


The view from Vandalia


See article

Readers' comments



Lincoln was right to leave Vandalia. These places only enjoy their standard of living due to the government spending on public services which the good folks of such small towns never stop criticizing.


Strategically located crossroads towns like Vandalia will prosper in the 21st Century as more people become telecommuters or workers at temporary jobs. From Vandalia it's feasible to work in Chicago, St. Louis, Indianapolis Louisville, Nashville, or Memphis. You could take long-term or short-term assignments in any of these places and commute home on weekends.
One's standard of living in a place like Vandalia also rises. A $100K income would enable you to purchase the most luxurious homes in town. $100K in any of the large metro areas I mentioned would buy you a shack.
I have homes in a couple of small towns like Vandalia that are convenient to major metropolitan areas in the South and Upper Midwest. I'm not sure even a very rich person in, say, Chicago, could duplicate my standard of living, since I was able to buy large houses and tracts of land for practically nothing.

bvshreck in reply to Langosta

But that's actually the opposite of the trend: despite their increased mobility, white collar workers prefer to live in cities. Downtown condo blocks are just about the only buildings going up in America right now. Something about small towns doesn't appeal to creative class workers(hint: they're boring). The telecommunications revolution is already far enough along to allow what you claim should be happening to happen, and it hasn't. It's cheap to live in Vandalia because no one wants to live there. They want to live in Chicago or Boston or Portland or Seattle or Austin because they're full of cultural amenities and like minded people. The days of big, isolated houses are waning, at least for this next generation of white collar Americans.

Langosta in reply to bvshreck

What you said about wanting to live downtown is absolutely true for single folks and married couples whose child-rearing days are either over or haven't begun. While single I lived in downtown highrises in Chicago and other cities and loved it.

After you have kids your lifestyle changes so much that you're driven into the suburbs/exurbs. It's difficult to raise kids in a downtown highrise for all kinds of reasons.

In the USA population growth is accelerating in a belt of a 50 to 90 miles around mega-cities like Atlanta and Chicago. Many small towns in these exurban belts doubled or tripled their populations in the 1990s and early 2000's.

But you're right about places like Vandalia being a bit too far out to attract the high rate of growth of the outer-fringe metro areas. But this will change during the 2000's. These places are becoming ever more attractive, and the population of these far-out towns will began to take off, IF they are CROSSROADS towns like Vandalia that are in between the major metro areas.

ZA Observor

The global phenomenon of many conservative small towns competing for tax resources with metrop;olitan cities plays out on a bigger scale in the US, highlighting the stagnant nature of American democracy and civilisation which systematically inhibits the sharing of economic benefits more equitably.

The original intentions of the US constitution - an elected House controlled by political parties and a senate of wise, experienced people to counter the "passions of the people", has in reality become a reverse mirror image of England's anachronistic elected House of Commons and Lords. In both cases, evolution of democracy has stalled by the "majority wins" (at all costs) principle while the losers get no recognition - even where they make up 49% of the population.

The 2 dominant parties in both countries have a vested interest in maintaining the cult of the status quo, selling leverage off to the highest bidders and sponsors which keeps the economy unnaturally over invested in the oil, war and gun industries, and in the pocket of shady high risk bankers and derivative traders.

As the "fiscal cliff" debacle clearly demonstrates, constitutional reform is overdue to advance towards consociational democracy which requires compromise and the inclusion of "both sides" in the government of the day. Flashing images of the most expensive gutter level presidential campagin in history around the globe, underscores the nasty side of opportunistic capitalism.

Political party funding should be from tax revenues, in return for a code of good conduct which does not pit brother against brother in a divisive mud slinging match, with an outright ban on sponsorships and donations by public and private enterprises.

Removing tax concessions for such "benefactors" who thwart the will of the American people and permanently lock out the possibility of any alternative emergeing to the GOP-Democrat hegemony, is unsurprisingly nowhere on the manifest of either Republicans or Democrats.

Vandalia is relevant, not because its citizens are "right", but because it is the victim of the cult of the founding fathers constitution. The "American" system was not handed down by God on tablets to the people - it is an expensive, creaky, manipulated centre of corruption in urgent need of reform away from the politics of patronage, towards an inclusive form of Government that shows the rest of the world that Americans can work together.

alusa in reply to ZA Observor

You make some fine observations. I want to add that as an American, I am fully aware of the democratic limitations. Rural areas, particularly in the south, are bastions of reaction, racism and right-wing anarchism. Voting is suppressed, winner-take-all helps maintain the undemocratic system, gerrymandering gives Republicans more representation than merited by popular vote, money trumps one person-one-vote through corporate donations, corruption of politicians, corporate media monopoly, buying scholars through privately financed right wing think tanks, division of people using racism, etc. What America needs is real democracy. Without a struggle against corporate monopolies, real democracy will only be a dream or empty rhetoric .

surfson in reply to alusa

Well said. You could easily be talking about most cities along the Texas Gulf of Mexico coast. Rockport, Port Aransas, Brownsville, Portland, Ingleside, Corpus Christi, Lake Jackson, Clute, West Columbia ("the proud home of the knights of the KKK")

I appreciate your insightful stereotyping of Vandalia. As a resident of Central Illinois myself, living about an hour from Vandalia, I can assure you that we might not all be the two dimensional carbon copies you seem to fantasize about. I might counter with rural stereotyping of "the city", but if you talk to people in Vandalia, Greenville, and Staunton, you will find plenty of people who regularly visit "the City" because of the museums, the sports, and family. Many of them went to college in Chicago, St. Louis, or Urbana-Champaign, or places further afield like New York and New Delhi. I myself live in Staunton, but spent a year in India and speak Kannada relatively well. I also happen to believe in scientific inquiry and can name about 20-30 stars in any particular night sky and most of the constellations.

Did you know that the nearby Macoupin County was seminal in establishing the Union movement in the early 1900's, with several protests, including the martyrdom of the Virden Five and the work of the Mother Jones? The roots of the Progressive movement are very deep here. Although Democrats still have quite a strong hold in some parts of Southern Illinois in part because of Union ties, the Republican party of Illinois often holds sway because of the more regional differences between metropolitan Chicago and rural "downstate" Illinois. The two areas have very different needs and resources - rural areas with their farm-to-market roads vs. cities with their mass transit districts. Vandalia and Fayette County have now significant MTD, even though we support Chicago's system through state taxes.

The converse of your assertion would be that the urban area is full of urbane, knowledgeable scientists who reject Young Earthers and other similar Know-Nothing attitudes. I doubt this is the case for the everyone in your urban area.

I am not trying to say that Creationists do not walk the streets of Vandalia, or that Republicans don't harbor some pretty nonsensical attitudes, but your sweeping generalizations show a lack of understanding of the cultural and political geography here. Maybe you should educate yourself a little before you insult people.

benn555 in reply to Bryan in Illinois

As someone who grew up in Vandalia, I have to say that what you're pointing out is not very common in Vandalia. Yes, some people go college and later return. Some even stay away longer and return. However, it is far from the norm.

I understand the culture and political geography there. Did you know that surrounding towns, and even us locals at times, sometimes refer to it as Klandalia? Did you know that there was a large KKK rally with a cross burning there in the past 30 years? Have you seen a black man chased from a bar within a minute of his arrival? I've seen it in Vandalia.

No, not everyone can be covered by sweeping generalizations, but in Vandalia, most people that are like you and I leave and never move back.

And as for the "significant" mass transit districts, does that mean the bus that the senior citizens and disabled call to get rides?


"The rural dilemma has changed. Vandalia is not about to vanish, thanks to crop insurance and other state safety nets."

Won't these nets collapse when spending is cut after the fiscal cliff? Won't the local economy collapse as we head into recession?

Won't we get the small government that Vandalians so dearly seem to want?

Let's see how well they handle actually getting what they've demanded.


Thank you for the story on Vandalia, a nice place full of nice people who deny their dependence on democratic institutions, deny proven science, and, worst of all, deny their responsibility for the current dismal state of the nation. Make no mistake. They are culpable.

These nice people voted overwhelmingly for Rep John Shimkus(R), Congress's most outrageous climate science denier, a man who believes that God will save us from climate change because it says so in the old testament, Genesis 8:21-22, a passage in which God promises Noah (of ark fame) that "Never again will I curse the ground because of man..."

I am convinced that the good people of Vandalia attend local churches regularly, help other locals in need, cash their government checks at local banks, and buy vegetables at their local farmer's market. Locally, I am sure they do very well.

It is nationally, that this group, and other rural groups like them, are a complete disaster, voraciously supporting George W. Bush's disastrous policies, and just recently sending a misguided misfit like Rep. Shimkus to Washington.

So, if there is a lesson here it is that the people who think themselves the most pious, wishing others to view them as simply nice Christian folk, can often do the most harm.

MATT1970 in reply to RoyFan51


I could not resist the urge to use a quote from C.S. Lewis against his co-religionists.


"Dependence has not made locals love government. Today Vandalia and outlying districts send Republican representatives to Springfield and Washington with two-thirds majorities."

Just as it's incorrect to assume that those who love government vote democratic, assuming the inverse is equally misleading. Despite the rhetoric or what the conventional wisdom holds as the defining differences between the parties, federal government has been growing in a bipartisan manner for quite some time now. This, is of course, despite what the political talking points of the hour may be, or the carefully manicured presentations that the parties present of themselves to their constituents.

Take the prison mentioned as an illustration. Tough on crime laws(generally a republican drum to bang on) = more prisons = more government. Voting republican, is likely to reinforce the very form of government that most directly benefits this town economically. Voting republican may be the most pragmatic option for the towns constituents, not necessarily a sign of contradicting interests. Or, as the author may be ironically implying, that local residents are dependant on the democrats (big government), yet voting republican (small government) in spite of this fact.

If only one party, beyond rhetoric, truly was more in favor of smaller government, less porkbarrel spending, and more frugal use of taxpayer money...

Alas, let us not fool ourselves.

And thinking about it, this town may best epitomize the very nature of our human tendency to disparage the above waste in "theory" (when there is no benefit that we can see or touch), but to accept and even desire it when the benefits are real, immediate, or practical.


By sheer geographic misfortune, Illinois is part of the Rust Belt, thanks to unionized, closed-shop Chicago. Michigan and Indiana have recently escaped, thanks to open-shop legislation. Illinois will go under before it ever even considers Right to Work. RIP.

inflationist in reply to surfson

Actually no. The minimum wage is a federal law that applies to all states, although some set higher minimums. RTW means that you can work for a unionized employer without having union dues automatically deducted from your paycheck without your consent. RTW states attract inward investment because RTW makes it possible for manufacturer's to operate nonunion factories. This is why there are more cars now made in America in non-UAW factories in the South than in UAW factories in the North. It is also why the Rust Belt is rusting while the Cotton Belt is booming. As a Southerner, I'm fine with the North turning into a third-world dystopia. But some Northern voters, like those in Michigan and Indiana, have decided otherwise. Due to the dominance of Chicago, Illinois will never become a RTW state, and will therefore continue to have high unemployment and go bankrupt.

surfson in reply to inflationist

Thank you for that clarification! I bet I'm not the only one that needed that education! I truly thank you.

Only I fear that although the way unions were run they benefited those administering on behalf of the workers more than they benefited the workers, they did give some voice to the plight of the worker via the forced Dues payments and union participation. With RTW that, admittedly questionable, power will be lost. We live in a sated economy that is in a downward population spiral because we cannot afford to raise children and educate them too. The profit motive will further put downward pressure on families. In their book The Making of Economic Society by Heilbroner and Milberg, it is pointed out that it is remarkable how much of Karl Marx's predictions for capitalist societies is proving accurately predicted by him. I'm not advocating that Marx's socialism is a proper goal; but if we do not move in that direction we will face a slow demise.

Maybe Corporations with large savings and no indication of how to invest those savings should shoulder some educational costs as part of recognizing that a portion of those savings represent withheld wages. Would that be too socialist? We need lift and the savings are dragging us down if that makes any sense.

Rob S in reply to surfson

No, surfson. RTW is NOT a euphemism for paying less than the minimum wage. "Comprehensive immigration reform" is a euphemism for paying less than the minimum wage.

RTW is a system whereby workers are not forced to join a union if they choose not to join a union. Opponents to RTW those who suffer from a delusion that THEY somehow know better what is the best interests of a worker than the worker does himself. Do you, too, suffer from that delusion?

Rob S in reply to surfson

Education costs?? Education costs have spiraled ever upward, year after year. Rather than transfer those ever increasing costs to corporations, who will pass them on to their customers, why not ask the forbidden question: Why are costs going upward and who benefits from this inflation?

surfson in reply to Rob S

There is no need to cop your rude attitude. I've read at least 5 economics books in the last 5 years. The opinions I express are derived from the understanding obtained therefrom. I would be the first to advocate stronger immigration control. You do not seem to understand the concept of savings as discussed by Malthus and Ricardo and Smith and John Hobson and others; all of which have advocated for the worker.

It is your shallow analysis that is wanting in substance and tries to claim authority through juvenile name calling. Please don't reply. Your emotional response has more to do with authoritarian group thinking than having an authoritative base for thinking.

Rob S in reply to surfson

An irrelevant response, surfson. Appealing to the number of books you have read about economics (or carpentry) does not validate your argument. Criticizing the argument you make is not "namecalling".

None of the economists you cited have ever been "workers". They were academics. The principle I advocate is that workers are better equipped to understand their personal interests than either these long dead book writers - or you.

To imagine that YOU (or those writers) somehow know better than I do what is best for me is a self-serving delusion. Get over it. I prefer to choose for myself whether I will join a union or not, and not let you make that choice for me. As somebody who actually been in that position, I feel I have enough experience to understand the issues. What experiences have you had with attempts to coerce you into joining a union?


"But in Illinois (indeed nationally) populous places have the votes."

Isn't this why states (and indeed the United States) have Senates? As I understood it from citizenship class, the whole American theory of an elected upper chamber with an evenly-distributed representation of power across an entire constituency was that the more populous areas could not force their will on the lesser populated ones, merely by weight of numbers. I always thought it was one of America's many (and very worthy) checks and balances.

Or so I thought. Oddly enough, I've been pondering this lately in terms of the cost of government. I'm originally from the Australian state of Queensland, which is unique among the Australian states in that it does not have an 'upper house' in its legislature. And yet its state governance is no more or less effective than that of the other Australian states: clearly though, it is more efficient, because there is a whole stratum of government which Queensland taxpayers do NOT have to subsidize. Yet they get similar results (for better or for worse...).

I can recall only very few cases where senators in the US stand up for their states (in opposition to other states); almost exclusively, they speak out on behalf of their parties (so then how is our upper chamber any different from our lower one?). The exceptions tend to occur when a military base (or other government pork barrel) is earmarked for closure, or transfer to another district.

I'm sorry if this is off-topic, but the quoted section just got me thinking. If it's true (for Vandalia and other places), then we haven't we set up a whole stratum of government which has defeated its own purpose? So suppose we just get rid of senates and all their hangers-on (staffers, etc), and operate as Queensland does; would we be any worse off? Would Vandalia? Would it be worth the savings? Worth some thought, surely?

Or maybe I'm just rambling. Put it down to my revolutionary zeal to reduce the cost of government. I'm revolting, you see...

Let me take this opportunity to wish all my fans and foes, and our hosts, a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. See you all in 2013, and long live The Revolution!

In the original US constitution, the Senate was not elected directly by the population of the states, but appointed by each states legislature. The point of the second chamber was supposed to be as follows: The senate should consist of wise, experienced people to counter the "passions of the people", represented by the house of representatives.

However, as senators are now directly elected, they are subjected to the very same electoral pressure, and hence pressure to toe the party line, as the house of representatives. Indeed, is there still any point in having a senate?

Hamakko in reply to Ars longa vita brevis

Exactly. My state of origin abolished its senate in 1922, and as I tried to point out in my original comment, that appears to have had no discernible effect on the state's standard of governance. If it worked there, why not elsewhere?

Your name intrigues me: Long art, short life?
Or do I need to go back to my high school Latin class?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Ars longa vita brevis in reply to Hamakko

Loosely translated: "Art is eternal, life is short" (Latin translation of the first two lines of the Aphorismi by Hippocrates)

As for abolishing the senate, I am afraid that there is not much hope for this. We humans are not very good at change, and in fact the major changes in our history have typically come about not through our own foresight, but through disaster wrought on us, mostly at our own hands.

What about Bob in reply to Hamakko

For the Federal level the 17th Amendment to the US constitution made US senators elected by popular vote. This is another piece in the puzzle that destroyed individual state voices/interests/rights at the Federal level.
Logically then the purpose of the Senate only serves to be longer continuity of statesmen, but actual effectiveness is no better than the House of Representatives. Senators serve 6 year terms and every 2 years only one third of Senate gets elected. The entire House gets elected every 2 years so more possible turnover. However, considering that some House Reps. have been serving for decades, it is counter productive. This is of course excluding the powers that have been split between House and Senate at the federal level.
At the state level technically it can differ from state to state to however they want to do it. I am not from Illinois so not sure their exact rules.

Hamakko in reply to What about Bob

Thanks for your thoughts. You are right, as are ALVB and Garyzz above. We all seem to feel the same frustrations about the intended vs actual roles of upper houses. But I had not known that NE also did not have a Senate, as Garyzz points out.
You have an interesting name, too: The 'Empty Church'? Or something else that's empty? My Japanese is not as rusty as my Latin, plus I had the advantage of actually speaking it during the years I lived there (can't do that with Latin, not even in modern Rome!).

Hamakko in reply to garyzz

Thanks... I continue to learn something new every day! The only US state one, it seems. Are you from NE? I just wonder if you feel that not having an upper house there has brought any disadvantages on the population.

erniejpdx in reply to Hamakko

"I can recall only very few cases where senators in the US stand up for their states..."

As you say, when the pork is being dealt out, every state is there with its hand out. Agricultural states want ever more farm subsidies, remote areas want bridges to nowhere, states with large military hardware facilities want to build yet more products the military doesn't need or want (with the inevitable cost overruns), Congresspersons want vanity projects to be named after themselves, and the list goes on and on. So in that respect the states are well represented. It doesn't matter that every one of these worthless expenditures requires ever more government bureaucracy, ever more federal spending, all coming out of a rapidly-depleting treasury. Pork spending is what gets you re-elected, so the more the merrier.

I'm happy to hear that Queensland was successful in stripping out such a big sector of government. I wish America still had as much common sense. Good luck with your revolution; you're up against a tsunami of politicians who are quite happy with things as they are because they are the prime beneficiaries.

Hamakko in reply to erniejpdx

Agreed, Ernie.
I have since learned that Nebraska is the only US state to have a unicameral legislature; so, smaller government there, too, with fewer targets for lobbyists. I'm starting to wonder what's not to like about the idea. You're right that it wouldn't be easy, though. Changes of the kind I've raised here would require constitutional amendments to implement fully, which in most cases would require senators (state and federal) to vote themselves out of a job. Fat chance.
Thanks for your thoughts!

Dr Alan Phillips Sr.

I take this opportunity to wish each of you a Merry Christmas and a great New Year. Please continue your confidence in this great nation and support its’ dreams. America has no equals in providing all its citizens with a vision that is centered upon a better life for all. Elections come and go but this great nation built on the aspirations of its founders will continue to endure. The Constitution and Bill of Rights herald to all our citizens the liberties that we enjoy and often take for granted. These individual freedoms will continue to be an outgrowth of our vigilance and protective oversight. We are all indebted to our military and the soldiers who have sacrificed to gain for us freedom’s gifts and liberties. When you gather at the table this holiday season do not fail to give thanks for the role of divine providence in protecting and prospering this great nation. Let’s reaffirm with Lincoln that this country shall not perish from the earth and its appointed destiny. May God bless each of you and the United States of America.
Dr. Alan G. Phillips, Sr.

surfson in reply to Dr Alan Phillips Sr.

@ Dr. Phillips: I used to think like that. then I had to sue a Dr. for gutting a woman like a fish and having no notes in his file to back up his actions. The political machinery went to work on me and when I had a medical emergency they castrated me too. I got thrown out of federal court for complaining that the jailers were abusing the Mexican national females. As the Judge threw the file stamped papers at me the federal prosecutor looked away and stood by mum. I apparently don't live in your America.

Merry Christmas Dr Phillips.


Vandalia, is everywhere. I’ve never been to America; I would like to go they would understand the nonsense in my head, but I have a problem; I don’t like to fly. I thought about going with the train taking the orient express to connect to the Tran Siberian express crossing to Alaska and the pan American. Regarding Joseph Lyford I couldn’t find him on Wiki which is indicative.


This is a surprisingly pointless article.

MadJerry in reply to Chi-City

I disagree. Living in Los Angeles I find myself longing to be free of its shackels.

If the trend continues, where cities and rural areas become more and more politcally distinct, what happens then? Policies that are good for the city are often not good for the countryside. Therefore, if you have central control, the region with the least votes is going to get shafted. If that goes on long enough it can turn into a situation much like north america towards the end of the 18th century.


The Economist points out numerous examples of corporate socialism but passes by it like, oh well, the rich get richer because they get to blackmail society with threats of economic loss. If companies have to be given subsidies time and again you are only distorting the market and rewarding incompetence.


What is this gossip? Yes, this is gossip. Another notch in the downward spiral that used to be the Economist, but now looks more like People magazine.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
GM's recall woes: Much old in the new
Schumpeter 1 hrs 33 mins ago
Daily chart: Who pays as America greys?
Graphic detail 1 hrs 44 mins ago
Climate science: Touchy subjects
Babbage 1 hrs 51 mins ago
GM crops, Indian farmers and suicide: GM genocide?
Feast and famine 1 hrs 44 mins ago
Herbalife: The House of Cards put
Schumpeter 3 hrs 29 mins ago


Products & events