The "blue-red" thesis is so utterly silly that—in these latter days of the Rush Limbaugh Right—it was a movement just waiting to happen. In fact, there are always "red" and "blue" states in our White House elections; last year was much like every other. And to continue stating what is merely obvious, many "blue" states vote 49 percent "red," and many "red" states vote 49 percent "blue," suggesting that they may not be two different critters. (Indeed, Florida, which is technically "red," may have voted the opposite color. Ditto New Mexico, technically "blue.") If your state gives 51 percent to Bush; and my state gives 51 percent to Gore; does that mean that we live in two warring nations? In the addled world of the Limbaugh Right, that’s exactly what such facts seem to say.

Since we have red and blue states in every election, how did this idiot theory get started? We think you know what happened. In this past election, the red states were bunched all close together, and a few of our better-known total incompetents came up with a thrilling new thesis. We were "two different Americas," these sages said, simply transfixed by that big swatch of red.

At any rate, it’s no surprise to see Andrew Sullivan spouting this pitiful palaver (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/19/01). But incredibly, even David Brooks is now up to his eyes in the mess. There it sat, on Atlantic’s cover. "ARE WE REALLY ONE COUNTRY?" the big red text said. And the cover promised us something profound: "A report from ‘Red’ and ‘Blue’ America."

It’s incredible that someone as bright as Brooks could be involved in such risible nonsense. Surely this means that our thesis is accurate—on the right, sheer stupidity is now de rigeur, the fruit of a decade of unchallenged power. How else could they possibly drag a guy as bright as Brooks into this utterly yowling mess? Presumably Brooks didn’t write the synopsis. But just so you’ll know, here it is:

Incredibly, the Atlantic is so committed to sheer, complete nonsense that it even drug 9/11 in. Where else but in the camp of the Coming Conservative Crackup could people come up with a question like this one? Ninety-five percent of the public supports the war, so Atlantic starts thinking that we may be two nations! Surely a Crackup is coming on fast when nonsense like that calls for toasts.

But let’s put 9/11 to the side, and marvel at Brooks’ article. First, of course, the most laughable fact—he didn’t even visit "Red America." Brooks, who lives in Montgomery County, Maryland, visited Franklin County, PA, hoping to gander at local yokels. Franklin County is Brooks’ "Red America." Until, that is, he says this:

Exactly! According to that useless election map, Franklin County, Pennsylvania is blue! So why in the world does Atlantic’s synopsis tie Brooks’ piece to that meaningless map, and why in the world did Brooks say this, just a few paragraphs earlier:

But Franklin County is not "Red America," if we’re going by those "election-night maps." The sheer stupidity of Atlantic’s whole thesis is blown up by this part of its piece. Why then did the article remain, except for sheer love of sheer nonsense?

Reading on through Brooks’ piece, we learn what he’s really addressing. He isn’t talking about "red" and "blue;" he’s talking about rural and urban. In the second paragraph of his piece, he defines the "America" he wanted to study when he went to the wilds of PA:

Dude, you’re discussing "exurban" America. If Brooks (and his editors) had just told us that, readers would have known what this piece was about—and almost surely would have known not to read it.

After all, who would want to read David Brooks expounding on rural America? He sounds like a visitor from K-PAX throughout—although in his own mind, he fancies Thoreau:

Still a great sentence so many years later! But what did Brooks learn when he went to the wilds? In truth, it sounds like Brooks had never before journeyed more than ten blocks from a Starbucks. Throughout the piece, he is simply amazed by facts almost everyone knows. At one point, for example, he says this:

If you’ve seen Deliverance, you know that. But Brooks is completely kerflubbled:

We think we heard that one first in City Slickers. Or maybe it was Ernest Scared Stupid.

Anyway, it isn’t like Brooks doesn’t play along with the ludicrous "two nations" theory. Early on, he reveals his fears. Brooks finds himself troubled about the great differences between Red and Blue America:

It’s heavy stuff. But what are the "differences" to which he refers? Here is the end of his preceding paragraph. No, we aren’t making this up:

That was the end of the paragraph. Incredibly, those were the only stated "differences" which led to Brooks’ "troubling questions." Amazing, isn’t it? In red states, 45 percent of blacks think AIDS may be God’s punishment; in blue states, it’s only 31. Based on utter trivia like this, Brooks starts raising "troubling questions" as to whether we’re still one nation.

It isn’t hard to see why Atlantic Monthly would churn out an insulting mess like this—its editor is, of course, Michael Kelly. Only Kelly! Only Kelly could get pointless conversations with squirrel hunters conflated with Bush versus Gore. But how in the world did David Brooks get tangled up in this yowling mess? It must be that, in the world of the talk-show right, stupidity is now a stern rite of passage. And that surely points to a Coming Crackup. We’ll explain all—but first, Mr. H.

Next: Don’t tell Sean Hannity that 9/11 is our fault. Unless you’re a well-known conservative.