On first impression, I'd place Oregon in the "individualist" category of Elazar's classifications of political culture. But, rather than settling on any one characterization, I think it's more useful to apply classifications of this sort as one would apply different lenses to an object under a microscope or dyes to an organism -- each illuminates something different. Any political culture is a braided combination of multiple norms and "habits of the heart" to use Tocqueville's phrase.
That said, I think demography and sense of place, both of which you mention, are revealing lenses or dyes to use in these studies.
Demography seems to be the most fluid element in this equation. Here in Oregon, the in-migration to our urban areas could be driving the urban-rural divide and totemizing our recent history -- think of the image of the Portland Timbers in a sport that is mostly metropolitan in its appeal.
As to place, I have always been impressed with how often Oregonians, new and old, mention the beauty of the state as as a top-of-mind item for why they like about living here. That appears to be a defining value for Oregonians. But it was overshadowed by the timber wars in recent decades and is now complicated by a marked change in how we recreate in our wild areas -- a large decline in hunting and fishing among younger Oregonians (and all Americans) and an increase in hiking, cycling etc. The ways we relate to place is also subject to an urban-rural divide. But I still think that our shared appreciation for the diversity of physical beauty across the state and a concern for protecting our wildlife and untouched places is a foundational value that can help us re-establish the more broadly shared approach to politics that we're struggling to re-define as the Oregon Way.
On first impression, I'd place Oregon in the "individualist" category of Elazar's classifications of political culture. But, rather than settling on any one characterization, I think it's more useful to apply classifications of this sort as one would apply different lenses to an object under a microscope or dyes to an organism -- each illuminates something different. Any political culture is a braided combination of multiple norms and "habits of the heart" to use Tocqueville's phrase.
That said, I think demography and sense of place, both of which you mention, are revealing lenses or dyes to use in these studies.
Demography seems to be the most fluid element in this equation. Here in Oregon, the in-migration to our urban areas could be driving the urban-rural divide and totemizing our recent history -- think of the image of the Portland Timbers in a sport that is mostly metropolitan in its appeal.
As to place, I have always been impressed with how often Oregonians, new and old, mention the beauty of the state as as a top-of-mind item for why they like about living here. That appears to be a defining value for Oregonians. But it was overshadowed by the timber wars in recent decades and is now complicated by a marked change in how we recreate in our wild areas -- a large decline in hunting and fishing among younger Oregonians (and all Americans) and an increase in hiking, cycling etc. The ways we relate to place is also subject to an urban-rural divide. But I still think that our shared appreciation for the diversity of physical beauty across the state and a concern for protecting our wildlife and untouched places is a foundational value that can help us re-establish the more broadly shared approach to politics that we're struggling to re-define as the Oregon Way.