Maybe they could have included one farmer or trucker-looking guy agreeing with the remainder of the diverse spokespersons. That might have been better. Include someone rural conservatives might be more likely to identify with into the diversity.
If their ads didn’t include any white farmer types, I agree that’s a huge mistake. We need to remind low and middle class whites that we are the ones fighting for policies that help them (like the $15 minimum wage that passed in Trump’s Florida)
[Odesio]
I’m often confused by what people mean by rural. Very often it seems as though the suburbs are counted as rural areas and I’m hard pressed to think of places like Plano, Texas (pop. 259,000) as rural.
[/quote]
I don’t think there is a hard or fast rule. Maybe based on population density or something. But I think of “rural” as areas like where my in-laws live on the NJ/PA border. Lots of local farms. Small towns and villages containing a handful of locally owned stores. 20 minute highway drive to the nearest Walmart or train station to Manhattan. 15 minute drive to the highway.
Suburban I think of places like Morristown, NJ or Scarsdale, NY. Densely populated with single-family homes and McMansions. Strip malls with chain restaurants and stores. Usually anchored to a large city culturally and physically via public transportation.
I here people say this all the time. I don’t know. How would rural people feel if cities stopped being the engines that drove their economy? Sure, I suppose rural areas could survive 1800s style without modern conveniences or tools. But would they really want to?
That’s exactly the vision Thomas Jefferson had for America. A good reason to stop worshiping every word he and his contemporaries said.
For those who like to geek out on this stuff, here’s a source for how the Census tends to delineate between urban and rural:
Since I first read this study, it’s stuck with me:
I think about the chasm between Trump-supporters and his detractors. I think of it in terms of “what we hate about him is essentially what they love about him. Where does that leave us ?”
In terms of cognitive rigidity, I think the study above makes a fairly compelling case of which side has more of it.
Couple that with which side tends toward more organized religion, and … you don’t get a lot of people who generally make a point to fact-check the bullshit that appeals to their deeply held beliefs and preconceived notions.
I’m fond of saying:
- Just because you like it doesn’t mean it’s true.
- Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Who do you think exemplifies these statements more ? Who do you think traffics more in totally baseless propaganda ?
It’s not that the urban progressive left isn’t vulnerable to propaganda from the power structures on their side. It’s more that – IME – conservatives will buy bullshit made up from whole cloth if it sounds good to them.
I think it’s easier to get the far left to buy into exaggerations of things that really are happening, and for which there really is compelling evidence.
One more point that basically pertains to this topic:
Biden is running against a clear, incontrovertible record of what Trump is and isn’t, what he has and has not done.
Trump is running against a caricature of Biden essentially created as propaganda and made up from whole cloth.
Just as Trump ran against a caricature of Hillary Clinton – a caricature of the Republicans’ own making.
Modern conveniences and tools are manufactured in both rural and urban areas. Wealth collects in cities. TV shows and movies are mostly made in urban areas, but a lot of the TV and radio transmitters sold all over the world are made by two companies where I live, hours away from Chicago or St. Louis. My son works for a company that installs and maintains industrial scales used in shipping, manufacturing, and food production. They occasionally travel as far as Canada to service scales in beef production facilities, because no one else is willing to shovel the manure out of the innards of the scales used to weigh the cows. If magically cut off from cities, rural areas wouldn’t be stuck in the 1800’s. We would have the wind and solar farms, the oil wells, the forests, the facilities that manufacture the bulldozers and cranes and tractors, etc. We would however be cut off from the absentee billionaire owners.
Yes. That.
Sure, if they don’t want clothing, or electricity, or TV or internet. If they have no medical bills, no desire to educate their children. They can be self sufficient if they don’t want to have roads, nor cars to drive on them, or gas to power them. If they don’t need any sort of tools to work their land, or materials to maintain their homes. And of course, if they have one bad year, they all starve to death.
So yeah, if they want to try to scratch out a subsistence living, barely scratching by, in worse conditions than we would see someone in the 1800’s, sure.
No, the places that have money will find someone willing to sell them food. Even if they have to import it from other countries.
You are also getting price supports, you are getting crop insurance, you are getting a guaranteed purchaser of your products.
I’m not sure that this is true. Now, it is to some extent the case that niche farms can be more profitable, as they sell a more exclusive product for a premium to those who can afford it, but they are not producing more food. Modern agricultural products and technologies is how we are able to feed the number of people that we do. Malthus said we’d never be able to feed nearly this many people, and he’d be right, if we were still farming the way that we did in his time.
Some of them, the wealthier ones. The rest of us that don’t shop at whole foods, but rather Kroger or Walmart need food, too. And those practices are not going to keep those shelves full with food that is affordable to the less affluent.
It’s cheaper to import grain from Canada, or even China, than to buy artisanal whole wheat from a no GMO farm.
Right, which is why the country folk should not be telling those in a city how to live. Cities support the country folk, and subsidize their lifestyle, under that exact understanding. The rural areas, OTOH, take that subsidy, and then try to tell the city that it has to be run like the rural areas.
You are going on like a broken record about farming, and I think you are being a troll. The majority of all raw materials needed by manufacturing industries come from rural areas, and a lot of those manufacturing industries themselves are in rural areas. Cities require all sorts of stuff, not just food, that comes from rural areas. People have to live there to produce these things, and they need houses, and hospitals, and roads, and schools.
I am honestly curious what policies you see rural people as trying to impose on urban people? I assume these would be issues pushed as part of the general conservative/Republican value system, but could you list some specific things that tick you off? (I might well agree with you on them.) 
What is there in the rural areas is not something you have. And it can be extracted at much lower cost. The number of people we need to live close to those resources is a lot smaller than how many people live there now. And we could spend a lot less—pave many fewer roads, for example. We don’t actually have to pay for livable conditions in those areas. They could keep operating even with people dropping left and right for lack of medical care.
The point is this, I don’t begrudge making sure that rural people have all those things to live decent lives. I want them to have decent lives. I want small American towns to be nice. I want travel through and to those areas to be nice and pleasant. I want the people there to be comfortable and happy. I want them to have disability insurance and medical care and decent water and power systems, and education for their young people.
But here’s the problem. Rural people are happy to take all that but pretend that it’s somehow “self-sufficiency.” And they lose their fucking tiny minds when we try to use our ample resources to make urban (read: “black”) people’s lives better. They want “undeserving” people to suffer and be miserable. That’s the fucking problem. They are happy to take, but they want to everyone else to suffer.
I’ve read reports of psychological studies that conservatives are fixated on the idea of punishing the “undeserving.” They will even choose to suffer more hardship, and reject solutions that benefit everyone, in order to exact punishment on the people they hate.
That’s the problem with rural people. Yes, of course there are exceptions. And some of those exceptions are here on the boards. But look at the actual numbers. Rural people voted en masse for a cruel, dangerous, incompetent, bigoted sociopath.
Probably–identity politics is a real thing in the world and it’s been mercilessly used and reinforced by media and political elites to fracture any meaningful opposition to corporate rule. The fact that Dems did it the way they did just reinforces they know exactly what they’re doing and alienating working class rural white people by telling everyone how fucking stupid they are for voting against their own interests while also coding every message with “this is not actually helpful to you and will likely be completely adversarial to your wellbeing” is right in their wheelhouse. People say the system is broken while never twigging to the fact that it works seamlessly and perfectly–for those who benefit from it. And that ain’t you or me or anyone we know.
A common mistake is to say there are “Bernie or Trump voters.” What the majority of people respond to is a populist message that prioritizes the needs and desires of the common person over the mandates of the wealthy and powerful. Bernie is genuinely populist, Trump uses populist rhetoric to get what he wants–and that’s why Trump was allowed to proceed while Bernie got cut off at the knees by his “own” party. Because neither the GOP nor the DNC is open to populism in any way at all and will determinedly fire a bazooka at any camel that noses into the tents.
I wrote all the following before I got to this post, and I put too much work into it to get rid of it now.
But with that bad faith accusation, I am done. Especially after you specifically called me into this discussion.
I see now what the problem is, anything that you disagree with, you dismiss as bad faith. There is no point in continuing this with you.
I did also link this:
Right, they are giving a subsidy to bring broadband to an area that otherwise would not be profitable for anyone to cover.
That wired article is a bit weird, as it makes a bunch of rather counterfactual claims. The reason that it is harder to do in a city is not because of politics or telecom pressure, but because there are more people there that want wifi. As the article mentions, the towers are many miles apart in the rural areas, and much closer in the little town. In a city, you have to have on on each building, more or less.
I would also point out that the article also says exactly how it is being paid for, by the county and municipal agencies, as well as the big farmers. So, if you live in rural Hermiston, your free wifi is being provided to you by the city and corporations. By taxpayers and by agricultural purchasers.
Personally, I think that SpaceX’s Starlink is probably going to be far superior.
That’s simplistic and not entirely, but almost entirely wrong.
Tell that to every invention and innovation that has come from corporations.
Exactly, people who don’t live in cities are voting based on what they see happening in cities, while the people who actually live there and actually do understand and are affected by what happens in cities are ignored.
They voted in union busters, then complained that there weren’t good union jobs anymore.
It’s been an effort decades in the making, but yes, the last few years have made it much more clear.
I don’t know that either truly understands the other. The problem is that one side is allowing and even subsidizing the other to live how they want, and the other side is telling the other side how to live.
You say you need a hospital? Okay, here’s money for a hospital that you cannot afford to pay for yourself. You need schools? Okay, here’s schools. Your factory automated it production and laid off the primary sources of income for your town? Here’s welfare to help you get back on your feet.
The urban areas ask the rural areas what they need, and provide that to them. The rural areas then turn around and demand that the urban areas comport to their desires.
I do not believe that that is the case. However, I do believe that the opposite is the case, that it is presented to the rural areas that all cities and people who live in cities are all alike.
How does it not occur to you that that needs to go both ways?
This is simply a form of conformational bias. You don’t see it, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen, you just don’t notice it.
Agricultural Adjustment Act - Wikipedia(AAA,on%20part%20of%20their%20land.
And crop insurance is heavily subsidized.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/agricultural-act-of-2014-highlights-and-implications/crop-insurance/
Otherwise, one bad season, and they lose their farm.
This is not a factual position. It is in fact those middlemen and corporations that provide distribution for their products, without which, they simply would not be able to get anything for their work.
Yes, but they cannot provide the food we need for our population. We could do that, if we cut our population in half or more.
There is no reason why a small farm is going to have “better” practices than a corporate farm. In fact, the corporations tend to lead the way in creating more humane and more sustainable practices, as they are the ones who are more visible and receive more pressure from public and the government.
These all seem like innovations that those farmers can thank those city folks and their corporations for providing.
That’s not the point. The point is, due to those subsidies, the cost of living is lower, and therefore, they get a boost to their economy as money that is paid into social security is then spent in these rural areas. Money that is paid into Medicare is then spent helping to subsidize medical services.
I grew up in a rural area, surrounded by farms. My father sold farm equipment to farmers.
I didn’t move far, technically I live in a city, but its a city of 10,000, on the very outskirts of a much larger one.
Where I work is about a mile from where I grew up, though this used to be a field less than 20 years ago. My old house and its neighbors are now surrounded by subdivisions.
I really don’t think that this is the case. Those in urban areas see those in rural areas as people, pretty much the same, just living in less populated areas. Any shortcomings they see in the life of a rural person, they work to make sure that that rural person has all the benefits of city life, without any of the “downchecks”. The rural person, OTOH, gets false ideas about what it is like to be in a city from the media, about what goes on and who lives there.
I’m not sure that I agree with those assertions.
I can see how that would lead someone to think that they knew about the population in question. But that doesn’t actually mean that they do.
And I would say that that is the case with suburbs as well. Where I am now has a pretty nice police force. They are fairly polite in all my dealings with them. When BLM had a demonstration, the cops showed up, and rather than beating them down in riot gear, knelt with them in solidarity.
These are the people that suburbanites think of when they are told that the cops are the problem, and they think that it must just be criminals whining, because the cops that they deal with aren’t like that.
That’s substantially higher than average, as only about 2% of people in the US are employed in agriculture.
But, even though not all that many are directly employed, it still is a large part of the economy of rural areas. Those agricultural workers spend money in the towns, they buy equipment and supplies from shops in town. Advertising in rural areas is very focused on the farmer. When I went up to northern Ohio for my grandmother’s funeral earlier this year, the radio would have back to back ads for seed suppliers, crop insurance providers, different subscription weather and climate prediction services, and ads to join the local amateur hockey team.
Fewer and fewer people are needed for those jobs, as both declines in demand and automation reduce the necessary workforce.
You mean, like union jobs?
I can’t disagree with that,
But I do feel that that hatred goes far more one way than the other.
Exactly. Rural people tend to think of themselves as the “real” people. The heart of a nation. They literally call the agricultural states the “heartland of America.”
When fed this propaganda, that they are what is all that is good and noble in the world, then anyone difference is by definition evil and sinister.
Did your county vote for Trump? If so, then you are uncommon in your areas. If not, then your county is pretty uncommon.
It needs to go to subsidize those areas that don’t have as much demand, that cannot be served profitably. My area has lots of houses all relatively near eachother, and so can be served profitably. Areas where houses are further apart need that subsidy.
That’s where all the fun stuff happens.
We had, locally, but still in the more rural part of the local area, a girl who was stalked and killed by a guy that had severe mental issues. Had been cited several times for exposing himself in the grocery store, then one day, this girl turns up dead in a field. He didn’t even deny it.
He is someone who would have benefited from having social services and mental health available. Our community would have benefitted, and his victim certainly would have benefited.
You ever been to an afterparty after your local high school wins a state tournament?
Yes, sounds exaclty right.
It is more that they have the audacity to turn around and tell the people in the city how to live. To demand that they not only cater to their interests, but to also have the same values as those in the rural community. They think of themselves as “better” and do not allow those in urban areas to think for themselves.
They would be produced by large corporations that would use migrant labor and automation.
No, I think that deal is perfectly fine. It is not the urban areas that are looking to revisit it.
Probably not, and it would backfire among liberals, as it would shut out all those who are not white males from being represented.
It’s hard to appeal to racists without actually being racist.
I never saw these commercials, but I doubt that there were no white males represented.
There is an enormous supply chain that may come to an end at those facilities, but they are not self sustaining.
It’s not just the billionaires who own and manage such properties.
[followed by a very great deal of text]
Wow. I think that’s the longest flounce I’ve ever read.
The highest total nutrient yields per acre are actually from intercropped systems that can’t be done by mechanized agriculture. There’s less yield from any one crop, but more from the total space, and such systems are far more likely to conserve both topsoil and carbon.
– could say more, but am trying to keep my temper on a couple of the items.
Obviously didn’t read, or you would have seen that I said that I had written it all up before I got to the post that accused me of being a troll.
I’m not “flounced” from the thread, I’m just not going to further respond to someone who makes such an accusation. I’m sure you would not much appreciate it either.
And that is going to require more labor, which will raise the prices to less sustainable levels.
We have plenty of agricultural land. We don’t need to eke out a few extra calories per hectare in order to provide food for the masses. We need to have practices that produce food economically.
This is out of date but readers of this thread may find it interesting:
Per my link above, I was off a bit (for 2007) for employment. But while it is higher than average, it’s still small.
For both employment and economy, I do wonder where to draw the box down- or upstream. Not just for food. I mean sure, 30% of low-density rural employment is in services, but the lady who sells us pig feed at Tractor Supply is clearly very ag-focused.
Well done, @k9bfriender.
This is a popular refrain around these parts. “If we declared ourselves a separate country, we would be the fifth largest energy producer in the nation/could live how we want/wouldn’t be ruled by California/etc”. Never mind that while we sure do dig up/pump a lot of useful raw materials out of the ground in this area (coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, rare earth, bentonite), we literally truck in EVERYTHING else, from food to the equipment used to produce said raw materials, and ship all of that material to a city somewhere else.
It is a symbiotic relationship- rural areas NEED cities, and cities NEED rural areas. The land is one, and we are all part of making the whole thing work.
I just don’t have the foggiest notion how to convince my friends and neighbors of that, without them essentially sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting me down.
When I worked in restaurants, I and my co-workers would often think, “What do we need these managers for? We do all the work.”
Then I became a manager, and found all the things that were being done behind the scenes to make sure that everything kept running smoothly.
I kinda see it about the same way. Rural areas see everything as simple and with little downchecks, because the urban areas take care of all the needs of keeping it running smoothly.
My father is a jewish journalist from Brooklyn. My mother is a Wisconsin farm girl. I had a classic intellectual upbringing but gravitated to the farm life, though in a 1970’s homesteader manner. I’ve lived in dense urban areas and in places where the sheep outnumbered the people 1000 to one. You could charitably say I understand both sides but the reality is more like I find both sides astonishingly ignorant of and intolerant of, the other.
The large majority of posters here do not know jack shit about what people in the country are like or what they do with their time, or why rural life is intrinsically valuable and also creates value. But they blather away regardless. Yes, the right wing in this country is toxic as hell. No argument there. But as far as good people on the left and the right? It’s kind of even, with the edge, in my own experience, on the red side.