Do liberal Democrats really hate rural America?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/talking-to-jesusland/index.html?hp

This New York Times article about some Democrats "who get it" strongly implies the consequences for Democrats who don't. The last sentence is chilling.

many who live in rural areas are ignorant, I've lived in rural areas and know first hand it is true.

I don't think it's necessarily hate, I just don't have much use for the ignorant.

then it is in our party's best interests to put education at the top of a long list of priorities.
The better educated people are, the more likely they are to vote with the Democrats, because our agenda favors the ordinary citizen. They have to be able to realize when they are being suckered with wedge issues that make them vote against their interests.

same results, at some point you cut your losses. Someone is going to be last in testing scores, someone is going to be last on every list. It's not worth putting a state in massive debt to be able to say "we have the second dumbest people." At some point you realize a good portion of your population is ignorant and stop being ignorant to it yourself.

The money spent/educational results relationship isn't necessarily causitive, the reverse is certainly true. The less money you spend, the worse your results are likely to be, but there is a point of diminishing returns for more money spent. Is there a Plan B in your state?

it seems to fix all their problems???

RGBolen

Sir

It was the EDUCATION Revolution after 1945, when thousands, or millions of american soldiers was coming home from WW2, that started US as the superpower they claim to be today.. It was the education revolution who was putting the american man on the mon (not that the soviets was bad in education, they had some acidness when the lunar rocket blow up too) It was the EDUCATION who was putting US as one of the best places to go to, when you wanted a really good education (even that France, Germany and UK had pretty decent schools to, and if you was living on the other side of the wall, many eastern country too had decent educational instituions..)

Now it looks like the leaders of US want the people to be ignorant, both of eduction and the world at large?.. Why do they do that.. Just to cut your losses?. Good grief, if US had spend half the money they now are spending on the Iraq war in the education of the young, you would be half way to Mars at this time.... Not be wasting billions of Dollar in a war you might never vin...

I guess it is better to waste all this money on wars, than to educate the american public, so they can be ignorant of the world.. More easy to manipulate this way I guess... Hey EVEN THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA have understand that E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N is something they want for their public. And they have more student in high educational places than everyone else in the world...

Not surprising then, if US was falling down the lather from greatness.. When it is better to "cut your losses" than work harder, to educate pepole... To be EDUCATED is one of the most important thing we can hope for... It is a duty all sivilized country have to give their peopoles. Even if it "cost" mutch.. If US can't afford education for their peopole, why can country like India and China do it, they are not that rich compared to the US...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

Education here is purposefully being undermined as a means to keep the people from thinking; the curricula across the board is being manipulated so that it covers just the "facts" and does not allow critical thinking or creative problem solving skills development, nor does it allow time for the students to analyze and apply the information they may glean from all the rote learning. Why? because to keep the masses uninformed, ill-informed, or misinformed keeps them from questioning why there is such a discrepancy between the haves and have nots, both in regard to power and money. Kind of off topic here, but as the rural are being "rumored" to be so ill-educated (no more than the rest of the country), thought I'd use your post as a spring board to my soap box regarding the death of education here, all kids are losing out, and its not due to the teachers, they try as best they can with what the Federal Mandates allow them. By the way, Diclotican, I'm not sure what your native language is, but your English sure beats the heck out of the only other language I know at all, a very little Spanish. Peace, Mary

maryf

It is bad to se that US, or many in the "Power" on purpose are undermining what it means to get educated. To keep people from thinking itself and so on... I might have had some luck when I was in school, I had good teachers who worked hard to get us to thing self... Even that I never was the best student I hope they was teaching my something I could have with my up in grown up age;).

To keep the masses uninformed, ill informed or misinformed is something that is really bad.. The masses is maybe more easy to rule over, but over time you are cutting the brance you are sitting on in the tree.. And then it is going downhill...

Many american, as we on this side of the pound, can be ill-informed, or not informed it all of the world, and why many people today are seeing US are a greater danger to the world, then lats say Saddam Hussein was... To me it looks like many american can't care less of the world.. One of my close family members was in US for some weeks ago, and she had some problems coming to US... And she had all the papers... But the machines could not read her passport.. But after some up and down, she and the rest of the group was allowed coming in i US.. And even that she had a nice time in US, she was not exactly impressed of what she was seeing, of ignorant american. And as she also pointed out.. Even in the Eastern Europe, before the Wall was gone, they treated their visitors with more respect than this... :eyes:

I know that is not the teachers fault that kids are not given an decent education, that is something that people longer up in the system are doing... As in many other country I can thing about.. Even our own little country...

My native language is Norwegian, I'm from Norway. A small country in the north of Europe. Country like Sweden, Denmark and Finland are maybe more know to the rest of the world.. But that long little country that are on the front of the map, when you are looking over Scandinavia is Norway.. A small country, with a really LONG coast:). If you have had english as your second language since 3 grade, you might pick up something here and there.. And I have been reading a lot of english lately so I don't loose the language all together... And I have also using the Dictionary a lot, to get it "some right" then...

Tried to learn Spanish some year ago, failed miserable after a semester.. So I guess you are better there than I am;)

Peace to you too Mary:)

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

Especially: "To keep the masses uninformed, ill informed or misinformed is something that is really bad.. The masses is maybe more easy to rule over, but over time you are cutting the brance you are sitting on in the tree.. And then it is going downhill..."

So true IF those in control of this country want the quality of work to remain the same, which I hope they do. As the global society now allows them to get equal work done at a fraction of the cost in other (mostly "third world" countries), and not have to provide the benefits and maintain the strictures such as safety and reasonable worker hours placed on them here, maybe they don't care??

And I know of Norway, I'd love to visit someday! Keep up your English studies, you are doing very well! and I don't know a word of Norwegian, I don't believe! :) Mary

maryf

The quality of education should be an important thing for every country in the 21 century.. And as the poorer country are using more and more money in the education, it would promise that the competition to get the bright and good would be harder.. Today US have that "edge" but China and India are two country who are using more and more money in the school sector. Specially in China, the Schools are one of the way for many millions who maybe else newer would have given a better life to excel, and get a decent education... And a much better future than their parents had... I know that I would tell my children, when the time comes to study hard and to the best they can do...Nothing more, but to try to do their best...

You do;). Good. You are welcome to come, we like visitors here;). And I guess you would have a nice time here when you arrive. Even that it could be little on the expensive side of what you are used to... Norway are no low cost country! Norwegian are not that difficult to learn, I have learned it:evilgrin: But don't worry, 99 prosent of the population can english... So it would not be difficult to get around if you come..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

Nice discussion! and you'll be a good parent I'm sure, very mindful! Peace, Mary

Sorry, it's there in your attitude. Most human beings are very worthy, no matter what their formal education. You, sir, are judging by the wrong yardstick. Life will probably teach you some hard lessons which I hope you learn well.

I don't deny the inherent worth of ignorant people as people. Most are ignorant because they chose to remain ignorant, and of course ignorance is not limited to rural inhabitants, it just seems by some to be revered there.

Typical ignorant observation of a "so-called" liberal. Judging the ignorant, while willfully ignorant of their own ignorance. If it weren't so predictably laughable, it would be pathetic.

Stereotypical monochromatic non-thinking, by using racist profiles by professed non-racists.

So......Obamite.

So a person quite a bit more intelligent than you and I could validly say about you, "he is ignorant because he chooses to remain ignorant" or that you have nothing to teach him, as we're all more ignorant than some and smarter than others, yes?

Edited: clarity

To a point you're right, they choose to remain that way, but to a large extent they choose to remain that way because we don't reach out to them and the other side does. That doesn't mean they can't be reached.

The older people in particular while they are still around might remember that in the period after WWII and such corporate taxes were pretty high and unions fairly strong, it also happened to be a time period where the difference between the top few percent and the rest of us was much smaller than today. That's generally looked back on as a golden age of sorts for a lot of the nation and it wouldn't hurt for us to be reminding them of why.

The repubs went to work on them back in the 70s or so, the religious right in particular. The evangelicals had supported Carter then he disappointed them so they shifted from being fairly non-political and willing to jump in on civil rights issues and other favorites of the left to the more recent status of caring mostly about gay marriage and abortion related issues. Parts of the movement are getting uncomfortable with that especially given the backlash against religion in government these days and there has never been a better time to start talking with these people ourselves. It took years, yeah, but the repubs moved them from their old ways to new ones. Why can't we?

"Stereotypes come from somewhere, not just thin air"

You're right-- they do come from somewhere. They come from fear of those who are different.

And for me, I'd rather be in the company of the ignorant rather than in the company of the anti-social-- the ignorant seem to judge others less...

I am anti-social. I think we are equally judgemental. :rofl:

I just base mine on observation and they base theirs on outdated ideals. :shrug:

edited for typos

Well, I just base mine on observation too-- and my observations tend to show that the ignorant are simply nice people trying to get along, while the anti-social people simply revel in being anti-social (read:simply mean and uncivil).

But I'm basing this on my owned skewed definition of "ignorant" which I read to mean simply those who had to drop out of school for whatever reason and/or haven't had as much education as was afforded to many others.

If not-- then we're all ignorant as compared to some, and geniuses compared to others. If that's the case, then I suppose an college professor somewhere is quite validly saying about you and I, "they base theirs on outdated ideals...".

Sterotypes come from ignorance. Many a defense attorney has to work like h*** to get jurors to see that just because some one is charged with a crime, he is not guilty of it. Evidence is required to convict someone. It is not true that where there is smoke there is fire. It is not true that people who live in rural areas are ignorant. It doesn't take a college education to be wise. One person's experience is not a scientific fact. I am sorry that you lived among the "ignorant" and it colored your perception of rural areas.

OK

Many of the stupidest, barely socially functional people I have ever met lived in Washington DC.

It is ridiculous to claim that one part of the country is inherently better than another. Yet I see that attitude on DU all the time.

those who are most ignorant.

If the going ever gets really tough, they will be the first to perish.

What exactly are you saying? That only ignorant people live in rural areas, or that ignorant people only live in rural areas?

That arrogant, superior, better than you attitude is the stereotype we poor old ignorant country bumpkins hear about you "city folk". Fortunately most of us recognize stereotypes for what they are and judge a man/woman on their own merits. Your preconceived notions about the education level of us poor old county idiots, perfectly demonstrates your prejudice, and the reason Democrats have problems here. I don't care how well educated or enlightened you are, it is hard to believe a person will act to your benefit when they spend every waking moment denigrating the way you live, your culture and the communities you live in. That being said, I have lived all over the world in the last twenty years, currently in DC, and I can tell you there are plenty ignorant people in the "big city" as well. It is not a "rural" phenomenon, but a reflection of our current educational system which teaches to pass tests instead of critical thinking and creative skills.

power in the electoral college. That isn't in America's best interests.

Google "great compromise".

It's working okay.

Does that apply to slavery?

And I think the last seven and a half years alone demonstrate that it's not working OK.

It's not "liberal" versus "rural." There are quite a few liberals who live in rural areas.

The split is between "urban" and "rural." Urban areas, which tend to be more liberal, generally have disdain for rural areas. That's nothing that originated with the Democrats. In fact, it's been going on for centuries.

"Pagan" and "heathens" were ways the cultured urban dwellers in ancient used to refer to rural dwellers who they saw as unsophisticated rubes.

The flip side is that the rural folks have just as much disdain for the "city people," so their victimization rings hollow.

I grew up in a small town and now live in a small town. The only time that I have not lived in a small town is when I have lived in a big town, and when I lived in NYC. Living in a small town is not as closed off as it once was. People travel more now, have higher educations, and the world has been even opened up to some people by tv. There are still ignorant people here, in fact there are plenty of them and some of them are proud democrats. But I will tell you that the most outspoken of the hateful republicans here are not the country people but the frat boys from the university, the business people that think supporting the right is supporting the troops and capitalism, and the gun totting idiots that think the liberal are going to take away their guns that make them feel like men.

The problem with rural voters is that they think they have no power, and when someone tells them that they do, they eat it up. In Illinois, Chicago contols the vote. Most of the time, I say "thank heavens" they do. But like you say, there has been a long running war of words between Chicago and Southern Illinois. They call us "hillbillies" and we say that they are pushy, rude and not courteous. There are a lot of Chicagoians that attend SIU here and maybe we have learned to be more open to each other, but I don't know.

As far as the cultured urban dwellers calling the urban folk "heathens". This may be an example of classism more than anything else. There are a lot of racist people here in the rural areas, but to be truthful, there were a lot of racist there in NYC also. Just because you live in a diverse area does not mean you accept the diversity.

I don't think people here feel victimized, they resent that their vote does not count. They probably feel like they are lucky not to live in urban areas. Lucky to have fresh air. Lucky to have grass and tress instead of concrete and buildings to look at. Personally, I see good and bad things about both place. I loved NYC and would have loved to go back, but I see things here that I love also.

"gun totting (sic) idiots." You doing it certainly reinforces the impressions discussed in the article.

I am a rural dweller. I was talking about the republicans who protest against the anti-war protesters. In fact, I was saying that most rural America's are not like this and that these sterotypes are realy a minority. GEEESH, I was trying to protest the rural people all being judged as the same and you took one thing and did it anyway. :shrug:

Yes, rural people own guns. So do urban people. The difference is rural people don't use them to kill others quite as often as urban people do.

I have lived all over the world - in cities and in rural areas. Because of the internet, urban - rural differences are breaking down at a very rapid rate.

I grew up on a farm. Went to college. Moved to the suburbs of Chicago. Moved to Chicago proper.

I ran into all that hatred for rural folks in the suburbs of Chicago. In Chicago proper I found that hillbillies are just another ethnic group. And as one that almost speaks English, more welcome than most.

I ALWAYS bring this up when I am back in southern Indiana for a visit.

"Same thing," they reply, "it's still a bunch of elitist liberals looking down on you in the suburbs."

"No, the suburbs were staunchly Conservative and Republican to the core. And they hate you people. They love the fact that you vote for them, but they hate everything about you. You notice it's never some small town guy the Republicans nominate, but rather folks from wealthy suburbs. Who were the last two small town Presidents? Clinton and Carter! That's who.

"Besides, a minute before we started talking politics, you were talking about the city's being dirty and full of poor people. Sort of like ... right here. I am from here and have actually lived with both groups. I can assure you that you have a hell of a lot more in common with those liberal city folk than you do with those rich, conservative republicans out in the 'burbs."

Incidentally, southern Indiana is gorgeous. I used to live in Bloomington, and just loved the gentle hills around there. And those gorgeous southern Indiana accents the women had! Like a soft southern drawl.

With the "suburban swing voter" we compromise on the economy. Common wisdom says we'd have to compromise on social issues to get the rural vote.

My hometown (Loogootee) was fairly liberal on such issues when I was growing up. They continued in that vein, and voted Democrat, right up until 1994 when the gun control legislation was passed. They haven't voted for a national Democrat since.

Were you to go there and talk with people you'd hear every rightwing argument imaginable. But they opposed many of those very same things when I was a kid. Once gun control put them in the Republican ranks, they started listening to and learning to parrot all the rightwing stuff.

Bad thing is, those who came of age since then know no other way. The thirty-something and twenty-something crowd is just as nasty as any GOPer you'd want to see.


There was one other item of equal importance to gun control. And that is the media. I remember going down for a visit once during the 2000 election. After a week of covering some Gore "lie" 24x7 the Chicago media had switched to reporting the debunking of the lie. Consecutively some Bush gaffe had just occurred. Down in southern Indiana? All the local news was still on the Gore "lie". The truth was reported nowhere. And the Bush gaffe? Again, nothing.

This 100% rightwing media thing really took over these rural areas in the 90s. We have to remember that most people only get half an hour of broadcast national TV news a day. The bulk of their news comes from radio, local TV, and local newspapers. When that becomes 100% rightwing then you have 99% of their news coming from rightwing sources. Worse yet, the Democratic Party put the DLC in charge who decided to abandon these regions so that you even ended up with local Democratic officials spreading rightwing propaganda. Why should an Indiana Democrat help the national candidate when the DNC under DLC control refused to help Indiana Democrats?

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

JB is from Winchester, Virginia. After living in the west for many years he returned to Winchester to live and he writes about the Scots Irish people and the Borderer peoples of the U.S. who vote as staunch Republicans. It's an eye opener.

I quickly replied to you before reading it all the way though, myself. I intend to go back to it right now. Just wanted to hurry and tell you about the book since I just finished it the other day. This is a very important topic.

These people are saturated in Republican grassroots action. Frankly, I don't know how we'll overcome that. Perhaps right wing policies will help us since they keep the people down.

The thing is, Bageant asserts that these people don't aspire to education and like fighting for their country, right or wrong. The historic experience of fighting constantly with England affects their general outlook. It brought back Reverend Parsley's sermon where he says "We get off on war!". That outraged me until I realized that he wasn't talking to me but the Sctos Irish of Amercia.

Next, I want to read Jim Webb's book on the subject - Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America.

“This fine book sheds a devastating light on Bush & Co.'s notorious 'base,' i.e. America's white working class, whose members have been ravaged by the very party that purports to take their side. Meanwhile, the left has largely turned them out, or even laughed at their predicament. Of their degraded state—and, therefore, ours—Joe Bageant writes like an avenging angel.”
—Mark Crispin Miller, author of Fooled Again: The Real Case for Election Reform

You think a lot of DUers are "turning them out or even laughing at their predicament?"

I'm a slow reader but finished it reading off and on over 3 days. It should be available at your library.

I honestly don't believe that the left has turned it's back on that segment of our population. I think it's more like giving up where you don't think you can win. But Bageant tells us how we can make inroads using grass roots action. And that's tough because we've been so maligned. In one chapter he describes their electing Bush as being like electing their very own William Wallace. How do we counter that? I mean William Wallace - holy cats!

But this, the ignorant elevating Bush to a William Wallace like status, shows how easily influenced my people are.

I say my people because I am from Southeast Ohio. And I regret to say that I must confirm these stereotypes. They are my friends and they are stupid to the bone. They suspect you if you speak properly. They suspect you if you read. Many adult men in my area have never read a book in their entire lives. They're too busy workin'. If you wouldn't shoot a deer out of season you are not one of them. "Friends in low places" are preferable to weirdos from the land of fruits and nuts-California.

Barack Obama will never appeal to rural folks in Appalachia because he is as foreign and alien as if he really were a Muslim from Iran.

The LEFT doesn't fill the airwaves with hatred.

The LEFT doesn't prescribe social mores, spiritual beliefs or family behavior.

The LEFT hasn't institutionalized ridiculing their opposition all over the media. I notice "conservative" is not a dirty word in this culture.

And, America doesn't hate Democrats. America is electing Democrats even in Republican strongholds.

He was accepted here by those who met him, heard him or was open to him. Those that are right leaning are not going to accept any democrat. If you look at the counties that went for Hillary here, they are the same counties that went for Keyes in 2004 for the Senate, The only difference is that Keyes won them by a larger margin. By the way, Illinois has an open primary. Republicans can vote in the Democratic one, and they did.

It's sad to see so many people buying into what is obviously a manufactured wedge.

When someone with a carbon footprint a hundred times the size of mine tells me what I need to do without while not making significant changes in his or her lifestyle, that person is acting like an elitist.

And I don't have to give you examples of Republican elitism. They abound.

of left or right.

Elitists and hypocrites reside on both sides of the aisle, but it just so happens that the left side of the aisle is right. :) And there's way more on the other side.

And I have a general disdain for prideful ignorance, bigotry, and people who vote for morons like bush.

I'm not attempting to describe all rural folks, just the majority of them.

It has nothing to do with me being a Liberal. I felt that way when I was a politically ignorant puke as well. Sue me I like people who share my "values" as they say. :shrug:

“This is why America hates Democrats,” per Mike Warner, Virginia gov. (from article)

First, in small communities, being a little "different" you stick out like a sore thumb and are going to get treated as such. So you move to the big city where there are more who are like you, by the sheer odds of numbers, and you have someone you can diss the rednecks with.

they don't

Ask one of these rural republicans how they feel about San Francisco, New York City, Boston, Vermont, Massachusetts or basically the entire west and east coast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4-vEwD_7Hk

FTR, American is becoming less rural and more urban & suburban. So I don't see what the big issue is anyway.

I would say there is some hatred to be honest. When you consider that huge swaths of the rural parts of the US are voting mainly/solely because they want to oppress blacks, gays, latinos and anyone who doesn't fit their narrow mindset and they are upset that these groups are getting too 'uppity', some resistance is guaranteed. The fact that blacks were starting to be treated halfway decently is why the south went republican. The fact that mexicans are walking around freely and speaking spanish and that gays are getting married is a major voting issue in the southwest and rural western areas.

States rights, gay marriage, immigration and women's reproduction (aka the desire to control women) are major issues in rural parts. And all are just coy ways for heterosexual, white men to vote to stop non whites, gays and women from enjoying the same rights they get.

Its not hate to be bothered by that, but if you aren't upset by it then I don't know why.

I really don't see as much hate from the liberals directed at conservative voters (much of it is directed at politicians) and the hate I do see usually comes from people who these conservative rural voters are actively trying to oppress. ie, gays, blacks, latinos, scientists and people who sympathize with them.

Down on bended knees, as I ask you to say "the conservative rural voter". I am a rural voter, and I vote very very liberal.

I am a rural voter who is very liberal too. But I feel like we are pretty isolated from each other here. Maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong people. Part of it is just because all the other liberals I knew in this area left to go somewhere else.

I got accousted because in a earlier post I mentioned the loud mouthed republicans, one of them being the "gun totting idiots" that think every liberal is going to take away his guns. I was thinking aboout when I protested the war, and these guys would stand across the street with both their American and rebel flags and shout hateful things at us. I was saying these are the extreme of what you will find in the rural areas and not the average. I guess I should have made myself more clear.

Hate is a 2 way street but I seriously don't see as much hate coming from liberals the way I see it directed towards them. Maybe I am not watching the wrong people. There is hate, but I just don't see it as much but perhaps that is because I grew up in red, rural counties. If I grew up in San Francisco my views would probably be different.

Anyway, I do think that we should work on not being rude to people just because we don't agree with them, and probably one of the best ways to do that is to unite together to fight a common enemy. ie terrorism, climate change, energy independence, the harm to the US economy.

We cannot "win over" all the rural, Southern, working-class voters, but we can win a lot of them back (and I do mean back, since the Democratic Party used to have a lot more support among these people).

There is an uncertain balance sheet of hatred. I've heard much of the hatred toward liberals (particularly in the right-wing media like Fox) you have described, and I see it come the other way every day in "Forums: Guns". Here, many folks think being pro-2A is synonymous with being Right Wing (RW), and act accordingly. And unfortunately, some of my liberal friends identify gun-owners as being less educated, less intelligent, less cultured, when research on this shows it not to be true. Gun ownership seems to be conflated with being rural, white, Southern, etc. One thing for sure: I have never seen the intensity of animosity toward rural, Southern, working-class people greater than it is now.

As the special elections in Mississippi and Louisiana have shown the south is willing to vote democrat in federal elections (most of their senators and almost all of their electoral votes go GOP right now).

However to do that you have to take abortion, gay rights, immigration, civil rights, gun rights, flag burning and various other social issues off the table by taking GOP stances on them. ie, you will have a dem and a GOP candidate who are identical on these issues but with a dem who is mostly in line with the other dems on foreign policy, economics, taxes, healthcare, infrastructure, education, labor rights, etc.

It is a tradeoff, but that seems to be the only way to win the south. I could be wrong, but I doubt a progressive like Kucinich could win there.

Another good way to win the south is just to try harder to increase turnout among democrats there. Mississippi is 40% black. Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama & Georgia are 30% black. There is no reason why they shouldn't be a democrat stronghold because of that fact. There are enough white and latino democrats to elect democrat senators in the south if you can just increase voter turnout.

Anyway, my view is that I don't think we 'need' southern electoral votes per se to win the presidency. Winning the west coast, northern midwest and northeast alone will give the dems 250 electoral votes. They only need a swing state or the latino heavy southwest to get to 270 at that point.

Representatives, IMO, aren't that important as you only need a simple majority and the south is a little more tolerant to dem representatives than they are to dem presidents and senators.

However there are very few southern dem senators. There are 13 southern states, but 21 GOP senators come from there. The other 28 GOP senators come from the other 37 states. So in the south 81% of senators are republican. Outside the south only 38% of senators are republican. So the south is still a senate stronghold. Because of that, and because senate races are statewide I think that working hard to increase turnout among blacks and the poor in souther states to get to the 51% majority needed to win is a better strategy than trying to win over republicans in the south. That is my view on the subject. By the south I mean Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina & Virginia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:110th_US_Congress_Senate.svg

Jesus H. Christ---you're equating the quantity of right wing venom spewed by a massive media concern like Fox News, with the few pro-gun control posts that still turn up in our puny little DU Gun Dungeon? And that's your notion of "an uncertain balance of hatred"? Un-fucking-believable. That bears repeating: Un-fucking-believable.

Instead of engaging in your usual bashing of liberal Democrats with a thinly-veiled, gun propaganda flame-bait thread like this one, how about tending to your own crew for a change? There's a poll down in the Gungeon right now, with 46% of the respondents indicating that they're ready to vote Republican, solely on the basis of gun policy (another 3% of the charming respondents state that they're going to sit out the election, to "spite the Dems"). Do you think those people need to be approached and reasoned with---or is all this just the fault of the liberal Democrats, yet again? If gun militants are characterized as being right wing, it's only because they furnish such blatant evidence of it. On a daily basis. Right here at DU.....

And if you can point out any part of my prior post which calls for the purging of you or anybody else, I'd like to hear about it.....

As if I'm going to accept criticism from a gun militant about a lack of manners.....

"I have never seen the intensity of animosity toward rural, Southern, working-class people greater than it is now."

I agree. People forget that in the reddest of red areas, 40-45% of the people are Democrats, and they are often much stronger Democrats than you find anywhere else - old school New Deal Dems, rather than the weak and pale modern imitations of Democrats we find in the suburbs. In farm country, it is not as though the Republican voting households own firearms and the Democratic voting households do not. There are dozens of issues promoted by modern liberalism, or promoted in a way by modern liberals, that have nothing to do with fighting the right wing or promoting the traditional principles and ideals of the party, but rather promote the gentrification of the society. That gentrification program actually is very conservative politically, no matter how many good causes we adorn it with as window dressing.

Conservatives -- urban or rural -- don't like us because we're liberal edging on socialist. Even the most "conservative" and rural section of our state sends a VT Progressive (socialist) to the State House.

But it's sure as hell not because we're urban. Our "big city" has a population of 38,889.

Rural areas don't have to be conservative, and historically some of the most rural areas of the US have been some of the furthest left sections of the US. Its an issue of inclusion and organizing. We're about to reap the first rewards of the 50-state policy (i.e., inclusion and organizing). Keep it up, and the next "What's the Matter with Kansas" will be a lament written by Republicans.

Being rural does not mean merely living out in the country. In fact, thinking that it does is a reflection of the bias we are talking about on this thread. Farming areas around the country are filling up with suburban refugees. They bring their attitudes and lifestyles with them. Nowhere is this more true than in New England, especially Vermont.

Much of Vermont, Northern Vermont in particular, is still extremely rural in the true sense, from what I've seen, much of New England too although you are right, its been a steady movement north from NY into NE since 9/11/01. (most of Conn. is lost to suburbia) There are a lot of urban/suburban "refugees" where I live in the northern Catskills too, but alot of true farmers and real "old" families that comprise much of the populous too, and a strong sense of community. Its been my experience living in upstate NY for 50 years, that the farther you get from the interstate and major state highways, the more truly rural life becomes. And in this neck of the woods that goes pretty much along with a lot of poverty thrown in. The dairy farm, horse farm, orchard, and vineyard owners have their own strata of elitism (horse farms are invariably wealthy and frequently owned by Nyorkers from NYC, and run by locals), the others are mostly old families diminishing by the day.

Not sure my point :) but rural is in pockets where one least expects it, including New Jersey!

Thanks for your observations.

Hopefully the mixing might actually work to make folks realize that we aren't as different as we like to think, as I say below, if we don't start talking to those "different", those we feel in opposition to, the boat we're all in together will start to sink, IMO.

The arrival of suburbanites has a dramatic and negative effect on farming country. The wealth gap, and the attitude gap are severe. It is almost a war. Suburbanites have the resources to build their own insulated lives rather than integrate into the rural community, and they inevitably bring all of the problems from suburbia with them. Land prices are driven up, and farm land disappears. Development follows, and soon we have little suburbia grafted into farm country. Farmers and rural people don't merely imagine that they are under assault because they are ignorant or backward or fearful, as others have suggested, they are under assault by this invasion. This is playing out in hundreds of farming communities around the country.

You are absolutely right in this regard, and the farms are critical and battling for their land, thanks for pushing your argument. :toast: Here in NY not only are the land prices driven up, but the property taxes due to the increased infrastructure cost demands are forcing many old family farms to fold up or decrease in size. Still I do think we need to get these folks talking, if we have to scream at the newbie suburbanites to make them see the point that each has an equal voice,and that the farms are critical and their lawns not so much, so be it, town hall meetings are becoming popular around here. thanks again for the lesson! :) (edit to mildly embellish a point)

Yes I read the article, and it struck me as completely one-sided. A lot of whining about how the Dems should try more to understand and compromise with the rural right.

HORSE HOCKEY.

When was the last time the Right compromised with Dems/liberals on these "cultural" matters? For at least 20 years they've controlled the message, and it's been a relentless attack on the "secularism" and "intellectual elitism" of the left.

Not only have the media followed along and condescended to these RW fantasies, not only has BushCo inflamed, practiced and condoned them ("godless liberals", "terrorist sympathizers", etc) and all but destroyed our education and science fields with them, but the frickin DEMS have been kissing up to these unfounded notions too.

Yes there is a divide in America and it's been exploited and exacerbated by the right -- for TOO LONG.

The ONLY thing I want to know at this point is when the Dems are going to stop compromising and start controlling the message.

You are assuming that the right wing propaganda, which we hate, somehow represents or speaks for some mass of people out there, whom you then naturally enough also hate.

The right - the power behind the right wing propaganda - does not care about any cultural issues. Nor do they represent any mass of people. The main purpose of the propaganda is not to rally or speak for some mass of evil people - whom we see variously described here as "fundy, knuckledraggers, toothless, ignorant, racist, gun-nut" and on and on in an ongoing arrogant and self-righteous hate fest - the purpose is to get you and I riled up and angry and to see then dutifully the people as our enemies and to then hate them. That creates a political logjam, distracts everyone, and leaves the wealthy and powerful free to pursue their true agenda which involves power and economics, not cultural issues. The right wing propaganda is more effective on us, and we are more influenced by it, than Republican voting people are. The antidote to the message that we imagine the right wing propaganda to be delivering is not to take the opposite position and to engage in a phony culture war with half of the population, rather it is to refuse to dance to their tune at all, to refuse to take up either of the two positions that they have created and assigned to us. Anything less is to be a mere puppet on a string, every bit as much as any Republican voting person ever was, and probably more so.

But he doesn't.

If you want to know about rural ask me.

We have a volunteer fire dept.

We have rural US postal services.

I have a couple of hundred cow-calf pairs to the south bordering my property, and horses on the property to the north. I live on a dirt road.

In Montana.

Barack is leading Hillary in the Lee Newspaper poll of last Sunday by 17% here in Montana. We have one of the most liberal constitutions in the country. We have a constitutional right to clean air and water, and an explicit right to privacy. We were the birthplace of the Wobblies, aka The Workers of the World.

Goes to show what you and Bai don't know. Course Austin is a big city, it's not rural in the least. And so is NY,NY. So for either of you to attempt to make a point about rural America vis a vis Barack Obama is kind of silly. But go for it, anyway, it cracks me up!

I lived on the family ranch for three years. Did animal doctoring, put in gardens, including one behind the kitchen for vegetables, land and water management with our neighbors, had a minimum of contact with "the liberal media" -- we were about 60% self sufficient which was cool, considering we had to start by cleaning up the whole place after it had been used as a car dump for fifteen years. We had a dirt road, too, that flooded if it rained for more than an hour. We used to call it the Big Muddy. lol

I'm thinking that for every expression of distrust urban / rural folks say out loud, there's also a wish to experience the other way of living.

This could be a fertile ground for Democrats seeking to build a coalition. Our central concerns are, at bottom, the same ones.

great folks and there are assholes everywhere, to be blunt about it.

I always liked what Tom Robbins wrote:

"There are two kinds of people in this world; One kind thinks there are two kinds of people. The other kind knows better."

Articles like the one linked in the OP attempt to exaggerate our differences, and to divide us based on false or random criteria.

We are all one people.

Although saying the haves vs the have nots is divisive as well, it is the division that most needs to be addressed. The haves do not want the have nots getting along, because we are 90% or more of the world, so we have to join forces. When folks start talking to folks whether in the city, country, Dem or Reb. or whatever, one on one, most really do recognize that we "ain't" all that different.

Look at the source of the article, NY times, complicit as any in dividing us on a regular basis.

Even talking to the people we find most distasteful a rural farmer for some, a city businessman, a christian conservative, a city liberal, a homeless person, a well off snob, an intellectual, a nascar fan, a young punk, and old crank, if we can't each recognize the humanity in each and reach for that as we reach out to talk to those most abhorant to each of us(not talking about Dick C. here!or any of the 1% filthy rich), we have lost our humanity. Try understanding why, how, etc. Ask a question, "why do you like Nascar?" It might take some practice, but if we don't start talking and communicating with each other, we'll all be in the same boat still, and it will be sinking. Start bailing folks, start trying to talk to your "enemies" (they aren't the real ones), who knows we're all ignorant to some degree and we might learn how to get out of this mess. thanks for letting me spiel, Mary

we have a river called the Big Muddy here in SI, in fact it looks as brown as your flooded road probably does. We also have one called the Little Muddy. :rofl:

lumping all of rural USA together is like putting all cities in one category and saying they are all like Dallas Texas. This is why people in the rural areas get turned off. Obama is popular here also, but folks like Hillary and the republicans paint him as an elitist and that he doesn't respect them. Because Hillary is a democrat, some people here begin to wonder. They would never had the doubts if a republican had attacked him. That is what has made me so mad at her campaign.

'Nascar tracks' and I found a list of where they are located. By and large they are in urban areas. This makes sense because that's where the promoters are going to sell the most tickets, where there is a population concentration to fill seats.

So urban motorheads are Warners base? But that's not what the article says.


Here he Bai writes this, "In the summer of 2005, Mark Warner, then Virginia’s governor and a likely candidate for president, was the honored guest at a meeting of liberal donors just north of San Francisco—the same kind of crowd to whom Barack Obama was talking last week when he made his comments about bitterness, guns and religion.

How would Bai know that? Was he at both events? The same kind of crowd? Are Warner and Obama supporters interchangeable?

I'm sorry, I prefer the cognitive linguistic approach of Rock Ridge Institute to Bai's insinuation that Democrats in urban Democratic strongholds are just more elitist than anyone else in the country. I find that untrue as well as counter productive. It's both poor analysis and it's being done to push an agenda. Remember Spiro Agnew?

However, areas around NASCAR tracks and areas around SF are quite different.

Much of what passes for "rural" America is in fact the sprawling suburbs around major Southern cities, made up of folks pushed off farms or seeking some kind of better job. I think the point is that the Democratic Party needs to better address folks which used to make up its base. Frankly, Obama should campaign throughout the South (esp. Mississippi, Florida, maybe South Carolina), much as Lady Bird Johnson did for Lyndon in 1964. This helped mute the backlash against the '64 Civil Rights Act of that year.

Coming from a rural tradition, the one thing folks want is respect. That means listening to folks, seriously.

The author didn't read "What's the matter with Kansas" well enough, though. The author explicitly disclaims the "they're just dumb" easy answer.

There are absolutely democrats, ESPECIALLY DU'ers, who hate rural america.

Rural voters have nothing against FDR/JFK liberalism.

spitting their hatred into the phone, denouncing rural America.

Who feel morally justified in giving the livelihoods of uneducated americans who just want a better life for their families to uneducated not-americans who just want a better life for their families.

(check your avatar...)

Obama's advisers have made it clear that his nafta rhetoric is a head fake.

Hillary at least sounds sincere that she considers it, in retrospect, ill advised.

but my point is more about the fact that NAFTA has had the greater impact on jobs requiring less education than has immigration.

If you are a student who wants seasonal work, or if you work in natural resource industries, or construction or other difficult to outsource careers, your wellbeing has been impacted to a greater degree by unregulated immigration.

If you work in a factory type job, or a technology one, your wellbeing is impacted to a greater degree by globalization.

I think that the degree to which NAFTA has "forced" latin american farmers to move north is overstated. Even if farming were profitable, it still makes more sense to move north where you can make 5x the pay.

Those not threatened by either one are a) health care workers or b) government employees, including those who work indirectly for the government (e.g. lawyers) or c) capitalists.

More in-office lawyering is going to India.

I'll give you the capitalists.

indeed, outright shilling for NAFTA.

Neither of them sound as if they know how horrible it has been for workers here AND to the South. It's all up in their heads. They didn't lose a family farm or a union job.

I agree with this. Nafta simply isn't a big differentiator between the candidates.

Which is why the wingnuts can guilt trip us into wondering if we're somehow being unkind to some group.

Liberals aren't big on mindless nationalism, you know?

If not, then consider the perspectives of someone who does.

Presidents often begin their speeches with the words "my fellow americans". Because that is who they are hired to represent.

And, not being hired to a federal office, that pretty much lets me off the hook. To my mind, people who identify with a nationality first cut themselves off from a very important resource, other people and usually not in their own interests but in the interests of the businessmen that own the place.

People see the world in concentric circles of "us"

The innermost circle is me, the next my family, the next my neighborhood, then perhaps my town or my affinity group. For most people one of the circles is labeled "other americans", outside of which is the circle entitled everyone.

I see nothing wrong with that. I pay taxes to support my society and my fellows. I don't have the same obligation to those who move here without our permission. They have their own fellows who have an obligation to promote their welfare.

The thing is, while we allow them to set working people against each other, we lose. Every time.

Look at what BushCo did in the last Mexican election. They sent everything down there to support the oligarchy's candidate -- the one that plays ball with the multinationals. Speech writers, glossy pamphlets, everything. When the progressive STILL won, BushCo helped them steal the election for their boy. And, Junior congratulated the winner before he was certified. What a joke. But, there was no way BushCo was going to let the progressive be seated -- that would screw up a bunch of deals they've made with the fat cats in Mexico.

And the Mexican people didn't take it lying down. They poured out into the streets and for weeks. Look at this.



It wasn't reported up here much, but they did. They went out there and stayed so that the inauguration of the fake winner had to be done in private because the people wouldn't have it. :shrug:

How many more Mexican workers will THAT drive north? I know a number of undocumented workers. Eight of ten of them want to be HOME with their families. They don't want to come here for "a better life" -- they want a better life at home.

Bush has done very well for his family's cronies. Especially when it comes to blaming workers for what his thievery has visited on us. They have us so busy being mad at each other, we don't see the larger issue of how these trade agreements only protect Wall Street. Or how they ask us to accept less and less every year -- and then, they turn around and blame people they've fucked over in another country.

That's a pretty neat trick, when you think about it.

and workers here in our country are entitled to a living wage. We most likely agree on those two points.

The real barrier for both of those values is our policy in Latin America. Our government has backed up the multinationals, not the people or their progressive leaders and with very few exceptions. The current closest friend of the US government is Colombia and guess what -- they lead the world in the number of government murdered labor organizers. That says it all, doesn't it?

People who are serious about supporting Labor in this country need to keep an eye on our Latin American policy. So those folks can stay home where they want to be and so workers here can negotiate for living wages for real.

Cheap imports. Downturn in housing market.

Immigration put people out of a job?

No.

NAFTA did.

NAFTA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, with the support and help of his first lady, Hillary Clinton.

Sorry lumberjack_jeff, it was Hillary who shut down the workers place of employment. So that multinationals could make more money. They did and so did the Clintons. The mill workers got laid off.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/03/19/news/top/news01.txt

here a Maytag plant shut down a few months ago. This was a factory that started when I was a girl. Now it has gone south to Mexico. Will the Mexican people benefit from it, maybe a little, but the ones that will benefit the most is the corporation and it's stock holders. Here people are devastated. They have lost jobs and a lot more, they have lost a way of life.

Ahhh, the multinationals. what a sweet deal they have. Workers that are the same as cheap near slave labor, tax breaks from the US government, and all those profits from their in-states sales. And the Clintons gave it all to them, with a little follow up care from georgie boy. No, immagration has not killed our industrial economy, we have always had immigration both legal and illegal. What has sent us down the shaft, to speak, is outsourcing thanks to NAFTA.

Remember when bill told us not to worry, there would be white collar jobs for all those factory workers. It was going to be a good thing that we didn't have to get our hands dirty anymore. We would all be sitting in offices using our minds instead of our backs. What he didn't tell us was there would not be enough white collar jobs to go around and that some of those white collar jobs would also be outsourced. From what I have read, even the government hires people in India to do some of those jobs that bill promised us.

in Aberdeen, WA. It has been purchased by a consortium which includes our local Public Utility District.
https://www.ghpud.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=379&Itemid=1

Stimsen, like Weyerhaueser closes its mills because there are more profitable markets. In Weyerhauesers case - real estate. http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/Businesses/Wreco

Am I defending NAFTA? Hell no. However, it is stretching the truth to blame it for everything including the heartbreak of psoriasis.

When labor is free to shop around, then there is no gain from moving production to where you have a captive labor market, since there is no longer a captive labor market.

and when I've been in other liberal bastions.

Well, semi-rural anyway. We're still considered metro Atlanta, but we're far enough out that we get a lot of the trappings, if you will, of rural life.

I don't hate rural America. I hate reactionary mindlessness, which certainly isn't the exclusive domain of rural areas, but which we have in some abundance here.

I see no need to compromise with desperate ignorance. I'll talk with anyone, but I don't see a lot of Republicans trying to compromise with urban folks.

somehow more poisonous and problematic than the genuine hatred many rural dwellers have for urbanites?

That is an idea sold by your candidate. I am in rural Illinois and Obama has come here multiple times. He didn't have too. Chicago gave him the election, but he came here because he said he was going to be our Senator also. He help mine workers here fight to get their pensions when one company closed their doors and used a loophole to take it away from them. In my opinion he is not the "elitist" that you are painting him to be.

He must continue his outreach to rural people while fundraising among his more urbane supporters for whom dolphin safe tuna standards are more important than the fact that in 1998 the Shoalwater tribe had 13 pregnancies which produced only one live child.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/shol22.shtml

"Rural" isn't uniformly white btw.

I understand the logic (political expediency, yadda yadda), but it still grates on the nerves, as an urbanite, to be used as a symbol of something to be fought against in order to shore up support for a candidate. In order to win any election nowadays, the key is to demonize city dwellers - especially those in the Northeast.

I'd just like to say how resentful this makes me (and lots of others who choose to live in the cities that keep our country's economy running).

Everything else is tactics.

If you think that McCain will serve your interests, by all means leave the pandering to him.

The people Obama needs to do outreach to are primarily rural voters.

liberal urbanites have, for so long, decried stereotyping groups of people that it's really off the mark when they turn around and do it. WHen called on it, the answer always seems to be "Well, it's different when we do it", or "We have a good reason for doing it".

If you think that the loser is likely to make overtures to the winner, then you don't understand human nature very well.

We need to win.

No one waits for "conditional apologies" in the land of dis. Who needs to?


"...relying on the unity and will of the party is exactly like counting on the fact that the train will arrive on time or that the car won't jump the track. But, given that man is free and that there is no human nature for me to depend on, I cannot count on men whom I do not know by relying on human goodness or man's concern for the good of society." -- Sartre, Existentialism Is a Humanism, Philosophical Library, Inc., 1947.

it's willful ignorance i don't like.

places like the coast of californian north of the bay are rural, but not willfully ignorant. i wonder why that is?

Mendocino is not representative of rural USA.

Vermont, the West Coast and other places that have become inundated with transplanted suburbanites are not representative of rural America. If anything, that back to the country phenomenon has increased tensions in farming communities. Also, we have a strange definition of "ignorant" here - meaning "those who don't see life the way I do and who do not share my tastes and lifestyle." It really has nothing to do with education or even wealth. In Michigan, graduates of Michigan State University - the "cow college" as it is derogatorily called by liberal arts majors, even though it is probably the premiere horticulture school in the world - share the same outlook with their neighbors who are not college educated, and a surprising number of farmers are college educated. Also many farmers are sitting on millions of dollars in land equity, but they are not playing the game suburbanites are playing of leveraging property into personal wealth - often to the great detriment of agricultural areas and the destruction of farming communities, which are turned into imitations of suburbia by newcomers.

Calling rural people ignorant is...well, it is ignorant. The "hatred" that people here think rural people hold for suburbanites is resentment, not hatred, and it is a reaction to being under assault from gentrification.

It has to do with capital. Your resentment is misplaced, like most resentments are.

I don't think that gentrification has anything to do with right versus left. As far as that goes, I think that Democratic versus Republican has little to do with right versus left any more. It is related to capital, but not directly - it is not as though someone's assets are a barometer of how much they promote gentrification. It is related to suburbia versus the rest of the people, but again you can't judge the individual by the group and you can't judge the group by the individual. There are many suburban people transplanted to the country, and the major cities are full of displaced rural people of all kinds. I can't force my observations into the right versus left categories, which I do not think are legitimate or accurate or useful in any case, and I think those were created by right wing propaganda for the purposes of advancing a right wing agenda. You are hearing me arguing one side of that phony divide - the wrong side - but what I am doing is rejecting the entire right versus left construct as it is presently seen and accepted by many people. Why should we play in a rigged game that is set up to insure that we lose? Why call the rigged game "reality?"

I don't understand your reaction. Why defend or deny the gentrification of the party and modern liberalism? There is nothing to gain from that, and nothing to lose by confronting it. Unless, of course, you actually agree that this gentrification is happening and think it is a good thing. If so, nothing wrong with that necessarily, but it would be valuable if we could be honest about it and discuss it intelligently. It seems to me that we have everything to gain and nothing to lose from this discussion.

I don't really have any resentment or feel any hostility, so you may be reading that in to my responses here.

rural and urban settings alike. I have lived both places, loved both places and have found good/bad things to say about both. I am a liberal and I say this. I don't like a lot of people period and I hate the way elitist is thrown around without people really understanding the meaning of the word.

How many really rural places besides the coast of northern california have you been to judge willful ignorance? (aside, can ignorance really be willful?)

It is almost the definition of modern liberalism, which has become extremely gentrified and is more of a cultural movement than a political movement. It is odd to me that there is any controversy about this, since it is the most important political feature of modern times, and is the main source of the power of the right wingers since it is so easy to leverage against the Democratic party for political gain. Itis is also correctable, and it is essential that we do correct it if we are serious about stopping the extreme right wing, so I can't understand why people are so resistant to this idea. I didn't see this clearly until I visited the Pacific Northwest recently and talked to hundreds of people, since the divide - the gentrified liberals versus the common people - is not so severe and obvious in the Midwest and other regions of the country as it is in the Northwest.

So, yes, modern liberalism is based on, oriented around, and driven by contempt for the common people, and liberal political activists are mysteriously resistant to seeing this, let alone correcting it. This is the main cause of all failures over the last 30 years of the Democratic party, and also the cause of the success of the extreme right wing.

About 70 miles from Seattle. This is probably why I am over sensitized to the complete lack of affinity that urban liberals habitually display toward rural Democrats.

I had never been in the Pacific NW. A couple of hours after crossing the eastern Oregon border, the whole picture became clear to me. I don't think that I completely understood why the party has been driven the direction that it has, nor what the Obama phenomenon was about. There is just not such a serious divide in the Midwest. The divide in this country is between the gentrified people and the common people, and the divide leaps right into view when you visit the Northwest, where it is extreme and obvious. Liberal Democrats are positioned as "haves" battling against "have nots." Beautiful, stylish, enlightened "haves," perhaps, but "haves" none the less. No wonder it is so easy for the Republicans to gain support and pick off voters. No wonder there is such contention within the party, and so little strength and so little consensus. What has happened to the party of the common people?

for social justice. It's conservative Republicans that give the finger to struggling families, to unions, to equal protection.

Rush, is that you?

No need to say "Rush is that you."

Officially, nominally, historically, yes the Democratic party stood for social justice. But those days are long gone, and after four decades of social progress from the Democratic party in the 30's through the 60's, we now have four decades of stagnation, with a party that has become increasingly gentrified and out of touch with the people. That is enough.

Were it still true that "liberal Democrats fight for social justice" we would never lose an election.

It is symptomatic of just how bad things have become with the party that the only defense is "at least they are better than the Republicans." I should hope so - just as I would hope that the fire fighters were "better than the arsonists." But that is not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it?

Can they do more? Yes, they can.

And winning elections in America has nothing to do with positions but everything to do with the corporate media and with our disgusting election systems.

You keep claiming the party is out of touch with "the people". Offer some proof because otherwise, it's just hot air.

Half of the people don't vote, and half of those who do vote Republican. Is that not so? Is that not a concern? I don't know what stronger proof we could have that liberal Democrats are out of touch with the people than that.

Now we can, as many do, explain that by saying that the people are stupid and ignorant sheep, which only increases the disconnection and alienation and makes things worse.

and if not "driven by contempt for the common people" has no concern for those who can't fill their coffers. I just received a survey from the DNC to see which "issues" I would rank how. NOT included in the list of 14 issues they wish me to rank in order of importance was Poverty or Housing (and I'm not referring to the mortgage crises, per se, but homelessness). No concern for the people that are becoming more common everyday, the poor, the indigent, the desperate. Another issue not listed included the lack of equity in the justice system, or the increasing number of incarcerations (of the common people). They do include Ethics in Government (a tacit confession of complicity here hey?), and that oh so important Homeland Security. Sorry, but there is not much I would call social justice in their list, a little, and to be fair, here it is: Education, Environment, Healthcare, Civil rights/Liberties (notice the compression of two extremely important but actually separate issues), immigration (what about it they don't say or ask), social security, reproductive rights, stem cell research, taxes, and Energy policy. The proof was in my mail...

The Repugs talk a good game about the guns and god. This was the wedge the repugs have driven between the rural south, midwest and the democratic party since Ronald Regan. The Liberals, Dems, progressives ...whatever label you want to put on them have always been for the disenfranchised, the down trodden and the hard working middle class family who just wants their kids to have a better life than they had. A good example of this is Ted Kennedy. He may be an "elitists", high brow swell, but he has spent his entire political career fighting for the very people that would vote for a republican. And yet those very republicans do everything they can to shaft their rural base and prop up big business. When will the Dems get a message that reaches this segment of the population that cuts through all the lies and misdirection of the RW.

carry on.

When you return to Yakima, you might find the coppper electrical wires stolen from your house to finance an unemployed person's meth habit.

Listen to Seattle radio, and you can get lots of tips on how to reduce your carbon footprint. Very little advice on how to choose between buying gas to get to work, or the food that the work is supposed to finance. It even takes gas to go to the food bank.

Liberal or not, the urban/suburban core are definitely "haves".

I was visiting my family, about an hour north of Albany, NY. While there I got it into my head to see if I could get my hands on some raw milk. A visit to a natural foods store got me the phone number of an old grade school classmate who was very - almost hyperactive - in agricultural / localist agricultural issues.

We bitched about what a pain it was to get one's hands on raw milk, we bitched about Monsanto and factory farming. And then she floored me, absolutely floored me: she blamed the factory farm-friendly regulations of the state entirely on Democrats. As they see it out there, it's Democrats who legislate restrictive, costly regulations that kill independent farmers. She was rabid in her belief. I mean, *pissed.*

Just sayin.'

hired by the Republics. That you forward it says a lot about you.

That is completely out of line. I am not repeating a "meme" or "forwarding" anything, nor am I associated in any way with the opposition. You are making an ad hominem attack - cleverly and deceptively, and probably one that you hope will play to the crowd - but still a personal attack.

Some right wing themes may be based on the same objective reality that I am describing, but the intention of the right wing propaganda is to invalidate everything on the political left in the mind of the public, whereas my intention - stated clearly and often - is to point out an unnecessary and correctable weakness and vulnerability for the purpose of strengthening the political left and the party.

The idea that Democrats are somehow out of touch with rural Americans, let alone, that they are somehow "elitists" is a right wing meme. If you didn't know that before, you know it now.

Tell Tom Harkin or Evan Bayh or Sherrod Brown or Kent Conrad or Byron Dorgan or the ghost of Paul Wellstone that Democrats are out of touch with rural America. I'm sure they'll be surprised -- and so will their constituents.

The politicians you mentioned are exceptions, particularly Wellstone. Portraying what I said as offensive or outrageous - as somehow dishonoring the memory of the late Senator Wellstone, for example - or as disloyal or as a promotion of right wing ideas, is to continue the personal attack.

Lecturing me - "you know it now" - is a perfect example of the arrogant and condescending attitude that alienates rural and blue collar voters.

representing rural constituencies.

Yes those people are Democrats, they are US Senators and they represent entire states that include rural constituencies. Not sure what that tells us nor what your point is.

You are defending politicians. I am not criticizing the politicians. We have a representative democracy, and all they can do or should do is represent and reflect the interests of different groups - the squeaky wheel and/or the deepest pockets. I am criticizing what we give them to represent - I am criticizing us. We demand that they promote a narrow agenda that only benefits or resonates with the few. We ask the impossible as well - that they somehow advance social justice, or make us think that this might be the case so we can feel good - without rocking the boat too much. I feel sorry for them, if anything, as they are caught between contradictory interests and under intense pressures. Their wealth and power, comfort and privilege mitigates against feeling too sorry for them, but they are exactly what we have asked them to be, though not necessarily what we claim to be asking them to be. They have to compromise with the big money corporate interests to survive, then they have to placate the small but dominant group of gentrified modern liberals and at least pay lip service to that agenda, and only then can they pay any attention to the welfare of the general public - those few who are so inclined, that is.

and the millions killed in the south each year, I have more of a problem with the south than I do with NY rural areas.

(No offense to the good southern people here)

i am a queer, foreign, feminist of color. so yeah. by and large the feeling is mutual.

Do you really think there are no gay people in "rural America"? No farmers of color? No feminists?

Really. My mother is two out of three of those and she is "rural America".

someone like minded open the door in rural America.

:)

Let's not buy into the cartoon, shall we?

I grew up in a town of about 3500 farmers and loggers. When the Mayor's same-sex partner died of AIDS in 1992, people understood that he was a member of the community who needed support.

I see no evidence, particularly on this thread, that suggests that urban democrats are, in general, any more open-minded than rural ones.

who like me, or rather who dont hate me on sight. and i pay them the same respect etc.

you'd object should someone pull that on you.

and dislike the bigots.

Rural democrats (like me) don't hate you.

Many liberal Democrats understand and appreciate rural life.

We, as humans, find comfort in what we know, and we fear what we do not. In dealing with that fear we often create hate and/or suspicion of the other group.

In general, there is a big difference in values between me and many rural americans. I am asian american and when I lived in Montana, there was quite a bit of intolerance that I ran into.

They would then have to hate themselves. From an observation in 2004:



Another misconception is that all rural "hard-working people" are white. While many have migrated to the urban centers in the past 20 years, there is a not insignificant number particularly south of the Mason-Dixon line.

We hate you.

Now let me fight for the interests of working people like you instead of powerful corporations.

Cuz us liberals hate you.

Absurd.

and buys into bogus framing.

Reality check time:

Democrats (and progressives) in my state for example work very hard to try to get basic health care into rural communities- while AT THE VERY SAME TIME their representatives defund and decry EVERY EFFORT WE MAKE to improve their situations.

As Howard Dean said- rural folks need education and health care too- and ITS THE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE THEIR ENEMIES IN THIS REGARD. Along with the DINO's who enable them.

I also love the city. I've lived in both kinds of places. They each have their benefits and disadvantages. Right now, I live in a small city, and we don't have a pediatric psychiatrist. We really need one. But we'll have to drive about 110 miles for our son's doctor visits.

on the fritz, I cannot read the whole article as it would blow me up. That said, I am a PROUD Lib Dem and I came from the "sticks". I am so sorry to sound crass or confrontive but WTF Lib Dems hate rural America????????????????

Most rural people NEVER see it. Especially the ones that have lived there their whole lives.

Explain to me then every Republican in office, every lawyer representing corporate rule, etc. The College Republicans come to mind. There are in fact entire Uninversities made to reinforce a closed off view of the world, allowing for the likes of Monica Goodling.
Alberto Gonzolez went to college, and I for one wish he had stayed home. No one without a degree ever raped my Constitution.

IMHO, the MSM is afraid to confront the racism that still exists in the hinterlands and is currently being disguised as "uneducated, low income, white people."

and have seen plenty of Obama and Hillary stickers & signs out there. I left SF back in 200 partly because I didn't really connect with the uppity wine & brie clique out there.

I must be lucky because out here on Ocean Beach, I don't know anyone like that. There are plenty of real people in this town -- in fact, lol, this town is mostly populated with real people who don't like brie at all, not even in any form.

lol

:)

And I am dismayed that many have fallen for the right-wing bullshit propaganda in getting these folks to think that the Republicans share their "values". Hate is a strong word. Sorrow and disbelief on my part for them not "getting it".

people on the coasts, people in the north, etc. Hell, this president can insult the entire state of Massachusetts while he's campaigning, and it's just fine.

Try to imagine what would've happened if Kerry had used the word "Texan" as an insult during the campaign.

Fucking stop with the damn prejudice for once, please, and recognize that each human is an individual?

I grew up in the town that Mayberry was based on. People there were the same as people in every other spot of land on the planet. Humans are human and imaginary borders don't really mean anything, okay? And I live in the biggest city in the state now and guess what, the humans here are also human and pretty much exactly the same as the humans who lived in the more rural area. And on Memorial Day my insane half-brother brought his brother-in-law with him, who'd been born and raised in New York. And guess what, he was racist and conservative - I know, right, omg, I thought only humans within the imaginary border of the southern US were like that. By the way, I've never understood - can someone explain the history of the world to me if the southern US is the only place where humans can be ignorant and hateful? Especially the violent hateful bits before there was even a US? I mean, okay, maybe we export people to cause all the hatred and violence in other parts of the world now, but where did it come from before? Did the Native Americans who lived inside where imaginary borders would be in the future row little boats out to the other continents and infiltrate the pure harmonious loving peoples around the world and stir up shit?

As long as you divide the species into little groups and say that one group is better or worse than another or deserves more or less than another, you're not going to get anywhere. Stop closing yourself off into your stupid pointless evil little groups. I don't give a fuck who likes you or who doesn't like you - there are going to be people who like you and people who don't like you every fucking where you go. There are going to be cool people and stupid tiny minded little bigots everywhere you go - a lesson that DU teaches me every time I click on a thread about geographical regions of the US and read all the small minded ignorant geography-based bigotry and hatred.

I like to think of the planet as the group I belong to. If you can't handle that, at least try to think of the entire species as your group. Not just the ones who live near you or look like you or act and think like you. Because hey, you know what - the genes for hatred and bigotry and violence are in all of us homo sapiens. Not just the ones who live in certain places. Nope, they're in all six and a half billion of us. That means me and you. So stop projecting that on to other people and saying, "Oh no, I am pure as the driven snow and it's just all those mean fuckers in the South/in some certain zip code/in this county/in that one state/whatever group is cool to hate today who are hateful and bigoted and ignorant". Look inside and deal with it yourself and then come and help the rest of the species deal with it, because we've got to move past this whole tribalism shit if we're going to make it out of this century alive.

I know that it's encoded into our genes. I know that it helped us survive back when we lived in small groups competing for resources. But the world's not like that anymore, and we have to change now. Start with yourself and then work outward.

but we still have to shout at those who don't get it don't we? thanks1

I don't know when it came to be that "educated voters" is somehow a pejorative term used by Hillary supporters to decry Obama's "elitism," but despite what soundbites and pundits may try to tell you, it's never as simple as just being a matter of "educated city dwellers" and "ignorant rural America." As with anything, the real difference between "aware" and "non-aware" people is not education, nor economic class, nor geographic location - it always comes back to intellectual curiosity.

A person doesn't have to be college-educated (or even high school-educated) to take an interest in the direction their country is headed in. Nor does a person have to be educated to be able to see through ridiculous political smear campaigns. Nothing about economic status or education level actually MAKES ignorant bigots believe Obama is a "Muslim terrorist plant." The only thing that makes a person believe that is gullibility and laziness, the ability to be fooled and not caring enough to actually seek out the truth. It's not "elitist" to call these people ignorant, because they don't have anyone to blame but themselves for the fact that they actually buy into that crap.

My grandparents both had only eighth-grade educations, but they were and are highly interested in politics because they took an interest in the world around them. Similarly, I'm a college grad (first generation in my working-class family to go to college, at that), but that doesn't mean I'm automatically so much better off than someone who isn't. But according to Bill Clinton, since I'm a college grad, I'm apparently one of those people who "doesn't need a president." Never mind the fact that I was unemployed for months after graduation and have only just recently found a job (and a shitty job at that, not like the kind of job where I'm actually putting my education to use) - to hear political soundbites tell it, being a college grad means that I drink lattes and look down haughtily upon rags-wearing working class peons. They never ONCE stop to consider the notion that maybe some college grads are the children of working class parents who view it as a source of pride that they were able to give their children better lives.

This is a rant, I know, and I apologize for that. I just wanted to talk about this stuff, because I find my intelligence highly insulted by the whole identity politics of trying to pit the salt of the earth against "snooty" college grads. I've met incredibly articulate, nuanced, intelligent individuals without college degrees, and incredibly ignorant, backward people who do have college degrees. The only thing that really separates humans intellectually is how much they care to investigate the world outside of Deal Or No Deal and American Idol, and if people don't care to crawl out of their shells and educate themselves, no amount of rationalizing with regards to class, education, or geography is going to change that ignorance.

:rant:

big cities that generate large sums of tax revenue, then they should feel free to do so. I'd hate to contribute to the hypocrisy and dependency.

Same applies for using 9/11 to hone their patriotic fervor and then decrying city dwellers in the same breath. The people venerated for dying on that day were, you guessed it, city people by and large.

the toothless Republicans with 7th grade educations and "W04" bumper stickers still glued to their F250s does get just a little infuriating. Its not that I hate rural America, its the ignorance and blind stupidity that tends to dominate the areas.

Toothless probably because they have no money, bumper stickers are hard to come off and some source of pride, 7th grade education is doubtful, and when was the last time you spent any time in the country, theres not the level of ignorance you might think? Regarding blindness, try to take the stick out of your own eye, thanks.

Thanks.

The fact that the people are poor? I'm not sure I understand your stance in this context?

They are exactly the type of people that Bush depended on to vote for him, and they did. What's funny is where I lived, the Democrats were the educated people living in the nicer houses. I don't understand the stuff (racism, etc) that apparently happens in the South, even with Democrats. In the west, the rural types are much more likely to be Republicans, as can be seen by Princeton's famous "Purple America" maps.

Education in the country is being undermined in all demographics, not just the rural ones. The funding for poverty districts, urban, rural, and yes suburban, has been drastically reduced, and nclb now mandates withholding funds from school districts that don't come up to snuff (crazy ain't it?). Its a poverty problem not rural.

It punishes poor districts for being poor and rewards the rich ones for being rich. To see a school's perfomance all you have to do is look at the income levels of the parents.

I just hope the new pres (Obama) gets rid of it!

Yes, those people can be ignorant. But they are living their lives the best they can. Democrats who look down upon them, make fun of them, and criticize how they live make them even stronger republicans. I have always thought of the differences in acceptance...Democrats do a pretty good job of the big tent, except when it comes to the rural people of our country.

Welcome to DU! Thanks for understanding!!

.. If you haven't read Joe Bagents Book, do so. You will be pleasantly surprised. No, I don't work for Joe and I really don't give a shit, other than to say it's a great book. http://www.joebageant.com/ It's not about left vs right. It's about life in America. Its about looking at ourselves, (like looking in a mirror), and seeing what is happening now and what we once had. Has our standard of living gone up since Corp/Gov shipped all our jobs to China? What happens when China refuses to manufacture our ammunition for the Iraq War? "Deer Hunting with Jesus" is about working class America (ala Studs Terkel) but it goes so much further. A look behind the tortured soul of all American's who once believed in this great country, and are now left holding the bag. Fancy medical types might describe the American Experience as "Cognitive Dissonance" , but the average working person can not understand these abstract terms. Working American's only understand that they are working harder, getting older , and watching their family structure slip away. We are on our way to the bottom as a third world nation. What a sad statement for a once-great country? But one thing the politicians have not factored in, is that American's have a strong nasty fighting streak in them. There are some tough sons-of-a-bitches in this country. You piss off enough working Americans, mess with their family and take the food from their table, and you will see some serious ass being kicked in Washington, D.C. We still have a good number of WW2 Veterans alive. We have combat vets left over from Korea and Viet Nam, as well as vets from Gulf War I. These people have busted their ass to provide for their families, and they are seriously pissed off.

And if you want to talk with them you should have been to 'Rolling Thunder'. They worship Bush almost to a man. These potential brown shirts are armed to the teeth and they are certain that it is Liberal America at fault.

our "country" girls. I couldn't believe it. We live in a rural, liberal area in norcal. The tourney was in the bay area...at Cal as a matter of fact. Of course, it just made our girls wanna serve up some country humble pie, and good. They're used to it. Our school plays in a league that includes all city teams but ours. I think there's just a general feeling that country people are unsophisticated somehow and it comes from both liberals and righties.

examine TV programs carefully and you will quickly notice that country bumbkins are a common stereotype

With the exception of Eureka, a wonderful middle class program just set in the country. most popular Teevee is set in large cities

Depicted in this morning's "Mallard Fillmore" cartoon is a supposed Democratic National Committee member, stating the following: "The constitutional question here isn't that tough....Obviously, the Founders never intended for rural, working-class white people to have the right to vote."

I just wanted you people to see the kind of ugly, hyper-conservative, Democrat-hating company you're keeping with your comments on this thread.

(Looking forward to the wholly unpersuasive "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day" responses, so often utilized by the "Democrats" down in the Gun Dungeon.)

I suppose you've missed the multitude of 'fuck the south" threads that have been posted at this site.

That mindset certainly exists among some, particularly among the well off suburban activist. While their social stances are seemingly progressive their reactionary economic views make them little more than Republicans who want to feel good about themselves.

Love Me, I'm a Liberal

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

There may be even more of those threads than the "Fuck Texas" threads that set me off (being a 5th generation Texan and lifelong Democrat). Regardless of such ignorant sentiments, I still think the "Democrats Hate Rural People" thing is a right wing meme, yet another attempt by the Republicans to divide and weaken our party. I just thought that execrable "Mallard Fillmore" strip was unusually good evidence of this.....

May I please use it?

:blush: :blush: :blush: I was riding with a friend and she had Phil Ochs playing, guess what I heard?
:blush: :blush:

I am a bit frustrated that they keep voting GOP eventhough no Republican has ever done a damn thing for a farmer. I think most liberals don't understand rural issues enough to tell people how they can help rural America.

Seems to me to be the other way around. But maybe it's just a POV thing.

Too often, modern liberals and Democrats leave power and economics out of their political considerations altogether. To see the animosity between suburban people and rural people as somehow equal or as "going both ways" is to ignore who has the power and resources to get their way. It is akin to seeing the predations of slave owners as equal to the resentment of the slaves, as though power and wealth had nothing to do with the relationship. People prior to the Civil War did see the hatred as "equal" somehow between slave owners and slaves. The oppression of the master can be benign, picturesque, seemingly bland and well-intentioned. When you hold the cards, you can be very calm in your oppression of others, very rational. The anger and resentment of those without power and resources can be messier, uglier, more confrontational, and so those without power can be portrayed as the cause of the problems. As Democrats, we should always be alert to who has the power and resources. In fact, the chronic and pervasive tendency among modern liberals to ignore power and wealth - as a function of their desire to protect their own piece of the pie, the status and material well-being and privilege they enjoy or hope to enjoy - is what cripples the Democratic party and has empowered the extreme right wing.

I fully expect this point of view that a handful of us are expressing - called "liberal bashing" by at least one poster here - to be controversial and unacceptable to many. I expect some to be violently resistant to considering it. But it must be said, and for those who are willing to see it there is great freedom; an escape from the trap we have been in for so long, freedom from the frustrations, confusion and failures we have endured, and an important beginning, a fresh start toward rebuilding the New Deal coalition and overturning the domination and tyranny over our lives by the extreme right wing and their wealthy and powerful clients.

democrats have come to realize that rural republicans are usually populists who have been misled and lied to- they ARE liberals.

rural America is threatened with EXTINCTION from suburbanization. liberals have a great opportunity to bring rural populists back into the tent with emphases on environmental/open space protections, shifts back to the rural/urban division away from suburbanization, and sustainable family farming practices.

But I agree for the most part with the spirit of the rest of your post, most of us are populists at heart, regardless what we call ourselves, I think.

for further education info.

I have no problem with rural America. :-)