Chapter 9 Poll Results and How Congress Voted Files/The Great Divide/ch9_full.pdf · that the political parties magnify the Metro-Retro diﬀerences by adopt-ing policies designed

212 The Great Divide – Chapter 9 Poll Results and How Congress Voted on Vital Issues 213 212 The Great Divide – Chapter 9 Poll Results and How Congress Voted on Vital Issues 213

Chapter 9

Poll Results and How Congress Voted on Vital IssuesThroughout this book, we have pre-sented quantitative and nonquantita-tive data documenting our thesis that America is two nations with two dif-ferent economies, cultures, and value systems. Metro America comprises the urban and suburban areas in largely urban states; Retro America, the smaller cities and rural areas in the less metropolitan states. This chapter presents data in support of this thesis in two sections. The first section pres-ents data obtained from a poll of 2,000 respondents, 1,000 residing in Retro America and the other 1,000 residing in Metro America, taken in Novem-ber 2003. The poll was conducted by Lake-Snell-Perry and Associates and analyzed by Celinda Lake. The second section uses a series of maps to show how Republican and Demo-cratic members of the 108th Congress voted on eleven vital issues—educa-tion, energy, the environment, guns, labor, prescription drug benefits, science, taxes, trade, welfare, and women’s rights.

The PollOne of the tests of our thesis was to gain confirming data from the poll designed to determine whether there were significant Retro-Metro differences in religion, values, and politics. Following is a list of the questions posed to respondents and the survey results.

The Great Divide Poll

Some people say Americans live in two worlds with different cultures, one urban with its surrounding suburbs and the other small-town and rural communities. Do you think there is a real difference or do you think it is all the same with different population levels?

Two different worlds 64 Same world 32

The two different cultures reflect two different politics.

Thinking about your general approach to issues, do you consider yourself to be very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, or very conservative?

Metro Retro

Liberal 32 21Conservative 35 47

This disparity was very clear in the 2000 presidential race.

And if the election were held today, would you be voting for George W. Bush or the Democratic candidate for President?

Metro Retro Metro Retro

Bush 39 45 Republican 31 42Democrat 42 31 Democrat 43 36

The generic vote for Congress is further evidence of the political divide and shows how important the House of Representatives is to the Democratic, Metro majority. The politi-cal divide is also a religious divide. Retro, born-again, and fundamentalist Christians are the base of the Republican Party. Nearly half of the born-again and fundamentalist Christians live in Retro America. This number is not just indicative of the South but also includes large numbers in the Prairie states.

Do you consider yourself to be a born-again evangelical Christian, a fundamen-talist Christian, or neither of these?

Metro Retro

Born-again 26 44Fundamentalist 5 6Neither 69 52

Our research shows that, after political identification with a party, religion and geogra-phy are the next important variables of predicting voter preference. This is illustrated by the frequency with which respondents attend church.

How often do you attend church or other religious services?

Metro Retro

Every week 34 43Hardly ever 33 22

The difference of religious orientations between Metro and Retro America leads to dif-ferent worldviews. In Retro America, 37 percent believe that the end of the world as we know it will occur soon.


It is generally agreed that “Christian Right” organizations seek to apply biblical principles to public policy. Do you agree or disagree that the following public policies should be based on biblical principles?

Metro Retro

Tax policy Agree 29 41Disagree 58 46

Banking and securities lawsAgree 32 45Disagree 56 42

Gay and lesbian rightsAgree 35 47Disagree 55 42

EducationAgree 43 62Disagree 48 32

EnvironmentAgree 40 50Disagree 48 34

Trade policyAgree 28 38Disagree 59 43

WelfareAgree 34 45Disagree 53 40

EnergyAgree 29 39Disagree 53 44

Women’s rightsAgree 37 49Disagree 52 38

Unemployment benefitsAgree 33 44Disagree 54 45

Criminal justiceAgree 41 54Disagree 49 35

Foreign policyAgree 31 39Disagree 54 43

Do you believe that the End Times—the Apocalypse, the Rapture, and the Second Com-ing of Christ—will happen soon?

Metro Retro

Believe 28 37Don’t believe 51 38

The different religious worldviews result in different perceptions of social issues, including abor-tion, homosexual rights, immigration, and guns. Due to this difference, Metro and Retro America have opposite views on social issues.

I’m going to read four statements. Listen carefully. Then I’ll read them one at a time again. When I’ve finished the second reading, please tell me which of them (1, 2, 3, or 4) is CLOSEST to your own view: 1. Abortions should be legal and generally available and subject to reasonable medical or only limited regulation. 2. Regulation of abortion is necessary, although it should remain legal in many circumstances. 3. Abortion should be legal only in the most extreme cases, such as to save the life of the mother or in the case of rape and incest. 4. All abortions should be made illegal.

Metro Retro

Pro-choice (1&2) 51 37Anti-abortion (3&4) 44 57

Do you favor or oppose allowing homosexual couples to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance, and pension coverage?

Metro Retro

Favor rights 45 32Oppose rights 46 61

Do you think immigrants take away American jobs or do you not think this is the case?

Metro Retro

Yes 46 57No 47 37

Candidate 1 says: The Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to own guns and bear arms. Taking guns away would do nothing to cut crime but would take away our ability to defend ourselves and our families. Candidate 2 says: We need sensible gun control laws that will take dangerous guns off our streets. An assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loopholes are the first step in making America safer from gun violence. Would you be more likely to vote for a candidate who made the first statement, the second statement, or aren’t you sure?

Metro Retro

Pro-gun 40 53Anti-gun 51 40

The Great Divide we see over religion and geography permeates the views on just about every issue. Metro and Retro America are divided on whether or not the Bible should be the guiding force in American policy.


We think the poll adds confirm-ing data to our thesis that there are two Americas. These Metro-Retro differences, while significant, are sel-dom dramatic, but their influence on the political behavior of the represen-tatives that the two Americas send to Congress is dramatic. As is evident from the Democratic and Republican votes on 11 vitally important issues, the Metro-Retro divide among the populations of these two nations becomes a yawning chasm in the nations’ shared capital. It is evident that the political parties magnify the Metro-Retro differences by adopt-ing policies designed to divide rather than unite. The Republicans are now controlled by a hard-right, conserva-tive, Christian leadership that seeks to impose their view of a moral soci-ety on both Retro and Metro Amer-ica. The Democrats consider this a retrograde vision of what constitutes a moral society and have mounted a spirited defense of what they envision as a forward-looking America.

Congressional Votes on 11 Vital IssuesAs we can see from an examina-tion of Maps 9-1 through 9-33, the Republicans voted overwhelmingly against funding education, welfare, gun control, workers’ rights, women’s rights, protecting the environment, and cutting-edge bioscience. They voted for an inadequate prescrip-tion drug benefit but against import-ing affordable drugs from Canada. They also voted for free-trade treaties that provided no labor or environ-mental standards for the trading partner and encouraged companies to outsource high-wage jobs to the low-wage trading partners. They also voted for an energy bill that would

have helped the Bush administration to trash the environment even more than it has accomplished by execu-tive order and would give the energy industry more economically indefen-sible subsidies. Senator John McCain denounced it as a bill designed to “leave no lobbyist behind.”

The votes of the Republicans and Democrats whose districts are shown in the maps were scored as progres-sive or conservative (nonprogressive); for example, progressives voted for funding education and conservatives voted for subsidies for the energy industry. In scoring the votes for each member, those who voted progres-sive received a score of 1, and those who voted nonprogressive received a score of 0. Scores on each issue were based on one to four votes.• A score of 1 was assigned if:

-all votes were progressive, or - one-half, two-thirds, or three-fourths of votes were progressive and the member received a Progressive Punch score of 70 percent or higher.

• A score of 0 was assigned if: -all votes were nonprogressive, or - one-half, two-thirds, or three-fourths of votes were progressive and the member received a Progressive Punch score of 69 percent or lower.Each issue is presented as follows:

• An introduction to the issue• Three maps showing:

- The votes of all members of Congress

-Republican votes-Democratic votes

Appendix 9-A is a description of and explanation for each of the bills or resolutions chosen to illustrate a mem-ber’s position on the issue. Appendix 9-B contains the Excel files showing

how each of the 435 members voted on each of the bills or resolutions.

EducationPresident Bush and Republicans as a whole claim that children and fami-lies are a priority; but their actions speak far louder than their rhetoric. Two areas where this is glaringly evi-dent are the No Child Left Behind and Head Start programs.

President Bush developed the central concept of “No Child Left Behind” when he was governor of Texas, using standardized tests to hold schools accountable for stu-dent achievement.1 At its conception, the legislation had strong bipartisan support, as members of both parties harbored high hopes that the policy would help America’s children. But the Bush administration didn’t follow through with its promises and under-funded the No Child Left Behind Act two years in a row—by 65 percent in the president’s 2005 budget.

Head Start is another area where the Bush administration is failing. The federal government finances Head Start directly, bypassing state govern-ments, which might be tempted to use the money for other purposes. The new reforms include an experiment in which up to eight states would receive Head Start money in block grants sub-ject to the governors’ control. The stat-ute bars governors from moving state funds out of early childhood educa-tion but fails to mention federal funds. That means the states could drain federal money from other early child-hood education programs as money comes into their Head Start funds.2

As seen in Maps 9-1 and 9-2, when given the chance to vote for funding for education, every Repub-lican chose to say “no” to children.


Map 9-1: Progressive vs. Conservative Members of 108th House—Education

Map 9-2: Republicans—Education

Map 9-1 shows that the major metropolitan areas support education. Conservatives (red) opposed and Progressives (blue) supported the education bills. Representative Bernie Sanders of Vermont is an Independent who votes with the Democrats to organize the House and almost always votes with the most progressive Democrats. For the purpose of these maps, Sanders will be considered a Democrat. Map 9-2 shows that all Republicans—whether Retro or Metro—voted against supporting education.


Map 9-3: Democrats—Education

Map 9-4: Progressive vs. Conservative Members of 108th House—Energy

Map 9-3 shows that almost all Democrats voted to support education. The only one who didn’t follow the party line was in Texas, a Retro state. Map 9-4 shows that most of Retro America supports energy legislation. Note that only two members of the House of Representatives (out of 32), in Texas, voted against the detrimental energy bills. Conservatives (red) supported and Progressives (blue) opposed the bills.


This is surprising, because this is the party that espouses “Family Values.” But apparently only so long as they don’t cost anything.

EnergyPresident Bush seems to have been the recipient of poor intelligence again. He has claimed that the energy bill would make the country “more secure.” Senator John McCain’s de-scription of the bill as a “leave no lobbyist behind” barrel of pork for selected industries and campaign contributors was closer to the truth. So was Senator Robert Byrd’s unspar-ing judgment that the bill would “do about as much to improve the nation’s energy security as the administration’s invasion of Iraq has done to stem the tide of global terrorism.”3

The oil and gas companies were particularly well rewarded—hardly surprising in a bill that had its gen-esis partly in Vice President Dick Cheney’s secret task force. Although the companies did not win permis-sion to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they got a lot of other things, including tax breaks, exemp-tions from the Clean Water Act, pro-tection against lawsuits for fouling underground water, and an acceler-ated process for leasing and drilling in sensitive areas at the expense of environmental reviews and public participation. Meanwhile, the bill imposes new reliability standards on major electricity producers, but it is not clear whether it would encourage new and badly needed investment in the power grid.4

In an effort to get the energy bill passed by both the House and the Senate, Senate Republicans have pro-posed cutting the broad measure’s price by more than half and eliminat-ing a plan to provide legal immunity to producers of a gasoline additive blamed for water pollution (MTBE). The changes in the energy bill repre-sented an acknowledgment by its Sen-ate authors that the measure stood no chance of advancing after it fell two votes short in November 2003. Since the defeat, support for the original bill has diminished further in a time of rising emphasis on the budget deficit.

EnvironmentIt appears that most Republicans have bought into President Bush’s view that global warming is just happenstance

Map 9-5: Republicans—Energy

Map 9-5 shows that the majority of Republicans voted in favor of energy issues. Eleven voted against, and ten of those are from Metro states.


Map 9-6: Democrats—Energy

Map 9-7: Progressive vs. Conservative Members of 108th House—Environment

Map 9-6 shows that when Democrats disagreed, it was along the Metro-Retro line. Forty-seven voted in favor of energy issues, of which 32 are from Retro states. Map 9-7 shows that primarily Metro Democrats voted in favor of environmental issues, while almost every Republican—whether Retro or Metro—voted against environmental issues. Con-servatives (red) opposed and Progressives (blue) supported the environment bills.


Map 9-8: Republicans—Environment

Map 9-9: Democrats—Environment

Map 9-8 shows that almost every Republican voted against environmental issues. The three who voted in favor of environmental issues are from Metro states. Map 9-9 shows that the majority of Democrats voted in favor of environmental issues. Of those who didn’t vote with their party, an overwhelming majority are from Retro states. Of the 54 votes against, 35 are from Retro states, while only 14 are from Metro states.


and is a threat conjured up by “junk science.” They voted to reject not only an amendment that would require a reduction in oil and gas consumption in cars and light trucks but also an amendment that would limit the con-taminating effects of in situ leaching uranium mining techniques on soil and groundwater.

Ignoring the dangers of global warming is perhaps the most dan-gerous thing the 108th Congress and the Bush administration have done to the present and future of America and the world. Republican anti-envi-ronmentalism is considered by many observers to be yet another unfortu-nate product of an uncritical belief in free markets coupled with reli-gious fundamentalism. This is how Bill Moyers, in an interview for Grist magazine, described this coupling:

Every credible scientific study in the world says human activity is creat-ing global warming. In the face of this evidence, the government in Washing-ton has placed religious and political dogma over the facts. Their dogma is the literal reading of the creation story in Genesis, where humans are to have “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the Earth, and over every creeping thing...” The adminis-tration has married that conservative dogma of the religious right to the cor-porate ethos of profits at any price. And the result is the politics of exploitation with a religious impulse.5

It is also worth noting that Retro states voted against environmental issues, siding with the extractive indus-tries that favor logging, drilling, and

destroying natural habitats of endan-gered species—no matter what the cost to the taxpayer or the environment.

GunsWith roughly 83 to 96 guns per 100 people, the United States is approach-ing a statistical level of one gun per person.6 The United States is the most armed country in the world, and President Bush and the House of Representatives keep passing laws that make it easier to obtain a gun and, more significantly, to obtain a gun without adequate background checks and to destroy purchase records quickly.

The omnibus bill (H.R. 2673) includes a little-noticed amendment that has led to sparring between the gun industry and gun control advocates over the use of firearms

Map 9-10: Progressive vs. Conservative Members of the 108th House—Gun Control

Map 9-10 shows that it is apparent that the majority of the House opposes gun control. The exception is in some Metro states and in the metropolitan areas of some Retro states. Conserva-tives (red) opposed and Progressives (blue) supported the gun control bills.


Map 9-11: Republicans—Gun Control

Map 9-11 shows all Republicans except for two voted in opposition to gun control laws. Map 9-12 shows somewhat of a divide among Democrats regarding gun control. A total of 62 voted against gun control, with 39 from Retro states and 23 from Metro states. But 140 Democrats voted in favor of gun control.

Map 9-12: Democrats—Gun Control


Map 9-14: Republicans—Labor

Map 9-13: Progressive vs. Conservative Members of 108th House—Labor

Map 9-13 shows that labor votes are divided on a party line. All Republicans voted against labor issues, and almost all Democrats voted for them. Conservatives (red) opposed and Progres-sives (blue) supported the labor bills. Map 9-14 shows that every Republican voted against labor issues.


records. The amendment was added by Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) to H.R. 2799, the FY 2004 appro-priations bill for the Commerce, Jus-tice, and State departments, and was included in the final FY 2004 omni-bus spending package (H.R. 2673).7 The amendment, drafted in the House with the aid of the National Rifle Association, would require fed-eral officials to destroy records on gun purchases within 24 hours instead of waiting 90 days, as is now required. It would also restrict public access to data on gun dealers tied to illegal gun transfers. Gun control advocates see the measure as a major setback that would hurt the ability of law enforce-ment agents and the public to scru-tinize suspect gun transactions and determine whether criminals—and

even perhaps terrorists—are being permitted to buy guns.

A former NRA lawyer has admit-ted in an affidavit in a lawsuit that distributors and gun dealers have for years been illegally diverting guns that end up in the hands of criminals, and that the industry has closed its eyes to the practice. Instead of fight-ing to end this threat to the public’s safety, the gun lobby and its allies in Congress are pushing legislation that would protect the practice by grant-ing to gun manufacturers and sellers special immunity from liability.8

LaborIt has been a consistent policy of the Bush administration and congres-sional Republicans to weaken laws that protect workers and, especially,

to undermine what little remains of organized labor’s political power.

As of this writing, more than 2 million jobs have been lost, and nearly 9 million Americans have been officially unemployed at some point since President Bush took office, according to the New York Times.9 This does not include those who have “officially” stopped look-ing for employment, discouraged by low wages and lack of job opportu-nities. Because the Bush-proposed and congressionally enacted tax cuts went to the wealthy who have sav-ed rather than to those who would spend, the economy languished in a recession and jobless recovery. Bush claims that these cuts to the wealthy will trickle down to lower tax brack-ets and there will be more and better

Map 9-15: Democrats—Labor

Map 9-15 shows almost every Democrat voted in favor of labor issues. Only 6 voted against, and of those, 5 are from Retro states.


paying jobs. But the future doesn’t look bright for those out of work, even though Bush would like Amer-icans to think differently.

Most of the lost jobs were in high-paying manufacturing or skilled ser-vice occupations, only to be replaced by low-wage service jobs. Many companies are moving production overseas to China and Malaysia, and U.S. companies are expected to send 3.3 million technical and financial service jobs overseas in the next 12 years, primarily to India, according to a study by Forrester Research.10

The Bush administration has consistently ignored lower- and middle-class America in favor of the rich. The voting record of the 108th Congress on tax reform, small-busi-ness health plans, and unemploy-ment benefit extensions shows the

Bush administration’s lack of com-passion for these people.11

Prescription Drug BenefitRepublicans were determined to pass a Medicare prescription drug bill as a major campaign issue for 2004. The original bill (Medicare Prescrip-tion Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, H.R. 1) passed, but Democrats voted against the measure, 216–215. Democrats vetoed the bill for several reasons. First, the measure would offer limited coverage for beneficia-ries’ prescription drug costs. Second, it failed to make drug coverage avail-able directly through the Medicare program, relying instead on private insurance plans. Finally, and most important, after 2010 the bill would undermine the traditional Medicare program, which now covers almost

nine of ten beneficiaries and guaran-tees them choice of almost any pro-vider. After narrowly passing in the House, the bill was then sent to the Senate, where several amendments were added, and then sent back to the House. These amendments were rejected unanimously, so a confer-ence committee was formed to pro-vide a resolution. After much delib-eration, a final bill was passed by both the House and Senate—again, House Democrats voted against the final bill, 220–215, for the same rea-sons stated above.

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) supported the committee bill and lost 45,000 members because the bill would encourage companies to reduce or eliminate drug coverage for their retirees. The Congressional Budget

Map 9-16: Progressive vs. Conservative Members of 108th House—Prescription Drug Benefit

Map 9-16 shows the voting pattern of both Democrats and Republicans on the prescription drug benefit. Note that all but two of the districts represented by minorities are in favor of the issue. Conservatives (red) opposed and Progressives (blue) supported the prescription drug bills.


Map 9-17: Republicans—Prescription Drug Benefit

Map 9-18: Democrats—Prescription Drug Benefit

Map 9-17 shows that the majority of Republicans are against providing a prescription drug benefit to Americans. Only ten are in favor, and of those, six are from Metro states. Map 9-18 shows that the overwhelming majority of Democrats favor providing a prescription drug benefit to Americans. Eleven voted against, and of those, nine are from Retro states.

Map 9-19: Progressive vs. Conservative Members of 108th House—Science

Map 9-20: Republicans—Science

Map 9-19 shows the usual rural-urban split with only two pro-votes in the great heartland. It is interesting to note that a large number of members skipped the vote, as indicated by the districts colored gray. The Republicans voted overwhelmingly anti-science and the Democrats, while clearly the party of “enlightenment,” were far from united in their defense of the foundations of modern society. Stand-ing up for science was not an easy vote. Conservatives (red) opposed and Progressives (blue) supported the science bill. Map 9-20 shows the Retro-Metro divide but also reveals that only two Retro and a dozen Metro Republicans voted pro-science and another dozen skipped the vote.

226 The Great Divide – Chapter 9

Office forecast that 37 percent of retirees, or 4.4 million people, would lose drug coverage under the Sen-ate bill and 31 percent under the House version.12

The bill would have permitted a voluntary prescription drug ben-efit under Medicare with coverage provided by private insurers. Medi-care beneficiaries could receive drug coverage through either a preferred-provider option or through the tra-ditional fee-for-service plan paired with a government-approved private insurance plan.

Most companies that still have drug benefits say they will continue them for current retirees, although often with dollar ceilings as drug costs soar. But employers are leery of promising medical care to workers

who have not yet retired. Motorola, for example, “expects to continue retiree medical coverage, but only for employees who retired before 2002,” said Randy Johnson, a human resources director.13

When retirees took direct action to lower their drug costs by importing their drugs from Canada, the Repub-licans tried to pass a bill (the Pharma-ceutical Market Access Act, H.R. 2427) to make this practice illegal; but the Democrats were victorious when they defeated the bill, 243–186. The phar-maceutical industry, which gets most of its worldwide profits in the United States because of higher prices here, and its allies in Congress have claimed that these drugs are unsafe. But the FDA has yet to identify a single patient harmed by the practice.

ScienceThe corruption of science by the Bush administration is discussed at some length in Chapter 4. Here it is sufficient to point out that the Republican-controlled Congress has been a willing agent of presiden-tial obscurantism. Two of the major documents attesting to this char-acterization are to be found in the appendices to this chapter: the Wax-man report, “Politics and Science in the Bush Administration,” U.S. House of Representatives, November 13, 2003, and “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science,’’ Union of Concerned Scien-tists, February 18, 2004.

Not only are the president and members of his administration

Map 9-21: Democrats—Science

Map 9-21 shows that the Democrats were, on the whole, pro-science but not boldly so. Only 6 Retro Democrats voted pro-science, 17 voted anti-science, and 5 skipped the vote. The majority of pro-votes came from Metro Democrats, but there were still 10 anti-science Metro votes, and 7 skipped the vote.

Poll Results and How Congress Voted on Vital Issues 227


indifferent to the findings of science but they are joined in these beliefs by the fundamentalist members and leaders in Congress. These members are, without embarrassment, will-ing to hold science and scientists up to ridicule on the floor of both the House and Senate. Maps 9-19 to 9-21 show the votes on just one issue—stem cell research—and that one issue is sufficient to distinguish between members who are pro-and anti-science.

TaxesIt should come as no surprise that Republicans voted to increase tax cuts for the wealthy, making it more difficult for those in need to receive health benefits, and voted against immediate child tax credits—as is evident in Maps 9-22 and 9-23.

President Bush’s tax cuts will put a trillion dollars in people’s pockets over six years, but because the gov-ernment is spending far more than it is taking in, the president’s poli-cies also mean that Americans face a much larger future tax bill—or equally large cuts in government spending—to balance the govern-ment’s books. The “future Ameri-cans” who will have to pay off Bush’s $1 trillion deficit are our children.

For each dollar of tax cuts, fed-eral borrowing to finance the tax cuts, the war on terror, and routine gov-ernment operations will total $3.60 over six years, Congressional Bud-get Office data show. From 2001 to 2006, Americans will get tax cuts that average $3,593 a person, while the per capita share of the national debt will increase by $13,000 from 2002

through 2007. About a fourth of this year’s record budget deficit, estimated at $480 billion, will finance tax cuts.14 The Democratic forecast assumes that economic growth will be strong, at more than 3 percent a year for the next decade. But it also predicts that tax revenue will fall short of admin-istration projections by an additional $69 billion a year. That shortfall has nothing to do with the new tax cuts.

The Bush fiscal blueprint—high-lighted by huge tax cuts, chiefly going to the wealthiest Americans, that have turned surpluses into red ink with no end in sight—will force one of two alternatives: soaring de-ficits, accelerating when the baby boomers retire, or draconian cuts in entitlements or domestic spending programs for education, health care, or law enforcement.15

Map 9-22: Progressive vs. Conservative Members of 108th House—Taxes

Map 9-22 shows the usual split of Republican and Democrat votes. The split is almost right on the party line—only one Republican voted against the party. Conservatives (red) supported and Progressives (blue) opposed the tax change bills.


Map 9-24: Democrats—Taxes

Map 9-23: Republicans—Taxes

Map 9-23 shows that every Republican except for one in Iowa supported the tax changes. Map 9-24 shows that almost all Democrats opposed the tax changes. Of the five who were in support, all are from Retro states.


Map 9-25: Progressive vs. Conservative Members of 108th House—Trade

Map 9-26: Republicans—Trade

Map 9-25 shows that there is not a clear divide among the voting records. The typical Republican-Democrat and Retro-Metro divides are not as prevalent as they are in other issues. Conserva-tives (red) supported and Progressives (blue) opposed the new trade bills. Map 9-26 shows that most Republicans support freer trade. Twenty voted against it, and one did not have enough votes to score. Of the 20, 13 are from Retro states and 7 are from Metro.


TradeTrade is an issue in flux and may not be settled until the 109th Congress. Most Republicans clearly favor trade, but a number do not—and there is no common denominator to provide an explanation as to why this is so. Dem-ocrats are much more divided on the issue, as the maps indicate. But they also lack a shared characteristic to provide an explanation.

The administration has won con-gressional passage of free-trade deals with Chile and Singapore, which took effect January 1, 2004.16 Those two countries will join Mexico, Canada, Israel, and Jordan as the only coun-tries that currently have free-trade agreements with the United States.

Those who favor trade argue that moving low-wage jobs out of the

United States to other countries pro-vides for a better economy for those countries. In turn, with more money, workers from those countries will buy U.S.-manufactured products. Those against trade say that these agreements will add to an already high unem-ployment rate as companies compete in a race to the bottom and will only benefit large, multinational corpora-tions. Manufacturers have expressed alarm about the effects of new trade agreements, fearing they could fur-ther expose products to inexpensive competitors in developing countries. A coalition of more than 18,000 com-panies has called for a moratorium on such agreements to halt the deteriora-tion of the American manufacturing base. The resolution of this issue is still a bit unclear and up for debate.

WelfareThe divide is evident in these maps—the “haves” and “have-nots” have clear representation. Repub-licans want to keep what they have for their personal gain and have no interest in giving a helping hand to those without. Most egregious, they voted for a bill that underfunds edu-cation, health care, job training, and other vital programs. Democrats clearly want to help the working poor, children, and the elderly by voting against the bills that would cut programs and funding.

A U.S. Census report indicated that the total percentage of people in poverty increased to 12.1 percent (34.6 million) in 2002 from 11.7 per-cent in 2001. At the same time, the number of families living in poverty

Map 9-27: Democrats—Trade

Map 9-27 shows the most disparity among the voting records. Of the 205 Democrats, 83 voted for trade. Of those, 34 are from Retro states and 49 from Metro.


went up by more than 400,000 in 2002 to 7.2 million, from 6.8 million in 2001.17

The number of children in poverty rose by more than 400,000 during the same period, to 12.1 million. The rate of increase in the number of children under age 5 jumped a full percentage point to 19.8 percent in 2002 from 18.8 percent a year earlier. The new data, some analysts say, may raise the level of scrutiny on a variety of federal programs such as welfare reform and the recently enacted increases in child tax credits, which excluded about 6.5 million low-income working families with children.

Not only have Republicans voted for a bad welfare reform bill and against increasing child tax credits but members of Congress were urged by President Bush in his 2004 State of the

Union address to work with him in controlling the rising costs of medical care. Just months ago, however, the president worked with congressional leaders to block attempts to control the fastest-growing health care cost: prescription drugs. The Medicare pre-scription drug benefit that the presi-dent signed into law and lauded in his speech omits any effective mech-anisms to lower prescription drug prices. Once again, the nation’s poor are being forced to pay for Bush’s tax cuts for his wealthy friends.

Women’s RightsWith every vote, President Bush, his administration, and the fundamental-ist members and leaders in Congress are bringing America closer to being a country whose women have no choice and no rights over their body

and their life. With just three bills, a form of abortion that may be used to protect the life of the mother has been banned, access to abortion overseas no longer exists for women in the military, and it has been established that an “unborn child” is an individ-ual separate from a woman, elevating its status above the woman’s.

Opponents of a woman’s free-dom of choice use inflammatory rhetoric about “infanticide” and “partial-birth” abortion in a nation-wide strategy to further their goal of ending legal abortion. These leg-islators and advocates say they are trying to ban only one abortion pro-cedure with the “Partial-Birth Abor-tion Ban,” but the vague and broadly-worded legislation indicates another motive: They want a political tool to use against women and politicians

Map 9-28: Progressive vs. Conservative Members of 108th House—Welfare

Map 9-28 shows that the majority of Republicans voted against welfare and that almost every Democrat voted for welfare issues. Conservatives (red) opposed and Progressives (blue) sup-ported the welfare bills.


Map 9-29: Republicans—Welfare

Map 9-30: Democrats—Welfare

Map 9-29 shows that every Republican except two is against welfare issues. The two who voted in favor of welfare are from Retro states. Map 9-30 shows that every Democrat with the exception of three supports welfare issues. Two of the three who voted against supporting welfare issues are from Retro states.


Map 9-31: Progressive vs. Conservative Members of 108th House—Women’s Rights

Map 9-32: Republicans—Women’s Rights

Map 9-31 clearly shows that most of the Heartland and the South are anti-choice, and the more progressive Metro states are for women making their own choices. Conservatives (red) opposed and Progressives (blue) supported women’s rights bills. Map 9-32 shows typical party-line voting. But six Republicans voted in favor of women’s issues and all were from Metro states.


to undermine support for, and take away, a woman’s right to choose.18

Respected health organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women’s Asso-ciation, the American Nurses Asso-ciation, and the American Public Health Association oppose these

bans. Contrary to anti-choice legis-lators’ claims, the American Medical Association withdrew its support for these bans. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an organization dedicated to women’s health, calls “partial-birth” abor-tion bans “inappropriate, ill-advised and dangerous.”19

Bush has vowed to “build a culture of life” (the life of unborn children, not of the women who bear them), and the longer he stays in office, the greater the threat that this “culture” will take over the entire country.

Map 9-33: Democrats—Women’s Rights

Map 9-33 shows that Democrats are somewhat divided on women’s issues. Of the 49 who voted against, 30 are from Retro states. Religion came into play for the 19 who are from Metro states—13 of them are Catholic.

Documents

Chapter 9 Poll Results and How Congress Voted Files/The Great Divide/ch9_full.pdf · that the political parties magnify the Metro-Retro diﬀerences by adopt-ing policies designed