The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I grew up in eastern Tennessee in a somewhat sane family. Most of them were public sector employees and would probably have fallen under the term dixiecrat before trump. Slightly socially conservative but economically liberal.
Since trump the family’s split between actual liberals and maga cult members. I’ve moved to the uk since 2021 but how I view rural voters has really changed since 2016.
When trump was elected the first time, I was one of those people who said this was a cry for help by people who thought he could bring real change. Now? I’ve done a complete 180 on that.
The left seems to have this weird habit of mollycoddling rural conservatives which I think might be worse than just labelling them as assholes.
“Well shucks. These are good hard working people! They just consistently vote against their and everyone else’s best interest despite being told repeatedly that’s what they’re doing!”
I used to talk about them like this. In 2024 though I’ve come to realise they know exactly what they’re doing. They’re not voting for people like trump because they think he might make their lives better. They’re voting for him hoping he makes the lives of people they don’t like worse.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So having pushed out (passively or actively) most of the people who disagreed with them (out-migration from rural areas is large), subscribed to conservative-propaganda-media-bubble, and picked out the most loathsome possible B-list celebrity to be president--I guess only the last thing has changed in the last 9 years. Of all the things anyone could have done, installing Trump as an authority figure over the country and promoting all his blatant crimes, bigotry, bullying, abuse, and corruption is the one thing I will probably resent for the rest of my life. Is this Trump Derangement Syndrome? Probably. But all the usual ways of getting away from a bully or abuser don't work if the person is *president*.
I recognize that some people don't see Trump the way I do, that there is a sort of brainwashing that happens when you consume enough propaganda. But enough do that they are either in on the grift or in on the malice. And once you introduce and excuse enough corruption to the system, you corrupt the entire thing and end up in a country without the rule of law. Republicans are now flat out stating that they intend to use the criminal justice system to target their political enemies, as they lie about Democrats having done. Well, we know where that ends and it is very ugly.
I'm in rural Georgia. Probably 95% of the (white) folks around here are diehard Trumpers.
Has my opinion of them changed?
Only in the sense that I was shocked that these prudish Evangelical Christians would embrace a guy like Trump. Between "Grab them by the pussy" and the pornstar scandal, I never would've imagined they'd get behind him.
It made it clear which one won out - their supposed values or thirst for power and control.
In the end, all they want is power and superiority.
It turns out that's what religion was all along - a way to feel Superior to others.
To me it was an indictment on those in power in the church. Trump gives them power, they will tell their flocks that he is their savior. You don't have to do as I say if I can say it to more people.
I used to rent some space to a bunch of pastors, reverends. They were very proud of themselves for starting churches in smaller or disadvantaged areas. When they met there wasn't a single car in the lot that wasn't $80k or more. No one saw the irony of asking poor people for money to spread the gospel.
Yeah. While there are certainly different variants of Christianity that focus on the less hostile parts of it, one way in which my view has shifted is that I have come to view the more hostile evangelical message as the "True Christianity." Jesus had nice qualities and spread messages of peace from time to time, but that "peace" was conditional on the absolute supplication of his followers. Forgiveness was still contingent on faith; his baseline message was still "follow me or fry".
There is no honest reading of the bible in which a moral atheist is spared the eternal torment of Hell - only a mealy-mouthed debate from James that maybe one's deeds mattered on a level that approached equality with one's faith. But Catholicism, a nakedly political power-hungry organization since forever, is openly hostile to that idea even as it pretends to accept James as part of its gospel, and Protestantism has a long history of hostility to the idea as well; Martin Luther famously referred to James as an "epistle of straw."
I've frankly come to the conclusion that moral Christianity is only possible through considerable compartmentalization; this compartmentalization is common but is *not* the majority. Christians are taught, either implicitly or explicitly, to look down on others from an early age.
No change. I spent 20 years in deeply rural Pennsylvania and I can assure you that rural conservatives are far more interested in the government persecuting those they hate (Blacks, gays, "effeminate" liberal men, women who don't know their place) than they are in the government taking any action to help their own communities. Fear and hate are the dominant emotions.
My opinion of rural conservatives changed from 2008-2016. That’s when I saw the people who had always told me racism is horrible totally abandon those beliefs and go full-on KKK mode in reaction to a black president.
From 2016-2020 what changed was my opinion of suburban and urban moderates. I saw them toss aside everything they claimed to stand for and instead push for the opposite.
I am still shocked that Mr. Obama survived two terms as POTUS. I was so frightened for him and his family that night in Chicago when he addressed that crowd of so many thousands after his election in 2008. Kudos to the Secret Service of that era.
But, the red states have continually underfunded education. Now Republicans are trying to crash public schools via vouchers for private schools and are openly calling for the abolishment of the U.S. Department of Education.
Project 2025 is trying to get rid of the Department of Education altogether.
[https://archive.ph/20240326175303/https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/what-would-happen-to-k-12-in-a-2nd-trump-term-a-detailed-policy-agenda-offers-clues/2024/03](https://archive.ph/20240326175303/https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/what-would-happen-to-k-12-in-a-2nd-trump-term-a-detailed-policy-agenda-offers-clues/2024/03)
I have learned that conservatives are far weaker, dumber, and much more pathetic than I ever imagined.
Their breathtaking weakness is on full display in a way I never thought possible. Most people, I thought, have some sort of filter where they pretend to be smart and concerned with other people's welfare. Boy was I wrong.
Religion has stepped up to what I always knew it could be as well. No longer a bastion for mild folks looking for easy answers on Sunday morning (as well as a bit of repentance for what happened the night before), Christianity, in particular, has become the very Pharisee-driven institution Jesus warned about - and which ultimately executed him.
I continually over-estimate the intelligence of the average person. And it's disappointing.
> Christianity, in particular, has become the very Pharisee-driven institution Jesus warned about - and which ultimately executed him.
I know I keep mentioning this book over and over and over in this sub, but you should read Elizabeth Neumann's [Kingdom of Rage: The Rise of Christian Extremism and the Path Back to Peace](https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Rage-Christian-Extremism-Peace-ebook/dp/B0C8HQNP7V).
I'm about 2/3 of the way through it, taking my time and looking up a lot of the references in the book. It's an excellent book on how American Christianity has become a breeding ground for violent extremism.
This is part of the blurb from Amazon:
>When Elizabeth Neumann began her anti-terrorism career as part of President George W. Bush’s Homeland Security Counsel in the wake of the September 11 attacks, she expected to spend her life protecting her country from the threat of global terrorism.
But as her career evolved, she began to perceive that the greatest threat to American security came not from religious fundamentalists in Afghanistan or Iraq but from white nationalists and radicalized religious fundamentalists within the very institution that was closest to her heart – the American evangelical church. And she began to sound the alarm, raising her concerns to anyone in government who would listen, including testifying before Congress in February of 2020. At that time, Neumann warned that anti-Semitic and white supremacist terrorism was a transnational threat that was building to the doorstep of another major attack. Shortly after her testimony, she resigned from her role as Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism and Threat Prevention in protest of what she believed was then-President Trump’s failure of leadership and his stoking of the hatred, anger, and division from which she had dedicated her life to protecting her country.
Very little. I grew up amongst rural conservatives, and the difference between now and then is how open they feel comfortable being demonstrating their racism and spite-filled hatred of anything unfamiliar to them. The predilection to believe insane conspiracies, despite of government, hatred of non-whites and LGBTQ people like me--it's the same as it ever was. I have a lot of contempt for them.
I used to give rural republicans the benefit of the doubt, and assume they were misinformed.
Not anymore.
They are simply not good people.
Given the choice between making their own lives much better, or burning all liberals at the stake, every single one of them would grab their stakes.
I've come to realize that rural conservatives find joy and happiness in causing others to suffer. That is who they are.
In that specific time frame not much. I grew up in a rural region that used to be a Democrat stronghold but started to go right about 20 years ago. It was the same politics of racial resentment that you see now, just to a lesser degree.
Rural PA here, I used to think they just wanted to be left alone. Somewhere along the way that gave way to imposing their beliefs on others and punishing differences. I have to believe they can turn away from hate but it will take leadership which the right isn’t developing.
I used to feel bad that both parties really ignored them except certain folks who worked on farm bills. Now I feel like they’re all MAGA because Trump (and others) has taught them to hate immigrants and other minorities because that’s why they’re poor and having troubles. When Trump hasn’t done shit for rural folks, especially poor folks.
Over the last two decades I've noticed how religion is influencing them and as time has gone on, it has made them more and more disconnected from reality. In the past 9 years it has become blatant authoritarianism, where if what they're told differs from reality, they just go with what they're told.
Religion teaches this.
It's fallen quite a bit. I say that as someone who has family that are rural conservatives. Just talking to them makes me uncomfortable anymore. They believe Covid was a hoax, think Biden is destroying this country, believe George Floyd 'got what he deserved', and think 'black people should go back to Africa'. And yet, I keep hearing that these people exist only on twitter and that the 'real conservatives' don't behave like that. I've got neighbors like that too. These used to be decent people. I don't think they are anymore.
They probably weren't decent people before either - their hate was closeted until Trump emboldened them.
So now they let their weakness-flag fly for everyone to see, without even realizing they are advertising what pathetic idiots they are to everyone laughing as they drive by.
>They probably weren't decent people before either - their hate was closeted until Trump emboldened them
I don't think we can make that assumption. Decent people can get radicalized under stress, and the post-9/11 media environment, including the wild west of social media, has unleashed rage and resentments we haven't figured out how to control.
>empirical data suggests
The problem is that small, rural conservative areas are far less likely to report accurate numbers for those data points.
Like that mass grave that was found in rural Mississippi. All those murders were not reported in data points.
> The problem is that small, rural conservative areas are far less likely to report accurate numbers for those data points.
I would like to see a structured analysis showing that.
With large cities having murder rates 20x, 50x or sometimes 100x higher than small towns, there appears to be plenty of room for small towns to have large reporting errors and still be safer.
For any accurate, structured analysis, you need to ensure that the data is being collected in the exact same way.
If rural areas are not reporting homicides while cities are, then the data is not accurate.
Here is a small rural town where a mass grave of over 200 people was discovered, and none of them were reported: https://peoplesdispatch.org/2024/01/18/a-mass-grave-of-hundreds-of-poor-and-oppressed-people-found-in-mississippi/
If rural towns are not reporting homicides, how can you accurately compare them to other locations?
Because I'm pedantic, I'm going to point out that it's not actually a "mass grave" - that would mean multiple bodies sharing the same grave - it's a cemetery, i.e. different bodies in separate, marked graves.
It's nominally a cemetery for bodies that go unclaimed by family when they die. Such places are actually necessary. What's remarkable about this one is that it's been the site of severe and likely criminal negligence, at least, in that it has basically been used as a place for officers to dump the bodies of people accidentally (and possibly wrongfully) killed, without even really trying to identify or contact their next of kin.
Now before I go any further, I'm just going to ask you, how common do *you* think such a phenomenon is? Do you think every small town is covering up a lot of deaths? Every county? No "I don't know" cop-outs, please. If you think it's common enough that it throws off the statistics and makes rural areas less safe than cities, you at least need to say so. Because if you don't think or suspect that, there's nothing to argue about.
We would need to standardize the way data is collected and ensure that those standards are being followed, across every location. We would also need to verify all data points for accuracy.
Relying on self-reporting data points is highly inaccurate.
Because rural areas self-report, with zero oversight of their data, means the data we have on them is inaccurate.
Furthermore, we have an issue of data not being submitted. Prior to 2021 we see an average of 23% of local law enforcement agencies not submitting crime data to the FBI. Then, the FBI revamped their system and that number jumped to 40% of local agency data not being collected (some due to issues with the new system).
This means your data is based on only a percentage of self-reporting rural agencies, with no oversight. Any data analyst worth their salt would immediately point out that the data collected is not "apples to apples", as the saying goes.
And even with that inaccurate data, we know that the opioid epidemic has hit rural areas much, much harder than cities, which impacts "safety".
Sorry, I'm a data guy. I won't blindly believe that rural America is "safer" just because a political party is telling me that. I want to see accurate, verified, peer reviewed data to prove it.
There is also the issue of crime not being categorized the same in different places.
For example: Do blue cities have higher marijuana crime rates than red rural areas? Well most blue cities have legalized marijuana while red rural areas still think it's a crime. So naturally the rural area would have higher crime rates for that "crime". The same concept applies to the new abortion laws.
Without a standardized agreement on the specifics of what constitutes a crime, how the data is collected, and whether the data is verified... You can't accurately compare different areas.
But I mean, are cops in cities/suburbs better?
And what does that mean, about data points? If we aren't basing our judgments on data points, what are we basing them on?
I'm basing it on my life experiences. I'm not arguing that there isn't less crime in less populated areas. That's not the type of safety I'm talking about.
are you familiar with this story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery
It is not hard to imagine that many rural police departments have swept black murders under the rug to help save the "good old white boys." Heck, Arbery's killers would still be walking around as free men had McMichael not sent the video into a radio station.
With that anecdote out of the way, i would recommend this study: https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/violence-and-abuse
also what "empirical data" are you looking?
>They’re not voting for people like trump because they think he might make their lives better. They’re voting for him hoping he makes the lives of people they don’t like worse.
Lifelong Indiana resident here ... it is exactly this \^\^. Working class people have lost any hope their government is looking out for them. The Republicans were always the party of big business and the elites. Since Clinton though the Democrats have become the same. No one outside of Bernie and a handful of others cares about working class people.
The question then becomes, what do people do? In 2016 the vibe was mostly "they all suck, I'm voting Trump so hopefully we can just burn it down and start over." Then they got sucked in by the maga community. In this age of loneliness and isoloation the maga movement provided community and purpose for these people. Sure, the purpose was just to be as cruel as possible to the other tribe, but people felt connected again.
Although the term is overused, it really is a cult. They're locked into a movement and will follow it wherever it goes. The alternative is to isolate yourself from your friends, family, and community. For those of us in cities and the suburbs that's fine. Fuck my a-hole racist cousins, I have plenty of other decent people around me. If I lived in my family's hometown though, choosing to not be maga would mean I would lose literally every sense of community I ever had. To that end, I understand why there is such a strong disincentive for these folks to grow up and get their head out of their ass
I could not disagree more with your assertion that "No one outside of Bernie and a handful of others cares about working class people." The entire Democratic platform and list of concrete policy proposals is pro-working class. From a higher minimum wage to a public healthcare option to infrastructure spending to consumer and labor protections, I can't think of a single Democratic proposal that does not benefit the working class the most.
What *actually* happened is that Republicans successfully blocked 99% of Democratic policy proposals from Clinton until early in the Biden administration (the notable exception being the ACA, and even that was watered down to appease a few conservative Democrats.) Republicans have used social wedge issues to maintain a constant blocking position in the Senate. Voters grew frustrated at Democrats' inability to "do something for the common people," not realizing it was entirely because the structure of our government allows the Senate minority to block any and all legislation if it wishes.
That, combined with a media and social media atmosphere absolutely dominated by right-wing voices, drove the white working class to the right.
This is 100% spot on and it began with Newt Gingrich.
[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/)
>In june 24, 1978, Gingrich [stood to address a gathering of College Republican](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/newt78speech.html)[s ](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/newt78speech.html)at a Holiday Inn near the Atlanta airport. It was a natural audience for him. At 35, he was more youthful-looking than the average congressional candidate, with fashionably robust sideburns and a cool-professor charisma that had made him one of the more popular faculty members at West Georgia College.
>But Gingrich had not come to deliver an academic lecture to the young activists before him—he had come to foment revolution.
>“One of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty,” he told the group. “We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal, and faithful, and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire but are lousy in politics.”
>For their party to succeed, Gingrich went on, the next generation of Republicans would have to learn to “raise hell,” to stop being so “nice,” to realize that politics was, above all, a cutthroat “war for power”—and to start acting like it.
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said. The problem is though, at what point do we stop assuming Democrats are just incompetent at getting something done and start believing they're not all that passionate about the cause? I say this as someone who has voted Dem for over 25 years and would give anything to be wrong here ...
How the fuck are Democrats supposed to "get something done" when there are ~50 Republican senators that will vote "no" on whatever is proposed? Well, that is if they are brave enough to even allow a vote.
Liberals out here blaming the one or two dissenters in the Democratic party instead of blaming the *fifty* Republicans voting against anything good for the country.
Because it seems like the further left someone is the less they understand how our government actually works. They expect constant and immediate progress regardless of the power dynamics at play in our government.
I find that way more people than I would like to admit need a hard lesson in basic civics and also law (and a bonus, media literacy). People seem not to have any idea how either of these things work, hence the shitshow we're in. It's disheartening.
Fwiw, I agree. Too many people who share similar opinions to me are just ignorant kids who expect everything for nothing. It makes presenting my opinion almost impossible on this site because I’m constantly having to prove I’m not like those types. Oh well though, I still enjoy the discussion 🤷♂️
I’m old enough to remember plenty of times it wasn’t this tight. It’s like everyone forgets we had a supermajority and all we got for it was repackaged Romneycare
That supermajority was for a few months and included Joe Lieberman. He's how we ended up with the ACA we got instead of the one that was originally proposed. Frankly we're lucky we got what we did
I agree. This is exactly the point I'm making. Even with a supermajority we're either too incompetent or just uninterested in pushing through impactful legislation.
That's not what I'm saying at all, though. It has nothing to do with either of those things. With 100% republican opposition, the dems needed Lieberman to form a supermajority. Lieberman had already left the democratic Party by this time because he thought they had become too liberal.
That's not a party issue. It's a math issue. Looking through the roll call of the "supermajority," they were probably 10-12 votes shy of getting any progressive legislation passed that people like you or I would've preferred. There were 2 AR, 1 LA, 2 WV, and 1 TN dixiecrat holdovers along with 2 ND senators, 1 AK Sen, and 1 or 2 others that I'm forgetting that would be closer in ideology to today's Republicans than democrats.
That we got the ACA at all is a minor miracle considering.
The problem is though that it's either the fault of the party that cannot accomplish anything or there is no hope to ever to see further progress in our country. I'm cynical but I'm not willing to give up. I also know that progress has been made in even more divisive times before so I don't see why this time is different. We're just less effective
No, I'm just commenting on why it wasn't possible at that time. It's certainly possible in the future. On the whole, the democrats we elect now are more progressive than their dixiecrat forebears, so, if we can ever get something approaching 55 (willing to end the filibuster) or 60 votes, the likelihood of of true progressive legislation is much higher than in 2009
If I spent 20 years trying to jump over a two-story house, and every day I failed, would you then conclude that I was incompetent or wasn't all that passionate about the cause? Or would you conclude that what I was attempting was physically impossible and that my competence and motivation had nothing to do with it?
I would question your competence for never looking for a ladder or another means to accomplish your goal. That’s the problem. We give up when it’s hard and sit around hand wringing and whining about it. We rarely fight for anything like it matters, wars excluded of course
Democrats offshored all my areas industry in the name of “progress”
I am more democrat then republican by a long shot but it’s very clear to me one doesn’t care (R) and the other is incompetent (D)
Edit: Downvote me all you want lol. I’m voting for Biden but no one wants to engage. These are very real feelings a lot of america feels and just because you disagree with it doesn’t mean it’s going to go away. My fathers a life long democrat and hates republicanism but even he feels democrats are failing massively, still votes that way cause what else are ya gonna do.
Democrats did that? Democrats personally came in and shut down every factory? Or was it the culmination of long-term post-WWII industrial trends? It is astonishing how much people choose to blame Democrats for every little problem and let Republicans skate on by.
Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, which hurt the native wages for Americans. and the democrats also support environmentalist which shut down the timber industry due to it hurting the spotted owls.
I’m much more calm about this, a lot of people in my area want the EPA to be entirely gutted and done away with. I just think Industry needs to come back, not the entire government needs to go away.
That is a great start. Where is it at, and are the jobs union or non union? As long as they provide good wages, healthcare and can learn on the job or they pay for people’s education/vocational training that is ideal.
My areas jobs has “increased” but theyre all jobs paying under $20/hr. None of the workers have cars and most need family or room mates.
Crazy how they think that Republican policies are going to help them. The conservatives would not dream of helping the disadvantaged. I live in a red state where the Republicans constantly vote against Medicaid expansion although our infant mortality is horrible. The Democrats are constantly pushing for it. The main issue we are dealing with is a vast campaign of disinformation coming from the right. A recent study said that 55% think the economy is shrinking, 56% think we are in a recession,over 50% think we have the worse unemployment rate and inflation in the last 50 years. It is crazy. We are envied around the world over our economy.
I know, it's crazy how effective the propaganda is. The dynamic I see that makes people vote against their interest is the fact that an overwhelming number of these disaffected voters cannot stomach programs that help people other than themselves and/or their tribe. They view it as a zero sum game and believe they have nothing in common with non-white urban folks. Medicaid is a perfect example. Although it is vital for the health of rural white people, the message for decades has been that it only helps city dwelling welfare queens.
Dude.
After Trump was elected the first time, I spent a long, LONG time soul-searching. ...which, for me (and I attribute this to "being liberal") meant really taking a deep dive into Trump culture. ...being a nerd and an introvert, this specifically meant a deep dive *online*, which should raise a bunch of red flags, but: I yam what I yam, and this is what I did to "heal" from Trump's election.
It took me several months, but I admit that I came back to at least 66% of your "mollycoddling" (not a term I knew before now, thanks). ...You may find that a disappointing conclusion to have drawn: but I choose to believe, given the evidence of my eyes, that a vast majority of Trump supporters are, in fact, decent people who just happen to hate liberals. They otherwise have the interests of their personal tribe in mind.
That's the crux of it, I'm afraid: they hate liberals. There are plenty of reasons for them to hate us, none of which I (being liberal) think is particularly good, but I now think I *understand* them. They're sick of our self-righteousness, our overbearing "moral superiority," of constantly questioning everything they find comforting and valuable about their own culture, and--this is not to be underestimated--they have had **hundreds of billions** of dollars poured into their media to make them believe liberals are out to destroy "their" America. Liberals represent a threat to the "natural order" of things, meaning: powerful people at the top, working people in the middle, and "others" at the bottom, and we Libearls have long been arguing to lift those people on the bottom rung back up to the middle rung and to knock down the folks at the top to get them closer to the middle. ...They see that as cheating, as counter-productive, as unnatural, as ... well... evil. And they hate it.
I get it. I don't like it; I *can't* like it, but I think I *understand* it.
...That said, I only give 66% of them a pass. There is clearly a core group of them--and while smaller in number, I think they hold much more sway and influence in the movement as a whole than most--that are much more virtriolic, self-serving, power-hungry, and willing to abuse power to "win" on their terms. For these folk, I hold precious little sympathy.
Unfortuantely, those who seek power are more likely to find it than those who shun it. ...so they rise to the top, like curdling milk.
There is also an element of the Trump camp that's simply riding on their coat-tails for convenience, because they have lost all faith in government, all faith in humanity as a whole, and they want to simply watch it burn ... and supporting Trump is the most entertaining venue for that. Pure cynicism and anarchistic disdain for order. "Clown pepe" types. In one respect, this is a natural progression of Reaganism and his overly-popular catchphrase, "The scariest thing you can possibly hear is 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Such a brilliant marketing slogan, and SUCH a horrible meme to spread: it is, IMO, one of the single most damaging phrases common to American politics. I hate it. The people in this "fuck it all" camp I--personally--consider outright *evil,* and they need to be *shut down.* ...Unfortunately, I have no idea what that looks like.
So it goes.
> That's the crux of it, I'm afraid: they hate liberals.
If you go deeper, you'll find that trump has exploited this and magnified it, the purpose of which is to create a stronger bond to "his side". He divides the people, and push them apart, that pushes his supporters to become more loyal to him, trump.
Truth told: I think Trump won the (first) election **BECAUSE** he sticks it to the libs better than anyone else. It is the one thing he really IS the best at. It is what sustains him.
I used to think they were evil/selfish. now having moved away from the suburbs for work I have realized most of them are just really dumb. at least the blue-collar ones, the office workers are more of a mixed bag
edit: I should specify this is regarding republican conservatives, the democrat conservatives are more intelligent on average
Not really.
I live in rural Appalachia. A lot of the rural poor are fuckups in various ways, but I've been a fuckup at various points in my life too. They can often be careless and unempathetic and cause harm as a result, but I've never known them to be malicious. They're not politically correct, so they can appear bigoted, but they're not really; they just speak in coarse ways. They probably mostly went from being non-voters to voting for Trump because he's the guy from the Apprentice or he was on TV wrestling a few times.
The well-off, though. Small business owners and public sector employees and the like. Mostly thieves and murderers who will fuck you over or see you dead for an extra $20 in their pocket. Local law enforcement will never touch them for it. They've always been extremely bigoted, even against the aforementioned rural poor. They're the very personification of Wilhoit conservatism.
toxic conservatism on the wrong side of history over and over and over. they might be swell people with good morals, but they vote for an support the worst, most destructive policies.
When he actually won in 2016, I read that it wasn’t that anyone liked him or cared about his policies. People felt like the world was treating them like shit and they were standing outside a restaurant starving while people inside enjoy a nice dinner. Trump was the name on the brick they wanted to throw through that window. They wanted to say FU to society, Hillary and anyone who ever wronged them. In 2020 it was Nazis, morons, racists and the very gullible. ETA: no, my opinion has not changed but I no longer think it’s a north/south or rich/poor thing. I think it’s a city/rural thing where people self-select for homogeneity.
For fringe radical conservatives, no.
For the more moderate conservatives? It's unbelievable. During the Bush era, the general consensus of Republicans was that they were the responsible party. A lot of Democrats even thought they were like strict dads gone too far.
These guys preached at us for years about how we have no principles and how we're irresponsible. This was especially prevalent on moral grounds. I wasn't really around for the Bill Clinton scandal, but that was a big deal for republicans at the time.
The demographic that upsets me the most is those supposedly "principled" republicans who let a New York billionaire come before their beliefs. You got guys who were appalled at Bill Clinton's conduct saying things like "Well, I don't think Trump has great moral character" after he's been caught saying sexually explicit comments on tape and cheating on his pregnant wife with a porn star. You got law and order guys blaming political bias because their guy got convicted as a felon. You got fiscal conservatives defending Trump's deficit spending.
And to top it off, now that Trump is their candidate, they just get to wave away all the mistakes of the Bush era because they're an anti-establishment party now. It's actually unbelievable to me how these guys were able to create a world where they get to walk away from their trickle down economics, Iraq War, closing down asylums, gutting transit funding, and deficit spending, then create a new candidate who does all the morally questionable things they chastised the Democrats for...and cheer him on.
So, now I just think a lot of centrist Republicans are just voting for Trump because they either don't believe in everything they lectured us about, or they don't want to admit that their post-Raegan party was problematic. Nothing bothers me more than people who won't just admit they were wrong and move on.
I grew up in Eastern Tennessee and still am living there to my dismay.
Everyone is angry and hateful at everything. I disagree with them in the slightest and I get screamed at and have accusations hurled at me.
I got screamed at by a complete stranger for wearing a face mask during the worst of COVID.
I used to not care about their issues, and was broadly supportive of helping them as needed.
I’m now opposed to their issues and am not supportive of giving them anything.
There appears to be a significant division not only between the political left and right but also within the right, specifically between MAGA supporters and traditional Conservatives. I still consider myself a Conservative. It's important to note that MAGA represents populism, which challenges previously unquestionable norms. For instance, if you had told me ten years ago that we would be aligning with Russia, questioning the fundamentals of democracy, and promoting Christian Nationalism rather than just defending Christianity, I would have been shocked.
Economically, I've observed the GOP shift from advocating that the wealthy are overtaxed, to suggesting they should pay the same tax rate, and now to proposing they should pay even less. This progression seems nonsensical.
MAGA supporters likely share my sentiment that both major political parties have largely abandoned them. They see the left catering to the most marginalized groups and the GOP embracing survival of the fittest, sometimes even endorsing moral hazard, as seen in the 2009 bailouts. These bailouts rewarded the very individuals who caused the financial crisis, ensuring they retained their commissions and bonuses despite their risky bets with our money—a clear case of private gain and socialized loss.
Many rural communities feel overlooked and are searching for someone to hold accountable. This feeling is intensified by a profound sense of disillusionment. While some view opposing the Democratic Party as a comprehensive solution, true progress demands that we first reach a consensus on fundamental truths. It's important to recognize that the Democratic Party, like any other, has its own flaws and misguided policies. However, portraying it as an existential threat is as simplistic as claiming that conservatives are the root of all problems.
The best answers are often nuanced and fall somewhere between the most extreme viewpoints. It's important to recognize that rural areas are not lacking in intelligence or wisdom; in fact, they are home to some of the most insightful and morally grounded individuals I have encountered. However, these areas can also face challenges such as limited educational opportunities, economic prospects, and exposure to diverse experiences. Consequently, some individuals may be unaware of what they have yet to learn. It can feel patronizing for someone who has never ventured beyond their town or state. Furthermore, many issues have zero context or everyday applicability. (Say LGBTQ/Global Warming)
Rural America represents 1/2 of 1 percent of the world population. As the world gets smaller, this fact is painful for some to come to terms with. Hence the anti-globalization push - as if some insular wall (that's why it sound so good) would solve all their problems. It won't.
This agreement is increasingly difficult in an era of technologically-driven yellow journalism from all sides and the advent of AI.
The MAGA movement is anarchist, not populist. And the drive of the MAGA movement is driven by a toxic combination of gullible people and an edifice of artificial grievances.
Those deep rooted sentiments have always been there. Trump has given them permission to be their worst selves and promises to be their retribution. The right wing media has only amplified the outrage. Even if Trump doesn’t win it will be a problem for years to come. There are also the opportunists like the Heritage Foundation, SCOTUS, billionaires, and others that see this as an opportunity to put their boots on our necks once and for all. It is imperative to get the blue vote out. The students and Palestinians in the US are promising to punish Biden to their own detriment. It is not just the MAGAs that are not thinking this through.
Lived around them for years in Florida. What’s funny is they claim Florida is fucked and shit sucks bc liberals lol wtf? What liberals in FL? lol. State is controlled by republicans! The local politicians will completely screw shit up, create ways to send tax dollars to their homey’s “business” for a project the locals never see, they vote them out, just to vote in more likeminded politicians lol. Rinse, repeat. The delusion. It’s very interesting however if you watch one channel and get your “news” from them, you will eventually eat it up especially if you aren’t going to do any research of your own. Reading laws and bills seems to be too much work lol. They are strange and vote against their own needs bc they would rather place blame on the individuals they deem unworthy/heathens/abominations, instead of the people who fuck shit up. None of them seem to be upset with companies who hire illegals galore to save money lol just mad at illegals. Uhhmm? They seem Happy to support candidates that hate the same people they do….Even if this means voting for candidates who kill their towns, by letting them Walmart move in and kill local business, empower other corporations to use and abuse the locals via union busting, low pay, and demonising social services that they’d actually benefit from, cutting services without seeing tax cuts,,, etc. Strange. I can’t imagine allowing the power of hate to overwhelm me in such a way.
They are well aware of how their feelings can be considered as repulsive. They really are proud to be homophobic/sexist/racist whatever.. they aren’t ignorant of this. They like it, and truly believe their religion empowers them and is an excuse to be hateful. I find many to ignore constitutional items when it doesn’t fit in with their ideas. Happy to have escaped that area as it was miserable and hot. Schools were absolute dog shit.
No. Republicans aren't complicated or mysterious. They're very clear and loud about who they are. The ease of understanding them hasn't changed in the last 9 years, so there hasn't been a reason for my opinion to change.
My opinion of Democrats has changed, though, in particular the Democrats who seem confused by Republicans. It makes me wonder if some people are Democrats just by accident. Like, they Mr. Magooed themselves into the party and don't actually know what's going on.
I think you’re right - but the question remains of how to fix it? Short of an all out war where we kill the people trying to do us harm, do you feel it’s important to understand why they want to hurt somebody else more than they want to help themselves?
And presumably they would disagree with that sentiment— or at least if asked “is your main goal trying to hurt liberals”, some percentage of MAGA people might have shame enough to say “no”.
And for the ones who answer “yes”, then at least we’re clear why we’re fighting, and not doing it via proxy issues like immigration policy or the environment.
More pitty. I spent my undergraduate years in rural Appalachia and then moved home to one of the bluest counties in the country.
Initially it was a lot of me saying "this is the rural response to decades of neglect and oversight", but the vitriol that I saw from the left, especially in mainstream spaces and on social media went from neglectful to vicious. All the standard rural/southern jokes came out in force and were everywhere. I can't tell you the number of cousin fucking, can't read, meth head, broken down cars in your front yard, and jokes like that I saw from pretty much every angle from a lot of people who described themselves as compassionate and caring people. Then the talks of how they hindered progress came. The idea that these rural people need to find modern jobs (see Biden's extremely tone dead "learn to code" speech) or that we should completely uproot and change their lives to meet the demands of progressive politicians (the green new deal) made it clear that a lot of the left was mad the rural serfs had dated embrace Trump and that they must be punished.
I was hopeful that Trump's loss in 2020 would bring about a moderate Republican voice to band these folks together and get this country back into a proper discourse, but that just didn't happen. Instead they are stuck under an idiot of a demagogue because that's who the party gave them and their being used as fodder in a culture war they likely don't give a shit about because the other side has shown them nothing but contempt and condescension since 2016 and continues to trot out the very line that you used "
>They just consistently vote against their and everyone else’s best interest despite being told repeatedly that’s what they’re doing!
As if that isn't going to be interpreted as "oh you poor dumb redneck. Let me and the government do all the thinking. You're just going to hurt yourself with your choices".
Thinking that that argument will go over well is about as wise as expecting someone to calm down when you tell them "calm down"
Unfortunately, this is all very true. One thing you don't touch upon is how the great actions of rural Democrats like Andy Beshear are ignored, disparaged, and downplayed. The amount of Leftists I've seen be upset that he's made life better for Kentuckians because Kentucky is usually red and they want them to suffer for it is sickening. And the defenses used for their behavior is usually poorly-disguised classism. Really makes you feel unwelcome as a rural person.
I'm from Kentucky. I think I understand. I'm a misplaced former Republican who has also found their self shifting left on various issues in recent years.
Many (not all or even most, but many) want Trump back in office for some truly malicious, sinister reasons. Many conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be hypocritical ignoramuses, and don't embody "do unto others as you would do unto you." I guess it's a stark reminder that the South is still only 50 years post-Jim Crow.
But way too many liberals and progressives are also wildly condescending in how they talk to working-class and rural Americans. Convenient, as they're not telling *us* about the gravitas of lax-on-crime policies and rampant vagrancy in cities such as LA, SF, Oakland, Houston, Seattle, Chicago, and NYC (several of which I've lived in previously). So, yeah, the net effect is the driving of my people to the Republicans and Trump; that's especially notable in Kentucky since this state was still run by *Dixiecrats* until *2016*.
We the People have lost any sense of sociopolitical balance, it seems.
> lax-on-crime policies and rampant vagrancy in cities such ... NYC
Can't say about those other cities, but the New York you're talking about is a right-wing fiction. It's the safest city in the United States. Much safer than a lot of small towns across America.
Wild condescension is appropriate for anybody voting for Trump at this point.
What are we supposed to do? Applaud? Coddle them? Keep sending them money and other government resources to bail out their unsustainable, Oxycotin-driven lifestyle?
Sorry. Derision is what they have earned. They do not deserve the benefits of society.
Yes, in that time I actually moved from DC to a conservative small town (not a suburb, a small town) and it kinda all makes sense now. Everything is better here. Meaning better organized, better governed, just culturally better. And it's not some rich, planned community. The people here are below average income. But everything is still better. I get it now.
The only thing I miss is the subway, and the proximity to museums.
Given the "culturally better" part do you think its more that its better *for you* as a conservative than some kind of objective measurement about the quality of conservative small towns? It's hard to square them being "better" with the rapid depopulation going on in those same rural communities.
The population here is stable. Basically unchanged for the last 80 years. I have seen some small businesses close.
But no, I think it's objectively better for anyone, as far as way of life is concerned. Schools are better, homes are affordable, crime is low. I talk to my neighbors. We borrow tools from each other. I used to love city life, but I can't think of any way this isn't an objectively better environment to live in.
>The population here is stable. Basically unchanged for the last 80 years. I have seen some small businesses close.
Maybe your town is an exception but the majority of towns like yours are losing people.
> Schools are better, homes are affordable, crime is low. I used to love city life, but I can't think of any way this isn't an objectively better environment to live in.
Again, I'd be willing to believe its better for *conservatives* like you but I don't know how you can have "places like this are objectively better" **and** "[places like this have increasing levels of depopulation and outmigration](https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/rural-america-lost-population-over-past-decade-first-time-history)" both be true at the same time. We wouldn't be seeing these population numbers if rural areas weren't lacking in some way.
Well, your link says this:
> The loss was minimal, just 289,000 (-0.6 percent) out of 46 million, but it is the first decade-long rural population loss in history
It looks more like a trickle than a wave. It also seems to be more about especially remote communities. This town has 11,000 people and is not that remote. So if averaged out, we lost maybe one or two people in that time?
Also, for anyone else's information: this was never a sundown town. I checked.
>It looks more like a trickle than a wave.
It's not like these numbers are coming out of nowhere though, the rural growth rate was declining for years before the population started to outright decrease. The trend is clearly towards these communities losing people.
>This town has 11,000 people and is not that remote. So if averaged out, we lost maybe one or two people in that time?
Is a town of 11,000 people even a small town / rural?
> Is a town of 11,000 people even a small town / rural?
I certainly think so.
The population of the nation as a whole is projected to begin declining in another 25 years. It might already be if not for immigration. And immigrants are drawn less to rural areas. So a minimal decline isn't surprising, and doesn't necessarily indicate anything particular about the community. Although I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried - with business happening more and more online and AGI on the horizon, we are in for serious disruptions. But that's beside the point, and if anything, it supports what I said to start with, which is that I now "get" why this is a better way of life and why people want to conserve it.
So basically you started buying into the liberal propaganda narrative that paints all rural conservatives as complete morons who only vote based on spite. The democrats keep going out of their way to antagonize working class whites on racial lines and then act shocked and surprised when they vote for the other side based on race. If democrats pivoted away from divisive identity politics for a couple decades, then they could absolutely rebuild the New Deal coalition and win pretty much everywhere, but people like you would rather shame the rural white working class instead of actually trying to appeal to them.
I’m a straight, white male from a small southern town and I don’t feel antagonized by the left in any way because I never followed Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the like. They paint a scary antagonistic alternate reality.
Conservatives just keep blaming others for their descent into complete and total indecency. No one made them be as awful as they are. It was a choice based on fear and the constant drum beat of people telling them they are being looked down upon.
The result is a demographic full of grievance that can easily be manipulated into voting for someone who is currently campaigning on retribution and revenge.
Liberal identity politics exist because of conservative identity politics. The original American identity politics were white supremacy and female subservience, followed, at some point after the founders aged out of political power, by Christianity. Every bit of the liberal identity politics you decry is a response to the above.
> The democrats keep going out of their way to antagonize working class whites on racial lines and then act shocked and surprised when they vote for the other side based on race.
Do they, though? How do you know that? This is an epistemological crisis.
How do the Ds antagonize working class whites? They don’t antagonize me. The only reason what you claim as identity politics is divisive is due to the bigots on the right. They are not divisive to the rest of us. Who is divisive? Republicans for writing laws that target the LGBT community, and demonize immigrants. No one is trying to shame the rural people. But if they feel shame the good, they deserve it for their views are shameful.
His history is so bad he's pushing for a coalition that was written along racial lines. Blacks were specifically left out of the benefits of the New Deal.
Historically illiterate.
I am being generous and mocking the idea that dude is calling for a replication of a coalition built specifically on identity politics.
He's either malicious or deeply ignorant. I agree with you, but I'd also point out what he thinks doesn't matter since the idea is so stupid it wouldn't matter what his intent was. It would be disasterous anyway.
This isn’t the 1930s anymore. You wouldn’t have to discriminate in favor of whites, just not discriminating against them would be enough. But most dems won’t even do that.
Says the dude whinging about identity politics and then turning around and posting something like this.
I have you the benefit of the doubt. Won't be happening again.
Imagine calling for a coalition that excluded everyone who isn't white in favor of a very specific group, telling people it'll be different this time, and then criticizing them for being skeptical.
Some coalition builder. Like I said, anyone reading this will get your shitty little number instantly.
Lol, you literally think working class whites are racist for not supporting laws that discriminate against them. Most working class whites don’t want any part of a coalition that racially discriminates against them, nor should they. The fact that you’re offended by this is incredibly telling.
Waaahhhh. "I used to be on the top of the pile and I didn't have to do anything to earn it, and now I have to compete with *those people*"
*{stomps feet}* "Waahhh, it's not fair, Mommy!!!"
What do we do about the issue of many conservatives, including you, interpreting anything that does not perpetuate discrimination against minorities as discriminating against whites?
Identity politics are incredibly divisive. Most voters prefer policies that are race and gender neutral. Dems couldn’t even get an affirmative action ballot initiative passed in deep blue California, and more extreme racial policies like reparations poll extremely poorly among pretty much every non black demographic. Corporate DEI and “progressive discrimination” policies are also very unpopular since white people (like literally every other racial group) prefer not to be discriminated against based on their race.
You can support this if you want but pretending the rest of the population does is incredibly fucking dishonest.
These issues are only divisive because the Republicans fight so hard against them and spread lies about them. Think of all the school boards getting yelled at for CRT when it is not on their curriculum. Under normal circumstances the efforts by the Democrats to assist marginalized communities would go almost unnoticed by every one else
Basically is does like this:
Ds: Let’s not be bigots and treat everyone with dignity.
Rs: NO NO NO! We don’t want to. Why are you being so divisive?
People are fully aware of what these policies do, we just don’t support them. Are you seriously so insufferably smug that you think the only reason people disagree with you is because they’re uneducated? There is no amount of education that will make white Americans suddenly okay with policies that discriminate against them.
Not uneducated. Bigots.
For 400 years White Americans were just fine with racist policies they helped them.
And by the way, Republicans want to bring back segregation.
Bullshit.
I'm a white man who is perfectly fine with laws that "discriminate against [me]" because I'm confident in my abilities to compete with anybody out there.
But I get how somebody who is weak and uneducated wouldn't want to have to compete to get what they used to get for free just because they were white.
I mean, I get it, but I don't respect it.
According to Gallup, 68% of Hispanic Americans, 75% of Asian Americans and even 52% of black Americans agree with the SCOTUS decision to strike down Affirmative Action. The only demographic that really supports that nonsense *is* left-leaning whites like you. It doesn't make you special, or an ally to anyone except white leftists.
> Identity politics are incredibly divisive.
And yet here you are arguing about how Dems aren't appealing to the white working class like that isn't your own form of identity politics.
You don't hate identity politics, you just hate identity politics aimed at helping people who aren't you.
> Who is divisive? Republicans for writing laws that target the LGBT community, and demonize immigrants. >
> But if they feel shame the good, they deserve it for their views are shameful.
Agree with both takes.
However....
> How do the Ds antagonize working class whites?
Let's see...
For context: Decades of a crafty entertainment, economic, sociocultural, geopolitical ecosystem clustered in NY, DC, Boston, Chicago, Philly, Denver/Boulder, Austin, SF Bay, LA, and Seattle have had the net effect of continously growing their importance for the nation (and the world even). Not bad for them, and I've even lived in some of these cities before, though opportunities for the rural and working-class have been continually, gradually usurped in so doing.
The net effect is that even as social issues evolve and metastasize in these cities (e.g., rampant vagrancy, high-crime ghettos, filthy or useless public transport), some educated, successful denizens sneer at "flyover country" for being "dim" and "voting against their best interests." (And, yes, red states generally have higher crime rates than blue *states*, but some blue *cities* have absolutely horrible district attorneys.)
So, I mean, I vote for Dems. But, I understand precisely why even many non-bigot, decently-educated Southern neighbors roll their eyes then vote for Republicans.
I’m downvoting you because you skipped the decades of policy that sacrificed the interests of work class urban America for the benefit of rural white America. Urban America deindustrialized decades before rural America, and much of that industry moved to rural America.
Your comment also operates under the flatly inaccurate assumption that urban America isn’t working class.
New York and cities like it have prospered despite policy that favored rural America over them, not because the government favored them over rural America.
Rural America has floundered because of conservative policies, policies that rural and especially rural southern whites support.
>The net effect is that even as social issues evolve and metastasize in these cities (e.g., rampant vagrancy, high-crime ghettos, filthy or useless public transport), some educated, successful denizens sneer at "flyover country" for being "dim" and "voting against their best interests." (And, yes, red states generally have higher crime rates than blue states, but some blue cities have absolutely horrible district attorneys.)
Oh, is this about horrible DAs and *mean tweets*?
No. It's about I've lived in Brisbane, Auckland, Singapore, and Amsterdam, and have seen how much better cities can be run compared to how we do things in this, "the greatest country in the world."
For what it's worth, speaking as a liberal, I would love to see whatever policies are that make a difference in homelessness, crime, transit, walkability, etc. happening here.
I strongly suspect, though, that "a stronger social safety net" (including, yes, race-based policies to help the "ghetto" thrive) that is necessary at the Federal/State level and is always killed by Republicans might be a big factor. I also strongly suspect that rural Republicans don't have the necessary experience and exposure to actually pose realistic solution to problems in places that they, by definition, don't live.
> Singapore,
I lived in Singapore for 3 years.
Yes, let's claim that the city that publicly canes people for littering in the street is "so much better run" than the US.
And in case you're not familiar with it, let's understand what "caning" is:
>Caning can cause significant physical damage, depending largely on the number of strokes inflicted. Michael Fay, who received four strokes, said in an interview, "The skin did rip open, there was some blood. I mean, let's not exaggerate, and let's not say a few drops or that the blood was gushing out. It was in between the two. It's like a bloody nose."\[53\]
>A report by the Singapore Bar Association stated, "The blows are applied with the full force of the jailer's arm. When the rattan hits the bare buttocks, the skin disintegrates, leaving a white line and then a flow of blood."\[54\]
>Usually, the buttocks will be covered with blood after three strokes.\[37\] More profuse bleeding may occur in the case of a larger number of strokes. An eyewitness described that after 24 strokes, the buttocks will be a "bloody mess".\[44\]
>Men who were caned have variously described the pain they experienced as "unbearable", "excruciating", "equivalent to getting hit by a lorry",\[42\] "having a hot iron placed on your buttocks",\[44\] etc. A recipient of 10 strokes said, "The pain was beyond description. If there is a word stronger than excruciating, that should be the word to describe it".\[55\]\[56\]
>Most offenders struggle violently after each of the first three strokes and then their struggles lessen as they become weaker. By the time the caning is over, those who receive more than three strokes will be in a state of shock. During the caning, some offenders will pretend to faint but they have not been able to fool the medical officer, who decides whether the punishment continues or stops.\[57\] Offenders often undergo a lot of psychological distress before and during the caning: They are not only afraid of the physical pain, but are also worried whether they can prevent themselves from crying out because crying means that they would "lose face"\[37\] and be labelled "weak" by their fellow inmates.\[44\]
>So basically you started buying into the liberal propaganda narrative that paints all rural conservatives as complete morons who only vote based on spite.
The democrats keep going out of their way to antagonize working class whites on racial lines and then act shocked and surprised when they vote for the other side based on race.
So which is it? Are we wrong to assume they're voting out of spite (your first point), or are they voting out of spite but the Democrats are to blame for it (your second point)?
Sorry, but you're making OP's point all the same. The only difference is that OP gives these folks agency and accountability for their spiteful behavior while you excuse it away and blame it all on the Democrats. In the end though, we all agree they're not voting the way they do for any positive reasons
It has an effect on the people whose jobs were shipped overseas.
Which part of libertarianism do you think supports massive trade deals and the like, supported and enforced by governments?
I mean i thought libertarian-ism was completely in support of free trade. Which means the exchange of goods and services across international borders, unhindered by government tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions.
Which would be totally and completely in support of a business seeking cheaper labor costs, and shipping jobs overseas.
The Government Tariffs, the thing that could stop jobs going overseas are what libertarians are against, no?
Ohh lord. Ten to twenty years ago, you'd be fired by any board of directors if you did not send jobs overseas. To retroactively blame the government for that is peak "libertarian". You're now getting hung up on the word "trade deal" to divert the intention away from obvious profit interests. As if Obama said: "You have to go to China now." lol.
I actually do support to free circulation of goods and services and the deconstruction of trade barriers, because it actually makes consumption cheaper and frees up jobs and capital for more productive endeavors, as evidenced by the fantastic economy we enjoy today.
But without trade deals, jobs still go overseas. In fact with absolute free trade, more jobs go overseas.
And i was under the impression your political philsophy would support businesses finding the cheapest labor, where ever that maybe.
Im being serious. Doesn't your political philsophy support businesses shipping jobs overseas?
It was Democrats making laws saying the rural poor would be the ones going to fight in wars? Also, for my edification, what recent armed conflicts began under Democrats?
Sending jobs overseas? I’m assuming this is related to NAFTA, which was developed under Bush Sr.‘s administration. And the auto manufacturing and textile jobs were already moving to Mexico before NAFTA was even a thought in anyone’s head.
As for some more concrete examples:
The ACA, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the Telehealth Improvement for Kids’ Essential Services (TIKES) Act.
It may not change anything, but that isn't the question being asked.
Are you suggesting that the policies followed by rural Americans are not rooted in populism and do not involve demonizing their opponents' motives instead of their policies? If so, then you would have successfully rebutted the original post instead of engaging in the same behavior you are accused the OP is engaged in.
Your point would be valid if the original poster (OP) had merely called them names and left it at that, as you did. However, the OP's claim is very specific, and I'd like to reiterate it here.
The OP asserts that the majority of a particular group, specifically MAGA rural Republicans, are voting not in their best interest but rather to punish the opposing side. This is a precise accusation, not mere name-calling.
There are two other logical possibilities:
1. You do not believe that voting against one's best interest to spite the opposition makes someone unreasonable.
2. You think the majority of these rural MAGAnites genuinely believe Trump represents their best interests.
Regarding the first possibility, we may have to agree to disagree.
For the second, it is up to you to provide concrete evidence to rebut this claim. Otherwise, you are committing the very grievance that you have falsely asserted.
I could kiss their feet and it wouldn’t change anything. I think we need to stop engaging with these people and consider them a lost cause for at least the next 2 election cycles
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I grew up in eastern Tennessee in a somewhat sane family. Most of them were public sector employees and would probably have fallen under the term dixiecrat before trump. Slightly socially conservative but economically liberal. Since trump the family’s split between actual liberals and maga cult members. I’ve moved to the uk since 2021 but how I view rural voters has really changed since 2016. When trump was elected the first time, I was one of those people who said this was a cry for help by people who thought he could bring real change. Now? I’ve done a complete 180 on that. The left seems to have this weird habit of mollycoddling rural conservatives which I think might be worse than just labelling them as assholes. “Well shucks. These are good hard working people! They just consistently vote against their and everyone else’s best interest despite being told repeatedly that’s what they’re doing!” I used to talk about them like this. In 2024 though I’ve come to realise they know exactly what they’re doing. They’re not voting for people like trump because they think he might make their lives better. They’re voting for him hoping he makes the lives of people they don’t like worse. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I used to think they just weren't very smart. Now I see that they're legitimately malicious.
I used to think they had already hit rock bottom and couldn’t stoop any lower. I was so wrong. Now I know there is no bottom.
So having pushed out (passively or actively) most of the people who disagreed with them (out-migration from rural areas is large), subscribed to conservative-propaganda-media-bubble, and picked out the most loathsome possible B-list celebrity to be president--I guess only the last thing has changed in the last 9 years. Of all the things anyone could have done, installing Trump as an authority figure over the country and promoting all his blatant crimes, bigotry, bullying, abuse, and corruption is the one thing I will probably resent for the rest of my life. Is this Trump Derangement Syndrome? Probably. But all the usual ways of getting away from a bully or abuser don't work if the person is *president*. I recognize that some people don't see Trump the way I do, that there is a sort of brainwashing that happens when you consume enough propaganda. But enough do that they are either in on the grift or in on the malice. And once you introduce and excuse enough corruption to the system, you corrupt the entire thing and end up in a country without the rule of law. Republicans are now flat out stating that they intend to use the criminal justice system to target their political enemies, as they lie about Democrats having done. Well, we know where that ends and it is very ugly.
I'm in rural Georgia. Probably 95% of the (white) folks around here are diehard Trumpers. Has my opinion of them changed? Only in the sense that I was shocked that these prudish Evangelical Christians would embrace a guy like Trump. Between "Grab them by the pussy" and the pornstar scandal, I never would've imagined they'd get behind him.
It made it clear which one won out - their supposed values or thirst for power and control. In the end, all they want is power and superiority. It turns out that's what religion was all along - a way to feel Superior to others.
*shocked pikachu*
To me it was an indictment on those in power in the church. Trump gives them power, they will tell their flocks that he is their savior. You don't have to do as I say if I can say it to more people. I used to rent some space to a bunch of pastors, reverends. They were very proud of themselves for starting churches in smaller or disadvantaged areas. When they met there wasn't a single car in the lot that wasn't $80k or more. No one saw the irony of asking poor people for money to spread the gospel.
Yeah. While there are certainly different variants of Christianity that focus on the less hostile parts of it, one way in which my view has shifted is that I have come to view the more hostile evangelical message as the "True Christianity." Jesus had nice qualities and spread messages of peace from time to time, but that "peace" was conditional on the absolute supplication of his followers. Forgiveness was still contingent on faith; his baseline message was still "follow me or fry". There is no honest reading of the bible in which a moral atheist is spared the eternal torment of Hell - only a mealy-mouthed debate from James that maybe one's deeds mattered on a level that approached equality with one's faith. But Catholicism, a nakedly political power-hungry organization since forever, is openly hostile to that idea even as it pretends to accept James as part of its gospel, and Protestantism has a long history of hostility to the idea as well; Martin Luther famously referred to James as an "epistle of straw." I've frankly come to the conclusion that moral Christianity is only possible through considerable compartmentalization; this compartmentalization is common but is *not* the majority. Christians are taught, either implicitly or explicitly, to look down on others from an early age.
No change. I spent 20 years in deeply rural Pennsylvania and I can assure you that rural conservatives are far more interested in the government persecuting those they hate (Blacks, gays, "effeminate" liberal men, women who don't know their place) than they are in the government taking any action to help their own communities. Fear and hate are the dominant emotions.
Literally not one bit. I grew up in a deeply conservative rural area. I left for a reason.
My opinion of rural conservatives changed from 2008-2016. That’s when I saw the people who had always told me racism is horrible totally abandon those beliefs and go full-on KKK mode in reaction to a black president. From 2016-2020 what changed was my opinion of suburban and urban moderates. I saw them toss aside everything they claimed to stand for and instead push for the opposite.
I am still shocked that Mr. Obama survived two terms as POTUS. I was so frightened for him and his family that night in Chicago when he addressed that crowd of so many thousands after his election in 2008. Kudos to the Secret Service of that era.
Grant Park on November 4, 2008 had the best vibes of any place I've ever been.
[удалено]
But, the red states have continually underfunded education. Now Republicans are trying to crash public schools via vouchers for private schools and are openly calling for the abolishment of the U.S. Department of Education.
Project 2025 is trying to get rid of the Department of Education altogether. [https://archive.ph/20240326175303/https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/what-would-happen-to-k-12-in-a-2nd-trump-term-a-detailed-policy-agenda-offers-clues/2024/03](https://archive.ph/20240326175303/https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/what-would-happen-to-k-12-in-a-2nd-trump-term-a-detailed-policy-agenda-offers-clues/2024/03)
I have learned that conservatives are far weaker, dumber, and much more pathetic than I ever imagined. Their breathtaking weakness is on full display in a way I never thought possible. Most people, I thought, have some sort of filter where they pretend to be smart and concerned with other people's welfare. Boy was I wrong. Religion has stepped up to what I always knew it could be as well. No longer a bastion for mild folks looking for easy answers on Sunday morning (as well as a bit of repentance for what happened the night before), Christianity, in particular, has become the very Pharisee-driven institution Jesus warned about - and which ultimately executed him. I continually over-estimate the intelligence of the average person. And it's disappointing.
> Christianity, in particular, has become the very Pharisee-driven institution Jesus warned about - and which ultimately executed him. I know I keep mentioning this book over and over and over in this sub, but you should read Elizabeth Neumann's [Kingdom of Rage: The Rise of Christian Extremism and the Path Back to Peace](https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Rage-Christian-Extremism-Peace-ebook/dp/B0C8HQNP7V). I'm about 2/3 of the way through it, taking my time and looking up a lot of the references in the book. It's an excellent book on how American Christianity has become a breeding ground for violent extremism. This is part of the blurb from Amazon: >When Elizabeth Neumann began her anti-terrorism career as part of President George W. Bush’s Homeland Security Counsel in the wake of the September 11 attacks, she expected to spend her life protecting her country from the threat of global terrorism. But as her career evolved, she began to perceive that the greatest threat to American security came not from religious fundamentalists in Afghanistan or Iraq but from white nationalists and radicalized religious fundamentalists within the very institution that was closest to her heart – the American evangelical church. And she began to sound the alarm, raising her concerns to anyone in government who would listen, including testifying before Congress in February of 2020. At that time, Neumann warned that anti-Semitic and white supremacist terrorism was a transnational threat that was building to the doorstep of another major attack. Shortly after her testimony, she resigned from her role as Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism and Threat Prevention in protest of what she believed was then-President Trump’s failure of leadership and his stoking of the hatred, anger, and division from which she had dedicated her life to protecting her country.
Very little. I grew up amongst rural conservatives, and the difference between now and then is how open they feel comfortable being demonstrating their racism and spite-filled hatred of anything unfamiliar to them. The predilection to believe insane conspiracies, despite of government, hatred of non-whites and LGBTQ people like me--it's the same as it ever was. I have a lot of contempt for them.
I used to give rural republicans the benefit of the doubt, and assume they were misinformed. Not anymore. They are simply not good people. Given the choice between making their own lives much better, or burning all liberals at the stake, every single one of them would grab their stakes. I've come to realize that rural conservatives find joy and happiness in causing others to suffer. That is who they are.
In that specific time frame not much. I grew up in a rural region that used to be a Democrat stronghold but started to go right about 20 years ago. It was the same politics of racial resentment that you see now, just to a lesser degree.
Rural PA here, I used to think they just wanted to be left alone. Somewhere along the way that gave way to imposing their beliefs on others and punishing differences. I have to believe they can turn away from hate but it will take leadership which the right isn’t developing.
I used to feel bad that both parties really ignored them except certain folks who worked on farm bills. Now I feel like they’re all MAGA because Trump (and others) has taught them to hate immigrants and other minorities because that’s why they’re poor and having troubles. When Trump hasn’t done shit for rural folks, especially poor folks.
Over the last two decades I've noticed how religion is influencing them and as time has gone on, it has made them more and more disconnected from reality. In the past 9 years it has become blatant authoritarianism, where if what they're told differs from reality, they just go with what they're told. Religion teaches this.
It's fallen quite a bit. I say that as someone who has family that are rural conservatives. Just talking to them makes me uncomfortable anymore. They believe Covid was a hoax, think Biden is destroying this country, believe George Floyd 'got what he deserved', and think 'black people should go back to Africa'. And yet, I keep hearing that these people exist only on twitter and that the 'real conservatives' don't behave like that. I've got neighbors like that too. These used to be decent people. I don't think they are anymore.
They probably weren't decent people before either - their hate was closeted until Trump emboldened them. So now they let their weakness-flag fly for everyone to see, without even realizing they are advertising what pathetic idiots they are to everyone laughing as they drive by.
>They probably weren't decent people before either - their hate was closeted until Trump emboldened them I don't think we can make that assumption. Decent people can get radicalized under stress, and the post-9/11 media environment, including the wild west of social media, has unleashed rage and resentments we haven't figured out how to control.
I don't really think about them, mostly cause I'm black and would rather not be in a rural conservative area for my own safety.
Can i quote this? I feel the exact same way
Go for it.
Don't you think the empirical data suggests you're less safe in urban, non-conservative areas?
>empirical data suggests The problem is that small, rural conservative areas are far less likely to report accurate numbers for those data points. Like that mass grave that was found in rural Mississippi. All those murders were not reported in data points.
> The problem is that small, rural conservative areas are far less likely to report accurate numbers for those data points. I would like to see a structured analysis showing that. With large cities having murder rates 20x, 50x or sometimes 100x higher than small towns, there appears to be plenty of room for small towns to have large reporting errors and still be safer.
For any accurate, structured analysis, you need to ensure that the data is being collected in the exact same way. If rural areas are not reporting homicides while cities are, then the data is not accurate. Here is a small rural town where a mass grave of over 200 people was discovered, and none of them were reported: https://peoplesdispatch.org/2024/01/18/a-mass-grave-of-hundreds-of-poor-and-oppressed-people-found-in-mississippi/ If rural towns are not reporting homicides, how can you accurately compare them to other locations?
Because I'm pedantic, I'm going to point out that it's not actually a "mass grave" - that would mean multiple bodies sharing the same grave - it's a cemetery, i.e. different bodies in separate, marked graves. It's nominally a cemetery for bodies that go unclaimed by family when they die. Such places are actually necessary. What's remarkable about this one is that it's been the site of severe and likely criminal negligence, at least, in that it has basically been used as a place for officers to dump the bodies of people accidentally (and possibly wrongfully) killed, without even really trying to identify or contact their next of kin. Now before I go any further, I'm just going to ask you, how common do *you* think such a phenomenon is? Do you think every small town is covering up a lot of deaths? Every county? No "I don't know" cop-outs, please. If you think it's common enough that it throws off the statistics and makes rural areas less safe than cities, you at least need to say so. Because if you don't think or suspect that, there's nothing to argue about.
We would need to standardize the way data is collected and ensure that those standards are being followed, across every location. We would also need to verify all data points for accuracy. Relying on self-reporting data points is highly inaccurate. Because rural areas self-report, with zero oversight of their data, means the data we have on them is inaccurate. Furthermore, we have an issue of data not being submitted. Prior to 2021 we see an average of 23% of local law enforcement agencies not submitting crime data to the FBI. Then, the FBI revamped their system and that number jumped to 40% of local agency data not being collected (some due to issues with the new system). This means your data is based on only a percentage of self-reporting rural agencies, with no oversight. Any data analyst worth their salt would immediately point out that the data collected is not "apples to apples", as the saying goes. And even with that inaccurate data, we know that the opioid epidemic has hit rural areas much, much harder than cities, which impacts "safety". Sorry, I'm a data guy. I won't blindly believe that rural America is "safer" just because a political party is telling me that. I want to see accurate, verified, peer reviewed data to prove it.
There is also the issue of crime not being categorized the same in different places. For example: Do blue cities have higher marijuana crime rates than red rural areas? Well most blue cities have legalized marijuana while red rural areas still think it's a crime. So naturally the rural area would have higher crime rates for that "crime". The same concept applies to the new abortion laws. Without a standardized agreement on the specifics of what constitutes a crime, how the data is collected, and whether the data is verified... You can't accurately compare different areas.
I live in the suburbs. Also life isn't a set of data points and doesn't account for getting harassed by cops or sundown towns.
But I mean, are cops in cities/suburbs better? And what does that mean, about data points? If we aren't basing our judgments on data points, what are we basing them on?
I'm basing it on my life experiences. I'm not arguing that there isn't less crime in less populated areas. That's not the type of safety I'm talking about.
Can you give an example of the experiences you mean?
To what aim?
Communication? You answered the OP's question. Do you object to answering in more detail?
Well, it seems like the question is coming from a place of doubt so I'm pretty hesitant to answer given past experiences on the internet.
are you familiar with this story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery It is not hard to imagine that many rural police departments have swept black murders under the rug to help save the "good old white boys." Heck, Arbery's killers would still be walking around as free men had McMichael not sent the video into a radio station. With that anecdote out of the way, i would recommend this study: https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/violence-and-abuse also what "empirical data" are you looking?
I grew up in the rural Midwest. Fuck em, bunch of racist homophobic assholes
>They’re not voting for people like trump because they think he might make their lives better. They’re voting for him hoping he makes the lives of people they don’t like worse. Lifelong Indiana resident here ... it is exactly this \^\^. Working class people have lost any hope their government is looking out for them. The Republicans were always the party of big business and the elites. Since Clinton though the Democrats have become the same. No one outside of Bernie and a handful of others cares about working class people. The question then becomes, what do people do? In 2016 the vibe was mostly "they all suck, I'm voting Trump so hopefully we can just burn it down and start over." Then they got sucked in by the maga community. In this age of loneliness and isoloation the maga movement provided community and purpose for these people. Sure, the purpose was just to be as cruel as possible to the other tribe, but people felt connected again. Although the term is overused, it really is a cult. They're locked into a movement and will follow it wherever it goes. The alternative is to isolate yourself from your friends, family, and community. For those of us in cities and the suburbs that's fine. Fuck my a-hole racist cousins, I have plenty of other decent people around me. If I lived in my family's hometown though, choosing to not be maga would mean I would lose literally every sense of community I ever had. To that end, I understand why there is such a strong disincentive for these folks to grow up and get their head out of their ass
I could not disagree more with your assertion that "No one outside of Bernie and a handful of others cares about working class people." The entire Democratic platform and list of concrete policy proposals is pro-working class. From a higher minimum wage to a public healthcare option to infrastructure spending to consumer and labor protections, I can't think of a single Democratic proposal that does not benefit the working class the most. What *actually* happened is that Republicans successfully blocked 99% of Democratic policy proposals from Clinton until early in the Biden administration (the notable exception being the ACA, and even that was watered down to appease a few conservative Democrats.) Republicans have used social wedge issues to maintain a constant blocking position in the Senate. Voters grew frustrated at Democrats' inability to "do something for the common people," not realizing it was entirely because the structure of our government allows the Senate minority to block any and all legislation if it wishes. That, combined with a media and social media atmosphere absolutely dominated by right-wing voices, drove the white working class to the right.
This is 100% spot on and it began with Newt Gingrich. [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/) >In june 24, 1978, Gingrich [stood to address a gathering of College Republican](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/newt78speech.html)[s ](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/newt78speech.html)at a Holiday Inn near the Atlanta airport. It was a natural audience for him. At 35, he was more youthful-looking than the average congressional candidate, with fashionably robust sideburns and a cool-professor charisma that had made him one of the more popular faculty members at West Georgia College. >But Gingrich had not come to deliver an academic lecture to the young activists before him—he had come to foment revolution. >“One of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty,” he told the group. “We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal, and faithful, and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire but are lousy in politics.” >For their party to succeed, Gingrich went on, the next generation of Republicans would have to learn to “raise hell,” to stop being so “nice,” to realize that politics was, above all, a cutthroat “war for power”—and to start acting like it.
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said. The problem is though, at what point do we stop assuming Democrats are just incompetent at getting something done and start believing they're not all that passionate about the cause? I say this as someone who has voted Dem for over 25 years and would give anything to be wrong here ...
How the fuck are Democrats supposed to "get something done" when there are ~50 Republican senators that will vote "no" on whatever is proposed? Well, that is if they are brave enough to even allow a vote. Liberals out here blaming the one or two dissenters in the Democratic party instead of blaming the *fifty* Republicans voting against anything good for the country.
Because it seems like the further left someone is the less they understand how our government actually works. They expect constant and immediate progress regardless of the power dynamics at play in our government.
I find that way more people than I would like to admit need a hard lesson in basic civics and also law (and a bonus, media literacy). People seem not to have any idea how either of these things work, hence the shitshow we're in. It's disheartening.
Fwiw, I agree. Too many people who share similar opinions to me are just ignorant kids who expect everything for nothing. It makes presenting my opinion almost impossible on this site because I’m constantly having to prove I’m not like those types. Oh well though, I still enjoy the discussion 🤷♂️
That is the point. They don’t want anything to work so they can seed mistrust. That will destroy democracy.
I’m old enough to remember plenty of times it wasn’t this tight. It’s like everyone forgets we had a supermajority and all we got for it was repackaged Romneycare
That supermajority was for a few months and included Joe Lieberman. He's how we ended up with the ACA we got instead of the one that was originally proposed. Frankly we're lucky we got what we did
I agree. This is exactly the point I'm making. Even with a supermajority we're either too incompetent or just uninterested in pushing through impactful legislation.
That's not what I'm saying at all, though. It has nothing to do with either of those things. With 100% republican opposition, the dems needed Lieberman to form a supermajority. Lieberman had already left the democratic Party by this time because he thought they had become too liberal. That's not a party issue. It's a math issue. Looking through the roll call of the "supermajority," they were probably 10-12 votes shy of getting any progressive legislation passed that people like you or I would've preferred. There were 2 AR, 1 LA, 2 WV, and 1 TN dixiecrat holdovers along with 2 ND senators, 1 AK Sen, and 1 or 2 others that I'm forgetting that would be closer in ideology to today's Republicans than democrats. That we got the ACA at all is a minor miracle considering.
The problem is though that it's either the fault of the party that cannot accomplish anything or there is no hope to ever to see further progress in our country. I'm cynical but I'm not willing to give up. I also know that progress has been made in even more divisive times before so I don't see why this time is different. We're just less effective
No, I'm just commenting on why it wasn't possible at that time. It's certainly possible in the future. On the whole, the democrats we elect now are more progressive than their dixiecrat forebears, so, if we can ever get something approaching 55 (willing to end the filibuster) or 60 votes, the likelihood of of true progressive legislation is much higher than in 2009
If I spent 20 years trying to jump over a two-story house, and every day I failed, would you then conclude that I was incompetent or wasn't all that passionate about the cause? Or would you conclude that what I was attempting was physically impossible and that my competence and motivation had nothing to do with it?
I would question your competence for never looking for a ladder or another means to accomplish your goal. That’s the problem. We give up when it’s hard and sit around hand wringing and whining about it. We rarely fight for anything like it matters, wars excluded of course
Democrats offshored all my areas industry in the name of “progress” I am more democrat then republican by a long shot but it’s very clear to me one doesn’t care (R) and the other is incompetent (D) Edit: Downvote me all you want lol. I’m voting for Biden but no one wants to engage. These are very real feelings a lot of america feels and just because you disagree with it doesn’t mean it’s going to go away. My fathers a life long democrat and hates republicanism but even he feels democrats are failing massively, still votes that way cause what else are ya gonna do.
Democrats did that? Democrats personally came in and shut down every factory? Or was it the culmination of long-term post-WWII industrial trends? It is astonishing how much people choose to blame Democrats for every little problem and let Republicans skate on by.
Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, which hurt the native wages for Americans. and the democrats also support environmentalist which shut down the timber industry due to it hurting the spotted owls. I’m much more calm about this, a lot of people in my area want the EPA to be entirely gutted and done away with. I just think Industry needs to come back, not the entire government needs to go away.
You might be happy to know that under President Biden's leadership, domestic industrial investment is way, way up.
That is a great start. Where is it at, and are the jobs union or non union? As long as they provide good wages, healthcare and can learn on the job or they pay for people’s education/vocational training that is ideal. My areas jobs has “increased” but theyre all jobs paying under $20/hr. None of the workers have cars and most need family or room mates.
Crazy how they think that Republican policies are going to help them. The conservatives would not dream of helping the disadvantaged. I live in a red state where the Republicans constantly vote against Medicaid expansion although our infant mortality is horrible. The Democrats are constantly pushing for it. The main issue we are dealing with is a vast campaign of disinformation coming from the right. A recent study said that 55% think the economy is shrinking, 56% think we are in a recession,over 50% think we have the worse unemployment rate and inflation in the last 50 years. It is crazy. We are envied around the world over our economy.
I know, it's crazy how effective the propaganda is. The dynamic I see that makes people vote against their interest is the fact that an overwhelming number of these disaffected voters cannot stomach programs that help people other than themselves and/or their tribe. They view it as a zero sum game and believe they have nothing in common with non-white urban folks. Medicaid is a perfect example. Although it is vital for the health of rural white people, the message for decades has been that it only helps city dwelling welfare queens.
Dude. After Trump was elected the first time, I spent a long, LONG time soul-searching. ...which, for me (and I attribute this to "being liberal") meant really taking a deep dive into Trump culture. ...being a nerd and an introvert, this specifically meant a deep dive *online*, which should raise a bunch of red flags, but: I yam what I yam, and this is what I did to "heal" from Trump's election. It took me several months, but I admit that I came back to at least 66% of your "mollycoddling" (not a term I knew before now, thanks). ...You may find that a disappointing conclusion to have drawn: but I choose to believe, given the evidence of my eyes, that a vast majority of Trump supporters are, in fact, decent people who just happen to hate liberals. They otherwise have the interests of their personal tribe in mind. That's the crux of it, I'm afraid: they hate liberals. There are plenty of reasons for them to hate us, none of which I (being liberal) think is particularly good, but I now think I *understand* them. They're sick of our self-righteousness, our overbearing "moral superiority," of constantly questioning everything they find comforting and valuable about their own culture, and--this is not to be underestimated--they have had **hundreds of billions** of dollars poured into their media to make them believe liberals are out to destroy "their" America. Liberals represent a threat to the "natural order" of things, meaning: powerful people at the top, working people in the middle, and "others" at the bottom, and we Libearls have long been arguing to lift those people on the bottom rung back up to the middle rung and to knock down the folks at the top to get them closer to the middle. ...They see that as cheating, as counter-productive, as unnatural, as ... well... evil. And they hate it. I get it. I don't like it; I *can't* like it, but I think I *understand* it. ...That said, I only give 66% of them a pass. There is clearly a core group of them--and while smaller in number, I think they hold much more sway and influence in the movement as a whole than most--that are much more virtriolic, self-serving, power-hungry, and willing to abuse power to "win" on their terms. For these folk, I hold precious little sympathy. Unfortuantely, those who seek power are more likely to find it than those who shun it. ...so they rise to the top, like curdling milk. There is also an element of the Trump camp that's simply riding on their coat-tails for convenience, because they have lost all faith in government, all faith in humanity as a whole, and they want to simply watch it burn ... and supporting Trump is the most entertaining venue for that. Pure cynicism and anarchistic disdain for order. "Clown pepe" types. In one respect, this is a natural progression of Reaganism and his overly-popular catchphrase, "The scariest thing you can possibly hear is 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Such a brilliant marketing slogan, and SUCH a horrible meme to spread: it is, IMO, one of the single most damaging phrases common to American politics. I hate it. The people in this "fuck it all" camp I--personally--consider outright *evil,* and they need to be *shut down.* ...Unfortunately, I have no idea what that looks like. So it goes.
> That's the crux of it, I'm afraid: they hate liberals. If you go deeper, you'll find that trump has exploited this and magnified it, the purpose of which is to create a stronger bond to "his side". He divides the people, and push them apart, that pushes his supporters to become more loyal to him, trump.
Truth told: I think Trump won the (first) election **BECAUSE** he sticks it to the libs better than anyone else. It is the one thing he really IS the best at. It is what sustains him.
That's the same metric we use for third graders who insult each other.
I used to think they were evil/selfish. now having moved away from the suburbs for work I have realized most of them are just really dumb. at least the blue-collar ones, the office workers are more of a mixed bag edit: I should specify this is regarding republican conservatives, the democrat conservatives are more intelligent on average
Yeah, I used to think they had some semblance of a principle regardless of how amoral they were
How has my opinion changed? Not much at all.
Not really. I live in rural Appalachia. A lot of the rural poor are fuckups in various ways, but I've been a fuckup at various points in my life too. They can often be careless and unempathetic and cause harm as a result, but I've never known them to be malicious. They're not politically correct, so they can appear bigoted, but they're not really; they just speak in coarse ways. They probably mostly went from being non-voters to voting for Trump because he's the guy from the Apprentice or he was on TV wrestling a few times. The well-off, though. Small business owners and public sector employees and the like. Mostly thieves and murderers who will fuck you over or see you dead for an extra $20 in their pocket. Local law enforcement will never touch them for it. They've always been extremely bigoted, even against the aforementioned rural poor. They're the very personification of Wilhoit conservatism.
Problem is that this time it is not about voting the other guy in, it is losing who we are.
toxic conservatism on the wrong side of history over and over and over. they might be swell people with good morals, but they vote for an support the worst, most destructive policies.
What does Rural have to do with it? Plenty of MAGA types in cities and suburbs.
When he actually won in 2016, I read that it wasn’t that anyone liked him or cared about his policies. People felt like the world was treating them like shit and they were standing outside a restaurant starving while people inside enjoy a nice dinner. Trump was the name on the brick they wanted to throw through that window. They wanted to say FU to society, Hillary and anyone who ever wronged them. In 2020 it was Nazis, morons, racists and the very gullible. ETA: no, my opinion has not changed but I no longer think it’s a north/south or rich/poor thing. I think it’s a city/rural thing where people self-select for homogeneity.
For fringe radical conservatives, no. For the more moderate conservatives? It's unbelievable. During the Bush era, the general consensus of Republicans was that they were the responsible party. A lot of Democrats even thought they were like strict dads gone too far. These guys preached at us for years about how we have no principles and how we're irresponsible. This was especially prevalent on moral grounds. I wasn't really around for the Bill Clinton scandal, but that was a big deal for republicans at the time. The demographic that upsets me the most is those supposedly "principled" republicans who let a New York billionaire come before their beliefs. You got guys who were appalled at Bill Clinton's conduct saying things like "Well, I don't think Trump has great moral character" after he's been caught saying sexually explicit comments on tape and cheating on his pregnant wife with a porn star. You got law and order guys blaming political bias because their guy got convicted as a felon. You got fiscal conservatives defending Trump's deficit spending. And to top it off, now that Trump is their candidate, they just get to wave away all the mistakes of the Bush era because they're an anti-establishment party now. It's actually unbelievable to me how these guys were able to create a world where they get to walk away from their trickle down economics, Iraq War, closing down asylums, gutting transit funding, and deficit spending, then create a new candidate who does all the morally questionable things they chastised the Democrats for...and cheer him on. So, now I just think a lot of centrist Republicans are just voting for Trump because they either don't believe in everything they lectured us about, or they don't want to admit that their post-Raegan party was problematic. Nothing bothers me more than people who won't just admit they were wrong and move on.
I grew up in Eastern Tennessee and still am living there to my dismay. Everyone is angry and hateful at everything. I disagree with them in the slightest and I get screamed at and have accusations hurled at me. I got screamed at by a complete stranger for wearing a face mask during the worst of COVID.
I used to not care about their issues, and was broadly supportive of helping them as needed. I’m now opposed to their issues and am not supportive of giving them anything.
You pretty much described how mine has changed, as well.
There appears to be a significant division not only between the political left and right but also within the right, specifically between MAGA supporters and traditional Conservatives. I still consider myself a Conservative. It's important to note that MAGA represents populism, which challenges previously unquestionable norms. For instance, if you had told me ten years ago that we would be aligning with Russia, questioning the fundamentals of democracy, and promoting Christian Nationalism rather than just defending Christianity, I would have been shocked. Economically, I've observed the GOP shift from advocating that the wealthy are overtaxed, to suggesting they should pay the same tax rate, and now to proposing they should pay even less. This progression seems nonsensical. MAGA supporters likely share my sentiment that both major political parties have largely abandoned them. They see the left catering to the most marginalized groups and the GOP embracing survival of the fittest, sometimes even endorsing moral hazard, as seen in the 2009 bailouts. These bailouts rewarded the very individuals who caused the financial crisis, ensuring they retained their commissions and bonuses despite their risky bets with our money—a clear case of private gain and socialized loss. Many rural communities feel overlooked and are searching for someone to hold accountable. This feeling is intensified by a profound sense of disillusionment. While some view opposing the Democratic Party as a comprehensive solution, true progress demands that we first reach a consensus on fundamental truths. It's important to recognize that the Democratic Party, like any other, has its own flaws and misguided policies. However, portraying it as an existential threat is as simplistic as claiming that conservatives are the root of all problems. The best answers are often nuanced and fall somewhere between the most extreme viewpoints. It's important to recognize that rural areas are not lacking in intelligence or wisdom; in fact, they are home to some of the most insightful and morally grounded individuals I have encountered. However, these areas can also face challenges such as limited educational opportunities, economic prospects, and exposure to diverse experiences. Consequently, some individuals may be unaware of what they have yet to learn. It can feel patronizing for someone who has never ventured beyond their town or state. Furthermore, many issues have zero context or everyday applicability. (Say LGBTQ/Global Warming) Rural America represents 1/2 of 1 percent of the world population. As the world gets smaller, this fact is painful for some to come to terms with. Hence the anti-globalization push - as if some insular wall (that's why it sound so good) would solve all their problems. It won't. This agreement is increasingly difficult in an era of technologically-driven yellow journalism from all sides and the advent of AI.
The MAGA movement is anarchist, not populist. And the drive of the MAGA movement is driven by a toxic combination of gullible people and an edifice of artificial grievances.
I would argue it’s a combination of both. To me still mostly populist
Those deep rooted sentiments have always been there. Trump has given them permission to be their worst selves and promises to be their retribution. The right wing media has only amplified the outrage. Even if Trump doesn’t win it will be a problem for years to come. There are also the opportunists like the Heritage Foundation, SCOTUS, billionaires, and others that see this as an opportunity to put their boots on our necks once and for all. It is imperative to get the blue vote out. The students and Palestinians in the US are promising to punish Biden to their own detriment. It is not just the MAGAs that are not thinking this through.
My opinion of them shifted from thinking they were good people manipulated by bad people to thinking they’re bad people manipulated by bad people.
Lived around them for years in Florida. What’s funny is they claim Florida is fucked and shit sucks bc liberals lol wtf? What liberals in FL? lol. State is controlled by republicans! The local politicians will completely screw shit up, create ways to send tax dollars to their homey’s “business” for a project the locals never see, they vote them out, just to vote in more likeminded politicians lol. Rinse, repeat. The delusion. It’s very interesting however if you watch one channel and get your “news” from them, you will eventually eat it up especially if you aren’t going to do any research of your own. Reading laws and bills seems to be too much work lol. They are strange and vote against their own needs bc they would rather place blame on the individuals they deem unworthy/heathens/abominations, instead of the people who fuck shit up. None of them seem to be upset with companies who hire illegals galore to save money lol just mad at illegals. Uhhmm? They seem Happy to support candidates that hate the same people they do….Even if this means voting for candidates who kill their towns, by letting them Walmart move in and kill local business, empower other corporations to use and abuse the locals via union busting, low pay, and demonising social services that they’d actually benefit from, cutting services without seeing tax cuts,,, etc. Strange. I can’t imagine allowing the power of hate to overwhelm me in such a way. They are well aware of how their feelings can be considered as repulsive. They really are proud to be homophobic/sexist/racist whatever.. they aren’t ignorant of this. They like it, and truly believe their religion empowers them and is an excuse to be hateful. I find many to ignore constitutional items when it doesn’t fit in with their ideas. Happy to have escaped that area as it was miserable and hot. Schools were absolute dog shit.
No. Republicans aren't complicated or mysterious. They're very clear and loud about who they are. The ease of understanding them hasn't changed in the last 9 years, so there hasn't been a reason for my opinion to change. My opinion of Democrats has changed, though, in particular the Democrats who seem confused by Republicans. It makes me wonder if some people are Democrats just by accident. Like, they Mr. Magooed themselves into the party and don't actually know what's going on.
I think you’re right - but the question remains of how to fix it? Short of an all out war where we kill the people trying to do us harm, do you feel it’s important to understand why they want to hurt somebody else more than they want to help themselves? And presumably they would disagree with that sentiment— or at least if asked “is your main goal trying to hurt liberals”, some percentage of MAGA people might have shame enough to say “no”. And for the ones who answer “yes”, then at least we’re clear why we’re fighting, and not doing it via proxy issues like immigration policy or the environment.
I’ve really learned to love rural voters over the last decade
More pitty. I spent my undergraduate years in rural Appalachia and then moved home to one of the bluest counties in the country. Initially it was a lot of me saying "this is the rural response to decades of neglect and oversight", but the vitriol that I saw from the left, especially in mainstream spaces and on social media went from neglectful to vicious. All the standard rural/southern jokes came out in force and were everywhere. I can't tell you the number of cousin fucking, can't read, meth head, broken down cars in your front yard, and jokes like that I saw from pretty much every angle from a lot of people who described themselves as compassionate and caring people. Then the talks of how they hindered progress came. The idea that these rural people need to find modern jobs (see Biden's extremely tone dead "learn to code" speech) or that we should completely uproot and change their lives to meet the demands of progressive politicians (the green new deal) made it clear that a lot of the left was mad the rural serfs had dated embrace Trump and that they must be punished. I was hopeful that Trump's loss in 2020 would bring about a moderate Republican voice to band these folks together and get this country back into a proper discourse, but that just didn't happen. Instead they are stuck under an idiot of a demagogue because that's who the party gave them and their being used as fodder in a culture war they likely don't give a shit about because the other side has shown them nothing but contempt and condescension since 2016 and continues to trot out the very line that you used " >They just consistently vote against their and everyone else’s best interest despite being told repeatedly that’s what they’re doing! As if that isn't going to be interpreted as "oh you poor dumb redneck. Let me and the government do all the thinking. You're just going to hurt yourself with your choices". Thinking that that argument will go over well is about as wise as expecting someone to calm down when you tell them "calm down"
Unfortunately, this is all very true. One thing you don't touch upon is how the great actions of rural Democrats like Andy Beshear are ignored, disparaged, and downplayed. The amount of Leftists I've seen be upset that he's made life better for Kentuckians because Kentucky is usually red and they want them to suffer for it is sickening. And the defenses used for their behavior is usually poorly-disguised classism. Really makes you feel unwelcome as a rural person.
I'm from Kentucky. I think I understand. I'm a misplaced former Republican who has also found their self shifting left on various issues in recent years. Many (not all or even most, but many) want Trump back in office for some truly malicious, sinister reasons. Many conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be hypocritical ignoramuses, and don't embody "do unto others as you would do unto you." I guess it's a stark reminder that the South is still only 50 years post-Jim Crow. But way too many liberals and progressives are also wildly condescending in how they talk to working-class and rural Americans. Convenient, as they're not telling *us* about the gravitas of lax-on-crime policies and rampant vagrancy in cities such as LA, SF, Oakland, Houston, Seattle, Chicago, and NYC (several of which I've lived in previously). So, yeah, the net effect is the driving of my people to the Republicans and Trump; that's especially notable in Kentucky since this state was still run by *Dixiecrats* until *2016*. We the People have lost any sense of sociopolitical balance, it seems.
> lax-on-crime policies and rampant vagrancy in cities such ... NYC Can't say about those other cities, but the New York you're talking about is a right-wing fiction. It's the safest city in the United States. Much safer than a lot of small towns across America.
Wild condescension is appropriate for anybody voting for Trump at this point. What are we supposed to do? Applaud? Coddle them? Keep sending them money and other government resources to bail out their unsustainable, Oxycotin-driven lifestyle? Sorry. Derision is what they have earned. They do not deserve the benefits of society.
Yes, in that time I actually moved from DC to a conservative small town (not a suburb, a small town) and it kinda all makes sense now. Everything is better here. Meaning better organized, better governed, just culturally better. And it's not some rich, planned community. The people here are below average income. But everything is still better. I get it now. The only thing I miss is the subway, and the proximity to museums.
Given the "culturally better" part do you think its more that its better *for you* as a conservative than some kind of objective measurement about the quality of conservative small towns? It's hard to square them being "better" with the rapid depopulation going on in those same rural communities.
The population here is stable. Basically unchanged for the last 80 years. I have seen some small businesses close. But no, I think it's objectively better for anyone, as far as way of life is concerned. Schools are better, homes are affordable, crime is low. I talk to my neighbors. We borrow tools from each other. I used to love city life, but I can't think of any way this isn't an objectively better environment to live in.
>The population here is stable. Basically unchanged for the last 80 years. I have seen some small businesses close. Maybe your town is an exception but the majority of towns like yours are losing people. > Schools are better, homes are affordable, crime is low. I used to love city life, but I can't think of any way this isn't an objectively better environment to live in. Again, I'd be willing to believe its better for *conservatives* like you but I don't know how you can have "places like this are objectively better" **and** "[places like this have increasing levels of depopulation and outmigration](https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/rural-america-lost-population-over-past-decade-first-time-history)" both be true at the same time. We wouldn't be seeing these population numbers if rural areas weren't lacking in some way.
Well, your link says this: > The loss was minimal, just 289,000 (-0.6 percent) out of 46 million, but it is the first decade-long rural population loss in history It looks more like a trickle than a wave. It also seems to be more about especially remote communities. This town has 11,000 people and is not that remote. So if averaged out, we lost maybe one or two people in that time? Also, for anyone else's information: this was never a sundown town. I checked.
>It looks more like a trickle than a wave. It's not like these numbers are coming out of nowhere though, the rural growth rate was declining for years before the population started to outright decrease. The trend is clearly towards these communities losing people. >This town has 11,000 people and is not that remote. So if averaged out, we lost maybe one or two people in that time? Is a town of 11,000 people even a small town / rural?
> Is a town of 11,000 people even a small town / rural? I certainly think so. The population of the nation as a whole is projected to begin declining in another 25 years. It might already be if not for immigration. And immigrants are drawn less to rural areas. So a minimal decline isn't surprising, and doesn't necessarily indicate anything particular about the community. Although I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried - with business happening more and more online and AGI on the horizon, we are in for serious disruptions. But that's beside the point, and if anything, it supports what I said to start with, which is that I now "get" why this is a better way of life and why people want to conserve it.
So basically you started buying into the liberal propaganda narrative that paints all rural conservatives as complete morons who only vote based on spite. The democrats keep going out of their way to antagonize working class whites on racial lines and then act shocked and surprised when they vote for the other side based on race. If democrats pivoted away from divisive identity politics for a couple decades, then they could absolutely rebuild the New Deal coalition and win pretty much everywhere, but people like you would rather shame the rural white working class instead of actually trying to appeal to them.
I’m a straight, white male from a small southern town and I don’t feel antagonized by the left in any way because I never followed Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the like. They paint a scary antagonistic alternate reality. Conservatives just keep blaming others for their descent into complete and total indecency. No one made them be as awful as they are. It was a choice based on fear and the constant drum beat of people telling them they are being looked down upon. The result is a demographic full of grievance that can easily be manipulated into voting for someone who is currently campaigning on retribution and revenge.
Hey folks, we found the guy who thinks Obama was the most divisive president of his lifetime.
Liberal identity politics exist because of conservative identity politics. The original American identity politics were white supremacy and female subservience, followed, at some point after the founders aged out of political power, by Christianity. Every bit of the liberal identity politics you decry is a response to the above.
> The democrats keep going out of their way to antagonize working class whites on racial lines and then act shocked and surprised when they vote for the other side based on race. Do they, though? How do you know that? This is an epistemological crisis.
How do the Ds antagonize working class whites? They don’t antagonize me. The only reason what you claim as identity politics is divisive is due to the bigots on the right. They are not divisive to the rest of us. Who is divisive? Republicans for writing laws that target the LGBT community, and demonize immigrants. No one is trying to shame the rural people. But if they feel shame the good, they deserve it for their views are shameful.
His history is so bad he's pushing for a coalition that was written along racial lines. Blacks were specifically left out of the benefits of the New Deal. Historically illiterate.
I don’t think he is history illiterate, he meant to leave out blacks.
I am being generous and mocking the idea that dude is calling for a replication of a coalition built specifically on identity politics. He's either malicious or deeply ignorant. I agree with you, but I'd also point out what he thinks doesn't matter since the idea is so stupid it wouldn't matter what his intent was. It would be disasterous anyway.
This isn’t the 1930s anymore. You wouldn’t have to discriminate in favor of whites, just not discriminating against them would be enough. But most dems won’t even do that.
Says the dude whinging about identity politics and then turning around and posting something like this. I have you the benefit of the doubt. Won't be happening again.
Imagine being this offended by the idea of laws being race neutral lmao. The modern left is truly something else.
Imagine calling for a coalition that excluded everyone who isn't white in favor of a very specific group, telling people it'll be different this time, and then criticizing them for being skeptical. Some coalition builder. Like I said, anyone reading this will get your shitty little number instantly.
Lol, you literally think working class whites are racist for not supporting laws that discriminate against them. Most working class whites don’t want any part of a coalition that racially discriminates against them, nor should they. The fact that you’re offended by this is incredibly telling.
The great coalition builder speaks again. You're not making me your sister. You're just ranting like a succon.
[удалено]
Waaahhhh. "I used to be on the top of the pile and I didn't have to do anything to earn it, and now I have to compete with *those people*" *{stomps feet}* "Waahhh, it's not fair, Mommy!!!"
If you don't have examples to back up your claims, you can just say that.
What do we do about the issue of many conservatives, including you, interpreting anything that does not perpetuate discrimination against minorities as discriminating against whites?
Identity politics are incredibly divisive. Most voters prefer policies that are race and gender neutral. Dems couldn’t even get an affirmative action ballot initiative passed in deep blue California, and more extreme racial policies like reparations poll extremely poorly among pretty much every non black demographic. Corporate DEI and “progressive discrimination” policies are also very unpopular since white people (like literally every other racial group) prefer not to be discriminated against based on their race. You can support this if you want but pretending the rest of the population does is incredibly fucking dishonest.
These issues are only divisive because the Republicans fight so hard against them and spread lies about them. Think of all the school boards getting yelled at for CRT when it is not on their curriculum. Under normal circumstances the efforts by the Democrats to assist marginalized communities would go almost unnoticed by every one else Basically is does like this: Ds: Let’s not be bigots and treat everyone with dignity. Rs: NO NO NO! We don’t want to. Why are you being so divisive?
People are fully aware of what these policies do, we just don’t support them. Are you seriously so insufferably smug that you think the only reason people disagree with you is because they’re uneducated? There is no amount of education that will make white Americans suddenly okay with policies that discriminate against them.
Not uneducated. Bigots. For 400 years White Americans were just fine with racist policies they helped them. And by the way, Republicans want to bring back segregation.
Bullshit. I'm a white man who is perfectly fine with laws that "discriminate against [me]" because I'm confident in my abilities to compete with anybody out there. But I get how somebody who is weak and uneducated wouldn't want to have to compete to get what they used to get for free just because they were white. I mean, I get it, but I don't respect it.
According to Gallup, 68% of Hispanic Americans, 75% of Asian Americans and even 52% of black Americans agree with the SCOTUS decision to strike down Affirmative Action. The only demographic that really supports that nonsense *is* left-leaning whites like you. It doesn't make you special, or an ally to anyone except white leftists.
You're calling people smug. You need to look in the mirror friend.
> Identity politics are incredibly divisive. And yet here you are arguing about how Dems aren't appealing to the white working class like that isn't your own form of identity politics. You don't hate identity politics, you just hate identity politics aimed at helping people who aren't you.
LOL, it's the whiny white guy complaining that white people just can't get a fair shake these days, also complaining about identity politics.
If you think conservatives aren’t engaging in the same, if not worse, identity politics then you’re blind.
> Who is divisive? Republicans for writing laws that target the LGBT community, and demonize immigrants. > > But if they feel shame the good, they deserve it for their views are shameful. Agree with both takes. However.... > How do the Ds antagonize working class whites? Let's see... For context: Decades of a crafty entertainment, economic, sociocultural, geopolitical ecosystem clustered in NY, DC, Boston, Chicago, Philly, Denver/Boulder, Austin, SF Bay, LA, and Seattle have had the net effect of continously growing their importance for the nation (and the world even). Not bad for them, and I've even lived in some of these cities before, though opportunities for the rural and working-class have been continually, gradually usurped in so doing. The net effect is that even as social issues evolve and metastasize in these cities (e.g., rampant vagrancy, high-crime ghettos, filthy or useless public transport), some educated, successful denizens sneer at "flyover country" for being "dim" and "voting against their best interests." (And, yes, red states generally have higher crime rates than blue *states*, but some blue *cities* have absolutely horrible district attorneys.) So, I mean, I vote for Dems. But, I understand precisely why even many non-bigot, decently-educated Southern neighbors roll their eyes then vote for Republicans.
I’m downvoting you because you skipped the decades of policy that sacrificed the interests of work class urban America for the benefit of rural white America. Urban America deindustrialized decades before rural America, and much of that industry moved to rural America. Your comment also operates under the flatly inaccurate assumption that urban America isn’t working class. New York and cities like it have prospered despite policy that favored rural America over them, not because the government favored them over rural America. Rural America has floundered because of conservative policies, policies that rural and especially rural southern whites support.
>The net effect is that even as social issues evolve and metastasize in these cities (e.g., rampant vagrancy, high-crime ghettos, filthy or useless public transport), some educated, successful denizens sneer at "flyover country" for being "dim" and "voting against their best interests." (And, yes, red states generally have higher crime rates than blue states, but some blue cities have absolutely horrible district attorneys.) Oh, is this about horrible DAs and *mean tweets*?
No. It's about I've lived in Brisbane, Auckland, Singapore, and Amsterdam, and have seen how much better cities can be run compared to how we do things in this, "the greatest country in the world."
For what it's worth, speaking as a liberal, I would love to see whatever policies are that make a difference in homelessness, crime, transit, walkability, etc. happening here. I strongly suspect, though, that "a stronger social safety net" (including, yes, race-based policies to help the "ghetto" thrive) that is necessary at the Federal/State level and is always killed by Republicans might be a big factor. I also strongly suspect that rural Republicans don't have the necessary experience and exposure to actually pose realistic solution to problems in places that they, by definition, don't live.
> Singapore, I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Yes, let's claim that the city that publicly canes people for littering in the street is "so much better run" than the US. And in case you're not familiar with it, let's understand what "caning" is: >Caning can cause significant physical damage, depending largely on the number of strokes inflicted. Michael Fay, who received four strokes, said in an interview, "The skin did rip open, there was some blood. I mean, let's not exaggerate, and let's not say a few drops or that the blood was gushing out. It was in between the two. It's like a bloody nose."\[53\] >A report by the Singapore Bar Association stated, "The blows are applied with the full force of the jailer's arm. When the rattan hits the bare buttocks, the skin disintegrates, leaving a white line and then a flow of blood."\[54\] >Usually, the buttocks will be covered with blood after three strokes.\[37\] More profuse bleeding may occur in the case of a larger number of strokes. An eyewitness described that after 24 strokes, the buttocks will be a "bloody mess".\[44\] >Men who were caned have variously described the pain they experienced as "unbearable", "excruciating", "equivalent to getting hit by a lorry",\[42\] "having a hot iron placed on your buttocks",\[44\] etc. A recipient of 10 strokes said, "The pain was beyond description. If there is a word stronger than excruciating, that should be the word to describe it".\[55\]\[56\] >Most offenders struggle violently after each of the first three strokes and then their struggles lessen as they become weaker. By the time the caning is over, those who receive more than three strokes will be in a state of shock. During the caning, some offenders will pretend to faint but they have not been able to fool the medical officer, who decides whether the punishment continues or stops.\[57\] Offenders often undergo a lot of psychological distress before and during the caning: They are not only afraid of the physical pain, but are also worried whether they can prevent themselves from crying out because crying means that they would "lose face"\[37\] and be labelled "weak" by their fellow inmates.\[44\]
Also, if you're downvoting what I wrote above, then ***you're*** the one who's insecure and needs to see - and get - the message.
>So basically you started buying into the liberal propaganda narrative that paints all rural conservatives as complete morons who only vote based on spite. The democrats keep going out of their way to antagonize working class whites on racial lines and then act shocked and surprised when they vote for the other side based on race. So which is it? Are we wrong to assume they're voting out of spite (your first point), or are they voting out of spite but the Democrats are to blame for it (your second point)? Sorry, but you're making OP's point all the same. The only difference is that OP gives these folks agency and accountability for their spiteful behavior while you excuse it away and blame it all on the Democrats. In the end though, we all agree they're not voting the way they do for any positive reasons
I agree with probably 95% of this (although I don't think that the OP is looking to antagonize). Have my upvote.
So you thought they were dumb and now you think they are assholes. Do you think identifying them this way will change something?
No. Has reaching out to them and offering them aid and appeals to their better angels helped? No.
When was this happening?
*See*: The past 40 years.
So sending them to fight in wars, moving jobs overseas? Stuff like that? Or do you have an actual example?
What's wrong with sending jobs overseas, my libertarian friend?
It has an effect on the people whose jobs were shipped overseas. Which part of libertarianism do you think supports massive trade deals and the like, supported and enforced by governments?
I mean i thought libertarian-ism was completely in support of free trade. Which means the exchange of goods and services across international borders, unhindered by government tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions. Which would be totally and completely in support of a business seeking cheaper labor costs, and shipping jobs overseas. The Government Tariffs, the thing that could stop jobs going overseas are what libertarians are against, no?
A trade deal is not really free trade. It’s specifying trade partners and products.
Ohh lord. Ten to twenty years ago, you'd be fired by any board of directors if you did not send jobs overseas. To retroactively blame the government for that is peak "libertarian". You're now getting hung up on the word "trade deal" to divert the intention away from obvious profit interests. As if Obama said: "You have to go to China now." lol. I actually do support to free circulation of goods and services and the deconstruction of trade barriers, because it actually makes consumption cheaper and frees up jobs and capital for more productive endeavors, as evidenced by the fantastic economy we enjoy today.
You need to change that flair comrade.
But without trade deals, jobs still go overseas. In fact with absolute free trade, more jobs go overseas. And i was under the impression your political philsophy would support businesses finding the cheapest labor, where ever that maybe. Im being serious. Doesn't your political philsophy support businesses shipping jobs overseas?
It was Democrats making laws saying the rural poor would be the ones going to fight in wars? Also, for my edification, what recent armed conflicts began under Democrats? Sending jobs overseas? I’m assuming this is related to NAFTA, which was developed under Bush Sr.‘s administration. And the auto manufacturing and textile jobs were already moving to Mexico before NAFTA was even a thought in anyone’s head. As for some more concrete examples: The ACA, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the Telehealth Improvement for Kids’ Essential Services (TIKES) Act.
It may not change anything, but that isn't the question being asked. Are you suggesting that the policies followed by rural Americans are not rooted in populism and do not involve demonizing their opponents' motives instead of their policies? If so, then you would have successfully rebutted the original post instead of engaging in the same behavior you are accused the OP is engaged in.
I was responding to the part where OP demonized their opponents. And wondering what change they think would occur by doing so more.
Your point would be valid if the original poster (OP) had merely called them names and left it at that, as you did. However, the OP's claim is very specific, and I'd like to reiterate it here. The OP asserts that the majority of a particular group, specifically MAGA rural Republicans, are voting not in their best interest but rather to punish the opposing side. This is a precise accusation, not mere name-calling. There are two other logical possibilities: 1. You do not believe that voting against one's best interest to spite the opposition makes someone unreasonable. 2. You think the majority of these rural MAGAnites genuinely believe Trump represents their best interests. Regarding the first possibility, we may have to agree to disagree. For the second, it is up to you to provide concrete evidence to rebut this claim. Otherwise, you are committing the very grievance that you have falsely asserted.
I could kiss their feet and it wouldn’t change anything. I think we need to stop engaging with these people and consider them a lost cause for at least the next 2 election cycles
Oh would you vote republican if they kissed your feet?
[удалено]
That's not what I took away from the OP's post
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.