The chances of me ever taking former secretary of Labor Robert Reich seriously has been severely diminished by his Coastal Theory:

Talking about coastal versus inland, there’s an age-old political pattern that also bears mentioning… Places closest to oceans and big rivers flowing into oceans tend to be liberal. Places farthest from oceans and big rivers flowing into oceans are conservative… Why this pattern? Because since the dawn of civilization, water routes have carried people much more quickly and easily than overland routes. The result has been a mixing of ideas, nationalities, and new perspectives on coasts or along big rivers. Hence, inlanders are more parochial, and stay that way longer. They’re often offended by what comes to them from the coasts and big rivers. When they’re offended enough, they react.

Apparently Nazi Germany had no rivers, Japan isn’t surrounded by ocean and Mao spent all of his time in the Gobi. Oh, and “red state” conservatives are parochial bumpkins who’s ignorance drives their depraved ideology whereas the Truth has found itself understood only by the enlightened “blue state” liberals — never mind the red state/blue state, NASCAR bumpkin vs. latte sophisticates nonsense is bogus.

Can someone explain why, after demonstrating the liberal/conservative dichotomy is meaningless in most political debate that occurs in Washington, Reich bothers to propose a “Coastal Theory” that attempts to explain the false dichotomy?


0 Responses to “Whaaa?”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: