April 19, 2005
Blue Montana?That is the argument of this Time acticle:
The rowdy, roughriding Montana of legend has begun to civilize itself in ways that would have seemed unimaginable only a few years ago. The process started with last November's election. Although the state went to George W. Bush in the presidential race, coloring it red on the electoral maps, it also chose its first Democratic Governor since 1984, broke the G.O.P.'s hold on the state legislature and backed a pair of progressive ballot initiatives banning toxic mining practices and legalizing medical marijuana.
Our Democrats, looking for a silver lining in their grey cloud, have siezed upon Monatana as proof that "progressive" politics can play in "red" States; with the implication being, once again, that it isn't message but marketing which has made the difference. Just make leftism more palatable, go our Democrats, and the people will vote left. I hate to burst a bubble (well, actually, I enjoy it thoroughly, if you really wanna know), but the facts just don't fit the theory, as per usual when discussing leftwing ideas.
As the article says, it is the first time since 1984 that a Democrat captured the governorship in Montana; it would have been more odd if the Montana GOP had held on after that long in power...political parties get tired once in office for a while and the people seek a change from what invariably becomes an entrenched defense of the status quo from the Party in power. For there to have been a shift to the blue in Montana, you'd expect something more than a governorship changeover - banning toxic mining practices is neither left nor right, while medical marijuana is a deep-down conservative/libertarian issue entirely in tune with "red" values; and, additionally, it should be noted that the anti-gay marriage initiative in Montana won with a 66/34 margin, meanwhile the sole House seat in Montana was handily won by Republican Denny Rehberg by a 64/33 margin.
I'd call this a "blue hiccup", not some sort of weird, progressive/cowboy alliance pointing the Democrats the way out of their political death spiral.
Posted by Mark Noonan on April 19, 2005 02:46 AM
Comments
Did it take this long for them to find that slightly less grey lining or did it just take until now to report on it?
Posted by: Elliott ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.gopbloggers.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 19, 2005 04:19 AM
That silver lining of theirs seems to have a bit of red in it... *g*
Posted by: Mike Escutia at April 19, 2005 11:18 AM
If Montana is becoming more blue, we need to look at the incredible influx of out-of-state liberals to see the reason why. The true Westerners are not moving to the left, but Montana is the new hot spot for trendy liberals, mostly from Hollywood, but including Ted Turner and a few of his ilk.
Ranching property is priced completely out of the range of normal ranchers, as it is bought up by people like Harrison Ford and David Letterman. Much of Montana has been converted into a playground for the wealthy, and naturally this has had an impact on the state politically as well as culturally and economically.
Before we speculate that the traditional Westerner has become more "progressive" ( a perfect example of semantic infiltration, by the way, is the co-opting of the word 'progressive' by a regressive Left) we need to learn how many of these drugstore cowboys claim Montana as their official state of residence, thereby shifting the political climate distinctly to the left.
Posted by: Almiranta at April 19, 2005 02:41 PM
I find it absurd that Time feels Montana is now becoming civilized since it is trending (so they think) toward becoming a blue state. It could not possibly be civilized with all those low brow, redneck Republicans now, could it? It takes some nuanced, enlightened, liberal thinking to bring Montana into the 21st century. The condescending tone is appalling.
Posted by: Shawn at April 19, 2005 03:29 PM
Why would the left want to improve on Montana? From what I've heard, it's already an eco-utopia devoid of human life. Wasn't that their goal..?
Posted by: Effeminem at April 19, 2005 03:57 PM
There was actually an article in last month's American Conservative that talked about Montana, it was called "Anatomy of a Red State Rebellion." According the the author, it isn't that there is a sudden influx of Democrats, there are other factors that have led to this change. Just to quote part of the article, as it is not available online: "Republicans need to be mindful that a confrontational, take-no-prisoners my-way-or-the-highway style of politics is antithetical to rural western styles of interaction, where the guy you just humiliated is likely to be somebody's blood kin or in-law."
It's a very interesting article that talks about recent issues with the Montana state government and how Montanans, like other libertarian-type westerners, are slightly uncomfortable pushing religion and politics together.
There was much more to the article, that I cannot do it justice here, but if you ever find a copy of the March 28 American Conservative, take a look at the article (someone sent this one to me).
Posted by: Nicole at April 19, 2005 10:52 PM
