The new/old politics of the capital versus the countryside

The capital versus the countryside: that's the new political divide, visible in multiple surprise election results over the past eleven months. It cuts across old partisan lines and replaces old divisions — labor versus management, North versus South, Catholic versus Protestant — that traditionally divided voters.

This was apparent last June in Britain's referendum on whether to leave the European Union: London voted 60 percent to remain, while the rest of England, whether Labour or Conservative, voted 57 percent to leave. It was plain in Colombia's October referendum on a peace settlement with the FARC guerrillas: Bogotá voted 56 percent si, the heartland Cordillera provinces 58 percent no.

In both countries the ethnic and geographic fringe — Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Caribbean provinces — voted with the capital. But in each case the historic heartland, with a majority of voters, produced a surprise defeat for the capital establishment.

Similarly here in November 2016. Coastal America—the Northeast minus Pennsylvania, the Pacific states minus Alaska—favored Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump 58 to 35 percent. But the geographic heartland, casting 69 of the nation's votes, favored Trump 51 to 43 percent.

The contrast is even starker if you separate out the establishment metro areas—New York, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, which together produce most Democratic big-dollar funding. They voted 65 to 29 percent Clinton; the rest of the country they feel entitled to rule voted 49 to 45 percent for Trump.