This was already posted on my blog, http://wantsomewood.blogspot.com
Overall, I really do like David Sirota (the progressive writer and organizer, and author of the book Hostile Takeover). He's passionate, he's combative, and he cares sincerely about making America a better place. Sometimes, I have disagreements with him, but they are usually on tone and strategy, not on the issues; we agree almost 100% on the issues. That may be why I absolutely hated reading these words on his blog the other day, in a posting in which he was discussing his impending move to Denver from Montana:
"Montana will still be here after we move to Denver, and we will no doubt be back to visit. But we are really sad to be leaving. When you live in a small town like this (Helena, Montana) in the great American heartland, you realize all the things you never had when you lived in the East Coast grind. I’m going to miss it dearly."
Yes, Sirota has a right to live wherever he wants, and to think about any place whatever he wants. But I have that right, too, and I am absolutely and completely sick and tired of reading that this, that, or the other place between the coasts of America is "the heartland," and that the East Coast is therefore not the heartland, and is, by implication, not a part of the "real" America. (Why do I think that Sirota is generalizing, and not just expressing a personal opinion? Because of his use of the word "you," and the deliberate use of words like "heartland" and "grind.")
I was born in Washington, DC, and I live in a suburb just outside of it. I love this area, I am proud to say I was born here, I love the East in general, and I will apologize to absolutely no one for saying any of those things. I also categorically reject any suggestion that where I live is any less American than Montana, Colorado, Missouri, Alabama, or any other place anywhere in America. Part of the reason I like where I'm from is because I have many neighbors whose politics are like mine. I don't love everything about this place (any more than I would love everything about any place where I might live), but it certainly is not a "grind" for me.
Of course, it really should not escape Sirota's notice that the East Coast, especially its heavily-Democratic-voting urban areas, are regularly denounced by conservatives as scary, run-down, and not-really-American places, not least because of the aforementioned Democratic voting habits. Sirota, by using this "heartland is better" language, is doing something he regularly (and often rightly) criticizes others for doing--accepting right-wing points of view and going with them, instead of questioning them. Some other liberal writers, notably Kos, unfortunately do the same thing. (One that does not, to his great credit, is Gadflyer and Media Matters contributor Paul Waldman.)
It strikes me as common sense that liberals should like places that vote liberal, or, at the very least, they should not accept the conservatives' framing of those places as un-American.
One of the few silver linings to emerge from the horrific events of September 11th was the "we're all in this together" sentiment that came out at that time. People from all over the country pitched in to help their compatriots in New York and Washington; there was no suggestion that people from those places weren't worthy of help, simply because of where they lived. There was no "heartland," and therefore no suggestion that there were unworthy places that weren't the heartland; the heartland was Ground Zero. George W. Bush has done just about everything he could do to ruin and squander that national togetherness; in the end, I hope it survives him, and I hope that liberals like Sirota will help it survive.