4 ms·

Not one mention of religion in the article. Not one mention of the 2010 or 2014 elections and what happened in DC. No talk of the difference between the repor

Not one mention of religion in the article. Not one mention of the 2010 or 2014 elections and what happened in DC. No talk of the difference between the reporting on the Tea Party and what actually happened, No EPA, no school lunch program talk, and no talk about every Atlantic article that demonizes some aspect of the rural areas including farming. Its pretty simple why Trump won the GOP nomination: a lot of folks are not happy with the actions of politicians and want a definite change. If that doesn't work, they'll try someone more radical. or if you keep demonizing a group, expect them to send an actual demon eventually Read this one for the other side of the coin: https://www.amazon.com/Flyover-Nation-Country-Youve-Never/dp/0399563881/ https://www.amazon.com/Flyover-Nation-Country-Youve-Never/dp...

csdrane 10y ago
That book looks interesting but it also seems like it is mostly anecdotal. I'd prefer something similar but with hard numbers behind it. Is my impression mistaken?
- protomyth 10y ago
  Its mostly anecdotal, but in a lot of ways that's part of the problem. Most of the selected books with stats are by people who haven't lived in rural areas for a while. Its basically archeology by number more than direct study. Plus, we're talking about culture, hard numbers are not the whole story or even the majority of the story. This quantify and categorize everything culture is part of the problems with understanding. Now for my pet peeve from writing grants in the 90's: The federal government is pretty damn lax about getting rural numbers from studies. Its either a nationwide study or urban areas only. The stuff they get from rural areas is the stuff that doesn't require someone in DC to actual do anything beyond taking basic numbers and putting into a spreadsheet.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    This quantify and categorize everything culture is part of the problems with understanding. I don't see how one can claim to understand something without quantifying it. What is often referred to as understanding should IMO be called empathy instead, because it's necessary but not sufficient for finding solutions. Actions can be motivated by empathy, but they need to be supported by quantitative evidence.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      > I don't see how one can claim to understand something without quantifying it. How much do you love your partner or nearest relatives in numeric terms? How do you work out disagreements. I think we have slipped a little far from the path of actual understanding to know what we need to measure and how.
      - nitrogen 10y ago
        That's not what I would call understanding. And we do use quantifiable or at least rational means to resolve disagreements. That's the only way to be sure of being equitable.
    - coupdetaco 10y ago
      Pattern recognition. Trust your brain to sense, judge, and intuit the correct answer. You can identify correlations without turning a computer on if you have enough qualitative 'data'. That's what being an educated person is all about.
      - nitrogen 10y ago
        That doesn't sound like it could possibly scale. I sure wouldn't trust anyone's individual brain to intuit correct answers for an entire society without having quantitative data.
sevenless 10y ago
The primary explanation for the success of Trump is that he is a competent representative of a section of the population, that is currently unrepresented in the party spectrum. "Competent" means he has an organisation, is seen as potentially electable, and accurately reflects the concerns of his own voters. This is also the primary explanation for the rise of right-wing European nationalists, and the Brexit vote. Their success is a restructuring of the party landscape, to conform more closely with the attitudes and aspirations of the electorate. Two-party systems tend to exclude new parties, but if enough voters are dissatisfied, then sooner or later there will be a shift in the political spectrum. Trump has clear policies, which certainly on immigration correspond to the positions of populist parties in Europe. He does not have a full policy platform, but that is not necessary for a populist party to be successful. It only needs to address the issues which anger its electorate. And that is the reality which needs to be considered: a section of the population is angry at the political class for ignoring their concerns and fears. Simply disparaging Trump and his voters does not offer an alternative explanation for his success, or for comparable populist success in other countries.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  To be clear, the 'realignment' in Europe and to some extent the US is a function of the dissolution of the classical left. 'Left Wing' used to be a 'labour movement', i.e. workers rights, unions, social welfare etc.. In the UK the left is called 'the labour party'. But modern left wing parties are 'intellectually left' or 'socially progressive'. They are interested in gender issues, abortion, identity etc.. The 'academic left' wants gay marriage, abortion, to promote ideas such as 'white privilege', they are often not 'pro law enforcement' or 'nationalist' (in the classical sense), they are 'anti Christian' - or rather secular when it comes to Christianity, but are actually supportive of almost all other forms of religious expression (i.e. Islamic head coverings etc.), going even so far as to create another religion: 'Kwanza'. But 'regular lower-middle class white folk' are usually 'somewhat religious', they have varying opinions on abortion but are generally weary of it, are somewhat tolerant of gay culture but weary of gay marriage, are generally 'pro police', and somewhat nationalist. Ok with immigration but are very weary of illegal immigration, whereas the new left tries to equate 'illegal' and 'legal' immigration as the same thing. They generally support more classical values. Boy/Girl Scouts. Joining the service as an act of duty. Valuing family. Christmas. Etc.. The leadership of left-wing parties around the world is utterly disconnected from their voters, which is changing the landscape. In the UK particularly. In America - this effect is dampened by newcomers. Almost all African Americans and most Latinos vote 'default Democrat' and those two groups are growing quite a lot along with most other new immigrants, especially those who are visible minorities. 'Working class' America is shifting rightwards due to the lack of representation among classical Democrats. Combine the fact that you have 'big corporate' Republicans as well as Dems in the centre, you have remaining the 'gun toters' and 'tea partiers' which can have a nastier element on the fringe, and you get Donald Trump. There basically is no party to represent regular, working-class-ish white people, which is a huge demographic. It's a crazy time.
conception 10y ago
I think the problem is is when their arguments are presented, such as the write up for that book, they are filled with logical fallacies, hyperbole, poor morals and ineffective policies. Just a quick list from that page - "Dana Loesch believes in Christianity, patriotism, traditional marriage, and the right to bear arms, among other “quaint” ideas. For the elites in DC, Los Angeles, New York, and Silicon Valley, that makes her as bizarre as a three-headed dog." - Nice use of "elites". If you disagree with her, you must be one of those crazy elites. Also, nice fallacy equating her views with patriotism and Christianity, again if you disagree you must not be a true patriot/Christian. • In Flyover America, people believe criminals should be punished. Coastal America focuses on “rehabilitation.” --Unless you believe in revenge and career criminals, rehabilitation is a far better way to deal with convicted criminals. Also, nice use of quotes on rehabilitation. If you just want to punish them and not try to stop their cycle of criminality, what sort of people are these? Not good ones. • Flyovers think the Declaration of Independence was crystal clear: “All men are created equal.” For Coastals, Black Lives Matter—but anyone who adds that all lives matter must be a racist. ---First, hilariously myopic because the Declaration of Independence was written when slavery was in full gear and women has very few rights. Hence "all men". Also, if you don't understand what people mean when they say "Black Lives Matter" you are really lacking empathy and saying "All lives matter" is missing the point so hard, that yes, it borders on racism. • Coastals think they understand firearms because they watched a TV movie about Columbine. Fly- overs get a deer rifle for their thirteenth birthday. --I'm pretty sure the debate is over military style weapons with large magazine and high rates of fire, not deer rifles. But nice strawman. • Coastals talk about blue-collar workers in the abstract. Flyovers have a relative who works the night shift in a granola bar factory, where the big perk is taking home a bag full of granola bars every Friday. ---No one on the coasts have shitty jobs. Nope. • Coastals think every problem—from hurt feelings to the cost of birth control—requires government intervention and huge federal spending. Flyovers know that money isn’t magic fairy dust, and many problems can be solved only by individual character and hard work. ---Many problems can be solved only by individual character and hard work, except of course for all the problems "fly-over nation" has. Or is she saying that those people don't have character and are lazy? Hard to tell. Or maybe she's just demonizing the government to pander to her audience. How can you be angry at Walmart if you’ve never shopped in one? --How can I be against the use of nuclear weapons if I have never survived one? The answer is called education, research and data. Surprisingly, you can learn things and form opinions without having to experience the thing you are researching. How can you hate the police if you’ve never needed help from a cop? --- I think she's trying to say "How can white 'elites' on the coast hate the police if they don't need them". Which of course, more logical fallacies. Talking about police corruption and wanting to do something about it is of course is the same thing as hating them, right? Right? How can you attack Christians if you don’t have a single friend who goes to church? -- How can you attack Muslims if you don't have a single friend who goes to mosque? Oh wait. She probably wouldn't want that question turned around on her. Also, who's attacking Christians? 70% of the country is Christian. What is she afraid of? Is this is a war on Christmas thing? Manufactured outrage created by media companies to get ratings. If you aren't willing to step up to the table with rational, well reasoned arguments that improve the country as a whole why should people bother to listen? Asking how can they judge walmart if they haven't been in one? It'd be laughable if people didn't take it seriously.
unabst 10y ago
> if you keep demonizing a group, expect them to send an actual demon eventually Best line I read on HN today. This explains so much about everybody... Thank you.
rubberstamp 10y ago
I didn't like Trump at first. Now I like him. I think he would probably do better than Obama, though that is a pretty low bar. I don't think he is a demon at all. Even if he turn out to be evil, am pretty confidant he is the lesser evil between him and Hillary.

csdrane 10y ago

That book looks interesting but it also seems like it is mostly anecdotal. I'd prefer something similar but with hard numbers behind it. Is my impression mistaken?

protomyth 10y ago
Its mostly anecdotal, but in a lot of ways that's part of the problem. Most of the selected books with stats are by people who haven't lived in rural areas for a while. Its basically archeology by number more than direct study. Plus, we're talking about culture, hard numbers are not the whole story or even the majority of the story. This quantify and categorize everything culture is part of the problems with understanding. Now for my pet peeve from writing grants in the 90's: The federal government is pretty damn lax about getting rural numbers from studies. Its either a nationwide study or urban areas only. The stuff they get from rural areas is the stuff that doesn't require someone in DC to actual do anything beyond taking basic numbers and putting into a spreadsheet.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  This quantify and categorize everything culture is part of the problems with understanding. I don't see how one can claim to understand something without quantifying it. What is often referred to as understanding should IMO be called empathy instead, because it's necessary but not sufficient for finding solutions. Actions can be motivated by empathy, but they need to be supported by quantitative evidence.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    > I don't see how one can claim to understand something without quantifying it. How much do you love your partner or nearest relatives in numeric terms? How do you work out disagreements. I think we have slipped a little far from the path of actual understanding to know what we need to measure and how.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      That's not what I would call understanding. And we do use quantifiable or at least rational means to resolve disagreements. That's the only way to be sure of being equitable.
  - coupdetaco 10y ago
    Pattern recognition. Trust your brain to sense, judge, and intuit the correct answer. You can identify correlations without turning a computer on if you have enough qualitative 'data'. That's what being an educated person is all about.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      That doesn't sound like it could possibly scale. I sure wouldn't trust anyone's individual brain to intuit correct answers for an entire society without having quantitative data.

sevenless 10y ago

The primary explanation for the success of Trump is that he is a competent representative of a section of the population, that is currently unrepresented in the party spectrum. "Competent" means he has an organisation, is seen as potentially electable, and accurately reflects the concerns of his own voters. This is also the primary explanation for the rise of right-wing European nationalists, and the Brexit vote. Their success is a restructuring of the party landscape, to conform more closely with the attitudes and aspirations of the electorate. Two-party systems tend to exclude new parties, but if enough voters are dissatisfied, then sooner or later there will be a shift in the political spectrum. Trump has clear policies, which certainly on immigration correspond to the positions of populist parties in Europe. He does not have a full policy platform, but that is not necessary for a populist party to be successful. It only needs to address the issues which anger its electorate. And that is the reality which needs to be considered: a section of the population is angry at the political class for ignoring their concerns and fears. Simply disparaging Trump and his voters does not offer an alternative explanation for his success, or for comparable populist success in other countries.

jomamaxx 10y ago
To be clear, the 'realignment' in Europe and to some extent the US is a function of the dissolution of the classical left. 'Left Wing' used to be a 'labour movement', i.e. workers rights, unions, social welfare etc.. In the UK the left is called 'the labour party'. But modern left wing parties are 'intellectually left' or 'socially progressive'. They are interested in gender issues, abortion, identity etc.. The 'academic left' wants gay marriage, abortion, to promote ideas such as 'white privilege', they are often not 'pro law enforcement' or 'nationalist' (in the classical sense), they are 'anti Christian' - or rather secular when it comes to Christianity, but are actually supportive of almost all other forms of religious expression (i.e. Islamic head coverings etc.), going even so far as to create another religion: 'Kwanza'. But 'regular lower-middle class white folk' are usually 'somewhat religious', they have varying opinions on abortion but are generally weary of it, are somewhat tolerant of gay culture but weary of gay marriage, are generally 'pro police', and somewhat nationalist. Ok with immigration but are very weary of illegal immigration, whereas the new left tries to equate 'illegal' and 'legal' immigration as the same thing. They generally support more classical values. Boy/Girl Scouts. Joining the service as an act of duty. Valuing family. Christmas. Etc.. The leadership of left-wing parties around the world is utterly disconnected from their voters, which is changing the landscape. In the UK particularly. In America - this effect is dampened by newcomers. Almost all African Americans and most Latinos vote 'default Democrat' and those two groups are growing quite a lot along with most other new immigrants, especially those who are visible minorities. 'Working class' America is shifting rightwards due to the lack of representation among classical Democrats. Combine the fact that you have 'big corporate' Republicans as well as Dems in the centre, you have remaining the 'gun toters' and 'tea partiers' which can have a nastier element on the fringe, and you get Donald Trump. There basically is no party to represent regular, working-class-ish white people, which is a huge demographic. It's a crazy time.

conception 10y ago

I think the problem is is when their arguments are presented, such as the write up for that book, they are filled with logical fallacies, hyperbole, poor morals and ineffective policies. Just a quick list from that page - "Dana Loesch believes in Christianity, patriotism, traditional marriage, and the right to bear arms, among other “quaint” ideas. For the elites in DC, Los Angeles, New York, and Silicon Valley, that makes her as bizarre as a three-headed dog." - Nice use of "elites". If you disagree with her, you must be one of those crazy elites. Also, nice fallacy equating her views with patriotism and Christianity, again if you disagree you must not be a true patriot/Christian. • In Flyover America, people believe criminals should be punished. Coastal America focuses on “rehabilitation.” --Unless you believe in revenge and career criminals, rehabilitation is a far better way to deal with convicted criminals. Also, nice use of quotes on rehabilitation. If you just want to punish them and not try to stop their cycle of criminality, what sort of people are these? Not good ones. • Flyovers think the Declaration of Independence was crystal clear: “All men are created equal.” For Coastals, Black Lives Matter—but anyone who adds that all lives matter must be a racist. ---First, hilariously myopic because the Declaration of Independence was written when slavery was in full gear and women has very few rights. Hence "all men". Also, if you don't understand what people mean when they say "Black Lives Matter" you are really lacking empathy and saying "All lives matter" is missing the point so hard, that yes, it borders on racism. • Coastals think they understand firearms because they watched a TV movie about Columbine. Fly- overs get a deer rifle for their thirteenth birthday. --I'm pretty sure the debate is over military style weapons with large magazine and high rates of fire, not deer rifles. But nice strawman. • Coastals talk about blue-collar workers in the abstract. Flyovers have a relative who works the night shift in a granola bar factory, where the big perk is taking home a bag full of granola bars every Friday. ---No one on the coasts have shitty jobs. Nope. • Coastals think every problem—from hurt feelings to the cost of birth control—requires government intervention and huge federal spending. Flyovers know that money isn’t magic fairy dust, and many problems can be solved only by individual character and hard work. ---Many problems can be solved only by individual character and hard work, except of course for all the problems "fly-over nation" has. Or is she saying that those people don't have character and are lazy? Hard to tell. Or maybe she's just demonizing the government to pander to her audience. How can you be angry at Walmart if you’ve never shopped in one? --How can I be against the use of nuclear weapons if I have never survived one? The answer is called education, research and data. Surprisingly, you can learn things and form opinions without having to experience the thing you are researching. How can you hate the police if you’ve never needed help from a cop? --- I think she's trying to say "How can white 'elites' on the coast hate the police if they don't need them". Which of course, more logical fallacies. Talking about police corruption and wanting to do something about it is of course is the same thing as hating them, right? Right? How can you attack Christians if you don’t have a single friend who goes to church? -- How can you attack Muslims if you don't have a single friend who goes to mosque? Oh wait. She probably wouldn't want that question turned around on her. Also, who's attacking Christians? 70% of the country is Christian. What is she afraid of? Is this is a war on Christmas thing? Manufactured outrage created by media companies to get ratings. If you aren't willing to step up to the table with rational, well reasoned arguments that improve the country as a whole why should people bother to listen? Asking how can they judge walmart if they haven't been in one? It'd be laughable if people didn't take it seriously.

unabst 10y ago

> if you keep demonizing a group, expect them to send an actual demon eventually Best line I read on HN today. This explains so much about everybody... Thank you.

rubberstamp 10y ago

I didn't like Trump at first. Now I like him. I think he would probably do better than Obama, though that is a pretty low bar. I don't think he is a demon at all. Even if he turn out to be evil, am pretty confidant he is the lesser evil between him and Hillary.