I worked with a wide variety of people over the years at newspapers in Kansas, Indiana, California and New York.

And although there were lots of differences – such as regional accents, more diverse religions, the structure of local governments, and food specialties – I never felt the cultural divide was all that deep.

As a farm kid from Kansas, I found my values didn’t differ from those of Liz, a mother of two who was raised in Queens, New York, and with whom I worked in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

Neither were they that much different from the values of Murthy, a former co-worker who had emigrated from India.

At every paper there were many people who were honest, hard-working and generous. And at every paper, there were a few who weren’t.

No doubt, the communities in which we live help shape our values. But as the poet Maya Angelou notes, “… we are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike.”

So I read with skepticism a piece in the Washington Post about the cultural divide between rural and urban America.

The premise for the article – and the research on which it’s based — is that differences in values between rural Americans and urban Americans deepen the country’s political divide.

If you look at a U.S. map depicting the 2016 presidential vote — with broad rural stretches of Republican red and urban pockets of Democratic blue — it is clear that, generally speaking, residents of large cities are more liberal politically than are residents of rural America.

But it’s unclear, to me at least, how much of the cultural difference is authentic.

Consider for example whether President Donald Trump represents values typically associated with rural America. A rich real estate developer from New York City, he succeeded despite his poor marital history, spotty business record and unprecedented levels of dishonesty.

That Trump earned so many votes in rural America raises the question of what values rural America thinks are important.

The Washington Post and Kaiser Foundation used interviews with about 1,700 residents of small towns or rural communities to find out.

First, the researchers learned that 70 percent of those interviewed said their values differed significantly from the values of city residents.

On questions of the economy, the researchers found little difference in the overall economic fortunes of urban areas, compared to rural areas. The poverty rate is similar in both, according to the Post article.

Rural Americans, however, are more concerned about jobs, and voters in many communities think the best bet for growing the economy is to reduce regulations.

But the biggest differences in values, according to the research, had to do with how rural residents view immigration and race.

Those surveyed were more likely to see immigrants as a burden on society.

They also were more likely than urban residents to believe people of color – especially those in urban areas – feel more entitled to government aid.

Rooted in stereotypes, such perceptions defy what the numbers tell us about rural and urban areas.

For example, states with large urban centers – think New York and California – contribute more in federal taxes than they receive in federal aid.

Analyses by organizations such as the right-leaning Tax Foundation and the non-partisan WalletHub have shown this more than once.

The numbers also show residents of some rural states are more dependent on federal aid than residents in urban states.

That’s not true across the nation, however. Kansans are less dependent on federal help than Kentucky, for example, in an analysis by WalletHub.

States differ in hundreds of complex ways – just like people.

But we tend to resort to our own stereotypes and biases when trying to make sense of political differences and social problems. And we can count on politicians to fuel our insecurities for their own gain.

There will always be differences among people. They are less about geography and more about education, traditions, family dynamics and income.

What we value in Kansas is not so different from what a family in Queens, New York, values. Or what an immigrant family in Los Angeles values.

A good job. A safe neighborhood to raise the kids. Decent schools.

We are more alike than unalike.

Kansas legislators who supported a tax increase earlier this month have not heard the last about their votes.

Anti-tax Republicans didn’t even wait to get a good night’s sleep before threatening to use the votes as a hammer against their GOP colleagues, as well as Democrats, in next year’s elections.

Those threats have escalated in the days since. And anyone who remembers the dishonest smears of past campaigns should expect voters and candidates to be subjected to ugly attacks in 2018.

So let’s consider who the real conservatives were during the 2017 session.

They were not the officials who for five years proudly proclaimed their anti-tax credentials while continually adding to the state’s debt, playing shell games with state funds, damaging the state’s credit ratings, cutting services, short-changing retirement funds, and using trickery to “balance” the budget.

Such behavior might earn you a conservative label in many places, including Washington.

But not in Kansas, where debt and budgeting gimmicks might be acceptable in a pinch, but they aren’t seen as a permanent substitute for sound fiscal policy.

Their decision to approve a tax increase shows that most of the lawmakers voters sent to Topeka share that common-sense view.

That doesn’t make them spendthrift socialists, despite what you have heard.

And those who claim the tax increase – including the Legislature’s override of Gov. Sam Brownback’s veto – signal a move toward more liberal Kansas politics are likely wrong as well.

What the tax increase does is move the state closer to where it was five years ago.

That’s when Brownback and the Legislature pushed through huge income tax breaks, promising that the tax cuts would spark such economic growth that they would pay for themselves.

That didn’t happen.

The state’s economic performance lags national and regional averages. Job growth has disappeared. Wages for workers remain mostly flat.

The tax cuts didn’t cause these economic woes – but they certainly did not bolster the state’s economic position.

All the income tax cuts did were blow a billion-dollar-a-year hole in the state’s budget.

As the damage became apparent, Brownback and the Legislature grew desperate for revenue. So along with more debt, shell games and cuts, they approved higher cigarette and sales taxes and raised other fees.

Those higher taxes covered only about half the damage, so Kansas was still chronically in crisis.

Frustrated, voters decided to send some real fiscal conservatives to Topeka to fix the problem.

Brownback and his anti-tax supporters refused – and still refuse — to concede that there was a problem.

During the 2017 session, they declined all viable compromises. So after looking to the right and finding no help, fiscal conservatives looked to the middle and the left and came up with a plan that could withstand the governor’s veto.

The plan adopted by the Legislature is far from perfect, but it is far better than the alternative proposed by Brownback.

The tax measure approved treats Kansans more equitably and raises the revenue necessary to provide programs and services. A loophole that allowed hundreds of thousands of businesses to escape paying any state income taxes was closed.

Yes, the measure means almost all of us will pay more in taxes. Collectively, the new law will raise about $1.2 billion over the next two years.

Had the governor been more amenable to compromise, that amount might have been smaller. But instead of giving an inch, Brownback chose to lose a mile.

Opponents of the tax increase claim all the state needed to do was cut more spending.

Few doubt that savvier state leaders could find ways to make government more efficient and save taxpayers money – but the resulting sum likely would be, at best, tens of millions, not a half billion, which is what was needed.

Credit should be given to lawmakers, and especially the legislative leadership, for facing the massive problem. It’s never easy to raise taxes, and getting a two-thirds majority to override a veto is especially hard.

Lawmakers’ votes were a repudiation of Brownback’s tax policy – but they were not a repudiation of conservative fiscal policy.

To the contrary, those votes were an effort to ensure Kansas’ tax policy and financial standing are sound and sustainable.

Remember that when the campaign smears begin.

Wednesday is Flag Day – a good time to ask for a little more decorum.

And not just for flags.

Frankly, these days, the flag gets a lot more respect than we accord one another. What America could use this year for Flag Day is more political civility.

For example, Gregory Gianforte, Montana’s new congressman, is charged with misdemeanor assault for slamming a reporter to the floor. Gianforte was angry, according to witnesses, that the reporter asked him a question about health care.

Within a few days of the assault, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott joked about shooting reporters, because, well, who doesn’t think it’s a hoot to threaten the lives of reporters?

In Minnesota in March, supporters of President Donald Trump were attacked by anti-Trump protesters during a rally at the state capitol. Eight protesters now face charges.

And in Berkeley, Calif., earlier this year liberal demonstrators showed they were willing to burn the place down rather than allow a conservative agitator to speak on campus.

Such crimes and incidents are symptomatic of Americans’ lack of respect for one another and for political freedom.

Plenty of the politically active on the left and the right whine that they aren’t given the respect and tolerance that they deserve, but neither side consistently insists that the same respect and tolerance be shown those whose beliefs differ from their own.

Those who think only their brand of patriotism and politics should be allowed don’t believe in political freedom.

Those who resort to physical attacks and intimidation to stop others from voicing their opinions violate basic rights that the U.S. flag is supposed to represent. Those include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, and freedom to petition the government.

Refusing to respect the rights of fellow Americans is not a new problem for the nation.

Our history is pocked with times that Americans and their political leaders let anger, fear and hatred override their belief in tolerance and freedom. That’s true individually and collectively.

The record includes an 1856 case in which a U.S. House member entered the Capitol’s Senate chamber and beat Sen. Charles Sumner into unconsciousness.

It also includes decisions to lock up Japanese-Americans during World War II, to criminalize criticism of the government during World War I, and to suspend basic legal rights for those held at Guantanamo Bay following 9/11.

And it also includes a deadly duel in 1804, when the sitting vice president, Aaron Burr, fatally wounded former U.S. treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton.

How do personal disputes, such as the duel, relate to policies and laws that steal away freedom?

One need only listen to today’s elected officials for an answer.

Conservative legislators, angered by demonstrations, are working to push through laws in more than a dozen states that would eliminate the rights of protesters.

On the left, liberals such as the mayor of Portland, Ore., claim that some speech is so hateful it should be outlawed, and that rallies of ultra-conservatives should be barred.

These are not the moves of freedom-loving patriots.

When elected officials use repression and threats to get their way – instead of working to win the public’s support using reason and factual information – they show their lack of respect for the Constitution.

When those involved in protests resort to violence and intimidation, they prove they have even less regard for their fellow citizens and their rights.

After 200-plus years of practice, we should be much better at political discourse.

And over the long course of the nation’s history, Americans and their elected officials have set progressively higher standards for political conduct. As a result, our system is more transparent than it and accountable to voters.

But recent incidents reflect a regression. Civility has fallen victim to selfish notions of political rights.

The left and right increasingly excuse the misconduct of those with whom they agree, often by diverting attention to the misdeeds of their opponents. The “we’re bad but they are worse” defense further sinks the level of discourse.

A return to civility won’t occur until more Americans reject such excuses – and require those on their side to show as much respect for others as they demand for themselves.

 

During President Donald Trump’s visit to Europe, his remarks regarding Germany’s trade surplus with the United States caused what is known in economic circles as a brouhaha.

The German news magazine Der Spiegel said Trump called Germans “bad, very bad” during a meeting with European Union leaders.

Others at the meeting, from which media were barred, said Trump criticized Germany but did not call the whole nation “bad.”

Clarifying the situation a few days later, Trump used Twitter to blast Germany for its trade surplus and its military spending, calling Germany’s policies “very bad” for the United States.

Those kinds of swipes at foreign countries helped get Trump elected.

But it’s time to stop blaming everyone else for the U.S. trade deficit.

I’m not even sure blame is the right word.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with importing more than you export. More important is whether the economy is growing and providing good jobs for Americans – and whether those Americans have opportunities to improve their lives and the lives of their children.

Right now, a lot of German companies provide those kinds of jobs – right here in the United States. Siemens AG, with its operations in cities such as Hutchinson, is among the German companies that employ about 700,000 Americans, according to a New York Times article.

During the EU meeting, Trump promised he would stop the sale of German cars in the U.S. Never mind that German car plants employ more than 100,000 Americans, and that a BMW plant in South Carolina touts itself as the top exporter among all U.S. auto plants.

Germany is just one of several nations with plants and workers in the United States. Others include Japan, China, Canada, Mexico, Italy, France, Great Britain and Brazil.

Their presence is the natural outgrowth of the robust trade our country has had with other countries since its beginnings.

Over the years, an increasing number of international companies have come to the U.S. to do business. At the same time, U.S. companies have expanded overseas.

Republican leaders once recognized that growth in international trade created opportunities that could benefit U.S. businesses and American workers.

Then partisan politics started getting in the way. In 2016, Republicans in the U.S. Senate refused to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership because TPP was negotiated by President Barack Obama. Once in office, Trump trashed the deal.

Kansas Republican leaders remain inexplicably silent as Trump dismantles trade alliances, endangering markets for the state’s aviation and agricultural industries, as well as other businesses that rely on foreign trade.

But they aren’t quiet if they can take credit for deals made by Obama’s trade team. Last September, federal officials persuaded China to resume beef imports. The deal was finalized a few weeks ago, and Trump and his supporters, including Kansas First District Rep. Roger Marshall, claimed credit.

Asked recently about the investigation into ties between Russia and Trump’s advisers, Marshall used the prescribed White House response: He called the investigation a “witch hunt,” then scolded the media.

Reporters should focus on “the many good things this president and Congress are doing,” such as the China agreement, according to a story in the Garden City Telegram. “This accomplishment from President Trump matters to Kansas — not empty accusations and absurd conjecture that have flooded the airwaves,” he said.

When a congressman encourages the public to dismiss legitimate FBI investigations, it gives the appearance that he puts the interests of his party and the president above the interests of his constituents.

That’s true of the investigation Marshall calls absurd, and it’s true of trade issues.

Kansans expect their elected officials to work on their behalf in Washington. That means supporting trade alliances and agreements that help Kansas farmers and businesses.

Instead, Kansas senators and representatives sit quietly as NAFTA and other pacts are threatened.

They remain silent as the president trashes international companies that employ hundreds of thousands of Americans.

They appear willing to sacrifice the state’s economy as Trump grasps at a form of nationalism that will make the country less competitive globally.

That’s the price of prizing party politics above principle, and the cost to Kansas will be high.