretty small view of “tech”. Development of repeatable agricultural practices for predictable yield is absolutely a technological accomplishment (and not just because there were machines involved)
By what measure has Ohio fallen more than other midwestern states? I suspect it ranks better than average compared to most midwestern states in terms of health, income, education, etc.
I was curious and checked. Looks like it consistently ranks in the bottom half of the twelve midwestern states:
Life expectancy: #10 of 12
GDP per capita: #8
Median household income: #10
Literacy rate: #9
High school graduation rate: #9
Minnesota, North Dakota, and Nebraska rank highest by most measures.
Life expectancy: #10 of 12
GDP per capita: #8
Median household income: #10
Literacy rate: #9
High school graduation rate: #9
Minnesota, North Dakota, and Nebraska rank highest by most measures.
> he has worked to revive and reorganize the study of a region that sometimes forgets it has a history, a culture, or even, famously, an accent. (Pronounce that first syllable through your nose.)
Huh? My parents are both from Boone, in the center of that map. I'm from Iowa City. My mom says "warshed", which is distinctive, [1] but I don't think any of us say the first syllable of "accent" through our noses. Anyone know what this is talking about?
[1] https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/articles/why-do-people-say...
Huh? My parents are both from Boone, in the center of that map. I'm from Iowa City. My mom says "warshed", which is distinctive, [1] but I don't think any of us say the first syllable of "accent" through our noses. Anyone know what this is talking about?
[1] https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/articles/why-do-people-say...
I believe that's a reference to the northern vowel shift.[1] Your family might have been too far west.
There is some "Warshington" out here in the PNW, but I never encountered that growing up in Michigan.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_Engli...
There is some "Warshington" out here in the PNW, but I never encountered that growing up in Michigan.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_Engli...
I grew up in Michigan. My 9th grade English teacher, who was very strict about grammar, nearly caused me to fall out of my chair one day when she said “warshed” instead of “washed”. It was very unusual both for our part of the country and for this woman who was such a stickler about our use of the language. (All 9th grade me could think is, “What a fucking hypocrite to constantly criticize us over such nitpicky things and she can’t even pronounce the word ‘washed’!”)
..big difference between grammar (definite rules) and pronunciation (born in the wrong place?).
Being from the uk - i say 'bath', my sister 'barth'.
Grammar is far from a definite set of rules, and can be modeled just as descriptively as accent.
I think the best explanation comes from singing. Say "crayon" and "offer". "Crayon" is a brighter, more nasally sound, whereas 'offer' is generally further back in the vocal cavity (referred to as a darker tone). I don't necessarily like "through the nose" but I think this is what it is describing.
Anecodtal of course but I have family that says warsh (Warshington DC) in southern Appalachia. I always assumed it was a hillbilly sort of thing. No connections to the midwest/"midlands" that I'm aware of.
[deleted]
Can I rant for a bit, as a Midwesterner? Perhaps in line with this article: my perspective having grown up and remained in perhaps one of the most emblematic midwestern states, Minnesota:
1. We rest on our laurels a lot and look down on the Southern States for having been, "racist," which really is a red herring for our own racism. "Look at what happened down south in the 1960s, thank goodness Minnesota was not like that." "We're never going to give back the 28th Virginia battle flag from the Civil War, Minnesota will be free forever!"
Yet, the Twin Cities has perhaps the largest education gap in the entire United States between black and white Americans. There are any number of explanations for why this happened, perhaps including redlining, or failed well-intentioned policies, etc., but it's a fact. I'm not defending actual racism in southern states in any way, but clearly we have something wrong here.
2. We're extremely patriotic, perhaps even more so than Texas, there are Minnesota iconography everywhere, extreme pride for all things Minnesotan, lake country, living through the cold, Sven and Ole jokes, etc. Yet there were literally almost approaching Nazi-level genocidal parts of our history which are reflected in our flags, our naming conventions, where Native Americans live, and a huge majority of people refuse to acknowledge this because it's not nice to be controversial and talk out of turn or, "be distracting from real issues." You can go to Berlin and see huge museums acknowledging the holocaust, the horrors of the past are widely acknowledged, whereas here in Minnesota I was never taught about what we did in our history, it was highly glossed over in primary school, I had to learn about the shenanigans a lot of the early Minnesotan leaders whose names adorn our streets and counties pulled through Wikipedia.
3. Overall, the disgraced Radio Personality, Garrison Keillor hit the nail on the head when he said, "All the Women are Strong, All the Men are Good Looking, and All the Children are Above Average."
As much of a creep Keillor was, that really sums up a large part the mentality very well. There's no need to improve because we're already so great, and if we aren't that great in that specific way yet, we will surely get there, so don't push on it too hard. We basically think of ourselves as a, "Scandinavian-level-democracy country," for some reason, yet, please pay no attention to any number of typical American problems that we have just like any other state.
This is not to say Minnesota doesn't do well, and that I don't like Minnesota, we do rank well in relation to other states on a lot of metrics---it's more the mentality that I'm ranting about which I think prevents us from doing even better, which I think the author is getting at in a more broader geographic sense.
1. We rest on our laurels a lot and look down on the Southern States for having been, "racist," which really is a red herring for our own racism. "Look at what happened down south in the 1960s, thank goodness Minnesota was not like that." "We're never going to give back the 28th Virginia battle flag from the Civil War, Minnesota will be free forever!"
Yet, the Twin Cities has perhaps the largest education gap in the entire United States between black and white Americans. There are any number of explanations for why this happened, perhaps including redlining, or failed well-intentioned policies, etc., but it's a fact. I'm not defending actual racism in southern states in any way, but clearly we have something wrong here.
2. We're extremely patriotic, perhaps even more so than Texas, there are Minnesota iconography everywhere, extreme pride for all things Minnesotan, lake country, living through the cold, Sven and Ole jokes, etc. Yet there were literally almost approaching Nazi-level genocidal parts of our history which are reflected in our flags, our naming conventions, where Native Americans live, and a huge majority of people refuse to acknowledge this because it's not nice to be controversial and talk out of turn or, "be distracting from real issues." You can go to Berlin and see huge museums acknowledging the holocaust, the horrors of the past are widely acknowledged, whereas here in Minnesota I was never taught about what we did in our history, it was highly glossed over in primary school, I had to learn about the shenanigans a lot of the early Minnesotan leaders whose names adorn our streets and counties pulled through Wikipedia.
3. Overall, the disgraced Radio Personality, Garrison Keillor hit the nail on the head when he said, "All the Women are Strong, All the Men are Good Looking, and All the Children are Above Average."
As much of a creep Keillor was, that really sums up a large part the mentality very well. There's no need to improve because we're already so great, and if we aren't that great in that specific way yet, we will surely get there, so don't push on it too hard. We basically think of ourselves as a, "Scandinavian-level-democracy country," for some reason, yet, please pay no attention to any number of typical American problems that we have just like any other state.
This is not to say Minnesota doesn't do well, and that I don't like Minnesota, we do rank well in relation to other states on a lot of metrics---it's more the mentality that I'm ranting about which I think prevents us from doing even better, which I think the author is getting at in a more broader geographic sense.
Don't worry. Most Midwestern states didn't fall victim to the scandi menace. We generally corralled them your way.
The winners get to write history. If you talk about history the winners left out, they feel they're about to lose.
I've lived all over the US (including the midwest) and it's the same everywhere: the message is that /our/ arbitrarily-shaped state has a unique and amazing culture, and if you don't like it you can move to ${our_major_sports_rival}. It's an easy way to move merchandise like bumper stickers and beer koozies, and a low stakes thing to incorporate into a (consumption-based) personal identity: wearing a Michigan State sweatshirt is a noop in contrast to wearing a hijab, which is possibly a quite dangerous thing to do. This kind of thing (e.g. lawn signs that say rude things about other college football teams) is mainly harmless IMO, but the real deficiencies you've identified are true of all of North America (Canada and Mexico included).
It's not Minnesota that has a vastly inflated sense of its success as a liberal democracy, it's the whole continent. Americans have phrases like "manifest destiny," and "American exceptionalism" that speak to this. I can't speak to the specifics of how this works in Canada and Mexico, but I know it does.
It's not Minnesota that willfully ignores the centuries of horrifying genocide and slavery that underlie our every footstep, it's the whole continent. Any attempt to inject a little more verisimilitude into the stories in our school history books (the most recent notable one being the 1619 Project) is rabidly opposed by white supremacists who eventually "compromise" with actual history by adding a sidebar or a separate few chapters about the middle passage or Algonquin culture /without/ ever actually stating the central point that /the purpose of America always was, and functionally still is, to enslave and steal from black and native people for the benefit of (historically exclusively white and male) elites/. Again, this is a USA-centric view but my understanding is that similar dynamics play out in Canada and Mexico.
It's not Minnesota that has a vastly inflated sense of its success as a liberal democracy, it's the whole continent. Americans have phrases like "manifest destiny," and "American exceptionalism" that speak to this. I can't speak to the specifics of how this works in Canada and Mexico, but I know it does.
It's not Minnesota that willfully ignores the centuries of horrifying genocide and slavery that underlie our every footstep, it's the whole continent. Any attempt to inject a little more verisimilitude into the stories in our school history books (the most recent notable one being the 1619 Project) is rabidly opposed by white supremacists who eventually "compromise" with actual history by adding a sidebar or a separate few chapters about the middle passage or Algonquin culture /without/ ever actually stating the central point that /the purpose of America always was, and functionally still is, to enslave and steal from black and native people for the benefit of (historically exclusively white and male) elites/. Again, this is a USA-centric view but my understanding is that similar dynamics play out in Canada and Mexico.
Florida, California, Texas, New York, and to a certain degree the unique states, Alaska, Hawaii, do have, "something special," about them due to their sheer size or uniqueness.
What does Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan have? They need to be really attractive places to live because they aren't inherently (though some parts are, they are really far away from population centers). People don't go on, "vacation to the Midwest," they go to other, better landscapes. I'm sure there are outliers and I know there are outlier locations, I'm speaking in generalities here. I have driven over a significant portion of the Midwest, it's few and far between. You can't arbitrarily make beautiful mountains pop up in Iowa, and it's cold. At least if you're in Arkansas, it's got the Ozarks, warm weather pretty much year-round.
So really the only thing we midwestern states can do is look deeply inward and improve ourselves, that's really the only thing, other massive or more interesting States can rest on their laurels for a bit because people are inherently going to want to move there. Can you tell I'm not running to be the Governor of Minnesota any time soon? ;-)
What does Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan have? They need to be really attractive places to live because they aren't inherently (though some parts are, they are really far away from population centers). People don't go on, "vacation to the Midwest," they go to other, better landscapes. I'm sure there are outliers and I know there are outlier locations, I'm speaking in generalities here. I have driven over a significant portion of the Midwest, it's few and far between. You can't arbitrarily make beautiful mountains pop up in Iowa, and it's cold. At least if you're in Arkansas, it's got the Ozarks, warm weather pretty much year-round.
So really the only thing we midwestern states can do is look deeply inward and improve ourselves, that's really the only thing, other massive or more interesting States can rest on their laurels for a bit because people are inherently going to want to move there. Can you tell I'm not running to be the Governor of Minnesota any time soon? ;-)
This is just a tired trope. There’s plenty of natural beauty in the Midwest.
People move for jobs and cheap land. Austin and the surrounding area looks pretty much like the Midwest and yet people won’t stop moving there.
The “uniqueness” is mostly branding and cultural output.
People move for jobs and cheap land. Austin and the surrounding area looks pretty much like the Midwest and yet people won’t stop moving there.
The “uniqueness” is mostly branding and cultural output.
nonethewiser(1)
It's ironic that Ohio was so advanced because it used to be the USA's Silicon Valley (birthplace of American Aviation and many other inventions) but now has fallen economically the most among Midwestern states ... It's become the most Republican state now ... Coincidence? I think not!
I've noticed an alarming number of torturing crimes come from Ohio lately, too, thankfully it has displaced California which had a terrifying reputation after the Manson murders of the late 1960s!