Blake Hurst is a row-crop farmer. Luckily for readers, he's also a talented writer. Hurst's farm is near Tarkio in the northwestern tip of Missouri. But his writings journey far outside the state's boundaries. Recently, Hurst penned a response to an article appearing in The Atlantic Monthly. Frankly, I'm glad he did. His rejoinder, originally printed in American Enterprise magazine, is far better than The Atlantic piece that sparked his ire.

Don't get me wrong. I like The Atlantic Monthly. In fact, I've subscribed to it for nearly 25 years. The Atlantic (with a literary tradition it can't quite shake) is a hallowed journal of opinion, trends and ideas. In its December issue, the magazine printed an article by David Brooks. In One Nation, Slightly Divisible, Brooks examined the state of the nation as geographically reflected by the dramatic red and blue images that starkly defined the 2000 presidential race.

Read Blake Hurst's response, Blue vs. Red, that begins on page 20 of this issue. We've reprinted his piece in its entirety despite its print proliferation. After appearing in American Enterprise magazine, Hurst's article was reprinted in the Wall Street Journal. From there, Blue vs. Red found its way into more regional venues, including Missouri Farm Bureau's magazine.

Most publications like to be the first to feature articles. Today's Farmer is no exception. But sometimes an article deserves universal exposure. And sometimes a writer so catches an image and so captures a spirit of the people who inhabit the "land between the coasts" that we feel obligated to bring it to our readers.

Brooks' article in The Atlantic sought to describe the cultures of the two divergent areas: the red which denotes the electoral majorities voting for George Bush (roughly the area sandwiched between the east and west coasts) and the blue which went for Al Gore.

While Brooks found no alarming chasm threatening to fracture the country, his disdainful, smirking condescension immediately identifies him as a member of the "Blue" culture.

The editor of The Atlantic, in examining the sometimes discordant relationship between clever writing and astute thought admits, "there is in fact no necessary correlation between an ability to finesse language and a true understanding of the world." He does not, however, draw the obvious conclusions about Brooks. He concludes that we are "one nation after all, slightly divisible but not divided."

Blake Hurst may agree, but he took offense to the tone anyway. "Blue vs. Red" is the result. His defense is insightful, and defining. Hurst's efforts have generated quite a response, too.

Dave Shiflett, a member of the White House Writers Group, took Hurst to task for over-reacting. In a brilliant caricature of the cynicism exemplified by Brooks in his approach to Blue America, Shiflett explained that The Atlantic writer's efforts should not be seen as informative but as simple entertainment.

Better still, he provides an ironic simile for such articles. He sees these missives as bread cast upon the waters of contemporary culture. "Within seconds, a horde of small fish--bluegill and perch, for the most part--attack the bread. They go at it from all angles, banging it around like a beach ball until the feast is consumed. Then the fish spend a few seconds looking up at the surface, hoping for another dose of manna. Eventually they melt back into the murk until the next windfall arrives."

It's irony not lost here. But Hurst's insightful approach transcends the description.