Why do Democrats do so poorly with rural voters?

[davidn3600]

Urban areas tend to be more Democratic while rural areas tend to be more Republican. In many states it is a pretty huge disparity and you can clearly see it on election maps.

I know lots of you are wanting to call the Republicans party dead or dying. But Im sorry the GOP is going nowhere unless the Democrats find ways to be more attractive to these people. No matter what the GOP does or says these people will vote for them just to vote against the Democrats.

[maggiesfarmer]

1. clinging to guns and religion?

[RKP5637]

2. That's what I think sells the GOP to them, and the republicans know how to

play all of the angles, and for some of the youth it's ingrained in them.

[banned from Kos]

8. fucking + 1,000,000.

Guns and religion.

I live in Georgia and Democrats want to ban guns and Jeebus here.

[Ken Burch]

42. Or, the use of "wedge issues" to get people to vote against their class interests.

A large number of these people would be considered part of what Mitt Romney called "the 47%" or "takers, not makers".

Many are dirt poor, but social issues(and, yes, to some degree, at least a bit of the use of the race card)are used to get them to vote for the class that secretly mocks them and does all it can to KEEP them dirt poor).

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

47. That phrase right there illustrates exactly WHY they side with republicans.

"Clinging" to gun and religion. I grew up in a rural area in the "bible-belt" where that was very true... but that phrase makes me cringe. Despite it's accuracy, it has a very negative condescending tone to it. Country/rural life is different than urban life - it's much more focused on self-reliance and self-sustinance. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Social programs may not have to be a large part of their lives. Even the rural folk who don't self sustain (and have a more urban lifestyle out in the country) live and work around people who do have that rural lifestyle and they understand their neighbors' veiwpoints.

I've noticed that democrats and urban people are always tying to push city-type things & living on suburbs and outlying counties. They try to "fix" the rural people, for lack of a better term. Rural people don't like that, they don't want "fixed" by a bunch of city-slickers and just because life might be a little more simpler doesn't make the people that live it more stupid.

So keep spouting your ignorant "clinging to guns and religion" line to those people. I'm sure appearing to be a condescending asshole and insulting them will be sure to win them over. I would suggest a more neutral description in the future.

EDIT: In this very thread see posts 13, 26, 33, 38, and I'm surethere will be more.
Post 13 translation: "if you're rural you're stupid"
Post 26 translation: "Here, let me make fun of your beliefs because they're different from mine"
Post 33 and 38 also touch on the "trying to fix" rural people like they are broken or something.

[banned from Kos]

57. or just quit trying to ban our guns.

Occam's Razor.

[ZombieHorde]

153. In your opinion, what would be a good way to say "clinging to guns and religion?"

"They value the Second Amendment and their conservative, Christian faith."

[Lordquinton]

171. This post demonstrates how it's ok in reverse

Rural types feel it's ok to think that the urban folks are naive, or not deserving of respect until they live a life in their shoes, as shown by the City Slickers term.

[Riftaxe]

198. Not really, they live in a bubble

safe away from the facts of how what they eat is prepared, and for the most part, safely away from the back breaking work even in this day of agriculture products from food to wood (hell urban folk even make a 'reality' show about cutting down trees pay off).

They have never prepared food themselves (all those fish and livestock at a certain point just shed off their innards and package themselves apparently....), they have no clue about living in an inner city environment either.

They manage to get themselves stranded in a few square miles of woods, or on top of a mountain without any decent clothing or other necessities.

All the while holding arrogant noses in the air because their degrees are in comparative literature while those of us who have to go hand hold them might have degrees in engineering.

In the end contempt does tend to breed contempt.

[Lordquinton]

221. You're just highlighting my point

when the discussion comes up, the rural defenders demand understanding and spin tales of modern survivalists, while painting the people they are demanding understanding from as incompetent, arrogant know-nothings who are solely to blame, and then ask "why don't they get us?" If you constantly slap the hand of people who are trying to reach out, they will stop reaching.

[tabasco]

255. LOL

You are very uninformed and seem rather insecure.

[redgreenandblue]

174. I hear ye.

I grew up in big cities for the most part. But my dad is from way in the sticks in the bible belt and I have spent a lot of time in that region. My dad still lives there. Life is different.

A good example for what you describe was a post in one of the gun threads, where a person suggested that people shouldn't hunt to eat, but get on a government program instead if they want food. Or lecturing about how unlikely a home invasion is. That is easy to say if you are not the one living ten miles from the next police station.

"Fixing" the rural folks by getting them to rely on the government instead of themselves. I can see how people like my dad would take offense. And he is not even a hunter...

[ohheckyeah]

233. Exactly! Condescension

never won anybody over.

I live rural and am surrounded by conservatives but I know that condescension and dismissing people as stupid isn't going to win them over.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

252. One coud also ask...

What has the Democratic Party done FOR rural folks? Dems stood by while Big Ag destroyed family owned farming and ranching.
Rural folk voted Democratic after FDR rescued the family farmers during the depression, but the party moved its focus to urban concerns after that, ignoring the issues that were important to rural life.

[sadbear]

3. Rural voters = white.

[Nye Bevan]

54. So was John Kerry. Did he win the rural vote? (nt)

[sadbear]

61. Did he win the white vote?

[tama]

172. There was some peanut farmer, whaddayacalhim... nt

[YoungDemCA]

101. Pretty much.

Except for the non-white rural voters, of course.

[sadbear]

115. I wonder what percentage of rural voters are non-white?

I bet it's less than 20%. Could be less than 10%.

[No Vested Interest]

154. Except in the South

Many non-white rural citizens there.
How many of those are registered and vote is another question.

[sadbear]

156. Yes, the key word is 'voters'.

[JoePhilly]

4. The GOP has spent 30 years telling them that being poor makes them more partiotic

than everyone else.

That, and being white.

[leftstreet]

5. So there's no poverty in urban areas?

LOL

Democrats do poorly in rural areas because they IGNORE rural areas

[JoePhilly]

10. The GOP calls those in the inner city, "thugs".

And if you mean Dems ignore the rural areas by ensuring that tax dollars help subsidize cable, wireless, water, and roads into low population rural areas where there is no "free market" rationale to do so ... then yes, I guess you can claim we ignore rural areas.

[leftstreet]

16. But why don't impoverished urban people vote GOP?

You claimed rural people voted GOP because they were impoverished

[JoePhilly]

19. No, I said the GOP tells "them", the RURAL POOR, that their poverty is patriotic.

The GOP tells the INNER CITY POOR that they are leaches on society.

[leftstreet]

29. What do the Democrats tell these impoverished people?

[jeff47]

98. Not much - they start yelling instead of listening

Because part of their training by the Republicans is to insist Democrats are slick city-dwellers who are out to defraud them.

[YoungDemCA]

124. Judging by the attitudes of some Democrats...

There may be some truth to that notion.

[jeff47]

130. It's difficult to remain charitable when they're screaming at you about Rush's latest fantasy (nt)

[YoungDemCA]

134. I understand that.

And there is a segment of the population that will believe whatever Rush or Hannity or Glenn Beck says, facts and critical thinking be damned.

The question is, how do we avoid lumping in all rural people with the "unseasonables", as it were? Because it sure seems to me that Democrats and rural people are either talking past each other, or not talking to each other at all.

[jeff47]

140. I don't think it's possible

They're the last reliable demographic for the Republicans. The Republicans aren't going to let them go without bombarding them with a ton of propaganda.

So while we can come up with ideas to draw them in, the Republicans are going to be busy yanking them back out. And because the Republicans were there first, we will not make strong inroads.

The only way we get them in large numbers is to break the Republican party.

[exboyfil]

191. Dems should start with GOP attempt to

close the US Postal Service. I can see an effective ad done on that. The Post Office is extremely important to small rural communities, and if they find out what will happen to the price of postage with its closure, that may make a difference.

[antigone382]

197. That is far from universally true.

I live in the rural south and we talk about politics...and we don't all agree. My county is one of the poorest and least healthy counties in the state, but it has traditionally been reliably Democratic. People aren't completely stupid and all but the most indoctrinated (which is only a rather uncomfortable handful) know that those with differing political opinions are not evil. The key is knowing *how* to have a conversation here. Our social networks and relationships are what matter here, and any conversation has to be geared first and foremost towards preserving and building on that.

[ReRe]

163. I think you've got something there...

I live in a rural state, and we almost have NO Democratic Party. Oh, they always run a token Democrat in elections, but those tokens almost always lose. Why is it that Republicans have a lock on all these red rural states? On all the rural folks? Yeah, the cities always run blue, but somehow the rural folks win out, turning the state red. I don't know how, because rural folks as a rule don't vote at all. Rural areas never have allot of voters, but the votes they do have are Republican. It's the $64,000 question. I don't think we have a Republican problem in these states, we have a lazy Democrat problem. I think I agree with you, leftstreet, that red state democrats DO ignore the rural areas.

[Democratic Principle]

230. I have had a much different experience

My Mother-In-Law grew up on a farm near a tiny town (pop 350-400) in Nebraska. Her Dad farmed 80 acres. Doesn't get more rural than that. Every offspring from that family is a Democrat to this day. My MIL tells me that when times were hard the Democrats subsidized their short comings. They ate what they grew and the rest they sold. A lot of factors effect crops. Rain, heat, insects and more. One thing Ive observed about rural folks. They are loyal. You do good by them and they will return the favor. The farms sold now and I don't know what the current policy is with regard to farm subsidies but everyone still votes Democratic.

[ReRe]

247. You are very lucky...

...because I have lived in rural communities (in different states) that are for the most part exactly the opposite of what you speak of. Our family was much like your inlaws, though. The small rural town I was born in was a wonderful place to grow up. But seems like times have changed and the people that live there have too, and not for the good, either.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

6. I don't know...

I think it's more that the GOP has spent thirty years telling rural voters that they're poor because gummint is giving all their hard-earned tax dollars to shiftless minorities.

While the GOP's financial backers rob them blind.

[JoePhilly]

11. Another good way to say it.

[FarPoint]

112. Lets not forget that many of the rural poor joined the military.

Patriotic indeed....they were inundated with hate monger Rush Limbaugh 24/7 via Arm Forces Radio....it all leaves an impression.

[Riftaxe]

200. So being wealthy is what makes one patriotic?

Well always good to find it out I suppose...., I guess I have only been intermittently patriotic in my life, much like everyone else.

Horrible standard to keep though, you're patriotic 'til you get a mortgage....

At what particular bank balance should I decide that jingoistic silliness is required?

[Auntie Bush]

7. Because most of them listen to hate radio!

When you listen to hateful propaganda and lies all day...what else would one expect them to be voting for?

[Nye Bevan]

55. But why do poor rural folk listen to hate radio,

and poor urban folk don't?

There is a cause-effect question here.

[Art_from_Ark]

89. Sometimes, the only radio stations available in rural areas carry hate radio

Urban areas tend to have a much greater variety of radio stations.

[spinbaby]

185. That's it exactly

When I visited my sister in-law in rural Tennessee, I learned that there was no liberal viewpoint even available to these people--the radio was all right-wing hate; there was no local newspaper; everyone had basic satellite TV service, which offered Fox but not MSNBC; hardly anyone had Internet because the only Internet available outside of town was expensive satellite Internet.

[Zorra]

268. Yep. It's a captive, controlled audience. nt

[jeff47]

102. Because it explains rural poverty by blaming it on urban poverty. (nt)

[truebluegreen]

173. Yes, and when your life is hard

it is easier to blame it on someone else--City slickers! Minorities! Takers!--rather than yourself. Hate radio plays right into that.

[Fumesucker]

167. Go on a cross country drive with nothing to listen to but radio and you'll wonder no more

There's a huge swath of the country with nothing to listen to but right wing and usually religious radio.

Then you get to the cities and there's even more right wingers on although to be fair there are other choices there.

[Riftaxe]

204. Really? Contemporary music stations

were the norm on my last cross country trip, with always a persistent sports channel, and only locally stations with a talk format.

Now we can take it as a given those rural chumps have not figured out satellite radio like the intelligent folks of course...

[Nay]

206. This is absolutely true. Mr Nay and I travel extensively and the airwaves, generally, have been

taken over entirely by religious programming and RW hate radio. One time we rented a car that had Sirius and we had a blast as we drove, listening to something besides the horrendous propaganda torrent that we had previously experienced. I don't think people realize exactly how propagandized the rural population is.

Years and years ago I pleaded and wrote and begged the Dems to get on the stick and buy up radio stations, TV stations, create their own Fox News, etc., because that's how rural people were going to get their news and ideas. But no. No rich liberals stepped forward to really make it happen. Now, it's too late, because the rural population won't even listen to such stations after hate radio for 30 years, even if we did inundate the airwaves. It had to happen 30 years ago, when we could have actually competed with the RW by having our own stations, think tanks, etc., and muscling in to the fray. Now, I fear it will take a collapse for anything to change, and even then the RW has its gun nuts ready to go, blaming liberals for collapse.

Obviously, I think the game is already won, and not by us. We missed a one-time opportunity to step into the fray when it would have helped, and we didn't. It's too late now IMHO.

[NRaleighLiberal]

9. so many factors, really....

among them - further from institutes of higher learning, more isolated (as in "leave me be&quot , religion...of course the danger in trying to list them all is going into the dangerous area of generalization (there are always exceptions) or sounding elitist.

[KoKo]

33. "What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F

What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (2004) is a book by American journalist and historian Thomas Frank, which explores the rise of populist anti-elitist Conservatism in the United States, centering on the experience of Kansas, Frank's native state. In the late 19th century, Kansas was known as a hotbed of the left-wing Populist movement, but in recent decades, it has become overwhelmingly conservative. The book was published in Britain and Australia as What's the Matter with America?.

What's the Matter with Kansas? spent 18 weeks on the New York Times Bestseller List.
Overviews

According to the book, the political discourse of recent decades has dramatically shifted from the social and economic equality to one in which "explosive" cultural issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, are used to redirect anger towards "liberal elites."

Against this backdrop, Frank describes the rise of political conservatism in the social and political landscape of Kansas, that he says espouses economic policies which do not benefit the majority of people in the state.

Frank also claims a bitter divide between 'moderate' and 'conservative' Kansas Republicans (whom he labels "Mods" and "Cons&quot as an archetype for the future of politics in America, in which fiscal conservatism becomes the universal norm and political war is waged over a handful of hot-button cultural issues.

MORE AT:

[NRaleighLiberal]

35. thanks! great book. saw him interviewed often on the teevee after it was published.

I guess I could easily say "what's the matter with NC" these days!

[KoKo]

38. Also: "Deer Hunting With Jesus"...by Joe Bageant explains much more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bageant


Joe Bageant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Joe Bageant (1946–2011) was an American author and columnist known for his book Deer Hunting With Jesus.

Bageant was originally raised in Winchester, Virginia. He left Winchester and worked as a journalist and editor. In 2001, Bageant moved back to Winchester.

In Deer Hunting With Jesus: Dispatches From America's Class War Bageant discusses how Democrats have lost the political support of poor rural whites and how, according to himself, the Republican Party has convinced these individuals to "vote against their own economic self-interest." The book is mainly centered on his hometown, Winchester.

In 2010, Bageant published a similarly themed book, Rainbow Pie: A Redneck Memoir. Bageant used his extended family’s post WW II years experience to describe the social hierarchy in the United States of America. The book examines the post-war journey of 22 million rural Americans into the cities, where they became, the author argues, the foundation of a permanent white underclass and comprise much of today’s heartland “red state” voters.

Bageant frequently appeared as a commentator on radio and television internationally, and wrote a progressive online column distributed to hundreds of blogs and websites. He maintained his own blog, called Joe Bageant, and also served as a senior (roving) editor with Cyrano's Journal Today and The Greanville Post, two sites devoted to progressive political and media analyses.

On January 4, 2011, Bageant announced on his web site that he had been "struck down by an extremely serious form of cancer" which was inoperable and was unable to engage in correspondence or his usual work, but hoped to be able to resume them in the future. When his friends at The Greanville Post learned about the seriousness of his condition, he was unanimously voted as Editor Emeritus of the publication.

On March 27, 2011, it was announced on his website that he had died on March 26 following "a vibrant life" and a four-month struggle with cancer.

[renate]

41. I am truly sorry to read that he died

I hadn't heard about him until I saw a recommendation for his book here on DU. It is excellent.

Darn it.

[KoKo]

45. Thanks...there were some podcasts of him the year before he died where he

did an incredible interview about the South and it's problems voting for Repugs and History... It was on some Indie Radio Media...and I was sorry it didn't get more attention. It was about "Deer Hunting with Jesus" his last book. And, yes I thought it was a great read contributing to our understanding of what Conservative America is about ...

too about him.

[riverbendviewgal]

79. great writer

I had the honor to have had exchanged emails with him. He understood the people he grew up with. He was a libertine whose was a lover of books. If you want to understand rural people read his books.

You can read his essays as well on his website that is still running. It is sad that he was struck down but his writings live on .

[patrice]

120. That's a very good book.

[kimbutgar]

232. So sorry about Joe I used to read his website I didn' tknow he passed

I really learned a lot from his essays. As a life long city slicker I had very limited experience with rural people outside of attending college in a rural area.

[Nye Bevan]

58. Doesn't religion exist in inner cities too? (nt)

[NRaleighLiberal]

65. Sure it does, but (again, the issue with generalities) not like in rural in terms

of being more fundamental/conservative - based on where I've lived only, so no offense/paintbrush intended. Just theorizing based on personal experience of living here and there.

[SpartanDem]

132. I'd add that fundamental/conservative religion also tends to view poverty as moral failing

if they're poor and receiving aid they must justify it as situational, while condemning others as being morally flawed.

[NRaleighLiberal]

136. that's the line that many of our neighbors take. on one hand, they all flock to

their churches. then, they spend the rest of the week doing and saying exactly the opposite of what I suspect they hear (then again, maybe not - lots of the mega make money churches around here). the whole "I made it, why can't everyone - and if they don't, tough shit" thing drives my wife and I insane. We make the appropriate points, but are so outnumbered we are just explained away as 'weird hippy types"!

[bluestate10]

12. I see the problem right here on DU.

In order to win in rural areas, we will need to first run moderate or moderate-conservative democrats. The fact that those people are democrats when it would be politically easier for them to be republicans need to mean something to those on the Left the ridicule them. Many on DU go ga-ga over Alan Grayson. What those people don't realize is that the district that Grayson represents used to be solid, conservative republican territory but started moderating during the 90s.

Moderate and moderate-conservative democrats that can win in rural districts and start convincing their neighbors to think more diversely will ultimately give way to more progressive democrats as people in their districts recognize the benefits of being represented by sane people that actually go to Washington to make progress for them.

Another factor that will come into play is that the elderly in rural districts will pass away. They will be replaced by less strident voters.

[limpyhobbler]

21. I think somewhat differently.

We should return to a class-based politics by appealing to working class concerns with economic populism.

We should address the concerns of working class white people. Right now Democrats don't offer much to this group. If you want people to vote for you, you have to give them things.

See post #15 below.

[KoKo]

49. But those elected "Democrats" consistently vote with Repug when they get into congress

That's the Problem!

We have to vote for those Dems in Red States but if they vote with Repugs and never convince them to vote with Democrats then why is it worth our time doing this OVER AND OVER... It's the BIG MONEY & MEDIA CONTROL we have to get work on in our States and all over Our Country!

Electing more "Dems in Name Only" has gotten us where we are today.

[dmallind]

220. Really? What % of their votes are Republican?

[KoKo]

246. Well...I live in NC...our Dems for the most part vote in House and Senate with Repugs.

Due to Repug "ALEC" push for Gerrymandering districts in this last election we lost the only two real DEM voters...because they lost their districts.

Our Dem Senator is lined up with Repugs in Senate. Sends out form letters to those of us Progressive Dems who voted for her. My Progressive (real Dem) is now gone because of redistricting replaced with Repug. I expect more "Form Letters."

I have no representation in my district or state, anymore. Repugs took over State House and Senate. And NC which voted for Obama '08...turned Red Repug.

Go do a Google Search and you will find what happened. Yes...Obama got re-elected but, there's devastation with Repugs taking over under BIG MONEY INFLUENCE all over America.

Obama can't do this alone...without real Dem politicians serving in US House and Senate fromi states who will support him.

Dem Party let us down in NC. REMEMBER the Dem Convention took place here in Charlotte. Why would NC turn RED?

[jeff47]

113. Actually, there isn't much to back up that assertion

If you poll people on Democratic policies and Republican policies, but do not label the party affiliation, Democratic policies do much better. Even in rural areas.

It's a marketing problem, in that the Republicans figured out how to market to rural voters a long time ago and continue to do so.

[YoungDemCA]

129. You have a point

And the corporate mainstream media-which, BTW, is very much an elite urban group of people-are not interested in being intellectually honest about who benefits from Republican policies, and who doesn't.

[tabbycat31]

168. AS a campaign staffer I agree 100%

I have worked in rural areas before (most of my districts have been more rural than urban). In fact my last district was so rural that this congressional district was (geographically) bigger than the state that I call home. The rural voters have no problem with voting for someone that is to the right of Atilla the Hun, but if someone's slightly to the left, he/she is too liberal for them.

This is where we need to recruit Blue Dogs to run. Say what you want to about them, but they can (and have) won elections in such districts. Anyone more liberal will not win election in that district. That comment that Candidate Obama made about clinging to guns and religion really hit home.

[quakerboy]

236. That makes a very unfounded assumption

That people vote more on policy than on label/perception.

[Jeevus]

13. Liberals are better educated.

And most of the education takes place outside rural areas.

Also, conservatives are set in their ways, fearing change, and in rural areas change doesn't happen all that often. Liberals tend to embrace change.

The power of the church tends to carry more weight in rural areas as well.

[TransitJohn]

25. I got a great education in very rural Wyoming.

That broad brush isn't nuanced enough to get to the bottom of the OP's question.

[Jeevus]

30. It's a generalization, like the question.

[YoungDemCA]

118. Prejudice masquerading as enlightened sentiment

[tama]

176. More schooled

does not necessarily mean better educated. You don't need school to learn how to feed yourself and others, when you are born to rural life and learn by watching and doing from little child. I don't consider home education that feeds also my urban way of life inferior. Not in any way.

[KT2000]

14. the GOP has defined the Democrats

as elitists who want to tell people how to live their lives. It is not true but that does not matter.
Rural people want to guard their culture and that means guns, property rights, no regulations that limit what they do on or with their land and animals. They want everyone to believe they are individuals getting it done on their own.
Environmentalism, a Democratic concern, is regarded as an upper class issue - that is until they feel the pain of pollution themselves.

Democrats have not always articulated their positions well and have allowed themselves to be defined by the GOP. The GOP will stoop as low as they can to paint Democrats as enemies of independent minded people.

[limpyhobbler]

15. Your policies are weak and puny.

Come out with a strong economic populist agenda to empower working class people, and then you will be able to win working class white voters. That's who rural voters are.

Increase the minimum wage. Tax wall street. Redistribute wealth a little bit. Actually give people jobs with a WPA/CCC program, break up the banks, raise the minimum wage, national health insurance for all, freedom from fear and economic insecurity. We need a return to class-oriented politics. A guaranteed minimum income and guaranteed employment for all able people who want to work. Food stamps for all.

That's how to win rural voters.

[hopemountain]

64. food stamps for all?

the rural folks i know are very proud and do not take kindly to accepting any "charity". yet, every child in our elementary and middle school qualifies for the breakfast and lunch programs. if a family seeks "food stamps" they must go to an office in town. there is no public transportation. then, they must sit for hours and complete forms requesting invasive & humiliating information for each and every household member and undergo an "interview". rural folks usually choose to live in rural areas because they like the open spaces & their privacy. they would rather go without "food stamps".

local government is still run by the "good 'ol boy" network/system.
channel communications owns nearly all of the local radio stations in our area. the other stations are privately owned by preachers and churches.

at night we can get some out of state radio stations - but today, as nearly everywhere else, most radio stations are owned by gop corporatists.

our local congressional representative used to run for office as a democrat. for this election, he changed to "independent" and was able to win against the "republican". i was surprised because i really thought the republican was going to win because he had big money behind him.

[tama]

180. I read somewhere

not so long ago that not so long ago Republican party considered being "rented labor" degrading and dehumanizing. But now as wage slavery has become internalized both parties are or pretend to be all about jobs jobs jobs for all.

And rural people aren't rooting for big money. Rather they see big money and big government as same thing.

[limpyhobbler]

241. ok so...

"rural folks...are very proud and do not take kindly to accepting any "charity "...

1)
a) Urban folks are proud too.
b) I know many many rural peeps on food stamps and various forms of welfare.
c) If everyone had it, it wouldn't be considered charity.

2) Your point about media ownership is very good. I agree completely that's a HUGE problem and it's a really good answer for the question up top in the original post.

[Nay]

222. ^^This too. And how about aiding SMALL rural farmers to grow fresh food for sale locally? And

making sure there's a place for them to sell it? Take some money away from agribiz -- oh, wait, they own both parties, that's why we can't do that.....

Other unrelated points: Of course, if southern rural farmers are like the ones I lived with in rural Montana, they'll find some way to scam the system. Back when there were subsidies given to farmers to NOT grow certain crops, farmers in my tiny rural town (200 people) CUT DOWN the only remaining cottonwoods in the area, just to claim more acreage to be taken out of production, thus getting bigger payments. These were small, local family farms of 1000-6000 acres--mostly wheat. That's small for Montana. Taxpayers should take note that most of these farmers spent the winters vacationing in Arizona or New Mexico. I don't begrudge anyone a vacation, but 4 months on the taxpayers' dime? All those welfare queens in every ghetto couldn't add up to what these guys were raking in.

This is one reason I have a dim view of humanity in general (they're always running scams instead of doing the right thing for the community), and just because I point out a scam that I saw with my own eyes in a rural area doesn't mean I am more critical of rural people as opposed to anyone else. Scams go on everywhere. But when the govt puts conditions, rules, and oversight on rural farmers, it's because it knows that shit goes on. It's not necessarily because they think rural people are stupid or lazy -- they just know human nature through past experience.

When unbiased scientific studies are run and they show that Fox viewers are the LEAST informed of all, what do we do with that information? Pretend it doesn't exist so Fox viewers (largely rural) don't feel bad about themselves and blame the Dems for calling them dumb? Do we not talk about it on DU so some random rural person can't take offense? I mean, there's a certain point at which a population has to wise up to itself, or nothing can ever be done. And as Dems, we have to grapple with the FACTS of what is going on in rural areas, not pretend that things aren't different there. I can see that the Dem leadership would be foolish to openly accuse rural folks of being [uneducated, gun crazy, bible crazy, insular, etc.] but I don't see any value in not recognizing that there's some damn thing going on, and applying the Party to addressing the problems with some solutions for rural areas, like:
1. raise minimum wage
2. stand up for the Post Office! Erase that law that says it has to fund its retirement for 75 yrs!
3. start supporting and spreading the idea of local family farms that will grow vegs for locals
4. Govt health clinics by the hundreds, staffed by govt doctors. Same with dentists.
5. Build and support libraries federally.
6. Prosecute bankers and others who ran scams. That would have helped Dems immeasurably. No
one, rurals included, wanted those bastards to get away with what they did.

[limpyhobbler]

239. Amen to all of that.

Support small farms, health clinics, post offices, all of that stuff.

[Dr. Who]

17. Why do Democrats do so poorly with rural voters?

Maybe because at some point the Democrats and Republicans switched sides. The Democrats used to be the right wing and the Republicans used to be the left.

[arcane1]

22. Republicans know how to lie to rural voters, and push their buttons, while they screw them n/t

[Nye Bevan]

60. How have they not figured out how to lie to inner city voters? (nt)

[arcane1]

66. Inner city voters (of any race) don't trust rich white guys who pander to rednecks and fundies.

Who would?

[jeff47]

117. Because the lies are to blame all problems on the inner city voters. (nt)

[Nay]

208. Because the pubs have already called them welfare queens, shiftless blacks, illegal immigrant

dark people, mud people, etc. In other words, the pubs already made the decision to scapegoat them, thus there's no profit in trying to appeal to them, too.

[Sparkly]

27. So then ....

Why do the formerly rightwingers do less well than the formerly left-wingers?

[Dr. Who]

51. Probably because

the country has become even more polarized in recent times. One thing that is certain is that the right has more variatation than the left. Politically, many rural voters are more likely to follow the Tea Party/Libertarian platform. Failing a viable Tea Party/Libertarian candidate they vote Republican. Rural people are raised to believe that they have to depend on themselves. They believe all people should depend on themselves, consequently they do not believe in big government. Rural voters are likely to hold more hard fast religious views. Liberals are more secular. Rural voters tend to be less accomodating to cultural change. They tend to be more zenophobic - not racist, but distrustful of strangers and strange ideas. They are distrustful of city people. The more worldly the Democrats appear, the less palatable they are to the rural population.

[Sparkly]

69. That's so puzzling.

Why don't they know how much they rely on "Big Government?" Do they just take it for granted?

And isn't "worldly" basically experienced, knowledgeable, maybe even sophisticated? Why would anyone NOT want to vote for someone who understands even more than they do?

Also, "strange ideas." Like science? Just anything not part of their own experience and knowledge? What makes someone so closed-off?

Why are some rural voters so sensible and secure, and others fearful and hostile?

It's a real problem when so much of the world suffers because of a small percentage of willfully ignorant Americans.

[Dr. Who]

91. To many of the rural voters

big government simply picks your pockets. Rural people are not the average consumers of big government largess. They don't tend to depend on any social programs, they view regulations as something which robs them of their Constitutional Rights and they view issues such as LGBT as largely immoral, nevermind abortion issues. Essentially they just want to be left alone to get on with the business of farming and rural life. With the demise of family farms in favor of corporate farming, this will be less of a factor as time goes on.

[Sparkly]

104. Weird.

I'm not sure what you mean about the "average consumers of big government largess." Our biggest expense is defense. Next are Social Security and Medicare -- do rural people not take those?

Then there's clean air, clean water, reliable banking, electricity, the post office, schools, their elected representatives...

My parent were raised in farmlands, and they grew up with a strong work ethic, belief in the value of education, and sense of duty and citizenship for the "common good" (also the Christian belief in helping others).

What happened to the people you're describing?

[Dr. Who]

138. Actually many

rural people don't take advantage of government services. Clean air, reliable banking, the post office, well those are stalwarts in rural society. Schools are, until they teach subject matter that is not acceptable - remember the litigation about teaching Darwinism.
It's not all bad. Rural people do believe in helping each other. They are very charitable. They don't abandon their neighbors. They are simply a small society which fits best with the Founding Father's view of America. The fact that this view does not work on a large scale is simply something that is beyond their world view. Nothing happened to the rural people, they have just lived in an oasis where they have not, for the most part, been touched by the realities of big cities.

[Sparkly]

143. Personally, I wouldn't call what you're describing an "oasis."

Reality is reality -- it's no different in big cities than in cow pastures.

It sounds like you're describing complete idiots, which seems unfair. You're saying people in rural areas believe long-accepted science is "not acceptable," want to be left alone yet take the most personal choices from others, and see charity as limited -- all while calling themselves Christian and not knowing what the "founding fathers" said?

I'm not sure who you know in rural areas, but it's hard to believe anybody in 2013 has such a narrow "world view" (or backyard view?). Even the Puritans had more common sense.

I know people from a rural area of Maryland and they seem quite sensible. Maybe in the south, some old misunderstandings linger, but surely they aren't THAT bad. My family has southern roots and they were always salt of the earth, smart, and principled.

(And are you saying rural people don't have Social Security or Medicare?! Do they realize the U.S. has armed forces?)

[tama]

181. Reality is way of life

Throughout history, rural people have never really needed urban people to keep on living. But urban people always need rural people to feed them.

Amish communities thrive and grow in numbers. They don't need modern science to do so, but thrive because they refuse it and trust community and communal way of life in balance with environment.

And doing so, they provide food also for many urban people. A scientist can't do science without food grown by a peasant. That's just the way it is. Way of life.

[MadrasT]

270. I think there are *lots* of people in the US in 2013

who have such a narrow "world view" (or backyard view).

I grew up with them in rural PA and I still know tons of them.

Up until my early 30's I lived and worked in a very conservative rural area.

Then I moved closer to a big city (Philadelphia) and have been working there ever since.

City folk do not understand rural folk, at all... nor do rural folk understand city folk. I still have one foot in each world and they view the world through completely different lenses.

It is staggering.

[uppityperson]

152. Um, post office is government service. So is clean air act and banking regs and insurances.

Farming subsidies are also government. So are public schools. Roads. Fire and police. All gvt services.

[llmart]

193. I'm recalling the Nichols brothers of Michigan....

you know, the ones who helped Timothy McVeigh carry out a mass slaughter of people in Oklahoma? They lived in a very rural area of Michigan on acres of farmland. Terry Nichols' brother (can't remember his name) used to rant and rave about the "evil government" but took farm subsidies from them year after year.

As is often the case, the very people who rant against government handouts are taking them themselves but they are hypocrites who are too stupid to see that they live off the government themselves.

[uppityperson]

158. Aren't farming subsidies government also? Very weird.

[cilla4progress]

205. I think you hit it right on:

except I think Dems have more variation (a bigger tent). If I understand what you mean by "variation."

1) supposed "rugged individuality" meme of those on the right - don't need gov't poking into our business
2) "provincialism" - been around a long time

pro·vin·cial·ism [pruh-vin-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
narrowness of mind, ignorance, or the like, considered as resulting from lack of exposure to cultural or intellectual activity.
2.
a trait, habit of thought, etc., characteristic of a provincial, a province, or the provinces.
3.
a word, expression, or mode of pronunciation peculiar to a province.
4.
devotion to one's own province before the nation as a whole.

[meow2u3]

18. Rural voters have been told for decades that liberal is a dirty word

They've been misled by the right-wing propaganda machine: talk radio hosts who drum into their heads that liberals are the enemy; con artist pastors who pass off their personal political beliefs as church doctrine; and Fox Noise (they've only been around since 1994), with little or no opposing views to counterbalance.

It also doesn't help when we deride them as backward, inbred, and ignorant. They're merely misinformed and the only way for us to persuade rural voters to vote Democratic is to convey a liberal message with the same emotional appeal as the right-wing propaganda machine does.

[YoungDemCA]

99. Well said.

Especially the second paragraph of your post.

[sarge43]

187. Thank you, meow2u3

"It also doesn't help when we deride them ..."

Yes, that worked so well for the Republicans (insulting and generalizing); I guess we have to try it.

[southernyankeebelle]

20. I live in a rural area and I am a diehard democrat. I think this area I am in is also

democrat. I remember when I first moved here there were many working poor and farmers on small farms were getting block american cheese. They were getting a hand out. So I think its mainly because its the social issues.

[KoKo]

23. Joe Bageant does good job of explaining it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bageant


Joe Bageant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Joe Bageant (1946–2011) was an American author and columnist known for his book Deer Hunting With Jesus.

Bageant was originally raised in Winchester, Virginia. He left Winchester and worked as a journalist and editor. In 2001, Bageant moved back to Winchester.[1]

In Deer Hunting With Jesus: Dispatches From America's Class War Bageant discusses how Democrats have lost the political support of poor rural whites and how, according to himself, the Republican Party has convinced these individuals to "vote against their own economic self-interest." The book is mainly centered on his hometown, Winchester.

In 2010, Bageant published a similarly themed book, Rainbow Pie: A Redneck Memoir. Bageant used his extended family’s post WW II years experience to describe the social hierarchy in the United States of America. The book examines the post-war journey of 22 million rural Americans into the cities, where they became, the author argues, the foundation of a permanent white underclass and comprise much of today’s heartland “red state” voters.

Bageant frequently appeared as a commentator on radio and television internationally, and wrote a progressive online column distributed to hundreds of blogs and websites. He maintained his own blog, called Joe Bageant, and also served as a senior (roving) editor with Cyrano's Journal Today and The Greanville Post, two sites devoted to progressive political and media analyses.

On January 4, 2011, Bageant announced on his web site that he had been "struck down by an extremely serious form of cancer" which was inoperable and was unable to engage in correspondence or his usual work, but hoped to be able to resume them in the future.[2] When his friends at The Greanville Post learned about the seriousness of his condition, he was unanimously voted as Editor Emeritus of the publication[citation needed].

On March 27, 2011, it was announced on his website that he had died on March 26 following "a vibrant life" and a four-month struggle with cancer. [3]
Books

Deer Hunting With Jesus. Portobello Books. 2008. ISBN 978-1-84627-152-6.
Rainbow Pie: A Redneck Memoir. Portobello Books. 2010. ISBN 978-1-84627-257-8.

References

^ Bageant, Joe (2007). Deer Hunting With Jesus. New York: Crown Books. ISBN 978-0-307-33936-2., p. 36
^ Bageant, Joe (2011-01-04). "A Note from Joe". JoeBageant.com. Retrieved 2011-01-22.
^ "Joe Bageant, 1946-2011". JoeBageant.com. 2011-01-04. Retrieved 2011-03-27.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bageant

[banned from Kos]

37. Joe (RIP) was a great writer.

Thank for your remembrance.

[leveymg]

24. The whiter the area, the redder the politics. Most of rural America is still lilly white.

That applies to low-income areas, of course. Hollywood, CA and Fairfield County, CT are still pretty much white, but upper-income and generally liberal. So we can say it is areas that are mostly poor and white with no real prospects who tend to be conservative, Republican bastions.

[KoKo]

53. We have to get to the REASON that CT and the Northern States vote the way they do

as "Lilly White" as opposed to the Southern Block (Sunbelt) voting opposite.

Joe Bageant does good job of explaining it...
-----------
Joe Bageant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Joe Bageant (1946–2011) was an American author and columnist known for his book Deer Hunting With Jesus.

Bageant was originally raised in Winchester, Virginia. He left Winchester and worked as a journalist and editor. In 2001, Bageant moved back to Winchester.

In Deer Hunting With Jesus: Dispatches From America's Class War Bageant discusses how Democrats have lost the political support of poor rural whites and how, according to himself, the Republican Party has convinced these individuals to "vote against their own economic self-interest." The book is mainly centered on his hometown, Winchester.

In 2010, Bageant published a similarly themed book, Rainbow Pie: A Redneck Memoir. Bageant used his extended family’s post WW II years experience to describe the social hierarchy in the United States of America. The book examines the post-war journey of 22 million rural Americans into the cities, where they became, the author argues, the foundation of a permanent white underclass and comprise much of today’s heartland “red state” voters.

Bageant frequently appeared as a commentator on radio and television internationally, and wrote a progressive online column distributed to hundreds of blogs and websites. He maintained his own blog, called Joe Bageant, and also served as a senior (roving) editor with Cyrano's Journal Today and The Greanville Post, two sites devoted to progressive political and media analyses.

On January 4, 2011, Bageant announced on his web site that he had been "struck down by an extremely serious form of cancer" which was inoperable and was unable to engage in correspondence or his usual work, but hoped to be able to resume them in the future. When his friends at The Greanville Post learned about the seriousness of his condition, he was unanimously voted as Editor Emeritus of the publication.

On March 27, 2011, it was announced on his website that he had died on March 26 following "a vibrant life" and a four-month struggle with cancer.
Books

Deer Hunting With Jesus. Portobello Books. 2008. ISBN 978-1-84627-152-6.
Rainbow Pie: A Redneck Memoir. Portobello Books. 2010. ISBN 978-1-84627-257-8.

References

^ Bageant, Joe (2007). Deer Hunting With Jesus. New York: Crown Books. ISBN 978-0-307-33936-2., p. 36
^ Bageant, Joe (2011-01-04). "A Note from Joe". JoeBageant.com. Retrieved 2011-01-22.
^ "Joe Bageant, 1946-2011". JoeBageant.com. 2011-01-04. Retrieved 2011-03-27.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bageant

[leveymg]

63. Why does CT and the NE remain deep blue? Education, unions, opportunity, liberal traditions

and established institutions such as universities that enrich communities.

The South has been deprived of those blessings by a white power structure that is inward-looking and hostile to the above.

[YoungDemCA]

123. Absolutely.

And it's easy for people who have those blessings and opportunities to berate and ridicule people who don't.

[leveymg]

146. Those blessings were acquired over several hundred years. The South took a different path a long

time ago, and still hasn't recovered from its essentially feudal past.

[KoKo]

244. Now...as one of the most Informed Posters on DU...you KNOW this is more nuanced

than what you just said about "The South."

I've read you and recommended your posts for Years here on DU... I think you did this post "on the fly" without more research.

Peace.

READ: JOE BAGEANT! is my parting hope.

[leveymg]

250. J'Admets -

Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:06 AM - Edit history (2)

I was expressing just one (particularly jaundiced) view among many that I have of the many American souths. I am actually a transplanted Yankee who for 30 years has lived in Virginia, the capitol of the Old Confederacy, and I like the place and most of its people. But, here as across most of the rest of the region I find there is a stubborn and imbedded conservatism -- a reaching backwards, a longing for assumed virtues of the past -- that lends itself here because of local history to an insurgent GOP and widespread Cantor style Teabaggery.

That having been said, the southerners who grow up here who fight the old ways, who have by personal grace caught onto the tail of the universal will for freedom and equality -- these people are fearless and have a nobility beyond my comprehension. They are heroes and I love them, and they make this a wonderful place.

I guess, looking back on my post, that what I was expressing was resistance to what I took to be a suggestion that the Democratic Party should somehow further accommodate itself to the generally more conservative cultural ways of the south. I created a cardboard cutout of the rural South as something beyond redemption and waved it around; like the Scarecrow, I hoped to wave off the Triangulators and the Third-Wayers who might descend on this idea of bringing the South into the Party by bringing the Party into Dixie. That was unfair and probably mistaken, it is an old argument, and I apologize.

[KoKo]

254. thanks....

Ahhh, I understand what you were saying ,now.

Agree the Dem Party definitely doesn't need to accommodate itself to the RW South.

In corrupt states like SC these days,though, its hard to separate the views of the rural RW from the better educated city dwellers (lawyers, physicians, business owners) who used to be moderates and tried to bring the South into modern times.

The ignorance and corruption in some of the Southern states has become so pervasive, its sad that those who can't go along with the Teabaggery, religious extremists are more of a minority in those states than they were even in the 70' & 80's. Those who stand up to that do deserve praise. (I grew up in SC so I have most experience with that state, but got out in my early 20's being more liberal than what was around me and the job opportunities in the NE were far better). I still have some relatives there so I try ti keep up on the corruption.

[leveymg]

261. You and Stephen C are among my favorite South Carolinians. ;-)

Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Even though Colbert was actually born in Yankee-occupied DC. back at ya

PS - It could be that like Stephen (see below), I have also suppressed my southern side. My Mom was born in Alabama, and Grandma was a hard-scrapple Arkansas dirt-floor farmhouse populist, radical and skeptical as hell of power as they come.

My Mom and Dad were good Adlai Stevenson Democrats, and my paternal Grandfather was a Hollywood Producer who employed Communist screenwriters and made racially integrated films -- ever seen New Orleans or Helzapoppin'? -- when that sort of thing still got you blacklisted. His father was an Orthodox Rabbi, a side of myself that I've started to rediscover only in recent years. More than everything else, though, I think I also self-identified by my politics rather than by ethnicity, religion or regional origins.

Colbert's Wiki reveals:

The emphasis his family placed on intelligence and his observation of negative stereotypes of Southerners led Colbert to train himself to suppress his Southern accent while he was still quite young. As a child, he observed that Southerners were often depicted as being less intelligent than other characters on scripted television; to avoid that stereotype, he taught himself to imitate the speech of American news anchors

Guess a lot of us have several better angels and can't always understand all of them when they're talking at the same time. Maybe, that's what's wrong with the Democratic Party and America, as well

[KoKo]

266. Interesting...

Your family background is fascinating, thanks for sharing. Mine were FDR Dems and I had an aunt and uncle who were avid Adlai Stevenson supporters who d did a fundraiser for him in Charleston. I had forgotten all about him.


BTW: Colbert grew up on the island next to the one I grew up on outside of Charleston.

Charleston when I grew up was "cosmopolitan" compared to the rest of the state. In some ways it retains some of that...but in other ways it's succumbed to the Religious Right influence plus the old South habit of hating taxes, and government that fed into the Johnny Reb forever ideology. In the Post War period the Baptists (and other evangelical split offs) grew in numbers and outpaced the Episcopalians, Presbyterians (the former Planter Class) who tended to be more liberal an tolerant in their views on social issues but still against taxes and government interference in business. The alliance meant the state is manipulated by Big Business/Evangelical issues to the detriment of everything else.


Interesting about Colbert. I, too, lost my accent when I lived and worked in NYCity. I worked in publishing and felt looked down on because there was an "attitude" about those from the South...particularly SC. The Carolina Lowcountry accent that Colbert and I originally had, though, is very different from the drawls and twangs of other parts of SC and other Southern States. It was easier to morph into a bland non-regional accent from the soft Gullah accent of the Carolina coast than from the other regional dialects. Our accent in the lowcountry was influenced by working and living with the slaves in the planter culture on the coast and is considered unusual. I've heard something close to the accent here and there in parts of coastal Virginia, though.

[leveymg]

272. You mentioned the more democratic culture on the coast and islands.

I wonder if that is due to the ability of freedmen to become self-sufficient economically as watermen without the need to acquire large plots of land and to hire labor, both of which were made extremely difficult during the Jim Crow era.

There's an interesting branch of cultural anthropology that holds that organized agriculture and large scale plantations, and its need for labor beyond the village unit, was the source of slavery as a social institution and the formation of states, such as the Mayans (and the antebellum South), based in forced labor and conquest.

The kicker to this is the insight that the religious practices of scapegoating and ritual sacrifice likely stem from the same form of social organization. You should read "Violence and the Sacred" by Rene Girard.

[virgogal]

72. Vermont is one of the whitest states in the USA,#2 I think. Hardly a red state.Maine

is another example.

[leveymg]

93. See my comment about the cultural institutions that make the NE different from the rural south.

Last edited Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:12 AM - Edit history (1)

It's not just race, and it's not just income, it's the lasting impact of cultural, labor and educational institutions on communities, and the influence of outward-looking northern elites who are tied to global urban centers versus inward-looking southern elites that remain essentially small-town and regional in character.

[blkmusclmachine]

26. Gawd, guns, & gays.

[w8liftinglady]

28. As a diehard Dem in Red Texas... I can tell you.

Democratic candidates and constituents avoid rural areas.
When Bill White ran for Governor, he made it to Ellis County.It was the first time they remember a Democrat actually having an event that advertised in the paper.
Of course, the quasi-klan protested.
When Paul Hackett ran against Joe Barton,he was swiftboated in the local press.
The Democratic Party (Nationally) ignored Paul Sadler for Senate,even though Paul was actually well-qualified for the job (and a moderate).

[riderinthestorm]

31. Farm subsidies, guns, religion, homophobia, anti-immigration (racist), lack of higher education

and most definitely lack of exposure to a diverse conversation. They are insular and insulated in their communities where the talking points are defined by the daily farm reports (skewed rightward) and conservative talk radio and teevee.

FWIW, I speak as a liberal Dem in a very, very conservative red district (Denny Hastert's old district now occupied by a teabagger).

[Arugula Latte]

32. Here's an article about how rural voters' influence is decreasing.

Food for thought.

http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/3251909-74/rural-farm-political#axzz2Ix62vq53

[cherish44]

34. Grew up in a small town.

Full of older people, religious people and uneducated people. Anyone that has any ambition or intelligence tends to bolt from this town the minute they graduate from high school.

[octoberlib]

95. I was born in a small town in central Kansas

My family moved before I entered school but the primary objective for my cousins and their friends was to get the hell out as soon as they'd graduated from high school, either to a bigger town to attend college or a city for better job prospects. My grandparents still live in that town and the average age of the residents is about 60.

[Riftaxe]

209. I am quite positive you are just stereotyping about the religious thing

But where did these fine folks flee to to avoid the communities they chose to live in the first place? Why did the leave the old folks stranded there (modern version of the stranding on the ice float)?

While every rural village and town are certain to differentiate in some degree in education, intelligence and especially religiously (I would wager their are very few 'pure' ones in that respect).

Could it possibly be that in your arrogance you do not understand the word community?

As far as unambitious, intelligent and uneducated...that is purely ignorant rhetoric at best, while it is possible that you might believe it. I would even go so far as to say it is blatantly an effort to dehumanize people based on ignorance (if i was feeling charitable at least) for what ever personal psychosis that caused you to express it in the first place.

[Honeycombe8]

36. Study some of the posts in DU and other forums. Notice what some say about...

rural areas, the south, having guns for defense in the home, believing in God.

I am from a rural area in the deep south, although we moved to "the big city" of maybe 50,000 people, nearby and still in the deep south, when I was 8. But I still remember the tiny rural town I was raised in.

Those areas are tightnit and very centered around church and school. We celebrated Halloween with a costume party...the whole town attended in the local high school gym. It was another big event when John Deere would come out and showcase their latest equipment. It was like a small fair. Food, beverages, entire families roamed around the tractors and whatnot. My grandpa even taped it, to record the big event.

Everyone had guns and knew how to use them. No one got killed. And no one tried to kill anyone else, or else they'd get shot. There were no house break-ins, either. Kids rode their bikes all around town, alone, without fear of harm. Everyone knew everyone else. When my sister and I walked to school, we'd pass by the house of one of her teachers & wave on our way. (I guess she went to work later than we walked to school.)

The north and flamboyant clothing and drugs were a world away and nonexistent in my town. It was a quiet life. It wasn't an ideal life. There were mean dads who hit their kids, wives who drank too much, etc. But it was a very different life from the wild ways of large urban areas.

People in the north and other more liberal areas don't understand the lifestyle of rural areas, and don't want to understand. They deride all southerners, and equate having a shotgun for hunting or a pistol for defense as the same thing as people mass killing school children. Some, not all but some, liberals go out of their way to deride going to church or being religious, equating it with some of the extreme evangelical beliefs that are around.

[renate]

46. very well written

My parents were raised this way. Not a bad way of life and I can see why the people there are afraid of change. I wouldn't be crazy about it either if I were in their shoes. I don't think they vote GOP because of racism or any other -ism--not most of them--but they like their churches and they like going hunting with their friends and they believe Fox News when they're told that the Democrats want to take these things away.

[Berserker]

83. Absolutely 100% spot on

"People in the north and other more liberal areas don't understand the lifestyle of rural areas, and don't want to understand."

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

86. Same could be said about folks from rural areas.

They don't understand the lifestyle of urban/blue areas, and don't want to understand.

[YoungDemCA]

107. Perhaps.

Then again, since people from rural areas are no more than 1/5 of America's population now, their influence relative to city and suburban people is pretty marginal.

[Honeycombe8]

144. Well, the OP was asking why rural people aren't Democrats, not the other way around.

So that's what I based my response on.

The Democrats haven't done a great job reaching out to them. There aren't enough of them in clusters to be worthwhile to campaign in, unless you're pretty sure you've got a decent shot, is my guess. And there's nothing out there to draw them to the Democratic Party without a concerted effort to bring them in. Also, like I said in my first post, on the internet you'll find a bit of "liberals" deriding southerners and their way of life. Some Democrats have, in fact, said they want to take away all guns, their guns, and have said that religious people are the cause of many evils (the so-called liberals forget to say "historically&quot .

Still, I think a number of rural people would vote Democratic, if they understood the party's positions better. And if they felt the Party cared about their concerns.

I moved to the big city. Many rural people do. So more rural people end up understanding big city life more than the other way around, I think, since not many urban people move to rural areas. I like some things about both ways of life.

[dmallind]

223. "historically" is not omitted as an oversight - it would be a lie

Unless you rely on the technicality that things like doctor-shootings, Prop 8, NC anti-gay votes and faith-healing kids to death are "historical" because they happened a few weeks, months or years ago. But by that standard, your post is historical too.

[PotatoChip]

234. Not all of 'the north' is urban.

In fact, every single southern state is more urban than the NE state I live in... which is a blue state btw.

-Sorry to interrupt. Just wanted to throw that out there as an aside.

[Riftaxe]

211. In the south or north

it is referred to as a community for a good reason. It is not a matter of predominant politics, couldn't be....I suspect this is a more rural versus urban thing.

While in an urban setting it 'sucks' if is your neighbor's house on fire, in a rural setting it is a bit more inconvenient if you have to hit the local volunteer fire department to fetch your gear and help put it out.

This is probably the biggest divide between small communities and larger ones, in a smaller town or village there is no one else to pass the drudge work on to...this makes people who live there "idiots", and does not say a lot positive about the people judging them so.

[Sparkly]

39. I think it's about living with different people, and experiencing diversity.

Living in a city means interacting with -- or at least, sharing space with -- many, many people, all the time. In a rural area, not so much.

A story:

I grew up in a diverse area (blue state, liberal parents). My Mom was from a little town in Oklahoma. She said something once about people who live isolated in settings all their own for generations -- whatever it was, it sounded idyllic to me.

"That must be nice," I said.

"Well," Mom explained carefully, "When people only interact with people just like them, and living off in the mountains, they begin to develop strange ideas..."

I get it now.

[Riftaxe]

213. There is also the flip side of that

In a rural setting you literally know everyone around you, in an urban setting you might or might not know someone, but you care so less it does not matter.

As stated, it is a good reason why sociopaths make good urbanites

The dichotomy of being closer to people inspiring more indifference is interesting.

[FarPoint]

40. I believe the power of Fox entertainment

And...AM talk radio has a huge influence on rural American. Their relentless hate talk propaganda is like brainwashing.

[Nye Bevan]

62. How come AM talk radio has no influence on the inner cities? (nt)

[Sparkly]

74. I think people in the inner cities are smart enough to know when they're being scapegoated. nt

[Riftaxe]

215. because if you choose to live in a rural setting

you have to be a blithering idiot, and escape those fancy things like scapegoating rural hicks, eh?

[hopemountain]

75. because inner city people have more options?

& tend to have a faster paced life with diverse interactions - as someone here pointed out.

[ManiacJoe]

92. Cities have FM radio, normally music not talk formats.

[Riftaxe]

216. Right....

Because being stuck nose to ass with your neighbors invalidates technology....

[FarPoint]

97. Inner city is cool....

No AM Rush or Bortz for them....they don't listen to it.

[jeff47]

122. Because AM talk radio blames the inner cities for all of our problems. (nt)

[Ikonoklast]

199. Because they are the ones that AM Hate Radio is demonizing.

When someone is calling you a welfare-cheating, drug-using, life-long unemployed by choice shiftless drain on society that hates religion and only takes and never contributes and is most likely a criminal, one tends to ignore that person's opinion.




The funniest thing about all of this discussion is that in the state of Ohio, those citizens on some form of government assistance as a percentage of total population are highest in the most RURAL counties.

There are more people on welfare, more on unemployment, more on SNAP, more dependent on some form of taxpayer-funded assistance in the RURAL counties based on percentage of population than the counties with a large urban center, even with nine out the ten largest cities in those counties having poverty rates above 20%

Kinda blows the whole 'I live in a rural area and so I am self-sufficient not like all those welfare cheats in the cities' BS out of the water, at least in Ohio.


www.bgsu.edu/downloads/cas/file36245.pdf

[PotatoChip]

238. True in rural Maine as well.

Kinda blows the whole 'I live in a rural area and so I am self-sufficient not like all those welfare cheats in the cities' BS out of the water, at least in Ohio.

Yup. Lots of people on government assistance here, in this rural area of an already rural state. Not that I personally have a problem with that... What bothers me is the hypocrisy. My state may be blue, but my county (one of the poorest) is definitely red. Most of these people are Libertarian or Republican voters, yet some close family member, or even these self-described 'fiercely independent' folks themselves receive assistance.

I'm not sure what causes this blindness to reality. Probably a number of factors, but I know that right wing radio is a big part of it. At least in this area.

[Ikonoklast]

242. And those mostly rural Ohio counties whose citizens absolutely depend on taxpayer assistance

to survive vote exclusively Republican.

The cognitive dissonance is jarring.

[geomon666]

43. Because they're rural.

Rural people don't have to deal with the societal issues that urban and even suburban people do at least for the most part. They don't see the effect conservative policies have on the poor and lower income.

[YoungDemCA]

142. And conversely, they don't see the positive effect liberal policies have on them

Combine that with the fact that social programs have been steadily dismantled in the U.S. over the past few decades, and well...

[Riftaxe]

217. Ya got me gramps

No poverty out here in the sticks, hell we not see nigh near enuff a people, all the day long.

Them relationships ya'll talking about are silly, and obviously we don't meet real people or have to relate to them.

Now..exactly why are all these recent mass killers urbanites?, i thought you were above us all in your superiority et al?

Heading back to the 'ole mansion, if i actually thought you gave a flying fig about poverty other then a word for rhetoric I might 'aim to 'reckifee you alls ignorance.

[Thinkingabout]

44. I grew up in rural south, very democrat, somehow the prejudice moved from Democrat to Republican.

I did not change with them and remain a very blue Democrat and intend to stay this way. I have heard for years now how dumb the Democrats are at the polls. I have heard also the reason to vote for someone is what they claim on abortion and I tell them we need leaders and not just on one issue. This one issue gets Todd Akins, etc, nit smart in making decisions in Congress.

[LeftInTX]

48. They're definitely more socially conservative

When I was a teen, we would go to my parent's cottage in northern Wisconsin. There were no rock n roll stations on the radio. None. And this was 1972, there was only polka and country.

In Texas a lot of teens listen to country music instead of rock.

[Marrah_G]

50. Religion

In small towns there isn't alot to do. Much of the social aspects revolve around the local churches.

[eridani]

52. Democrats are the party of public goods

Rural people tend not to need them as much--the fire department and the police department will always get there too late to do you much good.

Of course they don't think such things as roads or water infrastructure really count as public goods.

[SpartanDem]

56. It's a number of factors

One cities have historically been attractive to immigrants and minorities because that's were jobs are located. That diversity in turn exposes people to new ideas and cultures.If you look at any polling data on issues tolerance one of the biggest factors is whether you know someone of that different culture, religion or orientation. Not surprisingly if know you someone of that different culture you are far more likely to be tolerant of them. Whereas in many rural areas the population is more homogeneous, even if they themselves are not experiencing big changes they may feel threatened by the outside world. Same sex marriage comes to mind they may not have a ton of people in town coming out, but they see the acceptance in big cities and in media culture.

Then you can look at the fiscal side of things. Fiscally rural areas are a lot more conservative because they rarely see the impact of social or infrastructure tax dollars at work simply because there aren't enough people in their area to warrant large expenditures of tax dollars. While urban areas are much more likely to approve of higher taxes to improve transit, help the homeless, or provide affordable healthcare because these problems are much more visual and apparent in urban areas, therefore it makes sense to pay to fix these problems.

[YoungDemCA]

103. Another good post.

Rural people tend to have a more "fend for yourself" attitude than city people, at least when it comes to government action.

[Spider Jerusalem]

59. Racism and social conservatism.

since the 1960's and the Civil Rights Act and Johnson's Great Society hicks, hillbillies and rednecks have seen the Democratic party as the party of blacks and welfare, and since then also as the party of abortion, gun control, gay marriage and godless secularism. And the GOP has been happy to pander to racism and religous fundamentalism since Nixon's "Southern Strategy", at least (or, really, since Barry Goldwater with his anti-Civil Rights Act stance). See: the aforementioned Nixon strategy; Reagan opening his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi with a speech referencing "states' rights" (and we know what that means); on through Romney in the most recent election and his comments about "black people need to get off of welfare and stop expecting government to take care of them" (any Republican knows the black vote is lost anyway; comments like that are meant for the base, it's like a secret handshake, "see, I'm a fine upstanding god-fearing white man!&quot .

[MichaelHarris]

67. God and

vaginas

[Sparkly]

70. Tell us more.

[Sparkly]

80. Is change what's bothering you?

What's the problem?

[xoom]

78. He/she will be gone soon.

[Sparkly]

82. I know....

But I love to play with them before they're gone.

[xoom]

84. They sure seem to wiggle a lot right before the end.

Have fun, and enjoy!

[Sparkly]

85. Gone...

Almost had him by the tail, too.

[underseasurveyor]

88. Your Ronnie Raygun started the "phone" program.

[larwdem]

108. your boy

GW BUSH STARTED THE CELL PHONE GIVE AWAY

NOW GO THE FUCK BACK TO FREE PIG

[octoberlib]

111. Actually, they're not Obama phones . They're Bush phones. Get your facts straight.

[Terra Alta]

71. Most rural voters have less education and a lower IQ.

People with lower IQs tend to be less informed voters, and less informed voters tend to vote Republican(if they vote at all).

I'm a rural voter with an average IQ, but I am intelligent enough to know which party fights for me, and which party fights against my best interests as a biracial, bisexual, low-income female.

The fact that most rural voters tend to be white is a factor, as well.

[Sparkly]

77. Less education maybe, but not a lower IQ.

And I'd bet many (not all) have different skills than urban and suburban workers, but no less important.

I just don't know why they're so scared and hostile.

[Spider Jerusalem]

100. Yes, a lower IQ

there's an observed and consistent urban/rural gap in IQ scores (of three to seven points). Various reasons have been hypothesised (from tests that reflect an unconscious bias that favours those in an urban environment, to greater average family sizes and consequently lower parental investment in a single child in rural families).

[Sparkly]

109. Yeah, I'd guess test-taking abilities

rather than actual intelligence.

[wickerwoman]

135. Also if you have a higher IQ,

you're more likely to get out of a rural environment either for greater cultural opportunities, more tolerant social atmosphere, and more stimuli in cities, or for the higher paying jobs and better educational opportunities.

Most people with a 150 IQ just aren't going to be happy working at a rural gas station or on a farm.

On edit: Also probably becomes intergenerational. People with higher IQs live in or move to cities because that's where the jobs are. They marry other people with higher IQs who live in cities. They have kids with a genetic advantage in intelligence and then give those children access to a more stimulating environment. They can afford to hire tutors, take their kids to museums and plays, etc. They have friends with higher IQs who babysit and come to dinner. They have more books and newspapers around the house and watch PBS instead of FOX.

The drive towards urbanisation over the past 300 years has been removing the most intelligent people from the rural gene pool. The people who are left have children who may be, statistically at least, at a disadvantage in terms of both nature and nurture.

[Terra Alta]

105. I think much of that is due to brainwashing by rural pastors

who has scared them into thinking big government liberal politicians are going to take Gawd out of everything and turn this country into a Communist atheistic state.

Then there's the gun issue. They hide like cowards behind their guns, scared of liberal politicians who they think will take all their guns away.

[Sparkly]

110. Or the pastors are equally scared.

I think on many levels, they never got over the Civil War.

[Luminous Animal]

73. It didn't used to be this way. Kansas was a hotbed of dissidents.

Last edited Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:12 AM - Edit history (1)

It seems to me that the Democratic, Union, and lib leaning orgs leaderships simply gave up on rural folks and dropped most kinds of outreach.

[YoungDemCA]

116. And fundamentalist religion, in many places and for many people, filled that gap

nt

[Brickbat]

81. I live in a rural area, and it's also very blue. The differene, I think, is that it isn't poor.

Unions made this a middle-class area and while it's always been hardscrabble, the unions brought a prosperity that meant people didn't have to worry about people "taking away" things, like their guns or their faith or their jobs, and they could live and let live. It's a little more lower-middle-class now, but still strongly union and very DFL.

[Spider Jerusalem]

90. You're in Minnesota? Which has other significant differences.

Not just "not poor". "Overwhelmingly white" and "Scandinavian/Germanic". There are significant cultural factors in the rural South, where a) the overall population is much more racially mixed, being anywhere from 25 to 50% black, depending on state and area, and b) the white population are largely Anglo-Celtic, and by and large descended from pre-Revolution immigrants. I don't really think you can discount the effects of either factor (a lot of 19th century Scandinavian and German immigrants were already receptive to the ideas of socialism and unionising thanks to the experience of the 1848 revolutions, an experience not shared by, say..white Southerners).

[snooper2]

87. IQ

[moondust]

94. "Some" traditional agrarian conservatism.

Generations of resistance to "progress" leading away from an agriculture-based economy, although I don't know how much of that kind of resistance remains.

[Fla_Democrat]

96. If I was ever going to ask this question, anywhere...

This would be the place. Use the collective wisdom you will gather from the follow up posts wisely.

[WillyT]

106. It's Changing, Albeit Slowly... But The Rural Kids Have Laptops And Cell Phones Now...

There was an old saying...

Wich apparently was also a song, LOL !!!

"How You Gonna Keep 'Em Down On The Farm"

Reuben, Reuben, I've been thinking
Said his wifey dear
Now that all is peaceful and calm
The boys will soon be back on the farm
Mister Reuben started winking and slowly rubbed his chin
He pulled his chair up close to mother
And he asked her with a grin

[Chorus (sung twice after each verse):]
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'
How ya gonna keep 'em away from Broadway
Jazzin around and paintin' the town
How ya gonna keep 'em away from harm, that's a mystery
They'll never want to see a rake or plow
And who the deuce can parleyvous a cow?
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'

Rueben, Rueben, you're mistaken
Said his wifey dear
Once a farmer, always a jay
And farmers always stick to the hay
Mother Reuben, I'm not fakin
Tho you may think it strange
But wine and women play the mischief
With a boy who's loose with change

[Chorus (sung twice after each verse):]
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'
How ya gonna keep 'em away from Broadway
Jazzin around and paintin' the town
How ya gonna keep 'em away from harm, that's a mystery
Imagine Reuben when he meets his Pa
He'll pinch his cheek and holler "OO-LA-LA!
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
After they've seen Paree'?

Link: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/andrewbird/howyougonnakeepemdownonthefarm.html

[YoungDemCA]

114. There are real grievances against Democrats in much of rural America

And the Republican Party has exploited that.

Every time a liberal person calls rural people racist, ignorant, bigoted, etc., that is a blow against the prospects of the Democratic Party rebuilding itself in rural America.

Every time a liberal person calls rural people "stupid" for going to church, that is yet another blow against rural Democrats.

Rural people may appear "simple" to city-folk, but they aren't stupid. Us Democrats would do well to be mindful of them.

[Sparkly]

119. So they're just mad that somebody called them names?

That's more important to them than actual issues?

[YoungDemCA]

121. Well, it doesn't help that the people calling the names...

...tend to be of a higher social class than the rural people.

It's very much like Republicans saying that black people are blindly loyal to the Democrats and aren't smart enough to vote "their best interest."

[Sparkly]

126. But that proves the point.

Black voters do vote Democratic based on real issues.

From what you're saying at least, rural voters don't consider issues and policies.

[WillyT]

125. Ironic... No ???

[still_one]

127. I would say the lack of critical thinking

[Odin2005]

128. The smart and open minded people leave small towns...

...Leaving behind the old and the stupid. I grew up in a small town in western Minnesota. I only visit there to see my mom, otherwise I want nothing to do with it, full of ignorance, poverty, and teen mom drop-outs.

[ohheckyeah]

235. And often move back.

I left my hometown of 5,000 at 18. I've lived in Alexandria and worked in DC. I've lived in Miami, Phoenix, Tucson, VA Beach, Richmond, etc. and now I live in rural southwestern VA. I prefer a slower, simpler life. That doesn't make me stupid or close-minded. The most enlightening place I ever lived was in a small town 7 miles from the Mexican border.

[patrice]

131. Failure to find genuine commonality with them & then to authentically respect & enjoy connection

[Stargazer09]

133. In my experience

The problem is poor education, coupled with what basically amounts to inbreeding. In the small town where I went to high school, it seemed like everyone was related to everyone else (obviously not including newcomers).

Critical thinking skills were only taught by a couple of my teachers, and most of my classmates ignored the lessons. (Those two teachers are closet Dems, as I've since learned.)

When you grow up expecting to work in the same factory as your parents, there's little incentive to learn about the world outside.

[YoungDemCA]

137. Yeah, there's very little oppurtunity in a lot of rural towns

The question is, what are Democrats going to do about it?

[Stargazer09]

141. Probably not much

One of the teachers I mentioned, who retired a few years ago, just had her vehicle vandalized.

There were large caliber bullet holes all over it.

She had spoken out on Facebook about the need for more background checks for gun purchasers.

Those idiots don't care about anything but their guns, and I am so thankful to be away from there.

I'd love to see more opportunities for everyone, but honestly, most of my classmates wouldn't take any jobs offered by a Democrat. Might as well be telling them that Satan himself is offering the job.

(Can you tell that I hated that town?)

[YoungDemCA]

139. Also, America used to be majority-rural

Now rural America is under 20 percent of the population, and shrinking fast.

The family farms are gone. The small-town factories are mostly gone. The mom-and-pop shops are mostly gone, too.

There just isn't much economic opportunity left in much of rural America, other than low-wage, non-union jobs in the service sector. And as stated upthread, right-wing talk radio and fundamentalist religion both have a big presence in rural America. That, combined with the (accurate, FWIW) perception that cities and metro areas are where money, power, and resources are going, and you have a recipe for the development of right-wing resentment.

[Brigid]

145. Since the late '70's, most of my family has lived in and around Terre Haute, IN.

It's a working-class town that has been in the economic doldrums for the past forty years. Despite the fact that it has a lot of educational opportunities for a town of its size, it has suffered decades of brain drain. There is nothing to do there once you finish college, and anyway many of the students are from elsewhere. That leaves mostly slack-jawed morons. They're so beaten down they don't even ask themselves anymore why life has to be so damned hard. They've given up, and don't even realize it. Anyone with any brains or ambition might as well be a space alien. Naturally, the place is bright red.

[WillyT]

147. This...

[Brigid]

149. Not sure what you're asking.

[WillyT]

165. I'm... Agreeing ???

[MannyGoldstein]

184. +1

When Democrats deliver the goods instead of triangulating, Terre Haute and the rest of America will turn blue.

[Ter]

148. Well, why do Republicans do so poorly in urban areas and big cities?

It's all about interests I suppose.

[Recursion]

150. how poorly do we actually do?

I thought the bigger problem was sprawling exurbs, not extremely rural areas?

[YoungDemCA]

225. Depends on the area

But in general, I would suspect you are correct.

[lumberjack_jeff]

151. Maybe it's... naah.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022251591

[BootinUp]

155. My belief is that the next four years will change some minds.

The rural parts of the nation are still confused by the Reagan myth, and racism/bigotry, religion, and the guns.

[Herlong]

157. Why do Democrats do so poorly with rural voters? Generations

of our media telling us what we want to hear. To maintain the powerful and distract the powerless.

It's not about rural or urban. It's about America.

[ruralvoter89]

159. Some of you are right and some of you are wrong.

I'm a farmer in a very rural area in the Appalachian mountains; and I've always leaned towards the Democratic party; yet without fail my county always goes Republican.

My county is dirt poor, like it's been said, most people around here with any intelligence or ambition to move upwards in society leaves for more urban areas. At the same time, there's plenty of folk around here with sharp minds and good ethics that have lived here their whole lives and rarely leave the area except for work or an occasional vacation.

Why does my county usually go Republican? It's not an easy question to answer, there's multiple reasons.

Race plays a large factor, few if any elected officials around here are non-white; and Obama lost in a landslide around here because he was not a white man. We have a moderate population of minorities, mostly Black and Hispanic, with a few Asians; and those races tend to keep to themselves for better or worse. There is little blatant racism and everybody gets along just fine; yet this self-imposed segregation is just the way it is around here. With President Obama in office, the Democratic Party gets viewed as the party of minorities; and the Republican Party is the party of whites.

Then it's morality and ethics... Most people do hold very strict, very religious views; its also party of the ingrained culture. Most young people here are tolerant of LGBT's, and homosexual marriage; yet the older ones that turn out more often to vote are not. Throw in the fact that most people have legitimate uses for firearms, whether its hunting or agricultural use; and they're loathe to give up those tools. They view any gun control measures as edicts handed down from nigh untouchable overlords over whom they have no say or control. Abortion is considered totally immoral for anything other than a necessary medical procedure.

Isolation is another major issue, when I briefly attended community college it was an hour long drive one way. The closest shopping mall and bookstore of any note is an hour and ten minutes away. What you might refer to as the closest 'major city', is two hours away. Most of my county is a good 45 minutes from a super market. Culture, outside of a few bluegrass concerts and religion is non-existent. Around here, you're rarely exposed to any sort of diversity or new ideas or social progress.

Hell I guess I'm just trying to say what the Democratic Party has is a culture clash on its hands; and by extension urban voters are in the same situation with rural voters. Yeah, under our system of government the majority has a greater say and rural America is dying and shrinking; while the cities keep growing. But in my eyes, we're asked to give ever more while we get less and less in return.

The rural 20% feeds the urban 80%; and those odds are just going to keep getting worse. As it stands right now, the EPA wants cattle farmers like me to fence off the streams on our property to cut down on manure in the water; yet my cattle require that water to live. Using corn for the ethanol in gas is making the price of cattle grain go up and up, and it's cutting into the profit I need to live. At the same time, the schools around here are getting less in funding, and the roads are falling into serious disrepair; and unemployment remains high in my area. The inheritance tax threatens to place my ability to hand my farm down to future generations, while the land taxes go up on me right now.

In some ways, I feel that the social contract between me and the government is breaking down. The Republicans on a national level give lip service to the rural areas, and the Democratic Party ignores us. I'm loosing faith in the ability of both parties to address the needs of my neighbors and myself. I willingly pay my taxes, I feed my society, and all I ask for is for the government to provide with certain services and to allow me to pursue life on my own terms with no needless interference.

[cali]

160. I live in a poor rural area of Vermont called the Northeast Kingdom

It went strongly for Obama. It's 99% white here. It's isolated. The nearest city- if you want to call a town of 35,000, a city- is 2 hours away. The nearest large supermarket is 30 minutes away.

Rural, poor, white and pro-Obama. It's cultural differences that explain why your area and mine are so different.

[moondust]

161. Care to comment on farm subsidies?

Thanks for the post.

[tama]

183. Abomination

They have several purposes:
1) international "competition", dumping industrialized fossil fuel agriculture on third world market to make them more dependent from "rich" north - it's a neocolonialist thing
2) subsidizing big industrial scale farming to kill of little guys, so they are forced to move in to cities and become wage slaves for capitalists
3) feed food industry and urban consumers with subsidized food instead of paying real market value for their food.

[CalFresh]

228. Well said ruralvoter89.

"The Republicans on a national level give lip service to the rural areas, and the Democratic Party ignores us".

[catbyte]

162. Coming from a rural area, hate radio is often all that comes in & people listen to it.

I think that's a real culprit, also "city folks" are "pre-verts", druggies, mooches, and criminals. Also dark & dusky. This obscene misconception is also reinforced by hate radio. It's unconscionable.

[Herlong]

164. It's time for us to make a difference

Last edited Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Walk a mile!

[Thor_MN]

166. AM hate radio aka "talk radio"

FM stations fade out due to distance without expensive repeater stations. AM travels much further. Due to the lower sound quality of AM radio, much of it has turned into talk radio spreading conservative bull crap to rural areas. Rural implies longer drive times, so more exposure to radio during those drives.

[Auntie Bush]

273. That's it in a nutshell. Everything else is secondary.

Everything else is a result of hate radio.

[Le Taz Hot]

169. I live in a large city

with rural farming areas surrounding it. I've written a few of these threads myself and I could spend days answering that question but let me just say this, it wouldn't hurt the Democrats to:

a) have a continuous, significant presence in the rural areas (the Republicans have for decades);
b) quit regarding rural residents as uneducated hicks and then treating them as such;
c) tell them what YOUR party has to offer the community instead of demanding THEIR time and THEIR money for which they get nothing in return.

If the Democrats are truly interested in reaching rural dwellers, they might start with those three simple things.

On Edit: After going through and reading the responses to this thread I literally feel like throwing up. If this is the way "liberals" feel about rural dwellers (low I.Q., uneducated, etc.) then don't question the reason rural dwellers vote Republican -- who always have a presence. Btw, for those who screech "farm subsidies!!!11!!!," the lion's share of those farm subsidies go to corporate farms -- family farms get little or nothing of those subsidies.

I'm feeling a need for another DU break these days.

[beevul]

170. Guns, and a lack of understanding.

Rural people by and large, are by necessity, a very independent bunch of folks in many ways.

[tama]

175. This reminds me of incident

There was discussion panel in the big city about ecological agriculture. I was living in rural permaculture ecovillage at the time, and interested in the subject.

As it was in the city, there were mostly what we here in Finland call "citygreens" present, the vegan types. And it was all very top down, condescending, lot of talk about meat eating "stupid redneck hilly billies". Hippies learn very fast that if a rural hippie community don't have respectful and good relations with the "native" rural people, it does not survive long. And they learn where food comes from.

So I blew my fuse and told the politico city green that a rural peasant does not need a vegan citygreen to boss him and call him bad names, he can survive without citygreens, but a vegan citygreen consumer needs peasants to grow food for him, can't survive without.

And that, dear friends, is the heart of the story. The urban-rural divide goes deep and the most basic fact of the divide is hierarchy of dependencies. Urban people depend from rural people, but rural people can and do survive without urban people. Sure urban people make lots of nice things that also rural people enjoy, but that does not change the primary hierarchy of dependency.

And let's face it, folks, people who can't manage by their own and are dependent from others can get quite bossy, out of fear and insecurity and what not. Urban kings and priests and soldiers "taxing" rural peasants is the first and original class divide. And that class divide and root of injustice at the heart of civilization remains unsolved.

So why don't rural people trust and vote for the party perceived as "big government"? Because peasants have been robbed and fucked by City Masters for millennia, and the mistrust is towards City Masters and Big Government is in their blood.

The modern fossil fuel driven system is much more complex, and also agriculture has been largely mechanized and industrialized, there are complexes and complexities of all kinds. But if urban people don't realize the root of the problem and the class divide and one way dependency, and see the issue from the other point of view, we cannot start finding progressive solutions to this most basic problem and root of so much injustice and suffering.

[wickerwoman]

262. So rural people don't use modern medicine?

They don't use roads or bridges or levies or dams designed by "urban parasite" engineers? They don't buy pesticides or GM crops or use new techniques and hybrids designed through agricultural research at "big city" universities?

None of them have or want internet access or cell phones? None of them watch movies or TVs shows or listen to music produced in urban areas? None of them wear clothes or drive cars or have refrigerators made in factories in urban areas? None of them enjoy military protection? None of them benefit from disaster relief paid for mostly by taxes from city dwellers? Urban areas in the US pay significantly more in taxes than they get back in benefits. The opposite is true for rural areas.

Your take is *waaaay* too simplistic. People have been moving to urban areas for the past 300 years because that's where the jobs are and because it's more efficient to provide infrastructure for a compact area than it is when everyone is spread out. The vast majority of those "City Masters" are the younger brothers and sisters of the rural peasants who would have starved if they had stayed on the farm.

And you lose the moral high ground calling them "citygreens", "vegan types" and "hippies". That's just as condescending and intolerant in its own way as "stupid redneck hillbilles".

It's a symbiotic relationship, not a one way dependency. And the problem is rural defensiveness at least as much as it is big city condescension. Nobody likes having it pointed out to them when they are wrong. And many conservative ideas are simply wrong. But if you're well-educated, you're better able to accept challenges to your ideas as part of a constructive dialogue. If you're less well educated, you just shut down because the other person is "bashing" you or being "condescending".

[tama]

264. Some do, some don't

In various degrees. There is much more variety in non-urban peoples than urban peoples. Piraha people in Amazon feel that their culture is complete, they don't need anything from other cultures. They have found their Garden of Eden, or never lost it. We can and should respect that. They don't bother us, we don't need to bother them, but we can be happy they exist and enjoy their beauty, what little we know of it. I hope. Or what if our urban way of life can't continue without cutting down their forests and mining the metals of their land? Because we NEED all of that too, to keep on growing? If that is so, and that is all we are, what are we?

Urban centers are melting pots of rural variety, and monocultures of same urban sprawl all over the globe. There is value also in that, as in many ways cultural evolution is faster in urban melting pots. But the urban monoculture, fantasy of eternal growth and technocratic control over nature has become to end. Take bankers and their money away, what is left of urban culture? Quite much, no doubt, but much less than urban people think in their blind self-importance. Refinding balance would suck much less, I believe.

I'm not claiming moral high ground. When I want high, I take dope. I like being grounded, plain and simple. Common sense. No competition who has highest morals, who is up most. Don't like that game, Sky Daddy is ok, I guess, and part of all, but I'm more in the womb of Mother Earth type of guy. Just a little child. So please have patience with me and forgive my mistakes.

[MADem]

177. They are low information voters, many of them--they work long hours and they aren't interested in

spending very much of their free time getting up to speed with issues of civics and governance.

As a consequence, they are more likely to buy bullshit from a person who sounds or looks most like themselves. If they are entertained with cleavage and hotness and pretty colors while they get their "news" quota, that's better still. It's a shortcut to knowledge that leaves them, often as not, uninformed.

Because they are fearful and live on the edge (of poverty, of homelessness, of unemployment) they are reassured by anyone who touts a "status quo" perspective...."Stick with me, and you'll keep your tax money/house/job! Go with those other guys and they will TAKE YOUR STUFF AWAY..."

It's all down to fear. But it is possible for Dems to win in rural places--look at Jon Tester. Of course, there are those who complain he's not "Dem" enough to suit them because of his view on this issue or that, but you've got to start with what is possible.

[graham4anything]

178. What will your excuse be when the Democratics win these areas doing nothing different except

spending the $$$ to win these states needed.

and the NRA's time is over.

so what will your excuse be when the democratic party wins these areas?

All it takes is more money

and btw, taxes are a good thing.
stop making taxes into a bad thing

and stop hating Chicago, New York City and California.

and get rid of Fox as the sole provider of the media in some areas, especially on radio where there are not many stations and the only choice is Fox.

Perhaps banning guns and talk radio would be a good start.

[napoleon_in_rags]

179. Why do respectable journals demand peer reviewed content?

Because truth alone thrives under the watchful eyes of many peers, ideas that thrive in isolation can't thrive in that environment.

And isolation is the major factor. There are ideas that can thrive with a group of peers consisting of a few that get shut down with a peer group numbering in the thousands. Kevin bacon rules will suggest that once your peer group is in the thousands, one of them knew somebody (or will know somebody who knows somebody) who personally grew up with Obama in Hawaii. Many of them will have the necessary skills needed to see that archival news stories and an authentic birth certificate is sufficient grounds to validate the claims. But you get a few isolated people in the middle of nowhere, and reality about the external world is whatever they believe it to be.

[loyalsister]

182. hyper- patriotism

God, guns, gays, and the good old days

[bowens43]

186. guns and god mans two worst inventions

[LWolf]

188. This thread demonstrates the answer.

Look at the responses.

All those urban Democrats painting rural people with a broad brush, putting "them" down, etc..

Instead of acknowledging that one-urban-size fits all solutions aren't always going to work, or meet the needs, of rural communities.

[The2ndWheel]

189. It seems pretty clear, right?

Call people dumb, and ridicule how they live their life, say basically anything they believe in is wrong...wow, I can't understand why those same people aren't on your side.

Would anyone be on the same side as someone that was saying that to them? I would think no. Unless you're into that sort of thing. Some people like being degraded.

[melm00se]

190. A large portion of this thread

is why the Democratic Party doesn't do well in rural areas.

"Observations" that state that rural populations are:

Less intelligent
Manipulated/brainwashed
Poorly educated
What is important to them are unimportant or archaic (like religion)
Biased/racist

None of which are positive (or even neutral) opinions

If the Democratic Party wants to do well in rural areas, they must address issues that are important to those rural areas, have a message that resonates with them and either make them a central part of the message or show how that message applies to rural communities. Be sensitive to their values, listen to them and apply what has been heard.

You can't persuade people to join your side/cause by insulting them (real or perceived) and telling them that they "just don't get it".

[YoungDemCA]

224. Well said!

The Democratic Party does a horrible job of engaging with rural voters.

[vi5]

192. Why does the GOP do so poorly with urban voters?

See? The reverse works just as well. And last I checked, we're not the ones with the looming electoral problems. The GOP is. Obviously given recent electoral history I'd say the GOP are the ones who need to start figuring out why they are not appealing to certain demographics, not the Dems.

The fact is that if and when the Dem speak to social justice, and economic equality and opportunity (which sadly they don't do enough) that should appeal to rural voters because those issues impact them as well. So it could just as easily be said "Why do rural voters care more about issues other than their economic well being?"

[DCBob]

202. +1

well said.

[Arugula Latte]

207. Yep. That is a better question.

[tjwash]

194. This thread reminds me of a line from a very famous novel (see if you can guess it without google)

He was a longlimbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn’t earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce.

[randome]

196. Catch-22. I Googled it.

[tjwash]

214. It is one of the all time classics...you need to get past that first 4 chapters

[Arcanetrance]

195. Alot has to do with the message that comes out from supporters

There's that view by some I used to be one of oh god the country a bunch or uneducated hicks. I think that though pattern becomes more amplified when thinking of the rural south. Personally I wouldn't support a group of people that thought little of me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

201. Stability and conformity are more valued in rural areas.

In rural areas there is usually one local tribe and the tribe demands that unless one is willing to be isolated, one must conform. In urban areas there are many tribes so the nonconformist may choose another or start one of his/her own.

[The2ndWheel]

210. As long as that newly started tribe isn't too different

You don't want too much of a rural area type tribe in an urban area. Too much potential for conflict. Too unstable.

[Old and In the Way]

203. By definition, ruralism means isolation from the demographic melting pots of urban living.

That isolationism reinforces local beliefs where you have little contact with people outside of your immediate social circles. I lived in rural Maine for 30+ years...not much different, I think, whereever you might live where the social/political values are dominated by opinionated, small minded people.

[The Midway Rebel]

212. Because people who should know better often do not. nt

[4Q2u2]

219. The message has a lot to do with it.

It has been hit on a few times here. When the Democratic party was making great in roads due to economic ideas and policy the rePubs switched their message to social issues to win elections. We kind of fell for it and started to wage war by their defined battle ground. Clinton got it though, "It is the economy Stupid." It seems that the message that the reason you are poor is because your money is going to the City folks so they can sit around and do nothing worked. So if someone believes that source it is going to be hard to move them off the rest of that platform, add on top of that the social issues and the truth becomes distorted.

If we start with a basic economic message of truths that can get thru, social issues will follow. It seems people are more inclined to accept change when they become more affluent, because it offers some semblance of security and protection. You no longer have fears of losing a house or not being able to get one, fears of not being able to provide basic necessities. Eliminating our fears opens the mind up.

A good start would be to show how stupid the rePubs economic plan is. It's name it's self is the first key, "Trickle Down", FU I want full flow of economic prosperity, not the tiny little scraps that falls of your table. I do not know if it was just me, but when Clinton was President I had a lot more money in my pocket than after 8yrs of shrub. Second would be economic justice, put the bank frauds in jail that ruined our economy. I am sure you will find plenty of support for that in the Rural areas.

[Deep13]

226. The term "low information voter" comes to mind. nt

[yurbud]

227. farmers don't think crop subsidies are welfare

[Throd]

229. Because they can't hide their contempt for them.

[budkin]

231. Ignorance.

[PDJane]

237. I grew up in a rural area.

Rural people are NOT more independent than urban dwellers.. They are closer to the land, and they are more aware of things like seasons; I learned to stop saying things like 'it smells like snow' when I moved to Toronto. They are aware of where food comes from and why, although they aren't cognizant of the reasons that european agriculture destroys the land. In that sense, they're not much smarter than city dwellers!

However, I will say that too many don't care about education; I was bullied and abused because I could read when I got to school. That kind of book learning, y'see, is just not right. You don't need it. I remember the kind of sexual abuse that went around, too; I suspect that a good deal of it the problem is inbreeding and poverty. I found that women were abused, overworked, and undervalued, which is another part of the syndrome. I remember the gossip, and the fact that what people don't know about you, they will make up. I also found that being different in any way means that you have a very hard row to hoe; conformity is a virtue in most of these areas. And there you have the main reason that most of these places are Republican.

And yes, it's willful ignorance; it's not time. You can find time for the things you want to do, no matter how busy you are. If anything, that's the one thing that living on a farm taught me. If you want to find time for fishing or swimming or hunting, there's always a way to find time for that, as there is a way to find time for reading and needlework and hobbies. I will say that the worst of it is finding someone to talk to who shares your interests.

However, it can change; I remember when the area I lived in changed from Conservative to NDP the first time; there were an awful lot of sour old white men complaining about it then, too.

[B Calm]

249. Great post! I have lived

out in the country now going on for over 40 years. It is without a doubt willful ignorance!!

They do want to have something in common with their neighbors, just to be able to have someone to talk to without getting into a fight.

If only rural areas had High Speed Internet. . .

[gollygee]

240. I think, generally speaking,

People in large cities are more likely to value collectivism, working together, etc., due to being more interdependant. Living in a big city means relying on others to some extent often.

But people in rural areas value independence above all else, and (it seems to me, talking to them) often don't understand, or are opposed to, any kind of collectivism. They seem to like the libertarian aspect of the Republican Party.

[KoKo]

243. Good Points there..... Hope folks will read this. It does make sense.

K&R!

[LWolf]

245. Interesting theory.

I don't have data to base my impressions on; just years of living rurally.

Many rural people DO value independence, it's true. I do.

Some of my local acquaintances DO seem to like the libertarian end of the republican party. Some are tea-party radical. Some are moderate republicans who are unhappy with their party. Some, a smaller number, are Democrats. There are very few left-of-center, socialist leaning people like myself. Maybe that's true everywhere.

We also, though, value collectivism. It's amazing the number of things our very small communities gather together to accomplish.

[PDJane]

267. Farming is the original collective.

I remember the threshing gangs; I cooked for them. When it was time to harvest wheat and corn, the folks with combines would provide the machinery in return for labour from other farm folks on their own farms. I remember helping to bake pies, peel potatoes and knead bread for those meals, and those men can eat.

If you want to build a barn or finish a quilt or clear a field of rocks........all of that is accomplished communally, and always has been. People in cities do value collectivism, but they are less likely to be really social, depending on the number of people they run into every day. I live in a cooperative, and if I don't want to see anyone, they won't be there....and they don't gossip the way that small towns and rural areas do. I would guarantee that there might be about four people in this building who know what my career is, and the rest don't ask. Mind you, my mother has scalded her hand (86 year olds don't deal well with second and third degree burns, I have to tell you. She is recovering fairly well, thanks.) and there have been meals and magazines and puzzles and other things to do that arrive in bags on the door handle! I can't remember that happening on the farm; three kids and a great uncle nursed my mother through a bout of what they used to call 'blood poisoning' from an infected hand, and I don't remember seeing a soul. I do, however, remember the church calling my mother to ask for pies or pastries for a bake sale the week after we lost our home to arson, when my mother was still washing everything we owned. No, we weren't contributing, and no, she wasn't best pleased.

In fact, to be honest, I was grateful to move to the city in order to get the privacy that wasn't available in a rural area. All is not always how it seems!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

248. more of them will have to read and learn.

if they do that....they'll stop voting for a-holes out to rape them.

[CanonRay]

251. Conservative churches, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News. Rinse and repeat.

They keep the meme going day after day after day. It's all you hear in rural areas. And now politicians from there regurgitate is as well, and give it even more credibility. It's constant negative messaging about liberals and progressive ideas.

[agentS]

253. Values dissonance, therefore we Dems need to step it up

Let's take a look at the values Dems believe and what the GOP believe (or claim to believe) and see how they match up with the beliefs of rural voters.

Next, we take a look at the policies we wish to implement and tailor responses to the rural communities that may be affected by these policies.
For instance, an ATV driver might be against improving fuel economy, because Rush Limbaugh or someone else in town told him so with a spurious reason ('its government control over YOUR driving habits' or whatever). We should tell this guy that burning less fuel saves his money and means fewer dangerous hurricanes hitting his state every year. Now he might be hardheaded and say "I don't care about storms! I survived Andrew" at which point we ask his hardheaded ass "Can you survive 4 Andrews in 3 months?". Gotta personalize the message- while I admit it's easier to do in urban areas, it can and should be done in rural areas.

We must also ask the questions of them, constantly "You voted for the GOP x number of years; what have they done FOR you lately". Make 'em think about that for awhile. If they say something like "They didn't take my guns!" you can answer "No one's planning to take your guns. We just want to keep kids from getting killed here and in the cities (are you pro-life or Pro-guns?). Again, what have they done lately to HELP you?".

Perseverance is the key. It won't happen overnight; these places aren't progressive bastions now for a reason. But if we
keep at it, we'll change enough rural voters to have an impact in statewide and Congressional elections. AN R-8 district drops to R-3; that's a winnable race (esp. if the GOP guys' a nut).

I live in the rural south and sure most of La is a lost cause (re: hyper-racism), but there are places elsewhere in the country that can swing in our favor. We just have to make our arguments make sense to rural voters. They're not complete idiots (if you're stupid in the woods you die).

[treestar]

256. I don't think there is any way to appeal to them

Jealous and ignorant and sort of aware of it. But they will be fewer and fewer in number. Rural areas lose population to the cities over time.

[tabbycat31]

260. There is a way to appeal to them

You just have to have the right candidates for the job. Even when hiring campaign staff, I made it very clear (in the job description) that this was a rural district and that I would prefer that my staff have experience in rural areas.

If you run a 'city slicker' in a rural district, he/she will most likely lose and be portrayed as an outsider. This is candidate selection 101 here. The candidate that I worked for (in a rural district) in 2012 is a farmer who has brought farmers' markets to the area and worked on sustainability projects in the area. He was attacked by being tied to 'Agenda 21.'

The president lost the district by 29 points. We could not overcome that kind of a top ticket gap.

[treestar]

263. That sounds good actually

A local Democrat will know how to appeal to the voters of the District - forget the President - we don't have uniformity, and ultimately it's all local. We have to look at it bottom up rather than top down. We are self governing in theory, so that makes sense. Rather than just rely on the top candidate to bring all the rest into line. It won't work anyway. People might like the local Democrat even if they don't like the Presidential candidate.

[shcrane71]

257. Right-wing take-over the AM radio waves.

This happened in the 80s. Anyone in rural places knows that FM radio stations are far and few between. Most people are forced to listen to AM radio stations. Name one, just ONE, liberal AM radio station operating in rural areas.

Propaganda, messaging... whatever you call it, getting your ideas out to the people works.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

258. In the rural county where I live...

To have any chance of winning, a candidate for public office MUST be:

1. Willing to publicly declare Jesus Christ as their personal savior.
2. Virulently against abortion.
3. Pro gun.
4. Anti-tax.
5. White.

In other words, any hint/rumor/evidence that you're a free thinker or any in other way 'different' from what is perceived as normal, decent, and moral and you're sunk. Not only sunk, but ostracized, villainized, and excommunicated.

[Demo_Chris]

259. The GOP tells them...

In short, the GOP plays to the audience. They tell them that there is nobility in their poverty, and virtue in their simple down-home world view -- that they are good clean righteous God-Loving REAL Americans. They tell them, correctly, that the Democrats want to take their guns, that Democrats think they are ignorant fools, that Democrats value Ivy League book learnin' over practical wisdom. They tell them that Democrats don't care about them at all, that Democrats want to take what little they have and give it to inner city welfare queens and midnight basketball. They tell them that Democrats hate America, hate Freedom, hate Jesus, and want to see this country fail.

That's the GOP message. The Democrats have a different message.

Democrats tell them that they are ignoran,t gun and bible clinging, racist and sexist redneck morAns. They they try to take their guns.

[WinkyDink]

265. They view themselves as "rugged individualists holding off Democratic Socialist traitors," is why.

[Hippo_Tron]

269. The answer is that there's no easy answer

Essentially that's the million dollar question for progressives. The Republican Party more or less represents the interests of the wealthiest 2% of the country. Maybe 5-10% of the country at most when you consider lots of people have jobs with either defense contractors, or working in the coal or oil industries, working for a health insurance company, or some other industry that is hampered by liberal attempts to change things.

So if we could just stop getting everyone to vote against their own economic interests, you'd have an overwhelming majority voting to create a social welfare state and workers' rights like they have in Europe.

The problem is that there's just no simple answer. You can try to pin it on religion, guns, racism, talk radio, Fox News, inability of Democrats to convey their message, etc. but no single explanation truly works.

[muriel_volestrangler]

271. Rural areas are conservative, the world over

It's not just an American phenomenon. Cities change faster - many people move into cities from other areas, or other countries. You get a mix of ethnicities, and ideas, which continues to change. Relatively few people move into rural areas (unless they're turning into suburbs).

So rural attitudes are conservative - they change slowly. Their attitudes on social affairs will be a decade or two behind the country, on average. The Republicans have been trying to appeal to that segment for 50 years.