Here’s the usually-savvy Helen Rittelmeyer:
Let’s take it as a given that Martin and Maltz are correct that Red Staters like to follow traditions and bicoastal elites like to question them; it certainly sounds true enough, at least as far as wild generalizations can be. Even given that assumption, most South Carolinians are more morally and philosophically sophisticated than most cosmopolitan Obamaniacs. Let’s put aside the question of whether or not New Yorkers really question their moral assumptions (although if someone else wanted to take up this line of argument, I wouldn’t stop them) and simply look at the end result of this Blue State skepticism. Most of the time, it’s some variation on the harm principle under which the most important ethical question becomes “Does it increase everyone’s happiness?” What could be less sophisticated?
Contrast this with the moral decision-making of a Red Stater who has unquestioningly accepted a truckload of inherited traditions (the clod!).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/33b44/33b44f1966e79a8bbc533866eeb159e672891b43" alt=""
Get Britain's best politics newsletters
Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in