What Liberals Get Wrong About ‘White Rural Rage’ — Almost Everything
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
eyond the weaknesses of this one book, and the prospects of another deeply divisive election, this new rage thesis worries me.
Academics can and do disagree on what is motivating non-college-educated whites to vote for Donald Trump. I don’t pretend that we have settled on a single answer. I do know that there is something particular about Trump’s appeal in rural America and that demographics alone do not explain it. In rural America, women are more likely to vote for Trump; so are young people; so are poor as well as rich. Place matters.
But ruralness is not reducible to rage. And to say so is to overlook the nuanced ways in which rural Americans engage in politics. They are driven by a sense of place, community and often, a desire for recognition and respect. This, as I have recently argued in a new book , is the defining aspect of the rural-urban divide — a sense of shared fate among rural voters, what academics call a “politics of place,” that is expressed as a belief in self-reliance, rooted in local community and concerned that rural ways of living will soon be forced to disappear.
In recent years, that rural political identity has morphed into resentment — a collective grievance against experts, bureaucrats, intellectuals and the political party that seeks to empower them, Democrats.
Yes, such resentment is a real phenomenon in rural areas. But words matter; rage and resentment are not interchangeable terms. Rage implies irrationality, anger that is unjustified and out of proportion. You can’t talk to someone who is enraged. Resentment is rational, a reaction based on some sort of negative experience. You may not agree that someone has been treated unfairly, but there is room to empathize.
Research both by me and by others has illuminated how resentment is driven by the complex rural identity that, while occasionally intersecting with national political currents, is rooted in the unique context of rural life. Rage, both as a soundbite and as presented in the book, oversimplifies and misrepresents these debates. And so does the assumption that all the holders of these views are white, and that this rage is motivated by racism. Racism exists in all parts of the country and is embedded in American politics. But what the research shows is that while there are deep and persistent racial resentments in rural communities, despite a slight correlation between the two, rural resentment is an attitude distinct from racial prejudice .
So far, Republicans are the political party that has figured out how to speak to that rural identity effectively.
I sympathize with the idea that, as Schaller and Waldman and many other commentators have pointed out, in terms of policies, Democrats arguably do more for rural areas and rural residents than Republicans do. After Democrats passed Obamacare, rural residents stood to gain the most in states that expanded Medicaid, but two-thirds of uninsured rural residents missed out because they lived in states that refused to expand coverage — and those states were almost exclusively governed by Republicans. Paul Krugman is often quick to point out that “ 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 .” And it is true that the Biden administration is currently overseeing billions in new federal spending that is disproportionately going to rural communities across America.
So, the problem Democrats haven’t been able to solve isn’t policy; it’s politics. And Democrats who give in to the simplistic rage thesis are essentially letting themselves off the hook on the politics, suggesting that rural Americans are irrational and beyond any effort to engage them.
That would be a massive mistake, one that does truly threaten democracy. Democrats have an opportunity to do better in rural America. We need them to do better, not because Democrats’ policy fixes are always the solution, but because our political system only works when competitive elections hold officials accountable. One-party dominance throws the system off-center, misrepresents interests, sows distrust.
The first step for Democrats is to start thinking — and talking — about rural America right.
So far, Republicans are the political party that has figured out how to speak to that rural identity effectively.
eading White Rural Rage won’t help with that. The authors have no expertise in rural issues and conducted no original research for the book. They approached the topic as journalists and committed the same errors countless reporters have made when they share with the outside world what they saw from a few days traversing some small town in “ flyover country ” — an occurrence all the more routine as local newspapers in rural America shutter .
The authors of White Rural Rage make two persistent types of error in analyzing the data on rural Americans.
First, they routinely fall victim to the logical fallacy of composition when they attribute group characteristics to individuals. For example, they suggest that since authoritarianism predicted support for Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican primaries , and rural residents support Trump, rural residents are the most likely to be authoritarian. (That’s like concluding that because Massachusetts tends to vote Democratic, and Massachusetts is a wealthy state, wealthy people must vote Democratic … but the opposite is true .)
As it happens, the opposite seems to be true in this case as well; leading authoritarian experts find no geographic dimension to growing authoritarianism in the U.S., and the study the authors cite early in the book to “prove” that rural residents are “more likely to favor violence over democratic deliberation” says nothing about violence, or deliberation or authoritarianism. Work by scholars they cite actually shows the opposite, too: Rural residents are less , not more, likely to support political violence.
This same logical fallacy comes into play when they weave together a string of facts about Christian nationalists: Because white evangelicals are most likely to support Christian nationalist beliefs, and because 43 percent of rural residents identify as evangelical, they assert that the hotbed of Christian nationalism is in rural communities. The same goes for their assertions about QAnon. Perhaps the worst guilt-by-association error is found right in the title; even in the reddest of rural counties, 20 to 30 percent of voters — still largely white — routinely support Democrats. One might ask why, given all the supposed rage, are some rural Americans still voting for Democrats, election after election? You wouldn’t know it from the title or press tour, but Schaller and Waldman must frequently hedge their bets in the text, acknowledging that just a minority of rural residents often believe the most headline-grabbing factoid.
The Atlantic also called out the authors for dishonest mischaracterization of others' work to fit their partisan narrative.
That elite liberals would lie about rural Americans for partisan purposes shouldn't surprise anyone. The Daily Show was built on it and it still plays with a base that wants their prejudices reinforced.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Better a highly educated liberal than an ignorant fascist.
It’s easily argued that the political elites want to restrict our freedom like fascists.
“Better a highly educated liberal than an ignorant fascist.”
It is the beginning of our demise to devalue and attack our educational institutions. Sadly, it has become a divisive, dangerous and destructive issue.
It is one thing to willingly wallow in ignorance, but all it accomplishes is to demonstrate one’s fear. And the fear is palpable…being used by those whose motives only seek to silence, suppress and ultimately subjugate.
Beware. Be aware.
Amazingly, it seems many graduates can’t afford our educational institutions.
Unfortunately, our diploma mills aren't turning out "highly educated" people anymore.
Being educated does not mean not ignorant.
Elite liberals are essentially the same as fascists. Just a different ideology but both want to control you.
Ironic...
My statement "elite liberals" is not a value judgment. Elite, which should be obvious from context, is someone in a position of power. It has nothing to do with education or ignorance.
Which makes no sense other than just resentment for losing elections. If you want your guys to be "elites" you must win...
but pushing that narrative and portraying rural whites as "the other" who must be demonized and feared is a driving force of democratic politics.
Yes, it is. At least for the decision makers in the Dem party. In my opinion, much of what they do, and others on the Left, mirror tactics communist regimes used, and still use, in order to influence the masses. Unfortunately, it seems to be much easier to influence the masses with simple, emotional targets to focus their attention on rather than getting people to think critically about issues. Thus, we get books and other propaganda like the one being discussed in the article. In my opinion, it may account for other tactics as well, such as how often people who decide to run for office are suddenly faced with sexual assault charges that are decades old and impossible to prove.
More partisan bull. The fact is people in the democratic party are in it at least one similar reason that republicans are in the "new" MAGA party: political differences.
And, some people really need to learn what 'critical thinking' is, because it ain't just taking a stubborn position/stance and sticking to it!
The irony is capitalism has 'totally put the United States in its vaulted position in the world, and yet some conservatives still think its communism that liberals want to overtake our society. . . and not freedom from their overbearing policy prescriptions-which in the past preferred and empowered some conservatives more than any other grouping of people in the country!. I do so well remember when the word, "communism" was synonymous with Blacks, civil rights, homosexuals, minorities, and women in our country simply wanting to be free—from those whims of some conservatives.
Liberals, collectively and 99.9 percent individually, don't have time or disposition to fall out and wage political warfare again conservative rural folks. We simply ask them to stay in their lanes, plural, since country and farm life "adorns' them. And, let us enjoy our experiences inside cities and municipalities.
Cities, especially metropolitan class versions, as anybody can easily see, do not operate and can not sustain themselves like plains, 'hollows,' villages, or unincorporated places. Thus, it is clear that people who live in cities are closer together, share "fences," can and often share problems, and. . .have to make major investments (through taxes) in the upkeep of cities.
People who live in cities have no time to waste in the day to day dealings of life to mess around with "dividing" rural folks from city folks. One has to ask who does. . . and that is an open question somebody may get around to answering one day.
Where did you get that number?
What do you mean by “fall out and wage political warfare?
Have lived downtown big city as well as out-in-the-sticks country. My politics haven't changed. Will always be a social liberal.
Live and let live and do no harm. . . .
Used to be a paramedic. That was the motto.
All rural people are right-wing extremists, while all people living in big cities are left-wing extremists!
(Everybody knows that!!!).
Wonder who stoked that bonfire into a robust and eternal blaze.
I am going to just let that sit and 'breathe' for a while . . . .
Do you think poor people should pay more?
Far right wing assholes should pay much more.
No-- because poor people contribute more to society than wealthy people do.
City folk can keep the money …. rural folk will keep the food.
Have a nice day! 🙂
Can't eat all the food and can not keep all of it fresh. . . so, in practice, the bounty with its excesses will become spoilt and profit-less.
As noted, keep and hold the money.
He who grows and holds the food …. wins.
Have a nice day! 🙂
In the event of what apocalypse now? You've watched too many zombie movies. Are you a fan of The Walking Dead?
Where did I mention apocalypse? Just a subtle reminder for my citified friends that food doesn’t come from a bodega
And that's bull shit because "as noted" you can't eat it all and you can store it all (for long). And since money is a medium of trade and people want "that". . . deals and contractual agreements will break occur.
But, you seem to be implying city folks can't grow their own food supplies on their own farms (even enough to sell to the world). . . . That would be a mistake. Do not confuse not wanting to farm with not opening land up for farming if needing to farm!
Y'all won't be starving anybody.
Also, you seem to be going with a notion of splitting the country into two halves of some sort. In my comments, I have only mentioned why we should stay together and be the unified country that we are.
You have a nice day yourself!
What arrogance. You want to suggest that rural areas can 'lord' over urban areas because of what they grow and cultivate. . . but, that is foolish . . .as rural areas often have terrible growth seasons (frost; floods; droughts); one can not sell what one has not produced-and when that happens. . .subsidies from the government are needed. The federal government resides in cities. . . but I don't need to remind you of it, because you know this already.
Better to keep our symbiotic nation together. And leave that other ridiculous set of "what ifs" alone.
Wishful thinking …. If the shit hits the fan big cities are weeks, even days away from panic. That has proven itself again and again with minor power and service interruptions.
Yeah, windowsill herb gardens ain’t gonna get ya far but knock yourself out.
Sounds like you have it all worked out. Carry on ….
Yeah right. The divisiveness present in your regular postings here is clear as day. Nothing new there or in denial of same. Whining about paying more for rural people is real team building. Oh yeah!
No, you first …. I insist ….
Yeah right. By calling rural people dumb and whining about them costing more.
Now “that” is some hilariously hypocritical bullshit.
Again, more asinine bull. A compliment. You actually wrote something more than a 'one-liner' showing 'effort.'
I am for keeping the country together and 'everybody' being as happy, healthy, and prosperous as possible while you keep implying how rural areas feed the country (all by themselves) and can take their substances away and watch city folks run to and fro in desperation. That is a myth. Additionally, a great many city folks at one time were country folks. You know, the symbiotic thing I mentioned and you deliberately ignored because it did not fit your narrative.
Prove that I wrote that there. Please proceed. I would love to see me making that remark.
Yawn …. More weak sauce ….
Lol …. You quoted it.
Yeah. Thought so. Nothing more than rhetorical 'noise' and abuse.
See 5.2.13.
Nah, only abuse to the triggered. Only noise to those that actually listen.
See 5.2.15
The Omen, only the former 'president' is the anti-christ
lol
Now you're over-indulging in (filler) a waste of time. You can not prove what you thought I wrote. I'm out.
More bullshit but you have a nice day now ya hear!
"Accountability." Now there is a novel idea that has fallen under foot in at least one of the parties; I dare say I know which party has a track record of letting people 'skate' on through with a lack of it.
From personal observation, I have noticed that people with more nationalistic, right-wing tendencies are more open to more aggressive displays of their political bents than more center and center-left people. This goes across the board from urban to rural.
Most people who live in rural settings partially do so because they enjoy the quiet. Because they value quiet, there is a tendency to live and let live, no matter how much you disagree with a person's politics. Again, personal experience has shown me that political attitudes are not discussed as much when playing to a different crowd, all in the interest of maintaining cordial relations with the neighbors. Except for the loud, right-wing people. I think it is this difference that gives the impression of abundance.
But this is true of center and center-right people as well. In fact, even for more nationalistic right-wing individuals, their counterparts on the left seem more likely to engage in "more aggressive displays of their political bents" as seen in their more likely decision to engage in destructive riots.
Not true at all.
Prove that per capita
I have lived in rural settings most of my existence but have also lived in urban and suburban settings. Most of the openly different people around this area and the other rural areas I have lived in move to more urban settings because they feel more able to conduct their lives and not be harassed.
So true, so true but that doesn’t sell to useful idiots as well as the white devil narrative.
The white supremacy Baba Yaga is coming to get you!
BOO!
“The white supremacy Baba Yaga is coming to get you!”
And the ultimate vaccine is the truth. Too bad there are so many anti-vaxxers out there amongst the throngs of un-useful idiots.
Yep and the ultimate truth is …. The “real” truth … not an “imagined” truth.
BOO!
“…not an “imagined” truth…”
…and certainly not an ‘alternate’ truth…
…boo who…
Oooohhh … watch out for the white boogey man ….. oooooohhhh,
How does one live through 2020 and the current attacks and threats on anyone defending Israel in universities and believe that?
Because I have seen it. It was an observation, not a belief.
In 2020 people were pissed that a cop would kneel on a black man's neck till he was dead. Many people thought it was wrong to do so they protested. Likewise, many people think that it is wrong of the Israelis to pursue Hamas to the detriment of the Palestinian people, who have nowhere to run and nowhere to get food and clean water. Some of these people take things to excess. No group of people is immune from people taking matters too far (with the possible exception of pacifists).
In rural areas, there is more of a monoculture of thought. That is probably not a good thing. The government is more of an abstraction simply because we do not feel it's presence as blatantly as do folks in urban areas. As such, we are more independent (at least we think we are). So I wouldn't call it rage. Take the predominant image of a self-made lifestyle and juxtapose it with the perceived neediness of city-folk, add a little flag and nation and there you have a person with a brash attitude towards perceived city-sissies. It doesn't matter that there are people with those more genteel characteristics living among them because they drive pick-ups with Trump flags.
Similarly, Mckinsey, supposedly the gold standard in business consulting, has been caught producing studies that misuse data to produce conclusions that can't be replicated by other researchers to justify Diversity as having a positive impact on a corporation's bottom line.
How the heck anybody can hate diversity in a country intended to have a diverse set of peoples become 'one' just shows the lengths deep-seated prejudice goes to keep itself "alive."
Perhaps it depends on how the diversity is achieved, merit or population ratios.
Is pointing out that a study is manipulating data hating?
Shouldn't you be more upset by the dishonest act than pointing it out? Or is honest reporting only important when it serves certain ends?
Merit is subjective as it is clearly evident MAGA officials are purging many meritorious individuals in/throughout government; even GOP (non-MAGA) congress people are falling away and resigning from their profession because Trump, the chairman of MAGAs, wants loyalty (over merit).
What is you evidence?
I can't vouch for the study/ies one way or the other (that will take peer review). My 'issue' and the reason for bringing up diversity is because there is a faint odor of deep-seated prejudice emanating from the tone of the article and the stench confuses a larger point of people who use merit as a rationale to leave people out (whom they don't like or care to see advance in our society). That is, people who are against inclusion and making it feasible to include others-even if it causes a momentary set back or slowdown in society. People have to be able to participate if they are to prove their worth to the country (and naysayers) over time!
What studies are undergoing peer review?
Huh?