I have lived in Salem, Oregon my whole life, and it is easy for me to see why people in eastern Oregon are frustrated. It seems like if you're not in the portland/salem/eugene/medford areas, you are largely ignored. I think that the tensions are intensified when you consider just how different politically the valley is verse other parts of the state. In my program at Western Oregon, anyone from east of the Cascades is staunchly Republican, while people in the valley are very much Democrat, with very few exceptions. I think it is absolutely impossible to get a fifty first state or even moving Idaho's border west, but I can see why a minority of Oregonians would want to.

The political divide is certainly geographic in origin -- and furthermore, that divide is far wider in Oregon than any other state.

There was a fabulous post over the weekend on FiveThirtyEight.com about that:
http://www...nking.html

Executive summary: Oregon has the most liberal AND most conservative voters in the country -- there's just no one left in the middle!

On the following graph, the most liberal voters are on the top, the most conservative voters are on the right. Check out Oregon:

I wish I could stay for the discussion, but I'm off to teach U.S. History at Eastern Oregon University. I have lived in eastern Oregon for 4 years (came here from NJ!) and yes, people are frustrated. Jesse 43's comment helps explain that frustration. While tax dollars come here from the west side as Pat Caldwell pointed out, and we are a numberical minority as Jesse 43 noted, I would point out to Jesse 43 that minority populations are still entitled to reasonable access to education, medical care, and a political voice in the state. I believe the divide is very much a rural/urban one, and this is a historic process that many other areas in the US have gone through.

But I don't believe the divide can be discussed productively and bridged if we don't acknowledge the cultural bias involved. There is a sense that eastern Oregonians are 'hicks' and I'm not sure the separatist movement helps with that perception. Here is a personal anecdote. I served as a parent chaperone for my daughter's middle school band competition. The other chaperone was a father. He was dressed in a 'rural' fashion--cowboy hat, jeans, belt buckle. The band ajudicator at the end of the competition patiently explained to us (he thought we were a couple) what a scholarship was and how are children might compete for one. He remarked upon how great it was that our school was from a rural area. Then he turned to me and said, "And I bet you're a good cook!" My fellow chaperone, who *is* a life-long rural Oregonian, replied, "Actually, she's a university professor with a Ph.D. in History. We actually have a university in our town." It struck me then how eastern Oregonians do indeed deal with cultural condescension. I think these cultural attitudes are central to the political and economic issues being discussed here today.

Yikes! I am one of the few (but strong) Democrats in Idaho. The last thing we need is a surge of even more Republicans! Where's the balance?

Mariah,

Glad to have some Idahoans in the conversation. I'm curious what you mean by "Where's the balance?" Is it that you don't want the political balance to tip even further into the Republican majority camp? Or something else?

Thanks,
Dave

+ The residents in rural-ish areas of Oregon should feel underrepresented. Because they are the minority of the population. Its estimated (2006) that 2,126,732 live in the Portland-MSA area alone, which is clearly a huge portion of the Oregon population. The rural-ish residents are already inherently different based on their choice of location. This is not a case of under-representation because the facts and statistics don't support it. What this is a case of: "folks" wanting things their way. Unfortunately when you are statistically a minority of a population that doesn't and shouldn't happen!

+ Statistically people in rural areas of Oregon are conservative and republican, by definition these people are more intolerant and exclusive then the residents of urban areas. So, it is absurdly ironic, that they ask for tolerance and inclusiveness, from the very people whose values, morals and politics they dislike. They are asking for impossible and foolish things!

- Portland, Oregon

Timely subject. There's an article in today's NY Times on the geographical political differences in Oregon.

http://www...ei=5087%0A

I was born in Ontario (on the Idaho border for those of you who don't know) - moved to Tigard when I was 4 - moved back to Ontario at 14 and returned to Tigard at 20. Having lived in both areas, I feel very strongly that Eastern Oregon is the red headed step child to the West. Ontario is a short distance from Boise and Boise area includes Eastern Oregon thankfully, because other than OPB, the Willamette Valley doesn't recognize their existance! Many in the Valley trivialize very important issues in Central and Eastern Oregon... until it directly effects them. There is also the generalization that those who live in Western Oregon are somehow more intelligent and their needs are greater than those east of the Cascades. Central (other than Bend) & Eastern Oregon doesn't have much of a voice in Salem. When I lived in Ontario, I felt Idaho embraced the area - thankfully!

I can understand the frustration of not feeling that one's way of life is valued politically. But the east side population is not the majority. They also rely heavily on my tax dollars to keep their schools open while we in the Willamette valley subsidize their very (political) existence. We need to maintain a union, east and west, for our mutual benefit. If taxes feel onerous to the East now, what would they be able to support without Willamette subsidies?

I think we have not as a state come to a fair agreement about an equitable balance of responsibility. In Eastern Oregon, services are difficult to provide (usually because of distance and population) However, we are charged with much of the resource managment. Often the laws passed in Salem don't adequately addresss an appropriate rural division.........We are charged with the management of, in many cases, Oregon's Ethos, yet are not adequately compensated for it.

This talk of secession sounds like it is coming from a few grumpy individuals who are bitter about having lost certain legislative battles. What they are really objecting to is the essential democratic principle of the majority rule.

The idea of a new state or changing Oregon's borders is absurd. I have lived in Bend my whole life and watched it change from a rural community into a thriving and developing city. It supports the surrounding communities in our tri county area and when there are issues that are city, county, and state wide it takes the whole community to lobby for decisions. I also feel that there is major resistance from many of the smaller communities in Eastern Oregon to modernize and update their communities to be unified and self sufficient. If these small communities want to prosper they must take action all the time not just when it is beneficial to them.

I think the alientation that the people of Eastern Oregon and Washington feel from the governments of both states, which are primarily concerned with the Pacific Northwest proper (and should be, based on population dispersion), is a microcosm of the alienation that the Pacific Northwest feels from the Federal government. If it makes sense for Eastern Oregon and Washington to form their own state, or merge with Idaho, due to their extreme differences with the western halves of their states, does it not then also make sense for the Pacific Northwest to break off (completely) from the U.S., due to our extreme differences with the rest of the country? Let's not forget that our country began with secession from the British Empire due to under-representation.

I feel more in common with poeple in western Washington than that of easten Oregon. To expand on that, I feel more in common with poeple in British Columbia than that of the rest of the U.S. I agree that if the people of eastern Oregon want to seceed than they have the right to, I also agree with celticwarlord and think that we (people west of the cascades) should brake off from the U.S. The movement already has a name the Republic of Cascadia, we would be better off on our own.

Portland alone sends 295 million every year to eastern oregon in equalized school payments through out local taxes. How can they hope to replace this money when they cant even cope with the loss of federal timber money?
Keith, Portland

My understanding is that there is a net outflow of state revenues from eastern to western Oregon. How would these be replaced? Wouldn't it be more expensive to completely duplicate state government? Why would other states allow eastern OR to have 2 U.S. senators of its own?

I'm delighted to hear that others are discussing secession as I think it allows issues to brought into more dramatic focus. For myself and my friends, we have been spearheading an "Oregon for EU Membership" campaign, complete with bumper stickers showing the EU's flag of a circle of stars with the words "Oregon 2012" standing inside the circle. It's obviously far-fetched, but this offers us the opportunity to speak about universal health care, higher standards for organic foods, and, of course, a more representative form of government.

I haven't heard, on this show or in your written introduction, a specific thing that urban people are not understanding about rural people or areas. Is there something concrete? If there isn't, then perhaps this is a cultural, social or moral gripe, rather then an authentic case of oppression or under-representation. Most of your rural guests seems to be speaking in the abstract. It sounds more like xenophobia on their side; or not wishing to be lumped together with the urban liberals rather then a specific slight.

While at OSU last summer I participated in an Ethnographic Field School in Lakeview, Oregon (which I consider to be a fairly isolated rural community). We had homestays and lots of discussions about cultural divides and "ways of life". There were a lot of differences when discussing environmental issues, but what I realized is that we wanted to same thing (a sustainable way of life) but we used different language. They didn't like to use the word "environmentalist", but instead used "a good steward" of the land.

I don't understand what it's like to live in some place like Fossil and I'm sure a lot of people who grew up in Fossil don't understand what it's like to live in Portland. How about we all drop this imaginary need to "understand" and just accept there's different issues and get to working on making the state work for all it's residents?

As a transplanted Southerner with Confederate ancestry, I hear the word "secessionist," and it stirs up some obvious parallels. It's the same old Industrial vs Agrarian rift. Look at what happened to the state of Virginia during the Civil War: It split up precisely into what could be mined (industry) and what could be farmed (agriculture), not along some axis of longitude like the rest of the country. As long as we city dwellers continue to imagine that wood comes from the lumber store and meat and milk and vegetables are made at the grocery store, there will always be this kind of rift.

The boarder between Oregon and Washington should be moved. Rather than running east-west on the Columbia, it should run north-south on the crest of the Cascades.
There would still be 50 states and the rural/urban issue both states share would be resolved.

The west side could be called Cascadia and the east side could be called Washegon or Oregton ;)

The focus of society on the majority of the population ignores rural areas. The people in western Oregon often focus on their own needs. They ignore the majority of the land area of the state which is inhabited. The people who live on and care for the land are being ignored.

Oregon has 5 representatives in the US House, and 1 (OR-2) represents 2/3 of the land area. On the federal level only 1 person represents eastern Oregon, since Oregon Senators tend to be from the valley. This representative is charged with a great responsibility, since the land area they represent is so large.

I believe that all people in the state must keep their fellow Oregonians in mind when making decisions. We must provide for the base needs of everyone before providing luxuries to certain groups of people.

Tristin Mock
Candidate for OR-2

Sending the taxes to Rural Oregon IS your community! That's the point! When you put up a picture of Oregon, your don't put up a picture of Portland, you put up a picture of Rural Oregon!

Thank you! This is the exact reason why people in eastern Oregon are disenfranchised, many people in the west think that they shouldn't help care for their fellow Oregonians. They seems to think its okay for the east to pay for things in the west though...

There will never be a uniting of the intolerant with the tolerant. It is simply impossible. It will not happen. That's what the underlying problem is; and this show is thoroughly sugar-coating or not addressing it.

This is asked over and over again in modern America. Tolerance. Even among liberals. We are all asked to be tolerant. How can you or why should you be tolerant of intolerant people? This local issue strangely represents an issue-at-large occurring not only in Oregon, but in America and the rest of the world. Does it make sense to be tolerant of people, cultures or religions who are intolerant of you?