Democrats try to understand rural voters

Wow, talk about a dismissive, elitist statement. And we wonder why Republicans have so much success with painting us liberals as The Enemy.

It’s true that rural America is no longer mostly populated by independent farmers, and the shift to corporate farming has devastated the economies and lifestyles of rural communities. That has nothing to do with why rural voters oppose abortion (to the extent that’s even true – I’m sure it’s nowhere near unanimous). And it sure doesn’t mean they have nothing left to do but spread ignorance and mindlessly support Trump.

Communities are dying. Have a little respect.

Actually I do have some respect. I think the leadership in these states sucks and takes advantages of the hard times people have provoking division instead of trying to fix the problems. I’d rather concentrate oh how to speak to the people there, but sometimes the popular notion doesn’t match reality and I want to get past that first. I’m willing to be provocative and over the top to get through the fog to do that.

There’s certainly not unanimity in the abortion issue anywhere, but the GOP has taken advantage of the issue and the Democrats seem totally blind to the opposition. It’s complex, the anti-abortion movement has been given ammunition from late term abortion decisions. As far as they’re concerned you can take a healthy baby after it’s born and kill it. The Democrats aren’t willing to bring this issue into the open and discuss the details, nor do they have any consideration for why some people see this is as a problem.

control-z also mentioned guns. I don’t think that’s as big of an issue as abortion but Democrats have the same problem there. Some of them are calling for severe restrictions and even bans on guns. That doesn’t represent the majority of Democrats at all but the party should clarify their stand. Hopefully behind some simple common sense regulations to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and psychos, and the state otherwise that they back the 2nd amendment because it’s in the constitution and it’s the law.

I get being provocative, and believe you when you say you respect these folks. I also agree that, to swing some of them back towards Dems in 2020, the party needs to have clear messaging on abortion and guns that at least removes the fear of the most extreme positions.

Still, I think the primary message has to be about economics. Which party is more likely to help turn around your communities – the one that tells you stopping immigration and cutting taxes will solve everything, or the one with an actual plan for nationwide economic revival that will rejuvenate rust belt and rural communities?

Of course, you have to have that plan first …

Absolutely! The Democrats need a message about economic renewal in these states.

Democrats are against guns because they all too often get into the hands of the mentally disturbed and are used to kill school children. Republicans don’t mind guns in the hands of the people (preferably white and Christian, of course) because it doesn’t interfere with the making of obscene amounts of money. (Of course, neither does what two consenting adults do in the bedroom, but consistency is far too much to expect in the modern Republican mind).

Akaj, you wanted dismissive and elitist? Try upstairs…

While TriPolar’s initial statement was a little flippant, he has the right idea. Rural communities that used to depend on farming need to hear the same harsh-but-true message that the coal-minor community needed and still needs to hear: Find A New Job. You can no longer do business at the same fruit stand that Grandpa did. They’re not going to like it. Nobody does. Cue the violins.

I’ll start with the four points you mention as Bill Clinton having campaigned on.

This is one Democrats still believe and campaign on. Republicans believe the opposite, but have convinced their base that tax cuts for the wealthy and tax increases for the middle class (the Republican position) are actually the right way to go. Democrats believe the opposite, and want to raise taxes on the wealthy while giving the working class a break.

The problem here is again that the regulations Republicans view as useless or wasteful are things that actually do benefit the working and middle class. Things like prohibiting the owners of factories, refineries, oil fields, etc. from dumping pollutants into the water supply.

This is another rich vs. middle and working class issue. It’s rich landowners and business owners who hire undocumented workers at below minimum wage. If the workers were here legally the rich owners wouldn’t be able to get away with paying the guy who picks strawberries or works in the meatpacking plant below minimum wage and working in unsafe conditions.

I agree that there should be room in the Democratic Party for people like Joe Manchin and Bob Casey.

Overall IMHO the big issue is that the poor and working class rural voters who vote Republican are in fact voting against there own economic best interests. Take these positions for example.

Expanding Medicare for all.
Improving access to higher education.
Increasing the minimum wage.

These are all Democratic positions which would benefit rural poor and working class voters, but which they oppose because they tend to believe Republican politicians that tell them those things would actually hurt them. The only solution I know regarding the presidency is to have a very charismatic Democrat running against a not so charismatic Republican such as in the 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012 elections.

How about a swap. Democrats will try to understand the life experiences of white Rural voters if Republicans try to understand, the life experiences of LGBTQ people, people of color, undocumented immigrants, Muslims etc. After the 2012 election there was abrief suggestion that maybe the Republican party should try to broaden their appeal beyond white men. It lasted all of about 5 minutes.

So in terms of understanding the other side, please remove the log from your own eye before you criticize the speck in ours.

Obviously Democrats have room for those who believe abortion is wrong, but how can they have room for those who think “abortion should be illegal”? They’d be partnering up with their most hated enemy.

What I can see room for is “let’s not talk about abortion at all.” Don’t eliminate the pro-choice thing, and don’t push pro-life. Just don’t make it a part of the messaging at all.

I have to agree that, in 2016, it seemed that Democrats were not pushing economics for the white rural voters, and that was fucking stupid. People actually thought the Republicans could help them with economics, because they were the only ones talking about it: “Jobs, jobs, jobs.”

It might not be a terrible idea to stow the violins and demonstrate a little empathy, even at the risk of watering down your tough love message. Unless you want to just concede the 2020 election to Trump and be done with it.

Like what? How do you reverse the impact of global labor? People don’t want to acknowledge the obvious reality.

It’s easy to say ‘get a new job’ but losing employment and a career is a major disruption, particularly if one is middle age, has a home, and has a family to support. People also get anchored to their community in a lot of ways.

We have that problem all over the country, but the farm regions have been ignored while we concentrate on the traditional industrial areas. When we’re talking about infrastructure we need to consider these regions and how to attract growth. We spend a fortune propping up business in this country, we’ve long needed an incentive system to get business to establish in the areas that have been ignored. There’s no magic bullet, but the people we’re talking about feel ignored and left out of the prosperity that’s been seen on the coasts and other places. If Democrats want middle America to have a reasonable debate and find compromise on social issues they need to feel like that they’re not just election fodder.

It’s really easy to say we should be empathetic, but that’s the GOP game, faux empathy and blame the Democrats for their problems. It’s time to point out that the Republicans have done nothing for them and they should take a chance on a new approach.

I think you need to start by looking at the differences in culture and lifestyle before you get to specific policies.

Here’s a big one: People in rural areas generally live in high-trust communities with lots of social engagement, lots of mutual aid, etc. I lived on a farm in my childhood, and our ‘insurance’ was our neighbors. If someone got sick during harvest, everyone else would pitch in and bring in the neighbor’s crop. If a barn burned down, people pitched in to help build a new one. The church was often the center of rural life - not just for sermons, but for the socialization afterwards that tied the community together and the bulletin boards that announced jobs, or goods for sale, or marriages, or whatever. People generally felt like they had a shared stake in the community, and therefore actually needed very little government help.

People who live in cities generally live in a cosmopolitan world where their neighbors are strangers, there are no large extended families to look after children while you work, if you get sick you’re on your own, etc. So people in cities tend to look to the government to help them and protect them.

The thing is, the same policies that help people in the city can destroy rural communities by supplanting the social safety net administered by friends and neighbors with ones administered by bureaucrats. Environmental laws that make sense in congested areas can be seen as nothing but a burden to people who have lived in a rural area their whole lives and think they know a lot more about its environment than some Senator in Washington.

Take the Green New Deal. It would destroy agriculture. Farmers use a LOT of fossil fuels, and they have expensive infrastructures dedicated to fossil fuel delivery, storage, and use. Tell them they will have to give up their tractors and combines and pickup trucks and generators and augers and all the rest of their gas powered equipment in ten years, and you’ll make an instant opponent, because they know that it’s dangerous nonsense. Some of that equipment is so expensive that smaller farms may have equipment that is generations old, and there’s no way in hell they could afford new replacements.

Imagine if you were told not that you’re going to have to pay a little more money for your apartment heating for a carbon tax, but that you were going to have to replace most of the major property you own for new stuff that is ten times as expensive, and that you have no way to afford. That’s what farmers are facing.

Then there’s the problem of crazy federal regulations running up against the complexity of reality and rural people paying the price. If you have to seek a federal waiver to fill in a slough in your field before you can re-seed, or you get sued by the federal government for digging a basement on land your family has owned for 100 years, you get pretty angry.

But mostly, rural folks see their lifestyles fading away, their communities breaking apart, and they blame overzealous government for a lot of it. And some of it is cultural - city people are fundamentally different and have different goals and values, and when they seek to apply them to rural people, you get conflict.

Here’s an example from my home province: The government decided that farmers had been ‘getting away with’ hiring non-union labor, and even child labor, because their kids worked the farm as well, and because there is a lot of unregulated work sharing on farms (neighbors helping neighbors, or a neighbor hiring another neighbor’s teenaged kid, etc) So they announced that farms would be considered job sites, and worker safety rules and other employment rules would have to be applied. Children would have to follow government rules for underage labor, etc.

On paper, this sounds good. Farms should not be dangerous places, and little children should not be worked to death on a farm. But from a farmer’s point of view, having children work the farm is part of the culture. They think it leads to better children, it teaches them how to farm so they can take over one day, etc. It’s part of farming culture. I did it - I was collecting eggs and feeding the cows and pigs when I was 8 years old. I was driving the truck on the pasture by 12, and driving a tractor at 16. I think all of those experiences made me a better person, and if I were still a farmer I would resent the hell out of some stranger telling me my way of life was wrong.

Also, farmers tend to know what they are doing about a wide range of things, because you need to be a generalist. Take a barn raising - a liberal from the city might say that the barn has to meet various codes, and that licensed journeyman must sign off on the structure, electrical, plumbing, etc. But on a farm, if you don’t know how to do these things, you know the people in the community who can. And if your barn burns down or collapses, the only people affected would generally be you and your family, and not the general public. Scammers and frauds can’t last in a tight community, as word gets around. Incompetents soon find they are no longer asked to do jobs.

For a stranger in a city hiring strangers out of a phone book, and who will be building in the proximity of others, those regulations are necessary. On a farm, not so much. In fact, they can completely destroy the community model of engagement.

The new laws also had other unintended consequences which cut right into the heart of what I’m talking about - it threatened to replace the informal, cooperative, high-trust community of farmers with rigid regulations handed down from a government in a distant city. Need a barn raised? Too bad - health and safety training require for all workers, job site needs to be monitored, Workers have to be paid prevailing wages, etc. All rules that make sense in a city full of strangers but just get in the way of a community where everyone knows and trusts each other and are just trying to get things done.

The real answer to this is to have more local government, less federal government. Government that is closest to the problems at hand works best. Government made up of the same kinds of people who will be affected by the laws the government creates will make better choices, as will governments who have the most local knowledge about the specific conditions in the area being regulated.

There are liberal farmers, and conservative farmers. But even liberal farmers have different goals and values than liberal city dwellers. Ignore that at your peril.

We need to have an honest discussion about rural voters. It is only white rural voters who supported Trump. Anytime this gets brought up the right gets angry and tries to ignore this fact, or claim they are being insulted and called racist.

There are rural counties all over the US that are full of blacks, latinos and indian americans. They voted democratic. It is only the white rural areas that voted Trump, and white rural areas tend to lean GOP about 3-1.

So for your point 1, you write it off as some kind of insult but its something we need to be honest about. Deep down inside a lot of white rural areas vote because of identity politics. They vote because they feel ‘their’ America is under attack by out-groups, many of whom they consider dangerous (brown skinned immigrants from MS-13. Black gang members from the inner city. Foreign born brown skinned muslims). They view the democratic party as the party that wants to leave them helpless and open the floodgates for these dangerous out-groups to run rampant all over the US.

I really don’t know if the democratic party can win rural whites. I’m wondering if there is any way to appeal to them. I’m fully in favor of the democrats trying to win them, but it seems to me that some of the big issues that drive rural whites to the GOP are identity politics, ego and masculine/feminine characteristics.

Identity politics I already discussed. White christians feel their way of life is under attack.

Ego is probably a huge one too. The GOP paints a very appealing narrative to its base (you’re too smart, hard working, self disciplined and talented to need the government to hold your hand and pay your bills). Its all bullshit (in ruby red WV & KY, about half of the state is on medicaid and medicare for example) but it boosts their egos to be told how smart, talented and hard working they are.

Also I think a lot of rural whites are very tied into traditional masculinity and they see the democrats as limp wristed pansies who won’t stand up and fight for anything (which is somewhat fair).

Knowing all that, can rural whites be appealed to by democrats? Can you really just say ‘how about an anti-trust lawsuit against corporate agriculture’ or ‘how about a jobs program devoted to renewable energy’? Will that be enough to counterbalance identity politics, ego and traditional masculinity? I doubt it.

I really don’t know what the dems can do. They don’t need to ‘win’ rural whites, but losing them by smaller margins could pay huge dividends. Instead of losing them 70-30, losing them by 60-40 would make a lot of races more competitive.

Well, there’s the role for government: instead of massive condition-free tax cuts to corporations, tie tax cuts to relocation to rural areas, and continue to support such relocation with other government programs. Subsidize job training. Listen to the corporations on the topic of skills needed, and make sure public education is addressing those needs.

Democrats should be talking this up. Republicans may lie and say “we’ll bring back the family farm, we’ll bring back high prices for your crop”—but then the Democrats should step up with the actual facts, and with promises that can realistically be fulfilled.

I think you’re right about all this.

It would be nice to think that Democrats could expose the right-wing manipulation for what it is, and that those who’ve been swayed by the propaganda in the past would be disgusted, and therefore would vote against those who’ve exploited them.

But the message YOU ARE THE ONLY REAL AMERICANS is a powerful one. It may have been internalized so thoroughly that it can’t be seen by its targets for the cynical ploy that it is.

Still, the effort to reveal the tactic might be successful with enough voters to make a difference.

That would be a horrific message to send, at least in the context of an election. Do you think that they think that tough love approach is what residents of the poverty stricken inner cities of Detroit, Flint, Gary, etc. heard from their representatives after their once abundant reservoir of manufacturing jobs started evaporating in the 1980s?

Can we have cite for the claim that “tax increase for the middle class” are “the Republican position”? As I recall, the last big tax bill was passed late in 2017 by the Republicans, with no votes from the Democrats, and it gave the middle class a substantial rate cut.

Let me ask you this: do you actually know what regulations are currently in place that affect farmers? Or truck drivers? Or small business owners? Or people working in countless other industries? Have you studied every regulation and worked to understand arguments both for and against it?

The answer is no, because there are hundreds of thousands of federal regulations, plus more at the state level, and nobody could possible know all of them, much less study the arguments for and against all of them. So if you wave your hand and declare that all regulations Republicans view as useless are things that benefit the working and middle class, what do you have to back that up other than blind faith?

Let’s put it this way. There are some working class people who know that they have lost their job, or their small business has closed, or they have had to cut back hours or make expensive changes, because of government regulation. Is telling them that the regulation is question is really good for them likely to be a convincing argument?

So you’re saying, “Farmers: LEARN TO CODE”. That should be a winning election formula.

If you really think that what Rural Americans want is more big government education programs and subsidies to help them move and become good city dwellers, or that they can be bought off with tax cuts while you regulate them off their farms and out of their fields, you aren’t getting it.

Coding isn’t the only possible industry that could relocate.

And your argument has been used for coal miners, too. ‘This is the life they and their forebears have lived honorably for centuries, and they will not retreat from their heritage’ and so on. That’s an emotional argument, but not a good argument.