July 10, 2006

Regional Identity in Electoral Politics

We have made much on this blog of the writing of David Hackett Fischer, especially his masterpiece Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America. One of the key lessons of Fischer's book is the remarkable persistence of regional cultural differences in Britain, and in the areas of the USA settled from different parts of Britain, and the cultural and political repercussions of these regional variations.

Michael Barone, in his political analysis, always gives weight to these factors. He has recently been covering the Mexican elections, from Mexico. In this post he concludes:

The regional differences in Mexico are persistent and at least as distinctive as in the United States, Britain, Italy, Spain, and Brazil. These differences were not reflected in election outcomes when the process was controlled by PRI and results were well nigh unanimous, from 1929 to 1988. Now we're seeing them in the results of 2000 and 2006. We norteamericanos tend to think that all Mexicans are pretty much the same, that they all eat Tex-Mex food, and that they all have the left-leaning politics. Well, they aren't, they don't, and they don't.

Apparently, political freedom has allowed these regional variations in Mexico a voice they previously were denied.

Germany and France also could be included in Barone's list, as could Canada. (For Italy see this book.)

India, the world's largest democracy, would be, and probably has been, a prime subject for this type of analysis. I would like to know a lot more about India and Indian politics. There is a lot of material out there and I do not know what is and is not reliable. If anyone can recommend good books on the subject, I'd like to hear about it. I would love to see a volume like Barone's Our Country, which is my favorite book on American politics, for India, going election by election since independence.

And I know virtually nothing about Brazil, but I would like to. So, ditto for books about Brazilian politics, especially regional politics in Brazil.

On a related point, the Coming Anarchy blog has been talking about the extreme version of this: Regional devolution (e.g. Scotland, Northern Italy, Catalonia, Wallonia) or even independence (Montenegro). See e.g. this. Keeping a bunch of disparate regions all in one big national unit -- which has certain advantages -- takes some work. If, as in Europe, security functions are drifting away from the nation-state level to the Union level, then it becomes "safe" for regions to insist on some degree of autonomy.

(Barone also cites to the book Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World by Nicholas Ostler, which I also recently read. Ostler discusses the degree to which the indigenous languages of Central and South America survived the centuries of Spanish rule. I hope to have more on Ostler's book at some point, but for now I will merely say that it is a unique vantage point from which to look at world history, and that it is very good and worth reading.)


(Cross-posted on ChicagoBoyz.)


Posted by Lexington Green at July 10, 2006 08:03 PM
Comments

Lex:
Agree that Ostler's book is great. I've read only extracts but I want the book :)
I'm rather bemused that Barone is finally noticing Mexico's regionalism. Geez not even the PRI could completely surpress them even if the party gave the illusion of a monolitic entity.
In a way the growing trend towards devolution is nothing more than a pendulum swing from centralism.
Look at Europena history since the fall of the Roman empire. The fragmentation caused devolution which reach its zenith around 1300s just before teh Black death. Afterwards, there's a trend toards centralization that culminates under the communists and nazis. After the war, there's a growing trend to devolve authourity and decision making back to the local level.

Obviously the procss is full of conflicts and interruptions but decentralization to the status quo medievalis seems to be the trend

Posted by: xavier at July 10, 2006 08:25 PM

Right, most of the immigrants to Texas have been from the more Texas-like parts of Northern Mexico, which is why Bush-Rove got blindsided by the opposition to their amnesty-guest worker plans. They didn't understand what other Mexicans were like, or how different were the cultures of farther south parts of Mexico and more sophisticated parts of America.

Posted by: Steve Sailer at July 10, 2006 09:17 PM

Generally, most of the immigrants to the US in general have been from the northern third of Mexico until the last 10-20 years. Texas has been different in many ways -- a robust state narrative that is actively taught to schoolchildren, Anglo and Mexicano alike. A Texas Revolution that was genuinely bicultural, with heroes like Juan Seguin, so that there was some feeling that Texas was the work of Anglo Texicans and Hispano Tejano alike. And that history of the Republic of Texas as a viable part of the international system of states, and exercising regional power projection -- the Texas Navy went down to aid the Yucutan independence movement, albeit unsuccessfully. All this has given Texans a different perspective on Mexico than other Americans have.

Both Mexico and Brazil have had major secessionist wars. After all, the Texans won theirs. Yucutan has rebelled several times, bllodily. And there have been secessionist attempts in the North, like the Republic of the Rio Grande in the mid-19th Century. Even the Cristero War of the 1920s, usually viewed as a religious war, had a strong regionalist element to it; the northern highlanders at its core were small farmers who opposed the communal ejido system of the revolutionary government -- in this the dynamics were similar to the Ukranian resistance to collectivization in the 1930s.

As for Brazil, the South tried to gain independence in the 1930s and of course lost. An interesting note is that some of the Confederate exile colony in Sao Paulo state were active in the secession forces. They wore lapel pins with the crossed confederate and Paulista secessionist flags, and the legend "Twice a Rebel".

Maybe they were a jinx.

Posted by: Jim Bennett at July 10, 2006 10:00 PM

Don't forget the Plan of San Diego, a series of 30 terrorist attacks across the border into Texas by troops under orders of the President of Mexico in 1915-16.

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/060129_sandiego.htm

Posted by: S at July 12, 2006 12:11 AM

And, hey, don't forget World War II, which happened in 1941-45, a generation after the "Plan of San Diego", which I confess I never heard of. In that one, some people who were absolutely not brown people declared war on us, sank our shipping, and had to be torn up root and branch. But, remarkably, we get along with them now. And, anyway, neither episode has much to do with regional political variety. So, don't forget that the point of each and every post is not necessarily coming up with an excuse to say something mean about Mexican people, no matter how tempting that is for some people in the peanut gallery around here.

Posted by: Lex at July 12, 2006 10:03 AM

Speaking of Regional Identities what make you of this:

http://p4500.blogspot.com/2006/07/dragons-of-cowardice-assault-st-george.html

Posted by: John J. Vecchione at July 13, 2006 12:31 PM

John, I had a comment on this post on Samizdata on the subject:

The slow motion trainwreck of the C of E is appalling to behold. And I speak as a Roman Catholic!

Christianity is not a pacifist religion, and not offending Muslims by a vigorous assertion of Christianity is not a religious obligation for Christians.

St. George will always be the patron saint of England, as long as there is an England. There was an England, a Christian England, before there was an established C of E. There will be an England after the current C of E is gone -- and I for one hope that England is only temporarily "post-Christian". Historically, these things wax and wane. Straight-line predictions are usually wrong. Our Lady of Walsingham, pray for us.

St. George, pray for us.

Posted by: Lex at July 13, 2006 02:08 PM

Immigration patterns into the Us diffr by region also. A large percentage of people coming to West Coast states are from Michoacan south. Someone just started a Mixtec-language (Puebla and Oaxaca) radio statio. They expect immiediately to have 50,000 listeners with the potential of adding another 50K. Even in Californian terms that is a goodly number of peopl. The numbers for Washington cannot be too much different. And that is just one ethnicity.

In California, espeically the LA area, there are whole Zapotec villages who have mved into apartment complexes. Supposedly there are Zapotec safe houses for bachelor workers looking for work. The langauge appears to be maintaining its vigor even in diaspora.

Posted by: Jim at July 14, 2006 06:12 AM

Mexico poltical division is similar to the Untied states north to south political and economic disparites we had 100 years ago. Northern Mexico per Captia and standard of living is approached South Korea. Yet Southern Mexico standard of living is closer to Syria or Mawaiai. Mexico's ecomonic delevopment gap is a indicator of years it will take Mexico to Narrow the gap between Northern and Southern Mexico. It took 100 years of growth in the South to narrow the income gap with the North. Today Mexico per captia disparity with the Untied States was Similar to that of Mississpippi to the Untied States Average in 1920. Missisippi at the time was 20% to 25% of income levels of the Untied States. Take decades of ecomonic growth for immgration to slow down in Mexico. It could be worse like India where the Gap between India and Mexico is even worse than Mexico and the Untied States.

Posted by: gizzy at August 6, 2006 01:24 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?