Sep 8, 2013 4 min read

Recently, a New York Times reporter paid a visit to Waynesburg, in Greene County, to gather opinions about the possibility of an attack on Syria following its use of chemical weapons against its own citizens on August 21. What they found out was … well, I’ll call it “enlightening.”

First, why did the fancy, big city paper sojourn to little Waynesburg? Because when we were on the precipice of the Iraq War in 2002, 86 percent of Waynesburg residents supported it — about as close to unanimous as you can get when it comes to military action.

And now? Waynesburg citizens are adamantly against an attack on Syria. And not necessarily because they realized the Iraq War was costly and unjustified. The real reason is that military action is Obama’s idea, and there’s apparently a mantra among many Waynesburg residents: never, ever agree with President Obama. Ever.

The New York Times reports that, according to Waynesburg’s congressman, Tim Murphy, “Generally, the calls [Murphy receives from constituents] are like this: ‘I can’t stand President Obama; don’t you dare go along with him.”

Pretty problematic, in a democracy.

The article gets my hackles up for the way its writer, Michael Wines, refers to Waynesburg as “a bucolic, if fading, corner of southwestern Pennsylvania” and paints its residents as drawling hicks. With his descriptions of VFW halls and the quotes he uses, one can nearly see straight through to his attempt to get New Yorkers to pearl-clutch and feel superior, lamenting the backwards opinions of “flyover” country. Just the kind of ammunition conservatives use to arm rural America against “elite” liberalism.

“This is tea party country,” Wines writes, “where even the Democrats are conservative, and the towns that hug the junction of the Ohio and West Virginia border, less well off and educated than most in the state, were hit hard by the long recession.”

Technically, I suppose he’s not wrong. But he’s dealing pretty freely in stereotype here (says this very liberal Democrat, and I know that southwestern Pennsylvania is home to many like me) for, it would seem, the sake of painting a voyeuristic picture of slow-witted rural America.

He ends the piece with a particularly egregious quote from a woman who thinks an attack on Syria will deploy so many of our soldiers that there will be no one to protect the U.S., causing a “Red Dawn” apocalypse to rain down upon us (most people — even here — are aware that on-the-ground deployment is not on the table in Syria). The last line of a piece of writing is often the most powerful, and what impression do you think that quote leaves on its readers?

I, and we, know better; people in southwestern Pennsylvania are smart, tough, savvy, and surprise me every time. Even if I don’t always agree with their views.

But, OK — looking beyond my knee-jerk reaction to the unflattering portrayal (I’d probably care a lot less had the same been written about another area of the country that is not my own), the article does show something important about the attitudes here, and, it would seem, around the country. And we must turn a critical eye toward it.

Party divisions are becoming so entrenched and problematic that it could very well contribute to the ruination of America. People have completely lost the ability to separate solutions to help our country from the party of the people who put forth the solutions.

I can’t deny that I’ve seen that attitude here in southwestern Pennsylvania — and likely readers have too, in Herald-Standard’s “Words from the Web” and “Word on the Street” features. There’s an open season on every single thing Obama does, from taking vacation days (way fewer than Bush did, by the way) to healthcare reform (the closing of several departments at Uniontown hospital was immediately blamed on Obamacare, when those who work there say the problem has been brewing a long time) to something as big as a military strike in Syria.

For the record, I’m still not sure what the right course of action is in Syria. I am glad there’s no quick jump to action and that the decision is being parsed out. I’d want that of any world leader, no matter their party.

What I am against is the inability to see beyond the elaborate branding Republicans have applied to Obama — that he’s out to destroy America, and we must stop him at every turn, no matter if he’s proposing a war or a new national holiday.

Please, let’s not prove Mr. Wines portrayal right — that we’re backwards and unable to think for ourselves.

Jessica Vozel is a resident of Perryopolis.