
Why rural Americans are so pissed off - csa
https://www.vox.com/2018/3/13/17053886/trump-rural-america-populism-racial-resentment
======
overthemoon
This guy found a handful of the dumbest people in America and concluded people
in rural areas are morally degraded and their problems are their own fault.

The arrogance of dismissing their contempt for the government is overwhelming.
Just because they don't express their hatred of the elite class of people who
rule them in just the right way doesn't somehow add up to their anger being
misguided. They're using "the government" as a lightning rod for the myriad
elites who do basically dictate the shape of their lives--the media they
consume, the state of the market they could never control, and what options
for their future they have. It's not expressed clearly, but it's not hard for
someone with an ounce of empathy to suss out.

I could come up with a laundry list of the moral failures of the white rural
poor, sure. My family tree is full of people just like this. But this
researcher and people just like him cannot see past their own ideology. They
want to believe they're objective, but they're not, they're caught up in the
same sort of scientistic neoliberalism that can't help but see anyone outside
of their elite class as a curious primitive and any other value system from
theirs as a totemic anomaly. They want to know what character flaws led people
to do such a horrible thing as to vote for Trump, but cannot for a moment
consider how it was that we got to this position. Hint: it's not the rural
poor's fault.

~~~
wjn0
I think a bigger problem is the unholy conflation of fiscal and social
conservatism, by the interviewer, possibly by the author, and quite likely by
the people being studied themselves.

It is one thing to support fiscal conservatism. The very nature of these towns
lends itself to the ideology, and it has its merits - cf. tech leaders who
supported Trump.

It is quite another to have "outdated" (for lack of a better word) moral
beliefs (anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-<whatever>), to _know_ that the
majority of the country does not agree, and still somehow _expect_ that these
views to be enforced in their little part of the world. It's a kind of
selfishness that is not unique to small towns or their people by any means,
but it is there.

I wish the author did more to differentiate the two, although the interview is
pretty terrible overall.

~~~
cosmiccartel
> It is quite another to have "outdated" (for lack of a better word) moral
> beliefs

There are plenty of better words. "Unfashionable" works.

> anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-<whatever>

I find it interesting that the left think of the right as the "anti" crowd,
while the right think the same of the left.

> to _know_ that the majority of the country does not agree, and still somehow
> _expect_ that these views to be enforced in their little part of the world.
> It's a kind of selfishness that is not unique to small towns or their people
> by any means, but it is there.

First, the assumption that social conservatives are a clear minority and
reside in a "small part of the world" doesn't really hold up. Second, minority
or not, since when is a political group advancing their own interests
"selfish"?

~~~
wjn0
I thought about the "anti-" phrasing after posting, and of course you're
correct. It's not really relevant to my point, though. I agree "unfashionable"
is a better term too.

As an example, less than 20% of Americans believe abortion should be totally
illegal (2015) [1]. Granted, this is only one "social issue", but I think it's
somewhat representative of my point.

There's a difference between advancing your political beliefs and not
accepting the current status, and participating in antisocial behaviour in
response, as the article suggests. Whether or not this behaviour is
commonplace, is, well, a separate point entirely.

[1]
[http://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx](http://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx)

~~~
cosmiccartel
> There's a difference between advancing your political beliefs and not
> accepting the current status, and participating in antisocial behaviour in
> response

I'm a little unclear on what you're talking about here. What antisocial
behavior in particular? I'm part of that 20%, and wondering at what point does
expressing my opinion become "antisocial".

For reference, roughly 6% of the population is vegan[1]. Are they antisocial
for protesting what is, in their opinion, murder?

[1] [https://www.reportbuyer.com/product/4959853/top-trends-in-
pr...](https://www.reportbuyer.com/product/4959853/top-trends-in-prepared-
foods-2017-exploring-trends-in-meat-fish-and-seafood-pasta-noodles-and-rice-
prepared-meals-savory-deli-food-soup-and-meat-substitutes.html)

~~~
wjn0
A few weeks ago I walked past a group of people with huge (2m x 3m) posters of
aborted fetuses outside one of the biggest buildings of my university campus.
These same people have been accused of berating people who disagree with them.
I find that behaviour and form of protest. Do I think it should be illegal?
Definitely not. Do I think it's anti-social? Yes. As a mirror to this example,
if in my (liberal) home state anti-gun nuts were to lobby for a change in gun
policy with pictures of dead school kids from shooting <x> outside my
university, I'd be similarly displeased with the nature of that political
rhetoric.

There are leftist groups that protest in anti-social ways to varying degrees,
so it's by no means unique to the right. An extreme example would be groups
masquerading as Antifa destroying property. (Like I said, varying degrees of
anti-social behaviour.) One of the positions of the author, it seems, is that
anti-social political discourse is particularly dangerous in small towns, due
to the echo chamber effect.

So, to answer your question simply: ideally, political discourse is well-
reasoned, and measured in its intensity. One person expounding on their
political beliefs with the intention of causing genuine emotional distress in
another individual would be anti-social, in my view.

------
poulsbohemian
My politics are on the left wing of the political spectrum, but as I sit here
in my home in rural America (pop 30,000, farm based economy, nearest city of
250,000, 1 hour drive away) it would seem to me that people are mad because:

-There are very few high paying jobs -There is limited access to medical care -Local government ineptitude has a very real daily impact -Small tax base means surprisingly high taxes, but real struggle to maintain infrastructure (especially schools) -“Traditional” upbringing, often religious based, that breed skepticism toward anything “foreign” - which means everything from non-white people to AirBnB. -A fear that Washington DC really is a threat to their freedoms. For example, there is a view that gun laws aren’t really about guns, so much as a perception of a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

Those are just kinda off the top of my head… but having now lived here in
small town, rural America for eight years, I can sympathize with some of their
views. People in small towns are not all the slack-jawed yokels city dwellers
like to believe they are - many are well-informed and well-educated. By and
large, they have legitimate concerns, even if they can be misguided in their
beliefs about the potential solutions — and politicians to help them achieve
those solutions.

My $0.02 — small towns need to be more entrepreneurial. The government isn’t
going to fix it for you. Trying to recruit Amazon (for example) to put a
warehouse there isn’t going to bring the desired economic outcomes either. Do
it for yourselves.

~~~
cosmiccartel
> There are very few high paying jobs > There is limited access to medical
> care > Local government ineptitude has a very real daily impact > Small tax
> base means surprisingly high taxes, but real struggle to maintain
> infrastructure (especially schools)

Sounds like poor white and poor black Americans face fairly similar issues.

> “Traditional” upbringing, often religious based, that breed skepticism
> toward anything “foreign” - which means everything from non-white people to
> AirBnB.

The xenophobia of rural whites is vastly oversold. I've never heard of anyone
around here afraid of AirBnB. The level of racism I've seen in white
communities is on par with the level I've seen in black communities. Which is
to say that there's an undercurrent, but not a hysteria.

> A fear that Washington DC really is a threat to their freedoms.

Do urban Americans really not feel this way? It certainly seemed otherwise
during the summer of surveillance.

> For example, there is a view that gun laws aren’t really about guns, so much
> as a perception of a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

It's not that gun laws aren't about guns. It's that the rights of citizens to
defend themselves against a tyrannical government _should one arise_ is
important enough to be included in our Bill of Rights. I still don't
understand how those who believe that our current president is a totalitarian
monster can't sympathize.

~~~
secstate
Slightly off topic, but to your last point: I've done some thinking about
this, and the idea that a civil liberty granting you access to firearms will
help in a government coup or if the government really comes for you seems
laughable on it's face. Your best bet is not a wild-west style shoot out, but
alliances. Local government, corruption in the national guard or local
sheriff's dept. When the federal government comes for you, you don't need one
(or 15) firearms. You need friends in high places.

~~~
cosmiccartel
I actually agree with a lot of this. If I thought that 15 random wild-west
fantasists could pull of a coup, I'd see more of an issue with the right to
own guns.

But the point isn't that when the government comes for me in particular, I can
stop them. It's that when the government does something so horrific that the
citizenry as a whole decides to do something, they can. Local, ad-hoc militias
across the country could definitely get the job done.

------
maxxxxx
It seems the article wants to make the case that it's not about economic
issues but things like values. This may play a role but when things don't work
well economically people are susceptible to attacking scapegoats like
foreigners, atheists or whatever.

I am sure these people would be less angry if they perceived to be in a
prospering part of the country and not a decaying one.

~~~
snarf21
Exactly this. It is a lot harder to convince people that illegals are stealing
your job when you and all your friends have good jobs and a pretty good
standard of living.

------
kchoudhu
What an oddly combative interviewer. Are you asking questions, or are you
soapboxing?

~~~
ranie93
I agree. Empathy in main stream media seems very scarce to me nowadays.

~~~
ryandvm
Vox is awfully far from mainstream media.

------
RickJWag
Such nonsense. What would Vox know about rural America?

Rural Americans are mad about being called 'flyover states', about being
called racists (really for voting against Democrats) and for being portrayed
as backwards.

Rural Americans are great people, the same as urban Americans. If you can't
see the good in other people, the problem isn't with them.

------
ra1n85
For 8 years of work, the conclusions don't seem very insightful.

------
bobosha
Many of these articles point to the a white working class populace unsettled
over demographic changes (read: an increasing non-white immigrant population).
Wasn't there such unease even when immigration was almost entirely "white"?
The Irish weren't white for a while, neither were the swarthy italians, poles,
jews etc. How is it different this time around?

~~~
cosmiccartel
If you actually listen to conservatives, we are continuously, clearly saying
that we care about _illegal_ immigration. We want to vet who we allow into our
home.

------
monktastic1
"I know a lot of people who don’t live in rural America are tired of being
told they need to understand all these resentments."

Well, nobody _needs_ to do anything. But if you really want to solve a
problem, it usually helps to understand it. Overpowering the other side only
works for so long.

------
wjn0
This analysis (or treatment of it) seems pretty superficial. I was curious
about the conclusions... but they were pretty dissatisfying. The question is
an important one, though.

------
mjevans
Maybe if cities had building codes that resulted in more privacy within
residences (isolation from outside disturbance; usually better insulation and
an actual ventilation /design/; often lacking or incorrectly implemented.) as
well a an overall urban plan that encouraged 'organic' development of commerce
within planned and interconnected human-scale areas (with transport and
cars/etc on a different level entirely) there'd be a place for warm
communities within cities that the rural residents would feel welcome within.

------
hermitdev
tl;dr; - As a former rural American now living in Chicago I rant about a
couple of reasons I think the author being interviewed is wrong.

I think this interview, and inferring from the interview, the book in question
have largely glossed over a number of issues, these are just to name a few:

1\. Not all rural people are ultra-conservative bible-thumping hicks. Sure,
some are, but they're usually a highly vocal minority. Most rural folk just
want to be left alone to go about their day. I grew up in rural Montana and
now live in Chicago, and I'm an atheist, fiscally conservative, social
libertarian (I don't care what you do in your personal life as long as it's
between consenting adults and it doesn't infringe on my rights). I'd go back
in a heartbeat if I could make a decent living there and if not having step-
kids and joint-custody in Chicago.

2\. Rural people tend to be largely self-sufficient and transitively, largely
independent. They don't dependent on the government for day-to-day things.
Sure, they may depend upon the government for roads, but truly rural (and I'm
sorry, a town of 25,000 is not rural - that's a regional city) don't depend on
government for water or sewer. They'll have either their own or a community
well and septic systems. Police & Fire services? You're probably fucked if you
need them. Response times may be an hour or more. Same for EMT services. Hell,
depending on the time of year, emergency services may not be able to get to
your home - you may have to meet them part way. I've certainly seen that first
hand growing up - an elderly neighbor had to get her husband, who was
suffering a heart attack, into their SUV and meet the ambulance at the nearest
paved road as it couldn't get to their house.

3\. Rural people perceive urban areas as getting preferential treatment for
government services, especially for natural disasters and infrastructure
improvement. Yeah, a bridge in say the Twin Cities of Minneapolis (and this is
not even local) might only serve a portion of only 3.3M local residents, but
when that fails, a lot of cross country trucking routes fail, need to be
rerouted. But, what about a closure of I-90 between Spokane, WA and Missoula,
MT? A lot of freight and post travels that route. First hand, my parents lost
their rural home in a wild fire this past (2017) fire season. Why? Not from
the natural lightning-caused fire, but because the Federal Forest Service set
a back burn at the worst possible time of day (afternoon) and then let it run
rampant while my parents' house and a neighbor's house burned to the ground.
And from other neighbors that didn't evacuate, the fire personnel just stood
there and watched. This after having cut a fire break and running water pipes
miles over the hill side to protect against such a circumstance. Fast forward
to the wildfires outside of LA, and they pull out all of the stops there,
while basically committing arson on my parents and their neighbor. So far, no
criminal charges or government settlement, but there certainly ought to be.
So, yeah, sometimes the Fed comes in and literally burns your house to the
ground and you have no recourse.

4\. Rural people just plain don't like being told what to do from people
thousands of miles away. The DC politicians largely don't know what it takes
to live a rural live and likely never have lived a rural life. They may have
made a token visit to a rural resort, but have no idea what it is like to live
where the nearest "town" to which you live has a population of 1 and is your
grocery store, gas station and post office (and probably a few other things).

Sorry, this turned into a long-winded rant; I did not mean it to. I think the
author being interviewed had preconceived conclusions and did his interviews
to support those conclusions without actually digging into the meat of the
problem.

------
John_KZ
That's complete bullshit. The reason is 100% because of the economy. Many of
them will say it's not, others will also believe it, but if you dig down to
the truth, it's absolutely and exclusively all about the economy.

~~~
mcherm
I don't think you are WRONG, exactly, but the article (poor as it was)
represented the results of actual research. Do you have anything to back up
this claim?

~~~
jcizzle
Did it though? It really sounded like a persons opinion. Maybe I didn’t read
it carefully, but I don’t recall any numbers or data backing any of the claims
he made.

~~~
mcherm
Line 1 of the article:

> Robert Wuthnow, a sociologist at Princeton University, spent eight years
> interviewing Americans in small towns across the country.

Now, that isn't peer-reviewed research, and it doesn't necessarily prove
anything, but it's a decent start toward being authoritative (even if I find
it quite unconvincing).

