Unless they voted for Trump, of course. Those people are isolated, un-educated, and living in a bubble.
No doubt that accounts for the flood of thoughtful attention liberals have been giving Trump voters, to find out their concerns and world view.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, it’s true. The majority isn’t determined by states and counties. It’s determined by people. The majority voted for Clinton and the minority voted for Trump. And people who live in small towns are more isolated than people who live in large cities.
“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
Sorry but that’s just the usual debating tactic of recent times for people on the left to say they are morally better. There’s nothing in conservatism against any of that. It doesn’t distinguish left and right at all in theoretical terms. The question would be what constitutes it (are bigger govt and higher taxes necessary to ‘see other people as worthy of respect’, etc), and how much the political parties represent philosophies as opposed to coalitions of interest groups.
Student of history generally agree the Democrats and Republicans of the late 19th century were almost purely the latter, hard to find any consistent difference in ‘ideology’. To discuss that topic in today’s politics as a whole would become a tangential debate. But interest group coalitions are still a big part of what both of them are, and that tends to reflect back on the practical meaning of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ because they are now viewed as the ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ parties.
But IMO it is somewhat topical to this thread in one aspect, which is that ‘bubble’ somewhat relates to the surprising success of Trump from POV of the upper middle class blue bubble which characterizes many people who work in the media. And arguably part of the transformation of the GOP w/ Trump is more toward interest group politics, the rural party, the working class party, and away from the ‘conservative’ party. Whereas I think it’s reasonable to say the Democrats have been relatively more of an interest group party less eager to call itself ideological, but now perhaps moving in the opposite direction to the GOP toward a more purely ideological party, in part because of GOP success defeating elected non-ideological (‘moderate’) Democrats so fewer exist.
Lots of folks live in a bubble of some sort. People of all ideologies and philosophies will tend to think that those who think like them have a more realistic interpretation of the world, while those that think differently are in a bubble or otherwise misinformed/deceived/ignorant/etc. Every human is subject to these sorts of biases – not recognizing that they may exist in one’s self is another form of bubble.
If they voted for Trump, they’re condemned by that fact. There was no good reason to vote for Trump. Even voters who wanted things like better jobs or better healthcare or a greater America, were wrong if they voted for Trump. He won’t give us any of those things. Supporting Donald Trump is like supporting Jenny McCarthy; you chose a set of beliefs that deserve no respect.
Read what you wrote there, please.
You are saying that those in diverse areas have homogenous thoughts, yet those in homogenous areas have more diverse thoughts.
Now, I am not saying that rural people are have a high uniformity of thought and opinion, but those who are exposed to more diversity have less homogeneity. You are making stereotypical assumptions about urban dwellers based on your perceptions from within your bubble.
I do appreciate the perspective of what it is like to be inside of the conservative bubble, thank you.
Thank you for proving my point. That quote is from Steven Colbert, who has lived in liberal Chicago and NYC his entire adult life. His career has taken him from Second City to SNL to The Daily Show to Colbert Report and now The Late Show. Lots of diversity of opinion and political thought at those places, I’m sure. He has transformed The Late Show into an unwatchable, left-biased, hostile-to-conservatives disaster.
If someone wanted the establishment to get a strong wake-up call, and see the media and pollsters get a comeuppance, then voting for Trump was perfectly logical.
Again, it doesn’t have to be a case of “Only one side is in a bubble, and the other is not.” Like someone else pointed out, most people are in a bubble of some sort. It’s perfectly possible for both or all sides to be in a bubble, and in fact politics is often just 2 bubbles clashing with each other.
I thought you would like it. Not understand it, of course, but like it.
What makes a bubble is not who you’re surrounded by, but who you’re not surrounded by. People in rural areas aren’t surrounded by conservatives for the simple reason that they’re not surrounded by anyone. That’s the essence of what “rural” means. A typical big-city liberal will have more liberals around them than a rural conservative will, sure… but a typical big-city liberal will also have more conservatives around them than the rural conservative will.
But some people live in a political bubble because they live in a social bubble. People in rural communities tend to be culturally homogeneous. (I know this because I grew up in a rural community. There were no black people or Asians or Hispanics or Jews or Muslims or Hindus in my community.) People who live in cities are surrounded by people who are different from them. They encounter and interact with people who are different from them on a daily basis. People in rural communities don’t have these interactions and are more prone to seeing people who are different as a monolithic abstract.
Spite seems a pretty stupid reason to put the likes of Trump and his minions in power. Yes, the media and a majority of the country incorrectly predicted a different outcome for the election. And . . . ? The satisfaction of proving those people wrong is worth the U.S. being totally screwed for at least the next four years?
Thank you for proving my point. Reality is not an opinion that you can agree or disagree with. It doesn’t matter who said it.
I think the rural conservative bubble is more one of circumstance - if you live in a 98% white Caucasian county, you live in a 98% white Caucasian county - whereas the liberal urban bubble is, to a certain extent, more one of choice. You may encounter conservatives every day in downtown New York City, but on your Facebook feed, you can unfriend or block anyone who has a different political opinion than yours. (Of course, again, rural conservatives could do the same to their Facebook.)
So while I would agree that the rural conservative bubble is perhaps more insulated than the urban liberal one, it is only slightly more so.
Maybe it would help if ‘liberal’ wasn’t conflated with ‘Hillary supporter’, of which the last is merely a subset.
Certainly most here would have their post-election outrage muted, and be less vocal for a dangerous socialist like Bernie the Commissar of Vermont, had he represented the Democrats, but his supporters too would be a subset.
And had he lost, which is a far less likely supposition.
This is like asking, “Was punching that annoying person in the face, worth the price of getting locked up in prison for the next four years?”
If people always made decisions on the basis of long-term practical consequence, they would not punch the annoying person in the face - but sometimes, in the short run, the itch to punch is just very strong.
No, it wasn’t. Trump has always been at the heart of the establishment you’re describing.
Yes, this can be true too.