4 ms·

That article is ridiculous. Yes, I understand there is a country culture that supports Trump, but let's not pretend they live some special life of toil and opp

That article is ridiculous. Yes, I understand there is a country culture that supports Trump, but let's not pretend they live some special life of toil and oppression at the hands of the liberal elite. Sure, they might believe in their victimhood, and Trump is fluent in speaking that language. Doesn't make it true. We all struggle to survive in this economy and we all have our own problems -- the difference is those of us who will not drag the country down by supporting a transparently dishonest conman in an attempt to lash out at those we perceive to be doing better but undeserving. Justifying this perspective is a fallacy.

graeme 10y ago
Have you been to those areas? It's pretty rough. The mortality stats have been rapidly worsening in rural areas, vs. rising for all other groups. How you feel about their vote and how you feel about the material circumstances of their life are two distinct things. It's quite possible they've got a legitimate grievance, and nonetheless voted poorly. I say this as a member of the liberal elite in urban Canada. Things are great right now for my set! I've been to Pittsburgh and rural Vermont within the past year, as well as NYC. In Pittsburgh I happened to be in a hospital waiting room and saw some of the poorest looking white people I've ever seen. Missing teeth, ragged clothing, leathered skin, sunken eyes. It was shocking. In Vermont, I heard many stories of the opioid crisis. It sounded quite severe. I've also driven through rural Maine with my family. Rusting cars and junk heaps in every backyard, doors falling off the hinges, chickens running amok. Certainly they're not the only group to have struggles. But to dismiss their troubles is part of what got us here. Here are some stats on the recent mortality shift: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full
- MisterBastahrd 10y ago
  It's rough because they keep voting in people to represent them at the state and federal level who institute the policies that rob them of their dignity. They vote for failed policies, and then double down when those don't work. It's a problem that occurs when people believe that faith is as good as fact.
  - hoprocker 10y ago
    Thomas Frank's book _What's the Matter with Kansas_[0] explores this pretty well. Some of what he proposes is a bit over-simplified (ie that all conservatives prefer to vote for morals over pragmatism[1]), but his main thesis -- that the conservative platform has created a moral argument convincing poorer Americans to vote against the very social programs that they rely on -- is a good starting point for considering this. Personal note: I grew up rural California; Frank's thesis describes the adamant, self-defeating narratives that I regularly heard from my neighbors. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-Ame... [1] http://www.economist.com/node/8057895 http://www.economist.com/node/8057895
  - mirimir 10y ago
    There's been broad support for economic globalization since WWII. Old-school conservatives (now "libertarians") and populists have opposed it. But it's been an antiwar strategy for liberals, and a profit-maximization strategy for capitalists. And it's gutted the US middle class, or at least the blue-collar part.
  - untilHellbanned 10y ago
    Wrong. It's wrong mainly because elites in big cities obliterated their jobs and companies in the name of efficiency. I'm from rural Indiana and live in big cities now so I've seen both sides. The pillaging by the city elite is real. I can't fault big city business people because capitalism is good, but to place the blame solely on the poor rural people or their elected officials isn't understanding the problem.
    - grzm 10y ago
      I understand what you're saying. I think there's a tension here, at least in your comment. elites in big cities obliterated their jobs and companies in the name of efficiency. One argument I hear sometimes from those who express statements like this is that there should be less government and that business and the market are the best ways to handle issues that provide some sort of social safety net in part because they're more efficient and will cost less. Businesses and the market will tend to reduce labor costs in the name of efficiency. Have you noticed this as well? Please note I'm not disagreeing with you. I think the situation is pretty complicated. Edit to add: Looks like you updated your comment while I was composing mine, and it now addresses in part what I've written.
- chillwaves 10y ago
  I went to college in SW Va. I have been there. I lived there for 4 years. It's not any easier being poor in the city.
dreamfactory2 10y ago
I agree with you but also think there's a lot to that article and it shouldn't be casually dismissed. It's a genuine perspective that exists regardless of whether it's fully justified and the author addresses that. I think you'll find it in many Western countries as globalisation starts to normalise incomes - the rural areas with the kind of employers that are first to go to Asia are the least insulated and at the sharp end. Whether global incomes rise sufficiently for some kind of Western comfort level by the time that hits white collar city jobs remains to be seen.
owebmaster 10y ago
Although I'm pro-Trump (Obama overthrew a democratic government in my country, Brazil), I totally agree with your point. > the difference is those of us who will not drag the country down by supporting a transparently dishonest conman in an attempt to lash out at those we perceive to be doing better but undeserving. The only thing I'd point out is that in the previous path, we'd probably be at WW III with a clash between Rússia and US. Hell, Clinton lost and it is still fueling a rivalry between these countries.
- n4r9 10y ago
  > I'm pro-Trump (Obama overthrew a democratic government in my country, Brazil) I'm confused - is the bracketed clause a causal factor here?
  - owebmaster 10y ago
    I'm pro-Trump mainly because I'm against Obama policy toward Latin America.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
I agree we all struggle but article states their perspective pretty accurately. Ive listened to rural folk long enough to know. Some accurate claims are depiction in media, politicians mocking them, huge poverty left doesnt care about outside welfare availability, and so on. Their politics and capitalism cause a lot of it but not all. They might vote in a better person if people outside Republicans were pushing stuff that appeals to them or treating them with respect. I dont care if the Trump alternative is Democrat or Republican so long as they're better than Trump & appeal to those voters next cycle.

graeme 10y ago

Have you been to those areas? It's pretty rough. The mortality stats have been rapidly worsening in rural areas, vs. rising for all other groups. How you feel about their vote and how you feel about the material circumstances of their life are two distinct things. It's quite possible they've got a legitimate grievance, and nonetheless voted poorly. I say this as a member of the liberal elite in urban Canada. Things are great right now for my set! I've been to Pittsburgh and rural Vermont within the past year, as well as NYC. In Pittsburgh I happened to be in a hospital waiting room and saw some of the poorest looking white people I've ever seen. Missing teeth, ragged clothing, leathered skin, sunken eyes. It was shocking. In Vermont, I heard many stories of the opioid crisis. It sounded quite severe. I've also driven through rural Maine with my family. Rusting cars and junk heaps in every backyard, doors falling off the hinges, chickens running amok. Certainly they're not the only group to have struggles. But to dismiss their troubles is part of what got us here. Here are some stats on the recent mortality shift: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full

MisterBastahrd 10y ago
It's rough because they keep voting in people to represent them at the state and federal level who institute the policies that rob them of their dignity. They vote for failed policies, and then double down when those don't work. It's a problem that occurs when people believe that faith is as good as fact.
- hoprocker 10y ago
  Thomas Frank's book _What's the Matter with Kansas_[0] explores this pretty well. Some of what he proposes is a bit over-simplified (ie that all conservatives prefer to vote for morals over pragmatism[1]), but his main thesis -- that the conservative platform has created a moral argument convincing poorer Americans to vote against the very social programs that they rely on -- is a good starting point for considering this. Personal note: I grew up rural California; Frank's thesis describes the adamant, self-defeating narratives that I regularly heard from my neighbors. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-Ame... [1] http://www.economist.com/node/8057895 http://www.economist.com/node/8057895
- mirimir 10y ago
  There's been broad support for economic globalization since WWII. Old-school conservatives (now "libertarians") and populists have opposed it. But it's been an antiwar strategy for liberals, and a profit-maximization strategy for capitalists. And it's gutted the US middle class, or at least the blue-collar part.
- untilHellbanned 10y ago
  Wrong. It's wrong mainly because elites in big cities obliterated their jobs and companies in the name of efficiency. I'm from rural Indiana and live in big cities now so I've seen both sides. The pillaging by the city elite is real. I can't fault big city business people because capitalism is good, but to place the blame solely on the poor rural people or their elected officials isn't understanding the problem.
  - grzm 10y ago
    I understand what you're saying. I think there's a tension here, at least in your comment. elites in big cities obliterated their jobs and companies in the name of efficiency. One argument I hear sometimes from those who express statements like this is that there should be less government and that business and the market are the best ways to handle issues that provide some sort of social safety net in part because they're more efficient and will cost less. Businesses and the market will tend to reduce labor costs in the name of efficiency. Have you noticed this as well? Please note I'm not disagreeing with you. I think the situation is pretty complicated. Edit to add: Looks like you updated your comment while I was composing mine, and it now addresses in part what I've written.
chillwaves 10y ago
I went to college in SW Va. I have been there. I lived there for 4 years. It's not any easier being poor in the city.

dreamfactory2 10y ago

I agree with you but also think there's a lot to that article and it shouldn't be casually dismissed. It's a genuine perspective that exists regardless of whether it's fully justified and the author addresses that. I think you'll find it in many Western countries as globalisation starts to normalise incomes - the rural areas with the kind of employers that are first to go to Asia are the least insulated and at the sharp end. Whether global incomes rise sufficiently for some kind of Western comfort level by the time that hits white collar city jobs remains to be seen.

owebmaster 10y ago

Although I'm pro-Trump (Obama overthrew a democratic government in my country, Brazil), I totally agree with your point. > the difference is those of us who will not drag the country down by supporting a transparently dishonest conman in an attempt to lash out at those we perceive to be doing better but undeserving. The only thing I'd point out is that in the previous path, we'd probably be at WW III with a clash between Rússia and US. Hell, Clinton lost and it is still fueling a rivalry between these countries.

n4r9 10y ago
> I'm pro-Trump (Obama overthrew a democratic government in my country, Brazil) I'm confused - is the bracketed clause a causal factor here?
- owebmaster 10y ago
  I'm pro-Trump mainly because I'm against Obama policy toward Latin America.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

I agree we all struggle but article states their perspective pretty accurately. Ive listened to rural folk long enough to know. Some accurate claims are depiction in media, politicians mocking them, huge poverty left doesnt care about outside welfare availability, and so on. Their politics and capitalism cause a lot of it but not all. They might vote in a better person if people outside Republicans were pushing stuff that appeals to them or treating them with respect. I dont care if the Trump alternative is Democrat or Republican so long as they're better than Trump & appeal to those voters next cycle.