This interesting comment was posted on the blog a few days ago by a reader who identify as “Montana Teacher.”
To my dear online friends whom I have never met, the faithful readers of Diane Ravitch’s blog. Like you, I felt sick all last night and much of today. I am hoping Biden will win, of course. But I am sickened that even ONE person would vote for Trump, after all that he has done.
What I am writing about to you today is this: I am sitting in the middle of a bunch of RED STATES right now. In fact, Montana went completely red after years of a Democratic governorship and other Democratic officials. It is a sad, sad day for us. Our beautiful public lands will be desecrated and potentially sold off. We don’t have charter schools yet, but we will. A sad, sad day.
But here is the deal: Not all Republicans are racist. And by calling them that, we stop all conversation with them. To understand why they vote the way they do, we must listen. To win in the elections, as Democrats, we must understand our opponents who, actually, are our neighbors.
Many Republicans certainly are racist. But if you analyze the U.S. voting map, the main difference between blue and red states is the URBAN/ RURAL difference. So when people say Republicans are racist, they are indirectly saying that RURAL people are racist. That is a generalization.
We need to understand why there is such a major difference between urban and rural voters. Here are my theories:
Have you ever visited Jordan, Montana? It’s in the middle of nowhere. It feels like you’re on a different planet. It’s just sky and grass and cows. To live there, you have to be fiercely independent, and you need a gun, for food (hunting) and for protection (you might be the only one around for miles). There are no black people, there are no Latinos, there are no people from India or Korea or China, but there are Native Americans on the adjacent reservation.
You go to church on Sunday. Your kids are in 4-H. You say the Pledge of Allegiance. You have traditional values. This doesn’t mean you are racist. These people rely on themselves and on each other, and they don’t like to be told what to do, like “don’t shoot prairie dogs in order to save black-footed ferrets.” I don’t agree with that; it’s just we need to understand them more.
Many rural people feel THREATENED that their way of life is being taken away from them. They like their traditional values. Now, in my opinion, Trump does not support those values (church, family, community, agriculture, independence, freedom). But somehow, he has convinced them that he supports them. He has reached out to them in ways that the Democratic Party has not.
These folks LOVE their post offices! They love their local, public schools with locally elected school boards! They love their community hospitals and nursing homes! They want their Medicare and Social Security. They want their agriculture trade deals with foreign countries. Democrats need to show them who actually supports them. But, of course, guns, flags, and abortion get in the way. And they are worried about their towns drying up and blowing away, so the economy is a big deal for them.
Anyway, my point is this. We need to listen, observe, understand, think about, analyze, and reach out to these citizens if we’re ever going to win over the rural states of America. I think this is possible. For example, climate change will ruin their livelihoods. How can we help them understand this?
I’m writing a lot today because I’m desperate to figure out how we save Montana and other rural states and the country. But think about it–cowboys in Texas, Mormons in Utah and Idaho, pioneer stock in North and South Dakota, farmers in Iowa, etc. Somehow, these people think that Trump represents their values more than Biden. I don’t think that’s true. But how do we talk to them?
Picture of the cemetery near Jordan, Montana:
http://www.graves-r-us.com/Greenridge-old%20jordan.html
Diane Ravitch's blog 
So what do you say to that? How do you appeal to people who believe Trump is a decent guy, despite his despicable actions? How do you appeal to people taken in by the Big Lie, continuing now in his efforts to undermine what little and imperfect democracy we have in the US? How do you persuade people willing to overlook Trump’s outrageous behavior, accepting it as family values? Joe Biden speaks very carefully, much more so than I do. If he can’t get through, I’m not sure who can, or how anyone can do it.
Arthur, you write much more succinctly and diplomatically than I ever could about this tripe.
Bingo
You’ve posted things like this before, but it seems to me these four pieces undermine how “we” don’t understand “them”:
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700
https://taxfoundation.org/state-federal-aid-reliance-2020/
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
“The elites who think MAGA voters are rubes: Republicans”
Opinion by Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post Columnist
November 11, 2020 at 11:45 a.m. EST
“A central tenet of the outlook of many conservatives is that “elites” look down upon them and regard them as bigoted, uneducated rubes. Well, they have a point: That’s exactly how Republican politicians and the revenue-generating, right-wing media machine regard them.
It was not the Democratic nominee who thought suburbanites would be afraid of integration; that was President Trump. Using George Soros — a Hungarian Jewish immigrant — as a slur and anti-Semitic code word is a right-wing tactic; Democrats have no such Jewish bogeyman. It is Trump who believes fear of immigrants is what motivates his base; Democrats trust voters to understand that immigration is essential to the United States. And it is Republicans such as Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) — not Democrats — who are convinced that constituents will buy into the anti-Ukrainian Kremlin agitprop that they dish out in generous portions.
Fox News is apparently convinced that its viewers want a steady diet of Hunter Biden conspiracy theories, horror stories linking immigration and crime, false and ludicrous claims of voter fraud from anonymous witnesses and climate change denial. Rupert Murdoch and his clan, not to mention producers and executives, surely know this is bunk; its own reporters on the news side know it is claptrap. But, hey, this is the slop they figure their audience craves. (Disclosure: I am an MSNBC contributor.)
Republicans’ contempt for the masses is nowhere more obvious than in the latest Trump scam — his claim of a “stolen election.” I have zero doubt that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and every Republican senator knows the election was definitive. Biden won. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who said he has “nothing to congratulate” Biden for, must figure members of his base are so ignorant and irrational that they will think better of him if he practices election denial. And when educated senators call on election officials to count only “legal” votes — as is always the case — they must think bamboozling and enraging voters is the way politics is practiced.
The entire GOP strategy for the Georgia Senate elections apparently centers on a belief that Georgia voters are irrational and will rise up in fury because they think they have been wronged — again — by conniving Democrats….
Republicans’ leap into anti-democratic conspiracy theories, climate change denial and economic illiteracy (selling protectionism and fear of immigration) reflects their abiding belief that politics is about inflaming ignorant people — or making people ignorant about the real choices they have. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley (a product of Stanford and Yale Law School), Cruz (Princeton and Harvard Law School), Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton (Harvard and Harvard Law School) and the rest of the possible 2024 Republican contenders are not stupid. But they apparently think their voters are, and they think their political careers depend on voters’ irrationality, bigotry and gullibility.
The MAGA voters are right: Many politicians and media personalities regard them with contempt. But they come from their own party and movement, and they are laughing all the way to the bank. There is nothing they think their voters won’t buy.”
Perhaps instead of talking, Democrats should actually try doing something for those who do not reside in the Professional Managerial Class. Just a thought.
Kneeling down on the House floor while wearing kente cloth may seem like a realistic substitute for actual politics, but it’s not. Offer people material benefits and, as the author suggests, speak to them respectfully and where they’re at (isn’t that what good teachers do with students?) and don’t demonize them, and we might be surprised at the results. Then again, moral preening and talking about how much you loved Hamilton is so much easier, and we have no end of that.
Oh, and by the way, after four years being told that Orange Man is Hitler, on election day Hitler increased his vote totals among Blacks, Latinos, women and gays. In fact, Trump increased his vote totals among everyone except those deplorably and irredeemably racist working class white males; had they voted for him in the same proportions as 2016, he would have won.
What does that say about the narrative that #McResistance media has been feeding us for over four years?
Michael,
If I understand you correctly, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are a good election strategy. No one really cares that the candidate is a world class liar and is dismantling the government. Fascism is a winning formula, ya think, except it lost, thank God.
I’m not sure Michael. I’d argue that Medicare for All is a material benefit. I’d argue that reversing Trump tax cuts is a material benefit. I’d argue that rejoining the Paris accord, the WHO, and establishing a national program to deal with COVID are all material benefits. Yet the right is able to label this all as socialism and frighten people away. I’m just not sure what you approach these voters with that will appeal to them.
Missed your comments here, Michael.
Thanks, Flerp.
Arthur, in my comment, I spoke about offering people universal material benefits, and engaging with them in prolonged, respectful discussion. The Democrats have neglected to do that for decades, as they have evolved into a party for whom the interests of the urban Professional Managerial Class come first, last and always. The also-rans in the Democratic coalition – working people, Blacks, Latinos, etc. – have surprisingly little to show for their loyalty, and often get kicked in the teeth when the Ds are in power, and that fact was reflected in thie voting, despite Biden’s election That doesn’t make Trump and the Republicans a valid alternative, but it’s a reality and evidence-based reason to question the premises, strategies and tactics of the Democrats.
Diane, with all due respect, you don’t understand me correctly, and are straw-manning me, imputing things to me that I have never said, either directly or by implication.
Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act, which benefitted 20 million Americans, not the elite. Republicans passed a massive tax cut for billionaires. I don’t follow your logic or selective memory.
Diane It’s totally upside-down, inside-out grifter-politics. THE BIG LIE lives.
The Democratic platform and its history are demonstrations of commitment to expanding health, education, and welfare for everyone. The Republican platform and actions: “Whatever Trump wants.”
Those of us in NYC have known what Trump is for decades: a playboy philanderer whose idea of success was getting his name into gossip columns, preferably with a big-breasted babe on his arm. A con man. A phony. A master at self promotion.
Those of us that do actually live in rural areas, who do talk with those Trump supporters and who call out, like you are doing, the hypocrisy of the supposed oh so intelligence of the citified Democrats can expect to be booted out of this education clique or at least have all one’s comments be “in moderation” which prevents one from having intelligent conversations in “discussing a better education for all”.
Many here are very ignorant of that vast swath of supposed red state, i.e., rural living/life. How does one challenge those many’s ignorance when one isn’t allowed to freely converse? Yes, I know and understand it is Diane’s blog and she can do as she wishes-and I agree with that aspect, but I’ve given up on fighting the “good people on the supposed left side of the political aisle. I might as well go over to Parler and fight with the reactionary regressive xtian fundies instead of “discussing a better education for all” with the enlightened liberals (sic) here.
Thanks, Diane, for moving me out of Modi!
I was not a huge fan of Biden, and he was my last choice, right above those for whom I would not have voted, Bloomberg and Booker. I can’t deny that Dems have neglected to do things, and I can’t argue that Obama lived up to expectations. Right now, though, Biden is speaking the right way and not tossing out contempt as Hillary did. I can only hope he continue in that vein. Nonetheless, the GOP leadership is truly showing contempt for democracy, willing to do absolutely anything to hold power, and clearly will do whatever it takes to overthrow a legal election. There needs to be a proactive plan beyond what we’re discussing.
I appreciate the fact that Biden is calm and moving steadily forward. Not throwing insults or whining. He is a ring like a leader.
By the way, Google Loser.com
Where does Michael Fiorillo live that he professes to know what rural voters want? Rather than rants, it would be useful for Fiorillo to name the “Democrats” he claims keep running for office and losing in every rural area lose because they just can’t stop talking about how much they love Wall Street and they can’t stop talking about how great the managerial and professional classes are. Anyone live in that false reality along with Michael?
As someone who grew up in an area where Trump is popular, I can tell you that the only thing that the democrats are not doing is LYING to those rural voters.
Those rural voters believe lots of things that aren’t true. Kind of like the things posted by Fiorillo.
And the democrats who do win in those rural areas are some of the MOST CONSERVATIVE Democrats!!!!!
It is discouraging to have discussions with Trump voters who insist that a reality based on lies is actually the true one.
And it is discouraging to have discussions with the self-described progressives who defend Trump who insist that a reality based on lies is actually the true one.
Let’s all note the fact that the progressives who live in URBAN areas are the ones who win!
I repeat, where do progressive Democrats win? URBAN AREAS!
And where do conservative Democrats win? RURAL AREAS!
Please feel free, Michael Fiorillo, to cite actual evidence to prove that I am wrong, because I would be happy to read it instead of rants.
Progressive Democrats are winning — in urban areas. And sometimes in rural areas. But more frequently in urban areas.
Steve Bullock (D) lost his Senate bid in Montana. He was Governor for two terms even when Trump won in 2016. Why did rural voters elect his R opponent? He is not a citified elite. He is a Montanan.
Duane Swacker,
I’m disappointed with you for using the same tired old trope of “citified Democrats”.
What I think you mean is “educated” Democrats. Because what I see is a backlash against anyone who is “too educated”, which is being pushed by propagandists who know that is the way to get people to reject fact-based evidence.
As someone who frequently posts here with your “citified” information — all the studies and graphs that prove that standardized testing is worthless — it seems disingenuous of you to demean democrats as being too “citified”, which is the way that Republicans use to discredit people who believe in facts and evidence.
The difference between rural voters who didn’t support Trump and rural voters who did is very easy to discern. The first were people who believed in evidence and were not propagandized to believe the democrats are coming for their guns, no matter how many times those rural voters were reassured that they were not (unless they owned automatic weapons that could gun down hundreds of people in 60 seconds). The first were people who understood that expanding Medicare was not “socialism”. The first were people who understood that supporting non-racist policing is not “anti-white”.
Duane, you say you talk to many Trump supporters, but have you ever talked to one who offered a fact-based reason? Usually the reasons I hear from Trump voters are patently untrue, or they are a demonization of the Demcrorats that are exactly as you and Michael do. And yet it is interesting that urban citizens don’t buy into that demonziation of Democrats and thus elect progressives like AOC.
And what I see is that progressives like AOC are demonized by rural voters.
Why do rural voters who support Trump hate AOC so much? I wish you and Michael would explain that.
Rural voters are propagandized to believe AOC is an “other” and too scary to support the democrat party where she has too much influence.
I think I hear you, Michael, but I think the key is listen not just do. The last thing rural voters want is someone to “do” for them. Yeah, we want a lot of the same things, but I’m not sure that those things shouldn’t have a distinctive flavor geared to the particular culture. My wants and needs will be fulfilled in different ways depending on where I live. Because population is concentrated in urban areas now, there are a whole lot of people who are ignorant of the “Rural Lifestyle.” It’s kind of like Gates designing a $600 toilet for the poor African communities that none of them could afford or probably get parts for when they inevitably broke down.
Arthur “How do you persuade people willing to overlook Trump’s outrageous behavior, accepting it as family values? ”
How do you react when somebody is trying to persuade you of anything?
I read here all the time “how do we change the minds of those racist rural people?” or “how do we educate those homophobic rural people?” or simply “how do we make those uneducated rural people understand that their thinking is wrong?”
We are not in a classroom where the rural people are the students and they need to listen to us and follow our lead or they get a bad grade.
If we drop this nonsensical approach and think of “rural” people (many of whom produce what we put on our dinner table) as adults, we possibly end up understanding Montana Teacher’s post instead of producing the usual kneejerk reaction.
Exactly!
Well, Climate Change is a complete farce, so you already lost with that. All I remember is Obama coming on Farmer’s lands and declaring standing water now the property of the Government. So there’s that.
As we have seen with hacked emails, removing of wildfire statistics, failed predictions and zero debate on the subject, what do you expect?
And don’t think we don’t see the obvious lie because rather than explaining it to us in detail, you have people like Bill Nye saying, “We should lock up all deniers.” All the hate and personal attacks vehemently throwing our way shows not someone who wants to solve a real problem. It’s someone using their last resort to get you to comply. Good old fashioned Bullies.
We’re self sufficient. We don’t need the Government other than for its basic necessities. We don’t need you coming in here and raising property taxes and everything else to pay for your lavish lifestyles. We don’t need you coming in here and screwing everything up. We welcome black people if they want to come live out here. What we don’t welcome is people coming in here telling us what’s best for us.
Montana Teacher got it right. Calling people names shuts down communication. Americans living in rural communities have different fears, concerns and needs related to their economic needs. Democrats have to listen and spend time with them and show how their concerns are the same for suburban and urban Americans. We all need affordable health care. We want effective public schools and postal service. We need affordable Internet access in every area of our country. We need good trade deals n supply chains for our products. We need to protect Medicare and social security. Democrats have to get a unified message across the country that we value every person in our country and will guarantee full protection of their rights and freedoms.
So what message is it you think Democrats are delivering if not most of the items you mentioned .
I can’t talk about rural America . But I can talk about Blue collar Union tradesmen in NYC who in the past heavily supported Trump .
Local Politics being transitional I supported Cuomo in NY . I generally dislike the man for his alliance with right wing money in his attack on Public Workers and Teachers in particular. Yet if there is one group of the electorate he has delivered big time to it is the building trades in NYC
40-50 billion in Public Private Partnerships normally used to break Unions were negotiated to be exclusively Union. He was willing to toss Bezos what the Murdoch rag NY Post called a half billion dollar bribe to use Union labor on his abandoned Hq2 project . A project that never would have created the additional economic development that was projected. But would have greatly benefited those construction workers before an election. . He passed two Prevailing Wage bills that expanded prevailing wage to tax subsidized work . Making union construction more competitive.
Now undoubtedly in some of the less skilled trades the undocumented help cut into union market share . However in the more skilled mechanical trades that is hardly a problem. In fact in the
most Trumpian Operating Engineers where licensing requirements exclude any un documented immigrant labor, their only concern is the undocumented , “Sanctuary City” and “American Values”
And they live in some of the most segregated suburbs(School Districts ) in the country .
Andrew Cuomo is loathed by very large numbers of the NYC Building Trades in spite of the support of the leadership .
Sorry “It was all a lie ” it has always been about race and having a women of color on the ticket while Biden was portrayed as old and frail may explain a lot.
Yes, Joel. The comment to which you respond created such a vacuum that I was spending the last few minutes trying to keep my brain being sucked out of my ear. I think I managed to save most of it. To wit, the statement “Democrats have to listen and spend time with them and show how their concerns are the same for suburban and urban Americans.” was followed by:
“We all need affordable health care. We want effective public schools and postal service…We need to protect Medicare and social security.” ?!?!?!?!? Vacuum getting stronger as I reread this.
“We need affordable Internet access in every area of our country.” This is a rural problem only? It seems to me that I’ve seen many, many stories during the pandemic that urban, poor AND rural children who are stuck at home because of the pandemic are unable to engage in school activities because they have no reliable internet OR access to it. But again, that would require paying attention.
“We need good trade deals and supply chains for our products.” Joel, please remind me which administration in the past four years reimposed tariffs, paid off farmers, and lost their previously reliable markets. My memory fails me.
“Democrats have to get a unified message across the country that we value every person in our country and will guarantee full protection of their rights and freedoms.” Houston, we have a problem.
GregB
Even more troubling then the post is the narrative out of the Democratic establishment. Seeing the loses of several House seats as a reason to reach out to these voters as if there are valid reasons to vote for authoritarian demagogues.
It may or may not be that Democratic policy did not appeal to them. But exactly what policy would. Other than reversing the 13th amendment. A bit harsh, full on Jim Crow .
Perhaps the reality is that in 2018 without Trump on the ticket Democrats were more inclined to show up because of Trump in districts that have not been Democratic in decades . Similar to the wipe out in 2010 but in reverse. . . And in the Senate which seats were we supposed to flip?
Lets see , Mark Kelly a gun control advocate runs 2 points ahead of Biden in Arizona . A state with some of , if not the laxest gun laws in the Nation.
Bernie has been saying for years that Dems must compete in all states. He comes from a rural state and realizes that all voters count.
Which is why Bernie supported gun rights. If you hunt to help feed your family and live out back of beyond, guns are your friends. Bernie knew that.
Bernie also knows that you don’t need AK47s to hunt to feed yourself.
AK47s are not needed to hunt.
There are a lot of gun owners in Vermont.
That’s why Bernie supported them.
No argument from me. Just making the point that different regions of country/states are going to feel differently about the degree of gun restriction. Leave AK47s out of it. I said nothing about hunting with AK47s, which would be really stupid if you plan to eat your kill. However, the restrictions placed on gun ownership in the city and suburbs probably are going to be different than thosein rural areas.
So, what’s next for our country, which has had the DTs for 4 years now? Well, it looks as though Donald and the Wrecking Crew have gone full-on Coup-Coup. Trump, of course, isn’t bright or knowledgeable enough to figure things out on his own. He had to be handed his big 2016 election message, gift wrapped, by Sessions, Miller, and Bannon: populism and anti-immigrant racism. Now, listen to the voices he’s listening to. They are all calling for a coup. Their line: whatever the “fake news media” say, Trump won the election. The Democrats tried to steal it. Toss a bunch of the vote. Have state legislatures install faithless Trump electors. Have the majority-conservative Supreme Court put its imprimatur on this. Use the newly Trumped-up military as a police force to quell the protests and rough up and lock up the dissenters.
It’s a desperate game and has little chance of succeeding, but from Trump’s POV, what’s the alternative? If he leaves his Whiter House, he’s looking at spending the rest of his life in prison.
Let’s call this what it is: treason
Agreed but the numbers make it impossible . 8 million more Americans will have voted for Biden by the time NY,NJ, Illinois, California… complete counting . And multiple swing states are beyond any successful recount in the electoral college .
I still wont sleep well till he is on a plane to Moscow.
Totally with you there, Joel!
I prefer that he get on a plane to North Korea. He has great ideas about developing their tourist industry.
On Veteran’s Day, it’s a good thing to remember those soldiers climbing out of the tanks in Russia and refusing to take part in a coup. I have faith that despite the now Trumped-up leadership, our other military officers will likewise refuse to participate in an attempt by Don the Con to overthrow democracy.
Wouldn’t it be grand if that plane were hijacked to land in a shit-hole country? And stayed there?
I would settle for the pilot putting it down in any country with an extradition treaty with the US. And for the International Court of Criminal Justice bringing charges of Crimes against Humanity against Trump and Miller and Sessions.
How about a twofer? It would be wonderful to see soldiers from a shit-hole country escorting him to the Hague and in a cell next to Radovan Karadžić. They could share the same hair stylist.
LOL
He fired Esper because Esper wouldn’t let him use the military to suppress domestic protests. Now he has fired the top layer of the Defense Department and replaced them with stooges. Is he planning a real coup?
This is exactly what I’m wondering. But if one listens to Bannon and Pompeo and McConnell and Graham, and if one thinks back on what Trump himself has been saying for the past couple months, it sounds like that’s exactly what is being planned.
Remember back in 1993, when the old Communist hardliners in Russia sent the tanks to confront the protesters in front of the Russian White House? It looked as though this was going to be another Tiananmen Square, but then the rank-and-file soldiers started climbing out of the tanks and walking over and joining the protestors.
Bob Shepherd.
I believe that was the officer corps . As it might be here . After Commander Bone Spur’s repeated attacks on the Generals
I posted the below numbers on another thread but the are appropriate to this one also. From The Washington Post 202 Daily today, Nov. 11, 2020:
“Sosnik warns Democrats that Trump’s most ardent supporters represent a potent political movement based on a working-class revolt against the elites in the country. ‘Their movement will continue long after the election with Trump at its leader,’ he said. ‘Trump leaves the presidency with an online army of followers – 88 million on Twitter, 23 million on Instagram and 31 million on Facebook. It’s likely that he will continue to engage his supporters online as much as he did throughout his presidency.’” CBK
I completely agree. Rural states in the US are no longer represented by nearly any of the big presidential candidates in Washington – I think of Mitt Romney vs. Obama, neither of whom would resonate closely with rural Americans (a liberal Ivy League Chicagoan vs. a wealthy former Wall St. consultant). Even though Trump himself never lived in rural America, I believe he was the only candidate in a long time who listened to them. Many people saw more similarities in Sanders and Trump than other candidates because they both listened and actively responded to the concerns of rural America.
In reality I saw Trump pass a couple of things that Sanders wanted to as well – regulating drug prices, and allowing states to purchase cheap drugs from Canada, as well as expanding rural telehealth networks and broadband services. Democrats should take the time to leave their LA/NYC enclaves to get to know rural folks needs and their livelihoods.
For example, many people depend on oil/gas and fracking industry to support their families. It is important to move forward towards a greener future, but how can we do so while not forgetting the thousands employed by jobs that will soon be gone? These are questions that Democrats need to focus on answering if they want to resonate with rural voters.
Trump never cared about rural people. They were useful to him. He has no concern for their issues and he would never sit down to have a cup of coffee with rural voters. He despises people who aren’t rich.
I agree he never cared about them, but he realized a lack in the Democrat’s message and used it to his advantage.
Trump appealed to a sense of grievance and many people who are justly aggrieved wrongly assumed he understood them. He doesn’t. He’s a lifelong con man. He played them. He holds his base in contempt. He loves those who belong to Mar-a-Lago or his other clubs. His base can’t afford his hotels or clubs.
Diane: I think you are right on. I wonder how you deal with the tensions between (a) that Trump is a con man and many of his voters are marks; and (b) that these “marks” want to be “listened to” – specifically, the things that they want an audience on are the lies that the con man has told them. Ironcially, Democrats tend to bend over backwards to try to appeal to and appease white working class voters, to little success. I’m sure many on this thread, while frustrated DO want to listen to everyone, but have a hard time reading about how people feel their “way of life” is threatened and point to either (a) things that Ds are trying to help with and the GOP is trying to thwart; or (b) veiled bigotry (like in a friend’s FB post today insisting that their were “only two genders.” ¯_(ツ)_/¯
100% correct, Diane!
And that is part of what I try to tell all the Trump voters/supporters. They don’t seem to realize that they are being used. Carl Sagan said it well: “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” C. Sagan
Duane, if I may add another Sagan quote, which I’ve posted here before but it is always relevant, Sagan’s last published words:
“Education on the value of free speech and the other freedoms reserved by the Bill of Rights, about what happens when you don’t have them, and about how to exercise and protect them, should be an essential prerequisite for being an American citizen—or indeed a citizen of any nation, the more so to the degree that such rights remain unprotected. If we can’t think for ourselves, if we’re unwilling to question authority, then we’re just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.”
When he had tariffs on China he helped out many of my neighbors that are farmers. Perhaps if you people spent less time on the computer and more time out meeting people in the real world you would see how far off you are with who you think we are. Government was only supposed to be for the basics. Government was never meant to be how big it is now. For every position Trump created, he got rid of 8.
We are self sufficient. We don’t NEED your help. As long as everyone follows the same rules, their is never a problem. We most certainly welcome anyone of any color. But heck, those inner cities have been run by Democrats (some) for over a century. If you people are so great, why do the streets look like Baghdad, failing schools, high crime rate?
That should NOT be happening if you truly are representing the public.
22 trillion has been spent on the war on poverty…Where has it all gone?
It’s amazing how you think you know what’s best for us. All you’ve shown me is you’re a bunch of snakes.
I really hope many of you are just behind on all of us and that I’m way ahead of you because 6 months into the Biden presidency*, his administration has shown they have no mercy, no loyalty, no code.
*Position not fully verified
The fracking jobs argument is a no-go. It’s equivalent to lamenting the guard jobs lost when the Allies liberated the concentration camps. The same people who “benefit” from working in the fracking industry are the same people whose land and water supply are being poisoned by it. Employment is never a justification for evil.
Just like the private insurance company workers who will be unemployed if M4A ever passes, those workers can and will be absorbed into that which replaces it. M4A is going to need people to run the system too, and government jobs are more stable and higher paying with better benefits than private sector jobs. Similarly, the world will still need energy, so all the people employed in fracking can be employed in green energy fields, again, hopefully making more money with better stability and benefits.
Agreed. Fracking poisons ground water. It should be banned.
Right…I agree fracking is bad, like I said, but what should the government do about the citizens that become unemployed? Green energy jobs are likely not going to appear in the same states that depend on non-renewable energy sources, unless if the government specifically supply subsidies to those states. I think that in the past few election cycles, the Democrats have been neglecting that argument.
Pigs continue to fly. I agree with every word.
Texas has become the green energy capital among the states.
The potential for wind and solar is also huge in states like Montana, Wyoming, Utah that have traditionally relied on oil and gas extraction for jobs and revenue.
These states have huge amounts of open land. And though much of it is federal land, one can lease public land for that purpose.
Whatever Texas did, these other states can certainly copy.
People in rural areas believe the Republicans who tell them to vote against the democrats who will ban fracking or regulate fracking.
When people in rural areas embrace the Green New Deal instead of believing the right wing propaganda about it, Democrats will win.
It doesn’t matter how many times progressive democrats try to explain what is true to them. Too many rural voters still believe the Republican lie that they should be scared of socialists like Bernie Sanders and AOC. The rural voters who are not scared of AOC and Bernie are the ones who vote Democrat. There just aren’t enough of them to win, and the only time they seem to win is with conservative Democrats.
When the mines shut down, many rural areas were left with nothing. Like the mines, fracking is providing good paying jobs to areas with little opportunity beyond druga and alcohol. If you want people who are finally able to see a future to accept your ideas for their future then the opportunities had better be there not just promised. You don’t have to stop fracking to provide jobs in a green economy, but once they are thriving you can.
It’s like Chicago tearing down all the public housing with the promise that everyone would be provided new housing in yet to be developed mixed use neighborhoods. Ha! Promises, promises. why do you think the low income communities around Obama’s library/research center project have been so obstructive(from developers point of view). Because they know where their homes are going to go.
IN other words, PROVE your good intentions. They can’t eat promises.
Since fracking poisons the ground water, which poisons your animals and your crops, there shouldn’t be need for another explanation for banning it. See the documentary “Gasland.”
Diane, I am not for fracking. I am trying to explain the thought process of SOME people who are dependent on the industry. All I said was provide the way for them to support their families before you take away their livelihood. You didn’t see people leaping in to provide ways for miners to provide for their families as the industry died. In fact, we stood by as companies screwed them out of pensions and healthcare. Why should they trust the promises?
It will take time to end fracking. Time enough to create good jobs in clean energy sector. I don’t think anyone is happy knowing that the water they used to drink is now poisoned to make some billionaire richer. Philip Anschutz is a billionaire who is in many industries, including fracking. He produced “Waiting for Superman.”
Yes, it will take time, time in which good jobs can be created, but it will take extra effort to make sure those jobs are available to the people who will be losing theirs.
Rahm says they can learn to code.
🙂
Part of the problem is not just that they don’t understand Trump, but that they don’t understand what he and his followers and supporter/bystanders are actively doing TO THEM and to the country. Trump is not against “the democrats”–that’s just a smokescreen; but rather he and those around him are against democracy itself. We should change the language from “the government” to “public service institutions” and those who are in the so-called deep-state: “public servants.”
Correct me if I am wrong; but rural people are commonly real patriots, or at least, as a general rule, they like to think they are. Part of the big lie is that Trump has managed to come off to them as the patriot extraordinaire.
While I’m at it, we’ve seen Fox News actually become critical news recently. My guess is that they are not in the throes of a conversion to truth but rather have gotten wind that, after he leaves office, Trump is planning to take all of his followers to another communications network of his own making. <–That’s not a conspiracy theory, but merely a speculative guess, based on (1) Trump’s general nature and (2) the large group of people who DID vote for him. He wants to make everyone pay.
The insight to get across to the rural people among us is that they are involved with the real deep state . . . the one that wants to destroy democracy itself and to do anything to get what it wants. CBK
Jared must have really PO’d Murdoch when he called him to get Fox to support contesting the election.
“Correct me if I am wrong; but rural people are commonly real patriots, or at least, as a general rule, they like to think they are.”
The correction lies in the false use of “real patriots.” They are real nationalists. Nationalists believe “My country right or wrong!” True patriots examine their country openly and truthfully, realizing the goods and the bads and trying to ameliorate or fix the parts that need adjusting. True patriots understand that their country can withstand the tests of time if everyone adheres to a fidelity to truth attitude.
Sadly here in America so many, the vast majority, are not based in a fidelity to truth attitude, having been brought up in/indoctrinated in a faith-belief system wherein one has to suspend a fidelity to truth attitude to believe in mythical, nonsensical, outdated and worn out creatures-god, angels, devil, etc. . . along with social proscriptions that were best suited for the times in which they were made up, thousands of years ago. It is almost impossible for most to reject those beliefs in the falsehoods and chimeras that have been pounded into their brains from the moment they were born, that are the Abrahamic faith-belief systems.
Voltaire had it right when he said “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities”. The beginnings of those absurdities lie in faith-belief systems wherein children are taught to deny their own thoughts and accept without question the particular faith belief system. The false “real patriot” moniker is an extension of that blind obedience to faith beliefs.
And for all you faith-believers, yeah, I know the supposed good that might come from that belief system. . . for the individual. All fine and dandy, believe what you want, but it doesn’t necessarily entail that that type of thinking is good for a pluralistic society as America.
I guess wordpress just doesn’t like me. Stuck in Modi again.
Sometimes! Ay ay ay!
Every now and then, Duane, you hit the nail right on head. (insert smiley face here) Don’t take moderation personally, it’s a random thing. You reminded me of a passage from a bio of John Quincy Adams:
“Admiral Stephen Decatur’s widely publicized toast in 1816, ‘our country, right or wrong,’ struck Adams as not only discordant but immoral. As Adams saw it, ‘I cannot ask of heaven success, even for my country, in a cause where she should be in the wrong. My toast would be, may our country be always successful, but whether successful or otherwise always right. I disclaim as unsound all patriotism incompatible with the principles of eternal justice.’”
Fear is very powerful and gets people to suspend rational thinking, especially when a charlatan like “45” and the rest of the GOP comes along and has them believe that up is down and down is up. Personally on some level, I do think many of these rural people are racists just because of their very geographic isolation (viewing the rest of the world through the lens of FOX News, Newsmax, QAnon, etc), and this past year of George Floyd/BLM protests have added more fuel to white rural/suburban fear (especially in isolated areas that have no actual contact with people who don’t look like them) that “thier” country is spiraling out of control. So as a push-back they will believe anyone who says they will restore “traditional” (meaning white) values (whatever “white” values are – and that’s a whole other argument about what exactly is “white” culture).
The more diverse this country becomes, the more rural whites are going to retreat into xenophobia, racism, nativism, etc. while at the same time, their towns will slowly either die out as many have, or they may soon see brown faces moving to places like Jordan, Montana too.
“The more diverse. . . ”
Your analysis shows that you really don’t know what goes on in rural areas. Know any rural African Americans, or Hispanics, or Orientals (is that politically correct these days?)? I do. Are they as populous as the the Whites? No, but they are here, and many that I know are Trump supporters. Those faces are already here and have been since at least the end of the Civil War.
It’s just, like most people everywhere, they prefer to live their lives in peace and quiet, understanding what community means. And rural whites are not as monolithic thinking as many citified folk think they are.
“Oriental” is definitively not politically correct, you dastardly occidental!
Not occidental, Midwestern!
My grandfather had a small farm in Montana. He was in danger of losing his farm during the Depression, as his father lost his, but he was saved by FDR’s New Deal policies. He and my grandmother were staunch Republicans and hated FDR. They were kind, helpful, wonderful people who believed the lie that Democrats didn’t care about them and Republicans did.
How do you reach someone who has believed lies all their life? It’s not the policy, it’s the propaganda.
Hello SWACKER Yes: propaganda. We don’t need “better propaganda,” however, but a better way of communicating truth and of exposing propaganda for what it is. . . . consistency is key. CBK
I concur with the sentiment of this piece. And I also know that our government is currently setup to serve only the interests of the wealthy. Even were we to understand perfectly the needs and sentiments of the rural folk of America, their interests would still not be being served.
Those rich people want to privatize our public schools and post offices. They do not want universal health care. They want to privatize public lands, too. All of which would piss off rural people.
So, hearing them and understanding them is important, but more important now is proving something can be done to support them.
Franklin Roosevelt did it by frightening the wealthy with socialism (we had a healthy Socialist Party back then). Richard Nixon was frightened by anti-war protesters outside the White House. Maybe we need to show the wealthy a few midnight torch rallies including a few pitchforks. If they keep on this path of screwing everyone else to make themselves richer, that is where we end up.
In rural states ranchers put the pelts of coyotes up on barbed wire fences to ward off other coyotes. While I do not advocate the same treatment for the wealthy, maybe crushing a few in court would serve as such a warning. Putting a few bankers in jail would be nice.
“In rural states ranchers put the pelts of coyotes up on barbed wire fences to ward off other coyotes.”
After over a century of fighting coyotes, there are more than ever. The ranchers are being stupid. As a rural person, I am fully aware that stupidity is not restricted to the people who live i town.
Wildlife biologists who have studied coyotes have determined that the size of the litters actually increases when the population is stressed (eg, through human hunting, trapping and poisoning).
And of course, putting up a coyote pelt on a fence to ward off other coyotes is just voodoo
Good to see ya responding, Roy. Hope all is going well!
Same thing with crows, eh! Know far too many who kill crows, like they do coyotes, thinking that they are a threat to humans. Very sad indeed!
Crows and coyotes are very intelligent creatures.
An alien visiting from another star might see the humans as a threat to crows and coyotes.
Certainly to the whales, dolphins and elephants.
It’s not complicated. You have to talk to people, not judge and abandon them, and persist.
bpollock42 I think a four-year series of public service announcements would help . . . briefly telling everyone what their elected public servants are doing for them . . .
consistent and unobtrusive education on the airwaves, both public and private. Sort of life Radio Free Europe, except it would be “Radio Free America.” CBK
Like!
What are the odds of the Biden administration doing something like that. Buy up time on the AM spectrum, tv, internet, etc. . . and flood the airways with your excellent message!
Do the people in rural America watch the real news, read the real paper or talk about the issues at hand, or do they just listen to sound bites and hot air from mouth pieces? Let’s just take guns. The Democrats DO NOT want to take guns away!!! They never have and they never will, but there is no reason on G_d’s green earth that any farmer or ranch owner needs an AK 47 or any other military style weaponry. There is no reason that anyone needs military type of weaponry…urban, suburban or rural. It’s NOT about taking guns away, it’s about taking inappropriate guns away AND having some rules for those who wish/need to possess legal guns. Don’t tell me that some rural father just hands a shotgun to his 9 yr old son and tells him to go “have at it, son.”……nope, this father lays down the rules of gun ownership and makes sure that his 9 yr old follows the rules and knows the consequences of using that gun. It just seems that people hear what they want to hear and don’t really listen to what is being said. There is something very wrong with our society that people can’t decipher fact from fiction or don’t care to use their own minds to think logically.
LisaM, thanks for that. Farmers don’t need military assault weapons.
I think you shot some holes into that argument, Lisa.
Farmers need Acronyms
Farmers need AR’s
To shoot at the gophers
RPs and AKs
And other misnomers
Acronym weapons
For farming affairs
Bump stocks from Heavens
To safeguard what’s theirs
I thought that farmers need AR 15s to shoot at grizzlies.
Not farmers, teachers.
That too, but it’s hard to find a rhyme for Grizzlies.
Also, there are not many Grizzlies left in Montana, but lots of gophers (which is actually a catch all term that includes prairie dogs, woodchucks , beavers, muskrats, snapping turtles, and other varmints)
My grandfather used to shoot all the above with a shotgun. (Except the Grizzlies, fix there weren’t any left in upstate NY at the time. Might be now)
Gophers are a separate animal from those others. You got it right with “varmints”. Many I know and grew up with used a varmint rifle, a small caliber for those critters as they couldn’t get close enough to use a shotgun. Not that I agree with the wanton killing of any animal.
I don’t recall my grandfather actually hitting anything with the shotgun, but he sure shot at a lot of varmints.
I particularly remember him shifting at the snapping turtles in his pond which, of course would disappear beneath the surface just to reappear at the other end.
I think he just likes shooting the shotgun.
And as a young kid, I found it all very amusing.
That was long before I became an envarmintalist.
Rural folk are not a monolithic group and these days many get their information through the internet/their phones.
Speaking of guns, I know of no one who owns an AK47 or any of it’s copycat fully automatic rifles. Not a single one. And most everyone I know owns at least one gun-even my city friends. It is a long and costly, thousands of dollars, process to buy a fully automatic weapon. Now I know quite a few that own AR15 semi-automatics just as they own other semi-automatic arms-my son included who made his own by buying the parts online (its a fun gun to shoot). As it is almost all modern guns are semi-automatic with the exceptions being single shot shotguns and black powder rifles.
So no, us rural folk don’t light up the sky with automatic weapons.
Discerning fact from fiction is important when talking about guns no doubt. Many times the ones who are putting out the fiction are those who have never, or very seldom, hardly ever, used a gun.
Duane,
I want to point out that LisaM made a very cogent point, and your response was to say “no, us rural folk don’t light up the sky with automatic weapons”. Which had nothing to do with what she said in her post, but did serve to mischaracterize her as some “out of touch elite citified” person who rural people should hate. Exactly what the right wing wants.
Neither a semi-automatic nor an automatic weapon is necessary for hunting. I get it — “its a fun gun to shoot”.
And sometimes in this country we need to make hard choices between making those “fun guns to shoot” easily accessible and making them extremely hard to get.
If rural people refuse to vote for any progressive who thinks those semi-automatic weapons should be regulated and not easy to get, then progressives will never win rural voters.
And I would certainly not trust a progressive candidate who was so determined to pander to rural voters who demand their “fun” that those progressive politicians promise to block any regulations on ownership of semi-automatic weapons becase the desires of “rural voters” to own those guns is paramount.
If rural voters refuse to compromise at all on their right to won as many semi-automatic weapons as they want, with almost no regulations on buying as many as they want, then they should vote for the Republicans who will gladly pander to them on this issue. I’m glad the progressives will not.
Republicans don’t offer rural voters good health care plans. They don’t offer them higher minimum wages. They offer them guns and a scapegoat for the economic policy that the REPUBLICANS have caused – not the democrats.
First I did not use “fun to shoot” as a rationale for gun ownership. It was just a statement about my having used one. Nothing more. Although if you would like to make it more, let’s do:
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is THE triumvarate in American thought. Life is first and foremost, liberty second and pursuit of happiness is third in importance. Seems to me that those who wrote and agreed upon the words knew what order of importance they should be listed.
I can agree that just because something is fun, it doesn’t necessarily fall under the protections of “pursuit of happiness”. My pursuit of happiness stops when it threatens the prior two rights. I believe that is what you are attempting to say with your comment. And I agree!
Now, it also seems that one can use weapons for the pursuit of life-providing food (both historically and currently) and liberty-self protection. So that, along with the 2nd amendment it seems to me that ethically owning and using a gun comports with “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
Notice I said “ethically use”. For me unethical usage includes conceal carry, or even open carry, especially with a loaded weapon. And that is, for me where the problem lies. Too many, both city and rural folk don’t understand what true ethical gun usage is. Perhaps education is a key?
Make sense?
Rural voters: how quickly did they forget that Trump’s endless trade wars closed their overseas markets for their crops!
I had a housemate in Utah who collected guns and had just about every gun known to man (and even woman).
He had not one but two AKs, an UZi and many many different revolvers, which we used to take down to southern Utah to shoot at very old junk cars in the ghost uranium mining settlements.
It was weird, but I always felt very UNsafe with all his guns in the house.
I understand why one would feel unsafe in that house unless those guns were ethically stored, and by that I mean taken apart so that they could not be instantly loaded and fired, the parts stored in separate locations and the ammunition stored in another separate location.
I wonder how much he spent on permits for those the three automatic weapons? Not to mention did he even have all the proper certifications?
My son’s roommate inherited many guns from both his dad and grandfather who were collectors-some interesting old weapons, that I wouldn’t shoot for safety reasons, but interesting nonetheless from a historical point of view. To each his/her own I guess, eh!
He had all the guns in his room.
Not sure whether they were “ethically stored.”
As far as permits, I also would not know that.
I never asked to see his permits.
Never even thought to.
Also, that was well before the ban on automatics.
Also, did I mention that it was in Utah?
I will say that while he would probably quality as a gun nut just by virtue of wanting to own so many guns, he was not at all mentally unstable and you was actually a very easygoing nice person.
Then again, I guess they all are before they snap, right?😀
I don’t remember hearing about a serious collector gun nut ever snapping-too much to lose, eh!
Duane,
Thank you as your 2nd reply was enlightening and interesting. But, in my opinion, your first reply was more apt to this conversation, which is about trying to understand rural voters.
This is what LisaM posted:
“The Democrats DO NOT want to take guns away!!! They never have and they never will, but there is no reason on G_d’s green earth that any farmer or ranch owner needs an AK 47 or any other military style weaponry. There is no reason that anyone needs military type of weaponry…urban, suburban or rural. It’s NOT about taking guns away, it’s about taking inappropriate guns away AND having some rules for those who wish/need to possess legal guns. Don’t tell me that some rural father just hands a shotgun to his 9 yr old son and tells him to go “have at it, son.”……nope, this father lays down the rules of gun ownership and makes sure that his 9 yr old follows the rules and knows the consequences of using that gun. It just seems that people hear what they want to hear and don’t really listen to what is being said. There is something very wrong with our society that people can’t decipher fact from fiction or don’t care to use their own minds to think logically.”
Like LisaM, the democrats have been saying this all along, but the right wing propaganda machine is now so much a part of some rural (and non-rural) voters’ belief system, that whenever someone even starts to talk about gun control, they hear “those elites are claiming that we rural folks light up the sky with automatic weapons”. Giving them another reason to hate those “elites” like LisaM.
Here is what is scaraies to me that I wish you would comment on:
I hear Trump supporters talk about people like me and LisaM in some of the most hateful terms. They don’t just disagree. They HATE us and see s as the enemy. The Republicans encourage that. They love it when Trump talks about punishing blue states instead of objecting to it.
Meanwhile, the democrats don’t do that. Contrary to the victimhood mantle that Trump and his supporters embrace, no one calls for violence against them. No one calls to “lock them up”. Calls to let those people suffer with no help during a crisis are shut down by Democrats, whereas it is the Republican leaders who get love from their supporters when they “punish” blue states for not supporting Trump.
“Discerning fact from fiction is important when talking about guns no doubt. Many times the ones who are putting out the fiction are those who have never, or very seldom, hardly ever, used a gun.”
There is absolutely no comparison between the “fiction” put out by the democrats and the “fiction” put out by the Republicans. Too frequently the authoritarianism and hate of the Republican party is excused and encouraged by propagandists pushing a totally false “both sides do it” narrative.
What I see when I hear Trump voters is that they can’t wait to crow about “winning” and defeating Democrats and they love when Trump talks about punishing them. Whereas the Democrats just want to do something for Trump voters in rural areas, not punish them!
That is a huge difference, because democracy can’t survive if that normalization of the Trump voter believing that winning is about punishing your enemy becomes the guiding philosophy of our nation.
Because if the democrats start acting like Republicans do to win the hearts of rural voters, that is the end.
“You need a gun, for food (hunting) and for protection (you might be the only one around for miles). There are no black people, there are no Latinos, there are no people from India or Korea or China, but there are Native Americans on the adjacent reservation.”
I’m sure that was not intended to sound the way it does, but it sure did not come across particularly well.
I understand that rural people have a different way of viewing the world, but I actually don’t think that even comes close to explaining the support for Trump. I just can’t picture my grandparents (dairy farmers in upstate NY and lifelong Republicans) voting for Trump. They would have been totally disgusted — indeed repulsed –by him.
I was in 4H through high school. My father grew up on the farm and was actually an agent (and no, that does not mean he was undercover CIA) but nobody in my family voted for Trump.
I think there is a critical piece of the puzzle missing in the above assessment and that is that many people in Western states simply despise having the Federal government tell them what they can and cannot do, even when it comes to public lands, for example. This attitude was present long before Trump and will undoubtedly persist long after he is gone.
This seems to be particularly true of ranchers grazing their cattle on public lands for next to nothing in the way of grazing fees. Many of them perceive it as their God given right to be able to use public resources but resent having anyone tell them what they can and cannot do with and how they can treat those resources.
This is reflected in the attitudes of many of the politicians running states like Utah, who are often downright hostile about the fact that most of Utah is actually owned by the Federal government (aka by you and me) and not simply a resource to be used as the politicians in Utah see fit.
Having lived in Utah for 15 years, I have a hard time buying the “they just have more traditional values” idea.
The main difference as I see it is not the values. It’s the attitudes.
Not sure how you go about changing these attitudes when they seem to be thoroughly ingrained in the western culture.
The first sentence of your second paragraph may well be one of the most poetic things you’ve yet written.
Nicely put, SomeDAM. I have two words for you: Cliven Bundy.
Do t know who that is, but at least it’s not Ted Bundy
Just looked it up, and yes, that is the mentality taken to the extreme.
I basically agree with the sentiments in this piece, but I hesitate whenever the message seems to be “we need to explain to these ignorant people”. Lack of knowledge is rarely the problem, just like people don’t eat fast food because they don’t know it’s unhealthy.
Yes, Trump is a liar who used rural people by pretending to listen to them and take their concerns seriously. But the flip side of that is that the Democrats spit in the faces of rural people and called them “deplorable”. Even if people know Trump isn’t really going to deliver, just being treated with (seeming) respect can be worth a vote. I think it was yesterday that someone acknowledged that Biden probably won’t actually do much for education, but just to hear the tone switch away from teacher blaming will be worth it.
If Democrats actually wanted to win in a landslide, they would offer people what they want and need – M4A, GND, housing protection, debt forgiveness, basic income, especially during a pandemic. Every House Democratic candidate who supported M4A won; every one who opposed it lost – and that was in both red and blue states. All but one of the candidates who supported GND won.
People don’t need to be patronized and told why Trump is so bad. They need to see why the Democrats are better.
But the flip side of that is that the Democrats spit in the faces of rural people and called them “deplorable”. — HRC was referring to racists and bigots and those who held or tolerated racist or bigoted views. Why do you infer that she was referring to rural America or to all republicans?
Hillary did NOT call rural people “deplorable.” She said that some Trump supporters were deplorable—and she was right. The Bougaloo Boys, the Proud Boys, the white supremacists, the neo-Nazis, the armed thugs. Deplorable fascists.
How did Trump’s failure to do anything about COVID help red states, which are now suffering the consequences of his inaction?
Missed the open quote mark. I’m quoting the above poster, and agree that HRC did NOT call rural voters deplorable. No “edit” feature on wordpress. I’ll need to be more careful next time. 100% agree with your above comments, Diane.
“Why do you infer that she was referring to rural America or to all republicans?”
Because it is right wing propaganda – repeated by those on the left who hate democrats and believe Trump has been “victimized” by evil Democrats — to claim that HRC was talking about rural America.
It’s the same logic that Trump supporters use. “It doesn’t matter what is true, it matters what I want to believe that supports by own personal narrative of hate for people who I hate.”
That quote was so insightful, and it actually addressed a lot of what this post is about! She wanted to do something for those people who had been left behind! Not just give them lip service or tell them they could keep their assault weapons and give them scapegoats.
Instead, they are actually thrilled and believe that they got a huge amount with Trump. It’s hard to know what they got since if you ask them, they usually change the subject to how evil the democrats are.
“People don’t need to be patronized and told why Trump is so bad. They need to see why the Democrats are better.”
Bingo, bango, boingo. Give that fine young lady a Kewpie Doll!
Exactly. You got it right, dienne.
It is the height of hypocrisy to claim that it is the Democrats who only talk about how bad Trump is. In fact, the Democrats are talking about all the things they support.
In fact, those rural voters love Trump because he attacks, demeans, and gives them a handy scapegoat for their anger!
Apparently, giving people a scapegoat is the ideal way to win rural voters hearts since they love the Republican party who is giving them nothing (except their “fun with assault weapons”)
I really challenge you and dienne77 to explain what Trump offers them except a lot of con man talk. I hope you aren’t suggesting that if only progressives and democrats lied more to rural voters, like Republicans do, they’d win.
No, not at all am I suggesting your last thought. I never said anything about it’s only the Dims who talk about how bad Trump is. So I don’t know why you bring that up.
But you see, you are painting rural folk/voters with the same broad brush, just a different color of paint, that you accuse Dienne and I.
Rural voters are not the homogenous bloc that you are suggesting. And that is my point. Just like urban or suburban voters are not a homogenous bloc. Are their trends at times? No doubt. But hey pot calling kettle black doesn’t work.
Duane, I responded to your post, which starts with a quote you approved of strongly from another poster:
“People don’t need to be patronized and told why Trump is so bad. They need to see why the Democrats are better.”
Bingo, bango, boingo. Give that fine young lady a Kewpie Doll!”
The only thing the Republicans and their enablers on the left do is talk about why the democrats are so bad! That is most of their succerss. I challenged you and the other poster to explain how the Republicans are able to appeal to those very same voters by demonizing Democrats and offering them nothing. Why is it that those voters think the Republicans are better? I’m still waiting to hear it, but usually it is because Democrats do all those progressive things they hate like stop them from fracking.
Republicans win by patronizing those voters who are told that Democrats are so bad. Now you say that Democrats should not follow the very successful playbook that the Republicans have been using to win, and instead keep doing what they have been doing and speaking truthfully to the voters who just “know” fracking and all progressive ideas that involve any regulations are inherently evil.
If Republicans were winning with ideas, you might have a point. But Republicans are winning by patronizing the very voters you are talking about and offering them much less than the democrats do.
That’s why I don’t understand your point. Patronizing those voters seems to be the only thing that works, and the Republicans excel at patronizing those voters. Democrats don’t, because patronizing means blatantly lying to voters and the democrats don’t lie.
As soon as a progressive politician seems to make a small inroad in a rural community, the Republican propaganda machine – helped by those on the left who legitimize their false propaganda machine – usually ends up demonizing that progressive, who loses the next election. Defeated by the Republican candidate who patronizes them and tells them why that progressive democratic candidate is so bad.
I’m still waiting to hear what the Republicans are offering their most rabid rural supporters except demonizing democrats. I hope you and the other poster will explain further what Republicans are offering those voters beyond hating democrats, that explains why they love Republicans so much.
Don’t know why you think I would know what the Rethugs should be doing. I have no clue.
I will say that the regressive reactionary xtian fundie folks and those who pander to them, the Rethugs are outside of reality in my thinking. But what do I know?
^^^and I want to point out that this narrative is pushed by those on the left who keep saying that democrats and progressives “spit on rural voters”. That’s a lie.
The reason that rural voters believe that AOC and her squad and HRC all spit on them is not because it is true — their “evidence” is an out of context quote — but because they hear that lie from the right wing noise machine and they hear that lie from the part of the left wing noise machine that wants to destroy the democrats as much as the far right does.
This is the best essay I have seen. How often have I thought these things, but not been able to articulate them properly. What is true in Montana is certainly the case i rural Tennessee.
There is the problem. Wedge issues have been the bar that was inserted to pry us apart. Ever since Falwell used this method to rend the Baptist Church, some people in our society have seen the power associated with dividing people. Like it or not, many rural people do not see through these divisive tactics, and support policy that hurts them. Chief among them is the policy that is shutting down rural hospitals and underfunding the administration of public health.
Although the population of Montana is more far-flung than Tennessee, there are so many common problems that are related to the divisive nature of politics today. Thanks, Montana Teacher, you have said it well.
Thank you, Roy. I’ve been learning that there used to be far more Democrats in rural areas, including WWII veterans who strongly supported FDR. I’m going to start researching the Farmers Union, which I think supported and supports left-wing farm issues. I’m wanting to find out why Democrats lost so many rural voters over the years. Maybe we can use that information to discover how to get them back.
I do not live in a rural area, but I have a son who does. He expresses some of the same concerns. I am glad to see that someone is looking at how to reach this population in a way that resonates with them rather than just moaning about how ignorant and self defeating they are. That kind of thinking excuses the need to put any effort into listening to their concerns or changing their thinking in a way that is non-judgemental. Yeah, so they have some pretty negative memes about “city folk.” Get over it and learn from it. We are the ones who have to do the work if we want to change their votes.
“but there are Native Americans on the adjacent reservation.”
Who they treat like garbage.
Indeed. And I rarely ever see any discussion on blogs or in news or other media about Native Americans and their issues. That’s what’s racist–to leave them out of the discussions altogether. To act like they don’t exist. Both the right and the left seem to forget about Native Americans. I would love it if Joe Biden selected Native Americans for top posts.
I listened to a report on Native American service in the military. They have a higher per capita rate of service than any other group even when they weren’t accorded citizenship rights and even in the face of the U.S. government breaking every treaty they ever signed with them. My grandfather had a rather negative view of Native Americans from his childhood in Utah. His exposure to them was mostly limited to caricatures that were too often displayed on street corners, not just in the media. He never wanted the ancestral connection my grandmother’s family claimed openly acknowledged. He wasn’t even into the “noble savage” meme.
This is a really good example of how liberals manage to turn off rural/red state voters. Olbermann is literally arguing that we should starve people for the crime of living in a red state.
dienne77 If Trump were in office, and we waited a bit, they would lose their welfare anyway. He’s doing stuff like that already. CBK
You do realize that the Trump administration LITERALLY diverted resources away from “Blue States” and “Blue Cities” for Covid-19 relief BECAUSE they were run by democrats right? https://www.businessinsider.com/kushner-covid-19-plan-maybe-axed-for-political-reasons-report-2020-7
But that’s okay because those people hate blue states. They never once criticized the wonderful Trump about that – in fact, they kept defending Trump.
It is shocking to hear anyone on this blog blame Keith Olbermann for the democrats losses — she seems to be saying that Trump voters are much more bothered by what Olbermann says than they are when QAnon Trump supporters spew racism, xenophobia, and their desire to violently attack Biden voters.
Is that a projection? I agree that anyone more bothered by what Olbermann says than the hateful things that QAnon and the “good people” in the white supremacist movement say will ALWAYS vote for Trump.
Maybe this poster can explain what to do about people who aren’t bothered by the racism and violence toward non-whites fomented by Trump supporters, but Keith Olbermann saying this really offends them.
How can democrats reach people who are far more bothered by Keith Olbermann than all the “good people” in the white supremacist movement who call for violence against non-white Americans?
I wouldn’t have chosen the example that dienne chose for why red states are turned off by liberals. It seemed to be part of the ongoing cat fight or school yard brawl where no one is really listening to anyone else or frankly is trying to advance their cause in a way anyone who didn’t already agree would embrace. HOWEVER, I don’t see how the comment implied the string of assumptions you made. It would be so much easier if people were that easy to decode. We talk about the error of ranking and rating children by test scores but we have no trouble ranking and rating people with no more information. I am not claiming this is any more a liberal problem than it is a conservative. That liberal vs. conservative categorization itself automatically means certain things depending on where you/one stand. The good politician (There are good ones?!!) knows that no two people, no matter what their political, social, economic,…persuasion, are alike. That’s why, under the best of circumstances, any legislation is the result of finding common ground and compromising and I seriously doubt that is going to happen in the middle of a brawl.
We have spent the last 4 years — probably the last 8 years — trying to figure out why people in red state were so drawn to the idea that Obama was a liar who was born in Kenya and why people in red states are so terrified that the Black Lives Matter movement will come and get their families. Maybe it’s about time to stop blaming Keith Olvberman and start putting the blame where it belongs — on the people who are lying to them.
Or, we can do the same thing we have been doing and abase ourselves and abjectly apologize to them for not having a better understanding of why they were so certain that Obama was illegitimate that they decided that the leader of that movement should be president and the Senators who do his bidding no matter what should be re-elected.
You should read the interesting article about how Latino support for Trump grew in the border areas of Texas.
Do you know why? Because they wanted more oil jobs. Because they wanted abortion to be illegal. Because they think criticism of law enforcement is bad.
“We have spent the last 4 years — probably the last 98 years — trying to figure out …”
We may need a different approach (already used by progressives like AOC) as suggested by cognitive scientist and linguist George Lakoff. He says this about how to resist our fearless leader
rather than argue against him directly or waste time refuting his attacks, let’s ignore his antics and make a positive, proactive argument.
[…]
Unfortunately, many intelligent people — including Democrats and journalists — ignore the findings of the cognitive and brain sciences. They put their faith in the outdated idea of Enlightenment Reason, which dates back to the 1650s. As a result, they miss the often-implicit frames, metaphors and narratives that structure morally important truths. They wrongly believe that bare facts and logic alone win the moral debates.
The same cannot be said of the professional troll armies prowling on the other side of our computer screens. A recent study of the strategies used by Russian and terrorist trolls online found that they have a strong grasp of basic brain science.
https://georgelakoff.com/blog/
Here is a 15 minute interview with him
Do you suppose the Latinos in border state might have some experience with the drug cartels that would lead them to be more favorable toward law enforcement. Oil jobs? How do you think many of them eat? Abortion? Unless it is a crime to be Catholic a lot of them come from a strong, Catholic background.
Go ahead and abase yourself and apologize. See what your interpretation of the situation gets you. From the way you categorize voters in red states, you sure seem to have very little understanding of why anybody might choose a more conservative philosophy than you. Talking in hyperbole definitely shows your sincerity.
speduktr “Republican” is the sheep’s clothing that Trump wears. Once the fascist takes formal hold, all parties go away. Only brown shirts and brown-nosers remain.
We have all been duped into thinking everyone is still standing on the foundations of democracy (small d). When any of us who had a K-12 education cannot see this, we are ALL politically ignorant, and educators can see where our work is.
Trump’s and his group’s foundations are fascist to the core. In a democracy, everyone needs to realize that, and so also to realize the difference between fascist propaganda and truth, regardless of party.
There are real conflicts between rural and city that need to be worked out; but the basic one presently is being avoided by those arguments, while fascism almost got us this time. CBK
speduktr,
You misunderstand my point (but I take full responsibility for not writing more clearly).
There are two issues.
The first is that democrats abasing themselves to appeal to voters who believe in lies — that Obama is a Kenyan and that AOC and Bernie will take away all private property — is impossible because those voters simply don’t believe in facts, they believe what the right wing tells them.
The second issue is that some voters will rightly vote for the party that represents their interests, as we have seen with the large increase in the Latinx voter share to Trump in Texas. But that is a DIFFERENT issue because those voters who want to make all abortions illegal are right to vote for Republicans. Those voters who want the oil companies to prosper are right to vote for Republicans. Those voters who think there is no systemic racism in policing and even talking about that victimizes police and endangers their lives are right to vote for Republicans. Unless they change their minds, the Republican party does represent those views and if those are the important issues to them, it will be hard for democrats to reach them until other issues become more important to them and they decide to vote for democrats DESPITE knowing that democrats support the right of a woman to choose.
You still insist on defining their votes in your terms. You don’t have to agree with their choices. In fact, I don’t agree with their choices, but I at least am trying to understand their decisions from their point of view. I also have the freedom to indulge my obsession with current political machinations. I am retired, mostly.
While I was still teaching, I doubt I would have been half as well informed although my political leanings were left of center without encouragement. I do know that my entire life was centered around teaching with 1 1/2 hours of commuting on a good day, 9-10 hours in school, and another couple at home. Watching talking heads would have been low on my priority list. How much time do people, in general, devote to dissecting the issues, and how many rely more on past persuasions? If I want to persuade someone to my point of view, I had better be prepared to walk a lot of miles in their shoes. It has nothing to do with what I “owe” them and everything to do with what I want to accomplish.
speduktr,
How am I defining their choices in my terms? I’m defining it on THEIR terms! I’m saying that if making all abortions illegal is most important to them, or supporting police and opposing the BLM movement is most important, or giving money to religious schools instead of public schools is most important to them, or keeping jobs in the oil industry is most important, why would they vote for democrats? If those things were the most important to me, I would vote for Republicans, too. Wouldn’t you? How can Democrats convince them to vote against their own values? Democrats can certainly offer them other things — health insurance or better public schools or environmental protections or better immigration policies — but if those things are not very important to them, then what?
You seem quick to jump on the favorite trope of right wingers that I’m looking down on those voters. I’m not. I’m recognizing their preferences and wondering how the democrats can appeal to them given that the democratic party does not reflect those preferences.
I don’t think the problem in this country is people who vote for the things that are most important to them, like the pro-lifers or rich people who want low taxes or oil industry workers who value those jobs. I think it is when people are convinced to vote for something they don’t believe in because of lies and false narratives that is the root of the problem. But unfortunately, I also don’t know how those people convinced that reality is whatever Trump tells them can be reached because I grew up in a very pro-Trump area and the people who have fallen under his spell believe things that are patently untrue and no evidence, reason or fact will convince them otherwise. The people there who haven’t fallen under his spell already vote democrat! There just aren’t enough of them right now.
I grew up in Montana, in Havre, which is somewhat bigger town than Jordan. I personally understand the challenge this Montana teacher is describing. And I have been through Jordan, if not to Jordan. We drove one morning last summer from Glendive to Grass Range—through Mosby and Jordan and Winnett. It is one of the most beautiful “Big Sky” drives I have ever taken.
The urban-rural divide is also a huge issue in Ohio, where I have now lived for over 40 years. I think one of the places this must be addressed is in the public schools. If we can ever move farther from a curriculum that is narrowed by mandated standardized testing, there are a million ways through literature and social studies classes to help students share the experiences of Americans who live in other places and live in different circumstances. Of course creative teachers everywhere understand that helping children learn about the bigger world is one of their most important purposes. That goal of public schooling needs to be emphasized!
Jan, your conclusion sums up that which draws me here. Education is the best way to get through to all people and have a functioning polity. It’s the “bring a horse to water, etc.” that’s so frustrating.
Can I be your best friend, GregB? My neck hurts from nodding my head in agreement from your comments on this thread.
Michael, no, you can’t be Greg’s best friend. He is mine.
I am reminded of the “I Love Lucy” episode when she joins the Friends of the Friendless.
The World Wide Web and You Tube are wonderful wats to learn about people and cultures. 🤓
cx: ways, not wats
“If we can ever move farther from a curriculum that is narrowed by mandated standardized testing, there are a million ways through literature and social studies classes to help students share the experiences of Americans who live in other places and live in different circumstances.”
That standardized testing, along with the shortfalls of revenue are driving a push in my rural poverty district to eliminate FFA (Future Farmers of America) which has two teachers. They want to eliminate one teaching position and halve the number of courses offered. I will be at the board meeting tomorrow night with my FFA shirt on, giving my 5 minutes worth of opposition. They’ve moved it from a smaller venue to a larger one, I’m sure they’ll say, because of Covid. I think they know they are going to have a brouhaha on their hands.
Amazing how our district level administrative staff have grown, almost tripled since I first moved out here 15 years ago, most of that having to do with the implementation of the standards curriculum and testing malpractices-in which we are guaranteed to lose that numbers game. Are they willing to cut the administrative staff? I doubt it.
Nah…. https://www.theroot.com/unity-is-for-white-people-why-joe-biden-cant-unite-the-1845622773
Just over 57% of all white voters voted for Trump last week. That’s not just rural voters. I think we should probably continue to focus more on expanding voter access to those we’ve kept out of the process for so long.
Greg Palast explains how many have been disenfranchised in this century through various “purging” and other methods. His expose should be THE story of the election year. See: https://www.gregpalast.com/wp-content/uploads/HowTrumpStole2020_Palast.pdf
Duane,
Thank you for this link.
This is why my very favorite democrat these days is Stacey Abrams and the other leaders of grassroots groups in Georgia.
She gets it. But instead of just bemoaning it, she fought back. We need her — not the overpaid “consultants” at the DNC — to oversee democrats and their efforts to build up a majority that will allow progressive legislation to pass.
I agree. And it has been the progressive younger Democrats (notice I didn’t use Dimocraps) that hopefully drag the older Dims back to where they should be. . .the party of the disenfranchised and not the party of the moneyed supposedly liberal elite that the DNC caters to. And AOC has already fired back at the DNC. Time will tell, eh.
Is it just me, or is there something about Montana Teacher’s screed that fails to hold rural citizens of this country responsible for a critical understanding the world in which they live? I agree with Jan Resseger that our schools are in no small part to blame for this. On the other hand, these are presumably adults who could educate themselves about the issues that concern them and, yes, see that they will probably fare better with Democrats.
As far as I know, reason is still a method to analysis and understanding available to all who choose to apply it.
There is something about all this that strikes me as a theology of victimhood–which Trump, with his constant whine of self-pity, has done much to reinforce.
I would like to associate myself with these remarks as I did with Arthur’s above.
Jeez, Greg, thanks. I appreciate that.
Trump is a victim bully.
His entire brand is based on it.
Pretty much, yeah, SomeDAM. He doesn’t make mistakes, he doesn’t lose, he is never wrong–people always screw him. I’ve spent much of my life around this victim mentality both at work and at play, and I am really tired of it.
See my comments above about faith-belief systems concerning all Americans’, not just rural ones, inability to get beyond those fundamentally flawed belief systems. Also see Voltaire’s and Sagan’s quotes above. Having been indoctrinated into mythical faith belief systems, one is given free reign to believe that anything can and does hold true for the individual. While that is fine and dandy for the individual it is not a good basis for a pluralistic society such as America’s. Only a fidelity to truth, i.e., skeptical scientific based mindset can be the best way to go about determining common truths, i.e., ones that almost all will agree upon. People will believe what they feel is best for themselves, but those beliefs and feeling can’t and don’t hold for all.
I couldn’t agree more, Duane. Well said.
Urban areas, unfortunately, are not free of racist people.
After reading yet another of these “Ds just need to listen to rural voters who aren’t all bigots” pieces and the comments of many to which I nod my head in agreement (GregB I’m looking at you), I really think a new approach for Ds is in order. Ds need to take George Burns’ advice: “Sincerity – if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” After reading Alex Pareene’s latest piece, I’m believing this more and more. Ds don’t need to care more about rural America. If anything, they bend over backwards as it is and don’t get much mileage from it. If anything, the opposite. What they need to do is to fake sincerity more. It doesn’t seem like the policies that Dems support (which support rural Americans more than those of the GOP) matter. Dems need to make rural America FEEL like they are being listened to, even if its a con job. It seems ingrained in the DNA of some liberals – myself included – to default to the approach of “why are you too stupid to realize that we ARE the ones trying to help you”? (a technical point on which I agree) instead of conning them and saying its perfectly OK if they don’t yet get wokness and occasionally spew out some bigoted nonsense. https://newrepublic.com/article/160094/democrats-message-just-doesnt-matter
Very good article. The part about prisons as local stimulus is far too tragic and true. I’ll admit to having fatigue about having to endure people who hate “socialism” and then declare their unwavering support for Social Security, Medicare, and the V.A. I’ll stop there because this could go on for thousands of words.
Excellent insight into the rational of the American voter. With your permission, I am going to share it with some of my friends.
Cacophony of Support
Supporters aren’t monolithic
Those who think that Trump’s terrific
Aren’t making just one sound
When it comes to Trump redound
Fiedmont “green jobs are never going to appear in the same state”
Seem to be appearing in Montana
Montana has a robust residential and commercial solar installation industry, including photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal technologies. With significant drops in PV prices, utility scale solar developers have come to Montana, proposing dozens of projects scattered around the state.
MT.gov › deq › renewableenergy
Solar Energy in Montana
Posts so far are thoughtful, smart and articulate, thanks to all. A few items:
1. Biden beat Trump with little rural support, so winning White House possible but red states hold Senate; Biden fortunate in his enemy b/c vulgar Trump is repulsive to just enough voters to re-build Blue Wall, but not down-ballot. Biden was “not-Trump” at a moment when that was just enough to win; in future, with ugly Trump gone, something different and more will be needed.
2. Rural areas have excess federal power b/c of senate and electoral college. Suburban areas also have excess power b/c of voter suppression of black and latino urban folks. Urban progressives have to strenuously combat voter suppression. For 40 yrs, rural evangelicals and anti-abortion conservative have been organizing a formidable force while Dem party turned against its liberal base, moving center, playing to its right.
3. Rural folks are historically anti-statist, anti-govt., isolated from political/cultural ferment in cities. To peasants, govt. is an alien force come from afar to tax their productive labor and to regulate land/water use, or to take their sons to war; peasants in past murdered tax agents levying illegal hooch. “Peasant” has long been an insult word in urban areas. Dems have to shed wonky rhetoric, aim for identification with non-elite discourse.
4. Progressive religious folks like Rev. Barber of NC and the Texas Pastors for Public Education are voices to watch to change opinions in red areas; teachers unions can also be impt. if they finally get national leadership willing to support strikes like the red state wildcats by teachers in 2019 which had far more potential to rescue public ed if they had been longer and more supported.
Thanks for your attention.
Wonderful summation of a robust, invigorating set of comments, Ira. This was a humdinger, wasn’t it? While some of us, especially me, can come across as being dismissive of Montana Teacher’s comment, I hope he/she does not take them as such. They prodded us to explain and argue and ain’t that the foundation civic virtue is built on? While I disagree vehemently with Montana Teacher, I do not disrespect. And I hope we can build on this. We must.
That was nice to hear, GregB.
I agree with Montana Teacher that we need to figure out what makes the Trump-supporters tick. In fact I think this is The Most Important Thing if we want our republic to survive and prevent a bloody purge of liberals (one of my Trump-ist seventh grades told me, in Zoom chat, that “the Purge” is coming). They’re not all evil, but they’re in the thrall of evil and we need our best minds to figure out how to disarm and deprogram them. Forty years of venomous talk radio and Fox has so poisoned their minds that I fear we’re on the verge of a Rwanda-type or Indonesia-type situation. If they’re convinced Dems are satanic pedophiles, why balk at killing them?
The rural urban gap in voting is widened in this election compared to past elections. If the Democrats want a chance to control the Senate, they will need to address this. See https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/11/10/americas-urban-rural-partisan-gap-is-widening
I have never been to Montana but because it is the setting for a novel I am currently working on, I’ve learned a bit about the state like the fact that more than 40% of the voters in Montana voted for Joe Biden.
The total population of Montana is 1.06 million and Montana has two U.S. Senators in Congress. One is a Democrat and the other one is a Republican.
Trump had 341,767 votes
Biden had 243,719
Jorgensen had 15,194.
The only reason Montana is considered a red state is because conservative FOX-Trump influenced/programed voters outnumbers independent-minded, educated progressive voters.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/results-map?ocid=msedgdhp
Even California has FOX-Trump influenced conservative voters with some of the rural counties voting for Trump.
California’s population is almost 40 million and those 40 million people get two US Senators to represent them in Congress, too, just like Montana’s one million population. Both of California’s senators are democrats.
Joe Biden 10.2 million votes
Trump 5.2 million votes
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/results-map?ocid=msedgdhp
I assume I’ll be dogpiled for this, but the rise of wokeness is a huge and increasing cause of division among Americans who should have a critical mass of common interests. Believe it or not, there are a lot of white people who are tired of hearing they must examine their “white privilege” and being accused of “white fragility.” There are a lot of Asians who are tired of being called “white adjacent” (it’s not a positive connotation). A lot of people who are perfectly willing to to let trans people live their lives find it strange and off-putting to be told (or have their children taught) that women can have penises sometimes and men can bear children. Etc.
This is the elephant in the room. Wokeness is the greatest gift to the Republican Party since racism, and it will keep on giving.
Yep, that’s what people said about gay marriage too, and Obama and many democrats agreed and they vigorously opposed gay marriage to help them get votes from the conservative snowflakes whose fragility and sensitivity was so important and had to be pandered to in the hopes those voters would then vote for the democrats who promised them they would be as anti-gay marriage as the Republicans were!
I hear that Trump voters are very angry at woke people who criticize President Trump when he uses terms like “Kung flu”. They say that great political leaders in America should be able to use terms like “Kung flu” and if those woke snowflakes don’t like it, they should leave this country.
Yes, they’re all vicious bigots who you need to be at war with. You nailed it again.
No, the Republicans just are not “woke” and that’s why they hate those “elites” who are woke and don’t think it is amusing when Trump uses offensive terms like “Kung flu”. I just don’t understand why you would ever want the democratic party to pander to people who think those kinds of terms are okay, and why you think pandering to them by either remaining silent or laughing along when they use those offensive terms is the way for democrats to win. It isn’t. Being woke and calling out when people are being offensive instead of condoning it is not why democrats lose, and even if it was, I would certainly not want Democrats to condone (or themselves use) offensive terms like “Kung flu” to get the support of people who demand the right to be as offensive as possible, while at the same time they whine that the real victims of racism in America are white Americans.
If the democrats have to be quiet and condone racism or xenophobia to win, is the victory worth it? Look at how the Black Lives Matters movement was demonized until finally, this year, with George Floyd’s death and the protests, the Republicans discovered that they could not dismiss those concerned as simply being too “woke”.
^^^^
FLERP! says: “Yes, they’re all vicious bigots…”
Every person who voted for Trump CONDONED racism. Is it being bigoted when you want a bigot to be the most powerful man in the country?
Are you saying that the people who voted for the president who coined the phrase “Kung flu” and repeats that phrase over and over again to the delight of his cheering crowds are NOT bigots? Because just condoning it and empowering the person who says it isn’t bigotry?
I know several Asian Americans who voted for Trump. Some for tax reasons. Some because they approved of the Trump DOJ’s actions against elite university admission policies that require Asian applicants to score higher and have higher grades than other applicants. Are they anti-Asian bigots because their vote implicitly condoned the phrase “Kung Flu”? Are they just so stupid in your opinion that they don’t understand what they’re doing?
Touche! Perhaps the issue is a little more complex…
Wokeness is a divisive cancer, and we haven’t begun to see the worst of it.
I guess we haven’t. I didn’t even know “wokeness” was a “thing.” I guess I’m not.
It’s a thing, although it comes in many forms. Here’s a short discussion from a conservative, anti-Trump voice: https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-roots-of-wokeness
Thank you for that link. Superb at explaining a phenomena i have uncomfortably felt but not been able to define. I sensed the intolerance associated with “wokeness” but could no more explain it than buy into it. Another book to read…
FLERP!,
What does the fact that some Asian-Americans would still vote for the man who loves saying “Kung flu” have to do with whether or not it is too “woke” to criticize people who use the term “Kung flu” and the reason that Democrats lose is because they should didn’t shut up and stop criticizing Trump for using those ugly terms?
You just claimed that the reason that people voted for Trump was their disgust with wokeness by pointing to people who voted for Trump because of their taxes!!!
Why not just come out and say what you mean? Trump opposes affirmative action and the people who also think that affirmative action should be ended support Trump.
I agree that if by “woke” you mean “support for affirmative action in college admissions”, then the people who demand the end to affirmative action in college admissions will not vote for democrats.
speduktr, do you believe democrats should end all of their support for affirmative action policies in college admissions because supporting affirmative action policies makes democrats “too woke”?
speduktr, do you believe that it is absolutely imperative that NYC specialized high schools admit students ONLY based on the results of a single day’s standardized exam, and everyone who questions it is being too “woke” and they are to blame for why voters won’t support democrats?
Should democrats announce that they will ban all affirmative action and make all high school and college admissions based on the results of a standardized exam so that they aren’t accused of being too ‘woke’ and that will help them get the votes of all the people who know that affirmative action is wrong and admissions via standardized exam is the only fair way?
Of course, the democrats may lose some votes when they demand an end to affirmative action to please voters who consider affirmative action too “woke”, but I guess those voters don’t matter, right?
Linking to ANDREW SULLIVAN!!!! Are you kidding me? This is like taking advice from John Kasich!
I can’t believe a discussion that started with how to reach rural voters ended up citing one of the most elitist, out of touch conservatives, Andrew Sullivan, as the expert! A Brit who is unlikely to have spent any time with those voters — but likely does spend a lot of time with the ivy-educated right wing Republicans in Congress who they keep electing as their leaders because they are afraid of “socialism” and “Bernie and AOC”.
I lost track but I think you just set the all-time record for logical fallacies in a single comment.
I got to the end of that comment and wondered what I had read, too.
You really need to do a little more research on this openly gay, practicing Catholic, NOW American whose conservatism is much more nuanced than what you have implied.
^^and I find it offensive when people like Andrew Sullivan BLAME the Black Lives Matters movement and demand those voices be silenced.
But I do agree that everyone who agrees with Andrew Sullivan that BLM is a very bad thing and wants BLM to shut up like Andrew Sullivan does would be drawn to the Republican party.
I just don’t agree that means that the democrats should do what Andrew Sullivan wants and disavow the BLM movement and procliam an end to affirmative action and promote standardized test-based admissions to selective high schools and colleges because if democrats don’t do what Sullivan wants, they are being too “woke”.
FLERP! says:
“I know several Asian Americans who voted for Trump. Some for tax reasons.”
I pointed out that voting “for tax reasons” has nothing to do with “wokeness”, so why is this relevant? I doubt any of those people were angry because democrats were too “woke” and criticized Trump for using offensive terms like “Kung flu”.
FLERP! says:
“Some because they approved of the Trump DOJ’s actions against elite university admission policies that require Asian applicants to score higher and have higher grades than other applicants.”
You mean they approved of the Trump DOJ’s actions to demonize university admissions processes that seek to admit highly qualified students who are under represented minorities, and despite that admissions process those students still comprise a disproportionately small percentage of students at their school!
I thought you were being very disingenuous to claim that you knew people who didn’t vote for democrats because they were “too woke” but your examples had nothing to do with “wokeness” — unless supporting any affirmative action policies in college admissions is your definition of being “too woke”.
FLERP!,
I also find it very disingenuous when you claim other people’s posts have “logical fallacies” but you can’t actually explain them. It would be like me denouncing your previous post as being one of the most racist, anti-Latinx, anti-African American posts that I have ever read. And modeling my behavior after FLERP!’s, I have no need to cite any evidence, I just want to make sure readers understand how insulting FLERP!’s post was toward Latinx and African American students.
I’m sorry, but I learned long ago that having a point-by-point discussion with you is a fool’s errand. It requires too much time, it never resolves, and no one’s the better for the journey.
I will say that your use of the term “Latinx” could not be more apt in this context—a word that signals wokeness yet is used by nearly nobody with Latin American or Spanish heritage to describe themselves.
NYC and Flerp I am enjoying your discussion immensely. I think, however, it’s inflicted with the disease of necessary blog-speak reduction. It’s all smart stuff, but is in dire need of unpacking. And then we are similarly-reduced to “reading foundational stuff between the lines” and of course we can always be right when we do that . . . CBK
FLERP! says ” “Latinx” could not be more apt in this context—a word that signals wokeness yet is used by nearly nobody with Latin American or Spanish heritage to describe themselves.”
FYI – I used to hear the same thing when people first started using the word “Ms.”
I’m old enough to remember the same attacks at the first women using “Ms” — how dare they when almost no women use it and are perfectly content to refer to themselves as Miss Susie and Mrs. Joe Smith.
I never had any respect for those who tried to capitalize on the fact that some women were using the term “Ms” when those anti-feminists tried to gain some political advantage. Those who opposed any changes not approved by white men quickly worked overtime to make the use of Ms. into something that was bad (the word “woke” and “politically correct” were not yet coined) and disparaged those who used Ms (they were “fem-Nazis”) to get “real Americans” to vote for them.
I am always surprised that Ms is so mainstream now and Miss and Mrs. are practically obsolete! Because I remember when Ms. was disparaged the way you disparaged Latinx
Duane Swacker – who I highly respect – used a term for Asian Americans that is no longer acceptable. I am also old enough to remember when people used that previous term and thought it was fine. What made it change? Blame all those “woke” people. Imagine if the woke people followed the orders of those who told them: “shut up it doesn’t matter if you feel offended, what matters is that white people who want to use that word are offended by you telling them that word isn’t acceptable anymore. And how dare you offend them by expecting them to use any word but the word that they have decided is fine to use.”
In fact, most Americans are like Duane and actually appreciate being told that a term that they use is now considered offensive and are HAPPY not to use it. They don’t immediately turn on the person and attack them by saying ‘how dare you be so woke, now I will hold it against the democrats and only vote for republicans.” It’s nonsense.
That’s why I object to people scapegoating “wokeness”. Being woke is GOOD! It is about respect. It is about kindness.
Stop making being woke into a bad thing. Andrew Sullivan is not someone who is worth listening to when it comes to this subject.
speduktr,
You really ought to do a bit more research on Andrew Sullivan.
I did. He is far more complex than the blanket “How could you ever listen to him!” horror you expressed. (At least that is the way you sound to me.)
speduktr,
I guess only FLERP! is allowed to make blanket expressions of horror like:
“Wokeness is a divisive cancer, and we haven’t begun to see the worst of it.”
I didn’t realize that only certain blanket expressions of horror are acceptable to you. I now understand that blanket expressions of horror directed at Andrew Sullivan are not allowed, but blanket expressions of horror directed at “wokeness” are fine.
Maybe you don’t find it rather horrifying when Andrew Sullivan writes “I’m concerned by the implications of the philosophical roots of the BLM movement. They are deeply illiberal, wedded to critical theory, rooted in an atheist worldview (as all critical theory is) and dedicated to the overthrow of liberal democracy.”
I admit to being far more outraged that Andrew Sullivan would try to denigrate BLM to imply the movement is dedicated to the overthrow of liberal democracy, while I am not nearly as outraged that “wokeness” expects people to be respectful and not use offensive terms like “Kung flu”. So be it.
“Wokeness is a divisive cancer, and we haven’t begun to see the worst of it.” That comment doesn’t bother you, but my criticism of Andrew Sullivan does. Got it.
Only you could take from my comments and conclude that I agree with everything Sullivan says. What I find enlightening about his comments was the implication that total agreement with a particular philosophy is not necessary; we can find common cause and not agree. (He himself is an example of that although not one I would choose to imitate.) Extreme right and left positions can reek of orthodoxy i.e. “My way or the highway!”
For example, I do agree with much of socialism, but certainly not with the version that was practiced in Eastern Europe.
In general, following any ideology rigidly likely leads to symptoms of insanity.
Exactly.
I am disappointed in you, spedukr, as I thought you were more fair in trying to understand other points of view.
“Wokeness is a divisive cancer, and we haven’t begun to see the worst of it.”
You didn’t make any attempt to criticize that outrageous comment – on the contrary, it spurred you to find out more about how evil “wokeness” was by reading the expert on wokeness, Andrew Sullivan
“Extreme right and left positions can reek of orthodoxy i.e. “My way or the highway!”
My point is that the people saying “wokeness is a divisive cancer” are basically saying “my way or the highway” and it should bother you.
I am trying to defend wokeness from “my way or the highway” criticism.
Perhaps if you gave people who are attacked as being “too woke” the same consideration you give the rabidly anti-BLM white male Andrew Sullivan, you might get just a little bit “woke” yourself.
Instead of “wokeness”, I will substitute “teachers unions” so perhaps you might recognize how offensive such attacks are.
The education reform movement that supports charter schools got very popular with parents when they criticized the “extreme orthodoxy” of teachers unions in public schools.
Those critics of teachers unions cited examples of the union protecting pedophile teachers and the union protecting incompetent and lazy teachers and they justified it by explaining that “following any ideology rigidly likely leads to symptoms of insanity.”
In fact, the strongest criticism of the teachers’ union that resonated most with parents and got so many of them to become anti-union was to point out some example of the union’s “extreme orthodoxy” like when the union protected a pedophile teacher.
If you or Mate tried to defend teachers’ unions with a nuanced argument, I would just do what you and Mate did and explain that “following any ideology rigidly likely leads to symptoms of insanity” to justify why I needed to keep talking about all the pedophile teachers the union is protecting because the teachers union follows their ideology so rigidly.
Get it? The anti-union right wingers also say “I’m just criticizing extreme orthodoxy when I bash teachers’ unions when they protect pedophiles and lazy teachers”. Do you believe them?
When people grasp at some supposed example of “extreme orthodoxy” of a movement that is basically a good thing, and then blame unions or wokeness for bad things that happen by pointing out examples of that “extreme orthodoxy”, they have an agenda, whether they admit it or not.
NYC . . . reminds me of welfare queens, Mexican rapists, and murderous Islamists. CBK
^^^
I realize my long post above comparing Andrew Sullivan to those who bash teachers’ unions can be summarized this way:
People who point to extreme examples in attempt to discredit an entire movement — as those who hate teachers’ unions and those who hate “wokeness” so often do — are not arguing in good faith. And you can identify those who aren’t arguing in good faith because they use extreme examples to bash teachers’ unions and they use extreme examples to bash “wokeness”.
It isn’t “nuanced” to keep bringing up pedophile teachers or lazy and incompetent teachers to discredit teachers’ unions. And it isn’t nuanced to keep talking about some extreme example of “wokeness” to discredit an entire movement. And it isn’t nuanced to keep talking about some extreme example of what some BLM protester says to discredit the entire BLM movement.
It is propaganda.
NYC It’s also bad logic . . . aka hasty generalization. Propaganda COMMONLY uses all sorts of bad logic — to its advantage. Trump is a walking example of its use, but also of its influence . . . on those who are not schooled to recognize it.
Sorry . . . but there is a point about ignorance to be had here, not to mention moving such learning (the logical fallacies) to what we mean by CORE in formal education. It can come in under literature or, more generally, philosophy, because it has to do with the opposition of propaganda to truth. NYC gives a good rendition of it.
BTW Plato even talks about the difference between propaganda and truth, between the sophist and the philosopher, in his dialogues. CBK
Crikeys! All I said was I found Sullivan’s essay interesting. He holds some opinions that I find offensive, but that doesn’t stop me from thinking he has some thought provoking ideas. That doesn’t stop me from feeling like there are people on both ends of the political spectrum that demand fidelity to their worldview and are quick to jump on any deviance from their position. I really am tired of the demand for political correctness, which seems to be an ever moving target.
speduktr, this inquisition will never end until you submit or stop responding.
I just waved the white flag.
CBK,
Yes! That’s it exactly! “welfare queens” is not arguing in good faith.
It is frustrating when purveyors of the intellectual version of “welfare queens” like Andrew Sullivan are given legitimacy and credibility! Sullivan is full of hubris. Maybe if he were less arrogant his opinions would be more reasonable.
CBK,
Thank you for your 2nd comment — my knowledge of philosophy is sorely lacking so it was enlightening to read your informed POV.
It is sad to me that our discourse in the country has become so debased.
NYC Exactly: “debased.” CBK
Is it “politically correct” to support teachers’ unions? Is it “politically correct” to support affirmative action?
The phrase “politically correct” has been used to discredit all kinds of things that are actually good, by pointing to some extreme example as if the movement was all about the extreme example while ignoring all the reasons that support for those ideas are good.
“That doesn’t stop me from feeling like there are people on both ends of the political spectrum that demand fidelity to their worldview and are quick to jump on any deviance from their position.”
Sure, and that is a complaint people have about teachers unions, too.
There is a difference between having a reasonable discussion about teachers unions that includes criticism, and having a discussion that begins with “teachers unions are a cancer”. It reminds me of Campbell Brown’s July 2012 Wall Street Journal column “Teachers Unions Go to Bat for Sexual Predators”. Campbell Brown also accused her critics of being too politically correct. That is the game played by the far right to play victim and claim that their critics are being “politically correct” by not giving them the free speech to push their narrative that the union protects pedophile teachers.
I don’t believe that people who begin with “teachers unions are a cancer” or “Teachers Unions Go to Bat for Sexual Predators” are interested in having a real discussion. Do you?
And I don’t believe that people who begin with “Wokeness is a divisive cancer, and we haven’t begun to see the worst of it” are interested in having a real discussion. Do you?
I am pretty sure anything that follows those kinds of comments are extreme examples that are intended to discredit the entire movement.
I was disappointed that you seemed to entirely embrace the “woke is bad” narrative that FLERP! had offered. What bothered you was not that FLERP! said “wokeness is a divisive cancer”, but that I objected to that characterization of wokeness! Would you have been just as bothered if I had objected to Campbell Brown’s characterization of teachers’ unions?
Criticism of all movements is a good thing. But using extreme examples to discredit a good movement should be called out and not legitimized.
Give it a rest. Declare victory if you must. I have no further interest in going down the rabbit hole with you on this topic. We disagree. Enough said.
CBK,
You’ll notice that the latest replies exactly prove the points you made about sophistry!
First they throw out examples of extremism to discredit a movement that is doing good things. Then, instead of addressing some of the points we were discussing about using extreme language, they belittle and announce “enough said” and “give it a rest” (the weasel way to say “shut the f up”)
CBK, did you catch the word “inquisition” being thrown out? I suppose that using that extreme word justifies their right to give the order to “give it a rest” instead of having a conversation? Just one more example of our discourse becoming debased.
NYC Yes . . . the fallacy’s general form is singular, while its array of specific instances is legion. The other fallacies are the same. (Look up “logical fallacies” on the net.)
One example is, though “my experience” is a good starting point for all of us, thinking it must be “EVERYONE’s experience” and that no one can think differently, is what is “hasty” about such generalizations and what leads to a deadening dogmatism. What an eye-opener THAT course was for me. CBK
I don’t believe I threw out any extreme examples. I merely said I found the essay thought provoking. As I said, we disagree on that point. As far as I can tell, you find the man to be totally beyond the pale. That’s okay with me by me.
speduktr I’m not speaking of your own contributions here, but generally only: “extreme” sometimes, but also narrow and self-selective where, for instance, what is omitted would change the meaning entirely. If we or others don’t already know about what is omitted, we too easily take what is stated as the whole picture.
But I think this is also one of the inherent problems of blog-writing . . . the need for brevity often can contribute to misunderstanding even when writers don’t mean to be wrongly selective or to misdirect. CBK
Your response picked up exactly my problem with blogs vs in person conversation. I meant my response for NYCparent. Sorry. I should have clearly identified that, but I always forget that we can never be quite sure where our responses will end up.
cx:That’s okay by me.
CBK says:
““extreme” sometimes, but also narrow and self-selective where, for instance, what is omitted would change the meaning entirely..”
Thank you, CBK, that is so insightful, and I hadn’t thought of it that way. WHAT IS OMITTED would change the meaning entirely. Exactly.
My feeling is that if people are having an online discussion in good faith, and “what is omitted” is unintentional and someone points out what is omitted, they would simply acknowledge what is omitted! They would want to continue the discussion addressing what was omitted — and that can include using an argument to explain why what was omitted is unimportant (and I mean a reasoned argument, not a blanket statement that “what I omitted isn’t important because I say it isn’t”).
They wouldn’t change the subject. They wouldn’t attack the person who wants to discuss what is omitted! They wouldn’t demand the discussion be over now that they have made their point with arguments that omit the very things that should be discussed.
Can you imagine Campbell Brown ever wanting to have a real discussion about what is omitted in her screeds ranting about how the teachers’ union protects sexual predators? Hers isn’t a good faith argument.
And I tried to have a discussion about what is omitted when people make blanket attacks characterizing “wokeness” as some great evil that is destroying the democrats, and it certainly seemed that people were as unwilling to have that discussion as Campbell Brown was unwilling to have a discussion about what she omitted in her blanket attack on teachers unions.
NYC I have a relative (to remain unnamed) who said of Biden that he is so old, he slurs his words. This was when Fox News was still a Trump darling. But of course Fox neglected to say that Biden has had a speech impediment since he was a young boy.
I told her this, and she only came back with a lie that, of course, MSNBC or CNN had “neglected” to talk about–that Trump had paid more than his taxes . . . AHEAD of time.
. . . and so it goes. CBK
I, too, have relatives that have picked up Trump memes as fact. Fortunately, none of them are fanatical Trump followers although after Trump was elected four years ago, I did ask one (who grew up in a Communist Eastern European country) to not send his political “humor” to me anymore. The Socialist label sets him off. Since he graciously stopped sending me those emails, I have no idea how he voted. Four years of Trump may have swayed him. I like him too much to rock the boat and he sends me lots of nonpolitical humor that I send on to others.
speduktr I send only cute and interesting animal pictures and videos to my family member. She likes that, as I do; and so that’s our form of communication. Anything else just gets too hot too fast. She’s evangelical and that means to her that anyone who doesn’t think exactly like she does is “lost.” She says she is only interested in my well-being. I tell her if she were, she would leave me alone about religious issues. She also used to think that “Catholics” were not Christian. . . . too, too incredible. What can one say. CBK
NYCPCP, since I did not quote anything from the article, I’m not sure how this applies, but you seem to be lumping Flerp and I into one woefully wrong individual, I will respond. When it comes to selective quoting, I wonder if you realize that your responses are often full of them. Then, it seems to me, you pile on with a litany of questions that go far beyond what someone said to prove that whatever they said must be fallacious. It is not fallacious to find an argument that someone with whom you may not have much in common interesting. Moreover, it does not make that person/writer basically deceitful because you find it hard to believe in their sincerity. Being conservative does not automatically make someone evil anymore than being progressive does depending on your viewpoint. I am a moderate, What that means to me is I am willing to look for a way forward through compromise between competing philosophies. I can hardly do that if I am unwilling to even examine ideas that don’t necessarily fit with what I believe.
Hooray for moderates.
Boo to people who hear a statement that conflicts with their view of things and can never rest until they have crushed the speaker into submission through endless interrogation. This is an attribute of “wokeness”—the inability to coexist with people who disagree on what they deem to be core principles.
I started this ridiculous avalanche by asserting that wokeness is a cancer. This thread has been a mini-proof of that assertion. I mean, good God.
I would hope this has also been enlightening to anyone wondering why rural voters might not identify with, as the great Michael Fiorillo put it, the “professional managerial class” that drives messaging and policy on the left.
Hooray for moderates.
“This is an attribute of “wokeness”—the inability to coexist with people who disagree on what they deem to be core principles.”
To be fair, Flerp, this is not a problem owned by any one group. Provincialism is an attribute that knows no enemy. Unfortunately, even recognizing our own provincialism is not always easy or comfortable. I suspect it’s not always bad either since it allows us to celebrate or at least enjoy different ways of doing things, not to mention that it allows us to celebrate our own traditions.
CBK,
I hope you will note that the 2 posters here managed to lecture and criticize me yet again — and attack some extreme version of “wokeness” — without actually wanting to have a conversation or even address any of the points we talked about. Sigh.
spedukr was so thoughtful to explain to me that “Being conservative does not automatically make someone evil anymore than being progressive does depending on your viewpoint” (presumably spedukr assumed that I didn’t know that) and provided other helpful insight on how important it is to consider other views.
FLERP! does not appear interested in doing anything but offering up more attacks on that terrible cancer of ‘wokeness’ that is ruining our country and offering more snide criticisms of me for trying to have a conversation about why the kinds of sweeping attack on wokeness that Andrew Sullivan specializes in are not good faith arguments.
If only I had originally replied:
“FLERP! and spedukr, you are absolutely right that wokeness is a cancer and Andrew Sullivan has very important things to say about how wokeness is a cancer”, it would have supported their narrative and no doubt satisfied them.
But it would not have been true.
I have interesting discussions with people who have different opinions when those people actually want a discussion. I have huge respect for Duane Swacker because even though we often disagree, he responds to the content of my replies instead of personally attacking me or professing to feel victimized that I would challenge him.
I wanted to have a discussion about why “wokeness” is not a cancer. I thought it would be interesting to talk about the good things as well as the extremes, because focusing only on the extremes is rather misleading. I also believe that Andrew Sullivan’s criticisms of “wokeness” are similar to his criticisms of BLM. It is always possible to exaggerate an extreme version of those movements — or any movement — and present that extreme version of it to so-called “rural voters”, and convince those voters that means that those movements are very bad and the democrats are very bad for not condemning them as a cancer.
After all, that is exactly what Campbell Brown does with teachers unions.
But just because propaganda does work to make some voters hate a movement does not mean that the movement itself is the cancer. The cancer is the people who use extreme examples to discredit and demonize a movement because it serves their political goal.
So, I will make FLERP! and spedukr happy and agree: “Wokeness” is a cancer and Andrew Sullivan makes very important points that we should all read to understand how much of a cancer wokeness is. And now that we are all enlightened about how awful wokeness is, we can move on to another topic and end the discussion of this one.
That seems to be the only “discussion” that won’t get me attacked by them.
NYC ” . . . when those people actually want a discussion.” Sigh . . . . CBK
You continue to ignore what I said. I never said that “wokeism” was a cancer nor was that ever the focus of my interest in Sullivan’s essay. (I didn’t even know what “wokeism was!) I’m sorry you felt lectured at. That was never my intention. I was trying to explain that my interest in the article was the unfortunate trend in public discourse of people of opposing viewpoints attacking each other rather than listening and trying to at least understand each other’s viewpoint. Because we have often agreed with each other in the past, I have a feeling we are misunderstanding each other now. However we seem to be getting no closer to an understanding, and further discussion at this point most likely isn’t going to get us there.
CBK,
And it is frustrating (although typical) to have people who don’t want to discuss any arguments you are making but instead insist that you don’t have an open mind because you don’t agree with them!
“Teachers Unions are a cancer. How dare you try to disagree with me, you need to be open minded and agree with me that teachers unions are a cancer. It doesn’t matter how many arguments you make about how there are good things about teachers unions, because that is not the topic we are discussing, which is how teachers unions are a cancer. And now that you keep disagreeing with me, it is even more proof of how you just aren’t open minded at all. I’m not listening to any of your arguments and instead I will explain to you how being critical of the teachers union doesn’t make someone evil and it’s important to make a compromise between competing philosophies, and that’s why I find your responses so worthy of criticism. If only you were more moderate, you would understand how important it is to recognize the validity of teachers unions being a cancer instead of immediately jumping in to criticize that statement. What we really need to discuss is how illiberal you are to respond to a comment like teachers union are a cancer instead of just shutting up”. Sigh.
speduktr,
You did NOT respond critically to the comment “Wokeness is a divisive cancer” – in fact, you wanted to read more about it. On the other hand, you responded very critically to all of my attempts to have a discussion about how an extreme comment like “Wokeness is a divisive cancer” are problematic and my reasons for believing that comment was not true.
Are you now saying that I misunderstood and you would have welcomed a discussion about whether or not it was true that wokeness is a divisive cancer?
No, I did not want a discussion of the quote. It had nothing to do with why I became interested in the essay or why I responded to Flerp. In all honesty I didn’t know what you were focusing on. You lost me way back at teachers unions and pedophiles. “Wokeism” was kind of beside the point for me. (Who calls themselves “woke”? Is it a badge of honor or a slight?) I was more interested in how people with different worldviews can/should attempt/learn to work together. Compromise seems to have become a dirty word. (I can’t imagine living with my husband without it!)
speduktr says: “I was more interested in how people with different worldviews can/should attempt/learn to work together. Compromise seems to have become a dirty word. (I can’t imagine living with my husband without it!)”
I strongly believe in compromise and it is certainly is not a dirty word to me. I’m relatively moderate in my views. But it’s generally necessary to have a honest discussion of issues in order to compromise. So when I see comments denouncing “wokeism” as a cancer or a blanket bashing of Black Lives Matters using extreme examples, and those people respond badly to anyone trying to add nuance to the argument, I don’t see a lot of potential for compromise. Making a sweeping attack and then shutting down discussion, does not seem like a recipe for compromise.
Again, not sure why those kinds of “brook no dissent” statements that Sullivan and FLERP! make didn’t bother you but my comments that were intended to lead to a more honest discussion of those issues did bother you so much.
But, whatever. I think your negative response to my comments and not to FLERP!’s comments speaks for itself. It is what it is, and you are right, we don’t need to discuss this anymore.
A quote from the illustrious Andrew Sullivan link that FLERP! provides as a way to inform readers of that evil “wokeness” is the real problem with democrats:
“I’m concerned by the implications of the philosophical roots of the BLM movement. They are deeply illiberal, wedded to critical theory, rooted in an atheist worldview (as all critical theory is) and dedicated to the overthrow of liberal democracy. I’m worried that the genuine concern for mistreatment of African-Americans by law enforcement can be coopted by this kind of extremism. Take the slogan “White Silence = Violence”. The phrase is meaningless without the underpinnings of critical theory. Yet protesters chant it and wear t-shirts proclaiming it.”
Anyone buying this Andrew Sullivan characterization of BLM, in which he educates us poor, ignorant folks about what BLM is really all about?
Maybe instead of all this focus on what the democrats are not doing, it might make more sense to see what the Republicans ARE doing to win elections. Jennifer Rubin’s Washington Post column today is relevant.
“Republicans’ leap into anti-democratic conspiracy theories, climate change denial and economic illiteracy (selling protectionism and fear of immigration) reflects their abiding belief that politics is about inflaming ignorant people — or making people ignorant about the real choices they have. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley (a product of Stanford and Yale Law School), Cruz (Princeton and Harvard Law School), Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton (Harvard and Harvard Law School) and the rest of the possible 2024 Republican contenders are not stupid. But they apparently think their voters are, and they think their political careers depend on voters’ irrationality, bigotry and gullibility.
The MAGA voters are right: Many politicians and media personalities regard them with contempt. But they come from their own party and movement, and they are laughing all the way to the bank. There is nothing they think their voters won’t buy.”
A few brief references to religion in all of the preceding observations?
No mention that pollsters found 1 out of 4 voters based their decisions on abortion- no mention that the GOP used the, “attack on Christianity”, as propaganda to get votes – no mention that bishops of the protected religion said a person can’t be a Democrat and be a member of the protected religion- no recognition that cultural conservatism is inextricably linked to religion, no acknowledgement that rural areas have an older demographic and older people are more religious,…
carry on and expect a different outcome by continuing to ignore the obvious.
Linda, what should we do to Catholics?
Exorcise all of them!
(Hint for those that don’t know me: That’s sarcasm coming from an exorcised Catholic!)
I know of no instance in which Linda ever wrote we should “do [anything] to” anyone claiming to be a member of any religion (scientologists excepted, in my opinion). But we certainly should be aware of and understand that vast swaths of Americans will justify their political actions based on some self-professed “religious” justification, one that more likely than not has little-to-nothing to do with theology or morality. Perhaps we should be more exercised about figuring out ways of exorcising such false arguments and rationalizations. Especially when they enable authoritarian, hypocritical political power.
GregB That’s how innuendo works. For a second, reading Linda’s and then your note, I thought I was reading on “Infowars.” CBK
I don’t know, I don’t read Infowars. Perhaps you meant this:
https://religionnews.com/2020/09/06/catholic-vote-democrats-go-to-hell-priest-james-altman-video-warns-bishop-stirckland/
What to do with Catholics?
Exorcise the Catholics
Send them to the gym
Make them do karate kicks
Until they’re fit and slim
Or send them rock climbing?
Some Dam and Mate I know you cannot see me, but I needed that. CBK
SDP,
Interesting ideas about “what to do with Catholics.”
Any suggestions about “what to do with Jews.”
Be careful as I am one.
And I read last night that all three of Biden’s children married Jews.
Nothing about George Soros, however.
I happen to be both, as are many Hungarians.
Here you go, CBK, your arguments and ideology distilled perfectly:
Diane-
The significant question is, what have the powerful conservative religious done to America with the election of the GOP? And secondarily, what rights have been taken from and, what plans are in place to further erode the rights of, those who the religious have deemed their enemies i.e. people who believe in separation of church and state.
I think we have to step back a bit to make sense of this. Rural/ urban differences are as old as the hills and the subject of farce for centuries. Same with rich & poor, highly vs not very educated, more vs less cultivated et al. The question is more, how did we arrive at the point where the other guy is so incomprehensible that we’re thinking of sending Dems on exploratory expeditions like Livingstone into the African interior? How did rurals become so “other” in the minds of many urban-suburbans (& v.v.)?
We all probably have our theories. Mine have to do with the human tendency to retreat into tribalism– & become vulnerable to conspiracy theory– at times of economic disruption &/or decline.
But we can refine that. Montana teacher says, “Many rural people feel THREATENED that their way of life is being taken away from them.” Well-based, but old news. That way of life has been disappearing steadily for a century due to technological advances and population increase. You could maybe add creeping secularism & demographic changes. Economic decline has accelerated since late ’70’s, bringing in-your-face changes like big-box stores replacing mom&pops.
So: fear & consternation, & the struggle to adapt have been ongoing for quite a while. It remains only to decipher: what’s activating this now into seemingly-insurmountable polarization?
The proximate cause is manipulation of those fears by politicians & media– perhaps in reverse order, but they’re inextricably linked. Media bubbles have always been with us [in my youth, it was Christain-radio-only in the Bible Belt, whose northern edge was just 120 mis south]. But since late ’80’s that’s morphed into multiple silos nationwide, thanks to Reagan’s elimination of Fairness Doctrine & slashing govt funds for NPR/ PBS [–>privatization of funding], digital advances, & the latter’s diminution of broad print/ broadcast profitability. Hence, proliferation of for-profit attention-grabbing negative/ polarizing slants to reportage. Hence, pols’ ability to stir the pot more plausibly, backed by media-silos of their choosing.
Excellent, Ginny. In many rural areas, all radio stations are owned by Sinclair or other rightwing media. I once happened upon one of these stations and listened for an hour. I couldn’t believe the lies and conspiracy theories.
Reagan definitely has a lot to answer for in the destruction of civil, fact based discourse.
Now don’t go bashing Saint Unca Ronnie Raygun!
I have missed, Uncle Swacker! 🙂
Thanks for the kind words. The moderation aspect was too much for me to take. Impossible to have a good back and forth when a post doesn’t show up for however long. Man have I gotten bad when anything less than instantaneous is a problem.
It’s probably WordPress’ fault: it’s very whimsical about what it sends to moderation. This is why it’s much better to download the software and run it from a separate server from WordPress. Then all moderation is completely controlled by the owner and won’t be changed by the WP admins.
Toward solutions of problems well defined by posters on this blog, reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would be a huge contributing factor, maybe even getting adversaries talking again, putting folks like Rush Limbaugh–given birth by its repeal–on notice.
Totally agree.
YEP!
Sounds like yall need to know about People’s Action and organizations like Down Home North Carolina. https://peoplesaction.org/ https://downhomenc.org/ they focus on teaching people to have conversations where they listen deeply and share vulnerably in order to get people to act and vote progressively, especially in rural areas.