5 ms·

The belief in smaller government and general distrust of it in some such areas (but not all) is, IMO, often because paternalistic urban policies don't effective

The belief in smaller government and general distrust of it in some such areas (but not all) is, IMO, often because paternalistic urban policies don't effectively meet rural needs. Which is taken as proof that government can't solve their problems. The politics of benefits in such areas are also frequently driven by a perception of affordability -- it's all very nice to have paternity, maternity, sick leave, etc., but when the perception in the community is that there are few jobs, and what jobs there are can barely afford to pay people's wages to begin with, of course it's going to be accompanied by a belief that forcing the provision of benefits is just going to destroy jobs and not help anybody. I think it's important to take some sort of needs hierarchy into perspective - when daily living is tenuous and stressful, I think many of the benefits the "too stupid to know what's good for them other parters" don't seem to be moved by are addressing the wrong steps of their needs hierarchy, or fail to take into account the financial and environmental realities of their day-to-day lives. Just as housing has turned out to be an important first step in combating homelessness (as opposed to medication, employment, etc.), I would not be surprised if there were different first steps needed to support people in poorer, more rural, areas than what are perceived within them as very white-collar benefits.

nitwit005 9y ago
If the rural areas are doing poorly, it's always tempting to blame the cities, or the "urban elite", or whatever. Yet the rural areas quite often dominate state politics. If their own representatives are acting paternal, it's hard to see how it's the cities fault. Providing help to rural areas remains quite popular across the board. There is a long history subsidizing rural agriculture, infrastructure and utilities. It's proven difficult to eliminate the poverty despite that.
- Glyptodon 9y ago
  State politics are often little more than a reaction to national politics crossed with support for moneyed interests like car dealerships and some grandstanding/boot-licking race-to the bottom job policies. National politics really sets the tone, context, and priorities people are aware of, especially so in an era when most reporting and commentary is national in scope and local information is often via word of mouth and social media. I do think it's true that in many rural-dominant states you can't blame a state-level urban elite, and that's not really what I intended to suggest in my comment (though I do think in "blue" states there very much is such a dynamic, witness Jefferson, rural sheriffs flatly stating they won't enforce various state laws, etc.). Frankly, I don't think blaming an urban elite at a national level makes sense either, as I don't believe what I referred to is at all intentional. That said, I think the examples you list of things subsidized may also be examples of things that are likewise slightly misplaced priorities in terms of the larger picture. For example, I'd imagine (though I don't specifically know that) agriculture subsidies mostly go to large enterprise farming operations and have little trickle-down effect to many every-day rural people. Likewise, subsidizing rural infrastructure seems like it may be necessary regardless of any significant benefit, though it's once again highly speculative on my part (for example, I'd guess fire-fighting services require significant external subsidies in some areas, but also don't have tremendous effect on the day-to-day life experiences of average "locals"). My previous statement is also why I think the election of Trump may be an important milestone in solving some of their problems: namely I think (hope) he may be a gateway to the realization in certain quarters that what were presumed to be their problems and solutions actually aren't, leading to a significantly reformulated and broadly unified national consensus. (Yeah, probably a pipe dream...)

nitwit005 9y ago

If the rural areas are doing poorly, it's always tempting to blame the cities, or the "urban elite", or whatever. Yet the rural areas quite often dominate state politics. If their own representatives are acting paternal, it's hard to see how it's the cities fault. Providing help to rural areas remains quite popular across the board. There is a long history subsidizing rural agriculture, infrastructure and utilities. It's proven difficult to eliminate the poverty despite that.

Glyptodon 9y ago
State politics are often little more than a reaction to national politics crossed with support for moneyed interests like car dealerships and some grandstanding/boot-licking race-to the bottom job policies. National politics really sets the tone, context, and priorities people are aware of, especially so in an era when most reporting and commentary is national in scope and local information is often via word of mouth and social media. I do think it's true that in many rural-dominant states you can't blame a state-level urban elite, and that's not really what I intended to suggest in my comment (though I do think in "blue" states there very much is such a dynamic, witness Jefferson, rural sheriffs flatly stating they won't enforce various state laws, etc.). Frankly, I don't think blaming an urban elite at a national level makes sense either, as I don't believe what I referred to is at all intentional. That said, I think the examples you list of things subsidized may also be examples of things that are likewise slightly misplaced priorities in terms of the larger picture. For example, I'd imagine (though I don't specifically know that) agriculture subsidies mostly go to large enterprise farming operations and have little trickle-down effect to many every-day rural people. Likewise, subsidizing rural infrastructure seems like it may be necessary regardless of any significant benefit, though it's once again highly speculative on my part (for example, I'd guess fire-fighting services require significant external subsidies in some areas, but also don't have tremendous effect on the day-to-day life experiences of average "locals"). My previous statement is also why I think the election of Trump may be an important milestone in solving some of their problems: namely I think (hope) he may be a gateway to the realization in certain quarters that what were presumed to be their problems and solutions actually aren't, leading to a significantly reformulated and broadly unified national consensus. (Yeah, probably a pipe dream...)