Classical Pastoralism
Published By: All Right Magazine on July 16, 2007
Understanding the Great Red/Blue Divide Part 1
By FAIRFIELD PINPOINT
2007-07-16
When the Founding Fathers designed the country, they did
so at a time when there were a mere 4 million souls huddled along the Eastern
Seaboard. New
York City itself boasted of only 33,131 people. It was the true Democratic-Republican ideal,
a nation of farmers with a vested interest in liberty and property. Drawing from Greek and Roman heritage and a
concept called classical pastoralism, they looked to heroes such as Lucius
Quinctius Cincinnatus, the legendary Roman consul who cared more for plowing
his fields than absolute power. Thomas
Jefferson especially praised the rural makeup of the nation saying, “I think
our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries as long as they are chiefly
agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any
part of America.” According to the theory, these landowners
were essentially vested in the nation.
Leftists constantly belittle the wisdom of the Founders, claiming that
it is from a bygone era two centuries past, but if anything reaffirms the
foresight of the Founding Fathers, it is what is today called the Ownership
Society.
Jefferson used the
word “virtuous” in describing a republic based on property ownership. The current reader might find this a curious
choice of language. After all, isn’t the
liberal conception of government that it is, indeed, conceived in virtue and
therefore naturally virtuous? On the sinister (Latin for “left”) side of the
aisle, government could never be merely a necessary evil as Thomas Paine
described it. To the Left, Government is
the ultimate tool for creating social equality above and beyond mere political
equality. Everyone cannot be rich. Therefore, no one should be.
Does this not tarnish or even destroy the American
dream? How can one third to one half of
the American population consistently fall prey to a line of thinking that
treads upon private property rights? It
comes down to ownership. In election
after election at the national level, the primary bulwark of support for the
Democratic Party is in urban areas while Republicans rely on rural and suburban
backing. In fact, the county-by-county
maps created following the 2000 and 2004 elections show a complete split in the
electorate along city limits.
In the city, owning one’s dwelling is a novelty. For many, rent is a way of life rather than
an option to be used sparingly. Under
such conditions, security is never quite achieved. There is a feeling that a missed paycheck or two
will result in eviction and a new address at the local homeless shelter. Renters are in a way slaves to their
landlords. Without home ownership, there
is also a question of what to do about retirement. At some point the body will tire, and work
will not be an option. How will rent then
be made?
Common citizens are faced with two possibilities to forego
this fate. On one hand, they could flee
the city as did so many people following the conclusion of the Second World
War. The other option is to depend on
the kindness of strangers, as it were, by giving up on the dream of home
ownership and voting for liberal policies that focus on income redistribution
and increased state services. For those
in the latter category, programs such as nationalized health care provide a
sense of comfort in that they are in keeping with the subsistence lifestyle so
prevalent in the inner city.
People in the former category have heeded Jefferson’s advice
and the American tradition of moving to the frontier. Today the frontier is the suburb. There, classical pastoralism with a
contemporary twist, thrives as suburbanites fashion themselves into modern
pioneers on the outskirts of urbanization.
They work to achieve the house, picket fence, and two-car garage. Their monthly check goes first to large
corporate financial institutions but eventually results in financial
independence, the polar opposite of financial dependence found in the core of
the urban landscape.
Where real estate happens to be the most expensive, there
will be found the most ardent support of collectivist policies. Large Blue-State cities can have real estate
prices upwards of four times the national average. New
York (399% of the national average) and San
Francisco (308% of the national average) have
the highest real estate prices as one might expect, and the liberal credentials
of each are impeccable. On the other
hand, smaller cities such as Cincinnati, OH (85.1%
of the national average) and Topeka, KS (87.9%
of the national average) went red in the 2004 election. Nearly every rural area voted with Bush, and
the suburbs were prime Republican areas as well.
As with all patterns there will be irregularities, but the
pattern will hold. California
estimates that it will have 60 million people by 2050 if current migration
legal and otherwise continues. People
will have their choice. Many will simply
leave to pursue happiness with a lower cost of living. The
L.A. Times recently quoted Fifi Bo, a California resident
who has already moved out of Los Angeles, as
saying, “We don’t know where to go. Maybe Arizona.” An unscientific poll accompanying the article also
resulted in a third of Californians who claimed that they would “be out of
Dodge” before population reached that point.
In that case, welcome to the land of Goldwater.
