> The fact is that if these people ran America, it would
> have been like Bolivia, just a shitty Third World
> country with a resentful local population and a few
> big unfinished public works projects sitting idle.
> Middle America only exists because of the coastal
> states. The rest of the country provides nothing but
While I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Ames's diagnosis of the situation, the above cited passage points to a certain weakness to his conclusion and, tong-in-cheek to be sure, solution. That is to say, the fact that there are plenty of "shitty Third World countries" indicates that the population of Boobus Americanus populating Middle America is not unique to the US - but in fact every nation has a fair share of that species. I can provide equally compelling examples from Eastern Europe (cf. for example the Polish film "Duze zwierze" Big Animal currently shown in some US theaters http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0246593/ showing the monumental stupidity cum bigotry of the Polish small town life).
The problem is not the existence of this species, for it exists in every country. This suggests that it is a part of the human condition, so gassing them will solve the problem only temporarily, until the new generation of boobuses is born. The problem is not their existence, but their incidence and salience.
While the existence of the boobus sub-species is universal - every nation has them - their share of the total population and their salience in national cultures vary considerably. The US seems not only to have more than fair share of the boobus species, but also the boobuses occupy a more prominent role in the country's culture and politics. So it is the higher incidence and salience of the boobus species in the SU that requires an explanation.
A good explanation cam be found the book by Richard Hofstadter, _Anti Intelelctualism in the American life_ which tracks the prominent role of earnest philistines in the US society to the peculiar history and institutions, especially evangelical religion. Hofstadter argues that itinerant religious entrepreneurs in the colonial America had to attract followers (which were largely unchurched, contrary to popular myths). To accomplish that they had to distance themselves from the professional clergy, who were their main competitors, and to appeal to the illiterate masses who fled religious wars in Europe. As a result, they adopted zealous anti-intellectualism which conflated the hatred of elite learning and of the cultured European past that was particularly appealing to the immigrant masses.
A second element is the conflicts among elites who used populist appeals to gain political support (cf. Andrew Jackson presidency). Hofstadter argues that both parties quickly learne that anti-elitist appeals are quite effective in mobilizing popular support, and using intellectuals and cultured foreigners (especially French) as effigies not only works quite well but also directs popular resentment from business elites - who were boobuses themselves.
As far as "welfare attitudes" are concerned Theda Skocpol (_Protecting Soldiers and Mothers_) argues that this uniquely American welfarism developed as a result of the uniquely American institutional structure. Unlike Europe, where political and economic exclusion was based on class structure - in the US it was based on territory and gender. That is to say, universal male suffrage cut across class lines and often put males and females of different social background in the same inclusion/exclusion category. What is more, machine politics was a mechanism of territory based patronage that delivered federal largesse to a particular district in exchange for political support. Again, this cut across class lines.
So the bottom line is that the sway that anti intellectualism and welfarism hold in the US society is grounded in the character and structure of US institutions rather than "character" of the US population. That is to say, morons can be found in every society, but it takes institutional structure to either marginalize them or transform them into a social force.
Wojtek