I'm sure there are smarter people than me - sociologist-types - who figured this out long before I did, but it doesn't seem to be just coincidence that Middle America and the South are more resistant to change on so many things compared to the Northeast and Far West. Just by thinking about who lives there and why, and their historic motivations for the way they live helps me understand it.
And please forgive the stereotypes, but I'm a big believer that stereotypes are usually rooted in some measure of truth, even though they sometimes hurt. It's the roots of those alleged truths and how they came to be that should be examined more carefully than the stereotype itself.
The South, as illustrated clearly in Gone With the Wind, has been and I think, continues to be, so set in its historical ways, wanting to preserve the past and the tradition of their heritage. Middle Americans are tied to their land and generally move more slowly, something of which I've heard they are quite proud.
The Northeast is fast-paced, forced to consider different ways of doing things, if only because of the challenges of fitting so many people in increasingly small places. Well, I guess the places stay the same size, but there are more people to fit in them!
And the Far West is where people went a few hundred years ago, and even into the past few decades wanting to seek greener pastures, as it were. They wanted to change their lives, either by economic necessity or just to try something different.