4 ms·

> You can make a good argument that policy in the US is set by urban elites that favor city people and values, and result in an impoverished rural population.

> You can make a good argument that policy in the US is set by urban elites that favor city people and values, and result in an impoverished rural population. You could also make an argument that policy in the US is set by politicians catering to rural voters by vilifying liberal values to distract from the fact that it's the corporations they really care about improving the life of at the expense of both the urban and rural mid/lower class.

BurningFrog 7y ago
Right. To parody myself, "you can make a lot of arguments about anything" :) To put some meat on my rhetorical bones, the argument I've heard along these lines is that that rural communities often live in poverty among enormous amounts of natural resources that they are not allowed to exploit. This is because of laws made by urban elites who don't understand rural life and/or have fundamental belief systems that say nature is never to be touched and should only be watched on TV or possibly be declared a National Park and be visited and Instagrammed on holidays. This rings at least partially true to me, and I find it worth talking about. I'm not at all saying it's the only true perspective or even the dominant factor.
- wybiral 7y ago
  See, the argument I've heard along these lines is that the "wealthy elite" lobby conservative politicians to avoid regulations that would improve the quality of life for those rural folks. Things like health care, education and environmental reforms, all the while their politicians decrease taxes to the wealthy elite under a false promise that it'll help the working class that the wealthy elite continue to cut out of the job market with automation and asymmetric minimum wage increases (despite the fact that the wealthy elite continue to amass more and more wealth, hmm, must be coincidental). So then when the working class person has a medical problem, (an increased risk due to things like poor environmental regulations on those businesses owned by the wealthy elite) they get targeted by shady loan offers (due to relaxed financial regulations) and end up going into debt, thus helping to ensure a lineage of poverty for their children (who could probably break out of it if things like affordable education were more available, but unfortunately, those same politicians...) I've even met some nice folks in the mid-west who aren't so happy about what the big corporations have done to their farmland or the rivers they like to fish in because some of them understand the fact that natural resources come in a variety of forms even if the wealthy elite and their corporations aren't able to easily tap them for profit. It's as if there are two sides to this story.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    There is probably at least 5 sides to the story :) And I think one of the most important things to realize is that both the story I told and the one you told can be true (or false) at the same time!
    - wybiral 7y ago
      I agree with that. Our stories are compatible once you realize that it's not necessarily rural vs urban but rather wealthy elites vs working class (across various political divides).
      - BurningFrog 7y ago
        Yeah, what I think I've ended up believing is that money is power, and the money always expresses itself as power. Often without the people with the money even understanding it, and not as what they say - and maybe even think - they want, but as results of what they actually do. Vaguely said, because it's vaguely thought...
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> it's the corporations they really care about improving the life of Villifying “corporations” doesn’t help this argument. Corporations are broadly held by Americans exorbitantly and moderately wealthy alike, and describe well-governed behemoths, insular family enterprises and start-ups alike. The idiosyncrasy in rural voting is poor voters voting on social values and against their economic interests in favour of a rural rich. Politics makes the most sense when you boil it down to the people behind the structures and entities.

BurningFrog 7y ago

Right. To parody myself, "you can make a lot of arguments about anything" :) To put some meat on my rhetorical bones, the argument I've heard along these lines is that that rural communities often live in poverty among enormous amounts of natural resources that they are not allowed to exploit. This is because of laws made by urban elites who don't understand rural life and/or have fundamental belief systems that say nature is never to be touched and should only be watched on TV or possibly be declared a National Park and be visited and Instagrammed on holidays. This rings at least partially true to me, and I find it worth talking about. I'm not at all saying it's the only true perspective or even the dominant factor.

wybiral 7y ago
See, the argument I've heard along these lines is that the "wealthy elite" lobby conservative politicians to avoid regulations that would improve the quality of life for those rural folks. Things like health care, education and environmental reforms, all the while their politicians decrease taxes to the wealthy elite under a false promise that it'll help the working class that the wealthy elite continue to cut out of the job market with automation and asymmetric minimum wage increases (despite the fact that the wealthy elite continue to amass more and more wealth, hmm, must be coincidental). So then when the working class person has a medical problem, (an increased risk due to things like poor environmental regulations on those businesses owned by the wealthy elite) they get targeted by shady loan offers (due to relaxed financial regulations) and end up going into debt, thus helping to ensure a lineage of poverty for their children (who could probably break out of it if things like affordable education were more available, but unfortunately, those same politicians...) I've even met some nice folks in the mid-west who aren't so happy about what the big corporations have done to their farmland or the rivers they like to fish in because some of them understand the fact that natural resources come in a variety of forms even if the wealthy elite and their corporations aren't able to easily tap them for profit. It's as if there are two sides to this story.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  There is probably at least 5 sides to the story :) And I think one of the most important things to realize is that both the story I told and the one you told can be true (or false) at the same time!
  - wybiral 7y ago
    I agree with that. Our stories are compatible once you realize that it's not necessarily rural vs urban but rather wealthy elites vs working class (across various political divides).
    - BurningFrog 7y ago
      Yeah, what I think I've ended up believing is that money is power, and the money always expresses itself as power. Often without the people with the money even understanding it, and not as what they say - and maybe even think - they want, but as results of what they actually do. Vaguely said, because it's vaguely thought...

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> it's the corporations they really care about improving the life of Villifying “corporations” doesn’t help this argument. Corporations are broadly held by Americans exorbitantly and moderately wealthy alike, and describe well-governed behemoths, insular family enterprises and start-ups alike. The idiosyncrasy in rural voting is poor voters voting on social values and against their economic interests in favour of a rural rich. Politics makes the most sense when you boil it down to the people behind the structures and entities.