
I’m a Coastal Elite from the Midwest: The Real Bubble Is Rural America - kevlar1818
http://www.rollcall.com/im-a-coastal-elite-from-the-midwest-the-real-bubble-is-rural-america
======
said
We have read this piece 1000 times before.

And for the 1000th time, it is necessary to say, "rural America understands
that they are not your priority".

The modern left finds it more virtuous to hire a wealthy black man or a
wealthy white woman than to hire a poor white man. Rural America knows.

In fact, and more people are coming to terms with the modern left's perverse
priorities. Indian people? Indian people don't even exist to these costal
elites. Indians are dramatically underrepresented in popular culture, but the
left only cares about replacing white people in popular culture with black
people.

People like Mr. Thornton would never dare demand that we replace black people
with Indian people where black people are overrepresented.

You can keep lecturing poor white people about how backward and toothless and
spoiled they are, while never daring to say a negative word about black
people. You can keep telling poor white people to stop being tribal, while
fomenting tribalism in every other group (except Indians). You can keep
claiming to care about representation, while ignoring everyone but the groups
that earn them the most virtue points.

My Thornton, everyone is wising up to your priorities and the priorities of
those in your wealthy costal social circles.

Yeah, I'm bitter.

~~~
padseeker
Reading this comment is a perfect synopsis for this election. The article is
about rural america and a bubble and lack of understanding between the 2
circles. Your comment focuses on the virtues of hiring someone black or a
white women versus a poor white man. It's an axe to grind about the left
rather than anything related to the article. Why is this guy hiring anyone?
What does that have to do with anything? When is a wealthy black man or white
woman up for the same job as poor white male? What does that comment have to
do with anything? Give me one tangible example how your setup happens in the
real world.

It's all imagined and fantasy, like somehow liberals have set the world up
that this poor white guy from rural America is getting screwed to hire a
wealthy black guy or wealthy white woman. Let me guess, Obama is the wealthy
black man, Hillary is the wealthy white woman, and Donald Trump is somehow the
standin for rural poor white guys everywhere.

And what is with the comments about Indians? Are we talking Indians from India
or Native Americans. Who is demanding we replace black people with indian
people. Where are they over represented? What the hell are you talking about?
It doesn't make any sense, the same way Trump made no sense during the
debates.

You really read 1000 articles? Post them 5 of them, let's see them.

You could have spent some time talking about Nafta or free trade or automation
or god knows what and made some sense of this election. Michael Moore had a
clip about how the free trade and nafta and rural america is hurting and
predicted that Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania would go for Trump.
It's incredible and relevant.

But you didn't. You spent all your time railing against race issues and
coastal social elites. And in your effort to rail against those wealthy
coastal social elites you elected someone who was wealthy and lived in coastal
city.

I'm getting tired of the navel gazing over the post election analysis. I have
a family member who voted for Trump because they can't wait till he sends
Muslim out of the country and sends Mexicans back to Mexico and builds a wall.
Trump said terrible things and people voted for him because he said those
terrible things. In all the analysis I've read, not one person has said that.

Here's the Michael Moore clip for the record.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EekI4rBg9_U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EekI4rBg9_U)

~~~
actsasbuffoon
> Trump said terrible things and people voted for him because he said those
> terrible things.

I understand your frustration (I'm right there with you. I felt like a family
member died after the election), but I think the statement I quoted is an
exaggeration.

Trump had a few groups of people that helped him win the election. I'd break
them into these groups:

* Traditional republican voters who didn't like much of what Trump said, but worried about liberal Supreme Court justices.

* White supremacists. Most Trump supporters weren't white supremacists, but most white supremacists were Trump supporters.

* People who feel that Washington is deeply corrupt and want to see the existing system torn down. Trump has pledged to introduce term limits for congress people, along with banning certain government employees from becoming lobbyists for a period of time.

* Working class people who liked Trump's trade policies. He's pledged to renegotiate certain trade deals in an attempt to lessen our trade deficit. That would make it less appealing to outsource jobs, which union workers found appealing.

I voted for Hillary, but I admit that I like his anti-corruption and trade
deficit policies. Unfortunately I'm horrified by his policies on muslims,
undocumented immigrants, etc.

Quite simply, people who think like you and me lost on Tuesday. We lost badly.
We need to take some time to figure out where to go from here, because if we
run the next election like this one, we will probably lose again.

We spent a lot of time being upset about the white supremacists who backed
Trump. We didn't spend enough time addressing the concerns of union workers,
anti-corruption advocates, and republicans who didn't like Trump. It probably
cost us the election.

~~~
bduerst
> I think the statement I quoted is an exaggeration.

But none of your points explain why. Trump said _terrible_ things, that he
would commit war crimes, restrict the first amendment, he won't respect the
election if he loses. He's praised dictators, denied climate change, committed
charity fraud, stiffed 800+ small businesses, walks in on underage girls
changing and brags about it. He _lies_ about something one day and deflects
attention away to blame someone else when called out on it.

It's fascinating that he gets a pass on saying and doing these things. "It's
an exaggeration." Personally, I think it's because he was a reality TV star.
We _expect_ celebrities to say and do ridiculous things, and then roll our
eyes at it.

Except he's president now, and he isn't acting.

~~~
Fjolsvith
> ... he won't respect the election if he loses.

You mean like all the people protesting against Trump?

~~~
barretts
Don't be obtuse. College students painting banners is a far cry from a
presidential candidate refusing to concede an election over imagined vote
fraud. And there is a strong chance that's what Trump would have done.

~~~
Fjolsvith
Concede? Like how Al Gore conceded? Yes, perhaps Trump would have challenged
the results.

However, that won't be necessary, as Trump can now honestly attest that the
elections aren't rigged.

~~~
lowgman
I'm not sure if we can make that assertion, given the Deep State is safely
ensconced regardless of which figurehead is offered up for our worship and
ridicule. How does the old chestnut go, something about how if voting made a
difference they wouldn't let us...

------
jroseattle
Ex-midwesterner, different coast. I did not enjoy growing up in the midwest.

I had a similar experience growing up: completely white town, minorities
counted on one hand, zero african-americans. Not a single gay person to be
found. Not until I attended college did I meet an african-american, or any
non-native english speaker. Muslim? What's that? I was raised to believe
african-americans, gays, and communists are bad, evil, flawed, un-welcome.

In junior high school, a friend invited me to attend a church social event
near a river one night. Some of the guys put together a big, makeshift cross
out of lumber they brought with them and planted it in the ground. We had a
small bonfire going, and then they lit the cross. Several of the guys in the
church put their Sunday robes on...then they pulled hoods over their faces.
Yeah, KKK.

I knew a policeman who drove drunk all the time. I knew a teacher who bought
high school students liquor many times. I knew a peer in high school sleeping
with that teacher. I knew girls pregnant by 11th grade. I knew domestic
violence that happened in my house, in my friends' homes, and in the homes of
people I barely knew. In a small town, most of my friends and I experienced
separated families through divorce.

My experience could be unique, or it could be quite common. At any rate, by
the time I finished college, I needed to leave.

The midwest isn't all bad, but I saw some of the worst it has to offer.

~~~
AJ007
What year was this? I grew up in a midwest town and when I was young, and
there were no black residents, but by the time I left there was. There
certainly were other minority racial groups as well as gays as lesbians.

~~~
theandrewbailey
I am also a former small town Midwesterner. In the 90s, A gay couple moved in
a house on the same block where I lived. Even though my parents told me to
stay away (like they did with all people we didn't know, even in our "demo"),
I don't think it mattered much because we eventually started mowing their
lawn. In a mid-size elementary school, I remember a chinese and a black (maybe
mixed) family. Another mixed family moved in next door around 2002 (black part
was Jamaican). I didn't have a problem with any of them, and neither did
anyone else that I knew. By the time I left for college, there were plenty of
Mexicans.

My dad worked in a prison, which meant he spent his day around thieves, drug
addicts, gangsters, murderers, sexual predators, and the like. He gave fear of
those kinds of people to the family, and suspected _everyone_ of being one.

------
ramblenode
I've lived in both places and each one absolutely has it's bubble. But to say
that rural America is a special case is wrong. I've met prolific travelers who
have gone up and down each coast but who would never think of visiting the
interior--something they are quite proud of. "Real America" is frequently the
butt of jokes, and the people there are caricatured or casually dismissed as
less important.

This is all really unfortunate. US politics won't evolve past a tug-of-war if
the sides don't attempt to sincerely understand each other (and that is almost
never the case). The worst part of this election for me was seeing how each
side would immediately jump to the least generous interpretation of an
ambiguous or unclear statement made by the other. Since language is rife with
ambiguity, that virtually guarantees you see your opponent as consistently
wrong, stupid, and evil. If that's what people want to see, that's what
they'll see no matter the words. Bubble vision.

~~~
someguydave
This mutual ignorance is greatly assisted by 'traitors' like the one who wrote
this article. He trashes his kith and kin because it increases his status with
the low information coastal bigots.

He could promote mutual understanding but he chose not to do so.

------
tomohawk
The real bubble is the press. Their unsustainable model of patting themselves
on the back and getting in bed with the politicians they're supposed to be
shedding light on has them in a downward spiral. Case in point: the front page
of the NY Times the day after the election.

The false narrative in tfa is another example of denial. How could Trump win
unless everyone in the midwest is a racist homophobe?

The fact is, Hillary was such a poor candidate that even Trump was able to
defeat her. Just accept it and move on. Accusing people in the midwest of
being racists just makes you look like a fool. Take some constructive action
like making sure the Democrat party has a less corrupt nominating process.

~~~
mcv
Hillary wasn't a poor candidate by herself, but because of a decades long
slander campaign against her. The Democrats clearly underestimated how much
people were willing to believe the baseless attacks against her. Nominating
her was a display of unjustified trust in the voters' ability and willingness
to see through the lies.

That too is part of the bubble. Or the two bubbles, perhaps. Completely
different views of what reality is like. In one reality, Hillary is a crook,
global warming a hoax, liberals evil, racism not an issue, and Trump a great
business man and family man without any scandals. In the other bubble, it's
the other way around.

~~~
jordanb
Hillary was a poor candidate because she was a neo-liberal who had nothing to
offer to the midwestern working class, and quite frankly took them for granted
(she visited Wisconsin exactly zero times during the election, apparently she
was too busy visiting The Hamptons and Martha's Vineyard).

It's funny that people are raging at the midwest because it's been, for the
past few decades, quite blue. Hillary just assumed that they were With Her
(even though she clearly wasn't With Them) and now they are at fault for not
giving her the votes she felt she was owed.

~~~
ejlo
Trump also has nothing to offer the rural midwest. The difference was that he
pretended that he had.

Even if manufacturing and coal mining where to increase ten fold, there would
be no new jobs for people without a long education, due to automation.

~~~
diogenescynic
Trump understands their fears. He told the Detroit Auto Club that he was going
to put a 35% tax on cars from Mexico if Ford moved its plant there. He talked
about other manufacturing jobs being outsourced. Doesn't even matter if he can
do anything about it but the fact he said it--while Hillary didn't--meant all
the difference in the world.

------
Inconel
"They had not seen the Apollo moon lander, nor George Washington’s
Revolutionary War uniform. And they certainly have not seen the new National
Museum of African American History and Culture."

This quote really hit home for me. I spent part of my childhood in rural Texas
as a new immigrant to this country. My parents were poor, although not as poor
as some around us, and what they lacked in money they more than made up for in
love. For this I will be forever grateful.

I had a friend who would frequently have to come over for dinner because her
mother was too strung out to pick up groceries. I had another friend who never
owned a pair of shoes that fit properly until he enlisted in the Army.

I'm pretty certain both of my friends would have loved to see the Apollo
capsule and the assorted museums in DC. They were however, a bit preoccupied
in trying to get enough calories throughout the day to maintain a healthy
weight.

It's been a while since I read something on the web that made me cry, the
condescension displayed in this article has succeeded.

~~~
davmre
I think it's important to view this piece in the context of the recent
election, where the median Trump supporter had a higher income than the median
Clinton supporter.

Yes, rural poverty is a thing and we should provide compassion and assistance
to everyone trying to escape it. But that's not the family described in the
article (who clearly did have the resources to visit DC), and it's not what
swung the election. Trump got the votes of a huge number of middle-class,
older white people, who have had many opportunities to venture out of their
bubbles, to get to know their country better, to reach out to immigrants and
the vulnerable in their own communities, and have just never bothered.

We should hold ourselves to a higher standard, and work to empathize with the
"cultural anxieties" driving rural Trump voters, just as they have never
worked to understand the anxieties of their coastal/urban counterparts, let
alone those of blacks, Muslims, and other persecuted minorities. But we
shouldn't idolize them as "real America". They are a part of it, yes, but the
real America is a much bigger, more diverse and welcoming place.

~~~
amttc
I agree with this, mostly. I feel that Trump's campaign has already damaged
the country in a very profound way that will take years for us to recover from
as a people. But, I don't see Trump suddenly being the adult in the room given
how he ran his campaign. At the very least, the tone has made people talking
to each other very difficult.

I know people keep turning to hard data to try to explain the election. I
think that's generally the right way to look at it. However, I think we all
know people who have supported Trump. I feel like we should be sharing what
they're thinking respectfully, even though it's feels more than likely many of
his supporters would not reciprocate, however true or not true that may be.
More viewpoints is better after all, right? They perceive us as aloof and
disconnected from their problems. So, what do we do?

I don't want another election like this more than anyone else does, but it
will happen again if something doesn't change. I have little faith in the
protests ability to change people's minds. The people they need to talk to
likely have never even been to the streets they're protesting on. All they're
going to hear is that the protests in Oregon were deemed a riot and dispersed,
and that will be that.

Within my family, not all voted for Trump, but most did and they come from
different economic strata. So, I've seen multiple viewpoints on this. I think
in order for me to understand the elections, I've made a separation between:
1.) economics, and 2.) race & culture. The people I know that voted for Trump
might have responded to the dog whistling (can it really be called that when
it's so unsubtle?). But, in their minds it's about 1. and not 2. I think when
it comes to changing hearts, the only thing that matters is how you feel, so
it's important to make that distinction. They don't see themselves as
fomenting racial anxiety, even though the United States is inevitably becoming
a more diverse place. They only care about the economy, and Trump made a point
of opposing trade pacts that have hollowed away their traditional place in
American society.

At home and at work, I feel like I occupy two totally different worlds that
don't interact with each other at all. I come to work, and it's nice. It's a
diverse workplace, people are kind, we're making money. It's nice. Then I go
home and it's like 2008 is rumbling on. It really does feel to me like people
don't humanize people they disagree with anymore because they filter their
world through cable news & the internet. Maybe changing that might help change
this?

But how do we do talk to them? To them it sounds like we're waiting for them
to die off, which is profoundly insulting to them but also not true of us, or
at least not of me. We aren't waiting for them to die off. To me, or us, it
sounds like they're trying to turn back the clock on the progress we've made
for a lot of people who have endured a lot of hurt. But to them, they're
trying desperately to preserve a way of life. But the world is just changing
around them. We're all uncertain about where we're going to from here.

So how do we talk to them about it? How do we make them not feel threatened?
I'm really at a loss. I think it's hard for the left (or at least me) to
appreciate how divergent our understanding of what constitutes racist/sexist
behavior is from theirs too. What's unacceptable behavior to me is locker room
talk or just crude humor to them. It's hard for me to not lose my temper about
it. I'm not sure how to shrink the empathy gap between the two sides, but I
don't see these conversations taking place, so somebody has to start, right?
But how do we do it?

I know this is a difficult pill to swallow because it involves entreating
people who frighten or even mean ill to our friends (or ourselves). I happen
to be in a position of extreme privilege so this post is a little too easy for
me to write. Consulting with people I disagree with presents no threat to me.
Others definitely will not have that experience. I don't mean to suggest that
people who feel at risk should try it. But I feel like there's not a whole lot
of options available to me right now. I don't want my country to tear itself
apart in two or four years from now. I'm really at a loss here as to what's
the best way forward for everyone, and for the country.

~~~
kevlar1818
Thanks for this. Thanks for humanizing both sides. That's we need right now,
not blame and anger.

------
ryanackley
I'm tired of the idea that hicks and blue collar workers won the election for
Trump. A majority of white male college graduate voters voted for Trump [0].
Clinton won less of the white female college graduate vote than Obama even
after all of the Trump scandals.

My take is that, sadly, there are a lot of so-called "elites" that care more
about their own self-interest than social issues. In other words, people hate
paying any amount of taxes regardless of where the money goes. One of the "dog
whistles" that the media didn't pick up on was trump signaling that "hey, I'm
rich too, I will lower your taxes if you vote for me".

That being said, I am also sick of articles that say the Democratic party
needs some reflection, introspection, etc. , It was an extremely close race.
We did well but we didn't win. That is all.

[0] [http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-couldnt-win-
over...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-couldnt-win-over-white-
women/)

~~~
mikeash
You didn't do well. Doing well would have been getting 66+ million votes like
Obama did in 2008 and 2012. Trump got fewer votes than either Romney or
McCain, but still won because Clinton did too. Democrat numbers were down 10%
over the last time around, in an era where a 5% margin of victory is
considered gigantic. And all this while running against the most immoral,
least qualified, and craziest candidate in living memory. If you think this
qualifies as doing well, I really wonder what doing poorly would look like.

~~~
ryanackley
Clinton won the popular vote. I mean short of winning, what else qualifies? I
don't subscribe to the idea that the party in an election who received over
half the vote is somehow falling apart at the seams.

Pundits do this every time there is an election but in reality it's the swing
of the pendulum. The parties and peoples feelings towards them evolve over
time and power changes hands between the two parties. Does that mean you need
to go cry in a corner and question your reality each time your party loses an
election? No it does not.

~~~
mikeash
Winning the popular vote by a small margin, against the worst candidate anyone
alive has ever seen, and not by enough to actually secure victory, is not
"doing well" in my estimation.

If you want to see what "doing well" would look like, see the results of the
2008 or 2012 elections.

And what do you mean "over half the vote"? The current number according to
Google has 48% going to Clinton. She got more than Trump, yes, but less than
half.

If getting 60 million votes qualifies as "doing well," then how do you
describe getting nearly 70 million votes in 2008? Is losing almost 10 million
votes in 8 years, while the electorate has grown substantially and
demographics have shifted considerably in your favor, a sign that everything
is fine?

~~~
ryanackley
The "worst candidate evah!" is obviously subjective because there are many
many people who are very passionate about Trump. Because I see them on my
Facebook feed and I saw them leading up to election day waving signs at major
intersections.

Again, the idea that people unenthusiastically moped down to the polls to cast
their vote for a candidate they didn't want just doesn't line up with the
facts.

~~~
mikeash
Of course it's subjective. If you want an objective measure, how about saying:
a candidate who was worse than Romney and McCain, based on the absolute number
of voters and the percentage of eligible voters that he ended up winning.

I don't see how a lack of enthusiasm conflicts with the facts. Voter turnout
was way down. Democrats won way fewer votes than the last two times around, to
the point that they lost the election even though their opponent _also_ did
worse than before.

------
woodpanel
"If we pin this election on coastal elites, we are excusing white working-
class and rural Americans for voting for a man accused of violating the Fair
Housing Act by refusing to rent apartments to black people."

This sentence alone illustrates the very membrane at work that holds together
the "intelligentia" bubble. Accusing the dummies of immorality while just
employing more advanced tools for your deviseveness does make you the bigger
bigot.

When your mind starts copy pasting headlines from the "accusational BS by
trolls" folder to your personal "trusted facts" folder thats stupidity at
work. But if the passing BS is just allowed if its coming from inside your
echo chamber that doesn't make you more elevated. It just elevates your
ignorance.

~~~
threeseed
But Trump did violate the Fair Housing Act:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-
trump-h...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-
housing-race.html?_r=0)

But I guess believing in "facts" means I am part of some out of touch
intelligentsia.

~~~
woodpanel
No reason for sarcasm.

The mental copy pasting that you've done is: Saying Donald Trump is a straight
up racist, while your "facts" are headlines, whose actual article's details
like

 _" While there is no evidence that Mr. Trump personally set the rental
policies at his father’s properties..."_

fails to make it into your conscience.

~~~
woodpanel
_" Despite citing the judge’s heritage as a source of the conflict, Mr. Trump
said that as president he would have no problem appointing Mexican-American
judges.

“I would love to,” he said. “I would do it in an instant.”"_

Doesn't sound racist to me. Also digging this stuff up in the midst of an
election is of course a reason for hyperbole. So did the Clintons with the
leaked emails about Wikileaks, Russia or the sitting FBI-director.

------
flukus
> And rather than embrace it, rural and white working-class Americans are
> twisting and turning, fighting it every step of the way. We will never
> return to the days where a white man could barely graduate high school and
> walk onto a factory floor at 18 and get a well-paying job for life. That
> hasn’t set in for much of the Midwest.

There's the problem and the bubble people are talking about. White men (or any
sex and color really) that can barely finish high school aren't going away
anytime soon and they still need jobs. Not everyone is capable of more
academic work.

~~~
cheriot
They need job skills and few high schools teach them. One of the high schools
I went to had a small program with the community college next door for people
to learn marketable skills instead of the usual electives. The other had
nothing like it.

tl;dr Study beyond high school is not just liberal arts.

~~~
serge2k
They have job skills, the jobs disappeared.

It's not their fault.

If outsourcing suddenly produced high quality issue free software for cheap
tomorrow then we'd all be just as screwed despite having such great skills.

~~~
dx034
Most job losses were due to automation, not necessarily outsourcing.

And if they have job skills for jobs that don't exist anymore it's as if they
don't have job skills at all. But it's certainly not their fault, it's the
education system that has to teach job skills, you can't learn that by
yourself.

~~~
ubertaco
_> if they have job skills for jobs that don't exist anymore it's as if they
don't have job skills at all._

Exactly this. At the risk of reductio ad absurdum, would anyone consider the
ability to write (not compositional writing, just literally the ability to put
a pen down on paper and form letters) a "marketable job skill" any more? Not
likely, since that skill can be replaced by a $60 printer what doesn't need a
salary.

------
spiritofenter
\- I hear a lot from people that issues like gay rights didn't hit home until
they became friends with (or realized that they were friends with) a gay
person. Similarly with for example Muslims. This article hit home there.

\- The point about jobs seems very spot on - jobs have been drying up
throughout the Midwest, particularly steady/long-term low-education (i.e.
manufacturing) jobs, and national leadership has not done anything to address
it. The economic story of the last 8 years has been a recovery for the wealthy
and financial sector only, so it's no wonder the rural midwest see no hope
from the Democrats. It sounds like Trump's main plan for this is to create
jobs for people that destroy the very environment they live in, which is
tragic. Long term, I wonder what feasible plan could address the jobs issue
besides a basic income, or massive government hiring for jobs like building
infrastructure.

~~~
jacobolus
> _The economic story of the last 8 years has been a recovery for the wealthy
> and financial sector only,_

There’s a kernel of insight here, but as stated this is a grossly inaccurate
summary.

On the whole the economy is doing radically better than it was during the
recession in almost every way. I recommend diving into BLS data yourself if
you’re curious about particular regions, industries, etc.

~~~
maxsilver
> as stated this is a grossly inaccurate summary. On the whole the economy is
> doing radically better than it was during the recession in almost every way.

Your assuming "the whole economy" is an accurate measurement of how citizens
finances are doing. But those two things are often not related in any way.

In my "flyover-Midwest" community, the stronger the economy does, the worse
off real people's lives are here. "The economy" rewards companies whose
profits go up and expenses go down. But in much of flyover America, "expenses"
represents real people's paychecks, and "profits" represent real peoples
bills.

Good jobs rarely come here. These folks don't own stocks or bonds. Many don't
have retirement plans. Whenever the economy improves, all that _really_ means
_here_ is "someone I know got fired today" or "the price of something I buy
just got jacked up".

Just one example: Google claims GM's stock price is at it's highest peak for
the entire year. Two days ago, GM laid off 2,000 people in Michigan and Ohio.
Wealthy citizens (or "coastal elites") got taken care of nicely, but "rural"
Americans who actually _work_ for GM just got yet-another kick to the teeth.

> I recommend diving into BLS data yourself if you’re curious about particular
> regions, industries, etc.

This is where a lot of the "out of touch liberal ivory tower" insults come
from. Telling people who work two jobs and still can't afford rent or
childcare that "your wrong, my census data proves your doing just fine" is the
kind of tone deaf communication that makes people desperate enough to elect a
"human Molotov cocktail".

If your a person who's been suffering for years, and the choices are "just me
and my neighbors keep getting screwed" or "everybody in the whole nation gets
screwed", a lot of people will take that second option. I don't defend that
decision, and it's certainly not the vote I cast. But I'm not so out of touch
with my neighbors as to pretend it's unfathomable that so many people chose
that.

~~~
jacobolus
Are you suggesting that HN commenter spiritofenter is "people who work two
jobs and still can't afford rent or childcare"

Anyhow, inre his original

> _national leadership has not done anything to address it_

Obama and the Democrats have been trying hard to push for more infrastructure
spending, improved childcare, more money to bail out struggling state
governments, minimum wage increases, more parental leave, continuing fixes to
the healthcare system, reduced prescription drug prices, relief for the
heavily indebted, etc., but (a) they’ve faced unprecedented obstructionism and
deliberate dysfunction from the GOP (for instance states refusing federal
money for medicare expansion and trying to sabotage the ACA), and (b) these
are difficult problems which can’t be solved by waving a wand and uttering a
magic incantation.

The auto industry bailout and stimulus bill and ACA were what they could get
passed through congress, not their preferred policy solutions to these
problems.

At the state level a number of GOP-controlled states have cut state spending
and employment dramatically, closed schools, slashed income taxes for the
wealthy and replaced them with sales taxes, undertaken targeted campaigns to
destroy local unions (both public and private sector), etc.

~~~
spiritofenter
Thank you for your points and information.

------
trynumber9
I still live in rural Wisconsin. I wanted to disagree from the title but after
reading it I really can't.

And I agree, we're not special. Rural Wisconsin went Obama in 2008. I didn't
see a deluge of articles discussing the implications of the rural people.
Wisconsin has been pretty close to the US vote, as a whole, for years. If your
candidate wants to sway that vote maybe they should travel to the state at
least _once_ in the campaign. Well, it's just a thought.

~~~
bduerst
As someone also from rural Wisconsin, I can tell you that the ignorance there
is more palpable than ever.

I'm not talking about record levels of domestic abuse cases, meth labs, or
even leading the nation in DUI's. Rural Wisconsin has always had it's own
issues in a charming sort of way.

I'm talking about the sheer gleefulness with which rural Wisconsinites
abandoned critical thinking this election. There was always a small spark of
anti-intellectualism in rural Wisconsin, but this election was unlike any
other in how the misinformation being spread fanned the flames of that
rhetoric.

------
ZeroGravitas
One technical factor I don't see discussed much is that when someone
immigrates, they generally choose a specific location with job opportunities.
If you look around you and don't see many immigrants, that should tell you
something.

~~~
humanrebar
There's some truth to that but immigrants also move to cities where people
like them already live. To some degree, they also move to cities they have
heard of from American TV and movies.

------
serge2k
> More Americans need to see more of the United States. They need to shake
> hands with a Muslim, or talk soccer with a middle aged lesbian, or attend a
> lecture by a female business executive.

First off, why is this site screwing with my clipboard. Ugh.

Anyway, that's all fair. The people who are making decent money living in
cities should go out to Michigan and spend some time looking for a factory job
or talking to the workers who have been dealing with a shitty situation for
decades.

> If we pin this election on coastal elites, we are excusing white working-
> class and rural Americans for voting for a man accused of violating the Fair
> Housing Act by refusing to rent apartments to black people. If we pin this
> election on coastal elites, we are excusing white working-class and rural
> Americans for voting for a man who called Mexicans rapists, drug dealers and
> criminals. If we pin this election on coastal elites, we are excusing white
> working-class and rural Americans for voting for a man who called for a
> complete ban on Muslim immigration.

Yes, people did vote for a man who said/did all those things. We can choose to
believe these people are just racists/sexists/too dumb to do anything else, or
we can ask them why and see what the response is.

You can also ask why the democratic voters just didn't feel bothered to show
up. Was this just arrogance? Was it apathy?

> We will never return to the days where a white man could barely graduate
> high school and walk onto a factory floor at 18 and get a well-paying job
> for life. That hasn’t set in for much of the Midwest.

The problem isn't the 18 year old who's upset about a factory job he can't
get. It's the 50 year old who's job is gone, or under constant threat. It's
about the 35 year old who's life hasn't really gone anywhere, because he got
caught in the whole thing falling apart.

You tell someone who is living the good life on the coast that it's time to
"make america great again!" and they will wonder what wrong with it. Say it to
someone in Michigan and they will remember that Detroit used to have the
highest per capita income in the country.

~~~
lithos
Pretty sane compared to some of the posts here.

It seems like people are completely ignoring that all age groups are involved.
It's very easy to say make America great again and capture: the 80 year old
that has had there retirement plan disappear from a company going to rust, to
capture the 50 year old that wants to help their children through college (but
instead needs help themselves), it's pretty easy to capture the people who
watch a plant/factory finally get off shored (after its third try of doing so,
this time with the only apparent difference of NAFTA).

It's also pretty easy to see the opposite candidate 'playing dirty' against
the person who would have been a great help to their child, having secret
meetings with the 'type of people'(financial) that helped create a region
called the rust belt (that's bigger than all but a handful of countries), and
it's pretty easy to see a candidate so unversed with dealing with people
unlike her that she can't even properly shame them (while I imagine most
people can't shame Trump, better is expected of a candidate. The last one
isn't my words).

Likewise grew up in Wisconsin (now in VA), even voted against the nightmare
that is Trump. But a lot of people here are lacking perspectives on other
parts of the country. they are a lot more similar to their rainbow workforce
(perspective, daily problems, expectations, fortune, humor) than they think
they are, even if they do differ culturally.

------
sleepydog
Many countries, such as Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam, require all males
to serve ~2 years of military service (usually not in the field, just training
and drills). While there are ways for the most privileged to get out of it,
the people who I've talked to have described meeting people from parts of
their country that they had no idea about.

I wonder if this idea could be applied to the US, making everyone 18-25 go
6-18 months of basic training and drills. You would certainly get to meet a
lot of people you would not have otherwise.

~~~
ptaipale
Sure it is possible, and it was there, but the U.S. got rid of the draft after
Vietnam war.

And meeting _everyone_ of your age cohort in the army conscription service is
a revealing experience, I can assure you. More so than elementary school,
because schools are like the areas where the pupils live; there is less
diversity. To meet _everyone_ is an experience.

On the other hand, nowadays countries with conscription (like where I live,
Finland) are not quite the same. The army here is more picky that before, so
you actually don't see _everyone_. For instance, when I entered service
(1986), only 2-3 % entered the alternative civilian service and 1-2 % were
disqualified. Now 7 % go to civilian service and 2-3 % are disqualified (for
medical reasons, etc).

Thus, you have less pacifists in the army, and drug users and career criminals
are excluded. The same would surely apply in the U.S. even if it had
conscription.

------
jbelich
keep telling middle america how wrong they all are. When they rise up against
you at the ballot box, keep telling them how wrong they all are. It'll work
eventually!

~~~
bsder
Popular and right are orthogonal values.

In addition, just like Brexit, I see a lot of people who appear to have
completely ignored the concrete results of their actions.

For example, me to Trump voter: "You do realize that you voted to throw your
own daughter and my mother off of healthcare? Your daughter couldn't get
coverage before Obamacare because she has mild sleep apnea while being middle-
aged. My mother couldn't get healthcare before the ACA because she is a breast
cancer survivor." Trump voter: "Well, I didn't really want that."

What am I supposed to say at that point?

Please tell me which platform plank of yours is more important than your own
daughter receiving healthcare?

Please tell me which platform plank of yours is more important than my mother
receiving healthcare?

Really, I want to know this.

And, when you give me your answer about god, guns, gays, mexicans, emails,
Benghazi or any other stupid thing that doesn't impact our lives one iota
other than to serve as a propaganda vehicle, don't be surprised when I tell
you how _FUCKING WRONG_ you are.

Thanks.

~~~
trdrake
There was a category of people [not me, fwiw] for which abortion was the
singular issue that made them vote for what they considered a deeply flawed
candidate. Everything else paled in comparison.

~~~
jpgvm
Abortion also doesn't affect anyone other than the woman that chooses to
exercise the right. Thus also a pretty shit reason to vote for someone.

~~~
filoeleven
From the pro-life point of view, it also affects the unborn child who is
murdered. For many of them, abortion is _literally the same thing_ as letting
people kill their toddlers because they decided that they don't want them for
whatever reason. This is the divide.

(I realize that there are other pregnancy complications that don't literally
equate to having an inconvenient toddler, and pro-lifers aren't as consistent
on how they view those cases, but those are a small minority of abortions.)

------
tashi
While I agree that travel is a great mind expander, telling people that they
need to travel is about as effective as just telling people directly that they
need to expand their minds. Which is to say, maybe a good nudge for people who
were already leaning that way, but otherwise ineffective.

I hope the lesson we all learn from this election is that if we have ideas we
want to spread in the near term, the only effective thing to do is engage with
people who disagree and respectfully make our case to them and listen to what
they have to say.

------
cityandtech
Travelling is such an important way for people to grow, but it's so hard to
appreciate its value without actually doing it. It's shocking how many people
have only left their state to visit Disney Land.

~~~
nradov
Travel is great, but it's an expensive luxury especially for families with
multiple children. Sometimes that one trip to Disneyland is all they can
afford.

~~~
jacobolus
Even poor families with multiple children can manage to travel on a limited
budget, if they really want to.

The bigger impediment is profound lack of interest/curiosity about other
places. Take George W. Bush as an example; he certainly didn’t lack for
resources.
[http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/102900a.html](http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/102900a.html)

~~~
ashark
> Even poor families with multiple children can manage to travel on a limited
> budget, if they really want to.

You mean with all that paid vacation time they don't have, after using all
5-10 days of it (if there's any at all) to stay home with sick kids, or
holding it in reserve to do same later in the year? Hell, that's a problem for
most families period, poor or not. Vacation time is very scarce for most
people and will continue to be until some significant minimum is required by
law.

~~~
jacobolus
Sorry, that was inelegantly stated. Obviously there are folks having a hard
time just getting by, and taking long vacations to jet around the world for
months at a time is infeasible.

I’m not suggesting that anyone struggling to survive should prioritize travel
over eating.

But I know plenty of people who grew up in dirt poor families who managed to
take occasional long road trips in their childhood. And I know people who grew
up in extremely wealthy families who barely ever left their hometown.

My point was just that means aren’t everything; attitude is also important.

~~~
ashark
OK, cool, point makes sense. Just wanted to make sure no one was blaming a
large portion of the country for having effectively zero _actual_ vacation
time, whatever their attitude toward travel might be.

------
huffmsa
It's curious that in America, the peoples of the coast demand our inland
citizens tolerate and accept other nations inland people's beliefs.

The United States is far and away one of the most multiethnic nations in the
world, yet we still insist on crying "not good enough!"

Yet the coastal elite have had little compunction sending the same middle
Americans they so revile out into the world as agents of American imperialism
to foist upon others like middle-Afghanis and middle-Veitnamese the parts of
Americana that the coast likes -- consumerism, secularism, universal suffrage
etc.

And guess what? Generally these middle-* people dislike being told that their
way of life is wrong, and it typically hardens their resolve -- yielding Daesh
and Republican Presidents.

So no, sir, the coast is wrong, and frankly, most of the world is growing
tired getting belittled by "tolerant" people.

~~~
CalRobert
"Yet the coastal elite have had little compunction sending the same middle
Americans they so revile out into the world as agents of American imperialism
to foist upon others like middle-Afghanis and middle-Veitnamese the parts of
Americana that the coast likes -"

What?!? The coasts have been more strongly anti-war than middle America for a
long time.

~~~
bmj
The anti-war voices of both the Right and the Left have been marginalized by
the Center for a very long time. Do you really believe that Mrs. Clinton is
anti-war? Or even Mr. Obama (Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding)?

You are correct, however, that middle America tends to be more honest about
their perspectives on aggressive US foreign policy. Many liberals would say
"yes, the US should get out of the Middle East" but then they pull the lever
for a rather hawkish presidential candidate.

------
bloat
The author may be right about the cultural factors he talks about, but the
economic issues, which I suspect are much more significant in the midwest's
decision on Tuesday, are being seriously understated.

One sentence only, and a major understatement at that: "Change has not been
kind to the Midwest and rural America."

------
austincheney
I live in a big urban area in the midde-west. I don't care about poor white
people sadness or coastal elite arrogance. To me both of those are ignorant
extremes in isolated bubbles.

You people seriously need to join the military, live in foreign country for
more than a year, or go shake a stranger's hand. Seriously... the level of
ignorance and isolation demonstrated in some of these comments is
dumbfounding. It college is your solution to "shaking it up" you are probably
still really isolated.

------
kelukelugames
I grew up in Ames Iowa and my sister was born there. An adoptee and I were the
only Asian kids in our class. There were a total of three in the entire
school. I had at most two incidents related to race. Two is a lot fewer than
the number of incidents I've dealt with in coastal cities.

------
monkey88
This about rural America sitting in a time bubble, isolated from the rest of
the world? This is true.

Our dear values, the Aaron Sorkin kind of shows we love, are meaningless to a
population that have always understood the city as a thing to visit one of
these days, where multiculturalism is an impossible luxury, and where making
do with tthe clothes from 5 years ago is necessary because the factory has
been closed since that guy from NY bought it, dismantled it, and started
importing the pieces from elsewhere.

They are in the past, because that's what they have, and none of this media we
tout and eulogize means anything to them, isolated from the world and only
receiving messages from the usual populists messengers.

------
mirimir
The Trump victory looks a lot like Occupy Wall Street, I think, but the
mainstream version.

------
curiouscat321
While this thread is on the topic of stereotyping, I'd just like to point out
that the entire Midwest is not on this rapid decline.

If you look at Metro Detroit, the area's still one of the richest in the
country and is thriving. In fact, the metropolitan areas in Michigan were the
only parts that went blue.

I appreciate that the author specifically mentioned he/she was from the rural
Midwest. It seems like we need to establish more metropolitan areas in the
Midwest (also better define the boundaries of that region) so that service
jobs can be created there.

Manufacturing allowed factories to be built anywhere. As it currently stands,
it seems like service jobs require a large urban area.

------
edblarney
"I’m from the Midwest, and I love the Midwest, but it’s not representative of
modern America"

This is your political bigotry.

BTW - the issue regarding 'Coastal Elites' not being 'true Americans' is not
so much where they live - it's the fact that NYC, LA, SF etc. are highly
transient cities - without multigenerational communities - they import
culture, or create little bits of fleeting culture on their own.

Large American cities are a new phenom in the West. Even in Frankfurt,
Germany, it's still walkabout and people live near their families etc..

~~~
edblarney
Sorry, by 'political bigotry' I meant the assumption that 'The Coasts'
represent what is 'modern' or in any way ideal.

~~~
serge2k
> I meant the assumption that 'The Coasts' represent what is 'modern'

They do though. Multicultural, global trade centers, high tech industry.

They are the modern world. That's a big part of the problem, there are places
that haven't adapted and as a result are suffering.

For a lot of people (say, the vast number of americans who live there) they
are closer to the ideal than living in a town in wyoming or wherever. Same
thing is true the other way.

~~~
edblarney
"They do though. Multicultural, global trade centers, high tech industry."

No they don't.

They represent a specific vision of the future.

There are many people living very high standards of living all around Bavaria,
Stwitzerland, Netherlands, Scandinavia - that are not part of 'city centres,
multiculturalism, or high tech'.

The future is whatever we want to make it.

------
sebringj
Totally accurate IMO as I have relatives from the midwest but I can't imagine
them reading this type of stuff, let alone agreeing with this. I have this
hope the federal government will increase the power of states to have much
more autonomy in their own laws so the ones pulling their own weight can do so
unencumered. Let the other ones be better or worse off on their own accord and
see where people move to as things get more extreme. Maybe that's a nice idea
for a simulation.

~~~
ashark
> I have this hope the federal government will increase the power of states to
> have much more autonomy in their own laws so the ones pulling their own
> weight can do so unencumered.

A lot of really nice things that already exist (at least somewhere) or may
soon exist, like single-payer healthcare or universal basic income, don't work
very well if you can't control borders and imports, which states can't do.
Without _actual_ sovereignty they'll still be subject to many of the same
problems that make it effectively impossible for voluntary associations to
address all sorts of important issues.

~~~
sebringj
I hate that I can't fix my misspelling of "unencumbered" as I wrote it around
2 AM... but to further explain my imagined and laymen view point in terms of
politics, the federal government would be responsible for things like borders
and constitutional rights etc. but step back on things the state legalizes
that do not infringe on those basic freedom's such as weed for example and
money toward scientific research or a carbon tax, etc, that the state's
themselves can decide on. Even Roe vs. Wade and Gay Marriage can be up for
grabs. The places that are backwards cannot force people to live there and CA
and other progressive states will get all the good people anyway. The country
cannot have a black and white approach, one-size fits all, obviously as it is
so divided as the author describes. How can you have people living in the past
dictating our future? It is dead weight. Try telling someone in the backwoods
they have to have more restrictions on their guns from a perspective of being
in a crowded city. It doesn't make sense to have the same laws everywhere
although I still think the gays and women's rights are fundamental but that
doesn't seem to be the consensus on the red states.

------
pipio21
I have traveled the world and not just "shaking hands with a Muslim" but lived
in Muslim countries. I have studied Q'ran in order to understand it and have
friends there.

When you travel to another country at first you get in love with the new
culture but after some months you also start understanding the "not so good
things".

If you believe you know about Muslims because you shake hands with one you are
totally wrong. This Muslim is totally surrounded by a foreign culture and he
has to adapt. It is a completely different thing when you(as Christian or
worse atheist) are the one who has to adapt to theirs(atheism is punished in
most Muslim countries, Christianism means you are at best second class
citizen).

Most of you Americans live in a bubble(all of you, not just the MidWest)
because you are at least 5000 miles away from EuroAsia (and Africa and
SouthAmerica) where 5 billion of the 7 billion people on Earth live. You speak
just one language and have a tremendously homogeneous culture and population.
In other countries just for survival you need to speak several languages and
understand-respect several cultures, not just shaking hands with isolated
members of them.

This makes extremely easy for media to manipulate you. If you hear Putin talk,
you are never going to understand what he says and make your own opinion, you
can't talk with actual people living in Ukraine, or India or China, or just go
there(in China for example most people do not speak English), you have to
trust others that have, and these people have their best own interest in mind,
not yours.

For example, we know from wikileaks mail leaks that France invades Lybia for
two main reasons: First to steal their gas and oil, second because Gaddafy is
saving an enormous amount of gold and silver and wants to create an African
currency backed by precious metals.

Was the American public aware of those interests? Of course not, they believe
it is about freedom and democracy, as if people enjoyed having their country
devastated by war by foreign powers, their family members die or be raped, to
loose all their possessions.

Is the American public aware of the deal(of an American oil company with
contractors and other countries) to make a pipeline over Syria to transport
the natural gas of Qatar to Europe? Agreement done without the support of
Assad of course, which meant the civil war for his country.

Of course not, people buy whatever they watch on tv, war is a racket and it
has always been.

I am not American and do not like Trump, but I'm glad Hillary is out as she
was the main responsible of direct Russia confrontation, as she wanted to
repeat the Cold war as having most of the population scared and frightened of
a new nuclear world war is the best way for people not to oppose the
militarization of the USA and it is a great excuse to control the media when
the final debt bubble makes the financial system implode(Remember it was Bill
Clinton who remove the Steagal Act and created all the derivatives mess).

If you want to get out of the bubble you need to get out of America for a
while. It is certainly going to make you go out of your comfort zone, but then
it will become easy as you will discover a world and opportunities you didn't
know existed.

~~~
notahacker
I think the excellent first half of your post was rather undermined by the
suggestion that France intervened in the Libyan Revolution because they were
worried by a desperately-fighting-to-stay-in-power Gadaffi's longstanding plan
to introduce a gold dinar.

If nothing else, it's a reminder that worldliness is no innoculation against
the tendency to be able to draw some very strange conclusions from selective,
agenda-driven news reporting.

------
chadcmulligan
Did anyone else make up BS answers to the questions they asked before you can
read the article - what a waste of time.

------
kelukelugames
Trump supporters have have lots of problems, and they're bringing those
problems with us. They're bringing misogyny. They're bringing homophobia.
They're racists. And some, I assume, are good people.

------
crdoconnor
As Bill Clinton once said (ironically enough): it's the economy, stupid.

Mid-westerners accurately saw this election as a way to do away with job
killing trade deals.

If coastal elites were really serious about bridging the divide instead of
talking down to unemployed midwesterners about gay rights they'd educate
themselves about the TTIP, NAFTA & TPP and stop pretending that "a robot is
going to steal those jobs" is anything more than an article of faith.

Edit: kind of figured this would get no coherent response and more downvotes
than upvotes :)

------
snarfy
It's not because you met Dave. It's because you're an elite from the midwest
that moved to the coast.

How many of your small town friends moved out and went to college? The smart
people move out of small towns for better opportunities abroad. What's left is
a group of people struggling to make ends meet. About the only opportunity
they have left is the electoral college.

------
dmode
Finally someone had the guts to speak truth

------
glook
I am amazed that this will be the first comment on this page that includes the
word RELIGION.

------
hhjkjhkjhhlkj
> people who choose to develop a substance abuse problem

Are you really this naive?

~~~
yummyfajitas
You should consider reading the HN guidelines.

 _When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not
3."_

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

In your case, "Are you really this naive?" can be shortened to "".

------
tzakrajs
When you live in the country, you are less likely to bump into, well, anyone.
This is only exacerbated for minorities.

~~~
douche
Although, if you live in the country, and you were born there, then there is a
good chance you know everybody in the community, and are possibly related to a
good chunk of them.

~~~
tzakrajs
So imagine the confirmation bias at play when those same people try to imagine
policies or politicians that can help all Americans.

------
ainiriand
If you want the opinion of a fairly educated european white male, we see the
rural US as a bunch of Cletus Spucklers. No offense. Trump's victory seems to
be only the confirmation to this. I hope I am wrong.

~~~
alva
"fairly educated european white male". IYI

And no, "we" do not all see rural US as Cletus Spucklers. You certainly do.

~~~
lorenzhs
I suppose "IYI" here means "Intellectual Yet Idiot"? That's not the level at
which we lead discussions on this site.

Save for the people who've actually been to rural America, people's opinion
here of rural Americans certainly is very undifferentiated.

~~~
alva
"we see the rural US as a bunch of Cletus Spucklers"

but that is a level you are happy with?

~~~
ainiriand
No. I believe that we have globalization but basically we don't know much
about culture from other parts of the world, or what worries they have. We
swim in a sea of misconceptions and archetypes.

------
savagej
Pure ignorant writing.

Do we live in a country of immigration laws or not? This author seems to think
it's a one world government.

~~~
grey-area
Try to engage reasonably with other views, even if you really disagree. For
example if you expanded on your first sentence and deleted the first bit 'pure
ignorant writing' you're far more likely to have a meaningful conversation
with someone, maybe even change their mind.

~~~
savagej
The author was intentionally writing around the fact that these "undocumented
immigrants" are illegal. When someone purposefully obfuscates an issue, I'll
call a spade, a spade, and say the writing is pure ignorance.

