JONATHAN CHAIT HAS A POINT. Writing in the New Republic, he identifies the so-called “red state snobbery” - fetishising NASCAR, ridiculing people who don't own a gun, or linking latte-drinking to something only elitist coastal liberals do – then stops short of finding the "root cause".

It's a cultural question. Since Bush's election, and especially since his reelection, liberals have grown painfully aware of the cultural gap with the white working class. The approved liberal posture is cringing self-flagellation. We brought the catastrophe of the Bush administration upon ourselves with our latte-sipping ways, and we must repent. Conservatives are gleefully pressing their advantage.

The libertarian within me is clashing with the conservative, and I must admit my feelings about this are genuinely mixed.

Inasmuch as my writing provides any clue, I am guilty of laughing at clueless liberals myself. The funny thing is, if I were in America today, I would probably feel more at home in New York, NY, than in Cheyenne, WY. My attire is urban, I do drink latte, and my interests are in most aspects “liberal” (interpreted loosely). I would probably not enjoy watching NASCAR. It's also questionable I would be able to go hunting without accidentally shooting someone other than deer (but hey, that's no longer such a shame, now is it?)

To extend my point, I take it for granted that a large portion of conservative intelligentsia would also have a problem if they were thrown down from a helicopter in the middle of nowhere (insert your favorite red state county here). My bet is that the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal is in lifestyle choices very similar to that of the New York Times.

Is the “red state snobbery” phenomenon a sin of the victorious Right? No; even if it's wrong, it's a necessary antidote to the liberal bias permeating the mainstream media. Blue-staters shouldn't complain; it's their badly masked contempt for the fly-over states that got them punished in the first place. The pendulum swings both ways.