Red State Blues

Introduction to Red State Blues

Red State Blues

Red State Blues focuses on the craven political policies that virtually assure premature death among the population. In this piece, we explore policy and motivation along with the divided political conditions that mitigate against life-preserving policies in the Red States.

Issues of access to health care, the misguided insistence that by destroying what Republicans call the Nanny State they are forcing citizens to take personal responsibility rather than relying on state policies that make the task of staying healthy longer.

The growing divide in life expectancy between the Red States and the Blue States is a pressing issue that demands our attention. Recent data and analysis by The Washington Post reveal a stark contrast: residents of Red States are more likely to die prematurely, and this discrepancy can be traced back to policy decisions made by local and state lawmakers. In this opinion piece, we delve into the motivations behind this divide and explore why residents of Red States seem unwilling to address it, highlighting the broader implications for the unity of our nation.

Red State Blues and Policy Choices and Consequences

The policies adopted by the Red States have a significant impact on public health. For instance, resisting higher cigarette taxes has allowed smoking rates to remain high in some areas, contributing to an increased incidence of smoking-related illnesses.

Neglecting investments in public health means fewer resources for preventive care and health education, leaving residents more vulnerable to preventable diseases. Refusing to tighten seat-belt regulations exposes people to higher risks of injury and death in motor vehicle accidents. These policy choices have real and tangible consequences for the well-being of residents.

One cannot ignore the impact of policy decisions on public health. The Red States have, in many cases, opted for a path that shortens lives. Whether it’s resisting cigarette taxes, neglecting public health investments, or refusing to tighten seat-belt regulations, the choices made by these states have had dire consequences. The question is: why do these policies persist?

Red State Blues: The Motivation Question

Why do residents of Red States seem reluctant to change policies that are clearly detrimental to their own well-being? Is it a matter of ideology, party loyalty, or misinformation? Understanding the motivations behind this resistance is crucial to finding a path toward unity and better health for all Americans.

The Divided Nature of America

The Red-Blue divide in life expectancy is symptomatic of a broader issue plaguing the United States. It reflects not only political polarization but also a growing divide in access to healthcare and the overall quality of life. The question arises: can a nation so deeply divided still call itself “United States”?

The Tolerance Dilemma and Red State Blues

Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of this issue is why residents of Red States tolerate policies that are detrimental to their own health and well-being. Is it a matter of resilience, where individuals adapt to difficult circumstances rather than seeking change?

Or is it a result of mistrust in the government and institutions that promote these policies? It’s a multifaceted problem that requires careful examination and consideration. Is it a lack of awareness, or do they genuinely believe these policies are in their best interest? It’s a complex issue, but it demands examination and discussion to bridge the gap.

Certainly, let’s delve deeper into the reasons behind the divide in life expectancy between Red States and Blue States and the implications for the unity of the United States.

The Motivation Question

Understanding why residents of Red States seem hesitant to change these detrimental policies is essential. Some argue that it may be tied to deeply ingrained ideological beliefs, where limited government intervention is valued above all else.

Others suggest that party loyalty plays a role, with constituents aligning themselves with policies advocated by their chosen political party regardless of the consequences. Additionally, misinformation or lack of awareness about the direct impact of these policies may lead some to believe they are making the right choices for their communities.

The Divided Nature of America

The Red-Blue divide in life expectancy reflects a broader issue of polarization in the United States. It goes beyond political affiliations, extending into access to healthcare, education, and economic opportunities. In many cases, the states with shorter life expectancies also have lower access to healthcare, which further compounds the problem. The divide highlights disparities in the quality of life experienced by residents in different parts of the country.


Addressing the divide in life expectancy between the Red States and the Blue States is not just a matter of public health; it’s a question of unity within the nation. To bridge this divide, it is imperative to engage in open and constructive dialogue, question the motivations behind policy choices, and seek common ground that promotes the well-being of all Americans.

The existence of such a stark divide raises concerns about the unity of our nation and prompts us to reflect on whether we are heading toward a future where the term “Disunited States” becomes a more accurate descriptor than we would like to admit. It is a challenge that calls for collective effort and a reevaluation of priorities to ensure a healthier and more unified America for future generations.

By Politics-as-Usual

Roger is a retired Professor of language and literacy. Over the past 15 years since his retirement, Roger has kept busy with reading, writing, and creating landscape photographs. In this time of National crisis, as Fascist ideas and policies are being introduced to the American people and ignored by the Mainstream Press, he decided to stand up and be counted as a Progressive American with some ideas that should be shared with as many people who care to read and/or participate in discusssions of these issues. He doesn't ask anyone to agree with his point of view, but if entering the conversation he demands civility. No conspiracy theories, no wild accusations, no threats, no disrespect will be tolerated. Roger monitors all comments and email communication. That is the only rule for entering the conversation. One may persuade, argue for a different point of view, or toss out something that has not been discussed so long as the tone remains part of a civil discussion. Only then can we find common ground and meaningful democratic change.

Leave a Reply