The statement that urbanites are rural people’s “betters” is prejudiced bullshit. Some urbanites are great people and some suck. Ditto for rural people. Use of divisive language does not help sway people to your viewpoint. It predisposes them to think you are a jerk, and then why would they listen to you further?
I can accept the premise that urban taxes pay for rural infrastructure, and rural areas “can’t survive” without cities. However, urban areas can’t survive without rural areas, either. Where would a city’s steel, concrete, paper, food, and other essentials come from if everyone in the country just packed up and moved into cities? It is unacceptable that paying for rural infrastructure, housing, education, and other services is part of the price our society pays in order to benefit from what rural areas produce?
Conservatives think ordinary media is liberal propaganda. Only things like Faux News and Q Anon, which reinforce their pre-existing beliefs, are telling the truth. Conservatives “know” what Liberals think based upon what their chosen source tells them Liberals think.
Missouri was a sort of half-and-half slave state, and had some internal civil war battles of its own as a consequence. Its odd to me that over 100 years later, so few blacks would have moved to what was the “free” side of the river. Maybe they did, but saw Chicago as more of an area of opportunity and traveled further than simply crossing the river?
I don’t know what you mean by “half and half slave state,” but regardless, the patterns of black residency in America are not a mystery. Look up the Great Migration. There’s no need to speculate. Starting in the early 20th century black people started to migrate from all over the South to large Northern industrial cities and not to small towns across the border from former slave states. There was nothing to attract them to an identical town just across the border decades after the Civil War had ended.
In my experience there is what I’ve always considered to be an “aggressive incuriosity” among the more rural populations as a whole. I am another liberal from a rural area… The town I grew up in had 78 people, 10 miles from where I went to school (the Center of the Nation, Belle Fourche, SD, 4500 people at the time). Now I live in a “city”, 30,000 people in the heart of Wyoming coal country… And that incuriosity holds.
This is true too. Many conservatives are content not knowing what the other side is thinking, or how people do things differently in other countries, or why other people behave the way they do.
Some counties in Missouri had no slaves, while 36 counties did have slaves. Newer US citizens in Missouri, particularly Germans, were abolitionists. Missourians who had moved from the deep South were pro-slavery. 110,000 Missourians fought for the Union, while 30,000 fought for the Confederacy. Unionist-allied Jayhawks would attack those they thought favored the Confederacy. Confederate guerillas like Quantrill’s raiders would bushwhack those they thought favored the Union. It was a bit messy.
Well, I think the reference I saw that claimed only 36 counties in Missouri had slaves was inaccurate. The 1860 census showed that every county had slaves, although in most counties the slave population was as low as 0.5% to 0.01% of the county’s population.
I don’t know that this is a “blame” thing. We have fewer farms because we don’t need as many. In part because efficiency has exceeded population growth to the point that we don’t even need as much farmland, and larger farms tend to be more efficient.
And again, most people in rural areas aren’t even working in agriculture.
I’ve heard there are fairly significant chunks of rural voters who (at least in 2016) were Bernie or Trump voters. They’d have been more like to vote D for Bernie than for Hillary. I don’t know if it would have made any kind of dent or even covered for losses elsewhere, but do you think that could be true?
It is not in my personal interest to ensure black and Hispanic Americans are treated well. Should I therefore support enslaving these people because it would line up with my own interests?
Only because you need what we have - the raw materials to build your infrastructure. The major roads in my area allow timber to be harvested, taken to mills, made into useable lumber for building projects like one that I am working on right now, a mixed-use affordable housing project in the middle of downtown Portland. Whether that, getting cotton, grain, anything else to market that can’t be produced in an urban setting. Those in the cities get as much benefit from that infrastructure as anyone, even if it’s not always a direct benefit. But I know a lot of folks from the Portland metro area who sure get a whole lot of use out of Hwy. 26 and its tributary roads going to Mt. Hood for hiking, skiing, climbing, camping, fishing, etc. They like the fact that electricity runs all through there, there’s running water & gas supply and the like to provide the services they want when they’re here, like restaurants, filling stations, and so on. If some people from the urban areas never use those services, well, that’s up to them. But plenty enough of them do use them, enough so it’s disingenuous to think the rural areas get all the benefit, and urban areas pay for them without benefit.
Lots of conservatives don’t think for themselves. They value believing more than thinking. Poor conservatives will vote against their own interests whenever their leaders tell them to.
Illinois tried to pass a graduated state income tax this year, which would raise taxes for the wealthiest 3% of the population (those with an income over $250K per year). Taxes for anyone earning between $100K to $250K per year would stay the same, and would decrease if you earned less than $100K per year. However, Ken Griffin, with a net worth of $15.8 billion, dumped $20 million into a Republican campaign against the tax change. They aired scary commercials saying ‘You can’t trust liberals. They really want to raise middle class taxes and small business owners will suffer’. It didn’t matter how many small business owners spoke out and said that was nonsense. Republican voters accepted what their leaders told them as the gospel truth, and voted to continue with a 4.95% flat tax for all Illinois citizens, regardless of income level.
Continuing to use the Illinois tax issue as an example, I wonder if the liberal/Democrat rebuttal ads made a mistake in using a diverse mix of gender and ethnicity for their urban-looking small business spokespersons. If they had instead used white male farmers, truck drivers, and some small-town clergyman to speak the same words, would they have gained more traction?
I don’t know. I do know that there was – and is – a great deal of animosity against Hillary Clinton in particular; which I think was not understood by many of her backers.
Whether the people who were vehemently against Clinton would have supported Sanders, after an election season of hearing socialist/communist thrown at him, is another question. I voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary in the hope that it would be true; but it might not have been.
More traction? Undoubtedly. Does that mean it was a mistake? I don’t know… I think people need to continue to be exposed to people of other races, genders, and beliefs, forcefully* if necessary. That’s the only way to develop tolerance. It’s a big part of why cities are liberal, and why people become liberal when they go to college. We aren’t gonna get to a society where “all lives matter” can be said unironically without doing that.
On the other hand… maybe a campaign ad for such an important issue isn’t the place to confront these problems. But then, what is? I think we’ve seen Hollywood get on board with the idea of being more inclusive and diverse since around 2008, but instead of taking in these attitudes the media is finally being responsible and promoting, the people who most need to hear the message dismiss it as coming from out of touch coastal elites.
I dont know what the answer is. But we can’t treat the two sides as equally valid here.
My point is, however many people only voted for Trump because they hated Hillary and sat this one out or voted for Biden, there were plenty of people to replace them and drive Trump’s numbers unreasonably high.