3 ms·

> The divisions of interest of these classes are roughly represented in the blue/red map of the US. Real interests, or perceived affiliative values? Example:

> The divisions of interest of these classes are roughly represented in the blue/red map of the US. Real interests, or perceived affiliative values? Example: for several things "hinterland" areas are generally underserved by markets alone (hospital/medicine, broadband, delivery). Currently, the party generally stronger in those areas, though, seems more interested in eroding public solutions to those problems rather than building them out...

cft 6y ago
I think it's condescending to point out to people what their real interests are. People have agency.
- duxup 6y ago
  I think that can be true, but people can be wrong about their own interests or who or what will actually help them.
- wwweston 6y ago
  It's a fact that human beings make choices other than those that optimize or even satisfy their personal self-interest. Sometimes we do it because we value something else more highly than our own self interest, sometimes we do it because we're mistaken or even defrauded. In the former case, maybe that's even laudable, in the latter case, it's human. Perhaps you're correct those on the rural side of the urban/rural divide know their business very well. Maybe you're even right that some would consider it even more important to avoid affronting anyone's status by suggesting any other possibility -- though of course if that's true, it says something about the place that status as a value has in the discussion versus, say, actually articulating the picture of the business that they know very well. Either way, no one seems to have challenged the fact that rural areas are poorly served in areas like medicine by the policies of the political faction they appear to support. Which people are free to do, naturally, but speculating about why doesn't make for condescension by itself.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    > no one seems to have challenged the fact that rural areas are poorly served in areas like medicine by the policies of the political faction they appear to support. Rural areas are poorly served, in almost exactly the same ways, no matter which (of the two) political faction(s) they decide to support, which is why they overwhelmingly support politicians who promise to dismantle the status quo. This is one of the qualities that both candidate Obama and candidate Trump shared. The actions of both in government ended up following the Reagan orthodoxy, though their rhetoric was different. I don't think that a lot of these people take elections seriously anymore as a method for accomplishing change (with good reason[1]), and now are just voting for the person whom the most complacent like the least. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

cft 6y ago

I think it's condescending to point out to people what their real interests are. People have agency.

duxup 6y ago
I think that can be true, but people can be wrong about their own interests or who or what will actually help them.
wwweston 6y ago
It's a fact that human beings make choices other than those that optimize or even satisfy their personal self-interest. Sometimes we do it because we value something else more highly than our own self interest, sometimes we do it because we're mistaken or even defrauded. In the former case, maybe that's even laudable, in the latter case, it's human. Perhaps you're correct those on the rural side of the urban/rural divide know their business very well. Maybe you're even right that some would consider it even more important to avoid affronting anyone's status by suggesting any other possibility -- though of course if that's true, it says something about the place that status as a value has in the discussion versus, say, actually articulating the picture of the business that they know very well. Either way, no one seems to have challenged the fact that rural areas are poorly served in areas like medicine by the policies of the political faction they appear to support. Which people are free to do, naturally, but speculating about why doesn't make for condescension by itself.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > no one seems to have challenged the fact that rural areas are poorly served in areas like medicine by the policies of the political faction they appear to support. Rural areas are poorly served, in almost exactly the same ways, no matter which (of the two) political faction(s) they decide to support, which is why they overwhelmingly support politicians who promise to dismantle the status quo. This is one of the qualities that both candidate Obama and candidate Trump shared. The actions of both in government ended up following the Reagan orthodoxy, though their rhetoric was different. I don't think that a lot of these people take elections seriously anymore as a method for accomplishing change (with good reason[1]), and now are just voting for the person whom the most complacent like the least. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...