The stark dichotomy between the urban, cosmopolitan based messaging of the Democratic Party and the derision many of its supporters have towards rural America stands in stark contrast to what many in rural America believe-- there are a lot of rural voters who dislike Trump immensely, but when all they hear from liberals is how backwards and intellectually inferior these hard working people are, and how Democrats cede winnable districts there, these voters are left with who remains.
This should be a 1984-Reagan-esque landslide right now. Instead its a feeble "just get across the finish line" 2000. Dems have to do better.
I live in a rural area now but have lived in several large cities. One of the biggest differences between the two environments is the sense of community in a rural area that is not a part of larger cities. Also, the biggest problem with the book is that they want to put the "rage" on the right in rural areas when, in fact, the rage is actually in suburban counties. The counties surrounding the big cities in the State where I live are the ones having library debates, trans bathroom debates, etc. Wealthier suburbanites have the time and luxury of raging over cultural issues that just aren't issues in rural areas. It also doesn't help that Democrats feel the need to lead all of the time with culture issues--and I would include student loan debt forgiveness in this category--when they should be leading with issues like health care (a huge issue everywhere but especially in rural areas) and senior issues (lots of seniors in rural areas and they vote).
What exactly are we supposed to take away from this?
Part of the absurdities of the reaction to this book is a political scientist arguing that his research was misused, because he believes in rural "resentment," which he argues is giving rational agency to rural Americans, and is upset the author of the book calls it rural "rage," which he argues makes the rural Americans sound irrational.
That level of debate about jargon is showing how academics have lost their way.
Political science is showing that rural Americans, and those that consider themselves rural but live in exurbs or suburbs, have a heightened sense of identity with "ruralness" and that they perceive that way of life under assault.
It's good to contrast this with Matthew Yglesias's Slow Boring today discussing how the emphasis on negativity is making people and politics crazy.
COMPLETELY agree. I wrote about this last year.
https://purpleusa.substack.com/p/where-dems-need-to-do-better
The stark dichotomy between the urban, cosmopolitan based messaging of the Democratic Party and the derision many of its supporters have towards rural America stands in stark contrast to what many in rural America believe-- there are a lot of rural voters who dislike Trump immensely, but when all they hear from liberals is how backwards and intellectually inferior these hard working people are, and how Democrats cede winnable districts there, these voters are left with who remains.
This should be a 1984-Reagan-esque landslide right now. Instead its a feeble "just get across the finish line" 2000. Dems have to do better.
I live in a rural area now but have lived in several large cities. One of the biggest differences between the two environments is the sense of community in a rural area that is not a part of larger cities. Also, the biggest problem with the book is that they want to put the "rage" on the right in rural areas when, in fact, the rage is actually in suburban counties. The counties surrounding the big cities in the State where I live are the ones having library debates, trans bathroom debates, etc. Wealthier suburbanites have the time and luxury of raging over cultural issues that just aren't issues in rural areas. It also doesn't help that Democrats feel the need to lead all of the time with culture issues--and I would include student loan debt forgiveness in this category--when they should be leading with issues like health care (a huge issue everywhere but especially in rural areas) and senior issues (lots of seniors in rural areas and they vote).
What exactly are we supposed to take away from this?
Part of the absurdities of the reaction to this book is a political scientist arguing that his research was misused, because he believes in rural "resentment," which he argues is giving rational agency to rural Americans, and is upset the author of the book calls it rural "rage," which he argues makes the rural Americans sound irrational.
That level of debate about jargon is showing how academics have lost their way.
Political science is showing that rural Americans, and those that consider themselves rural but live in exurbs or suburbs, have a heightened sense of identity with "ruralness" and that they perceive that way of life under assault.
It's good to contrast this with Matthew Yglesias's Slow Boring today discussing how the emphasis on negativity is making people and politics crazy.