3 ms·

> That's the problem right there. It's easy to imagine that everyone lives like you when you are in a city that rarely leave, unless it is to fly to another cit

by knz 10y ago

> That's the problem right there. It's easy to imagine that everyone lives like you when you are in a city that rarely leave, unless it is to fly to another city I hope you can see the irony in rural areas being upset that "those city people don't understand us" when they also make little attempt to understand the political motivations of urban voters. They also seem to believe that the world should keep subsidizing their jobs even when there is a long term trend of urbanization etc. Personally I think rural and urban areas need each other but we need more compromise - why are urban areas subsidizing infrastructure spending in rural areas and the farm bill only to get kicked in the teeth when issues associated with urban areas come up? Do we want to go back to rural poverty being the norm? My wifes grandparents grew up in that and it was a hard life. Those people need affordable healthcare and benefit from being able to send their kids off to good universities etc. Rural America doesn't have a monopoly on the "real" America - they are just as out of touch with urban America.

protomyth 10y ago
> why are urban areas subsidizing infrastructure spending in rural areas and the farm bill only to get kicked in the teeth when issues associated with urban areas come up? I'm curious what Urban American has gotten "kicked in the teeth" by? Mainly, the $ figures are from military, power, and agriculture which Urban American doesn't want in their backyard. Pigs and turkeys don't smell so good, and wind farms are noisy, unsightly, and a bit dangerous. Counting military and power spending is pretty poor form. Transportation happens because the low cost raw materials come from the rural areas. No roads, no food for urban folks. > Rural America doesn't have a monopoly on the "real" America - they are just as out of touch with urban America. That's not really true. Rural America is quite aware of the issues Urban America face because that's all the news really covers. When the news covers Rural America it is pretty bad reporting unless the reporter is actually local[1]. The whole debacle of the pipeline in Standing Rock pretty much proved the point. I've seen coverage of celebrities and pieces from major publications that get much of the history wrong[2]. 1) which makes me wonder about reports coming from the rest of the world 2) the whole "rich people in Bismarck" line is beyond insulting and the amount of back story on all the prep for the pipeline is tragically poor.
- knz 10y ago
  > I'm curious what Urban American has gotten "kicked in the teeth" by? Mainly, the $ figures are from military, power, and agriculture which Urban American doesn't want in their backyard. Pigs and turkeys don't smell so good, and wind farms are noisy, unsightly, and a bit dangerous. Counting military and power spending is pretty poor form. Transportation happens because the low cost raw materials come from the rural areas. No roads, no food for urban folks A local example for my State would be spending on public transportation vs bridges. Elected officials from rural areas are routinely outraged about "wasteful" spending on buses/trains to relieve congestion but then complain that not enough is spent on rural bridges and highways. You are right, we do need roads to bring food in (it's symbiotic too by the way -if urban areas don't buy then rural areas are back to subsistence farming and poverty) but we could do that without four lane highways and overpasses. Personally I amok spending tax revenue on infrastructure but that should include public transportation in urban areas if appropriate. > That's not really true. Rural America is quite aware of the issues Urban America face because that's all the news really covers Seeing coverage is not the same as understanding. Ask someone in a rural area how to solve inner-city poverty and they will give you a different answer than someone who works in the field. The same could be said about rural issues. To be clear, Im not saying urban America understands rural America. I'm just sick of seeing this narrative of "Trump won because liberal elites don't understand rural America". It's way too simplistic.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    I would hardly call public transportation vs bridges a kick in the teeth. Bridges are becoming a huge issue for everyone. Just look at what happened in urban MN when the 35W bridge went because we were not spending the money on maintenance. > Ask someone in a rural area how to solve inner-city poverty and they will give you a different answer than someone who works in the field. I'm not sure urban folks know how to solve it either. > I'm just sick of seeing this narrative of "Trump won because liberal elites don't understand rural America". It's way too simplistic. It is simplistic, but you cannot have a candidate show up and give speeches about putting all the people in a region out of work without a lifeline. Not everything in life is complicated. If someone showed up in SV and said "I don't like this technology and we will be shutting it all down", I would imagine that person is going to get no votes. I'm pretty sure Rubio (or most of the R candidates) would have won, and it would have been on the same basis. The fact that the Republicans won with a candidate with the highest negatives is pretty hard to believe. As a side note, I starting to think polling companies should look at donor lists to get some baseline on candidates. I'm thinking that's the next wave of polling analysis.
sverige 10y ago
It's not a matter of understanding. It's a matter of city folks trying to change the way rural folks live.
- krapp 10y ago
  In what ways? I've heard this rhetoric for a while - that this election was a clash between "city folks" and "rural folks", with the implication being that the former conform to one stereotype and the latter another. I suspect that it might have some truth to it, but it's presented as an attempt at populist mythmaking and propaganda. But I have yet to understand what values "rural folks" exclusively hold that "city folks" don't, and vice versa.

by knz 10y ago

protomyth 10y ago

> why are urban areas subsidizing infrastructure spending in rural areas and the farm bill only to get kicked in the teeth when issues associated with urban areas come up? I'm curious what Urban American has gotten "kicked in the teeth" by? Mainly, the $ figures are from military, power, and agriculture which Urban American doesn't want in their backyard. Pigs and turkeys don't smell so good, and wind farms are noisy, unsightly, and a bit dangerous. Counting military and power spending is pretty poor form. Transportation happens because the low cost raw materials come from the rural areas. No roads, no food for urban folks. > Rural America doesn't have a monopoly on the "real" America - they are just as out of touch with urban America. That's not really true. Rural America is quite aware of the issues Urban America face because that's all the news really covers. When the news covers Rural America it is pretty bad reporting unless the reporter is actually local[1]. The whole debacle of the pipeline in Standing Rock pretty much proved the point. I've seen coverage of celebrities and pieces from major publications that get much of the history wrong[2]. 1) which makes me wonder about reports coming from the rest of the world 2) the whole "rich people in Bismarck" line is beyond insulting and the amount of back story on all the prep for the pipeline is tragically poor.

knz 10y ago
> I'm curious what Urban American has gotten "kicked in the teeth" by? Mainly, the $ figures are from military, power, and agriculture which Urban American doesn't want in their backyard. Pigs and turkeys don't smell so good, and wind farms are noisy, unsightly, and a bit dangerous. Counting military and power spending is pretty poor form. Transportation happens because the low cost raw materials come from the rural areas. No roads, no food for urban folks A local example for my State would be spending on public transportation vs bridges. Elected officials from rural areas are routinely outraged about "wasteful" spending on buses/trains to relieve congestion but then complain that not enough is spent on rural bridges and highways. You are right, we do need roads to bring food in (it's symbiotic too by the way -if urban areas don't buy then rural areas are back to subsistence farming and poverty) but we could do that without four lane highways and overpasses. Personally I amok spending tax revenue on infrastructure but that should include public transportation in urban areas if appropriate. > That's not really true. Rural America is quite aware of the issues Urban America face because that's all the news really covers Seeing coverage is not the same as understanding. Ask someone in a rural area how to solve inner-city poverty and they will give you a different answer than someone who works in the field. The same could be said about rural issues. To be clear, Im not saying urban America understands rural America. I'm just sick of seeing this narrative of "Trump won because liberal elites don't understand rural America". It's way too simplistic.
- protomyth 10y ago
  I would hardly call public transportation vs bridges a kick in the teeth. Bridges are becoming a huge issue for everyone. Just look at what happened in urban MN when the 35W bridge went because we were not spending the money on maintenance. > Ask someone in a rural area how to solve inner-city poverty and they will give you a different answer than someone who works in the field. I'm not sure urban folks know how to solve it either. > I'm just sick of seeing this narrative of "Trump won because liberal elites don't understand rural America". It's way too simplistic. It is simplistic, but you cannot have a candidate show up and give speeches about putting all the people in a region out of work without a lifeline. Not everything in life is complicated. If someone showed up in SV and said "I don't like this technology and we will be shutting it all down", I would imagine that person is going to get no votes. I'm pretty sure Rubio (or most of the R candidates) would have won, and it would have been on the same basis. The fact that the Republicans won with a candidate with the highest negatives is pretty hard to believe. As a side note, I starting to think polling companies should look at donor lists to get some baseline on candidates. I'm thinking that's the next wave of polling analysis.

sverige 10y ago

It's not a matter of understanding. It's a matter of city folks trying to change the way rural folks live.

krapp 10y ago
In what ways? I've heard this rhetoric for a while - that this election was a clash between "city folks" and "rural folks", with the implication being that the former conform to one stereotype and the latter another. I suspect that it might have some truth to it, but it's presented as an attempt at populist mythmaking and propaganda. But I have yet to understand what values "rural folks" exclusively hold that "city folks" don't, and vice versa.