On Rural America: Understanding Is The Problem

There is an article, On Rural America: Understanding Isn’t The Problem, that has been getting some attention. It’s written by someone calling himself Forsetti and co-written with his Justice. The tagline for the blog is, “this is Truth”. Well, I like truth. But that is where ends my agreement with the author.

The piece is too simplistic, narrow-minded, uninformed, and cynical. I sometimes think liberals like this are projecting a bit about their own limited groupthink. In the words of one comment I saw in a discussion, “So it’s a tumblr post saying religious people are dumb. OK.”

There is only one reason that this is worth responding to. The author does express a fairly typical view among liberals. I understand the attraction to righteous judgment and, in the past, I might have felt more sympathy toward the anger expressed. But I’m now growing impatient with this kind of attitude that is driving a wedge between Americans who should be seeking common cause.

The very basis of the argument is blatantly false. The world is more complex than is allowed for by an us vs them mentality.

As many have pointed out, there is nothing specifically Republican and conservative about rural areas and states. Many of these places were Democratic and strongly union in the past. Also, there used to be a strong movement of rural socialism, cooperatism, and communitarianism. Plus, mining states like West Virginia once were breeding grounds for radical left-wing politics like communism, Marxism, and syndicalism.

Quite a few states in flyover country, in particular the Upper Midwest, still are largely Democratic. In the 2008 primary, Hillary Clinton won many rural areas and rural states. And, after the nomination, many of those rural voters chose Obama and helped elect him to office. Obama didn’t just win all of New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and the West Coast. He also won the Midwestern states along with Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia. He almost exactly repeated these results in 2012, minus Indiana and North Carolina. The difference for 2016 is that Clinton lost almost the entire Midwest, a region of flyover country that has been key for Democrats.

In recent elections, Democratic candidates win the presidency when they win the Midwest and lose the presidency when they lose the Midwest. The only Democratic candidate in the past half century who didn’t follow this pattern was Jimmy Carter, a Southerner who won with the support of Southern states.

I would point out that we really don’t know how most Americans would have voted this past presidential election because nearly half of Americans didn’t vote. If you live in a state that you think you’re candidate can’t win, you likely won’t vote at all. That is the problem with our winner take all system, where the winner takes every state in its entirety. This leads to Democrats losing presidential elections all the time, despite supposedly winning the popular vote, although to be fair it is impossible to determine the popular vote when not voting at all is so popular.

Population density and lack thereof is important. A person’s vote is worth more in a low density state than in a high density state, because if you’re surrounded by a vast concentrated population your vote has less ability to influence who becomes the victor. But the high density states aren’t entirely where you’d think they’d be.

Both Texas and California aren’t in the top ten of high density states. Rather, along with Florida, all the top ten most population dense states are found in New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Midwest. In the top twenty, a quarter are found in the Midwest. Only Iowa and Minnesota are particularly low density for the Midwest.

Let me give some specific responses to the piece. Forsetti wrote that,

“The real problem isn’t east coast elites don’t understand or care about rural America. The real problem is rural America doesn’t understand the causes of their own situations and fears and they have shown no interest in finding out. They don’t want to know why they feel the way they do or why they are struggling because the don’t want to admit it is in large part because of choices they’ve made and horrible things they’ve allowed themselves to believe.”

Well, it’s a fact that East Coast elites don’t understand or care about rural America. Or rather, it’s a fact that research has shown the elites are disconnected from most of the population in general. The political elites are disconnected even from their own constituents. This is true for political elites from the coasts and from flyover country, because political elites tend to associate with other political elites along with elites in general.

That is only problematic if you support democracy. But if you don’t care about democracy, then everything is working just fine. Rural America doesn’t have much influence on politics. Even in rural states, most of the voters are concentrated in urban areas. It’s the cities more than anything that determine which candidate wins any given state, rural or otherwise.

“I have also watched the town I grew up in go from a robust economy with well-kept homes and infrastructure turn into a struggling economy with shuttered businesses, dilapidated homes, and a broken down infrastructure over the past thirty years. The problem isn’t that I don’t understand these people. The problem is they don’t understand themselves, the reasons for their anger/frustrations, and don’t seem to care to know why.”

First off, not all rural states are the same. Many farm and natural resources states with strong economies were largely untouched by the Great Recession. The housing market here in Iowa never took as much of a hit. Unemployment and poverty rates also have remained fairly low here. Maybe that is why Iowa has tended to vote Democratic in recent decades. Neighboring Minnesota has only voted for Republican presidential candidates in three of the last twenty-one elections, the only state to never have gone to Reagan. Iowa and Minnesota are as rural as they come and, as I pointed out, the most low density states in the Midwest (respectively ranked 36 and 31 in the country).

This author probably comes from the South. The rural South isn’t like rural anywhere else in the country. It is related to why working class whites everywhere outside of the South have tended to vote for Democratic presidential candidates. It is also related to the fact that, even in rural states, most working class whites live in urban areas. Also, keep in mind that many places considered rural today were considered urban in the past, until so much of the population left. My dad grew up in a thriving small town with multiple factories, but it was out in a rural area surrounded by farmland. Many small towns like that used to exist. The people left behind didn’t necessarily choose to be rural. It’s just the economy around them collapsed, with small businesses being closed, small factories disappearing, small farms being bought up by big ag, and small town downtowns slowly dying.

Many of those people understand just fine. They purposely didn’t vote for Clinton because she was the neoliberal candidate and they voted for Trump because he was the anti-neoliberal candidate. Trump promised to stop neoliberal trade agreements and to build infrastructure. They may have low education rates, but they aren’t utterly stupid. They are able to put two and two together.

“In deep red, white America, the white Christian God is king, figuratively and literally. Religious fundamentalism is what has shaped most of their belief systems.”

That is more of a Southern thing. In Iowa, for example, rural areas are largely Catholic along with Lutheran and Methodist. You don’t find many Baptists and other Evangelicals around here. Religion is more of a private issue in much of the Midwest. There is no mass longing for theocracy or the Second Coming.

Look at religiosity rates. Most of the Midwest is average, about evenly split between those who are highly religious and not. Some Midwestern states rate lower than average. Minnesota, with the 15th lowest rate, is lower than California (#17). And Wisconsin, with the 6th lowest rate, is lower than New York (#9).

Besides Utah, none of the most highly religious states are found outside of the broad South. And many of those religious Southern states are coastal and have big cities. The coastal elite in the South are as clueless as the coast elite elsewhere.

“I’ve had hundreds of discussions with rural white Americans and whenever I present them any information that contradicts their entrenched beliefs, no matter how sound, how unquestionable, how obvious, they WILL NOT even entertain the possibility it might be true. Their refusal is a result of the nature of their fundamentalist belief system and the fact I’m the enemy because I’m an educated liberal.”

I’ve found the exact same thing with well educated liberals. It seems to be common to humans in general. It’s why I’ve given up on the Democratic Party. Self-questioning and looking at contrary info doesn’t seem to be a talent of partisan Democrats. Nor is it a talent of the liberal class in general, as the world they live in is rather insular.

“Another problem with rural, Christian, white Americans is they are racists. I’m not talking about white hood wearing, cross burning, lynching racists (though some are.) I’m talking about people who deep down in their heart of hearts truly believe they are superior because they are white.”

Are we to assume the Clintons and other Democrats don’t think they are superior white people when they use racist dog whistle politics, promote racist tough-on-crime policies and mass incarceration, and kill large numbers of brown people in other countries? Is racism fine, no matter how many are harmed, as long as it is unstated and veiled?

“For us “coastal elites” who understand evolution, genetics, science…nothing we say to those in fly-over country is going to be listened to because not only are we fighting against an anti-education belief system, we are arguing against God.”

Once again, that depends on what part of the country you’re talking about. Many rural Americans, especially Midwesterners, have been supportive of education. In high school graduate rankings, Wyoming gets 1st place, rural Iowa ties for 3rd place with rural Alaska, Montana is #7, and Utah ties Hawaii for #8, North Dakota is #11, South Dakota is #12, Nebraska and Wisconsin tie for #13, and Kansas ties Washington for #17.

Consider Minnesota again. They are ranked 2nd in the country for high school graduates, #10 for bachelor degrees, and #17 for advanced degrees. That is quite the accomplishment for rural flyover country. Minnesota is the home of Garrison Keillor, “where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.”

Methinks the author living on the coast doesn’t understand much about the rest of the country.

“Their economic situation is largely the result of voting for supply-side economic policies that have been the largest redistribution of wealth from the bottom/middle to the top in U.S. history.”

There is no evidence that, outside of the South, that rural states were more supportive of supply-side economics than the rest of the country. And even in the South, voting for Republicans probably has more to do with social and cultural issues than economic issues. Besides, this past election, it was the Clinton New Democrats who represented and defended the Reagan Revolution of neoliberal corporatism.

“They get a tremendous amount of help from the government they complain does nothing for them. From the roads and utility grids they use to the farm subsidies, crop insurance, commodities protections…they benefit greatly from government assistance. The Farm Bill is one of the largest financial expenditures by the U.S. government. Without government assistance, their lives would be considerably worse.”

In the Midwest, you hear less of such complaints. Farm states are more nuanced in their opinions about government, both local and national. It isn’t a coincidence that most major farm states are in the Midwest. The South doesn’t have as much farming as it used. The agricultural sector in states like Kentucky has largely disappeared. When I traveled through Kentucky, there were many collapsing old barns and fields slowly turning back into forest with some housing and old shacks mixed in between.

The reason I was visiting Kentucky was to see where my mother’s family used to live generations ago. Many Southerners left rural states like Kentucky to head up to the industrial Midwest, as did my family. Or else to move into one of the nearby metropolises such as Lexington. For those who remained in rural Kentucky, I doubt the Farm Bill is helping many of them.

“When jobs dry up for whatever reasons, they refuse to relocate but lecture the poor in places like Flint for staying in towns that are failing.”

Actually, most of them have relocated. The rural areas are depleted of population.

Many of those remaining there are the old, disabled, under-educated, low IQ, mentally ill, and generally struggling; plus, family members who stayed back to take care of aging parents and other independents, along with families that simply didn’t have the resources to move. Anyone who was in a position to leave has already left. And few young people and young families have any desire to move back to those kinds of places. It’s been a slow rural drain for more than a century now. We are just finally experiencing the death throes of rural America, quite literally as much of the rural population further ages and dies off.

It is heartless to judge these people. If they had the ability and opportunities to leave, they would have long ago. But even many who left for urban areas have simply faced problems of poverty and unemployment in their new location. If you were in their position, you’d also likely be in a state of bitter despair, frustration, and outrage. These people have literally been left behind, abandoned to die in obscurity. Besides, that is their home, maybe the home of their family for generations. Family and community is even more important when you’re poor.

What it is hard to understand is that it is immensely harder to be poor in a rural area than in an urban area. There are few public services available for rural residents. They might have to travel hours (an entire day trip back and forth) to get to the nearest government office, public health center, mental health services, food bank, etc. That is assuming they even have a reliable working vehicle to travel anywhere. There is no public transportation out in rural areas. They are lucky to have a convenience store and bar nearby. And if they are really fortunate, there might be a Walmart within an hour’s distance.

When most of the population left, most of the money, community centers, schools, churches, and social capital disappeared. There isn’t even much sense of basic safety. You want to know why they cling to their guns. It’s a desperate place to live, surrounded by some of the most impoverished and hopeless people in the country. The most thriving economy is probably illegal drugs, prostitution, and stolen goods. The violence and homicide rates are higher in rural areas than even the big cities. And if you feel threatened or have an emergency, it could be too late by the time the county sheriff arrives.

Yet many rural residents remember from their childhoods that these were great places to live with thriving communities and prosperous economies. They know full well what has been lost. And they are correct that coastal elites don’t care about them, even if they had the slightest understanding about their lives. They have every right to be angry. They’d have to either be crazy or saints to not be angry. Still, they probably don’t think much about it most of the time, as they’re too preoccupied with trying to get by.

“They complain about coastal liberals, but the taxes from California and New York are what covers their farm subsidies, helps maintain their highways, and keeps their hospitals in their sparsely populated areas open for business.”

That claim has little to do with reality. Most of the non-coastal states, even moreso in the Midwest (even Illinois with all of the “welfare queens”), give more in federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits. Also, many of the farm and natural resource states have large state GDPs that contribute immensely to the national GDP. Iowa gets ton of federal benefits but more than easily offsets that with federal taxes and general support to the economy.

The US economy was built on and has been largely maintained through farm and natural resource states. Even some of the natural resource states like Montana that receive more federal benefits than they pay in federal taxes only do so because the federal government funds projects there that benefit big biz. And so essentially it is a form of corporate subsidization that has little to do with the state itself as those are national and transnational corporations operating there. Sometimes the subsidies are more direct, such as the Koch brothers getting millions of state and federal dollars in Montana.

Ignoring the problem of corporate subsidies, the main economic divide of takers vs makers isn’t rural vs urban but South vs North. The South has a disproportionate part of the poor population in the country. And it is the single most populous region in the country.

“They make sure outsiders are not welcome, deny businesses permits to build, then complain about businesses, plants opening up in less rural areas.”

You can travel all over most of America and most often feel perfectly welcome. I’ve never felt unwelcome anywhere I’ve traveled, not even in the rural South. I’m surprised how many friendly people there are in the world when you act friendly to them.

About businesses, I have never seen such a pattern. The rural towns around here are more welcoming to businesses than this liberal city I live in. There is a crony capitalism and corporatism in this liberal town where local business owners tend to shut out anyone new from developing here. All major projects that are allowed by the City Council and given preferential treatment (e.g., TIFs) are those by local business owners. Otherwise, having a building permit denied isn’t unusual. And the liberals here aren’t shy about voicing their hatred of certain businesses, such as keeping a Walmart from being built in town.

I’ve never heard of any rural areas and small towns refusing to allow factories and businesses to be built. Most of them would be glad to see employment return. In the town my dad grew up in, the factories and stores didn’t disappear because local residents wanted them to disappear. The economy simply shifted elsewhere.

“Government has not done enough to help them in many cases but their local and state governments are almost completely Republican and so too are their Representatives and Senators. Instead of holding them accountable, they vote them in over and over and over again.”

Some rural state governments are Republican and some are Democratic. The pattern of party control seems to have more to do with regional culture, political traditions, and the kind of economy. Over time, though, there are changes in how rural state residents vote. Where the two parties tend to win has shifted vastly over the past century, including an entire political realignment. Just looking at the past 50 years doesn’t show a consistent pattern, except for in strong Blue states like Minnesota and the strong Red South.

“All the economic policies and ideas that could help rural America belong to the Democratic Party: raising the minimum wage, strengthening unions, infrastructure spending, reusable energy growth, slowing down the damage done by climate change, healthcare reform…all of these and more would really help a lot of rural Americans.”

The problem is many Democrats haven’t done those things. The Clinton New Democrats made the party into a wing of the neoliberal corporatist hegemony. Hillary Clinton was against raising the minimum wage before she said she was for it, but she no doubt was lying about changing her mind as she obviously doesn’t care about the working poor. The Democrats have done little for unions this past half century and betrayed them almost every chance they got.

Tell me again who campaigned on infrastructure spending… oh yeah, that was Donald Trump. Who has been one of the strongest supporters of dirty energy? That would be Hillary Clinton. And which president created a healthcare (insurance) ‘reform’ that was designed to primarily benefit healthcare insurance companies, even though the majority of Americans wanted either single payer or public option that the president refused to put on the table? Barack Obama, of course.

This self-identified ‘coastal elite’ is calling rural Americans stupid and self-destructive when it’s obvious he is as clueless, ignorant, and bigoted as they come. This kind of rant is the opposite of helpful. But it is a useful example of why the Democrats have lost so much support.

23 thoughts on “On Rural America: Understanding Is The Problem

    • That was surprisingly good for NYT. I’d love to see more journalism like that.

      “Mr. Obama’s elections infused many here with a feeling of connection to national politics they had never before experienced. But their lives have not gotten appreciably better, and sourness has set in.”

  1. meh. He’s just reacting to the stereotype, the TEA Partier, the Trumpie – all the noise on the media. If you watch TV or Twitter, you either think what the Trumpies think or you think the Trumpies are all toothless hillbillies, it’s what the Lefties on my Twitter feed like to propagate, Memes with brutal spelling errors on the TEA Party placards.

    Those Tweetsters are pissing me off. The man just took over the world, and they’re still laughing and calling him thin-skinned. What do you have to do to prove to these idiots how brutal and power-mad you are? When do they plan to take this authoritarianism seriously?

    • I don’t have any strong opinion about what Trump really means and really plans on doing. I’ve always said that he is near impossible to predict. And so I have no desire trying to foretell the future. Trump could be more progressive than any president since FDR. Or he could be more harmful than any president since Reagan.

      My point is that, even if he turns out progressive, it wouldn’t be the kind of progressive liberals recognize and prefer. I suspect most Americans, across the board, might not like all that they see coming out of the Trump administration. Republicans might get the most pissed off, once they find out what they got.

      He will ruffle feathers, at the very least, and maybe much worse. Time will tell.

  2. and, answering your closing line, there has been a long campaign to set Hillary up. The ground had been fertilized forever or there never could have been this massive false equivalence shit about her email server versus white power authoritarianism. I am livid at any supposed liberal (or libertarian for that matter) who engaged in ANYTHING involving Hillary or Democrat bashing during this election cycle, livid at anyone, especially Greenwald and Wikileaks, but really, it was pretty much everyone, except for the folks in the “Hillary bubble” that I hard a lot about but heard nothing from.

    WhereTF was Wikileaks and Greenwald/Snowden with anything at all to say about Trump? – except afterwards. Wikileaks tweets: “hey remember all that surveillance you let Obama have? It’s all Trump’s now.”

    The nerve of those bastards. Greenwald was all ‘Truth above all’ – he just didn’t have any info on Trump? Or what?

    • I’m sure if there were successful leaks or hacks on Trump, we would have seen the results already. And I have no doubt many tried to get that kind of info on him. Now that I think about it, there was one successful leak. I’d forgotten about that, until your comment reminded me of it.

      Anonymous hacked Trump’s voicemail, but all that it showed is that he had a very friendly relationship with the liberal media. People working in the mainstream media, such as at MSNBC, seemed to like him on a personal level. That is what one got the sense of from the voicemails.

      Apparently, that was the worst Anonymous was able to get on him. But obviously no one seemed to care that Trump was cozy with liberal media. He was a media personality, after all. I’m sure most people already assumed he was on good terms with the media. Right from the start, the media loved him and wasn’t shy about it.

      The thing is Trump is a wealthy guy. I’m sure it’s hard to hack someone like him. I doubt he was as casual about how he used email as Clinton and the DNC apparently were. I get the sense that he is well protected. But he obviously wasn’t as always as careful as a wiser person would have been.

      NBC leaked or rather someone in NBC the video of lewd comments he made, video they had been holding onto for years. There was the leaked tax record. But neither of those were at the level of what has come out about Clinton’s emails and the Clinton Foundation. Trump was shown to be a crude rich businessman. Surprise! The stuff on Clinton was really bad, especially for a politician. We haven’t seen revelations of that depth of corruption in a long time.

      It’s not that I think Clinton is the most corrupt politician of all time. But as far as major party presidential candidates go, we haven’t seen such revelations of that degree corruption during a campaign in my lifetime. I don’t know the last time that kind and depth of corruption was revealed. Those emails were damning in multiple ways.

      One thing is clear. There is absolutely nothing liberal about Hillary Clinton. Or else liberalism is entirely bankrupt. Not to say Trump is better. But this for sure was not an election of lesser evils. It was two greater evils, a lose-lose scenario.

    • I’m not entirely cynical. I haven’t lost faith in humanity. But I have lost faith in our two-party system, a sham duopoly.

      We don’t have a functioning democracy and that seems to be by design. As far as I can tell, we live in a banana republic. If so, what is the rational and moral response to this? I really don’t know. What I feel certain about is that reform won’t come from within the system. That is a challenge, considering that without reform our society will get far worse. And if it gets bad enough, either authoritarianism or revolution will likely follow.

      This election has shown how far gone this country has become. If Clinton had been elected, we’d still be in a horrible situation. The public would be lulled back to sleep, as authoritarianism further took over. It is hard to know where to look for hope. This wasn’t an election about authoritarianism vs non-authoritarianism. The entire system is authoritarianism. It’s not an authoritarianism that is fully manifest quite yet and it doesn’t operate fully out in the open. But we know it is authoritarianism because mass incarceration, a police state, and endless war couldn’t be possible in a non-authoritarian society.

      The problem with many in the liberal class is that they refuse to see what is going on. They don’t realize how late is the hour. That is because, for many liberals, the problems don’t effect them personally. They aren’t targeted by the Clinton New Democrats’ policies on racialized tough-on-crime and mass incarceration, aren’t the victims of Democratic-supported immoral wars and drone attacks, aren’t desperately impoverished by Democratic-promoted neoliberal corporatism, etc.

      It’s not an issue of false equivalency. It’s simply that both parties are bad in different ways. None of the bad things of the Democrats lessens the bad things of the Republicans. And none of the bad things of the Republicans excuses the bad things of the Democrats. It’s just plain all around bad.

      Yet there still doesn’t seem to be the shared willingness to publicly discuss this with full openness and honesty.

  3. I know Ramos is Latino… But… He looks white. Since Latino isn’t a race… Ramos looks white. Even his eyes are blue. So it’s interesting that taylor wants him to gtfo even though Ramos is white too

    • As you might recall, the Second Klan was concerned more about ethnic whites than by blacks and other non-white minorities. That is because white ethnic immigrants were a more direct threat to jobs, culture, etc. It didn’t matter that they looked ‘white’, in the most broad sense. The point is that ethnic whites had different appearances, accents, languages, religions, etc.

      Ya know how they keep data on Hispanics. That is strange because it is one of the few ethnic labels that always gets included on censuses and polling. But that used to be the case for other white ethnicities as well. Separate crime stats were kept for Italians, Irish, Jews, etc. They were assumed to be a separate people. Even those these aren’t racial labels, in a racialist society such labels inevitably become racialized.

      Like Hispanic whites, many earlier ethnic whites tended to concentrate in ethnic enclaves, separate neighborhoods and communities. Or when those ethnic whites (e.g., Italians) started settling down somewhere, other whites and even blacks would often leave.

      All of that felt threatening to the Second Klan and to other non-ethnic whites as well. The kind of person who joins the Klan also simply identifies as ‘American’. There is a whole segment of the South where most of the population, when asked, identifies their ancestry as ‘American’. Everyone else isn’t American, not really, no matter how many generations they’ve been in the US.

  4. In February of 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. talked about the “drum major instinct.” It was the beginning of the Poor People’s Campaign He talked about how some “white working class” people moved against their own economic best interests, instead choosing to bet on the discriminatory value of their whiteness:

    “The other day I was saying, I always try to do a little converting when I’m in jail. And when we were in jail in Birmingham the other day, the white wardens and all enjoyed coming around the cell to talk about the race problem. And they were showing us where we were so wrong demonstrating. And they were showing us where segregation was so right. And they were showing us where intermarriage was so wrong. So I would get to preaching, and we would get to talking—calmly, because they wanted to talk about it. And then we got down one day to the point—that was the second or third day—to talk about where they lived, and how much they were earning.

    And when those brothers told me what they were earning, I said, “Now, you know what? You ought to be marching with us. You’re just as poor as Negroes.” And I said:
    “You are put in the position of supporting your oppressor, because through prejudice and blindness, you fail to see that the same forces that oppress Negroes in American society oppress poor white people. And all you are living on is the satisfaction of your skin being white, and the drum major instinct of thinking that you are somebody big because you are white. And you’re so poor you can’t send your children to school. You ought to be out here marching with every one of us every time we have a march. Now that’s a fact.”

    • I like that. We need more of that kind of thinking… and preaching. It’s too bad we don’t have a leader right now as powerful and compelling as MLK. It’s too bad he didn’t live longer to finish what he started. We might be living in an entirely different country now, if hadn’t been assassinated.

  5. But I must say I agree w/ many of the admonitions of the author regarding modern day liberalism, & particularly academic liberalism (even if you don’t share these attributes – by your comments I suspect you don’t). Somewhere along the way the mentality of the left seems to have shifted in two ways: (1) they became less confident in the ability of “normal” Americans to run their own affairs – believing they can’t handle guns, or school vouchers, or choose their own type of healthcare coverage, or eat responsibly at McDonalds, or choose where to get their news w/o guidance from the more educated. This, coupled w/ (2) the left’s inclination to view itself as omniscient, able to design complex systems (ie Obamacare) that govern other’s lives w/o knowing much about those people & their individual wants & needs. The insufferableness of this world view is what I believe drives the animosity of many.

    • Part of the problem is the perception of ‘liberalism’. Most Americans hold liberal views, even though most Americans don’t identify as liberals. Even among those who identify as liberals, they don’t always fit the mainstream portrayal of liberals. For example, I remember the Pew Beyond Red vs Blue survey showing that many liberals have guns in their houses. Like most Americans, most liberals are for BOTH gun rights AND gun regulation.

      So, the animosity many people feel towards liberals is based on a stereotype. That said, there are a significant number of liberals who conform to and hence confirm that stereotype, which is unfortunate for the rest of liberals. Most often when people speak of liberals they simply mean the liberal class, a subset of liberals and not the entirety of the liberal demographic. I do this myself sometimes when I’m making a criticism about liberals, but the fact is that I too am a liberal or have so identified in the past.

  6. “I tend to agree with much of this. And of course it is counterproductive to point out how Trump’s actual policy agenda (I know, it sounds so planned and thought out, no?) will hurt them whereas Clinton’s may have helped. But that is not the point of this.

    Over the past several months I have found myself on the receiving end of a torrent of pent up resentment from members of my extended family, with whom I have not previously had an unkind word in my 50 years of life. I don’t think any of them voted for Trump, but it occurred to me that the rage directed at me by my formerly loved ones mirrors the rage that is spoken of here. I made it, and they have struggled.

    Of course, I have struggled as well, but at the moment the material circumstances of my life are undeniably better than theirs. So therefore, I think I am better/smarter/more successful than they are and naturally I must think they are losers which, they feel the need to tell me, they are not. This is of course projection-I’ve never had anything but admiration for how they have done in the face of some of the hardships they have endured. Nor have any of them seemed terribly curious about what hardships I may have endured along the way to my charmed and perfect life of blissful affluence, or whatever. But, I have been as surprised, and on some level shamed, by the resentment my cousins have toward me as I have been by the resentment that struggling white people have toward people like me.

    I won’t apologize for where my life is right now-and in any case as a public university employee without tenure, I will be the first to go with the recession hits. But the resentment stings when it is directed at you. I just didn’t see it, in my family or in the nation. And for that, I am truly sorry.”

    • There are a lot of bad feelings right now in our society, across various divides: ideology, parties, class, race, etc. People are frustrated, angry, and sometimes simply fearful. It doesn’t bring out the best in people.

    • “Our enemy is not the white working poor any more than it is African-Americans, undocumented workers, Muslims, Latinos or members of the GBLT community. The oligarchs and corporations, many of them proponents of political correctness, are our enemy. If we shed our self-righteousness and hubris, if we speak to the pain and suffering of the working poor, we will unmask the toxins of bigotry and racism. We will turn the rage of an abandoned working class, no matter what its members’ color, race or religious creed, against those who deserve it.”

    • There has been two key problems to identity politics.

      It has been used counter-productively on the political left, often to attack and dismiss people while demanding submission and conformity. This is the ugly side of political correctness. But identity politics doesn’t have to be expressed this way.

      There still is a place for identity politics, as it can be a powerful tool, when used well. Still, it’s a difficult tool for liberals to use well because identity politics is inherently conservative by nature. Conservatives will always have a more natural talent for identity politics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s