I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Senators from New England for being almost universally cool. Of course everyone knows Kerry and Kennedy, but I'd like to emphasize one Republican: Snowe, and an Independent: Jeffords. Jeffords is pretty much a personal hero of mine. (I too caucus with the Democrats from digust with todays Republicans). Anyway, they're a great crop from a great bunch of people. I hear a lot of stereotypes about New Englanders: they're a huge part of the "liberal east-coast elitist" persona, and they're unfriendly, stuffy, and arrogant. New Englanders are supposed to be wealthy and go to country clubs when they aren't electing Kennedys. Now that I've been out for 10 years I guess I have some perspective. I can see where these stereotypes come from. They are understandable, but they aren't fully correct.
Here's the deal: New England is old US. It's no more pure or blue-blooded than the rest of the country, and despite the New York suburbanite wealth in Western CT and the real estate prices of Boston it's not generally more wealthy. But it is old. What makes New England different is the echoes. Echos of Puritanism, revolt in the harbor, and if you listen carefully, of burning witches. Liquor stores have short hours and are higly taxed. People live by pretty strict mores and neighbors watch each other. New Englanders aren't unfriendly, but they are very reserved and rather judgmental. You might watch over a neighbor for 10-20 years before deciding they're ok. Local government is participatory, voluntary, and minimal. When it snows, locals plow the roads in their pickup trucks. When merging in traffic, you let others in. You don't do it because it's the law, or because you like merging: you do it because it's the right thing to do. But if someone lets you in, you better wave to them. You owe them a wave and you're an ass if you don't give it to them. That's a rule. It's hard to explain the rules because no one talks about them, or tells you if you break them. Instead you get dirty looks, Scarlet Letter style.
But once you're recognized as a member of the community it's a different story. You carpool, borrow eggs, and have the neighborhood kids and dogs play in your yard. You wave to strangers at the bank or movie rental store, just because you've seen them around for years. Not a big deal, just a smile and a nod to acknowledge that you recognize them. They're strangers, but not total strangers. They're part of the community, a recogonized member of the society with all rights and privelledges pertaining thereto. You're still an ass if you don't follow the rules, but it's never an issue because you know the rules and you subconsciously follow them, because
they have become your cultural values.
I guess if I were really out to defend New England I would detail these values and how they are just and good. Accountability is big up North and one of my favorites. Instead, I'm going to cherry-pick the one that makes for good senators:
you have a right to make up your own mind. I would take it even farther: you are supposed to make up your own mind, and you're a fool if you let others influence you. Pursuant to this, education is very important, and not just your education or that of your child, but public education. Everyone should be able to think clearly and rationally to decide for themselves what they believe in. The beauty of this cultural value is that it provides a limited resistance to peer pressure and group-think.
Especially politically. Massacheutsets has 2 of the more liberal senators and a Republican governor. Throughout much of my childhood CT had an independent governor. Jeffords from VT is the only independent in the senate (in all of congress?). Snowe ME, Collins ME, Jeffords VT, Chafee RI, and lately Lieberman CT are all swing voters. (Note: There are many who criticize Lieberman for "breaking ranks" with the Democrats. I support the breaking of ranks in many cases: dogmatic adherence to platforms doesn't make for a good democracy. However, Lieberman is an
embarassment to Connecticut because he has bad policy. I reserve the right to praise the fact that he thinks for himself and later criticize that he does it poorly.) There are Representatives who show indepedent thought as well, and the best case is that of Christopher Shays CT who stands
virtually alone among House Republicans in the support of higher ethical standards.
The point is that New England is not the liberal hippieland that conservatives portray it as. While it may appear staunchly Democrat, it is probably more accurate to say that it is staunchly independent and caucuses with the Democrats on a federal level. New Englanders live by a moral code and perhaps they don't like people who live too far outside of it. (Especially faux Texans. Honestly, real Texans are questionable too.) They tend to be a bit libertarian, with echos of the founding fathers desire to limit power. "Live Free or Die" is more than a motto in New Hampshire: they mean it.
New Englanders don't universally fit party labels, and don't expect their elected officials to either. It's silly to think that everyone is going to share either party's view on war, abortion, gun control, taxes, gay marrige, death penalty, education, environment, etc... (If you follow your party's platform to the letter, you're either a statistical anomoly or a partisan blindered lackey.) New England voters are more likely to see past black and white and consider shades of grey. By comparison, dithering in those shades of grey proved Kerry's downfall nationally. Neither party is right a majority of the time, and the concept of a democracy depends on rationally following the best ideas. Bush has yet to veto a single bill. A senate fillibuster by itself does not constitute a balance of power. The political pressures to conform to one's party are becoming a recipe for disaster. I wish the senators from the rest of the country could see that...or does their strict party adherence actually represent their electorate?
