4 ms·

The joke is that the rural people are oppressing themselves. "Urban elites" have long advocated for policies that would benefit the rural poor but the white ru

The joke is that the rural people are oppressing themselves. "Urban elites" have long advocated for policies that would benefit the rural poor but the white rural poor are dead set against any policy that would also benefit black people. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17234 http://www.nber.org/papers/w17234 and http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-Amer... for more on that.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
That book is so totally "OMG, what's WRONG with those people???" Emphasis "those people." While that's one interpretation, there's Long been conflict in the US on the rural-urban axis - see Andrew Jackson's vision versus Alexander Hamilton's vision Race is only useful in this sort of thing as a predictor of rough economic class, and even then it's less than useful. IOW, I don't think it's specifically race. A better resource is "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America" http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029 http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cult...
- lliamander 10y ago
  > That book is so totally "OMG, what's WRONG with those people???" Emphasis "those people." Indeed. Although I am not (currently) among the rural poor, I can't imagine ever trusting someone who openly refers to me or mine as "those people".
  - true_religion 10y ago
    I'm curious. This is a question that's plagued me my entire adult life. Why are many people against being called "those people" or "these people"? Is it a connotation thing---as in previously someone trying to marginalize a population would refer to them casually as "those people"? Or is there some deeper insult that I am missing due to not having experience of it?
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      It fairly screams "Jungian Other" doesn't it?
qsymmachus 10y ago
There's a grain of truth to this, but it's a frankly smug attitude. It's a bit of a hand wave ("because racism") that allows urban elites like you and me to avoid asking what it is about _us_ and our politics that many white working class people find so repulsive.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  So let's ask the question, then. What makes progressive social policies (ignoring loaded issues like reproductive options and gun control) so distasteful to some of those who would most benefit? I'll provide a starting hypothesis for discussion's sake: maybe urban disdain for the suburban and rural lifestyles (exemplified by complaints about "subsidizing" rural areas) turns people off before they hear the good ideas? An alternative hypothesis based on my own rural extended family: maybe one group decides based on what they are led to believe is practical or effective, while the other group decides based on what they are led to believe is "right" or moral, and the rhetoric of either side cannot penetrate the thought process of the other?
  - twoodfin 10y ago
    I don't think ramping up to a $15 minimum wage is going to be a practical or effective economic stimulus for small family businesses in rural upstate NY, but that's what they're going to get thanks to their urban compatriots who know better[1]. [1] http://www.syracuse.com/state/index.ssf/2016/02/poll_two-thirds_of_new_yorkers_support_15_an_hour_minimum_wage.html http://www.syracuse.com/state/index.ssf/2016/02/poll_two-thi...
    - thrownaway2424 10y ago
      In fact this is the perfect illustration of how the non-rich are manipulated into supporting the policies of the rich. Lots of people oppose the minimum wage increase on the basis of its impact on small businesses, but the reality is that small businesses have their margins squeezed to zero by their landlords, who raise rents as high as the market can bear. When the government sets a minimum wage they are effectively defining a non-negotiable boundary around the rent-wage-profit function for businesses. Business owners might be willing to pay higher rents and lower wages, but the minimum wage prevents them from doing this. This is better for workers (who get paid more), better for the economy at large because it puts money in motion (minimum wage earners spend 100% of their earnings and save nothing), neutral for the small business owners whose margins were already minimized, and worse for landlords. The only people who should be opposed to this are landlords, but they succeed in manipulating many others over to their side.
mapt 10y ago
Another point towards this hypothesis, but on the wealthy end of the spectrum rather than the poor end: http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7545509/inequality-waste http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7545509/inequality-waste The questions are, why are positional concerns so obscenely powerful here as opposed to elsewhere, and why are positional concerns so obscenely powerful now as opposed to earlier?† †Note the latter is somewhat questionable, as we had a black underclass to systemically persecute for a long time, and this action is blamed for everything from our lack of a public healthcare system to the gaps in our educational policy favoring high-income areas to suburban roadbuilding to the prevalence of private neighborhood & household swimming pools.
lliamander 10y ago
> The joke is that the rural people are oppressing themselves. That's a bit smug[0]. >"Urban elites" have long advocated for policies that would benefit the rural poor but the white rural poor are dead set against any policy that would also benefit black people. Certainly these urban elites could enact these beneficial policies for their (largely black) urban poor in their own cities without the interference of the white rural poor. How well is that working out? [0]http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali...
mason240 10y ago
After (falsely) calling them all racists who would cut off their nose to spite their face, I can't imagine why dislike the ideas of their "urban betters."

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

That book is so totally "OMG, what's WRONG with those people???" Emphasis "those people." While that's one interpretation, there's Long been conflict in the US on the rural-urban axis - see Andrew Jackson's vision versus Alexander Hamilton's vision Race is only useful in this sort of thing as a predictor of rough economic class, and even then it's less than useful. IOW, I don't think it's specifically race. A better resource is "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America" http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029 http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cult...

lliamander 10y ago
> That book is so totally "OMG, what's WRONG with those people???" Emphasis "those people." Indeed. Although I am not (currently) among the rural poor, I can't imagine ever trusting someone who openly refers to me or mine as "those people".
- true_religion 10y ago
  I'm curious. This is a question that's plagued me my entire adult life. Why are many people against being called "those people" or "these people"? Is it a connotation thing---as in previously someone trying to marginalize a population would refer to them casually as "those people"? Or is there some deeper insult that I am missing due to not having experience of it?
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    It fairly screams "Jungian Other" doesn't it?

qsymmachus 10y ago

There's a grain of truth to this, but it's a frankly smug attitude. It's a bit of a hand wave ("because racism") that allows urban elites like you and me to avoid asking what it is about _us_ and our politics that many white working class people find so repulsive.

nitrogen 10y ago
So let's ask the question, then. What makes progressive social policies (ignoring loaded issues like reproductive options and gun control) so distasteful to some of those who would most benefit? I'll provide a starting hypothesis for discussion's sake: maybe urban disdain for the suburban and rural lifestyles (exemplified by complaints about "subsidizing" rural areas) turns people off before they hear the good ideas? An alternative hypothesis based on my own rural extended family: maybe one group decides based on what they are led to believe is practical or effective, while the other group decides based on what they are led to believe is "right" or moral, and the rhetoric of either side cannot penetrate the thought process of the other?
- twoodfin 10y ago
  I don't think ramping up to a $15 minimum wage is going to be a practical or effective economic stimulus for small family businesses in rural upstate NY, but that's what they're going to get thanks to their urban compatriots who know better[1]. [1] http://www.syracuse.com/state/index.ssf/2016/02/poll_two-thirds_of_new_yorkers_support_15_an_hour_minimum_wage.html http://www.syracuse.com/state/index.ssf/2016/02/poll_two-thi...
  - thrownaway2424 10y ago
    In fact this is the perfect illustration of how the non-rich are manipulated into supporting the policies of the rich. Lots of people oppose the minimum wage increase on the basis of its impact on small businesses, but the reality is that small businesses have their margins squeezed to zero by their landlords, who raise rents as high as the market can bear. When the government sets a minimum wage they are effectively defining a non-negotiable boundary around the rent-wage-profit function for businesses. Business owners might be willing to pay higher rents and lower wages, but the minimum wage prevents them from doing this. This is better for workers (who get paid more), better for the economy at large because it puts money in motion (minimum wage earners spend 100% of their earnings and save nothing), neutral for the small business owners whose margins were already minimized, and worse for landlords. The only people who should be opposed to this are landlords, but they succeed in manipulating many others over to their side.

mapt 10y ago

Another point towards this hypothesis, but on the wealthy end of the spectrum rather than the poor end: http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7545509/inequality-waste http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7545509/inequality-waste The questions are, why are positional concerns so obscenely powerful here as opposed to elsewhere, and why are positional concerns so obscenely powerful now as opposed to earlier?† †Note the latter is somewhat questionable, as we had a black underclass to systemically persecute for a long time, and this action is blamed for everything from our lack of a public healthcare system to the gaps in our educational policy favoring high-income areas to suburban roadbuilding to the prevalence of private neighborhood & household swimming pools.

lliamander 10y ago

> The joke is that the rural people are oppressing themselves. That's a bit smug[0]. >"Urban elites" have long advocated for policies that would benefit the rural poor but the white rural poor are dead set against any policy that would also benefit black people. Certainly these urban elites could enact these beneficial policies for their (largely black) urban poor in their own cities without the interference of the white rural poor. How well is that working out? [0]http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali...

mason240 10y ago

After (falsely) calling them all racists who would cut off their nose to spite their face, I can't imagine why dislike the ideas of their "urban betters."