1. Chapter
Three
Ohio's
Liberal
Northeast/Conservative
Southwest
Contrast:
The
Battleground
State
***
Historically,
residents
of
Ohio's
northeast
and
southwest
6ind
it
relatively
easy
to
be
at
odds,
and
to
compete
for
superiority
on
the
same
6ield.
For
instance,
the
Cleveland
Indians
are
a
Major
League
Baseball
(MLB)
team
in
the
American
League,
but
the
Cincinnati
Reds
are
a
National
League
team.
All
the
same,
there's
a
spirited
in-­‐state
rivalry
between
the
Indians
and
Reds.
Fans
will
travel
en-­‐masse
from
their
respective
corner
of
the
state
to
the
opposite
corner
in
order
to
root
for
their
team.
Neither
has
won
an
MLB
World
Series
in
over
twenty
years.
For
those
who
don't
care
much
for
baseball,
there's
another
in-­‐state,
Ohio
rivalry
in
which
to
participate.
This,
of
course,
is
the
rivalry
between
the
Cleveland
Browns
and
Cincinnati
Bengals,
the
state's
two
National
Football
League
franchises.
The
Browns/Bengals
rivalry
is
no
less
spirited
than
the
Indians/Reds
rivalry,
to
be
sure.
Sometimes,
during
a
game,
the
heated
rivalry
between
the
Browns
and
Bengals
foments
into
evening-­‐news-­‐worthy
tomfoolery
among
the
teams'
devoted
fans.
Moreover,
as
luck
would
have
it,
the
family
who
owns
the
Cincinnati
Bengals
is,
you
guessed
it,
the
Browns.
Neither
team
has
ever
won
an
NFL
Superbowl.
Perhaps
a
less
well-­‐known
but
no
less
important
rivalry
is
the
one
between
Ohio's
liberal
voters
in
its
northeast
and
conservative
voters
in
its
southwest.
Of
course,
this
is
not
a
rivalry
in
the
truest
sense,
but
it
is
a
contrast
that
plays
itself
out
time
and
again
in
the
political
circus
of
our
media-­‐driven
election
campaigns.
In
every
Presidential
election
from
the
election
of
1960
through
the
election
of
2004,
a
majority
of
voters
in
Cuyahoga
County,
which
includes
Cleveland,
Ohio,
have
voted
for
the
Democratic
candidate.
During
those
same
elections,
a
majority
of
voters
in
Hamilton
County,
which
includes
Cincinnati,
Ohio,
have
voted
for
the
Republican
candidate
–
with
the
lone
exception
being
in
1964
when
a
majority
in
Hamilton
County
voted
for
the
democratic
candidate,
Lyndon
B.
Johnson.
The
stark
and
static
contrast
in
preference
between
voters
in
Ohio's
northeast
and
southwest
illustrates
well
the
polarized
state
of
our
current
political
playing
6ield.
Add
to
this
the
severity
of
partisan
skirmishes
in
Ohio
and
we
see
why
political
candidates
treat,
and
media-­‐types
brand,
Ohio
a
battleground
state.

2. The
Battleground
Brand
–
Blessing
or
Curse?
How
Ohioans
engage
with
the
political
reality
behind
this
moniker
has
the
potential
to
be
either
a
blessing
or
a
curse.
Unfortunately
for
Ohioans,
and
the
country
as
a
whole
as
we'll
see
later,
the
way
that
we’ve
participated
in
the
political
environment
of
the
past
40
plus
years
has
progressively
fed
the
polarization
of
partisanship
by
our
politicians
and
the
media.
The
irony
of
our
sometimes
child-­‐
like
participation
as
fans
of
our
hometown
sports
teams
is
that,
at
least
there,
our
participation
is
somewhat
enduring.
Said
Indians
! fans
don't
simply
watch
and
root
"#!$%&!'(!)#**#+!*,%&!*,-.!
for
the
Cleveland
team
when
they
are
playing
their
rival
Reds;
they
participate
and
support
the
team
when
it
moves
on
to
Boston
or
New
York
the
next
week,
or
is
back
in
Cleveland
for
a
home
stretch
the
following
month.
Similarly,
Bengals
fans
get
suited
up
for
both
home
and
away
games
all
season
long,
not
only
to
see
them
play
their
despised
rival,
the
Browns,
but
also
to
play
the
Pittsburg
Steelers,
or
the
Denver
Broncos,
and
so
on.
Our
participation
in
the
political
process
isn't
quite
as
enduring,
though.
We
in
effect
only
suit
up
for
the
big
election
game
and,
once
we've
cast
our
vote,
generally
stop
participating
in
the
political
process
until
the
next
election.
This
kick-­‐starts
the
destructive
spiral
which
we've
been
trapped
in
for
the
past
40
years.
In
this
spiral
we
vote,
and
then
passively
participate
in
the
outcomes
of
those
elections
by
consuming
sur6icial
media
accounts
telling
us
how
the
person
we
elected
(or
didn't
help
elect)
is
doing.
Yet
the
divisiveness
doesn’t
end
with
the
election.
Rather,
the
mudslinging
campaign
rhetorics
get
recycled
in
a
steady
stream
of
media
messages,
which
keep
us
enthralled
in
a
comedy
of
errors
rivaling
the
absurdity
of
reality
television.
The
irony
of
this
cycle
is
vicious
indeed.
For
instead
of
directing
our
available
energy
toward
participating
in
local
affairs,
we
tend
to
move
further
away
from
our
neighbors
and
deeper
into
our
polarized,
media-­‐fed
ideologies.
Simply
put,
the
battleground
brand
has
built
so
much
equity
of
late
that
we've
come
to
accept
it
as
our
fundamental
political
reality.
Such
acceptance
further
perpetuates
the
problems
of
the
contrast
trap.
But,
we
don't
have
to
acquiesce
to
this
status
quo.
Ohioans,
and
all
other
Americans
alike,
can
deconstruct
the

3. myth
of
ideology
and
expose
the
self-­‐defeating
fallacy
of
battleground
politics.
If
we
come
to
understand
what
supports
these
misrepresentations,
and
for
what
purpose,
Ohio
can
help
change
the
way
we
do
politics
in
America.
The
battleground
brand,
if
it
proves
to
be
such
a
catalyst
for
change,
could
be
Ohio's
blessing
in
disguise.
Deconstructing
the
Myth
of
Ideology
and
Battleground
Politics
We've
long
been
trained
to
see
contrast
in
political
matters.
In
some
ways,
it's
all
we
see.
Liberal/Conservative,
Democrat/Republican,
Pro/Anti,
For/Against,
Yes/No,
Red/Blue,
Tax/Borrow.
While
these
contrasts
are
not
inherently
bad
things,
the
contrast
trap
has
us
choosing
adherence
to
a
singular
view
of
the
contrasts,
and
assuming
anyone
who
embraces
another
perspective
of
the
contrast
is
our
opponent.
From
where
we
stand
though
we
can
barely
see
the
contrast
trap
through
the
clouds
of
ideology
hiding
the
futility
of
its
operation
from
our
view.
Yet,
like
all
clouds
of
collective
belief,
they
are
only
impenetrable
as
long
as
they
are
unquestioned.
The
truth
of
the
matter
is
that
Ohioans
can
dispel
the
various
ideological
myths
enshrouding
the
contrast
trap,
cast
away
the
battleground
identity,
and
lead
a
cultural
shift
toward
embracing
the
whole
of
the
contrasts
comprising
our
sociopolitical
reality.
Our
question
becomes
when
do
we
call
this
battle
to
task?
When
do
we
demand
more
from
our
political
process
than
this
either/
or
approach?
How
much
longer
will
we
allow
the
political
circus
to
mask
our
institutional
inability
to
constructively
participate
in
local
politics?
Why
not
now?
!
This
2012
Presidential
Election
year
is
the
"#$%!&'$()'$(!*'+,!&%-.'/!0'1'-$! perfect
time
to
begin,
and
if
we
don't
begin
this
year
we
will
only
6ind
ourselves
needing
to
begin
the
next
election
year.
For
no
matter
where
we
currently
stand
on
the
political
spectrum,
we
can
all
acknowledge
that
the
long-­‐term
wellness
of
American
democracy
is
on
the
line.
The
fact
is:
Cleveland
and
Cincinnati
are
two
of
the
top
three
cities
in
the
country
where
concentrated
poverty
has
worsened.
Neither
the
left-­‐leaning
northeast
nor
the
right-­‐
leaning
southwest
has
been
able
to
halt
the
progression
of
poverty
and
its
social
ills
over
the
past
ten
years.

4. Ohio's
Democrat
northeast
and
Republican
southwest
contrast
is
a
microcosm
of
the
same
problem
at
a
national
level.
During
the
Great
Recession,
and
the
slow,
painful
period
of
recovery
that
we’re
currently
in,
blue
states
and
red
states
are
both
more
like
black-­‐and-­‐
blue
states.
Battered
6iscally,
and
with
unemployment
historically
high,
all
states,
whether
historically
red
or
blue,
have
been
equally
assaulted
by
the
downturn.
This
is
because
the
contrast
trap
created
by
battleground
politics
leads
predominantly
to
cut-­‐throat
elections
and
subsequent
band-­‐aid
governance
and
policy
making
–
not
toward
solutions
comprised
out
of
coalitions
of
distinct
interests
collaborating
upon
commonly
shared
ground.
Yet
do
we
actually
expect
a
government
of
career
politicians,
who
retain
incumbency
as
masters
of
the
splintered
state
of
political
discourse,
to
send
their
cash-­‐cow
out
to
pasture?
As
long
as
the
people
expect
ideological
rigidity
why
should
a
representative
anger
the
purists
in
their
base
by
transcending
their
constituents’
immediate
preferences
and
cooperate
with
the
opposition?
What
we’re
witnessing
in
our
government
and
culture
today
is
the
dangerous
inclination
towards
the
idea
of
no-­‐compromise.
The
debt-­‐ceiling
debacle
of
2011
illustrates
this
perfectly.
First,
Congress
and
the
Obama
Administration
found
it
impossible
to
reach
an
accord
and
justify
an
increase
to
the
debt
ceiling.
Then,
after
creating
the
possibility
of
an
eventual
Treasury
default,
they
raised
the
debt
ceiling
without
addressing
the
issue
of
de6icit
reduction.
Instead,
they
formed
a
super-­‐committee
which,
months
later,
revealed
that
it
also
couldn’t
reach
consensus
and
had
failed
to
6ind
a
way
forward
on
the
massive
de6icit
problem
our
country
faces.
It’s
time
to
own
up
to
the
fact
that
there’s
more
to
politics
than
the
preferences
of
our
personal
tastes.
Until
politics
is
renewed
as
a
habit
of
association
in
which
we
slowly
shape
and
reshape
our
ideas
about
the
world
in
which
we
live
through
personal
engagement
in
the
life
of
our
communities,
we
will
continue
down
dead-­‐end
alleys
chasing
red-­‐herring
solutions.
This
taste-­‐based
approach
to
statesmanship
has
Republicans
and
Democrats
alike,
be
it
in
Congress,
the
state
house,
or
on
city
council,
professing
allegiance
to
ideology
at
the
cost
of
progress.
And,
in
the
meantime,
this
guarantees
us
yet
more
time
in
the
contrast
trap.
But
if
we’re
unwilling
to
adapt
our
ideas
and
uncomfortably
change
our
political
habits
so
as
to
better
contribute
to
the
vibrancy
of
democracy,
as
individuals,
we
cannot
reasonably
hope
to
hold
our
elected
of6icials
to
a
higher
standard
than
we
ourselves
embrace.
The
Costs
of
Our
Political
Circus
The
bitter
irony
is
that
the
more
we
cling
to
the
inviolability
of
our
own
faction’s
point
of
view,
the
easier
it
is
for
a
small
group
of
political
elites
to
hold
onto
their
power
by
emulating
the
Roman
Emperor
Caesar’s
method
of
maintaining
authority:
Panem
et
Circenses,
or
bread
and
circuses.
Today’s
bread
is
seen
variously
as
tax
cuts
by
conservatives

5. and
entitlements
by
liberals,
while
the
circus
is
apparent
in
battleground
political
campaigns,
and
failed,
revolving-­‐door
legislative
debates.
With
so
much
of
our
energy
devoted
to
the
6ight
for
bene6its
and
the
spectacle
of
our
elections,
is
it
really
any
wonder
that
the
accurate
public
expression
of
political
beliefs
and
views
has
been
devalued?
We’re
so
used
to
seeing
issues
from
polarized
points-­‐of-­‐view
that
we
rarely
turn
an
inquiring
eye
toward
the
rhetoric
promoting
the
party-­‐line.
Such
unquestioning
acquiescence
in
turn
tends
toward
what’s
known
as
preference
falsi6ication.
Our
preferences
are
falsi6ied
when
we
internalize
partisan
propaganda
and
use
it
to
express
our
own
opinions
because
it’s
the
only
accepted
medium
for
advancing
our
interests.
Unfortunately,
we
lose
the
spirit
of
our
preference
by
doing
so.
!
"#$%$&!'()*+!,#!-&()+! The
problems
of
preference
falsi6ication
are
amply
evident
in
the
unethical
and
unreasoned
use
of
propaganda
to
persuade
prospective
voters.
For
starters,
it’s
common
practice
for
today’s
political
propaganda
to
frame
an
issue
with
euphemisms
and
dysphemisms,
which
cloak
the
issues
that
we
face
with
intense
emotional
stimuli
(positively
or
negatively),
and
thereby
make
collaboration
and
reasonable
discourse
a
long
shot.
During
Ohio's
SB-­‐5/
Issue
2
saga,
a
piece
of
pro-­‐labor
propaganda
was
commandeered
by
pro-­‐SB-­‐5
interest
groups
and
used
to
promote
their
own
agenda.
Both
sides
of
the
debate
were
actually
running
the
same
propaganda,
spun
with
different
shades
of
red
and
blue,
to
advance
their
separate
interests
all
the
while
leaving
hapless
voters
little
choice
but
to
go
along
with
the
party-­‐line.
This
state
of
battle-­‐cry
political
discourse
should
give
us
reason
to
pause.
Do
we
reasonably
expect
to
be
able
to
address
the
fundamental
issues
underlying
our
modern
problems
as
long
as
in6lammatory
rhetoric
is
accepted
as
viable
political
speech?
How
are
we
going
to
be
able
to
hear
good-­‐faith
contributions
from
concerned
citizens
over
the
din
of
destructive
diatribes?
What’s
obvious
here
is
that
as
long
as
unique
perspectives
and
broad-­‐minded

6. approaches
have
no
place
in
our
public
debates,
we
will
continue
to
languish
under
apparently
irresolvable
problems.
On
the
battleground
of
a
war,
there
are
no
winners.
No
one
wins
in
battleground
politics
either
–
except
maybe
the
elite
few
who
are
willing
to
impoverish
the
rest
of
us
to
pad
their
own
pockets.
And,
as
conditions
decline
in
our
communities
divisive
propaganda
thrives,
while
politicians
capitalize
on
our
rapt
state
of
anticipation-­‐for-­‐change.
In
the
meantime,
our
top-­‐down
organized
political
parties
have
come
to
rely
on
ever
more
sophisticated
message-­‐delivery
systems
rather
than
actually
cultivating
bottom-­‐up
constituencies.
It
seems
that
today,
the
more
important
an
issue
is
to
the
country
as
a
whole,
the
more
extreme
and
paralyzing
the
ensuing
barrage
of
rhetoric
becomes.
Such
media
campaigns
make
it
clear
that
our
political
parties
are
more
interested
in
cultivating
adherents
than
encouraging
constructive
participation.
Listen
to
practically
any
of
the
Democratic
or
Republican
candidates
and
we
hear
how
their
party
has
a
monopoly
on
the
best
way
for
America
to
thrive.
These
top-­‐down
political
monopolies
are
violating
the
trust
we
have
placed
in
them.
For
years,
while
we
have
been
waiting
for
trickle-­‐down
solutions
to
bene6it
our
communities
and
us
directly,
members
of
Congress
have
legally
traded
equities
of
public
companies
using
non-­‐public
information
to
tip
the
scales
in
their
favor.
As
we
wait
for
promised
economic
opportunities
to
materialize,
Congressional
leaders
enjoy
a
voluntary
pass
on
paying
into
the
Social
Security
and
Medicare
systems
while
nearly
1
in
5
Americans
waits
in
the
unemployment
line
and
many
others
are
skipping
the
family
vacation
to
make
ends
meet,
or
worse
still.
What’s
perhaps
most
disturbing
of
all
are
the
public
professions
by
politicians
of
every
stripe
that
their
ideology
has
a
lock
on
the
answers
to
our
collective
problems.
Such
declamations
are
simply
disingenuous.
Without
an
actual
understanding
of
the
particulars
comprising
the
experience
of
over
300
million
Americans,
how
could
any
single
contrast-­
trapped
perspective
hope
to
pave
the
path
toward
national
solvency?
Instead
of
trying
to
understand
and
cultivate
the
particular
resources
at
our
6ingertips,
our
modern
ideologues
seem
content
to
manipulate
the
mechanisms
of
persuasive
force
to
surmount
the
opposition
in
the
short-­‐term.
Yet
while
such
tactics
may
win
elections,
the
outcomes
don’t
reveal
a
real
winner
in
the
comparative
contrast
between
Ohio’s
liberal
northeast
and
conservative
southwest
regions.
Frankly,
if
the
correct
way
of
governance
was
one
side
of
the
contrast
trap,
wouldn't
it
stand
to
reason
that
the
equality
of
conditions
and
the
pursuits
of
liberty
and
justice
would
be
noticeably
greater
in
either
Cleveland
or
Cincinnati?
Of
course,
they
are
not,
nor
are
they
any
better
in
Massachusetts
than
they
are
Florida,
or
better
in
North
Carolina
than
they
are
California.
And,
so,
with
no
simple
solution
to
the
problems
we
face,
we
need
to
look
more
deeply
for
what
creates
and
perpetuates
Ohio's
(and
America's)
battleground
fallacy.

7. Partisan
Politics,
the
Flip-­Flop,
and
Individualism
Imbalanced
Let’s
begin
with
some
of
our
most
common
experiences
of
politics
today.
Open
most
any
newspaper
and
we
6ind
stories
about
gridlock
in
Washington
D.C.
or
the
successful
lobbying
of
one
interest
group
or
another.
We
turn
on
the
news
and
hear
the
dissection
of
electioneering
strategies
interwoven
with
disparaging
sound
bites,
or
we
tune
into
radio
programs
and
listen
to
politicians
and
pundits
promising
to
save
social
programs
or
eliminate
burdensome
taxes.
Everywhere
we
turn,
myriad
carefully
crafted
advertisements
combining
powerful
images
and
concise
messages
work
their
seeming
magic
to
convince
us
of
the
bene6its
of
electing
so
and
so
or
passing
referendum
number
whatever.
And
moment
by
moment
we’re
told
who’s
leading
the
race,
thanks
to
the
most
up-­‐to-­‐date
polling
and
statistical
modeling,
giving
an
air
of
inevitability
to
outcomes
perhaps
still
many
months
away.
Inundated
as
we
are
today
by
a
barrage
of
bad
news
and
doomsday
prognostications,
we’re
presented
with
ever
more
furious
claims
of
the
necessity
of
a
single
party’s
solution
to
what
is
supposedly
a
zero-­‐sum
political
game.
Yet,
as
we
stand
on
this
apparent
precipice,
we’re
confronted
by
a
practical
irony:
just
when
we’re
told
that
we
must
act
now
or
crumble
under
an
impossible
contradiction,
millions
of
Americans
and
many
Ohioans
dismiss
politics
as
impossibly
6lawed
and
irrelevant
in
their
personal
lives.
Such
a
situation
raises
an
important
question.
How
could
we
be
in
such
collectively
dire
straits
and
simultaneously
be
unsure
whether
we
can
even
politically
resolve
our
problems?
Whether
on
the
right,
left,
or
middle
of
the
political
spectrum,
the
array
of
problems
confronting
the
great
state
of
Ohio
and
the
nation
as
a
whole
is
dizzying:
the
recession
and
its
unemployment,
education
woes,
unaffordable
health
care,
spiraling
national
debt,
crumbling
infrastructures,
terrorist
threats,
and
the
instabilities
of
the
international
economy
have
all
coalesced
into
a
storm
so
furious
that
all
we
seem
able
to
do
is
6ight
for
our
very
existence.
Though
instead
of
joining
forces
against
these
common
enemies,
we
6ind
ourselves
6ighting
tooth
and
nail
against
ourselves.

8. When
we
pause
to
consider
the
state
of
politics
in
Ohio
and
America
as
a
whole,
there
are
compelling
reasons
why
many
doubt
our
collective
ability
to
arrive
at
political
solutions
to
our
problems.
First
and
foremost
is
the
fact
that
the
political
landscape
of
today
has
become
a
battleground
in
which
the
victors
of
each
! election
seek
to
destroy
the
opposition
and
unilaterally
impose
their
will
on
those
who
have
been
bested.
We
are
reminded
every
presidential
election
cycle
that
Ohio
is
one
of
the
battleground
states
that
must
be
won
in
order
for
a
presidential
hopeful
to
make
it
to
the
White
House.
Now,
in
an
obvious
and
important
sense,
there
is
no
getting
away
from
con6lict
in
politics.
A
man
of
no
less
historical
clout
than
Niccolo
Machiavelli
tells
readers
that
as
a
rule
the
best
laws
of
the
Roman
Republic
arose
time
and
again
out
of
the
"#!$%&#!%'(!#)&&*+,!#%!$%&#!%'(!-./(0#1('*1'(&! con6lict
between
the
interests
of
the
senate
and
the
people.
It
was
this
wrestling
of
opposing
parties
which
eventually
moderated
the
speech
of
the
vying
interests
and
laid
the
foundation
for
legislative
compromises
capable
of
satisfying
both
sides.
Yet
such
productive
political
con6lict
is
very
different
from
the
battle
which
characterizes
our
modern
political
life.
The
tv
ads,
newspaper
editorials,
pundit
blogs,
and
talk
radio
programs
are
practically
unanimous
in
their
proclamations
that
there
is
only
one
way
to
rescue
Ohio
and
resuscitate
America:
by
resolutely
embracing
the
party-­‐line
of
one
side
of
the
aisle
so
as
to
win
super-­‐
majorities
capable
of
running
roughshod
over
the
opposition.
Yet
when
the
prosperity
promised
during
each
election
cycle
remains
unrealized
two,
four,
or
six
years
later,
is
it
any
wonder
then
that
the
majority
of
Americans
don’t
regularly
vote,
and
that
those
who
do
often
harbor
fundamental
doubts
about
the
viability
of
our
political
process?
Frankly,
there’s
only
so
long
that
a
reasonable
person
can
stave
off
exhaustion’s
apathy
after
so
many
failed
battles.
The
Triumph
of
Expediency
Over
Democracy.
What
should
be
clear
from
the
foregoing
is
that
pushing
resolutely
forward
will
simply
yield
more
of
the
same
results.
Instead,
if
we
hope
to
realize
the
prosperity
which
we
feel
drawn
towards,
it
makes
sense
to
ask
if
something
is
out
of
place
in
our
most
fundamental
political
premises
which
may
be
causing
us
to
spin
our
political
wheels
.
.
.