Georgia "brand" needs makeover, some argue (Atlanta, Columbus: fit in, pros and cons)

[David1502]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

It isn't just Europe that has a negative view of the Southeastern US, and I think many of the criticisms of this region are dead-on accurate.

Alternative viewpoints simply aren't tolerated in Georgia, at least on the state level, and the the lack of political diversity down here was shocking to me when I moved down here in 2004. You can't have a dialog when only one party has a voice.

You obviously, have a limited knowledge of the political history of Georgia. The Democratic Party dominated this state unitl the early 2000's. In fact, GA was one of the last states in the south for Republicans to gain control of the legislature. As late as 1990, GA was one of the most Democratic states in the country as Newt Gingrich was the only Republican in the state's Congressional delegation. Sam Nunn and Wych Fowler were the state's two Democratic Senators and the Governor was a Democrat. As the national Democratic Party became increasingly liberal, GA became more Republican. However, during this period, the state on a local level was considered competiitve.

On the whole, GA and the other Southern States have a different politics because of a different history, as they were originally had slavery which led to a different political culture. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the legislatures of the South had to find new ways of raising revenue as their primary source of state revenue before the Civil War had been slave taxes (on slave owners) and that was no longer a possibility. As a result, the Southern states chose the sales tax as their primary source for revenue. The wealthy large landowners didn't want to be the primary source of tax revenue, so therefore property taxes are lower than Northern states.

When you compare GA to Minnesota, it's pointless, because GA has a different culture and history. For one thing, MN was originally settled by immigrants from the Scandinavian countries who were more liberal in their philosophies and were not as religious as many in the South. Since the history and the demographics of Minnesota are different (there are few minorities as they never had slaves), their politics tends to be a bit more idealistic and somewhat more liberal.

[testa50]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

There's a Democratic voting presence in the general population, yes, but you certainly wouldn't know that given the policies in this state. Also, many of the Obama supporters in this state are social conservatives, and that creates a very different atmosphere down here.

I think the real issue preventing a liberal rebuttal in Georgia is the lack of cohesiveness between liberal groups. The heavyweight liberal groups are:

- white liberals in inner Atlanta...very social and economically liberal
- black liberals throughout the metro with varying leanings on social issues, who are uncontested for scores of local government positions
- black voters across the state who tend to vote democrat but are normally quite socially conservative, and are largely in rural areas
- latino voters who tend to be relatively dispersed and driven by a few major issues, not by ideology

None of these groups really bond that well with each other. They might make up over half the population, and the results in presidential elections show (despite lower minority turnout and less of the population eligible to vote, the elections are still close), but in general they are all similarly disillusioned, frustrated, and divided.

If a democrat is to be successful in a statewide campaign, it will require a ground campaign that can work on all of these fronts. A tall order when you're up against a well-oiled GOP machine.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by Lady's Man

well there most be some liberals out there. obama got over 45% of the vote, more than any other red state except for NC.

Actually, yes, I agree with you. However, it's funded largely due to the lottery, not from taxes or anything.

The problem is that now they are having problems with HOPE and there are talks about making HOPE more inaccessible to more students.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by David1502

You obviously, have a limited knowledge of the political history of Georgia.

I've actually learned a lot about Georgia's history in the eight years I've lived here, but you're right that I knew little about Georgia outside of its general involvement in the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement prior to moving down here. My move to Atlanta was made on three weeks notice, after all. Not a lot of time to study.

When you compare GA to Minnesota, it's pointless, because GA has a different culture and history. For one thing, MN was originally settled by immigrants from the Scandinavian countries who were more liberal in their philosophies and were not as religious as many in the South. Since the history and the demographics of Minnesota are different (there are few minorities as they never had slaves), their politics tends to be a bit more idealistic and somewhat more liberal.

I like most of your posting, but such a comparison is not at all pointless, in my opinion.

The only "liberal" state that seems to be brought up in these forums all the time by local conservatives is California, and yet California has far fewer similarities to Georgia than Minnesota does. Having lived in a very similar metro in both states, I believe that Minnesota provides a very good counterpoint to present to the "liberal government cannot possibly work" crowd, since Minnesota works very well on almost all levels. California has its problems, some of them serious, but that sort of granola liberalism is not the same as the liberalism found in other parts of the country, and I think that needs to be pointed out. Not all liberal states are failures. To pretend otherwise is to live in a reality bubble. Pragmatic liberalism can work very well.

Yes, there are huge historic differences between MN and GA. Obviously. That would explain my reaction after I moved down here. I also realize that some of the core beliefs down here are very deeply ingrained into natives of all colors and creeds, just as my own beliefs are probably ingrained into me. However, I think it's constructive to show that the things that are assumed to be "the way things are" down here can be shown to not be true in other parts of the country. Old ways die hard, but that doesn't make them the right way, or the only way.

I question the assertion that the upper midwest is less religious than the south. Did you see the map I had poster earlier this year about religious identification in the US? The midwest TROUNCED the south in terms of percentage of the population formally identifying with a religion. If that map is correct, the south is actually less religious, but I think the more important aspect is that the nature of the dominant religion in each region is markedly different. Lutherans and Catholics don't have the brazen in-your-face approach that evangelicals do.

[rorqual]

Someone should ask the Republican politicians in control of GA state...do they still believe in making Atlanta the city "too busy to hate"? If so, then the regular tea-party shenanigans don't vibe with that moniker (its ok to change it if it doesn't fit - the olympics was quite a few years ago and the progressive international sheen might be wearing off).

[afonega1]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

I've actually learned a lot about Georgia's history in the eight years I've lived here, but you're right that I knew little about Georgia outside of its general involvement in the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement prior to moving down here. My move to Atlanta was made on three weeks notice, after all. Not a lot of time to study.


I like most of your posting, but such a comparison is not at all pointless, in my opinion.

The only "liberal" state that seems to be brought up in these forums all the time by local conservatives is California, and yet California has far fewer similarities to Georgia than Minnesota does. Having lived in a very similar metro in both states, I believe that Minnesota provides a very good counterpoint to present to the "liberal government cannot possibly work" crowd, since Minnesota works very well on almost all levels. California has its problems, some of them serious, but that sort of granola liberalism is not the same as the liberalism found in other parts of the country, and I think that needs to be pointed out. Not all liberal states are failures. To pretend otherwise is to live in a reality bubble. Pragmatic liberalism can work very well.

Yes, there are huge historic differences between MN and GA. Obviously. That would explain my reaction after I moved down here. I also realize that some of the core beliefs down here are very deeply ingrained into natives of all colors and creeds, just as my own beliefs are probably ingrained into me. However, I think it's constructive to show that the things that are assumed to be "the way things are" down here can be shown to not be true in other parts of the country. Old ways die hard, but that doesn't make them the right way, or the only way.

I question the assertion that the upper midwest is less religious than the south. Did you see the map I had poster earlier this year about religious identification in the US? The midwest TROUNCED the south in terms of percentage of the population formally identifying with a religion. If that map is correct, the south is actually less religious, but I think the more important aspect is that the nature of the dominant religion in each region is markedly different. Lutherans and Catholics don't have the brazen in-your-face approach that evangelicals do.

You do remember that Walter Mondale was Vp to Georgia most liberal Governor ever;Jimmy Carter.
it was not untill 2000 did GA become Republican after over a 100 years when also somewhat liberal Governor Roy Barnes lost to ,,,yuck....Sonny Perdue. Within the next 10 years I expect their to be a swing to the left again.

Minnesota has always been liberal so I was surprised when Tim Pawlenty became a 2 term Gov.
I grew up here.I am a black male who considers himself a moderate.I have to say there are things Georgia has differentiated itself from a lot of the South "proclivities".They still exist heavily but I guess its becoming more workable.

Things like granting Domestic Partnerships to gay couples.I believe there are at least 3 cities in Gerogia that now do this.Considering that some states have none.Those that do are in cities much larger which tend to be more liberal.Both smaller cities like Athens and Savannah.

The same can be said by the election of minorities in high level statewide elecions

[afonega1]

Originally Posted by rorqual

Someone should ask the Republican politicians in control of GA state...do they still believe in making Atlanta the city "too busy to hate"? If so, then the regular tea-party shenanigans don't vibe with that moniker (its ok to change it if it doesn't fit - the olympics was quite a few years ago and the progressive international sheen might be wearing off).

That was an Atlanta slogan that had nOTHING to do with the state.Atlanta is very liberal.

[Psykomonkee]

I guess this has become an arguement forum...

I'm beginning to see why it's so hard to get anything done in Atlanta.
Man, it hurts, but sometimes the truth hurts.

I don't understand spending so much energy defending home against people that don't like it here. So, they don't like it. So what. So, they may accuse Atlanta of being things it may SEEM to be but is not simply because of their own ignorances OR just that they haven't experienced what they were looking for. Oh well, their loss. So what. They'll either leave when they're ready, do something to make a positive change for our city OR get used to it... Shouldn't be a reason to be so insulted in a forum that is SUPPOSED to be a place to address a problem.
BUT, one thing I know is that when we get into such a bull headed state that we refuse to hear out the criticisms of the people that come to Atlanta and don't like it for this or that reason, we stifle ourselves from making progress...

Positivity NEEDS negativity for balance.

If a person comes in my face and tries talking bad about my city, okay THEN we have a problem.
BUT, If we are SUPPOSED to be discussing that Georgia Brand needs a makeover, SHOULD go something like this:

Someone says GA sucks (whether they are from GA or just a visitor. But if we're talking BRANDING then that VISITOR'S opinion is DEFINITELY the much more valuable perspective)...
Okay, no problem, but WHY?
Then THEY express why they think GA sucks. And then I take that into consideration. IS that something that needs to change? Maybe it is. How is it done better elsewhere? Okay, then can we also do that here in Atlanta? If not, why not? If so, lets get it done. Bam... Their negativity is turned into constructive criticism to produce a positive outcome.

Instead, what I'm seeing here is: Someone says GA sucks. We respond - "Obviously you know nothing about GA" and they go, "I don't care about why it is the way it is. That way it is still sucks and could be better." And we get offended and rather than throw out ideas of how it could be better, we say "*********, you're an idiot. It's fine the way it is and you just don't know what you're talking about." As if Atlanta/Georgia is the only place with hidden goods.

The fact that those visitors think it sucks because they aren't seeing those hidden goods and know nothing about the area and where to find the good stuff IS THE PROBLEM and EXACTLY WHY Georgia has branding issues... We NEED to hear it from them, so we KNOW that they aren't seeing the good in us. Then figure out how to make it more clear for them to more easily see the good.

When a European can answer "why has International tourism dropped in Atlanta" and they feel like it's because "Europeans see Atlanta as way off the beaten path" HOW IS IT THAT WE RESPOND by trying to insult him? Getting offended by being off the beaten path and pumping our chest isn't going to make more people in Poland and Turkey notice Atlanta more...
I know this one first hand from having lived in Italy and finding out that a LOT of the Italians I met had no idea where Atlanta was exactly. All they knew was it was in the US. And that it hosted the Olympics. And some were confused how it hosted the Olympics because they thought it wasn't a "CITY" city like NYC. And even some had theories that Atlanta stole the Olympic bid. etc... Most of them never heard of Atlanta before the Olympics and still don't know why they would come other than to visit me. I had a few arrive and were surprised to see skyscrapers and traffic and other CITY stuff, BUT still kind of felt like it was not quite an Alpha city. I can't argue that. They're perspective is THEIR perspective and it's right in their own way. THAT's the point of it all... HOW TO REBRAND ATLANTA AND GEORGIA SO THAT THOSE ITALIANS AND OTHERS AROUND THE WORLD KNOW A DIFFERENT ATLANTA (without ever having to come and KNOW what the locals know).

[Psykomonkee]

You don't have to be from Seattle to KNOW -
When in Seattle visit a coffee shop, visit Pike's Market, it's going to probably rain, catch a ferry, visit Seattle Space Needle, that the scenery is supposed to be very green - hence "Emerald City," etc...

You don't have to be from Miami to KNOW -
When in Miami visit the beaches, eat some Cuban food, the weather will most likely be warm/hot even when it's cold everywhere else, the women are beautiful, etc...

You don't have to be from Chicago to KNOW -
When in Chicago eat a Chicago style hot dog, try Chicago pizza, Visit the (former) Sears' Tower, visit Michigan Ave, try an Italian Beef, it's probably going to be cold and windy so be prepared for the weather, the poeple talk tough, etc...


These things don't have to all be TRUE, but it's what we outsiders of those places believe we KNOW about those cities that is a result of how they have successfully marketed themselves and created their own brand. Now, something can be a CHICAGO style brand... etc...

THE BRAND IS NOT FOR US. IT'S FOR THE VISITORS

Our issue is that before people arrive, they often don't know what to make of Atlanta. (OFTEN, so that doesn't mean just because you personally know some poeple somewhere that do, that the statement is just wrong). When they don't know what to make of it, they don't develop a desire to visit. People don't KNOW all about Paris and it's history before the city has interested them. They learn that stuff BECAUSE the city has interested them.

Problem #2 is that there are also people that visit Atlanta, have a good time and STILL don't know exactly what to make of it. STILL can not point out exactly why a person should visit. GA Aquarium is nice, but so is Shedd Aquarium. The party life and nightlife is GREAT in Atlanta, BUT it is also in Miami. Atlanta has some pretty good food, but so does New Orleans. And when we get into that one for one competition with these other cities that can also offer what we offer BUT they have marketed themselves better and have a more respected brand, we lose out. We get visited 2nd OR because it may be a cheaper trip.

Atlanta needs to find it's niche and put a choke hold on it when we do.

[Columbuskidd92]

Atlanta is EVERYTHING Birmingham could have been. Georgia is EVERYTHING Alabama and Mississippi could have been.Georgia is more liberal than most southern red states.