There’s more to this nation than red, blue divide

Here are four confusing, often repeated words: red state, blue state.

Most believe the designations describe geographical or political regions of our country, the blue being more Democratic, the red more Republican.

While some think this seemingly neat division of our country into two categories is right, the fact is that there are no pure blue states or red ones. We are much more diverse than these simplistic characterizations imply.

This blue/red description is simply oversimplified if not false. Why? Because this definition of who we are doesn’t describe the reality. The more we accept these designations, the more we act the part we think describes us. Ironically in so doing, we become who others say we are, not who we know ourselves to be.

Take Pennsylvania, for example. It may have more blue parts in metropolitan areas and red in rural and smalltown portions, but there are patches of blue in rural areas and of red in blue areas. And there are areas more purple, or mixed, in other words.

Colin Woodard, a historian and journalist, suggests that we actually are 11 rival regional cultures, each with its own historical roots dating back centuries. In his book “American Nations,” Woodard suggests that these rival cultural regions are a better description of who we are and why we fight so much.

Woodard argues that Pennsylvania is part of what he calls Midland culture, which consists of many states, or “Middle America.” Since its inception in 1680, the Midlands culture — founded by religious motivations, at least in Pennsylvania — has been marked by people who valued individual liberty and simply wanted to be left alone by government especially when it came to practicing their faith.

While Woodard’s analysis helps to provide a more nuanced understanding of our nation, I am more intrigued by the argument he makes in another book, “American Character,” in which he describes a continuing struggle between two competing visions, one stressing individual rights and the other the good of the wider community.

This contrast between individual rights and the good of the community can be seen playing out today in terms of how people react to dealing with COVID-19. One view argues for getting vaccines to protect the common good, the other rejects vaccine mandates to protect individual rights.

So here we are in the first decades of the 21st century, still wrestling with the same dynamics that have been part of our identity since the beginning. Some stress individual and state rights, others community or federal obligations. Some states have few gun laws, others want to pose some common standards. Some want to mandate masks to protect the community, others to have few or no mask mandates to protect individual rights.

There are even some calling for a new alignment of states, a kind of separation once again. The problem with that suggestion is that it would be extremely difficult to do, practically speaking, when it comes to tariffs, trade agreements, taxes, agreements with other nations. The last time the union was split was during the Civil War which claimed from 650,00 to 850,000 lives.

Curiously enough, it’s Russia now that seems to be calling for a renewed Soviet Union, rather than separate nations.

What’s a poor country to do given such seemingly conflicting understandings? The answer is that if we want to keep our union, there need to be compromises between those who stress individual rights and those who focus on community obligations.

The now dirty word “compromise” has always been part of our national identity. Perhaps it’s time to refocus our energies on compromises that seek both the common good and individual rights. Either that or the fighting continues while people suffer from stalled legislation and constant bickering.