Two reviews of the new White Rural Rage by Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman
March 7, 2024 5:30 PM Subscribe
In the Washington Monthly, How to End Republican Exploitation of Rural America and in the Washington Post, this book about Trump voters goes for the jugular.
(gift link)
From the latter review:
From the latter review:
Maybe it starts with the preferred status rural Americans have long enjoyed as the country's "real" Americans. It's not coastal elites who think they are better than everyone else, but heartlanders.
From the WaPo article (link breaks & emphasis added):posted by spamandkimchi at 5:54 PM on March 7 [8 favorites]
I do get rural rage to an extent. I've been neck deep in Small Town Texas for several months now. A lot of these places are visibly dying and decaying, with main street being the only street, and more than half the stores there closed and abandoned. Some of them don't have their own library. The only public art is a memorial to people killed in the wars. There's a zero reason any kids would want to stay here unless they truly want to be a farmer or something. Most of them have at least three churches. I can somewhat understand how the perceived obsessions of the left, presented through Non-Stop and intense propaganda, isn't their priority in the slightest.
But unfortunately instead of learning and opening their minds, they retreat into fantasies of the glorious past, where they were fully on top and didn't have to worry about being racist or bigoted. If everyone is hateful then you don't stand out. If the culture advocates for putting people down, it's easy to know how to fit in. They retreat to the simple answers of hate, that it's all somebody else's fault
posted by Jacen at 6:32 PM on March 7 [28 favorites]
But unfortunately instead of learning and opening their minds, they retreat into fantasies of the glorious past, where they were fully on top and didn't have to worry about being racist or bigoted. If everyone is hateful then you don't stand out. If the culture advocates for putting people down, it's easy to know how to fit in. They retreat to the simple answers of hate, that it's all somebody else's fault
posted by Jacen at 6:32 PM on March 7 [28 favorites]
Rural whites are far more easily influenced by media. Cable and broadcast TV came around to them less than two generations ago. AM barn radio was going strong, and political operatives knew this, and in the 1980's politics slowly replaced the local preachers who raved about doom and gloom. The preachers typically took a headline, such as an earthquake, and claimed that the victims deserved it because of sin. This was a firmly established "news" genre for dramatic effect. This reached its absurdity level at some point, but was replaced by politically partisan doomsayers, such as Rush Limbaugh, who did the exact same thing, though claiming crime and bad economic times on non-traditional or non-devout candidates.
posted by Brian B. at 7:44 PM on March 7 [4 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 7:44 PM on March 7 [4 favorites]
Took me a little while to work out where I'd seen Paul Waldman's face before.
posted by flabdablet at 11:08 PM on March 7 [3 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 11:08 PM on March 7 [3 favorites]
It's odd that it's taking this long for people to understand rural conservatives--and, of course, they're still very misunderstood more generally. The salt of the earth, sitting at their diner counter quaking with economic anxiety, waiting for an NYT reporter to show up to explain their plight to.
The key would have been to ask their victims what they're like. The kids who couldn't get away fast enough--too gay, too smart, too something to fit into this suffocating and sadistic culture. "Say, what's it like to live with people who make a bloodsport of tormenting anyone even slightly different?"
The rural anxiety is not primarily economic, it is the nagging fear that somewhere, someone in the world thinks they are better than you. "Why do they vote against their own interests?" Crushing your enemies is an interest. It's why culture war is always more popular than policy debates.
Anyway, what I was really coming in to say was that I look forward to reading this book, and by "look forward to" I kinda also mean "dread."
posted by mittens at 5:34 AM on March 8 [38 favorites]
The key would have been to ask their victims what they're like. The kids who couldn't get away fast enough--too gay, too smart, too something to fit into this suffocating and sadistic culture. "Say, what's it like to live with people who make a bloodsport of tormenting anyone even slightly different?"
The rural anxiety is not primarily economic, it is the nagging fear that somewhere, someone in the world thinks they are better than you. "Why do they vote against their own interests?" Crushing your enemies is an interest. It's why culture war is always more popular than policy debates.
Anyway, what I was really coming in to say was that I look forward to reading this book, and by "look forward to" I kinda also mean "dread."
posted by mittens at 5:34 AM on March 8 [38 favorites]
I live in a rural conservative area (Canada tho, not the US... but we're not in that different of a position, imo). It's where I grew up and where, after moving around a lot, wound up calling home again.
I'd probably fall into the "too smart" or "too something (weird, left, nerdy)" categories that mittens proposes.
I can say in my experience I think I've come to the conclusion that the rural conservative mindset is incredibly rooted in this belief of the "one day this too shall be yours" promise that rich white wealthy people pass down to the poor white working class while dangling the husk of the white middle class in front of them as the carrot (but also effigy because don't you dare make a comfortable living because then you too are the problem along with unions, wokeness, [insert strawman here]). The myth of scarcity is truly believed, so giving anything to "anyone else" means "less for us." Everyone is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. They are victims of the same grift as anyone, but also act as the tools to perpetuate that grift... because one day the grift might pay off but they stubbornly refuse to see that the grifters have no intention of cutting them in.
And it's a grift that goes back to colonization. It's really what our respective countries are built on.
So the turkeys continue to vote for Thanksgiving, and then wonder why they can't have nice things. It's incredibly frustrating and disheartening. (Especially when you work for a public service that helps these very people and the budget just got cut).
Anyway, that's my sad rant. I get why people are angry at the people who live in places like where I live. I get why they want to paint them as the villain. And they aren't really wrong. But I think the real truth is even sadder than all that. And it's just bad for everyone and everything.
posted by eekernohan at 6:10 AM on March 8 [13 favorites]
I'd probably fall into the "too smart" or "too something (weird, left, nerdy)" categories that mittens proposes.
I can say in my experience I think I've come to the conclusion that the rural conservative mindset is incredibly rooted in this belief of the "one day this too shall be yours" promise that rich white wealthy people pass down to the poor white working class while dangling the husk of the white middle class in front of them as the carrot (but also effigy because don't you dare make a comfortable living because then you too are the problem along with unions, wokeness, [insert strawman here]). The myth of scarcity is truly believed, so giving anything to "anyone else" means "less for us." Everyone is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. They are victims of the same grift as anyone, but also act as the tools to perpetuate that grift... because one day the grift might pay off but they stubbornly refuse to see that the grifters have no intention of cutting them in.
And it's a grift that goes back to colonization. It's really what our respective countries are built on.
So the turkeys continue to vote for Thanksgiving, and then wonder why they can't have nice things. It's incredibly frustrating and disheartening. (Especially when you work for a public service that helps these very people and the budget just got cut).
Anyway, that's my sad rant. I get why people are angry at the people who live in places like where I live. I get why they want to paint them as the villain. And they aren't really wrong. But I think the real truth is even sadder than all that. And it's just bad for everyone and everything.
posted by eekernohan at 6:10 AM on March 8 [13 favorites]
We take the culture part of culture war seriously... Culture is uplifting and hopefully liberating and inclusive. It expands.
They take the war part seriously, and war is anything but uplifting. It destroys and ruins. It denies opportunity and freedom. All sorts of sacrifices are justified in war..... Hopefully the 'enemy' sacrifices and loses more, because that's how wars are 'won'.
And of course war gives the brilliant opportunity to define patriotism as jingoist. If you're not exactly like me, you're Patrioting wrong. And thus, an enemy and traitor to the Cause. More justification for the hate and bigotry. They didn't start the war after all. 🙄🙄🙄🙄 If only people knew their place and didn't rock the boat.....
posted by Jacen at 6:24 AM on March 8 [4 favorites]
They take the war part seriously, and war is anything but uplifting. It destroys and ruins. It denies opportunity and freedom. All sorts of sacrifices are justified in war..... Hopefully the 'enemy' sacrifices and loses more, because that's how wars are 'won'.
And of course war gives the brilliant opportunity to define patriotism as jingoist. If you're not exactly like me, you're Patrioting wrong. And thus, an enemy and traitor to the Cause. More justification for the hate and bigotry. They didn't start the war after all. 🙄🙄🙄🙄 If only people knew their place and didn't rock the boat.....
posted by Jacen at 6:24 AM on March 8 [4 favorites]
Remember it hasn't always been this way. The Populist Party in the late 1800s was supported by farmers (except in the South, for fear of giving Blacks too much power). Their plank included things like: a graduated income tax, government ownership of the railroads, a tariff for revenue only, the direct election of U.S. senators, and other measures designed to strengthen political democracy and give the farmers economic parity with business and industry.
In the 1920s there was a Farm/Labor coalition with strong Socialist links.
It is economics that drives their discontent. What's different in our era is that they don't see the liberal party as spring their interests, and especially for the past 30-40 years, they're right. (The conservative party hasn't either, but that's another issue. Trump isn't a conservative.)
The corporatization of the food industry has made farmers more like gig workers, only with much higher investment requirements, and industrial farming has reduced the amount to labor required so the population has shrunk. We need a farm policy that's not rooted in the past.
Of course, this matters to the non-rural population because our political system, House, Senate, and Electoral College is biased toward the rural states.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:37 AM on March 8 [8 favorites]
In the 1920s there was a Farm/Labor coalition with strong Socialist links.
It is economics that drives their discontent. What's different in our era is that they don't see the liberal party as spring their interests, and especially for the past 30-40 years, they're right. (The conservative party hasn't either, but that's another issue. Trump isn't a conservative.)
The corporatization of the food industry has made farmers more like gig workers, only with much higher investment requirements, and industrial farming has reduced the amount to labor required so the population has shrunk. We need a farm policy that's not rooted in the past.
Of course, this matters to the non-rural population because our political system, House, Senate, and Electoral College is biased toward the rural states.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:37 AM on March 8 [8 favorites]
Everything I have heard about this book is that it is complete shit. Like how do you blame poor rural people for their problems?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:26 AM on March 8 [3 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:26 AM on March 8 [3 favorites]
Like how do you blame poor rural people for their problems?
Not blaming them for their problems; blaming them for their absolutely maladaptive response to those problems. They've driven away, for like six generations now, anyone bookish, anyone ambitious beyond being the biggest poo-throwing ape in a tiny pond, anyone who didn't 100% fit in. Think of it as evolution in action. There's nobody there to point out how absolutely dumb and false the propaganda they're steeped in really is.
You'd want to think a Democrat could approach them and say, "look, here are all these ways in which your communities could be helped by less shitty policies", but these people would literally set themselves on fire rather than have to share with black people. The cruelty has always been the point. I'd like to think that hypothetical Democrat would at least move the needle, such that 10-15% of those white rural people might change. This would actually make a tremendous difference in state and national elections.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:45 AM on March 8 [29 favorites]
Not blaming them for their problems; blaming them for their absolutely maladaptive response to those problems. They've driven away, for like six generations now, anyone bookish, anyone ambitious beyond being the biggest poo-throwing ape in a tiny pond, anyone who didn't 100% fit in. Think of it as evolution in action. There's nobody there to point out how absolutely dumb and false the propaganda they're steeped in really is.
You'd want to think a Democrat could approach them and say, "look, here are all these ways in which your communities could be helped by less shitty policies", but these people would literally set themselves on fire rather than have to share with black people. The cruelty has always been the point. I'd like to think that hypothetical Democrat would at least move the needle, such that 10-15% of those white rural people might change. This would actually make a tremendous difference in state and national elections.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:45 AM on March 8 [29 favorites]
It is economics that drives their discontent
In particular, it's the specific kind of unfettered, inequality boosting, low top marginal tax rate, deregulated Chicago school economics that saw widespread outbreaks in the Thatcher/Reagan era and has since metastasised and reached stage 4.
The thing I cannot wrap my head around, and not for lack of trying, is how so many people with good reason to resent the depredations inflicted on them by smarmy rich city fucks have latched onto the most egregiously smarmy example of that breed and hailed him as their champion. This makes no sense to me unless I allow myself to make the assumption that regardless of their particular economic circumstances, every single one of TFG's devoted fans is at heart an ineducable, irredeemably gullible rube.
James O'Brien has often observed that contempt should be reserved for the con artist rather than the marks, but at this point I can simply no longer find it within myself not to feel contempt for this fascism-enabling rabble. If in 2024 you support TFG for any reason then you are a massive fuckwit, you will always be a massive fuckwit, and there is fuck-all that can be done about that.
how do you blame poor rural people for their problems?
I don't blame them for most of their problems. Only the self-inflicted ones.
posted by flabdablet at 7:50 AM on March 8 [12 favorites]
In particular, it's the specific kind of unfettered, inequality boosting, low top marginal tax rate, deregulated Chicago school economics that saw widespread outbreaks in the Thatcher/Reagan era and has since metastasised and reached stage 4.
The thing I cannot wrap my head around, and not for lack of trying, is how so many people with good reason to resent the depredations inflicted on them by smarmy rich city fucks have latched onto the most egregiously smarmy example of that breed and hailed him as their champion. This makes no sense to me unless I allow myself to make the assumption that regardless of their particular economic circumstances, every single one of TFG's devoted fans is at heart an ineducable, irredeemably gullible rube.
James O'Brien has often observed that contempt should be reserved for the con artist rather than the marks, but at this point I can simply no longer find it within myself not to feel contempt for this fascism-enabling rabble. If in 2024 you support TFG for any reason then you are a massive fuckwit, you will always be a massive fuckwit, and there is fuck-all that can be done about that.
how do you blame poor rural people for their problems?
I don't blame them for most of their problems. Only the self-inflicted ones.
posted by flabdablet at 7:50 AM on March 8 [12 favorites]
The thing I cannot wrap my head around, and not for lack of trying, is how so many people with good reason to resent the depredations inflicted on them by smarmy rich city fucks have latched onto the most egregiously smarmy example of that breed and hailed him as their champion.
[raises hand] Ooh! Ooh! I know. It's because he's a powerful person who is as openly hateful, racist, misogynist and cruel as they are, and can actually do something to hurt large groups of people. The cruelty is always the point.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:53 AM on March 8 [10 favorites]
[raises hand] Ooh! Ooh! I know. It's because he's a powerful person who is as openly hateful, racist, misogynist and cruel as they are, and can actually do something to hurt large groups of people. The cruelty is always the point.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:53 AM on March 8 [10 favorites]
RANT:
I don't know about the book itself - I'll have to check that out. But so many points ring hollow. Pickup trucks are the #1, 2 and 3 best selling vehicles in the US, and have been for decades. They aren't an indicator of 'rural'. If anything, they are another thing that's been 'appropriated', but not really because again the US is mostly not rural.
Also, federal government rural policies are terrible. It's 'school' and 'infrastructure', but only certain infrastructure like highways, which are generally expanded, which doesn't help rural people (or urban people). It mostly hurts them. It has nothing to help maintain all those old (closed) commercial buildings, which were built a long time ago and are functionally obsolete, but nobody rural can afford to fix them up. Any new stuff is farther up the highway, where the land is cheaper. A federal expenditure to get rid of asbestos or replace old wiring would be an example of something far more valuable.
And 'school' generally equals capital expenditures (often for administration or security), not things like more or better teachers (where better = more experienced - I had so many rookie teachers growing up in a rural environment). Nicer buildings are fine, but they don't equal better educations.
Also, there is a lot of grief if a town grows by adding minorities, but if a town dries up and blows away? Nobody really cares that much. There's a thread above about shrinking the population - there are multiple cities and rural areas living through that. It's not great.
Also crime stats are complete abstractions and not really comparable across municipalities - they can be reported differently (or not at all) for various regions, so making sweeping generalizations like 'Oklahoma is more dangerous than NYC" is basically meaningless even if it is true. Like 6 murders per 100k people vs 4 is functionally meaningless to your average citizen, and 400 vs 250 violent crime events per 100k people is too.
I think it does make a point that Democrats have basically abandoned rural areas, even if the Republicans who haven't don't do anything of value for them.
I think Democratic policies are great - but they are great for marginal people, and if your city has $200k in Federal funds to drop to make a sidewalk ADA compliant or turn school bathrooms unisex to help a few marginal people while charging everyone else more money for basic services - I can understand how that can anger people even if I see the value in helping marginalized people. And how they can easily claim they just want to be left alone from federal policy, especially when they have to compete for federal funds and can't hire fancy consultants to get the money.
I also think the policies recommended are terrible. There is no high school level educational gap betweeen urban and rural areas. There are clear income-based gaps, regardless of metro size. There are college-level educationcal attainment gaps, but I know that Democrats are not recommending opening new colleges in small towns. See point above about schools.
Access to medical care is mentioned as well, and there are notable median age gaps between urban and rural areas, but they are less than 2 years. urban vs rural health outcomes
Are they things hospital access can fix? I'm not sure...there is a big gap in 'unintentional injuries' contribuing to the age divide. Hospital access might partially solve that.
Third mentioned is broadband. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure slightly faster internet would help anything in rural areas, unless you consider 'the internet' to be an unalloyed good, which it most defintitely is not. Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, 'enshitificaiton', these are what you want to supply to rural areas. You have been able to order stuff over the phone into rural areas for over 100 years. Faster internet is not the boon people think it is. Is it nice to be able to stream television or youtube? Sure, but it's not some great gain.
I'll go even farther and say most Democratic policies are kind of 'upper middle class suburban' issues, which hurt cities as much as rural areas, and if they were applied as written, drive tiny marginal gains to a small number of people. Does that mean Democrats shouldn't do them? No but they should do other things too.
The corporatization of the food industry has made farmers more like gig workers, only with much higher investment requirements
This is wrong. Most farmers/land owners are surprisingly wealthy.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:56 AM on March 8 [5 favorites]
I don't know about the book itself - I'll have to check that out. But so many points ring hollow. Pickup trucks are the #1, 2 and 3 best selling vehicles in the US, and have been for decades. They aren't an indicator of 'rural'. If anything, they are another thing that's been 'appropriated', but not really because again the US is mostly not rural.
Also, federal government rural policies are terrible. It's 'school' and 'infrastructure', but only certain infrastructure like highways, which are generally expanded, which doesn't help rural people (or urban people). It mostly hurts them. It has nothing to help maintain all those old (closed) commercial buildings, which were built a long time ago and are functionally obsolete, but nobody rural can afford to fix them up. Any new stuff is farther up the highway, where the land is cheaper. A federal expenditure to get rid of asbestos or replace old wiring would be an example of something far more valuable.
And 'school' generally equals capital expenditures (often for administration or security), not things like more or better teachers (where better = more experienced - I had so many rookie teachers growing up in a rural environment). Nicer buildings are fine, but they don't equal better educations.
Also, there is a lot of grief if a town grows by adding minorities, but if a town dries up and blows away? Nobody really cares that much. There's a thread above about shrinking the population - there are multiple cities and rural areas living through that. It's not great.
Also crime stats are complete abstractions and not really comparable across municipalities - they can be reported differently (or not at all) for various regions, so making sweeping generalizations like 'Oklahoma is more dangerous than NYC" is basically meaningless even if it is true. Like 6 murders per 100k people vs 4 is functionally meaningless to your average citizen, and 400 vs 250 violent crime events per 100k people is too.
I think it does make a point that Democrats have basically abandoned rural areas, even if the Republicans who haven't don't do anything of value for them.
I think Democratic policies are great - but they are great for marginal people, and if your city has $200k in Federal funds to drop to make a sidewalk ADA compliant or turn school bathrooms unisex to help a few marginal people while charging everyone else more money for basic services - I can understand how that can anger people even if I see the value in helping marginalized people. And how they can easily claim they just want to be left alone from federal policy, especially when they have to compete for federal funds and can't hire fancy consultants to get the money.
I also think the policies recommended are terrible. There is no high school level educational gap betweeen urban and rural areas. There are clear income-based gaps, regardless of metro size. There are college-level educationcal attainment gaps, but I know that Democrats are not recommending opening new colleges in small towns. See point above about schools.
Access to medical care is mentioned as well, and there are notable median age gaps between urban and rural areas, but they are less than 2 years. urban vs rural health outcomes
Are they things hospital access can fix? I'm not sure...there is a big gap in 'unintentional injuries' contribuing to the age divide. Hospital access might partially solve that.
Third mentioned is broadband. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure slightly faster internet would help anything in rural areas, unless you consider 'the internet' to be an unalloyed good, which it most defintitely is not. Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, 'enshitificaiton', these are what you want to supply to rural areas. You have been able to order stuff over the phone into rural areas for over 100 years. Faster internet is not the boon people think it is. Is it nice to be able to stream television or youtube? Sure, but it's not some great gain.
I'll go even farther and say most Democratic policies are kind of 'upper middle class suburban' issues, which hurt cities as much as rural areas, and if they were applied as written, drive tiny marginal gains to a small number of people. Does that mean Democrats shouldn't do them? No but they should do other things too.
The corporatization of the food industry has made farmers more like gig workers, only with much higher investment requirements
This is wrong. Most farmers/land owners are surprisingly wealthy.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:56 AM on March 8 [5 favorites]
I'll go even farther and say most Democratic policies are kind of 'upper middle class suburban' issues, which hurt cities as much as rural areas, and if they were applied as written, drive tiny marginal gains to a small number of people.
Which policies?
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:14 AM on March 8 [1 favorite]
Which policies?
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:14 AM on March 8 [1 favorite]
There's no empathy because empathy is weakness and weakness cannot be tolerated. It makes them good soldiers, though and that's what matters to them. When Trump mocked that disabled reporter he knew he wouldn't get any pushback from his constituency who was laughing right along with him. None of them thought for a second how it might feel to be in that reporter's shoes.
posted by tommasz at 8:19 AM on March 8 [7 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 8:19 AM on March 8 [7 favorites]
Which policies?
Unisex bathrooms and help for the disabled, apparently? Reads like bog-standard culture war nonsense to me.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 8:25 AM on March 8 [10 favorites]
Unisex bathrooms and help for the disabled, apparently? Reads like bog-standard culture war nonsense to me.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 8:25 AM on March 8 [10 favorites]
Are they things hospital access can fix?
I do wonder how healthcare is supposed to work in rural areas. Rural hospitals were already in trouble, with most of their care covered under Medicare and Medicaid, neither program adequately meeting the hospitals' costs, and so we've been seeing hospital closures for years; COVID of course made the problem much more acute. Access to primary care is a problem as well. There's the straight up "let's put a government hospital with government doctors down here" solution but I don't think anyone is going to be doing that. But what is the alternative? Dollar General hiring nurses to cycle through? It's a hard problem.
posted by mittens at 8:44 AM on March 8 [1 favorite]
I do wonder how healthcare is supposed to work in rural areas. Rural hospitals were already in trouble, with most of their care covered under Medicare and Medicaid, neither program adequately meeting the hospitals' costs, and so we've been seeing hospital closures for years; COVID of course made the problem much more acute. Access to primary care is a problem as well. There's the straight up "let's put a government hospital with government doctors down here" solution but I don't think anyone is going to be doing that. But what is the alternative? Dollar General hiring nurses to cycle through? It's a hard problem.
posted by mittens at 8:44 AM on March 8 [1 favorite]
The cruelty has always been the point.
I think you have to acknowledge to some degree that when people are hurt they don't always react rationally. In the 1800s when people were trying to get pay for railroad and mining jobs, the corporations brought in Chinese labor that would work for less.
For the most part, people didn't react by forcing the corporations to treat their workers better. Instead we got a bunch of racist anti-immigration laws.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:54 AM on March 8 [2 favorites]
I think you have to acknowledge to some degree that when people are hurt they don't always react rationally. In the 1800s when people were trying to get pay for railroad and mining jobs, the corporations brought in Chinese labor that would work for less.
For the most part, people didn't react by forcing the corporations to treat their workers better. Instead we got a bunch of racist anti-immigration laws.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:54 AM on March 8 [2 favorites]
Hi! The book is a pile of shit!
Our research was cited in a new book on “white rural rage.” But the authors got the research wrong.
"In several instances, the authors misinterpret what the academic research they cite says. For example, they use a report by the Chicago Project on Security and Threats to argue that "rural Americans are overrepresented among those with insurrectionist tendencies." But the actual report concludes exactly the opposite: "The more rural the county, the lower the county rate of sending insurrectionists" to the January 6 Capitol riot. Moreover, when a peer-reviewed article in the journal Political Behavior compared rural and non-rural beliefs on whether politically motivated violence is a valid means for pursuing political change, it revealed that rural Americans are actually less supportive of political violence."
New Book on Rural America Started with a False Conclusion, Then Looked for Evidence
Only two surveys in the entire book conform to basic standards of survey research and even attempt to try and present an accurate picture of rural America: a 2017 study from The Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation (1,070 rural residents) and a 2018 report from the Pew Research Center (2,085 rural residents) — a study, by the way, that shows that majorities of rural Americans believe that “white people benefit from advantages in society that black people do not have,” that “there are still significant obstacles that make it harder for women to get ahead than men,” that there are, indeed, “situations in which abortion should be allowed,” and who reject the idea that a non-white, majority country would be “bad” for America. Oh, the rage!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:08 AM on March 8 [24 favorites]
Our research was cited in a new book on “white rural rage.” But the authors got the research wrong.
"In several instances, the authors misinterpret what the academic research they cite says. For example, they use a report by the Chicago Project on Security and Threats to argue that "rural Americans are overrepresented among those with insurrectionist tendencies." But the actual report concludes exactly the opposite: "The more rural the county, the lower the county rate of sending insurrectionists" to the January 6 Capitol riot. Moreover, when a peer-reviewed article in the journal Political Behavior compared rural and non-rural beliefs on whether politically motivated violence is a valid means for pursuing political change, it revealed that rural Americans are actually less supportive of political violence."
New Book on Rural America Started with a False Conclusion, Then Looked for Evidence
Only two surveys in the entire book conform to basic standards of survey research and even attempt to try and present an accurate picture of rural America: a 2017 study from The Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation (1,070 rural residents) and a 2018 report from the Pew Research Center (2,085 rural residents) — a study, by the way, that shows that majorities of rural Americans believe that “white people benefit from advantages in society that black people do not have,” that “there are still significant obstacles that make it harder for women to get ahead than men,” that there are, indeed, “situations in which abortion should be allowed,” and who reject the idea that a non-white, majority country would be “bad” for America. Oh, the rage!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:08 AM on March 8 [24 favorites]
One of the late night Jimmys recently did a street gotcha bit when they cornered unsuspecting Republicans and read some Trump nonsense to them, after saying it was Biden quotes. At first the respondents agreed how terrible the quote was and expressed their disgust, but when corrected on the author being Trump, they did a 180 on the spot, like a sales professional. They're all onboard team fraud it seems, mostly unified too.
posted by Brian B. at 11:27 AM on March 8 [1 favorite]
posted by Brian B. at 11:27 AM on March 8 [1 favorite]
It sounds like this book validates a lot of stereotypes that urban liberals would like to believe, and even if the facts aren't really there, I'm sure the general truthiness will appeal to those inclined to drop $35 to see their biases confirmed.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:34 AM on March 8 [7 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:34 AM on March 8 [7 favorites]
One of the late night Jimmys recently did a street gotcha bit when they cornered unsuspecting Republicans and read some Trump nonsense to them, after saying it was Biden quotes. At first the respondents agreed how terrible the quote was and expressed their disgust, but when corrected on the author being Trump, they did a 180 on the spot, like a sales professional. They're all onboard team fraud it seems, mostly unified too.
This is a relevant anecdote if Trump supporters == rural people, but given that this occurred in a city in California, that’s probably not the case.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:36 AM on March 8 [1 favorite]
This is a relevant anecdote if Trump supporters == rural people, but given that this occurred in a city in California, that’s probably not the case.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:36 AM on March 8 [1 favorite]
If you think your research is being misrepresented--and I've read why Jacobs thinks it has been and do not entirely agree--why in the world would you rebut from a rag like reason.com?
posted by yellowcandy at 11:38 AM on March 8 [2 favorites]
posted by yellowcandy at 11:38 AM on March 8 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure slightly faster internet would help anything in rural areas
You know, us rural folk aren't waiting for faster internet so we can hold our chickens in our laps while we watch The Bachelor in hi def. We need it to run our businesses, participate in meetings and classes as we work or learn from home, and have access to the same quality of what is essentially a utility as everyone else in the nation. The amount of time I spend trying to jury rig a semi-stable functioning medium speed internet connection out here is time I lose from work, from research, from life.
posted by ikahime at 11:43 AM on March 8 [37 favorites]
You know, us rural folk aren't waiting for faster internet so we can hold our chickens in our laps while we watch The Bachelor in hi def. We need it to run our businesses, participate in meetings and classes as we work or learn from home, and have access to the same quality of what is essentially a utility as everyone else in the nation. The amount of time I spend trying to jury rig a semi-stable functioning medium speed internet connection out here is time I lose from work, from research, from life.
posted by ikahime at 11:43 AM on March 8 [37 favorites]
There's the straight up "let's put a government hospital with government doctors down here" solution but I don't think anyone is going to be doing that
IDK, IMO for the most part, people who need regular hospital access self-select away from rural areas (or they die), which is no different than people self-selecting from living in expensive cities (or be homeless), but there are extremely limited government programs to solve that too.
We need it to run our businesses, participate in meetings and classes as we work or learn from home
Learn from home at the elementary to high school level was a giant failure for all income groups, both rural and urban. We can take that to imply that learning from home for college is also generally a failure for the majority (unless the goal is to simply obtain a degree, which fair enough), though it hasn't fully been studied so it's not a solution to the collegiate education gap, and less than 15% of rural work is done from home.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:41 PM on March 8
IDK, IMO for the most part, people who need regular hospital access self-select away from rural areas (or they die), which is no different than people self-selecting from living in expensive cities (or be homeless), but there are extremely limited government programs to solve that too.
We need it to run our businesses, participate in meetings and classes as we work or learn from home
Learn from home at the elementary to high school level was a giant failure for all income groups, both rural and urban. We can take that to imply that learning from home for college is also generally a failure for the majority (unless the goal is to simply obtain a degree, which fair enough), though it hasn't fully been studied so it's not a solution to the collegiate education gap, and less than 15% of rural work is done from home.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:41 PM on March 8
The_Vegetables, could you start adding more citations? I feel you're often staking out strong, declarative positions - Rural work isn't done from home, remote learning is always a failure - and using them to justify relatively mainstream conservative positions?
Like, do you have studies that argue that better broadband access wouldn't change anything? Or is it just all vibes?
posted by sagc at 12:44 PM on March 8 [12 favorites]
Like, do you have studies that argue that better broadband access wouldn't change anything? Or is it just all vibes?
posted by sagc at 12:44 PM on March 8 [12 favorites]
I'm not saying better broadband wouldn't 'change anything' - that's incredibly wrong.
And I actually think 'vibes' is a fair assessment, because I believe you actually have to go to a place to find out what it needs instead of just repeating a bunch of buzzwords and applying them across the country like a giant template. I do think that just showing up (without even necessarily doing anything) is a value. I don't think it's solves all - Beato O'Rourke in Texas visited every county and still lost. But it's a good start.
Effects of remote learning from the NIH
The US census keeps stats on how many people work from home.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:11 PM on March 8
And I actually think 'vibes' is a fair assessment, because I believe you actually have to go to a place to find out what it needs instead of just repeating a bunch of buzzwords and applying them across the country like a giant template. I do think that just showing up (without even necessarily doing anything) is a value. I don't think it's solves all - Beato O'Rourke in Texas visited every county and still lost. But it's a good start.
Effects of remote learning from the NIH
The US census keeps stats on how many people work from home.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:11 PM on March 8
My vegetable farm isn’t a home business. But the seminars on (eg) food packaging requirements, managing some of the peculiarities of our soils+climate, YouTube on equipment repair — I do those over broadband from home.
In, as it happens, a city. But farther-out farmers get even MORE use from online because they’re farther from each other too.
posted by clew at 1:31 PM on March 8 [5 favorites]
In, as it happens, a city. But farther-out farmers get even MORE use from online because they’re farther from each other too.
posted by clew at 1:31 PM on March 8 [5 favorites]
Like how do you blame poor rural people for their problems?
Do most liberals do that? I don't know. It wasn't common in my circles. Frustration against the voting patterns, yes. Understanding that voting Republican helps nobody but the elite and the bigotry, yes. Understand that sometimes people consistently voted against their interests because of culture war issues? Oh yes.
There's voting for the dumpster fire, and there's voting for the dumpster fire floating away because someone cut the dam maintenance funding and eliminated regulations and standards and inspections and consequences for destruction.
And it's entirely, completely valid to blame them for deciding that queers need to be targeted with hate laws onto death. That women don't need control over their bodies and decisions. The million other things they do to lash out cuz the guy on the radio says so.
These people are adults. They are not any stupider than city types. They have a horribly warped and confining echo chamber, but that will never excuse the damage they do to others.
posted by Jacen at 1:53 PM on March 8 [1 favorite]
Do most liberals do that? I don't know. It wasn't common in my circles. Frustration against the voting patterns, yes. Understanding that voting Republican helps nobody but the elite and the bigotry, yes. Understand that sometimes people consistently voted against their interests because of culture war issues? Oh yes.
There's voting for the dumpster fire, and there's voting for the dumpster fire floating away because someone cut the dam maintenance funding and eliminated regulations and standards and inspections and consequences for destruction.
And it's entirely, completely valid to blame them for deciding that queers need to be targeted with hate laws onto death. That women don't need control over their bodies and decisions. The million other things they do to lash out cuz the guy on the radio says so.
These people are adults. They are not any stupider than city types. They have a horribly warped and confining echo chamber, but that will never excuse the damage they do to others.
posted by Jacen at 1:53 PM on March 8 [1 favorite]
We can take that to imply that learning from home for college is also generally a failure for the majority
IDK, IMO for the most part, people who need regular hospital access self-select away from rural areas (or they die)
These are fundamentally not serious positions, lol. Like, you can just type whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:03 PM on March 8 [10 favorites]
IDK, IMO for the most part, people who need regular hospital access self-select away from rural areas (or they die)
These are fundamentally not serious positions, lol. Like, you can just type whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:03 PM on March 8 [10 favorites]
You have been able to order stuff over the phone into rural areas for over 100 years.
Care to go back to ordering stuff over the phone like it's 1989?
I'm not saying better broadband wouldn't 'change anything' - that's incredibly wrong.
Yes you did. In your initial dismissal of faster broadband, you only considered that it would be used for social networking, shopping, and streaming. Then when someone pointed out a use you hadn't thought of--distance learning--you immediately dismissed it by claiming remote elementary and high school learning were a failure. While that may be true based on the sources you eventually cited, that's only a small part of online learning.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 2:09 PM on March 8 [13 favorites]
Care to go back to ordering stuff over the phone like it's 1989?
I'm not saying better broadband wouldn't 'change anything' - that's incredibly wrong.
Yes you did. In your initial dismissal of faster broadband, you only considered that it would be used for social networking, shopping, and streaming. Then when someone pointed out a use you hadn't thought of--distance learning--you immediately dismissed it by claiming remote elementary and high school learning were a failure. While that may be true based on the sources you eventually cited, that's only a small part of online learning.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 2:09 PM on March 8 [13 favorites]
Highly recommend this conversation with the authors. Not normally a pod/series I listen to, but in this case the person that directed me to it was right on.
posted by fncll at 5:59 PM on March 8
posted by fncll at 5:59 PM on March 8
People who needs lots of health care self select out of rural areas!??? Please tell me that's some kind of performance art.
If not, it's bullshit.
I've lived rural and semi-rural for most of my nearly fifty years. People who have been rural all their lives do not, in my considerable experience, move to cities to be closer to a hospital unless there are other reasons too, like being closer to grown kids, their own siblings, etc. Most of the time, there isn't money for that. If they own their home, they can't buy one closer to a city for what they can sell the rural one for. Often not even for twice or three times what the rural home can sell for. Some rural folks have a pension -many, many do not, and are living on their social security, with their savings (if any) aside as much as possible for keeping the home they have in repair, keeping a car running, etc, often while that home acts as last chance housing for their kids and grandkids.
Do I get angry with a lot of my neighbors over their voting patterns? Sure. But just as I couldn't leave if I wanted to because I can't afford to live anywhere else but the streets, neither can most of them.
I do think that for a lot of R voters, the cruelty is the point. But I also know, for a lot of them, it does not occur to them as cruelty.
How do I know this? I know because the same people helped me fix a ceiling that caved in, and would not accept a dime for it. I know because they encourage their teen son to hang out with the queer neighbors (us), and the black kids from the football team are over there all the time.
I know because I hear Fox News coming from the mouths around me. These people really really believe what they hear from Fox, and they hear it all the time because Fox is on almost every TV I see in public spaces - urgent care, restaurants, the tire shop, Walmart, you name it. So they believe that the migrants coming now are fundamentally different from their grandpa Carlos. They believe that WE aren't groomers, but surely some queers are. They believe that food stamp fraud is so pervasive that it would bankrupt the government if they didn't make it hard to get (these, people who need food stamps!).
I don't know how to fix it. The best I know how to do is stay here, be a good neighbor, be a counter-example. I don't hide my opinions and someday that might get me hurt again. I accept that because, well, not much choice. And hopefully make life a little easier for the kid from four houses down that I'm pretty sure is a baby queer, make a place for my teen neighbor where he doesn't have to be tough.
Cruelty is the point, I believe, for the R politicians, for their media machine, and possibly (I have no data) for the R voters who live in cities and suburbs. And I know it is for some rural republicans. But not all, or even most of them.
posted by Vigilant at 6:11 PM on March 8 [18 favorites]
If not, it's bullshit.
I've lived rural and semi-rural for most of my nearly fifty years. People who have been rural all their lives do not, in my considerable experience, move to cities to be closer to a hospital unless there are other reasons too, like being closer to grown kids, their own siblings, etc. Most of the time, there isn't money for that. If they own their home, they can't buy one closer to a city for what they can sell the rural one for. Often not even for twice or three times what the rural home can sell for. Some rural folks have a pension -many, many do not, and are living on their social security, with their savings (if any) aside as much as possible for keeping the home they have in repair, keeping a car running, etc, often while that home acts as last chance housing for their kids and grandkids.
Do I get angry with a lot of my neighbors over their voting patterns? Sure. But just as I couldn't leave if I wanted to because I can't afford to live anywhere else but the streets, neither can most of them.
I do think that for a lot of R voters, the cruelty is the point. But I also know, for a lot of them, it does not occur to them as cruelty.
How do I know this? I know because the same people helped me fix a ceiling that caved in, and would not accept a dime for it. I know because they encourage their teen son to hang out with the queer neighbors (us), and the black kids from the football team are over there all the time.
I know because I hear Fox News coming from the mouths around me. These people really really believe what they hear from Fox, and they hear it all the time because Fox is on almost every TV I see in public spaces - urgent care, restaurants, the tire shop, Walmart, you name it. So they believe that the migrants coming now are fundamentally different from their grandpa Carlos. They believe that WE aren't groomers, but surely some queers are. They believe that food stamp fraud is so pervasive that it would bankrupt the government if they didn't make it hard to get (these, people who need food stamps!).
I don't know how to fix it. The best I know how to do is stay here, be a good neighbor, be a counter-example. I don't hide my opinions and someday that might get me hurt again. I accept that because, well, not much choice. And hopefully make life a little easier for the kid from four houses down that I'm pretty sure is a baby queer, make a place for my teen neighbor where he doesn't have to be tough.
Cruelty is the point, I believe, for the R politicians, for their media machine, and possibly (I have no data) for the R voters who live in cities and suburbs. And I know it is for some rural republicans. But not all, or even most of them.
posted by Vigilant at 6:11 PM on March 8 [18 favorites]
Bilious hillbilly here coming in late after deciding to look at the manuscript before commenting. Do not recommend, zero stars.
The blurb reads "Rural voters believe our nation has betrayed them" with revealing choice of pronouns. Not "betrayed us" as a ruralite would write nor "their nation has betrayed them" as if provincials were citizens.
When your central hypothesis is "rural Whites pose four interconnected threats to the republic", you must not Humpty-Dumpty WHAT WE MEAN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT "RURAL". There are significant differences between urbanized areas and non-urbanized areas in both metropolitan and nonmetro counties. The authors indiscriminately use rural to mean either nonmetro or non-urbanized without ever specifying context, agglomerating incongruent factoids into an incoherent screed.
Neither the authors nor the Post reviewer seem aware that the tailgate of a standard-bed pickup can be lowered to carry plywood. Yet they and their publishers lavish ink on ivory tower poppycock rather than elevating rural voices to speak for ourselves.
Most of the book is mostly true, but since the authors worked backwards from their conclusion, they don't grasp how the pieces fit. Yes, the structure of the Senate and Electoral College favors rural states like Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia. Why is this now a threat to the republic? Why is Vermont no longer a Republican stronghold while Wyoming remains steadfast and while West Virginia has flipped the other way? The authors don't address it. They do not understand R-squareds or confounding variables. The book mentions, amid its condescending lay anthropology, that white evangelicals are disproportionately rural without considering whether the correlation between rural areas and authoritarian leanings is spurious.
The book derides rural whites for failing to make policy demands like the single-issue absolutists anchoring the Republican coalition. Because, it turns out, we are not a bloc. The needs of coal country and farm country and timber country do not necessarily align. How holdouts in depopulated backwaters might position ourselves as power brokers to demand quality of life amenities taken for granted elsewhere and thus ameliorate xenophobic resentment would be a topic worthy of study. This book isn't that.
posted by backwoods at 10:30 PM on March 8 [4 favorites]
The blurb reads "Rural voters believe our nation has betrayed them" with revealing choice of pronouns. Not "betrayed us" as a ruralite would write nor "their nation has betrayed them" as if provincials were citizens.
When your central hypothesis is "rural Whites pose four interconnected threats to the republic", you must not Humpty-Dumpty WHAT WE MEAN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT "RURAL". There are significant differences between urbanized areas and non-urbanized areas in both metropolitan and nonmetro counties. The authors indiscriminately use rural to mean either nonmetro or non-urbanized without ever specifying context, agglomerating incongruent factoids into an incoherent screed.
Neither the authors nor the Post reviewer seem aware that the tailgate of a standard-bed pickup can be lowered to carry plywood. Yet they and their publishers lavish ink on ivory tower poppycock rather than elevating rural voices to speak for ourselves.
Most of the book is mostly true, but since the authors worked backwards from their conclusion, they don't grasp how the pieces fit. Yes, the structure of the Senate and Electoral College favors rural states like Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia. Why is this now a threat to the republic? Why is Vermont no longer a Republican stronghold while Wyoming remains steadfast and while West Virginia has flipped the other way? The authors don't address it. They do not understand R-squareds or confounding variables. The book mentions, amid its condescending lay anthropology, that white evangelicals are disproportionately rural without considering whether the correlation between rural areas and authoritarian leanings is spurious.
The book derides rural whites for failing to make policy demands like the single-issue absolutists anchoring the Republican coalition. Because, it turns out, we are not a bloc. The needs of coal country and farm country and timber country do not necessarily align. How holdouts in depopulated backwaters might position ourselves as power brokers to demand quality of life amenities taken for granted elsewhere and thus ameliorate xenophobic resentment would be a topic worthy of study. This book isn't that.
posted by backwoods at 10:30 PM on March 8 [4 favorites]
The needs of coal country and farm country and timber country do not necessarily align. How holdouts in depopulated backwaters might position ourselves as power brokers to demand quality of life amenities taken for granted elsewhere and thus ameliorate xenophobic resentment would be a topic worthy of study.This is something I didn't understand until I moved to a regional area.
The only way most regional and rural areas ever get anything near adequate services provided to them by the government is through someone twisting arms and leaning on the political system hard, because under a normal representative system they get ignored. Rational state and national level politicians prefer to spend discretionary money on projects in large towns and cities as they benefit a lot more voters.
So regional and rural voter are generally willing to support almost anyone that can deliver money for schools and roads and drinking water and reliable power and internet and other bread and butter stuff you mostly take for granted if you live in the suburbs or a city.
posted by zymil at 2:31 AM on March 9 [1 favorite]
Most farmers/land owners are surprisingly wealthy.
From a strictly numerical viewpoint, this is true. (Although mostly for generationally held farms; becoming a farmer today involves a large investment.)
However, that wealth is tied up in land and equipment and can't really be accessed. And, that capital doesn't generate income the way it would in other investments. In 2020, the median income of farm business households was $62,402, compared to $89,492 for self-employed households. The (average) $2 million of farm capital is not generating the kind of net income you would expect — only about 3%.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:08 AM on March 9 [3 favorites]
From a strictly numerical viewpoint, this is true. (Although mostly for generationally held farms; becoming a farmer today involves a large investment.)
However, that wealth is tied up in land and equipment and can't really be accessed. And, that capital doesn't generate income the way it would in other investments. In 2020, the median income of farm business households was $62,402, compared to $89,492 for self-employed households. The (average) $2 million of farm capital is not generating the kind of net income you would expect — only about 3%.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:08 AM on March 9 [3 favorites]
Mod note: Back and forth argument removed. Let's avoid getting fighty about things, thanks.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:23 AM on March 9
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:23 AM on March 9
They do not understand R-squareds or confounding variables.
Care to elaborate? Because R^2 is almost irrelevant for inference and confounding doesn’t apply to description.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:52 AM on March 9
Care to elaborate? Because R^2 is almost irrelevant for inference and confounding doesn’t apply to description.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:52 AM on March 9
Before an excessive guilt sets in about offending rural people, who mostly support hypocrites like Trump and want to establish a civic-strife inducing Christian national identity, it is important to consider a brainwashing effect instead of projecting a rational mindset on them. Thought reform controls the mind or imagination with an agenda that doesn't line up with the target's rational interests. Those who identify as rural folk, wherever they now live, are less prone to acknowledge their own economic status over congregational tropes, essentially blind to their political vulnerability. When outside interests want to drive a wedge between geography or gender using race or abortion, it is first spread locally through obscure networks, unnoticed by those who post-analyze that liberals are out of touch with rural reality. What is more obvious is that rural voters now have disagreement with individual liberty, despite being relatively isolated from the offenders while imagining themselves to be defenders of freedom. A now famous theory on ironic stupidity (working against one's own interests) explains the effect without citing a cause.
It is too generous to assume a rural economic anxiety as if frugality was involved, rather than an end of the world mentality. As noted, the truck has symbolically replaced the horse, and must show off for the illusion of success, costing above 50k second-hand, with beefy suspensions and tires expressing personal power, never old or beaten like they were a farm hand utility. The gun lore has gone crazy too. There are millions of videos on social media showing off guns in aggressive ways that assume they are to be collected to cover apocalyptic contingencies, a new self-reliance. But the guns require gun safes and ammo stockpiles, which often require alarm systems, which snowballs into more insecurity, until sold at a loss pay bills, which all easily taps into an established fear as "someone taking away" their guns.
posted by Brian B. at 11:37 AM on March 9 [1 favorite]
It is too generous to assume a rural economic anxiety as if frugality was involved, rather than an end of the world mentality. As noted, the truck has symbolically replaced the horse, and must show off for the illusion of success, costing above 50k second-hand, with beefy suspensions and tires expressing personal power, never old or beaten like they were a farm hand utility. The gun lore has gone crazy too. There are millions of videos on social media showing off guns in aggressive ways that assume they are to be collected to cover apocalyptic contingencies, a new self-reliance. But the guns require gun safes and ammo stockpiles, which often require alarm systems, which snowballs into more insecurity, until sold at a loss pay bills, which all easily taps into an established fear as "someone taking away" their guns.
posted by Brian B. at 11:37 AM on March 9 [1 favorite]
who mostly support hypocrites like Trump and want to establish a civic-strife inducing Christian national identity
Massive fucking citation needed.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:05 PM on March 9 [1 favorite]
Massive fucking citation needed.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 12:05 PM on March 9 [1 favorite]
2020_United_States_presidential_election_results_map_by_county.svg
posted by Pyry at 12:42 PM on March 9 [1 favorite]
posted by Pyry at 12:42 PM on March 9 [1 favorite]
CNN exit poll from 2022, noting "area type" between suburban, rural and urban.
Rural identity has firmed, perhaps more than urban and suburban. A rural identity moving to the suburbs is very likely politically predictable, as with an urban identity moving to rural areas, and is likely reflected in the exit polling. Excerpted from last link:
Shea: It’s fair to say that a rural-urban divide has existed from the beginning of our experiment. But for nearly 200 years, that urban-rural divide was very regional, state-based and temporary. One thing our data shows is that this extensive national divide is unprecedented in our history.
Jacobs: 1980s is this inflection point where the behaviors of rural voters begin to nationalize. That means whether you live in a rural community in Maine, Alabama or the Midwest, you’re starting to behave similarly and react to similar forces. It’s a complex historical narrative. It’s top down and bottom up. There’s real social transformation in rural agricultural and manufacturing communities, but there’s also political narrative construction by Republicans.
posted by Brian B. at 12:55 PM on March 9
Rural identity has firmed, perhaps more than urban and suburban. A rural identity moving to the suburbs is very likely politically predictable, as with an urban identity moving to rural areas, and is likely reflected in the exit polling. Excerpted from last link:
Shea: It’s fair to say that a rural-urban divide has existed from the beginning of our experiment. But for nearly 200 years, that urban-rural divide was very regional, state-based and temporary. One thing our data shows is that this extensive national divide is unprecedented in our history.
Jacobs: 1980s is this inflection point where the behaviors of rural voters begin to nationalize. That means whether you live in a rural community in Maine, Alabama or the Midwest, you’re starting to behave similarly and react to similar forces. It’s a complex historical narrative. It’s top down and bottom up. There’s real social transformation in rural agricultural and manufacturing communities, but there’s also political narrative construction by Republicans.
posted by Brian B. at 12:55 PM on March 9
Are we back to posting election maps as evidence that rural voters are XYZ? Has anyone learned anything????
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:07 PM on March 9
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:07 PM on March 9
Massive fucking citation needed.
Mostly support hypocrites like Trump -- 2020 CCES, rural is self-identified:
There's no CCES question about wanting to establish a theocracy, and trying to pin down christian nationalism in surveys turns out to be difficult.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 2:22 PM on March 9 [2 favorites]
Mostly support hypocrites like Trump -- 2020 CCES, rural is self-identified:
. tab CC20_410 rural, col
+-------------------+
| Key |
|-------------------|
| frequency |
| column percentage |
+-------------------+
| rural
2020 Pres vote | 0 1 | Total
----------------------+----------------------+----------
Joe Biden (Democrat) | 22,605 3,583 | 26,188
| 61.26 40.95 | 57.37
----------------------+----------------------+----------
Donald J. Trump (Repu | 12,848 4,854 | 17,702
| 34.82 55.47 | 38.78
----------------------+----------------------+----------
Other | 1,202 256 | 1,458
| 3.26 2.93 | 3.19
----------------------+----------------------+----------
I did not vote in thi | 81 19 | 100
| 0.22 0.22 | 0.22
----------------------+----------------------+----------
I did not vote | 10 3 | 13
| 0.03 0.03 | 0.03
----------------------+----------------------+----------
Not sure | 155 35 | 190
| 0.42 0.40 | 0.42
----------------------+----------------------+----------
Total | 36,901 8,750 | 45,651
| 100.00 100.00 | 100.00
That 56\% is almost certainly an understatement of the extent to which self-identified rural voters voted for Trump -- overall the variable is 57\% Biden, so presumably we're seeing the usual pattern of respondents falsely claiming to have voted for the winner. The disparity gets sharper if you only look at anglos.There's no CCES question about wanting to establish a theocracy, and trying to pin down christian nationalism in surveys turns out to be difficult.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 2:22 PM on March 9 [2 favorites]
There's a lot of material here I haven't had the chance to read yet, but there's some interesting new research that recently came out about the non-trivial percentage of people in surveys who identify as "rural" even though they live in non-rural areas: Feeling Out of Place: Who are the Non-Rural Rural Identifiers, and are They Unique Politically? I'm not sure how the authors operationalized the term "rural," but if they're relying on self-identification to determine that, they could be making a serious mistake.
posted by jonp72 at 4:08 PM on March 9 [1 favorite]
posted by jonp72 at 4:08 PM on March 9 [1 favorite]
Before an excessive guilt sets in about offending rural people, who mostly support hypocrites like Trump and want to establish a civic-strife inducing Christian national identity, it is important to consider a brainwashing effect instead of projecting a rational mindset on them
So, listen, I would ask you to really ponder on whether a deeply condescending attitude toward rural voters is going to get you the results you want, number one; and number two, whether projecting that attitude is making you look the way you want to look.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:58 AM on March 10 [3 favorites]
So, listen, I would ask you to really ponder on whether a deeply condescending attitude toward rural voters is going to get you the results you want, number one; and number two, whether projecting that attitude is making you look the way you want to look.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:58 AM on March 10 [3 favorites]
So, listen, I would ask you to really ponder on whether a deeply condescending attitude toward rural voters is going to get you the results you want, number one; and number two, whether projecting that attitude is making you look the way you want to look.
If thought reform is new to you by name it would be in your interests to know more about it.
posted by Brian B. at 8:32 AM on March 10
If thought reform is new to you by name it would be in your interests to know more about it.
posted by Brian B. at 8:32 AM on March 10
If missing the point were an artform
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:39 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:39 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
You're really equating a book about mind control among american servicemen in POW camps in korea to.... rural voters in the US?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:12 AM on March 10
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 11:12 AM on March 10
Well, let's see how the comparison stacks up.
posted by flabdablet at 11:25 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
In the book, Lifton outlines the "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform":OK, so Fox News has 1 pretty thoroughly covered; 3, 5, 6 and 7 are basically every TFG rally and social media post, and the Culture War is all variants on 8. Six out of eight clear matches says to me that Brian B. could be onto something.
- Milieu Control. The group or its leaders controls information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.
- Mystical Manipulation. The group manipulates experiences that appear spontaneous to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows a reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.
- Demand for Purity. The group constantly exhorts members to view the world as black and white, conform to the group ideology, and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.
- Confession. The group defines sins that members should confess either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; the leaders discuss and exploit members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults".
- Sacred Science. The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
- Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.
- Doctrine over person. Members' personal experiences are subordinate to the sacred science; members must deny or reinterpret any contrary experiences to fit the group ideology.
- Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious, and must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.
posted by flabdablet at 11:25 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
You're really equating a book about mind control among american servicemen in POW camps in korea to.... rural voters in the US?
Topically, thought reform is mind control on any group. Here is the latest from the author.
posted by Brian B. at 11:28 AM on March 10
Topically, thought reform is mind control on any group. Here is the latest from the author.
posted by Brian B. at 11:28 AM on March 10
I've lived and worked in various parts of rural Texas, the REAL rural not the LARPing exurbanites who drive pristine pickup trucks.
It sucks, they're broke off their asses, they've got jack shit in terms of infrastructure and access to the wide variety of goods and services that exist elsewhere. Of course they're mad, life sucks in rural America.
But the thing is, they've been sold a lie. And the first and biggest part of that lie is "the evil city slickers hate you and want to hurt you".
Like everything else in the right's war on culture, the aggression is 100% from the right.
And it's a lie told very much to make rural Americans accept their crappy situation by giving them an external other to hate and blame.
"Yes, things suck in Ruralville USA, the true heartland and thriving moral core of America, the place where REAL America is found unlike the places where most Americans live! And it's all because of those [insert right wing scapegoat group here]"
Not that it's ever expressed quite so openly, but that's the gist of it.
And the thing is, I've worked with plenty of rural people and I'm speaking from experience here, they're not stupid. I am incapable of believing that most rural Americans are unwitting rubes deceived by the evils of FOX News and the vile machinations of the Republican Party, poor innocents who just want more money and don't really hate minorities. There are stupid people in rural areas, same as everywhere else, but stupidity isn't endemic to rural areas.
Which means the majority of rural Americans actively chose to believe bigoted lies over their own economic wellbeing.
Sure, they'd like to have a revitalized town, but they prioritize hating everyone who isn't a cis het white man over their economic well being. They would rather have someone to feel superior to than have more money in their pocket.
I'm with Biden on this: I have no empathy. I'm not speaking from some city slicker high and mighty ivory tower, I'm speaking as someone who has spent time in every single little flyspeck town in the Texas panhandle working with and talking to the people there. Know what? I never start political conversations IRL. But they damn sure did, almost every single time they started in on politics, and that meant hate. And this was pre-Trump! I was doing my tour of duty in rural Texas back in 2005 when the Tea Party didn't even exist and right wing media almost exclusively meant "Rush Limbaugh and FOX News".
I can't recall a single person I spoke to who started talking about the economic issues in their town. But I remember a whole fuckton of people who started talking about how their giant enemies list of minorities to hate was responsible for all evil in the universe and was trying to hurt them.
I'm a cis het white man so they assumed I was on their side, and I never disagreed because I'm not really confrontational IRL and I didn't want them talking shit to my boss about how that liberal hippie insulted them by daring to suggest that maybe Mexicans weren't responsible for their toilet being clogged. So I listened and said mostly noncommittal things and I learned a lot.
Mostly what I learned is that they really, and I mean REALLY, fucking hate anyone who isn't a cis het white Christian man.
I'm sure it's much worse now, post-Trump. But even back in the before times of 2005 it was bad, and it was bad because of rural people hating everyone who wasn't a cis het white Christian man.
I'm much more afraid than contemptuous when it comes to rural America. And I see absolutely no way out. You can't talk people out of being bigots.
posted by sotonohito at 3:32 PM on March 10 [2 favorites]
It sucks, they're broke off their asses, they've got jack shit in terms of infrastructure and access to the wide variety of goods and services that exist elsewhere. Of course they're mad, life sucks in rural America.
But the thing is, they've been sold a lie. And the first and biggest part of that lie is "the evil city slickers hate you and want to hurt you".
Like everything else in the right's war on culture, the aggression is 100% from the right.
And it's a lie told very much to make rural Americans accept their crappy situation by giving them an external other to hate and blame.
"Yes, things suck in Ruralville USA, the true heartland and thriving moral core of America, the place where REAL America is found unlike the places where most Americans live! And it's all because of those [insert right wing scapegoat group here]"
Not that it's ever expressed quite so openly, but that's the gist of it.
And the thing is, I've worked with plenty of rural people and I'm speaking from experience here, they're not stupid. I am incapable of believing that most rural Americans are unwitting rubes deceived by the evils of FOX News and the vile machinations of the Republican Party, poor innocents who just want more money and don't really hate minorities. There are stupid people in rural areas, same as everywhere else, but stupidity isn't endemic to rural areas.
Which means the majority of rural Americans actively chose to believe bigoted lies over their own economic wellbeing.
Sure, they'd like to have a revitalized town, but they prioritize hating everyone who isn't a cis het white man over their economic well being. They would rather have someone to feel superior to than have more money in their pocket.
I'm with Biden on this: I have no empathy. I'm not speaking from some city slicker high and mighty ivory tower, I'm speaking as someone who has spent time in every single little flyspeck town in the Texas panhandle working with and talking to the people there. Know what? I never start political conversations IRL. But they damn sure did, almost every single time they started in on politics, and that meant hate. And this was pre-Trump! I was doing my tour of duty in rural Texas back in 2005 when the Tea Party didn't even exist and right wing media almost exclusively meant "Rush Limbaugh and FOX News".
I can't recall a single person I spoke to who started talking about the economic issues in their town. But I remember a whole fuckton of people who started talking about how their giant enemies list of minorities to hate was responsible for all evil in the universe and was trying to hurt them.
I'm a cis het white man so they assumed I was on their side, and I never disagreed because I'm not really confrontational IRL and I didn't want them talking shit to my boss about how that liberal hippie insulted them by daring to suggest that maybe Mexicans weren't responsible for their toilet being clogged. So I listened and said mostly noncommittal things and I learned a lot.
Mostly what I learned is that they really, and I mean REALLY, fucking hate anyone who isn't a cis het white Christian man.
I'm sure it's much worse now, post-Trump. But even back in the before times of 2005 it was bad, and it was bad because of rural people hating everyone who wasn't a cis het white Christian man.
I'm much more afraid than contemptuous when it comes to rural America. And I see absolutely no way out. You can't talk people out of being bigots.
posted by sotonohito at 3:32 PM on March 10 [2 favorites]
Brian B. Ah yes, the classic argument that to even point out that someone's beliefs are harmful is evil. Let me guess, it's all because of "collectivism", right?
posted by sotonohito at 3:33 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
posted by sotonohito at 3:33 PM on March 10 [1 favorite]
I've worked with plenty of rural people and I'm speaking from experience here, they're not stupid.
Stupid as in intellectually deficient, certainly not. TFG supporters are stupid as in morally deficient by contagion.
posted by flabdablet at 1:19 AM on March 11 [1 favorite]
Stupid as in intellectually deficient, certainly not. TFG supporters are stupid as in morally deficient by contagion.
posted by flabdablet at 1:19 AM on March 11 [1 favorite]
I would ask you to really ponder on whether a deeply condescending attitude toward rural voters is going to get you the results you want, number one
I don't think feeling viscerally repelled by somebody else's complacent insistence on treating The Other as subhuman counts as condescension. If anything, it's a principled objection to the condescension inextricably bound up in creating The Other.
I also don't need to assume that I am in some way inherently superior to another person in order to experience and express anything from intense exasperation to pants-shitting fear at their sheer eagerness to get behind an obvious monster, one who has demonstrably dedicated his entire life solely to aggrandizing his own miserable self, and then venerate that monster to an extent indistinguishable from actual worship. Being one of TFG's self-selecting rubes is not about incapacity or deficiency, it's a consequence of choosing not to see just who it is that's howling and gibbering right there in your face.
Nor is it condescending to recognize the attitudes expressed and tactics employed by TFG and his legions of sycophants as those of the abuser and abuse enabler. The entire Republican Party runs on DARVO and AiM at this point and their every accusation is a confession.
number two, whether projecting that attitude is making you look the way you want to look.
I am completely happy to own my frank and genuine condescension toward the leadership that continues to stoke this whole shrieking white-hot sphere of pure rage for political and professional advantage. I am morally superior to TFG, and MTG and Gaetz, and McConnell and Graham and the whole Fox News shower. Not because there's anything special about me, just because I'm one of the billions of ordinary people who has not made a deliberate choice to live as a sucking moral vacuum.
I have a normal, appropriate, healthy amount of shame. The leadership of the Republican Party has none, and neither do its media enablers.
And if a rural TFG supporter reads all that, and takes offence on the basis of feeling condescended to because of it, I can live with that. That's just their internal DARVO defence doing its thing, and it's going to keep on doing it for as long for as they insist on worshipping their little gold-painted tin god even as his tiny fingers keep rifling their pockets.
Actual condescension toward a rural TFG supporter would involve treating all their opinions, including the indefensibly disgusting ones, with kid gloves - as if they were still little children not yet able to handle being called on their own bullshit.
I've been called on mine many times, and sure it stings, but it's never been to my detriment. The world would be in much better shape if TFG's millions of adoring rubes would only stop huffing each other's farts for long enough to allow the same thing to occur to them, but that's something they need to do for themselves. Best I can do as an outsider to the cult is to keep on insisting that the way they're currently acting is not right, is not cool and normal, and that they can be better than this if they choose to.
posted by flabdablet at 3:31 AM on March 11 [2 favorites]
I don't think feeling viscerally repelled by somebody else's complacent insistence on treating The Other as subhuman counts as condescension. If anything, it's a principled objection to the condescension inextricably bound up in creating The Other.
I also don't need to assume that I am in some way inherently superior to another person in order to experience and express anything from intense exasperation to pants-shitting fear at their sheer eagerness to get behind an obvious monster, one who has demonstrably dedicated his entire life solely to aggrandizing his own miserable self, and then venerate that monster to an extent indistinguishable from actual worship. Being one of TFG's self-selecting rubes is not about incapacity or deficiency, it's a consequence of choosing not to see just who it is that's howling and gibbering right there in your face.
Nor is it condescending to recognize the attitudes expressed and tactics employed by TFG and his legions of sycophants as those of the abuser and abuse enabler. The entire Republican Party runs on DARVO and AiM at this point and their every accusation is a confession.
number two, whether projecting that attitude is making you look the way you want to look.
I am completely happy to own my frank and genuine condescension toward the leadership that continues to stoke this whole shrieking white-hot sphere of pure rage for political and professional advantage. I am morally superior to TFG, and MTG and Gaetz, and McConnell and Graham and the whole Fox News shower. Not because there's anything special about me, just because I'm one of the billions of ordinary people who has not made a deliberate choice to live as a sucking moral vacuum.
I have a normal, appropriate, healthy amount of shame. The leadership of the Republican Party has none, and neither do its media enablers.
And if a rural TFG supporter reads all that, and takes offence on the basis of feeling condescended to because of it, I can live with that. That's just their internal DARVO defence doing its thing, and it's going to keep on doing it for as long for as they insist on worshipping their little gold-painted tin god even as his tiny fingers keep rifling their pockets.
Actual condescension toward a rural TFG supporter would involve treating all their opinions, including the indefensibly disgusting ones, with kid gloves - as if they were still little children not yet able to handle being called on their own bullshit.
I've been called on mine many times, and sure it stings, but it's never been to my detriment. The world would be in much better shape if TFG's millions of adoring rubes would only stop huffing each other's farts for long enough to allow the same thing to occur to them, but that's something they need to do for themselves. Best I can do as an outsider to the cult is to keep on insisting that the way they're currently acting is not right, is not cool and normal, and that they can be better than this if they choose to.
posted by flabdablet at 3:31 AM on March 11 [2 favorites]
Y'all know a bunch of them lefties are living out in the rural areas, right?
posted by Jarcat at 3:31 PM on March 14
posted by Jarcat at 3:31 PM on March 14
I am a leftie who lives in rural Australia. As is typical in rural areas here, the National Party - the most reactionary Right of the mainstream Australian political parties - is an immovably rusted-on fixture in my electorate and will be for the foreseeable future. This despite the fact that for decades now it has abandoned any attempt to look like a farmers' party but is instead a wholly owned subsidiary of the multinational mining industry, fossil fuel mining in particular.
There is anti-Greens sentiment here that's at least as strong as the anti-Democrat sentiment in any US red state, and all of the tribalism dynamics at play are sickeningly familiar. The US is just louder about it, as is generally its way; we have nothing like TFG's travelling clown show here.
posted by flabdablet at 11:44 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
There is anti-Greens sentiment here that's at least as strong as the anti-Democrat sentiment in any US red state, and all of the tribalism dynamics at play are sickeningly familiar. The US is just louder about it, as is generally its way; we have nothing like TFG's travelling clown show here.
posted by flabdablet at 11:44 PM on March 14 [1 favorite]
« Older a Wikipedia article that was citing an... | That's a beautiful speech, but nobody's listening.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments