General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat Liberals Get Wrong About 'White Rural Rage' -- Almost Everything
If you’ve been watching television or tracking trending topics over the last few weeks, you’ve probably seen or read something about “white rural rage.” This is owed to the publication of a new book, White Rural Rage, by Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman, whose thesis is that white rural Americans, despite representing just 16 percent of the American electorate, are a “threat to the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”
In an interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Schaller gave this unvarnished assessment of the rage he sees overflowing in the heartland. Rural whites, he said, are “the most racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-gay geo-demographic group in the country.” He called them, “the most conspiracist group,” “anti-democratic,” “white nationalist and white Christian nationalists.” On top of that, rural whites are also “most likely to excuse or justify violence as an acceptable alternative to peaceful public discourse.”
This premise has triggered a backlash towards rural voters from some on the left. Amanda Marcotte, writing for Salon, said she’s tired of handling rural voters “with kid gloves,” and time has come to pop the “racist, homophobic, sexist bubble” they all live in. Daily Beast columnist Michael Cohen agreed, writing that “these aren’t hurtful, elitist stereotypes by Acela Corridor denizens and bubble-dwelling liberals… they’re facts.” David Corn, the D.C. bureau chief at Mother Jones, piled on, agreeing that “white rural voters [are] the slice of the public that endangers the constitutional future of the republic.”
This latest obsession with rural rage is nothing new. After 2016, when rural voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania put former President Donald Trump over the top, Democrats tried to figure out why they had gone so sour on the Democratic Party. Some liberal thinkers called out the left’s reflexive condescension and dismissal of rural voters that escalated during the George W. Bush administration and peaked with Hillary Clinton’s campaign and her dismissal of Trump supporters as a “basket of deplorables.” Some said the party should increase attention to rural issues and nearby rural communities.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/05/white-rural-rage-myth-00150395
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
maxsolomon
(38,727 posts)In recent years, that rural political identity has morphed into resentment — a collective grievance against experts, bureaucrats, intellectuals and the political party that seeks to empower them, Democrats.
Yes, such resentment is a real phenomenon in rural areas. But words matter; rage and resentment are not interchangeable terms. Rage implies irrationality, anger that is unjustified and out of proportion. You can’t talk to someone who is enraged. Resentment is rational, a reaction based on some sort of negative experience. You may not agree that someone has been treated unfairly, but there is room to empathize.
Research both by me and by others has illuminated how resentment is driven by the complex rural identity that, while occasionally intersecting with national political currents, is rooted in the unique context of rural life. Rage, both as a soundbite and as presented in the book, oversimplifies and misrepresents these debates. And so does the assumption that all the holders of these views are white, and that this rage is motivated by racism. Racism exists in all parts of the country and is embedded in American politics. But what the research shows is that while there are deep and persistent racial resentments in rural communities, despite a slight correlation between the two, rural resentment is an attitude distinct from racial prejudice.
OK, so it's "Resentment", not "Rage". Whoop de doo. Rustic types have always distrusted and disliked us City Slickers.
Happy Hoosier
(9,535 posts)I encounter rural white MAGAts all the time. They absolutely want to be respected and resent that they are not. But they also want to be all the other things.... racist, homophobic, sexist, religious zealots, etc., etc. They also want to maintain the privilege they have traditionally exercised without having to acknowledge those traditionally disempowered by that privilege.
But I cannot and will not respect that.
The rural types *demand* respect, while doing absolutely nothing to qualify for it.
unblock
(56,198 posts)brewens
(15,359 posts)for authority. Not too long after I started at that place, I ended up out at the warehouse at 2:30 in the morning finishing its job for it and loading its truck because it got a DUI coming back from out of town. I still can't believe the word respect ever came out of its c0cksuk(r after that.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)“The authors of White Rural Rage make two persistent types of error in analyzing the data on rural Americans.
First, they routinely fall victim to the logical fallacy of composition when they attribute group characteristics to individuals. For example, they suggest that since authoritarianism predicted support for Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican primaries, and rural residents support Trump, rural residents are the most likely to be authoritarian. (That’s like concluding that because Massachusetts tends to vote Democratic, and Massachusetts is a wealthy state, wealthy people must vote Democratic … but the opposite is true.)
As it happens, the opposite seems to be true in this case as well; leading authoritarian experts find no geographic dimension to growing authoritarianism in the U.S., and the study the authors cite early in the book to “prove” that rural residents are “more likely to favor violence over democratic deliberation” says nothing about violence, or deliberation or authoritarianism. Work by scholars they cite actually shows the opposite, too: Rural residents are less, not more, likely to support political violence.
This same logical fallacy comes into play when they weave together a string of facts about Christian nationalists: Because white evangelicals are most likely to support Christian nationalist beliefs, and because 43 percent of rural residents identify as evangelical, they assert that the hotbed of Christian nationalism is in rural communities. The same goes for their assertions about QAnon. Perhaps the worst guilt-by-association error is found right in the title; even in the reddest of rural counties, 20 to 30 percent of voters — still largely white — routinely support Democrats. One might ask why, given all the supposed rage, are some rural Americans still voting for Democrats, election after election? You wouldn’t know it from the title or press tour, but Schaller and Waldman must frequently hedge their bets in the text, acknowledging that just a minority of rural residents often believe the most headline-grabbing factoid.”
Happy Hoosier
(9,535 posts)Of course, there are white rural voters who are not the sterotype.
Likewise, there are black, urban Trump supporters.
And the article presumes a strawman I have not heard many people construct. I make no assertion of how a rural MAGAt compares to a Suburban MAGAt. But when I see a dude open carrying a gun in my local Meijer, it is a near 100% likelyhood he is a white Trump supporter.
stopdiggin
(15,463 posts)(or just as likely lily white suburban)
prodigitalson
(3,193 posts)LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)“ Schaller and Waldman are right: There are real threats to American democracy, and we should be worried about political violence. But by erroneously pinning the blame on white rural Americans, they’ve distracted the public from the real danger. The threat we must contend with today is not white rural rage, but white urban and suburban rage.
Instead of reckoning with the ugly fact that a threat to our democracy is emerging from right-wing extremists in suburban and urban areas, the authors of White Rural Rage contorted studies and called unambiguously metro areas “rural” so that they could tell an all-too-familiar story about scary hillbillies. Perhaps this was easier than confronting the truth: that the call is coming from inside the house. It is not primarily the rural poor, but often successful, white metropolitan men who imperil our republic.”
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)And my guess is, that as rural children grow up and move to the city for opportunity, they hold on to some of the rural resentments and distrust until they become acclimatized and may develop more “urban” interests. One point the author makes is that these rural communities are not only populated by whites — and we discount these POC voters to our peril. But that’s just one little piece of the bigger picture.
As your quote mentions but your comment discounts, rage is irrational while resentment is not.
maxsolomon
(38,727 posts)liberals have legislated, and cities fund, most of the unrecognized subsidies that keep rural America afloat - schools and roads, for instance.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)critiques about the book. Perhaps most importantly,
“Schaller and Waldman are right: There are real threats to American democracy, and we should be worried about political violence. But by erroneously pinning the blame on white rural Americans, they’ve distracted the public from the real danger. The threat we must contend with today is not white rural rage, but white urban and suburban rage.
Instead of reckoning with the ugly fact that a threat to our democracy is emerging from right-wing extremists in suburban and urban areas, the authors of White Rural Rage contorted studies and called unambiguously metro areas “rural” so that they could tell an all-too-familiar story about scary hillbillies. Perhaps this was easier than confronting the truth: that the call is coming from inside the house. It is not primarily the rural poor, but often successful, white metropolitan men who imperil our republic.”
Cosmocat
(15,424 posts)liberals are INFINITELY more concerned about making sure they have health care, not just coverage, but actual care near them, helping them to get high speed internet, etc.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)it states the book “has also kindled an academic controversy. In the weeks since its publication, a trio of reviews by political scientists have accused Schaller and Waldman of committing what amounts to academic malpractice, alleging that the authors used shoddy methodologies, misinterpreted data, and distorted studies to substantiate their allegations about white rural Americans.”
The author is one of the researchers who feels his data was misused.
Bayard
(29,693 posts)homegirl
(1,965 posts)"libbie/commies" who have a right to rage and resentment. The demographic being discussed is the same group who receive more than the blue states in federal assistance from blue state taxes.
When there is a disaster in a "libbie/commie" state they vote against aid and assistance to those states, yet we never deny them. Despite all asstance they remain the worst educated, highest infant and mother mortality, lowest wages and poorest in the nation.
Consider Texas, Republican state for 29 years, they run on "elect us and we will fix it." And they keep electing them! After almost THREE DECADES!
Someone else can fill in on the Deep South states!
agingdem
(8,849 posts)rural resentment is distinct from racial prejudice???...what color is the sky in this guy's world???...the Republicans have spend decades romancing white rural voters, harnessing their bitterness at a changing demographic (multi-ethnic, multicultural, and inclusive)...aka THE OTHER...such bullshit!
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)The Atlantic article linked above goes into much more detail about the book’s inaccuracies and mistaken focus on rural vs metro authoritarian whites.
Response to maxsolomon (Reply #1)
RandySF This message was self-deleted by its author.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)
Ping Tung
(4,370 posts)They don't want their daughters giving birth to a non-white child.
They don't want their son to marry a male or their daughter to marry a female.
They're afraid of the government taking away their guns that they keep because their afraid of the endless list of bogeymen that the RW media tells them are lurking around them.
They're afraid of appearing afraid.
Etc, etc, etc ad nauseam.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)“The assumption that rural whites are motivated primarily by racism is especially pernicious. A politics that learned the lessons of rural resentment would not deny that racial divisions are present throughout rural America, but would recognize that racial animus can exist alongside other motivations.
The fact is that racial resentment has long predicted support for conservative candidates in American elections no matter where voters live. Did racially resentful whites in 2012 vote for Obama? No. So what explains the massive shift among so many rural voters who cast ballots for Obama in 2012 but for Trump just four years later? Maybe he primed racial animus to a higher degree. Maybe he made it openly acceptable to say certain things. Or maybe he spoke to different motivations that expanded his constituency alongside other motivations, including white grievance, that were already fully cemented in the rural Republican coalition.
That is what the data show. The data do not show that rural America is devoid of racial resentment. The data do not show that urban America is either. Indeed, racial resentment is a powerful predictor of support for Trump throughout America, as I show in my book. But rural resentment — that sense of place, the anxieties felt about one’s community, the deeply engrained feeling that urban America would erase rural ways of living if given the chance — that is a predictor of Trump support only in rural America.”
prodigitalson
(3,193 posts)whenever they said his name.
yagotme
(4,135 posts)Now you have. I know several.
prodigitalson
(3,193 posts)yagotme
(4,135 posts)I got to vote for Sen/Pres Obama 3 times. I live in a rural area. I am white. I vote for the Democratic party. I used to work in a union job. I know several other individuals of the same. Perhaps you have some bias that is blinding you to the fact that some of us "hillbillies" do vote D. Degrading us/lumping us all together will not help your case one little bit.
prodigitalson
(3,193 posts)LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)prodigitalson
(3,193 posts)what is your point?
yagotme
(4,135 posts)and don't seem to get the message that we don't like to be degraded/lumped in with the Rethug voters.
prodigitalson
(3,193 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 7, 2024, 11:35 AM - Edit history (1)
I am decended from them. I've taught their kids. They are racist and superstitious and have great manners...edited to ad their food is deadly but delicious
yagotme
(4,135 posts)We don't qualify for any consideration from our own party. Sounds a lot like what you're saying...
*taught
Scrivener7
(59,522 posts)own party?
What is it you want? For Democrats to spend a lot of campaign dollars in predominantly red rural areas? Do you see that would be a waste? That it would guarantee fewer Democrats would be elected and fewer things like that infrastructure bill would pass, resulting in fewer benefits to rural areas? If you do see that, why would you want that?
What exactly is it that you think you're not getting that you should be getting?
yagotme
(4,135 posts)"give up" on "white rural" areas. That means NO support, right? Not asking for the bankroll to be spent, but if one "gives up" on an area, then the chances of that area turning even redder intensify. Being Blue in a somewhat predominantly Red area, that's a lot of groundwork for us locals. NO support from our Party, well, we may as well just stay home and watch TV.
Scrivener7
(59,522 posts)winning. Knowing that would result in fewer Democrats being elected, therefore fewer benefits to rural areas.
And let me get this straight: it's so you won't feel so left out? So "ignored"?
Okie dokey.
yagotme
(4,135 posts)Cite where I said that, or quit. I said that to STOP ALL SPENDING was a bad idea, not to spend more. RIF
Ignoring and stopping spending in rural areas will result in more Rethugs getting elected locally/statewide, therefore, those areas would be receiving fewer benefits. Right back atcha...
doc03
(39,086 posts)they believe a different set of facts than normal people. How do you reason with someone that lives 2000
miles from the border that is obsessed with immigrants. They see a mixed-race couple or gays and they want
to kill them. That applies to the true trump cult but there are a few that can think for themselves.
Here is an example, in our primaries there were no Democrats even running for local office. We had several Republicans
running for county Commissioner, Sheriff and Township Trustee and all ran on who backed Trump the most.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)yagotme
(4,135 posts)So spare ME.
appalachiablue
(44,022 posts)Generalizations and stereotypes about this demographic have been ingrained for decades; ignorant, uneducated, bigoted, close-minded, inferior and violent - hicks, hillbillies and rednecks.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard an urban resident, 'City Slicker' go off on myths and perceptions about rural Americans. The contempt and distortions are major. Whether from the south, Appalach, western NY, PA, the Midwest or the West Coast, they're all the same. They are also beyond reaching or helping, so don't bother. See JD Vance, Hillbilly 'expert' from Ohio, fraud, conservative libertarian, Silicon Valley multimillionaire and Republican politician.
As to those who supported FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Clinton, Obama, Sanders, Warren, Biden and more, nevermind. The ingrained narrative remains. --
- Interrupting the Myth, On Elizabeth Catte's 'What You Are Getting Wrong about Appalachia,'
https://www.clereviewofbooks.com/writing/whatyouaregettingwrong
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)They’re not all POC.
GuppyGal
(1,748 posts)Kaleva
(40,365 posts)In 2012, Obama got just under 45% of the vote in the very rural county I live in.
yagotme
(4,135 posts)Chainfire
(17,757 posts)LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)I went to a high school with kids from all over the U.S., and it was fascinating being told that racism was a “Southern” problem.
Scrivener7
(59,522 posts)it is hard for me to describe how uninterested I am in understanding white rural rage.
When rageful white rural people show an interest in anything other than their moronic rage, I'll maybe rethink my complete disinterest in them.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)Resentment we need to focus on, especially since it’s not limited to rural voters or white ones.
Scrivener7
(59,522 posts)LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)rely on as voters.
Scrivener7
(59,522 posts)LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)The article discusses the fact that this rage or resentment is not purely a white phenomenon.
betsuni
(29,078 posts)came down the escalator ... of focusing on rural whites and what their economic anxieties are, but with the exception of two things we could find, opioid deaths and gun deaths, on every other measure in rural America, rural Latinos, rural African-Americans, and rural Native Americans -- the most rural populations in America -- are doing worse and nobody cares about their economic anxieties. And one of the things we argue ... in our concluding chapter is that if rural America really wants to revive itself they need to build a pan-racial, white and non-white coalition in rural America, but there doesn't seem to be any real effort from white rural Americans to do that.
"We have a whole chapter about non-white rural Americans because they've been totally ignored. ... And they have every right to be mad, but you know what they're not doing? They're not overrunning the capitol, they're not going down to the state capitol carrying AR-15s, ... and nobody treats them as they do white rural Americans as though we have a moral obligation to know what they're angry about and to cater to them."
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)It was one of the best parts of the book, to my mind. It’s a very good overview of the challenges and experiences faced by various minority groups in rural America, even more so as they grow in numbers. But it does not really deal with the way the rage/resentment of these groups plays out, particularly in politics. The pan-racial coalition that might be in danger of forming in rural America is that of the Trump voter, as @20% of rural minority voters support Trump. Nonetheless, the “rage” focused on in the book is that of whites.
betsuni
(29,078 posts)LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)article says that rage/resentment is not limited to whites.
You stated that the book has a chapter about the experiences of rural minorities. It does, but it doesn’t deal with their rage/resentment.
You’re responding to a point neither I nor the article made.
betsuni
(29,078 posts)refuse to hold their party responsible for not governing, policies that destroy their environment and economy and community, ignoring them except for emotionally comforting hate and fear and blaming imaginary evil liberal Democratic elites for all of it. That's the point.
Some people seem triggered by the book title, which was the publisher's choice, not the authors, and get emotional like "The Atlantic" article's author ("elite liberal ire" ) who says they were offended. Republicans depend on emotional perceived grievances and paranoia that everyone's out to get them and is being mean to them and not listening, etc.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)to score cheap points that reinforce our biases. My husband the data scientist says it’s another example of Americans’ almost non-existent training in statistical analysis. It’s a crying shame. And this ignorance will continue being used against us.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)
ProfessorGAC
(76,704 posts)It's verbose, condescending & pedantic; I'll grant that.
But, I saw little data provided to convince me that the author's conclusions were any more valid than those of the book he castigates.
I trust him when he says he has peer reviewed studies, and those studies use larger data sets.
But, parsing "rage" & "resentment" isn't data based. It's just an opinion.
Finally given the redundancy in the article, I get the sense that the author is trying to convince with volume & repetition than with convincing logic. If his data were that solid, it would not have required a long, tedious tome to convince the reader.
I don't know which is right, but this article doesn't convince me the author is any more valid than his target.
Scrivener7
(59,522 posts)LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)lindysalsagal
(22,915 posts)There is no better way to make the case for giving up on rural areas than to say that this segment of America represents a threat to the country’s very existence.
The hopeful bit of this is the author doesn't think the cult of donald is the reason. And that's a relief.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)For one thing, I believe there will continue to be a return migration from cities to towns and less populated areas, as younger people search for more affordable housing and there is increased ability to work remotely. There has been a bunch of analysis recently here in LA about younger Angelenos who cannot house their families here and are moving out.
The numbers of non-white rural voters who are increasingly voting Republican should interest and trouble us.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)
LearnedHand
(5,499 posts)LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)
bluesbassman
(20,384 posts)I’m well acquainted with the “self reliant” ethos of rural people and how that and some of the other observations of the authors shape the mindset of this demographic. But it also spills over into the urban and suburban demographics who are the main beneficiaries of government programs such as roads, hospitals, etc., and are the main beneficiaries of undocumented labor as those workers cut their lawns, clean their houses, build their homes and roads, and supply their food. In addition, these non-rural people mostly work for companies or the government in some way, and wouldn’t know how to be “self reliant” to save their lives, yet they co-opt that sentiment because it fits the narrative. What it really boils down to is grievances, and co-opting the rural problems as their own is a convenient smoke screen.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)And people do carry those attitudes and ideas with them as they grow up and move to the big city. I’d argue that for them, “self-reliance” in the city translates to the ever-popular notion of not taking hand-outs — I’ve known several people (not specifically conservative) who were loathe to go to food banks because they didn’t want to be seen as needing charity. There was shame involved; people were proud of being able to feed their families. I think we all define our “self-reliance” in ways that make us feel better, even as we receive government or other help, assistance, privileges in many ways. I guess we’re all like the libertarian cat to some degree; we think we’re running the show, when there are outside forces that allow us to function.
I’d also note that the idea of “self-reliance” has also been a function of many immigrant and POC communities which were denied outside assistance or faced active harm from outsiders.
bluesbassman
(20,384 posts)I guess my beef withe the “self reliance” notion is that it often turns a blind eye to how interconnected we are as a society. Back in the day, when folks lived miles apart and lived hand to mouth from their own labor, the idea of self reliance wasn’t a construct, it was necessity. Texans lived in and in many ways tamed a vast area with that mindset. Nowadays however, life in general is much different, and as members of society we have more interaction and responsibility toward each other. I just find that a lot of the “Urban Cowboys” like to promote the meme that they’re self reliant, especially when they rail against the government, when they could not survive without the benefits of society.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)apparently many people who self-identify as rural aren’t. And the books’s authors repeatedly made that mistake.
“Schaller and Waldman are right: There are real threats to American democracy, and we should be worried about political violence. But by erroneously pinning the blame on white rural Americans, they’ve distracted the public from the real danger. The threat we must contend with today is not white rural rage, but white urban and suburban rage.
Instead of reckoning with the ugly fact that a threat to our democracy is emerging from right-wing extremists in suburban and urban areas, the authors of White Rural Rage contorted studies and called unambiguously metro areas “rural” so that they could tell an all-too-familiar story about scary hillbillies. Perhaps this was easier than confronting the truth: that the call is coming from inside the house. It is not primarily the rural poor, but often successful, white metropolitan men who imperil our republic.”
Ocelot II
(130,533 posts)how did they get that way? Who benefits from a population of angry, frightened, uninformed and bigoted people? Who are the influencers and propagandists who target voters who are more likely to be uneducated, somewhat isolated, and maybe predisposed toward certain attitudes due to those circumstances? Why do Fox and other right-wing media outlets broadcast lies aimed at a specific market? I think it's fair to consider that those who benefit the most from the retrograde attitudes of the denizens of Dumbfuckistan are not themselves rural or poor or uneducated. The 1/6 insurrectionists were not mostly rural or poor or uneducated. The architects of 1/6 were lawyers. The extremist members of Congress are not rural or poor or uneducated (although some of them are pretty stupid). The billionaires who bankroll Trump and right-wing causes aren't ignorant hillbillies either - the ignorant hillbillies are to a pretty considerable degree the tools of the rich, educated (white, mostly male) urbanites who are stoking their anger and fear and bigotry for their own purposes.
Aristus
(72,187 posts)What bullshit. Yeah, nobody in the big cities is self-reliant in any way. 
And they support Trump, who has spent his entire life living off the work and wealth of others.
Sorry, I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that the rednecks in East Cornpone and the hillbillies up in Squalor Holler are worthy of anything approaching respect.
And if 20-30% of rural people vote Democratic, why is it us to us city-slickers to talk to rural Republicans? Why can't those Democrats out there in rural America do that? Using language that Trump supporters will at least be more likely to understand?
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)“ But I believe that the first place to start is acknowledging that the divisions between rural and urban America are more than material ones. Look at Democratic candidates who are successful in rural communities — Jared Golden, Tim Ryan, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. They do not just talk about rural deprivation and rural impoverishment, as real as it often is in their states. They celebrate rural communities’ resiliency; they acknowledge the pride of place that is present throughout rural America; they see different values that are not reflected in opinion polls and snappy campaign slogans, but rather speak to different ways of living that draw some people to the countryside, problems and all. It helps that they are authentically rural and do not pretend to be something they are not. Candidates still matter, even in a highly nationalized campaign environment.”
Aristus
(72,187 posts)They don't seem capable of learning themselves.
Every time I hear some 'heartland' hayseed burble "We work hard in this part of the country!", I just want to smash something. I mean, seriously, Cletus! Climb the fuck down. We work hard in every part of the country.
Okay, so I'm not slinging hay bales out in the back forty. I'm just showing up in clinic, every single day, and saving lives. 18-22 times a day, saving lives.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)I agree with you that we urbanites work hard, too 
.
yagotme
(4,135 posts)Sounds like elitism. Your job seems to be SOOO much more important than slinging hay bales out in the back 40. Not that the person doing the slinging is putting food on your table, or anybody else's for that matter. He should just shut up, and go away, and you'll just grow your own in your backyard, right? Forget all those people in apartments that don't have access to soil, they'll just have to make do without Billy Joe Bob hay slinger, because YOU deem him uneducated, uninformed, a hillbilly, and a blow hard. Unnecessary for anybody's "survival", because he's rural, white, and, BTW, usually votes Democratic. Oh, well...
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)saying that, “….I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that the rednecks in East Cornpone and the hillbillies up in Squalor Holler are worthy of anything approaching respect,” is counterproductive.
yagotme
(4,135 posts)And if 20-30% of rural people vote Democratic, why is it us to us city-slickers to talk to rural Republicans? Why can't those Democrats out there in rural America do that? Using language that Trump supporters will at least be more likely to understand?
Perhaps us "hillbillies" that vote Democratic (you didn't specify affiliation, BTW, in your screed) might get tired of being ignored and/or "talked down to" by those in our OWN PARTY, just based on where we live, that some might just say "Forget You" and vote for the Rethugs. Judging someone merely on what part of the country they live in? Sounds like some kind of "-ism" to me...
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)yagotme
(4,135 posts)And TY.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)Scrivener7
(59,522 posts)said "hillbilly" on a website? Or "talked down to you"?
That seems to support the stupidity stereotype.
As an urban person, am I ignoring you? How well do you understand the problems people face where I live? I'm going to guess not very well unless you have lived in a similar place. And yet, I'm not under any illusions that you are ignoring me or that you somehow owe me attention.
I don't owe rural people any more understanding than they owe me. And I certainly don't owe the ragefull rural white anything at all. So why are we always being told we do owe them?
yagotme
(4,135 posts)should give up on us "rural rubes" as a waste of time and effort. Reading more of the thread, and my other responses, should make this clearer. "Some person" isn't just 1 person, it seems to be one group denigrating another, for whatever jollies they seem to get out of it. Those of us on the receiving end, are just letting our displeasure to be known.
As a rural person, do you feel that I am ignoring you? You say that you don't feel that I am, you still brought it up. Have I made comments about how ineffective city dwellers are? No? Several negative comments have been made here about rural dwellers, with no distinction of Party, (so much for an "inclusive" site). I HAVE lived in a large city, that's why you won't finding me degrading city dwellers. Having lived in both, I happen to prefer a more rural area. That's MY preference. I don't feel that I need to be lumped in with MAGATS just because I have a small-town preference.
Scrivener7
(59,522 posts)And you were the one who brought up being ignored:
Perhaps us "hillbillies" that vote Democratic (you didn't specify affiliation, BTW, in your screed) might get tired of being ignored
And my point about that was that, if you are ignoring the issues of my region, I don't give a shit about that either. Why would I? And likewise, why do you give a shit if I am ignoring you? And, really, when you say you're being ignored, what the hell are you talking about anyway?
And why, in every one of these threads, does some rural person have to toss in the ever-idiotic sentiment that "If you're going to ignore us, maybe we'll just go vote republican"?
yagotme
(4,135 posts)should be "giving up", thus ignoring, rural areas. Cities usually have plenty of Party support, do they not? I know the bang for the buck is less in rural areas, but people vote on name recognition, policies, etc. If there are NO Party resources going to an area, do you think we will get stronger there, or weaker? The question on the table is, should we, as a Party, stop resources from going to rural areas, just because it's just not as efficient as urban? Losing votes, even rural, isn't going to help us. One has to think of local elections also, not just Presidential. Won't do any good to reelect Joe if the House and Senate get flipped due to lack of support in the rural areas.
Scrivener7
(59,522 posts)The financial and labor support for the vast majority of local candidates is made up of local voters. And no one of them I know is griping about being ignored.
yagotme
(4,135 posts)We were talking about cutting money, you were commenting about spending "more", so I'm confused now. Either the Party is currently spending money locally, or not. Yard signs? Bumper stickers? Is this ALL local support? I was under the impression that candidates received some funds from the Party, as needed/requested/permitted, whatever. If the locals are funded by the Party, and it is deemed that the Party is wasting money in my area, and they no longer help fund, what do I do? Do I have to contribute more, locally, (fixed income) or just follow the lead of my Party, and say "Eff it"??
Scrivener7
(59,522 posts)distributes them where they are strategically valuable, and the vast majority of local candidates - all over the country - raise their own money from local donors to pay for those.
Did you think there were brigades of Democratic Party employees roaming cities and handing out yard signs and bumper stickers at no cost to the candidates?
When the Democratic Party sees a candidate - anywhere in the country - who may be viable but who needs an extra push, they pump money into the campaign. Party money is mostly reserved for those candidates who are trying to hold or turn strategically located winnable seats on a state or federal level.
Otherwise, if an election is not strategic, or if it is easily winnable, or if it is certainly NOT winnable, the Party doesn't involve itself. That is true everywhere, not just in rural areas. So yes. For the most part, it IS all local support and local administration by local Party members. Did you think otherwise?
So whether you contribute more (and you can contribute time if you are on a fixed income) or whether you say "eff it" is up to you. But you are no less assisted by the Party than the vast majority of other Democratic districts everywhere else in the country.
yagotme
(4,135 posts)I'm about 20 minutes away, and I pick up for 12 or so friends/people in my immediate area. Don't know the full source of the funds for these, never asked. Assumed it was some of both/Party and local. Will have to remember to ask the next time I'm there, out of curiosity's sake.
Scrivener7
(59,522 posts)support from them than most of my local urban candidates.
obnoxiousdrunk
(3,115 posts)Ontheboundry
(306 posts)I'm not white, but from a very rural Appalachian area Their rage isn't always racial, as they tend to be provincial about most things they will happily help a local black man over a white guy who is an outsider. They are very... suspicious of outsiders, and since most poc live outside their 'area' this is where it comes from. I n
I never had issues really til I moved to New England. Tbh, Boston was a big eye-opener for me, as voting Democrat didn't translate into not being a racist 'pos'. Looking at you south Boston.
yagotme
(4,135 posts)outsiders are nearly ALWAYS looked on with suspicion. Don't know if it's just a long carryover from the "revenooer" days, general distrust of the "unknown", or what. Maybe something from antiquity, where "outside the tribe" wasn't to be trusted. In bigger cities, one gets "used" to the unfamiliar, as you see it every day, and get accustomed to it. In a small town, you see the same people, know their name, etc.
Ontheboundry
(306 posts)Specifically in Appalachia, is these were scots/Irish groups this already "clannish" in their history of only trusting family, kin.
Again, I'm not white but never had issues growing up there, my issues came from outside that area and wasn't restricted to just rural whites.
yagotme
(4,135 posts)Being raised there, makes you an insider. If you had moved there at, say 17, or so, I'm sure it would have been different, irregardless of skin pigment. One has to "fit in", which takes awhile for an outsider. Went to work in a town of 12,000 or so, several hours away, one day I was coming out of the post office, held the door for an older woman, and she looked at me like I just stepped off an alien ship. Same color as her. "Outsider".
Ontheboundry
(306 posts)I'm not white but was born there. Grew up on a farm m, played ball with these guys, went to church with em. Nobody gave me any lip about the race part. However, if someone who looked like me who they didn't know, may get a different racial treatment, but then again a white guy who wasn't from there gonna get it also, just a different angle
Johnny2X2X
(24,207 posts)Lack of humility. Refusal to take responsibility for their own lot in life. Dealt with these people my whole life. It a constant overestimation of their own skills and value and underestimation of everyone else’s.
I see it here at work. I am in engineering, but we also have a manufacturing facility on site. And the manufacturing facility is a lot of Trumpsters who like to talk about how dumb engineering is and how engineering doesn’t really do anything and all the value is in their manufacturing. They know we make more. They see us with desk jobs. They see that we get time off. They have no concept of what we really do. NRE means nothing to them, they don’t even know Non Recurring Engineering costs is like 95% of our site’s revenue. They just think we’re a bunch of over educated do nothings getting paid because they produce physical things the company sells. It’s the same general concept. They don’t know what they don’t know.
Rural people don’t know that the people with the good jobs in cities work hard and generate value to earn high salaries.
Raven123
(7,797 posts)1) Ok. He believes a new book gets rural voters wrong and his opinion is the correct one. Resentment does not equal rage.
2) He points to the success of Tim Ryan in Ohio as someone who understands and represents rural voters accurately. Does he know Ryan lost to JD Vance??????
3) He points to the need for infrastructure support to underserved rural communities. Is he aware of Biden’s infrastructure bill and how often he speaks of it?
4) He makes it sound like rural America is pi$$ed at progress in general and somehow Dems are suppose to sooth their weary souls. I understand the loss of rural hospitals is a big deal. What is the GOP doing to correct that. Nothing.
5) What has happened as far as I can tell, is the GOP has found a boogie man and has placed a target on their back.
After reading the article I still have no freaking idea what anyone is supposed to do to.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)is overblown, poorly thought-out, and somewhat inaccurate. Among my takeaways: the author is suggesting that the attitudes being ascribed to rural white voters are neither exclusively white nor rural — we focus on that one demographic at our peril. Authoritarianism is not a rural phenomenon. We should talk to the Democratic politicians who have been successful in rural areas about what they’ve found successful (yes, Tim Ryan lost, but I don’t know if he would today. I don’t think we’ve written off Ohio yet.). I’m guessing those Democrats are focusing on resentments rather than rage.
We often talk here about how we must maintain a 50-state strategy. This article supports that thesis, unlike the book it’s rebutting (the article’s author mentions that Shaller’s previous book suggested ending campaigning in the South).
Raven123
(7,797 posts)We might get a re-test of the Ryan effect in Ohio. Sherrod Brown is not rural-based, but has a long record of supporting those issues that favor working class people throughout the state. Hopefully he holds on to his Senate seat.
yagotme
(4,135 posts)Not ACKNOWLEDGING the rural base is not.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2024, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)
at least some of these voters. I am sure some of his success may derive from his longevity — people are used to him as the incumbent. But that isn’t all of it, right? What are you seeing as his chances? The Republican candidate is a Trumpy wingnut, isn’t he?
RAB910
(4,030 posts)
gay texan
(3,218 posts)Lack of education. They are stupid and proud of it.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)Far more prosperous back then. And full of racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia and hatred of Jews and Catholics back then.
Aristus
(72,187 posts)
LeftinOH
(5,648 posts)the *image* of simple, deeply-held values --faith, family & freedom-- in rural and small town culture is very much present.
But never mind about the torridly high rates of child abuse, s3xual assault, substance abuse, raging racism and homophobia, xenophobia, contempt for higher education. brain-dead evangelical superstitious nonsense, non-existent media literacy, teen pregnancy...etc, etc...
Trying to reach these people on their level? Miss me with all that.
Ocelot II
(130,533 posts)(no paywall) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/white-rural-rage-criticism/677967/?gift=xvLgBqzb2OTKrrgtPA3CYkWJaQW8RhN37FM-HbaqJX0&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share I haven't read the book so I have no opinion about its accuracy, but the author of the Atlantic article has some rather harsh words, ending with the following:
Instead of reckoning with the ugly fact that a threat to our democracy is emerging from right-wing extremists in suburban and urban areas, the authors of White Rural Rage contorted studies and called unambiguously metro areas “rural” so that they could tell an all-too-familiar story about scary hillbillies. Perhaps this was easier than confronting the truth: that the call is coming from inside the house. It is not primarily the rural poor, but often successful, white metropolitan men who imperil our republic.
An interesting argument, whatever the truth may be. Maybe both things are true.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)Based on the overall discussion here, I think we would definitely benefit from reading that article.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2024, 02:59 PM - Edit history (1)
About 20% of the people who live in MI reside in rural counties.
Trump won all but one county in the upper 1/3 of the state but only 3% of the states population lives there.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts).... well off assholes in the suburbs having a nasty mindset and bad behavior.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)
dawg
(10,777 posts)Ultimately, I don't think it actually said a damned thing.
(Sounded smart, though, in a "no labels" kind of way.)
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)I find it very interesting that the article I shared comes from an author who devotes himself to obtaining and analyzing data — he feels the book took his data and misconstrued its meaning.
The short take might be that _White Rural Rage_ is dangerously misguided.
elocs
(24,486 posts)But his Black Lt. Governor, Mandela Barnes failed to beat Ron Johnson for his Senate seat. Both were statewide elections with no gerrymandering. Two other white Democratic candidates for the Senate seat dropped out, seeming to open the way for Barnes and hoping for a large Black turnout from Milwaukee that never materialized. But had the same people who voted for Evers had voted for Barnes, he would have been elected. It is thought here that was because Barnes failed to get the rural vote.
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)She does not explain, exactly why this is a point. Some rural folk have rage for needs that are neglected/ignored, but also are hateful bigots who don’t care if kids die crossing the Rio grande?
Rural America is neglected in a lot of areas, resources like internet, infrastructure, certain regulations. Sure. I get that and it’s a huge problem.
Excusing hateful voting practices and bigoted behavior because of some misguided interpretation of rural angst doesn’t fly with me. The year is 2024. They need to grow up along with the rest of the country.
Thank God there are so many wonderful folks who live in rural areas! They are probably the best of us. I think that’s what the author is trying to tap into—the sheer goodness that happens in rural communities as opposed to their Trump flags and “all lives matter” bullshit.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)But dealing with the rational resentment (meaning based on fact, even if their assignation of blame is wrong) is important. As the author argues, “…words matter; rage and resentment are not interchangeable terms. Rage implies irrationality, anger that is unjustified and out of proportion. You can’t talk to someone who is enraged. Resentment is rational, a reaction based on some sort of negative experience. You may not agree that someone has been treated unfairly, but there is room to empathize.”
How have successful Democrats in these areas dealt with the resentment? Another poster discussed Tony Evers in Wisconsin, who won, while the Democratic Lieutenant Governor candidate lost, with the difference coming from the rural vote.
I think this article spells out another reason we need to maintain a 50-state strategy.
stopdiggin
(15,463 posts)is in trying to equate, or pinpoint, "rage and racism" as 'rural' - when quite clearly those elements are WELL represented throughout society. Therefore - in any attempt to analyze what is unique or 'going on' in rural America - it's completely nonsensical to point to 'R+R' - which is a factor common to urban, suburban and rural demographics. Makes about as much sense as saying rural red America is voting 'R' - because, 'football'!
(Also a complete misdirect to those that are interested in confronting, countering and combating - racism, Christian nationalism, authoritarianism, election conspiracy, and on ... )
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)
wolfie001
(7,667 posts).....can go F%CK themselves. Every last one of em. 
stopdiggin
(15,463 posts)It's not all about rage, racism and bigotry. There's too much of that, true - but there's also a boatload of all that crap in the cities and suburbs. Correct? Plenty of people that showed up for the Jan6 hoedown - had little or nothing to do with rural. 'Deplorables' has a great deal more to do with attitude than it does with zip code. Also taking a look at some of the current standard bearers for rage, racism and bigotry (MTG, Jordan, Gaetz, Hawley, Comer, Johnson) - and somehow, there's real shortage of rural rubes in that lineup. (Boebert being an exception) But these people are neither rural, nor uneducated. And at the same time, just not true that everyone in a small town is roaring around in a lifted truck with a Confederate flag in the back window.
Yeah, rural offers differences in culture, lifestyle, attitude ... And that is represented in a divide, along with some resentments, misunderstandings (mischaracterizations) - and a degree of disdain (going both ways). And, frankly - has there ever been a time when a rural/urban split hasn't existed in this country? Regardless, trying to distill it, and boil it down to a bumper sticker slogan - is both far too simple, and far too facile to provide any real service or understanding. "God, guns and guts" makes for a catchy chorus (and really crappy movies) - but it's still kind of silly 8th grade synopsis for rural culture.
I've spent most of my life trying to preach the line, "Self sufficiency is all fine and good - perhaps even admirable to a certain extent - but you still don't have a hospital, or even a decent clinic or pharmacy, closer than 80 miles away .. " And that's kinda tough, when the baby's coming - or grandma's had a stroke.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)It’s much more direct, and pithy.
SARose
(1,831 posts)Go for a back road drive in your state. Just West of Waco are dozens of dying towns. They lack a clinic, there’s no gas station, no schools, and no jobs. Well, there’s always ranching.
Some women in West Texas and the Panhandle have to drive 70 miles to the nearest hospital while in labor.
Look at Uvalde. One psychiatrist came once a week.
My Mother’s family has not been outside Texas except to go hunting in Colorado or serve in the military. All my Mother’s siblings and their kids, and grandkids, and great grandkids live in the same small town. That’s all they know. That’s all they want to know.
They continue to believe Reagan’s story about welfare queens driving in a Cadillac to get food stamps. They luv Elon Musk. They can’t/won’t see that he and Trump and others are the welfare queens.
What do you do? Wait for them to die?
LymphocyteLover
(9,847 posts)SARose
(1,831 posts)
kimbutgar
(27,248 posts)My liberal SF and deciding I was going to college and make something of myself because I didn’t want to be that ignorant!
no_hypocrisy
(54,906 posts)Delusion #1: They aren't doing well as others and blame the Democrats for not doing anything to elevate their economic status.
Delusion #2: They aren't doing well as others and believe the Republicans will improve their status, but in reality, they remain where they are (if not for the worse) and don't notice that the Republicans aren't helping them. But they feel a lot better having them in charge.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)This book cites a lot of people who aren’t actually rural — they’re metropolitan. Apparently most people who think they’re rural aren’t. And
“Schaller and Waldman are right: There are real threats to American democracy, and we should be worried about political violence. But by erroneously pinning the blame on white rural Americans, they’ve distracted the public from the real danger. The threat we must contend with today is not white rural rage, but white urban and suburban rage.
Instead of reckoning with the ugly fact that a threat to our democracy is emerging from right-wing extremists in suburban and urban areas, the authors of White Rural Rage contorted studies and called unambiguously metro areas “rural” so that they could tell an all-too-familiar story about scary hillbillies. Perhaps this was easier than confronting the truth: that the call is coming from inside the house. It is not primarily the rural poor, but often successful, white metropolitan men who imperil our republic.”
Ray Bruns
(6,362 posts)LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)We’re talking about a “rural attitude” among people who are actually suburban/metropolitan.
“Schaller and Waldman are right: There are real threats to American democracy, and we should be worried about political violence. But by erroneously pinning the blame on white rural Americans, they’ve distracted the public from the real danger. The threat we must contend with today is not white rural rage, but white urban and suburban rage.
Instead of reckoning with the ugly fact that a threat to our democracy is emerging from right-wing extremists in suburban and urban areas, the authors of White Rural Rage contorted studies and called unambiguously metro areas “rural” so that they could tell an all-too-familiar story about scary hillbillies. Perhaps this was easier than confronting the truth: that the call is coming from inside the house. It is not primarily the rural poor, but often successful, white metropolitan men who imperil our republic.”
chouchou
(3,144 posts)They've kept the USA from becoming the top 3 countries in the world. (we're supposedly #7)
If they were not so ignorant, our health care system would be far better and less expensive.
Fast speed-trains would be all over the states. Public transportation would be far better.
Homes for the aged would be less monies.
Our justice system is a God-Damn joke..Rich don't go to jail. Poor seems to live in a jail.
...and the list is long...
Bristlecone
(11,111 posts)What about my rage/resentment? I am just a regular guy with a family that I care and worry about also. Yet because I live in a city, I am the elitist? I don't work hard or somehow I am soft and they are the "real America?" Talk about elitist.
The minority in the "Heartland" has been responsible for voting in the worst representative government officials in my lifetime - consistently. They, and by proxy their representatives, are responsible for the stripping of Women's rights, Voting rights, Equity rights, LGBT rights, Education, changing rules to own the SCOTUS (twice!), removing tax breaks for the middle class(think mortgage write-off), common sense gun laws, diminishing our standing in the word as a leader, shit for-profit healthcare that sends people to the poorhouse, sky-high prescription drugs, border security prevention, etc etc etc. And when they are not crushing us under their bootheels, they bring things to gridlock.
They hold the Congress now, split the Senate, and just 3+ years ago held the presidency - which also was by far the worst in my lifetime.
YET, not once do I see an article ever calling for any conservative group to look within and reach out to try to bring democrats into their fold; To say, "maybe we are doing this wrong." Do you know why, because they do not care about us. In fact, I see more and more of "them" calling for my death. My fucking DEATH, a fellow American, because I do not see things through their jaded political lense or their religious belief.
They want me to come to them always. We always have to take that first step. How about once, just fucking once, they meet me in the middle.
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)on how they felt when their candidate lost the election, and thus the White House, even though she won the popular vote by millions. Even after Trump and the GOP took control I still saw interviews with Trumpers about how pissed off they were about being "ignored" by "the elites."
I don't recall "think pieces" on the need to "understand" liberal fears about the hellscape too many conservatives want us to inhabit.
And have those of us who tried to do what we could to not spread Covid ever seen efforts by the deniers to "understand" our anger at their dangerous delusions?
While I'm at it--I am also sick to death of all the rhetoric about "real America" and "rural values" -- as opposed to what? All us city dwellers who aren't "real" and have no values?
So much of our culture seems to revolve around placating rural white voters. Just one look at our gun laws -- or lack thereof -- will tell you what you need to know about whose "rights" are respected, and whose aren't. When you pit rural "gun culture" against the lives of our children, guess which side wins every time.
I'm all for trying to understand my fellow human beings. I just wish that urge for understanding was shared equally and all around.
LearnedHand
(5,499 posts)What the chicken-fried FUCK?????
Yeah because Democrats are destroying democracy and democratic institutions and norms LEFT AND RIGHT, every fucking second of every motherfucking day. And that ironic use of "truly"??? Like TSF and TSF-ites are truly destroying democracy and haven't published a fucking PLAN for exactly how they will do it?? Omg I can't breathe from the rage.
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)We talk here about the 50-state strategy, which doesn’t mean writing off whole sections of the country.
Plus, a lot of the voters with this “rage” aren’t actually rural. So focusing on the rural voters (only 17% of the country) ignores the bigger problem of raging/resentful metro whites.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)
LeftInTX
(34,294 posts)However, it is important to reach them because if we don't, they run the risk of dropping off. Also, reaching out to Democrats can help identify other potential Democrats. Many people just don't vote.
LearnedHand
(5,499 posts)I don't mean we should abandon rural democrats. My rage is directed at the author of the linked article who said the democrats pose the true threat. I live in a semi-rural now and lived in rural areas for decades before as a democrat among raging right-wing evangelicals. They don't believe they need reaching.
I don't mean to paint with such a hugely wide brush, but I'm tired of being told I'm the threat to democracy because I'm somehow failing rageful rural voters. With the ongoing assaults on democracy, women, LGBTQ, immigrant, and POC communities, I have nothing left to give them.
MerryBlooms
(12,248 posts)Do, or hope for. Folks of like mind vote the way they do.
markpkessinger
(8,912 posts)LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)markpkessinger
(8,912 posts)LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)a bunch of people they’re calling rural aren’t actually rural . So there’s that.
applegrove
(132,214 posts)for more rural people to stay and work from the places they were born even as the Republicans try and undo it.
Jirel
(2,369 posts)There is no point at all in trying to put lipstick on that pig. I live in rural Texas. I know these freaks. They are pig-ignorant, malevolent, scared, fearful, ugly trash who will miss no chance to oppress and destroy.
Go for it - do an experiment. Set up a Facebook sock-puppet account, say you’re from somewhere in the Texas Hill Country, and ask to join a community group for local residents/businesspeople in a town like Bandera, Junction, Kerrville, or Boerne. Go watch what deplorables say to each other about their pi**ant white rage in what they believe is their echo chamber. Dare ya’.
RandySF
(84,283 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2024, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)
RandySF
(84,283 posts)Or they would have voted for Biden in 2020. What DO they want? Do they want corporations to stop hiring/promoting women and people of color? LGBT Americans thrown back into closets or down wells? Because they have been clear as mud about what they really want.
Mountainguy
(2,145 posts)I wonder why they don't like democrats.
MuseRider
(35,176 posts)I am a rural voter in Kansas. My little community is not real easy to tell but I am always surprised to find that most of who I do know here are not Republicans or if they are they are not the people talked about by those who apparently study us for their use.
Every time this comes up it makes me sick because in some places it is obviously true but not all. Having worked for LGBT rights, state wide, right here from my little farm I know why it has not changed everywhere. We managed to change a lot here but I do not see an effort most places to try to present liberal ideas. A small effort and they throw up their hands and start talking about these people savagely. All it took, and this is not a small all, was spending the time and being visable. It does not move everyone but you do not have to, they will move others but some will never change and we have to admit that and plug away until you can change them or not.
I have read and heard way way way too many articles on this and other liberal issues that these "dumb ass inbreeds" will never get. Right there you lose. My state is far far from progressive but we moved mountains that are now being taken back down. The right is always there, right where they are and they work hard where we just complain from a distance.
Hard work, continual hard work about issues that may have nothing to do with you except your desire to change things for the better.
Mountainguy
(2,145 posts)If some conservative authors came out and said half of the things that were said about rural white voters as urban black voters this place would use in an uproar calling for their heads. Even though white rural and black urban voters have a lot in common.
You can't expect to win votes from people you demonize constantly.
MuseRider
(35,176 posts)staying away from "those stupid, backward people". I know little about urban black voters as I have been where they are not, that was our fight at the time. I am retired from that now, did what I could and hope it helped.
It is amazing how things often go in your favor if you show your face, make yourself available and keep your cool. (not that ANY of that is easy)
Captain Stern
(2,253 posts)Then we're saying 'gosh..why didn't the people that we made fun of constantly, vote for our candidate? what is wrong with them?"
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)betsuni
(29,078 posts)Sympthsical
(10,969 posts)See, this is more of a class thing. Or even a labor vs. professional thing.
I get it from my brother and people back home. They "WORK!" for a living, you know. No, they don't work. They WORK! And what they mean is they're usually doing a blue collar job that requires a bit of labor. Unlike me who *checks* jumped from social work to HR to nursing. Which isn't WORK! Not that manly getting fucked by the weather work.
Whenever I bop on in for a visit - and I'm about to tomorrow - they make nonstop comments about the commie hellhole they think California is. And, I swear to god, I could make a drinking game with my brother. Every time he says something along the lines of, "Well some of us work for a living," I take a shot.
And these are Democrats. Lifelong.
There is a cultural disconnect between the professional and working classes in our party. Even here - and absolutely in this thread - there's a looking down and sneering at people. Some call it elitism. I don't, because I don't think the people engaging in it are particularly elite. I don't think people in media are very bright at all most of the time. And too many people think if they're wearing the right t-shirt, they're automatically intelligent. Not so much.
Maybe economic elite is nearer the mark. The upper half of middle class and above who got advanced degrees in circle-jerking. Our party runs into problems when they are the dominant voice, and more and more over the years, I perceive the disconnect. I hear it. I don't know how many times in how many ways I've been reading something and thinking, "Have you ever met people?"
I don't think technology is helping either. Media types and many political activists now live terminally online. They're not spending a lot of time in any of the areas they self-appoint themselves as expert on. And many of those who do are usually rushing online to tell their social group what they want to hear, because people like being a part of the group.
I've spent my life around union blue collar Democrats, and they sound a lot more like the "white rage" people than Democratic professionals. I think we've gotten too smug, too high on our own self-congratulatory awesomeness and mutual back-patting. We lost a lot of them in 2016. And some people closed the bubble around themselves more tightly. "Oh, those are all the racists." Oh, all of them? Obama voters?
You can't learn to do better if self-awareness doesn't exist. And self-awareness is just not a thing right now.
We don't much like people not like us. And who does that sound like?
LauraInLA
(2,248 posts)
ThoughtCriminal
(14,721 posts)Is that thanks to gerrymandering, the Senate, and the Electoral College, a certain demographic has been given power far greater than their numbers.
For all the talk about the necessity of preventing a "Tyranny of the Majority". We are now on the brink of a dictatorship thanks to a system that created a "Tyranny of the Minority".
yagotme
(4,135 posts)betsuni
(29,078 posts)"Democrats have been told so long that in order to get rural voters to listen to you, you have to go there, you have to empathize with them, you have to show them you understand their lives ... and it turned out none of that was true. When Trump came along, he didn't do any of that stuff. He was a conduit for their rage, their anger, their resentment and that turned out to be what they wanted.. ... Not about material conditions of their lives."
See post #145 with more quotes from the interview refuting the baseless claim the book ignores non-white rural Americans.
betsuni
(29,078 posts)The idea that the book looks down on rural whites is ridiculous. Nobody living in cities has relatives in rural areas and visits them? They're all elite snob haterz? Please don't believe these BS attacks on the book.
LudwigPastorius
(14,725 posts)these folk are just simple rustics. These are people of the land. The common clay of the countryside. You know... morons.
Bayard
(29,693 posts)Any middle ground?
I am originally from Louisville, KY--yes, one of the progressive areas of the state. I've complained here numerous times about my state being portrayed as a bunch of in-bred, racist hicks by some DU'ers. I'm sure members from anywhere in the South feel the same way. Its insulting, and shows the prejudice that exists even here.
I've lived in several states besides KY--Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, and Calif. The most redneck, racist (against Latinos), belligerent place I ever lived was in Central Calif. People only think of L.A. and the Bay areas, when there's a huge swath of rural in-between. I've lived in big cities...Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Louisville, and very rural areas. I definitely prefer rural still.
Kentucky is slowly coming along. We have voted in Dem Governor Beshear twice, because he is a most excellent governor. He has brought an incredible amount of new business and new good paying jobs to this state. Rural and city people both appreciate that. We currently have the largest budget surplus in the state's history. We rejected a ballot measure aimed at denying any constitutional protections for abortion (at least until the Supremes got hold of it.) This is real solid progress that can be built on in this state.
When Gov. Beshear was campaigning last year, he came to our itty bitty county seat. Whole bunch of farmers here, very rural. He still didn't win this county, but he increased his percentage of rural votes in the entire state over his 2019 election win. Even though his opponent, Daniel Cameron, was championed by Mitch McConnell, he won.
Results matter to both sides of this rural-v-city equation. And both sides lose when they can find no common ground. The biggest problem I see here, and probably in most places, is the numbers who don't vote at all. They're not engaged. They don't think their voice matters. These are the people who need to understand how their lives could be better, or much, much worse.
Norbert
(7,765 posts)He became their rock star. It will take over a generation in order for the Democrats to bring back some of the rural vote.
JustAnotherGen
(38,054 posts)They are in my nieces' and nephews' way in America. Them. Them. Them. It's all about them. It's been about them since 2007.
They are going to have to get used to being a minority. We have 7 great nieces and nephews on my side of the family. With the exception of one (her mother's family emigrated from Ivory Coast) all of the greats have latina/o and black grandparents.
Lani, Nova, Kaia, Josiah, Sienna, Alex, Eva should NOT have to tiptoe around these people in 20 years.
^∆^
Its not their fault that there are Americans who have four grandparents who are all white.
What the white rural Americans do now will decide their minority grand childrens' futures.
They have GOT to get this reality through their thick heads. And the media needs to stop focusing on them every four years.
You know what I would like to see? I'd like to see them go into a diner in a northeast neighborhood that has a large African American or Latino culture. People seem to think we don't eat in diners - but I digress.
Ask a few dyed in the wool Biden supporting black women why we are voting for Biden again - even if he didn't personally deliver them a pony. I don't think abortion is registering. Its about jobs and keeping the "others" from getting in our way.
Also - just for shits and giggles - ask us about opioids an fentanyl. Answer? We don't know any of those people.
jcgoldie
(12,046 posts)Poor white people feel threatened and fall back on white privilege. I may be fucked but at least I have privilege because I'm not black... until the president was black... oh shit what do I have now?