
An Open Letter to the Democratic National Committee from a Rural Democrat - protomyth
http://ndxplains.com/2016/12/22/open-letter-democratic-national-committee-rural-democrat/
======
sverige
>> That seems like a stark contrast from the rhetoric we hear from many
national Democratic leaders who seemingly _want to alter our way of life._
(Emphasis added)

That's the problem right there. It's easy to imagine that everyone lives like
you when you are in a city that rarely leave, unless it is to fly to _another_
city. The democrats have little hope of regaining any majorities in the 3,084
counties where Trump won unless they make major changes to their policies that
damage the economies in many of those counties and their strategy of trying to
shame them into changing their behavior (including calling them "deplorable"
and "irredeemable").

~~~
knz
> That's the problem right there. It's easy to imagine that everyone lives
> like you when you are in a city that rarely leave, unless it is to fly to
> another city

I hope you can see the irony in rural areas being upset that "those city
people don't understand us" when they also make little attempt to understand
the political motivations of urban voters. They also seem to believe that the
world should keep subsidizing their jobs even when there is a long term trend
of urbanization etc.

Personally I think rural and urban areas need each other but we need more
compromise - why are urban areas subsidizing infrastructure spending in rural
areas and the farm bill only to get kicked in the teeth when issues associated
with urban areas come up? Do we want to go back to rural poverty being the
norm? My wifes grandparents grew up in that and it was a hard life. Those
people need affordable healthcare and benefit from being able to send their
kids off to good universities etc.

Rural America doesn't have a monopoly on the "real" America - they are just as
out of touch with urban America.

~~~
protomyth
> why are urban areas subsidizing infrastructure spending in rural areas and
> the farm bill only to get kicked in the teeth when issues associated with
> urban areas come up?

I'm curious what Urban American has gotten "kicked in the teeth" by? Mainly,
the $ figures are from military, power, and agriculture which Urban American
doesn't want in their backyard. Pigs and turkeys don't smell so good, and wind
farms are noisy, unsightly, and a bit dangerous. Counting military and power
spending is pretty poor form. Transportation happens because the low cost raw
materials come from the rural areas. No roads, no food for urban folks.

> Rural America doesn't have a monopoly on the "real" America - they are just
> as out of touch with urban America.

That's not really true. Rural America is quite aware of the issues Urban
America face because that's all the news really covers. When the news covers
Rural America it is pretty bad reporting unless the reporter is actually
local[1]. The whole debacle of the pipeline in Standing Rock pretty much
proved the point. I've seen coverage of celebrities and pieces from major
publications that get much of the history wrong[2].

1) which makes me wonder about reports coming from the rest of the world

2) the whole "rich people in Bismarck" line is beyond insulting and the amount
of back story on all the prep for the pipeline is tragically poor.

~~~
knz
> I'm curious what Urban American has gotten "kicked in the teeth" by? Mainly,
> the $ figures are from military, power, and agriculture which Urban American
> doesn't want in their backyard. Pigs and turkeys don't smell so good, and
> wind farms are noisy, unsightly, and a bit dangerous. Counting military and
> power spending is pretty poor form. Transportation happens because the low
> cost raw materials come from the rural areas. No roads, no food for urban
> folks

A local example for my State would be spending on public transportation vs
bridges. Elected officials from rural areas are routinely outraged about
"wasteful" spending on buses/trains to relieve congestion but then complain
that not enough is spent on rural bridges and highways. You are right, we do
need roads to bring food in (it's symbiotic too by the way -if urban areas
don't buy then rural areas are back to subsistence farming and poverty) but we
could do that without four lane highways and overpasses. Personally I amok
spending tax revenue on infrastructure but that should include public
transportation in urban areas if appropriate.

> That's not really true. Rural America is quite aware of the issues Urban
> America face because that's all the news really covers

Seeing coverage is not the same as understanding. Ask someone in a rural area
how to solve inner-city poverty and they will give you a different answer than
someone who works in the field. The same could be said about rural issues.

To be clear, Im not saying urban America understands rural America. I'm just
sick of seeing this narrative of "Trump won because liberal elites don't
understand rural America". It's way too simplistic.

~~~
protomyth
I would hardly call public transportation vs bridges a kick in the teeth.
Bridges are becoming a huge issue for everyone. Just look at what happened in
urban MN when the 35W bridge went because we were not spending the money on
maintenance.

> Ask someone in a rural area how to solve inner-city poverty and they will
> give you a different answer than someone who works in the field.

I'm not sure urban folks know how to solve it either.

> I'm just sick of seeing this narrative of "Trump won because liberal elites
> don't understand rural America". It's way too simplistic.

It is simplistic, but you cannot have a candidate show up and give speeches
about putting all the people in a region out of work without a lifeline. Not
everything in life is complicated. If someone showed up in SV and said "I
don't like this technology and we will be shutting it all down", I would
imagine that person is going to get no votes.

I'm pretty sure Rubio (or most of the R candidates) would have won, and it
would have been on the same basis. The fact that the Republicans won with a
candidate with the highest negatives is pretty hard to believe.

As a side note, I starting to think polling companies should look at donor
lists to get some baseline on candidates. I'm thinking that's the next wave of
polling analysis.

~~~
knz
35W is a great example (I live in the Twin Cities and was only a mile or two
from the bridge when it collapsed). Our Republican Governor at the time
(Pawlenty) had aspirations for Washington so signed a "No New Taxes" pledge
primarily to appease rural Minnesotans (he also promised to "reprioritize"
spending to benefit rural areas). It was a great example of how bridges that
were known to urgently need repairs were neglected. After Dayton (take a guess
which party) was elected the State raised taxes and has rebuilt many bridges.

The Twin Cities also has some other good examples - Republicans actively fight
against metro transit projects (both light rail lines, the proposed SW Light
Rail, BRT lines in place of LRT for at least 3 other corridors, and even
regular city buses) but proudly tell their rural/exurban constituents about
"successes" like replacing the Stillwater lift bridge (an old 2 lane bridge)
with a massive four lane bridge very similar to the I-90 bridge just south of
the area. How do you justify $500M for a bridge that benefits ~ 10,000 rural
commuters/rural industry but ignore the daily congestion that tens of
thousands of commuters face (coming in from Woodbury, Oakdale, Lake Elmo,
Hudson etc). The gateway corridor had a similar price tag to the Stillwater
bridge but became a partisan issue.

It doesn't have to be an either or situation - we could fund both but it gets
turned into a partisan issue by Republicans in the name of "wasteful spending
by urban liberals". Democrats don't oppose rural bridges or highways but many
Republicans actively oppose public transport on principle.

~~~
protomyth
I was living in Twin City at the time also, and the loss of the T-Mobile tower
made finding loved ones a bit difficult.

Your history of the metro light rail is a bit off. The rail was pushed by Gov.
Jesse Ventura (who the Republicans and Democrats would surely not claim). It
was opposed by Pawlenty, but he relented on a smaller line to get the federal
money. The state government under Pawlenty funded in via a bonding bill for
$37.5 million. That didn't pay for it though. It took almost $100 million from
the state and money from various other regional players with over $150 more
million from the feds. It has not met its promised ridership goals, and it
will never relieve congestion.

All of this money could have gone to fixing the roads instead of funding a
train that kills people because of a bad route in Minneapolis that once was a
turn. Never mind the whole problem with the U. Check the stats on
transportation to see how important those bridges are to business as commuter
numbers are not the whole issue. Those daily congestion issues can be blamed
on not wanting to expand the highways. The long proposed 294 and 894 would
have done more than then the light rail.

~~~
knz
I was referring to the new LRT corridors.The Hiawatha line was built before I
came to MN. You are absolutely correct that metro funding via Met Council made
up much of the cost.

The most recent LRT line hit its ridership goals within one year (2014 instead
of 2030 - [https://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/09/19/green-line-
ridershi...](https://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/09/19/green-line-ridership)).
The Hiawatha line is also doing well - exceeding 2020 goals in 2016. People
die on 94/694/494 all the time as well unfortunately.

I'm not familiar with 294 and 894, will definitely read up on them. Thanks for
the debate/information!

~~~
protomyth
> I was referring to the new LRT corridors. The Hiawatha line was built before
> I came to MN. You are absolutely correct that metro funding via Met Council
> made up much of the cost.

I left in 2008 but still visit. All my relatives and friends move to MN after
I moved back to ND. I try not to take that personally :). Someone needs to
seriously fix the north west metro.

I think the working name for 294/894 switched a couple of time so it might be
"extended loop" or some bypass name. It was supposed to surround the larger
metro area since 494/694 is basically an interior road.

I'm glad someone is using it, but I do believe the federal application had a
different ridership goal / promise. I just wish they had elevated it.

Thanks for staying civil, its been a rough couple of months here.

------
niftich
There's a lot of fluff in the first part that plays up the caricature of rural
America -- this hurts the blog post because it makes it easier to dismiss the
entire message. Don't.

The oil angle is crucial, although not often talked about. By rallying against
projects like Keystone XL -- a Canadian venture to bring Alberta oil sands
crude to Gulf of Mexico refineries -- and conflating the legitimate debate
over the exact routing of the Bakken formation's Dakota Access Pipeline with a
blanket opposition against oil pipelines in general, Democratic voters and
leaders are signalling that they're uninterested in supporting a major job
producer and the reason for North Dakota's positive balance sheet.

Although several years behind, North Dakota has every opportunity to become
like Alberta (or any number of states in OPEC), using oil money to prop up the
quality of life of its residents. The influx of money and talent can been used
to stimulate job creation and ventures that are less dependent on the
momentary price of oil and create lasting wealth in an area of the country
that could really use some. These ventures have been pursued since the Bakken
boom and have resulted in low unemployment, a state budget surplus, and
personal income growth, but have a long way to go before they're self-
sufficient.

Climate change affects us all, but not defending domestic energy extraction
seriously hurts the Democratic party platform.

------
PretzelFisch
This seems more of just a problem with how the two parties try to win by
absorbing every fringe groups crazies cause into a national platform. It is a
failing of our country to have hyper partisan politics controlled at a
national level and holding all members in every state accountable to the same
platform.

~~~
legodt
Naw my guy, the failures of the American left are rooted in its inability to
be a party of the working class. Every lost election sees the policy of the
Democrats moving further and further to the right, leading to a platform that
masquerades as progressive but actually alienates and abandons working class
Americans because it isn't actually committed to them. Bernie was the first
step (although many argue he didn't go far enough), but since the us
Democratic party is held by the same corporate reins as the Republican party,
he wasn't given a fair chance. If you look at other developed countries, even
America with its most blue government is still to the right of center on
economics.

------
jstewartmobile
Back when I did real estate, the rural areas surrounding our city were just
eaten-up with meth. People cooking meth. People taking meth. Houses burning
down, etc.

Coexisting with this meth epidemic were a bunch of loyal old-timers who knew
the place in better times.

Consider how those old-timers must feel as they watch the mainstream
Democratic party make transgender-bathrooms priority #1 while their own
hometowns are turning into shit...

~~~
mcguire
Pardon me, but wasn't it the Republican party that made transgender bathrooms
a priority, by introducing and passing legislation? That played very well with
their religious-right core, as well as the rural old-timers who might
otherwise prefer Democratic policies.

That is, however, one of the greatest failings of the Democratic party over
the last 15 (20? 25?) years: letting the Republicans choose the battlefields.

~~~
jstewartmobile
From the past two Democratic administrations, it looks more like surrender
than failure. Obama at least got the ACA through, even though a lot of the
awfulness of the Bush administration survived. Clinton was more like total
surrender with banking dereg of 1999 and welfare reform.

As the Republican-lite party, it is entirely their fault that the Republicans
set their agenda.

