What would help ?
Unless a rural voter has the nerve to consider higher taxes, uncontrollable inflation and interest rates as a consequence of electing a democratic president and congress. Republicans are looking pretty good now aren't they?
Unless a rural voter has the nerve to consider higher taxes, uncontrollable inflation and interest rates as a consequence of electing a democratic president and congress. Republicans are looking pretty good now aren't they?
You’re on the wrong side of history and demographic trends are proving it. Your head is buried in the sand as you are blinded by garbage disinformation you have consumed. I do honestly feel bad for you.
The wrong side if hiatory...lol. you sure think a lot of yourself. Wrong side if history. Jesus dude no one is storming the beaches of Normandy here. Demographic trends prove what exactly you tool? Do you ever step back and really think about the bullshit that comes out of your mouth?
You seem very angry. I wish you well in getting help.
Not angry at all Torbee. Disagreeing with your world view doesn't make people angry. This twit at the times explaining rural rage and people like you lapping it up as if it is meaningful is the type of passive aggressive energy that needs help. Let me know when Paul has ever spent any time at all in a rural area let alone talking to people that live in rural areas. He hasn't and yet has a handle on the matter.
No doubt democratic policies, especially economic, often do a better job supporting rural/blue collar interest than republican policy. Obviously though, the war is being waged on the basis of culture.
By Paul Krugman
Opinion Columnist
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
Rural resentment has become a central fact of American politics — in particular, a pillar of support for the rise of right-wing extremism. As the Republican Party has moved ever further into MAGAland, it has lost votes among educated suburban voters; but this has been offset by a drastic rightward shift in rural areas, which in some places has gone so far that the Democrats who remain face intimidation and are afraid to reveal their party affiliation.
But is this shift permanent? Can anything be done to assuage rural rage?
The answer will depend on two things: whether it’s possible to improve rural lives and restore rural communities, and whether the voters in these communities will give politicians credit for any improvements that do take place.
This week my colleague Thomas B. Edsall surveyed research on the rural Republican shift. I was struck by his summary of work by Katherine J. Cramer, who attributes rural resentment to perceptions that rural areas are ignored by policymakers, don’t get their fair share of resources and are disrespected by “city folks.”
As it happens, all three perceptions are largely wrong. I’m sure that my saying this will generate a tidal wave of hate mail, and lecturing rural Americans about policy reality isn’t going to move their votes. Nonetheless, it’s important to get our facts straight.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
The truth is that ever since the New Deal rural America has received special treatment from policymakers. It’s not just farm subsidies, which ballooned under Donald Trump to the point where they accounted for around 40 percent of total farm income. Rural America also benefits from special programs that support housing, utilities and business in general.
In terms of resources, major federal programs disproportionately benefit rural areas, in part because such areas have a disproportionate number of seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare. But even means-tested programs — programs that Republicans often disparage as “welfare” — tilt rural. Notably, at this point rural Americans are more likely than urban Americans to be on Medicaid and receive food stamps.
And because rural America is poorer than urban America, it pays much less per person in federal taxes, so in practice major metropolitan areas hugely subsidize the countryside. These subsidies don’t just support incomes, they support economies: Government and the so-called health care and social assistance sector each employ more people in rural America than agriculture, and what do you think pays for those jobs?
What about rural perceptions of being disrespected? Well, many people have negative views about people with different lifestyles; that’s human nature. There is, however, an unwritten rule in American politics that it’s OK for politicians to seek rural votes by insulting big cities and their residents, but it would be unforgivable for urban politicians to return the favor. “I have to go to New York City soon,” tweeted J.D. Vance during his senatorial campaign. “I have heard it’s disgusting and violent there.” Can you imagine, say, Chuck Schumer saying something similar about rural Ohio, even as a joke?
So the ostensible justifications for rural resentment don’t withstand scrutiny — but that doesn’t mean things are fine. A changing economy has increasingly favored metropolitan areas with large college-educated work forces over small towns. The rural working-age population has been declining, leaving seniors behind. Rural men in their prime working years are much more likely than their metropolitan counterparts to not be working. Rural woes are real.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Ironically, however, the policy agenda of the party most rural voters support would make things even worse, slashing the safety-net programs these voters depend on. And Democrats shouldn’t be afraid to point this out.
But can they also have a positive agenda for rural renewal? As The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent recently pointed out, the infrastructure spending bills enacted under President Biden, while primarily intended to address climate change, will also create large numbers of blue-collar jobs in rural areas and small cities. They are, in practice, a form of the “place-based industrial policy” some economists have urged to fight America’s growing geographic disparities.
Will they work? The economic forces that have been hollowing out rural America are deep and not easily countered. But it’s certainly worth trying.
But even if these policies improve rural fortunes, will Democrats get any credit? It’s easy to be cynical. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the new governor of Arkansas, has pledged to get the “bureaucratic tyrants” of Washington “out of your wallets”; in 2019 the federal government spent almost twice as much in Arkansas as it collected in taxes, de facto providing the average Arkansas resident with $5,500 in aid. So even if Democratic policies greatly improve rural lives, will rural voters notice?
Still, anything that helps reverse rural America’s decline would be a good thing in itself. And maybe, just maybe, reducing the heartland’s economic desperation will also help reverse its political radicalization.
Opinion | Can Anything Be Done to Assuage Rural Rage?
Rural voters blame the wrong people, but their troubles are real.www.nytimes.com
You are angry and it is ironic that you are ranting in this thread.
Starting with the premise that Democrats and their policies are better for rural areas especially econocally is nonsense and most certainly should not be taken as some sort of factual position.
Lol. Not ranting at all and you have a history in the Midwest isn't the issue. It is your disdain for the people that make up rural America. No torbee you do not love rural America or the people within it....your smug sense of superiority shines through like a beacon. Poisoned with hate and anger....Jesus wtf are you even talking about. Such a ridiculous comment
I said that because it would seem democrats are more willing to spend government money and steer the economy towards solutions that would actually benefit the blue collar worker. Biden's infrastructure deal along with the microchip production deal would seemingly big be positives and I don't know that I can point to any similar accomplishments attributable to republican led legislation.
You started with a lie, followed it with another lie and then used projection throughout this latest rant. It is sad you aren’t even aware of your anger. I do hope you work out of it someday, sincerely.
No lies here torbee. No anger either. The more you talk the more it is obvious just how big a narcissist you truly are.
I don't disagree with much of what you said here. I believe is balance because of the things you laid out here. Democrats do push social programs and infrastructure projects that are needed for our society to function well. Republicans tend to be the brakes on those programs and push for small government solutions. We need both perspectives for our country.
I'm not sure if anyone has ever told you this before, but you are truly a wordsmith. Communication skills are off the charts good.
You're saying the party that has fought for increases in minimum wage while the Cons have fought it tooth and nail is the party that has "abandoned labor"? Bitch, shut the fok up. Get the fok out
I’m thinking you just aren’t real good with people. Damn.
Can I ask where you find that? I’d actually be interested in checking some of that stuff out.
OP said ass
By Paul Krugman
Opinion Columnist
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
Rural resentment has become a central fact of American politics — in particular, a pillar of support for the rise of right-wing extremism. As the Republican Party has moved ever further into MAGAland, it has lost votes among educated suburban voters; but this has been offset by a drastic rightward shift in rural areas, which in some places has gone so far that the Democrats who remain face intimidation and are afraid to reveal their party affiliation.
But is this shift permanent? Can anything be done to assuage rural rage?
The answer will depend on two things: whether it’s possible to improve rural lives and restore rural communities, and whether the voters in these communities will give politicians credit for any improvements that do take place.
This week my colleague Thomas B. Edsall surveyed research on the rural Republican shift. I was struck by his summary of work by Katherine J. Cramer, who attributes rural resentment to perceptions that rural areas are ignored by policymakers, don’t get their fair share of resources and are disrespected by “city folks.”
As it happens, all three perceptions are largely wrong. I’m sure that my saying this will generate a tidal wave of hate mail, and lecturing rural Americans about policy reality isn’t going to move their votes. Nonetheless, it’s important to get our facts straight.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
The truth is that ever since the New Deal rural America has received special treatment from policymakers. It’s not just farm subsidies, which ballooned under Donald Trump to the point where they accounted for around 40 percent of total farm income. Rural America also benefits from special programs that support housing, utilities and business in general.
In terms of resources, major federal programs disproportionately benefit rural areas, in part because such areas have a disproportionate number of seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare. But even means-tested programs — programs that Republicans often disparage as “welfare” — tilt rural. Notably, at this point rural Americans are more likely than urban Americans to be on Medicaid and receive food stamps.
And because rural America is poorer than urban America, it pays much less per person in federal taxes, so in practice major metropolitan areas hugely subsidize the countryside. These subsidies don’t just support incomes, they support economies: Government and the so-called health care and social assistance sector each employ more people in rural America than agriculture, and what do you think pays for those jobs?
What about rural perceptions of being disrespected? Well, many people have negative views about people with different lifestyles; that’s human nature. There is, however, an unwritten rule in American politics that it’s OK for politicians to seek rural votes by insulting big cities and their residents, but it would be unforgivable for urban politicians to return the favor. “I have to go to New York City soon,” tweeted J.D. Vance during his senatorial campaign. “I have heard it’s disgusting and violent there.” Can you imagine, say, Chuck Schumer saying something similar about rural Ohio, even as a joke?
So the ostensible justifications for rural resentment don’t withstand scrutiny — but that doesn’t mean things are fine. A changing economy has increasingly favored metropolitan areas with large college-educated work forces over small towns. The rural working-age population has been declining, leaving seniors behind. Rural men in their prime working years are much more likely than their metropolitan counterparts to not be working. Rural woes are real.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Ironically, however, the policy agenda of the party most rural voters support would make things even worse, slashing the safety-net programs these voters depend on. And Democrats shouldn’t be afraid to point this out.
But can they also have a positive agenda for rural renewal? As The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent recently pointed out, the infrastructure spending bills enacted under President Biden, while primarily intended to address climate change, will also create large numbers of blue-collar jobs in rural areas and small cities. They are, in practice, a form of the “place-based industrial policy” some economists have urged to fight America’s growing geographic disparities.
Will they work? The economic forces that have been hollowing out rural America are deep and not easily countered. But it’s certainly worth trying.
But even if these policies improve rural fortunes, will Democrats get any credit? It’s easy to be cynical. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the new governor of Arkansas, has pledged to get the “bureaucratic tyrants” of Washington “out of your wallets”; in 2019 the federal government spent almost twice as much in Arkansas as it collected in taxes, de facto providing the average Arkansas resident with $5,500 in aid. So even if Democratic policies greatly improve rural lives, will rural voters notice?
Still, anything that helps reverse rural America’s decline would be a good thing in itself. And maybe, just maybe, reducing the heartland’s economic desperation will also help reverse its political radicalization.
Opinion | Can Anything Be Done to Assuage Rural Rage?
Rural voters blame the wrong people, but their troubles are real.
Thank you - I noted the same. Urban areas are islands of blue local governance in red states.
I was at a political event and the local newspaper publisher made that comment and asked the candidate what could be done to change this trend.
