Customer Reviews

The Great Divide: Retro vs. Metro America

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

"The Great Divide: Retro vs. Metro America" by John Sperling and company is not so much a book but an extensive and multi-layered study about the divisions that exist in America. While the author is upfront about his political leanings from the outset, he and his co-authors have put together a fine assessment about what's happening to this country from within.

This book takes time to digest and should be read carefully as there is much to be absorbed. If you want a straight out compelling narrative, this is not the book for you. However, the author dissects the major aspects of American life, both economically and culturally with vigor and directness.

Sperling's arguments about Retro vs. Metro with regard to science and religion make the most sense. That the United States should be headed by a president whose main supporters are fundamendalist and born-again Christians is both appaling on its surface and ominous for the future. Losing our competitive technological edge to China and others seems likely in the twenty-first century and the thrust of the religious right to have Biblical dogma be the guide should unnerve every thinking American.

"The Great Divide" bogs down in the middle when Sperling gets into economic matters, especially regarding energy and agriculture. It's not that he doesn't exhibit his points well.... it just seems as if it's a classroom lecture gone on a bit too long.
In the end, however, the major political point is made firmly...that Metro America had better develop a metro political strategy to compete with Retro America. After all, if approximately two-thirds of Americans live in Metro states we need to do a better job in order to re-establish our political advantage.

Laura Bush recently blamed the media for the divisions in the United States. That's a simplistic answer to a complex and growing detachment of Americans from one another on both economic and cultural levels. John Sperling has given us plenty of food for thought. One may not agree with all of his conclusions but he's on the right track. I wish this country was, too.

I found this book fascinating, familiar and obviously quite biased all at the same time. The Great Divide between the so-called "Metro" and "Retro" America is really nothing that new in concept, as national election results have fallen along these boundaries when there was no clear victor, as obviously was the case in the last election. What is particularly interesting is the positioning of this book, which is really about how the Democrats can regain footing as the dominant political party through an adjustment in their marketing strategy. What the five co-authors do is provide an interesting treatise on the importance of branding and targeting your audience, basic marketing principles upon which the Democrats have failed to execute. I don't disagree.

The authors consist of three economists, a political strategist and John Sperling, a multi-millionaire Democrat and founder of the privately held University of Phoenix. They appear to have the credentials to back up their claims, and they certainly present their data with enough easy-to-understand graphics to fill a college textbook. Most of the findings are quite illuminating and well worth discussing in a larger political forum. For instance, in the last decade, Metro America, representing 65% of the population, produced almost 70% of the U.S. gross domestic product annually and paid 71% of the federal taxes. Retro America, on the other hand, received $800 billion more in federal payments than it paid in taxes. This lopsided equation has fed into an economy that is not moving us forward, yet the imbalance has provided the Republicans an opportunity to forge a solid identity upon which they have succeeded in building an effective presidential and congressional majority. For that, they should be lauded, but Sperling and company sometimes get a bit didactic when it comes to accusing conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists for taking the nation backwards. The tone frankly undermines the important messages the authors are trying to convey about the need to address the needs of both sides of the divide, as well as the critical energy discussion in Chapter 5 that ties us inexorably to the Middle East.

As a marketing handbook and economic study, this book provides great value, though I am not certain whether either party can take heart to the recommendations presented by the authors. The Democrats appear emboldened to build national security based on multi-lateralism, substantiate an intact Bill of Rights and provide a clear separation of church and state, since all three appear missing from the current administration. That's why I understand why Sperling and company feel the Democrats have more of an incentive to build a new conceptual framework. But at the same time, there is no denying that thus far, the Republicans have actually proven to be the better marketers. And frankly, the waters have become so muddy between the two parties that only time will tell us who will get us to this new framework. Let the real marketing begin.

The consensus seems to be the America is a divided country, and this divide seems to be the source of a lot of contention. If you don't believe me, read the reviews for this book and see how the 'five-starers' bemoan conservatism while the 'one-starers' belittle liberals.

All in all, the text sets out to do exactly what it says - it analyzes the urban/rural divide in America, breaking it down into political, economic, geographic and environmental terms. It offers an interesting if not unbiased perspective on the sources of this divide, the legislative result, and some of the consequences. If you like facts, figures and charts, this is the book for you, because it presents a ton of them. All in all, there were some new and interesting ideas, the book was well written, and the facts were backed up pretty well.

But be forewarned, this is not a text that seeks to bridge the divide or create any suggestions on how we can come to a common understanding. In general, its purpose is to create a progressive 'primer', setting down what in the authors' opinion are the policies and strategies that will make America a progressive nation again, and pointing out why regressivism is bad. If you are looking to get a little riled at conservatives, this is a great book. If you're interested in what the divide means for America, this is a great book. If you're tired of political tension and want to forget that the election ever happened, I recommend something else.

The Great Divide looks like a coffee table art book and is structured like a political science text book, but it is deceptively accessible and very intelligent. What the authors have successfully done is formulate a path for the Democrats to follow that takes them away from the tired old liberal vs. conservative mantra that no one takes seriously any more except the rabid right. They also make a fairly convincing case that centrism, to the extent it means trying to make the party equally palatable both to gun-toting white men in rural America and dispirited single moms in the cities and suburbs, simply doesn't work. Sperling and Co. suggest a more pragmatic course, which is a program of recognizing and speaking to the real life needs of ordinary people in urban-suburban states that make up two-third of the population and can, therefore, be a reliable base that out-guns the Republicans Retro state base. It's not a screed like the Al Franken and Michael Moore books, although like them Sperling wants the Democrats to win and Bush and the Republicans to lose. But this book also is about making the US a more prosperous and economically secure country for everyone. Read it.

For more than two years I have walked into malls where people just stroll around but don't buy. It also seems that pretty much 80% of stores have a sale going on 360 days per year. Clearly, people have less money. Sperling does a great job telling us why people are poorer.

As for Sperling's analysis about black voters: Last Friday I had some business at a school. I was able to give an Afro-American teacher some totally unrelated information that would help her save some money. She thanked me three times and then said ".You know, ... we are poor people". A teacher who has taught more than a decade should not have to say that.

Yes, Sperling's book lists the data a bit more intellectual, but then again, taking a closer look at facts requires an intellectual approach. For the one who really cares, the data collection is as impressive as interesting.

Last but not least, particularly enjoyed Sperling's naming of groups as "retros" and "metros". It is refreshing that somebody found new names to describe more or less obvious groups.
I am more than tired of hearing the word "liberal" pronounced with an undertone which accompanied the word "Jew" during the third reich. "Liberals" used to be a better word, something that suggested the spirit for what we are allegedly trying to do in Iraq. Since obviously the word has become a swear-word "retros" and "metros" works for me.

The earlier review by red state wisconsin proves the point of Sperling's book completely. The review is full of misdirection and fact bending, relying on red herrings to lead readers from the truth. So I will break it down:

1. "Retro Americans" are for class seperation. In the sense that all your Republican leaders are filthy rich and fight for the rich, while many of your Democrat leaders are filthy rich and fight for the poor. See: Edward Kennedy, John Edwards, John Kerry.

2. As for the black churches comment, that is irrelevant. The only relevant statistic is that Bush got 8% of the black vote in 2000, and is expected to get even less in 2004. 8% is the lowest ANYONE has ever received from the black population since black people were able to vote. Obviously, blacks do not believe Bush is acting in their best interests, even if the churches agree with 5% of the Republican platform. Rod Paige may be a great guy, and Jesse Jackson may be the devil, but that doesn't explain why Bush/Cheney has such a low amount of black support. His divisive and racist policies do.

3. Bush has not spent more in 4 years than Clinton spent in 8. That is an obvious falsehood. That would mean that Bush has doubled education spending (4 is half of 8) while simultaneously going to war and cutting taxes. And you think the deficit we have now is bad....that one would be in the trillions. No Child Left Behind PROMISED to spend on education and it has been intentionally underfunded. Google this if you don't believe it, the New York Times has published this among other major newspapers.

4. "jus in bello" and "jus ad bellum?" What he's referring to is the law in war and laws on the use of force and prevention of war. This is just silly. Exactly what kinds of "questions" are the Republicans asking? Abu Ghraib should alert even the most stringent "retros" that the Bush administration is only asking these kinds of questions as a way to get out of them. Using fancy words (which sounds very elitist by the way) will not help you escape the fact that this war has been both inhumane and illegal. It has been admitted by all except those few who cannot stand to let the dream of empire die that the war was based on a false premise and if the questions of "jus in bello" and "jus ad bellum" had been asked from the beginning, we would not be there.

In short, red-state-wisconsin's review has more holes than the famous swiss cheese from his/her state (but i'll betcha a million it's a "him") and as I sit here in Texas, where I have had to deal with Governor Bush ruining our state before he did the same to the country, I can't help but marvel at the uncanny way that "retros" insist they aren't deceptive to the highest levels, and how twisted their value system has apparently become.

No matter where you stand, you should read this book if you hope to understand the numbers behind the sad polarization of American politics. This is essential reading for anyone interested in what's happend to the political process in the US. (Not entirely unbiased though.)

Take a look at the atrociously spelled, grammatically incorrect reviews below mine if you want proof of the educationally challenged "retros". I am actually from Texas myself originally, a state whose populace has the potential to see the errors of its ways before it's too late.

I would urge anyone who remains confused about the upcoming election to at least go to the authors' website (www.retrovsmetro.org) and download any section of the book that interests you. I think it's fantastic that they have made the data in this book available free to anyone who wants it. If you want to remain ignorant, then that's your choice. Personally, I like to cast an informed vote.

This book is intended for progressive democrats and not for conservative republicans so if you fall in the conservative/republican category you should not buy this book since it is going to be a waste of your money and you are only going to come here to give a bad review. It's like a democrat reading books on what he should do in order to help republicans win elections.

If you consider yourself a progressive democrat, than this book is definitely good reading even if you end up disagreeing with its authors. It might or might not be a point of view you share with the authors but it's a point of view that is worth reading about.

A bad review from conservative readers coupled with good reviews from liberal readers means this book is at least worth reading. If the ideas in this book were so terrible then the conservative readers should be taking their time to give great reviews and to urge democrats to adopt the book's point of view. However, instead, I see these readers taking a different approach and badmouthing the book.

I read this book a while ago when it was available for free on the internet. In short, the book urges democrats to organize like the republican well oiled machine, to create a base and only focus on that base in order to win elections instead of trying to please people who are not going to be voting for you no matter what.

The background and research is interesting but even when I don't fully agree with what is said, it is still worth reading it. I don't think the book is available online anymore since the site has been down for weeks (or perhaps, months) but the price of the book went down to $13 (and change) on Amazon and that is much better of a price then the original $40 - $50 bucks when the book was originally released.

This book not only shows the depth of information John Sperling has collected on the Great Divide on many levels (social, political, economical, cultural, religious, etc.), but it's presented in a fashion that anyone can understand. Even if you don't read the book, you can still get all you need from it by studying the maps and other visual elements. America is divided right down the middle and here's why and how to fix it.