So it's not like you can't get a bunch of people who are willing to protest almost anywhere. You could probably get a sizable anti-Mormon protest in Salt Lake City. It doesn't mean that the dominant culture is at their backs. Any particular movement, whether it's the Christian right or the anti-corporate left, is going to find that in certain regions, their protests will have wider popular support than in other regions and that you will find the maps I provided will probably give you a pretty good indication and way of predicting in what places the political establishment and governors and senators and congressmen are going to be likely to back the protestors' point of view, and what areas they'll be entirely rejected. That's the key.
I WAS LOOKING AT A MOTHER JONES MAP OF THE LOCATIONS OF THE OCCUPY PROTESTS AND NOTICING NOT JUST THE FACT THAT THERE ARE LOTS OF THEM ALL OVER THE PLACE, BUT AS I STARTED LOOKING MORE CLOSELY AND LOOKING AT THE MAPS IN YOUR BOOK, AND THERE'S RELATIVELY LITTLE OCCUPY ACTIVITY IN THE SOUTH, THERE'S VERY LITTLE IN THE FAR WEST. It seems to be that most major cities have it happen, but conspicuously the Deep South I mean, there seems to be far less activity, even in the big cities. You get the college towns, the universities. Research Triangle is engineers and scientists and researchers from all over the world moving to that technology cluster, which is great, but it does mean that there are a lot of transient people with the regional people in addition. That's not to say that there might not be plenty of traction ultimately in Greater Appalachia. There's a now latent populist tradition in Appalachia fighting against outside interests like mining companies and such that there's no deep inherent cultural reason for them not to be upset with the bankers in that region and have a history of expressing their dissatisfaction vocally.
The Far West too, like Appalachia, is currently latent but has a long populist tradition as well because the Far West is characterized by considerable upset at having been treated as an internal colony by both the federal government and big corporate interests, be they mining, ranching, railroads, and so on that were based outside the region. Prior to World War II the populist tradition was actually bucking a lot of the corporate powers that were making decisions over what happened in those places that were often to the detriment of the Far West itself.
More recently though it's been primarily directed at the federal government and the ways in which the federal government has treated the Far West as an internal colony. There's no reason also why you couldn't have that re-actualized as in Appalachia and have people upset at the role of banks out there as well.
Those are the two of the current what I call Dixie Coalition, the successful coalition that was built in the aftermath of the 1960s, that's the Republican regional coalition now, but the two weak partners are Far West and Greater Appalachia because of those populist streaks. And the two nations you identify on this particular map you showed me conspicuously not having many protests (Tidewater and Deep South) are also the two that have the tradition of deference to a hierarchical order and to authority, and very little emphasis on popular participation in politics.