478
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

In the popular imagination of many Americans, particularly those on the left side of the political spectrum, the typical MAGA supporter is a rural resident who hates Black and Brown people, loathes liberals, loves gods and guns, believes in myriad conspiracy theories, has little faith in democracy, and is willing to use violence to achieve their goals, as thousands did on Jan. 6.

According to a new book, White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy, these aren’t hurtful, elitist stereotypes by Acela Corridor denizens and bubble-dwelling liberals… they’re facts.

The authors, Tom Schaller, a professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and Paul Waldman, a former columnist at The Washington Post, persuasively argue that most of the negative stereotypes liberals hold about rural Americans are actually true.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 104 points 9 months ago

The electorial college is a threat to democracy.

But neither political party wants to hand that control over to voters.

We need a critical mass of progressive politicians in office before we can fix the system, which is why they're everyone else's biggest political enemy

[-] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 59 points 9 months ago

The funny thing is the electoral college was designed to counter exactly this event. In the case an absolute tyrant is going to get voted in, the electoral college is supposed to be the last chance to challenge it. But with the way the GOP is going, ain't no one gonna challenge anything.

As they say, the devil will come bearing a cross wrapped in the American flag.

[-] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 38 points 9 months ago

The GOP has shown, and proven, they will use any and all means necessary, including violence, to gain power. This isn't theoretical anymore.

I'm so tired of my family members and other people that identify as "centralist" saying that both sides are bad.

No....only one side has used violence to overthrow an election. And that side's political leadership said it was "normal political discourse".

If both sides are the same, then you should be upset that "both sides" are violent.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

That was the story, but the real reason was the existing tyrants didn't want to be overthrown either.

You have to have a realistic view of what we started out with to understand why 99% of the people in politics don't want to change it.

At the end of the day, America has never really been a democracy. And the people who can change that just don't want to.

It's just easiest to hold onto that power when we think change is just an election away. It's a lot of elections away, we can't just win one and go home. It's a war not a battle.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 75 points 9 months ago

I'm always amazed that a bunch of redneck, Southern, city haters decided that a rich, Manhattan developer was one of them

[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

Don’t be. They’re rubes. Dumber than dogshit. Just pawns in a game.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 39 points 9 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)
[-] Railing5132@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

Hard to give them a decent education when they defund the school systems because 'muh taxes' and denigrate their teachers and everything else public Ed ('ceptin the "pride of the town", the HS football team, because that one QB is gonna git scouted 'cuz he' s got a helluva arm)

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] elbucho@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] mostNONheinous@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

It’s like they’ve never seen a Pace Picante Sauce commercial before.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

To be fair he went out among them and convinced them of that.

Maggie Haberman the journalist says that one of the things about Trump that is undeniably genius is his way of charming the people he wants to support him. That's how he won, by connecting with these people. It is his one singular talent.

load more comments (22 replies)
[-] ThatFembyWho@lemmy.blahaj.zone 69 points 9 months ago

Rural America is mostly a wasteland. It's either where people of means deliberately choose to live away from society, or it's people who are too ignorant, poor and/or drug-addled to have much choice. Neither group is going to be left-leaning... and that's why when you look at electoral maps, you see all that red.

Pick a highway, any will do, travel along it and tell me what you see. I already know. One little failed town after another. They might have a dive bar or ancient gas station, but most commercial buildings will be long abandoned. If you need anything, you'll have to find a decent city with a generic walmart, dollar general, mcdonalds, etc. Long gone are the mom-and-pop grocers, general stores, etc.

The irony is these are solid red Republican districts. Cities have major problems too, but they are full of action; plans, projects, hopes of a better future. There is no future for the average rural American.

They are frustrated and angry, as well they should be. Too bad they can't see the forest through the trees.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 62 points 9 months ago

Yeah I know they’re facts. I spend far too much time as a semi-passing trans woman in rural America. I think a lot of people overestimate the proportions of these people, I’ve met so many thoughtful, kind, and progressive hicks, hillbillies, and other rural sorts.

But the fact is I’ve never seen passive aggressive Bible verses on mailboxes in cities. I’ve never heard an educated urban coworker rant and rave about how blm protesters are funded by George soros. I’ve never seen city folk wear a mask that says “government control device” on it or carry a Bible with them onto a factory floor or put newsmax on the company share point.

And the armed city folk I know are far more likely to be responsible gun owners and not have a couch gun. Jesus fucking shit so many people talk about their fucking couch gun and they always act like it’s reasonable and normal and every gun owner has one instead of the reality that that’s not a safe place to have a gun. They also don’t realize that you shouldn’t advertise owning the only thing that gets more valuable when stolen, especially not by putting a bumper sticker saying one is in the fucking car.

[-] elbucho@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

I'm sorry... couch gun??? Like they just shove a gun into the couch cushions? What the hell kind of purpose would that serve? Opening a beer can or turning on the tv? Or are they all just living in constant paranoia of someone kicking their door in and trying to kill them?

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

I couldn’t tell you. It boggles the mind in fact. This is so normal to these people that no explanation is necessary

[-] Juvyn00b@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Or turning around in their driveways apparently

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Infynis@midwest.social 53 points 9 months ago

I have these stereotypes, because I've met these people. I used to live among them. So many Confederate flags in northern Michigan

[-] anticolonialist@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Our style of government is the largest threat to democracy.

We need to eliminate the electoral college, primaries, the Senate, President restricted to 1 term, perhaps 6 years, term limits for the House, All elections publicly funded, No reason elections cant be conducted via encrypted open source app, where voting can be done remotely and checks in place to ensure the vote has been tallied. No party affiliation on any campaign documents, signs, advertisements, no straight ticket voting.

[-] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 22 points 9 months ago

Voting booths exist for a reason. They are to ensure the privacy of the person voting.

Otherwise all sorts of overbearing people can force others to vote per their direction.

Consider an abusive partner, or a extremist pastor, or a factory manager. In all cases they have power over others, and voting may be one of the few places where individuals can express their choices.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] figaro@lemdro.id 8 points 9 months ago

I support this entirely, but good fucking luck

[-] corymbia@reddthat.com 8 points 9 months ago

I love the theory, but considering that every week we see some headline about some digital fraud or another, I think there is a great reassurance in keeping democracy as analogue as possible

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] elbucho@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I think the best solution to this issue is to change the calculus of representation. The article mentions that rural areas have out-sized representation, but it only discusses the senate. The house, as well, has out-sized representation for rural areas. For example, California has approximately one Representative for every 749,000 people, while Montana has one Representative for every 560,000 people.

I think that to truly honor the idea of "one person, one vote", 3 steps need to be taken:

  • Abolish the electoral college
  • Dissolve the Senate, leaving the House as the only Legislative body
  • Dramatically scale up the number of representatives in the House, and tie representative count directly to population.

I'd love to see, for example, 1 representative for every 250,000 people, or something similar. That would push us from the current 435 to about 1,340 representatives, which would definitely require a new chamber for sessions. But it would also mean that demographic groups would be much better represented, and it would be much more difficult for batshit insane people like Marjorie Taylor Green to get or remain elected. If you're representing fewer people, those people have more incentive to vote.

And it's not like growing the House is a far-fetched idea. In fact, it is baked into the constitution. Article I, Section 2 says that the number of representatives should be directly tied to the population, with each representative representing no more than 30,000 people, and that adjustments to the size of the House should occur after every 10 year census:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

And this is what happened, with the size of the House growing every 10 years up until, in 1929, they decided to keep it constant based on the figures from the 1930 survey. Having a cap on the number of representatives harms democracy. We can see the results in the decaying towns of rural America, and the batshit insane cultists who want to overthrow our government and install a fascistic theocracy.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

My friend's in-laws in rural Missouri are cutting holes into the walls to store guns in for whatever version of the apocalypse they believe is coming.

[-] mightyfoolish@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

They are just more empathetic than you realize. They just put themselves in the shoes of the black/brown people and were like:

If I were them, I would have definitely shot me by now.

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

For what!?!

What the hell did some stupid farmer in the bumbfuck middle of nowhere do to warrant being shot in their home by people of a different skin color?

Some racist asshole living in a rural inbred community where everyone looks the same because their family tree has the same roots of people who never left their own poverty stricken hellhole didn't actually do shit to anyone outside of voting the way they were themselves indoctrinated.

There's definitely a lot of far right idiots being worked up into a frenzy of normalized violence that's very concerning.

But in one of the rare instances of legit "both sides-ism" I'm starting to see a very concerning trend of the far left giving in more and more to the language of normalized violence too.

I have a feeling both sides of this are useful idiots with the same hand pulling the strings, but c'mon dude - use your critical thinking skills before regurgitating rhetoric like that mindlessly.

[-] mightyfoolish@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Perhaps, you just missed out the sarcastic use of "empathetic" in my post.

What the hell did some stupid farmer in the bumbfuck middle of nowhere do to warrant being shot in their home by people of a different skin color?

The media made them paranoid. No one is actually coming for them. Also, many rural communities put so much effort into making non-white lives miserable (that includes voting to sustain systematic racism); to them retaliation isn't out of the realms of possibility because that is what THEY would do if THEY were put in the same position.

But in one of the rare instances of legit “both sides-ism” I’m starting to see a very concerning trend of the far left giving in more and more to the language of normalized violence too.

How can you complain about “both sides-ism” when you randomly bring up leftists? What even are the two sides here? There's paranoid rural people and their news. That's all.

Some racist asshole living in a rural inbred community where everyone looks the same because their family tree has the same roots of people who never left their own poverty stricken hellhole

Isn't this a tad much? Not all rural people are racist and inbred.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 19 points 9 months ago

The US election system that gives these people completely disproportionate political influence is a threat to democracy.

[-] Limonene@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

Headlines like this are problematic. I think we can all agree that Trump has done a lot of damage to democracy in the US, but are rural Trump supporters really more dangerous than urban Trump supporters? That claim is suspect, and the article provides no evidence to support it (it provides evidence that most Trump supporters are rural, which is a totally different claim.)

And saying that white rural Trump supporters are worse than non-white rural Trump supporters is an even more serious claim. It's racially discriminatory, and seems totally baseless in this article.

The article has no evidence of these claims, and seems to indicate that the book doesn't even make the claims of the headline.

(I'm not objecting to the claims that Trump supporters are mostly rural and mostly white. That is common knowledge.)

[-] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

65% of rural America voted for Trump in 2020 nearly half 47% believe the election was stolen that's half of all rurals not half of rural Republicans. Support for political violence is high with 1 in 3 Republicans nationwide and higher yet in rural America. It is easier for violence to take root where their is monocultural acceptance of the false premises used to justify it.

[-] KingBoo@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

these aren’t hurtful, elitist stereotypes by Acela Corridor denizens and bubble-dwelling liberals… they’re facts.

Listen, I'm as blue as my balls on prom night, but we'd have a huge problem if the right said some shit like this.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bitwolf@lemmy.one 9 points 9 months ago

I've always just imagined they're more susceptible to manipulation. Primarily getting news by word of mouth, the TV, or radio.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That’s definitely probably part of it, but I think the biggest issue is homogeneity. Racism is hard when you can chat with black and brown people regularly. You aren’t hating some perceived immigrants but an actual human being that you know. Especially in places like the rural north and Midwest there was no mass movement of black people there. Similarly people will hate on Muslims in rural Kentucky but not in Dearborn Michigan.

And it’s not just racism. Queer people have always existed everywhere. But rural queer people are often much less open about it and often move away including before coming out. So people in bumfuck nowhere either dont have any queer people anymore, or their queer people are closeted or invisible.

Educated people also tend to prefer urban or suburban areas. Yeah maybe you’ve got a few lawyers or people who went to a local Christian college, and if you have a factory it has some engineers for sure. And you definitely have people who went to agricultural college. But you don’t have professors or scientists or people with humanities degrees. And notice those degrees I mentioned are overwhelmingly white and male programs. You can get them and not make black or brown or queer or even female acquaintances in school.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

loves gods and guns

Ok, I was well aware of the gun fetishism, but I gotta say that the polytheism is very surprising!

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
478 points (93.5% liked)

politics

19244 readers
3180 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS