328

An Honest Assessment of Rural White Resentment Is Long Overdue (newrepublic.com)

submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

151 comments fedilink hide all child comments

We say very clearly that rural America is hurting. But we refuse to justify attitudes that some scholars try to underplay.

Something remarkable happened among rural whites between the 2016 and 2020 elections: According to the Pew Research Center’s validated voter study, as the rest of the country moved away from Donald Trump, rural whites lurched toward him by nine points, from 62 percent to 71 percent support. And among the 100 counties where Trump performed best in 2016, almost all of them small and rural, he got a higher percentage of the vote in 91 of them in 2020. Yet Trump’s extraordinary rural white support—the most important story in rural politics in decades—is something many scholars and commentators are reluctant to explore in an honest way.

…

What isn’t said enough is that rural whites are being told to blame all the wrong people for their very real problems. As we argue in the book, Hollywood liberals didn’t destroy the family farm, college professors didn’t move manufacturing jobs overseas, immigrants didn’t pour opioids into rural communities, and critical race theory didn’t close hundreds of rural hospitals. When Republican politicians and the conservative media tell rural whites to aim their anger at those targets, it’s so they won’t ask why the people they keep electing haven’t done anything to improve life in their communities.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I’m not claiming it’s easy or fun, but trying anything is more likely to work than just digging in your heels. Trying anything is more likely to work than falling for some grifter bs’ing you. Facing reality and at least looking for ways to overcome or listening to others ideas is more likely to work than hiding from reality.

Maybe this is just the usual media rage bait, but every time I read about such an area voting for someone just to throw a monkey wrench in the works to hurt others too or someone conservative ready to try the same things that haven’t worked before or someone promising the stars without a space program, I have to think a lot of this is self-inflicted. Every time you cut investments in education or science, or the environment, it’s self-inflicted, every time you want to cut safety nets when you or your neighbors are likely to need a hand up at some point, youre hurting yourself. Most importantly, every time you reject new technology, new businesses, new attempts to help your future, because the old isn’t serving you well, it’s self-inflicted.

I’m sure I’m getting it wrong since i can’t walk in their shoes but I know my area has lots of advantages, and many are our choices, our attitudes, our votes, our investments. Why does it seem like some people use their choices, votes, attitudes only to hurt or limit themselves?

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Yeah, but... what options do these people have outside of Vote Blue and hope some social program opens up to lift them out? One that's meant to target poor people in the city and not necessarily the rural area.

this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024

328 points (96.1% liked)

politics

19144 readers

1551 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News