4 ms·

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

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.
- MisterBastahrd 10y ago
  ... the red states are full of politicians who say all the right backwards things on social issues and then follow it up with the false mantra of "personal accountability," which is a coded phrase which means "rob you blind." The "elite" don't have enough people to vote their guys into power. They need willful idiots. Sam Brownback didn't happen in Kansas because the city dwellers wanted him in power. His disaster of an administration happened because he demonstrated that he understood all of the phobias his constituents have been fed for over a generation now.

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.
MisterBastahrd 10y ago
... the red states are full of politicians who say all the right backwards things on social issues and then follow it up with the false mantra of "personal accountability," which is a coded phrase which means "rob you blind." The "elite" don't have enough people to vote their guys into power. They need willful idiots. Sam Brownback didn't happen in Kansas because the city dwellers wanted him in power. His disaster of an administration happened because he demonstrated that he understood all of the phobias his constituents have been fed for over a generation now.