Rural Americans felt abandoned by Democrats in 2016, so they abandoned them back

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

     Indeed, 2016 was a strategic disaster for the Democrats. The big question is whether they can learn from this disaster and fix it.

Democrats need to show up to rural America, talk to people and show them that the Democrats still care about them.

I don't think showing up in town and lecturing these people on how great drone strikes are and the benefits of an earned income tax credit will help very much.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You can't be any more unfree than dead.

-Liberty is negative in nature, not positive.

If that's what you need to tell yourself to sleep at night then I suppose it would be unkind of me to stop you.

-That's not "what I need to tell myself to sleep at night"; it's self-evident.

If it were self-evident, wouldn't it be uncontroversial?

If I thought you were a principled classical liberal or a principled early-twentieth-century social Darwinist I'd have a more genuine respect for your honesty on subjects like this, but the fact that you go out of your way to combine the most repulsive aspects of both worldviews into a squamous mass of amorality and cant raises some pretty serious questions.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

You can't be any more unfree than dead.

-Liberty is negative in nature, not positive.

If that's what you need to tell yourself to sleep at night then I suppose it would be unkind of me to stop you.

-That's not "what I need to tell myself to sleep at night"; it's self-evident.

If it were self-evident, wouldn't it be uncontroversial?

If I thought you were a principled classical liberal or a principled early-twentieth-century social Darwinist I'd have a more genuine respect for your honesty on subjects like this, but the fact that you go out of your way to combine the most repulsive aspects of both worldviews into a squamous mass of amorality and cant raises some pretty serious questions.

-The conclusions of these are mutually reaffirming in this instance.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

They are, but the reason I say "cant" is that you're making what's fundamentally a moral (albeit dramatically incorrect) argument in this thread--that putting systems in place to ensure that poor people don't needlessly die of treatable chronic illness is something that makes other (richer) people "less free"--while trotting out the profoundly anti-moral "conservatism is an ideology of the strong" excuse in another thread.

FYI, I'm not really that much more convinced by the equality argument than by the liberty one--on certain points of theory, I actually prefer Red Toryism to the mainstream left. What I'm concerned about is justice--which entails upholding contextually appropriate degrees of liberty, contextually appropriate degrees of equality, and so forth. To the extent that the terms on which American political debate takes place and the political philosophy on which American institutions were founded deviate from that, it's those terms and that philosophy that are in moral error and ought to be discounted. In that sense I'm actually in agreement with Trump that we should be patriotic because America is the country we have and pointedly not as a form of assent to its ostensible principles or values. If you and I have any common ground at all, it's probably on that.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

They are, but the reason I say "cant" is that you're making what's fundamentally a moral (albeit dramatically incorrect) argument in this thread--that putting systems in place to ensure that poor people don't needlessly die of treatable chronic illness is something that makes other (richer) people "less free"--while trotting out the profoundly anti-moral "conservatism is an ideology of the strong" excuse in another thread.

FYI, I'm not really that much more convinced by the equality argument than by the liberty one--on certain points of theory, I actually prefer Red Toryism to the mainstream left. What I'm concerned about is justice--which entails upholding contextually appropriate degrees of liberty, contextually appropriate degrees of equality, and so forth. To the extent that the terms on which American political debate takes place and the political philosophy on which American institutions were founded deviate from that, it's those terms and that philosophy that are in moral error and ought to be discounted. In that sense I'm actually in agreement with Trump that we should be patriotic because America is the country we have and pointedly not as a form of assent to its ostensible principles or values. If you and I have any common ground at all, it's probably on that.

-I see conservatism as expressly justifying inequality. Thus, it is an ideology of the strong. It's not an excuse; it's a description of conservatism. My brand of conservatism is also rather accepting of liberty. The moral argument here is my actual one.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Sure.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

They are, but the reason I say "cant" is that you're making what's fundamentally a moral (albeit dramatically incorrect) argument in this thread--that putting systems in place to ensure that poor people don't needlessly die of treatable chronic illness is something that makes other (richer) people "less free"--while trotting out the profoundly anti-moral "conservatism is an ideology of the strong" excuse in another thread.

FYI, I'm not really that much more convinced by the equality argument than by the liberty one--on certain points of theory, I actually prefer Red Toryism to the mainstream left. What I'm concerned about is justice--which entails upholding contextually appropriate degrees of liberty, contextually appropriate degrees of equality, and so forth. To the extent that the terms on which American political debate takes place and the political philosophy on which American institutions were founded deviate from that, it's those terms and that philosophy that are in moral error and ought to be discounted. In that sense I'm actually in agreement with Trump that we should be patriotic because America is the country we have and pointedly not as a form of assent to its ostensible principles or values. If you and I have any common ground at all, it's probably on that.

-I see conservatism as expressly justifying inequality. Thus, it is an ideology of the strong. It's not an excuse; it's a description of conservatism. My brand of conservatism is also rather accepting of liberty. The moral argument here is my actual one.

I see. That's uncommonly repellent, and uncommonly forthright in its wickedness.

[JA]

They are, but the reason I say "cant" is that you're making what's fundamentally a moral (albeit dramatically incorrect) argument in this thread--that putting systems in place to ensure that poor people don't needlessly die of treatable chronic illness is something that makes other (richer) people "less free"--while trotting out the profoundly anti-moral "conservatism is an ideology of the strong" excuse in another thread.

FYI, I'm not really that much more convinced by the equality argument than by the liberty one--on certain points of theory, I actually prefer Red Toryism to the mainstream left. What I'm concerned about is justice--which entails upholding contextually appropriate degrees of liberty, contextually appropriate degrees of equality, and so forth. To the extent that the terms on which American political debate takes place and the political philosophy on which American institutions were founded deviate from that, it's those terms and that philosophy that are in moral error and ought to be discounted. In that sense I'm actually in agreement with Trump that we should be patriotic because America is the country we have and pointedly not as a form of assent to its ostensible principles or values. If you and I have any common ground at all, it's probably on that.

-I see conservatism as expressly justifying inequality. Thus, it is an ideology of the strong. It's not an excuse; it's a description of conservatism. My brand of conservatism is also rather accepting of liberty. The moral argument here is my actual one.

I see. That's uncommonly repellent, but I guess I can retain a sort of grim respect for it.

Perhaps you can, but I certainly can't. Anyone who elevates an ideology over humanity is not simply amoral, but immoral. I can't even respect it on the grounds of logical consistency to one's principles, lest I be willing to offer a "grim respect" for principles Nazis and other ideological zealots.

Liberty does not come before humanity. Nation does not come before humanity. Democracy does not come before humanity. We may disagree on the how of ensuring that every human being is properly and sufficiently tended to, and even what balance must be sought between negative liberty and the necessary rights to meet basic human needs, but to disagree with that altogether is abhorrent, repugnant, and, ideally, socially reprehensible.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

They are, but the reason I say "cant" is that you're making what's fundamentally a moral (albeit dramatically incorrect) argument in this thread--that putting systems in place to ensure that poor people don't needlessly die of treatable chronic illness is something that makes other (richer) people "less free"--while trotting out the profoundly anti-moral "conservatism is an ideology of the strong" excuse in another thread.

FYI, I'm not really that much more convinced by the equality argument than by the liberty one--on certain points of theory, I actually prefer Red Toryism to the mainstream left. What I'm concerned about is justice--which entails upholding contextually appropriate degrees of liberty, contextually appropriate degrees of equality, and so forth. To the extent that the terms on which American political debate takes place and the political philosophy on which American institutions were founded deviate from that, it's those terms and that philosophy that are in moral error and ought to be discounted. In that sense I'm actually in agreement with Trump that we should be patriotic because America is the country we have and pointedly not as a form of assent to its ostensible principles or values. If you and I have any common ground at all, it's probably on that.

-I see conservatism as expressly justifying inequality. Thus, it is an ideology of the strong. It's not an excuse; it's a description of conservatism. My brand of conservatism is also rather accepting of liberty. The moral argument here is my actual one.

I see. That's uncommonly repellent, but I guess I can retain a sort of grim respect for it.

Perhaps you can, but I certainly can't.

I was thinking about this a little further, and neither can I. I thought I could--I regret thinking that.

I actually came back into this thread to edit my post to say that it's not only uncommonly repellent, but uncommonly forthright in its wickedness in a way that's worthy not of respect but of praying that some exigency or contigency might move Eharding's heart, because clearly human decency has been tried and found wanting.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

What is your plan for people with pre-existing conditions?

-Let them pay out of pocket for those conditions. I've always felt that those who use the most of a service should pay for it most, except in cases where that service has desirable externalities.

I just wish every Republican were as honest as you.

Many people could not pay out of pocket for those conditions.  Is the GOP prepared to suggest to folks that they will just have to suffer, and, perhaps, die before their time, after a period of diminished quality of life?

-I suggest letting the states decide on what to do about the sick who are not able to earn enough to pay for their treatment expenses.

What do you advocate that the state you live in do?

-I say let them remain untreated then, but wouldn't mind too much if the state legislature ignores my advice -they have careers.

With all due respect, you're two inches short of a monster.

-I tend to favor liberty over equality.

I'm a social conservative, but an economic moderate.  One reason I supported Trump was because he has been honest about the issue of health insurance to the point of saying "We can't have people dying in the streets!".  Obamacare was an old Republican idea that was recycled and repackaged because it would pass, and it would have worked if the courts had not thrown out the mandate expanding Medicaid.  Without that mandate, and with states deliberately not implementing it voluntarily, I agree that Obamacare is going to collapse of its own weight at some point.

I have great healthcare, and so does my wife and my 11 year old son.  My 37 year old adult son in uninsured; his only healthcare is the ER, and he has a chronic injury that is untreated.  He's been a fool in many, many ways (my 11 year old is his son that we've adopted due to dysfunction), but he really was screwed by private industry in a workers comp matter (trust me on this; it's too long a story to post).  Had Medicaid been expanded, he'd be covered, but it wasn't, so he's not.  He has health problems and unresolved injuries, but he can't afford to even go to an appointment for a consultation.  My wife and I work, and I have worked 2 jobs for most of the last 8 years, but my wife works at a church and does not make a lot.  The benefit is the flexibility to take my 11 year old and my disabled daughter-in-law to appointments, and, yes, my daughter-in-law has been part of the dysfunction (serious mental health issues).

Do we just let people die?  If my 11 year old were not adopted by us, they would not be able to afford his ADHD medication; do we just let him fail in the name of "equality"?  If I lived lavishly, that would be one thing, but I assure you we do not. 

Is it right of politicians who wish to "repeal and replace" Obamacare not to disclose these realities?  Is it unethical of them to NOT say, explicitly, "Under our plan, many Americans who cannot afford to purchase health insurance or medical services will not have their conditions treated, and will incur the pain and suffering those conditions bring if they are untreated and nature runs its course."?  Is that no less dishonest than Obama saying "If you like your plan, you can keep it."?

Is it "Christian" to relegate millions of folks who are sick or injured to prayer lines, only, because doctors won't see them?

Isn't most of the complaining about "the government coming between patients and their doctor" a matter of "the government" telling "their doctor" that, yes, you must provide services to this patient, even if it is not as profitable as you would like it to be? 

I agree with the poster who suggested that healthcare ought to be regarded as part of infrastructure.  He/She is correct, and access to healthcare without going broke is part of a middle class society.  Being entirely dependent on charity (missionaries, Project Hope, etc.) for healthcare is a characteristic of third world countries.  Which are we going to be?  That's a fair question.

[MasterJedi]

Nothing Trump or the Republican Congress does will help rural Americans. It'll likely help megafarms and other big businesses but that won't translate to the little guy in the country. The question you need to ask with that make them turn on Trump or will they believe more of the lies? If you look at Wisconsin with Walker, the rural areas are hurting now more than when he was elected in 2010 but they still strongly support him since he's still against the "evil city Dems".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nothing Trump or the Republican Congress does will help rural Americans. It'll likely help megafarms and other big businesses but that won't translate to the little guy in the country. The question you need to ask with that make them turn on Trump or will they believe more of the lies? If you look at Wisconsin with Walker, the rural areas are hurting now more than when he was elected in 2010 but they still strongly support him since he's still against the "evil city Dems".

There's something deeply, even if not overtly, nihilistic that's wormed its way into the rural/small-city white American world-concept in recent decades--I say this as a rural/small-city white person. I have my ideas about why this is, but I'm increasingly at a loss as to what can be done about it, especially since I don't think doubling down on making American economic life a constant hunger games to move to and survive in one of a few big cities is an acceptable option either morally or prudentially.

[MasterJedi]

Nothing Trump or the Republican Congress does will help rural Americans. It'll likely help megafarms and other big businesses but that won't translate to the little guy in the country. The question you need to ask with that make them turn on Trump or will they believe more of the lies? If you look at Wisconsin with Walker, the rural areas are hurting now more than when he was elected in 2010 but they still strongly support him since he's still against the "evil city Dems".

There's something deeply, even if not overtly, nihilistic that's wormed its way into the rural/small-city white American world-concept in recent decades--I say this as a rural/small-city white person. I have my ideas about why this is, but I'm increasingly at a loss as to what can be done about it, especially since I don't think doubling down on making American economic life a constant hunger games to move to and survive in one of a few big cities is an acceptable option either morally or prudentially.

I imagine a true infrastructure bill with apprenticeship/retraining of blue collar rural workforce into skilled trades would go a long way to help. Plus eliminating farm subsidies for large/mega farms while increasing it for the small family owned farms.

But then you have one side not wanting to do anything of that and saying "if we do this it's socialism/the black man will come kill you all" and they fall for it.

Edit: I have friends in the country that think if you go into Milwaukee you will be mugged and shot to death as blood runs red in the streets. Yes, crime is up in the last two years but people don't go around murdering randoms in the street like they think.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Nothing Trump or the Republican Congress does will help rural Americans. It'll likely help megafarms and other big businesses but that won't translate to the little guy in the country. The question you need to ask with that make them turn on Trump or will they believe more of the lies? If you look at Wisconsin with Walker, the rural areas are hurting now more than when he was elected in 2010 but they still strongly support him since he's still against the "evil city Dems".

There's something deeply, even if not overtly, nihilistic that's wormed its way into the rural/small-city white American world-concept in recent decades--I say this as a rural/small-city white person. I have my ideas about why this is, but I'm increasingly at a loss as to what can be done about it, especially since I don't think doubling down on making American economic life a constant hunger games to move to and survive in one of a few big cities is an acceptable option either morally or prudentially.

I imagine a true infrastructure bill with apprenticeship/retraining of blue collar rural workforce into skilled trades would go a long way to help. Plus eliminating farm subsidies for large/mega farms while increasing it for the small family owned farms.

But then you have one side not wanting to do anything of that and saying "if we do this it's socialism/the black man will come kill you all" and they fall for it.

Edit: I have friends in the country that think if you go into Milwaukee you will be mugged and shot to death as blood runs red in the streets. Yes, crime is up in the last two years but people don't go around murdering randoms in the street like they think.

That is a sum up of why Trump was elected. I'm from NY our airports were secure but when you see support for Trump's EO are from rural whites who never sat foot in a big city saying it was lawless with terrorist just walking through

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nothing Trump or the Republican Congress does will help rural Americans. It'll likely help megafarms and other big businesses but that won't translate to the little guy in the country. The question you need to ask with that make them turn on Trump or will they believe more of the lies? If you look at Wisconsin with Walker, the rural areas are hurting now more than when he was elected in 2010 but they still strongly support him since he's still against the "evil city Dems".

There's something deeply, even if not overtly, nihilistic that's wormed its way into the rural/small-city white American world-concept in recent decades--I say this as a rural/small-city white person. I have my ideas about why this is, but I'm increasingly at a loss as to what can be done about it, especially since I don't think doubling down on making American economic life a constant hunger games to move to and survive in one of a few big cities is an acceptable option either morally or prudentially.

I imagine a true infrastructure bill with apprenticeship/retraining of blue collar rural workforce into skilled trades would go a long way to help. Plus eliminating farm subsidies for large/mega farms while increasing it for the small family owned farms.

But then you have one side not wanting to do anything of that and saying "if we do this it's socialism/the black man will come kill you all" and they fall for it.

That would help a lot of the economic problems. I'm not as convinced as I'd like to be that it'd help the cultural despair.

[Averroës Nix]

Nothing Trump or the Republican Congress does will help rural Americans. It'll likely help megafarms and other big businesses but that won't translate to the little guy in the country. The question you need to ask with that make them turn on Trump or will they believe more of the lies? If you look at Wisconsin with Walker, the rural areas are hurting now more than when he was elected in 2010 but they still strongly support him since he's still against the "evil city Dems".

There's something deeply, even if not overtly, nihilistic that's wormed its way into the rural/small-city white American world-concept in recent decades--I say this as a rural/small-city white person. I have my ideas about why this is, but I'm increasingly at a loss as to what can be done about it, especially since I don't think doubling down on making American economic life a constant hunger games to move to and survive in one of a few big cities is an acceptable option either morally or prudentially.

I would be pretty nihilistic too if I'd lived the life of my grandparents. They grew up in a beautiful and thriving small town in Upstate New York with a vibrant social scene, good schools, a healthy local economy that supported numerous small businesses, and where someone could move through every stage of life with their friends and family beside them. And then they had to watch that come apart, decade after decade. Their children left to build their careers and raise their families elsewhere. The businesses closed. The social organizations are gone. The school is a mess, with a majority of students living in poverty and a close to two-thirds from single-parent families. The streetscapes have deteriorated - the village is a hollowed-out shell, with numerous abandoned or derelict structures. If anyone builds a new house, it's a modular monstrosity at the end of a long driveway on a rural route or state highway a couple of miles outside of town.

And who else is left, other than the old? Most remaining younger residents from are shiftless or disturbed (drug addicts, mentally ill, developmental disabled, abusive families, etc.). Many of them, even those who have never lived anywhere else, are essentially city people - they hold the same values, like the same things, adopt similar habits, and try to wear the same clothes and listen to the same music. They're not interested in the way of life that has sustained the community, and most of them will leave when they have an opportunity elsewhere. You might have a few urban emigrant Torie-types in the mix, and it's worth chasing after their money, but in most places they aren't present in sufficient numbers to re-build anything real, even if they get along well with everyone else.

The Republicans have nothing to offer them other than a vaguely credible story about whom they should blame. But that's more than the Democrats have offered them in a long time. The cliché is real. I have no difficulty getting the people I know in these places to criticize Republicans, but the idea that the Democrats are an alternative worth considering is literally treated as laughable.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nothing Trump or the Republican Congress does will help rural Americans. It'll likely help megafarms and other big businesses but that won't translate to the little guy in the country. The question you need to ask with that make them turn on Trump or will they believe more of the lies? If you look at Wisconsin with Walker, the rural areas are hurting now more than when he was elected in 2010 but they still strongly support him since he's still against the "evil city Dems".

There's something deeply, even if not overtly, nihilistic that's wormed its way into the rural/small-city white American world-concept in recent decades--I say this as a rural/small-city white person. I have my ideas about why this is, but I'm increasingly at a loss as to what can be done about it, especially since I don't think doubling down on making American economic life a constant hunger games to move to and survive in one of a few big cities is an acceptable option either morally or prudentially.

I would be pretty nihilistic too if I'd lived the life of my grandparents. They grew up in a beautiful and thriving small town in Upstate New York with a vibrant social scene, good schools, a healthy local economy that supported numerous small businesses, and where someone could move through every stage of life with their friends and family beside them. And then they had to watch that come apart, decade after decade. Their children left to build their careers and raise their families elsewhere. The businesses closed. The social organizations are gone. The school is a mess, with a majority of students living in poverty and a close to two-thirds from single-parent families. The streetscapes have deteriorated - the village is a hollowed-out shell, with numerous abandoned or derelict structures. If anyone builds a new house, it's a modular monstrosity at the end of a long driveway on a rural route or state highway a couple of miles outside of town.

And who else is left, other than the old? Most remaining younger residents from are shiftless or disturbed (drug addicts, mentally ill, developmental disabled, abusive families, etc.). Many of them, even those who have never lived anywhere else, are essentially city people - they hold the same values, like the same things, adopt similar habits, and try to wear the same clothes and listen to the same music. They're not interested in the way of life that has sustained the community, and most of them will leave when they have an opportunity elsewhere. You might have a few urban emigrant Torie-types in the mix, and it's worth chasing after their money, but in most places they aren't present in sufficient numbers to re-build anything real, even if they get along well with everyone else.

The Republicans have nothing to offer them other than a vaguely credible story about whom they should blame. But that's more than the Democrats have offered them in a long time. The cliché is real. I have no difficulty getting the people I know in these places to criticize Republicans, but the idea that the Democrats are an alternative worth considering is literally treated as laughable.

I don't disagree with any of this. Pull the happy shiny neo-hippie skin off Western Mass and it's pretty much the same here for most people. I'd imagine unconcern or even rapacity on the part of the New York City and Boston people who run our state governments is another point of similarity.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Nothing Trump or the Republican Congress does will help rural Americans. It'll likely help megafarms and other big businesses but that won't translate to the little guy in the country. The question you need to ask with that make them turn on Trump or will they believe more of the lies? If you look at Wisconsin with Walker, the rural areas are hurting now more than when he was elected in 2010 but they still strongly support him since he's still against the "evil city Dems".

There's something deeply, even if not overtly, nihilistic that's wormed its way into the rural/small-city white American world-concept in recent decades--I say this as a rural/small-city white person. I have my ideas about why this is, but I'm increasingly at a loss as to what can be done about it, especially since I don't think doubling down on making American economic life a constant hunger games to move to and survive in one of a few big cities is an acceptable option either morally or prudentially.

I would be pretty nihilistic too if I'd lived the life of my grandparents. They grew up in a beautiful and thriving small town in Upstate New York with a vibrant social scene, good schools, a healthy local economy that supported numerous small businesses, and where someone could move through every stage of life with their friends and family beside them. And then they had to watch that come apart, decade after decade. Their children left to build their careers and raise their families elsewhere. The businesses closed. The social organizations are gone. The school is a mess, with a majority of students living in poverty and a close to two-thirds from single-parent families. The streetscapes have deteriorated - the village is a hollowed-out shell, with numerous abandoned or derelict structures. If anyone builds a new house, it's a modular monstrosity at the end of a long driveway on a rural route or state highway a couple of miles outside of town.

And who else is left, other than the old? Most remaining younger residents from are shiftless or disturbed (drug addicts, mentally ill, developmental disabled, abusive families, etc.). Many of them, even those who have never lived anywhere else, are essentially city people - they hold the same values, like the same things, adopt similar habits, and try to wear the same clothes and listen to the same music. They're not interested in the way of life that has sustained the community, and most of them will leave when they have an opportunity elsewhere. You might have a few urban emigrant Torie-types in the mix, and it's worth chasing after their money, but in most places they aren't present in sufficient numbers to re-build anything real, even if they get along well with everyone else.

The Republicans have nothing to offer them other than a vaguely credible story about whom they should blame. But that's more than the Democrats have offered them in a long time. The cliché is real. I have no difficulty getting the people I know in these places to criticize Republicans, but the idea that the Democrats are an alternative worth considering is literally treated as laughable.

The underlined part is not the whole of it, but it's a big chunk, and a sentiment I would agree with.

[RINO Tom]

Is there an official definition for "rural"?  Most people here just seem to define it as socially conservative yokel.  For example, just outside Iowa City, there is a town called Kalona in Washington County.  It's very Republican, it's only about 2,500 people, etc., and it fits the stereotypical "rural" fit for things like our maps and such.  However, if you went there (as we often do, because it has a GREAT restaurant and a cool brewery), you would not think that the people living there were different culturally than people who live in Iowa City, even if they are politically.  It's not this foreign planet.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Is there an official definition for "rural"?  Most people here just seem to define it as socially conservative yokel.  For example, just outside Iowa City, there is a town called Kalona in Washington County.  It's very Republican, it's only about 2,500 people, etc., and it fits the stereotypical "rural" fit for things like our maps and such.  However, if you went there (as we often do, because it has a GREAT restaurant and a cool brewery), you would not think that the people living there were different culturally than people who live in Iowa City, even if they are politically.  It's not this foreign planet.

There is, on the whole, less ethnic diversity in rural America.  Rural Americans are more rooted and grounded in the place they're at; they're more likely to have been their for generations and more likely to have LOTS of family living locally. 

I may notice these things a lot because I live in Florida, in a diverse place where folks ask "Where are you from?" in introducing yourself.  And the answer is usually someplace other than where you're living.  I go to Jackson, OH, a town on the edge of Appalachia in Southern Ohio, to visit my grandchildren, and family there is a big deal.  Urban America, for the most part, is a place where this rootedness has broken down, and rural Americans don't want that to happen to them.  Indeed, there is much of rural America that would be in worse shape if family structure there had taken a bigger hit than it has over the years.  Family has been a big part in getting a lot of small town and rural folks through the hard economic times that came with the exporting of their jobs.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Solution: let's nominate a far-left professor from Massachusetts!

[Torie]

Is there an official definition for "rural"?  Most people here just seem to define it as socially conservative yokel.  For example, just outside Iowa City, there is a town called Kalona in Washington County.  It's very Republican, it's only about 2,500 people, etc., and it fits the stereotypical "rural" fit for things like our maps and such.  However, if you went there (as we often do, because it has a GREAT restaurant and a cool brewery), you would not think that the people living there were different culturally than people who live in Iowa City, even if they are politically.  It's not this foreign planet.

There is, on the whole, less ethnic diversity in rural America.  Rural Americans are more rooted and grounded in the place they're at; they're more likely to have been their for generations and more likely to have LOTS of family living locally.  

I may notice these things a lot because I live in Florida, in a diverse place where folks ask "Where are you from?" in introducing yourself.  And the answer is usually someplace other than where you're living.  I go to Jackson, OH, a town on the edge of Appalachia in Southern Ohio, to visit my grandchildren, and family there is a big deal.  Urban America, for the most part, is a place where this rootedness has broken down, and rural Americans don't want that to happen to them.  Indeed, there is much of rural America that would be in worse shape if family structure there had taken a bigger hit than it has over the years.  Family has been a big part in getting a lot of small town and rural folks through the hard economic times that came with the exporting of their jobs.

I asked a smart lady I was sitting next to on a plane, who grew up in rural Vermont, in a place now beset by all sorts of issues, just why she thought so many that lived there did not leave. She said, it is because of the extended family. It does act as a sort of social safety net, and many perceive it as essential to their survival, and it would terrify them to abandon it for the social anomie of a place where they have no extended family.

[Kantakouzenos]

Nothing Trump or the Republican Congress does will help rural Americans. It'll likely help megafarms and other big businesses but that won't translate to the little guy in the country. The question you need to ask with that make them turn on Trump or will they believe more of the lies? If you look at Wisconsin with Walker, the rural areas are hurting now more than when he was elected in 2010 but they still strongly support him since he's still against the "evil city Dems".

There's something deeply, even if not overtly, nihilistic that's wormed its way into the rural/small-city white American world-concept in recent decades--I say this as a rural/small-city white person. I have my ideas about why this is, but I'm increasingly at a loss as to what can be done about it, especially since I don't think doubling down on making American economic life a constant hunger games to move to and survive in one of a few big cities is an acceptable option either morally or prudentially.

I imagine a true infrastructure bill with apprenticeship/retraining of blue collar rural workforce into skilled trades would go a long way to help. Plus eliminating farm subsidies for large/mega farms while increasing it for the small family owned farms.

But then you have one side not wanting to do anything of that and saying "if we do this it's socialism/the black man will come kill you all" and they fall for it.

That would help a lot of the economic problems. I'm not as convinced as I'd like to be that it'd help the cultural despair.

I don't really understand this despair all that much then, but wouldn't focusing on cultural issues important to rural people be something to do as well then?