WHITE RURAL RAGE | Kirkus Reviews
By: Tom Schaller (Kirkus Reviews)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
THE HEARTLAND THREAT TO AMERICA
by Tom Schaller & Paul Waldman ‧RELEASE DATE: Feb. 27, 2024
A book of broad explanatory power that's not likely to help mend any fences.
A view of rural America as a font of white privilege—and of resentment that the privileges aren't greater.
Political scientist Schaller and journalist Waldman open with an example taken straight from the headlines: the uproar over Jason Aldean's song "Try That in a Small Town," with its implied promises of retribution in a "fantasy of vigilante violence meted out against urbanites supposedly ready to bring their criminal mayhem to the idyll of rural America." While it's true that rural America has been suffering, rural Americans haven't exactly helped themselves. "There is no demographic group in America as loyal to one political party as rural Whites are to the GOP that gets less out of the deal," write the authors, showing how this situation arose because no rural political organization exists to make the vast region an object of true interest for either Republicans or Democrats. Schaller and Waldman come close to blaming the victim in that analysis, but, as they painstakingly document, rural white Americans actually enjoy outsize influence in such things as electoral votes, to say nothing of the increasing rightward radicalization of the GOP. It's no coincidence, they note, that nearly 75% of the votes opposing the certification of Joe Biden for president came from rural congressional districts. There's a certain vicious circularity at work: With few news sources reaching out to rural audiences, radio is king, and radio is almost invariably hard right in orientation, eager to fuel the resentment that comes from the sense that the "real America" is disappearing in the face of demographic change. So it is that while white rural America is getting poorer, sicker, and more isolated, it's also getting angrier—and that anger is poisoning the rest of the nation.
A book of broad explanatory power that's not likely to help mend any fences.
Tags
Who is online
552 visitors
www.washingtonpost.com /books/2024/03/07/white-rural-rage-schaller-waldman-reivew/
This book about Trump voters goes for the jugular
Mary Jo Murphy 6-7 minutes 3/7/2024
Patient efforts to “understand” Donald Trump’s voters and their grievances have occupied frequent-flying journalists for almost a decade. The rules of those reporting trips, rarely violated, stipulate that the frayed vinyl booths in a thousand heartland diners in a thousand small towns are judgment-free zones.
n are here with a corrective. These voters, Schaller and Waldman write in “ White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy ,” are complicit, and the authors are in no mood to condescend to them. Someone write a new elegy for the bilious hillbilly, because these authors went for his jugular.
It’s not that the authors discredit legitimate grievances. They dutifully document how the country — the modern world — has abandoned rural America. People who live there are demonstrably worse off than their urban and suburban cousins. Good health care, good jobs, good schools and even good WiFi are scarce; drug addiction, gun suicide and crime are plentiful (yes, Oklahoma does have a higher rate of violent crime than New York or California). But what Schaller and Waldman also document, scrupulously, is how much outsize power rural White voters have but squander on “culture war trinkets.” Wyoming has two senators for not quite 600,000 people; California’s two serve around 39 million. With the way our democracy is set up — not just its lopsided Senate but also its thumb-on-the-scale electoral college — rural Americans could be its biggest beneficiaries, if not its drivers. They are not. They are not even its biggest fans, in Schaller and Waldman’s telling.
Instead, by key measures, the authors write, rural White voters pose a quadruple threat to democracy: They are more likely than average Americans, or even average White Americans, to have racist and xenophobic tendencies, to accept violence in pursuit of their beliefs, to believe conspiracy theories, and to nurture antidemocratic ideas.
Not all rural White Americans hold these attitudes, Schaller and Waldman concede. But they “are overrepresented across all four of these threats,” and that’s what animates their status as what the authors call the “essential minority.”
Also, they vote Republican. This confounds the authors, because “there is no demographic group in America as loyal to one political party as rural Whites are to the GOP that gets less out of the deal.” By less, they mean policy prescriptions — stuff that might better their lives. What these voters do get from Republicans, the authors argue, is someone to stoke their rage — to fuel its flame from a bottomless stack of cultural kindling. Republicans long ago figured out that it is really the blue yonder that makes rural White voters see red. Exacerbate the villainy in that city-country divide, and you have yourself some dependable voters.
Enter the Pied Piper of dark traits, “a walking repudiation of every value rural Americans claim to hold.” He’s a truth-challenged billionaire from Queens, true, but he’s got no truck with “ shithole ” countries, Mexican judges, traitorous generals, Soros-backed “animals” and radical-left thugs who live like vermin . What’s not to like? Or better yet, this being a Christian nation, worship?
“Never before in American politics has a single syllable carried so much symbolic weight,” the authors write in a chapter they title “The Unlikely King of Rural America.” “‘TRUMP’ is thrust at liberals, chanted at high school games when the opposing team contains a lot of non-White kids, shouted in the air, and scrawled on the sidewalk, carrying boundless aggression in its percussive simplicity. It says I’m mad and We’re winning and Screw you all at the same time.”
How did it come to this?
Maybe it starts with the preferred status rural residents have long enjoyed as the country’s “real” Americans. It’s not coastal elites who think they are better than everyone else, but heartlanders. And the funny thing is that coastal elites have always tended to agree with them. The authors quote Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that “cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independant, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country and wedded to its liberty and interests by the most lasting bands.”
There aren’t a lot of cultivators left in rural America, though. In Jefferson’s time, most Americans were farmers. By 2019, the authors write, only 7 percent of rural Americans were. Rural identity now is diffuse and hard to pin down. The book has some weird digressions on this front. It devotes almost a whole chapter to the mythic qualities of the pickup truck in the rural imagination. You need an eight-foot bed to haul full sheets of plywood, but standard pickups now have 6.5-foot beds. You can project rural toughness even if you aren’t building a barn.
As for the “lasting bands” that tie these citizens to their country, Schaller and Waldman argue that rural Whites are “conditional patriots” and “their throaty, unmitigated defense of Donald Trump’s repeated assaults on American democracy” are the greatest proof of that.
The authors don’t ask skeptics to take their word for it; the book is “not intended to be mere polemic,” they say, so they stuff the chapters with empirical data, citing dozens of polls and studies.
But they don’t use a lot of lipstick, either. Next to their characterizations, “basket of deplorables” sounds almost quaint, and many readers may find guilty satisfaction in that.
White Rural Rage
The Threat to American Democracy
By Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman
I heard these two authors on the bulwark podcast with Tim Miller. They make a very convincing case that white rural people are not the only "real" Americans, yet the media for years now has gone out of their way to seek out the opinions of "middle America" as if these folks have some sort of ultra valuable, unexplored ,opinion on things.
I enjoy how the summer of 2020 has been erased from progressives minds…
storming states capitols?
lol, seriously? Was it white rural whatever’s storming Wisconsin’s capitol? What about Tennessee etc
And your rational for the many urban riots, black and white, across the nations history?
White rural Americans, who claim to be the forgotten people in national discussions, actually have an extremely outsized effect on national elections and in the makeup of Congress.
But not only that ,and also not only their endless whining about urban places and people, there is the claim by rural whites that they are the "real" Americans.
Maybe in 1825 or 1925 but not in 2025.
They seem to have left out the urban/suburban white, blue collar worker, especially those in the rust belt, many of whom voted for Obama in 2008.
I don't see any serious scholarship cited the equates ruralness with racism, and anti-democratic beliefs.
These damn Americans, clinging to their guns and religion, became deplorable 8 year ago and now are insurrectionists.
The radical authors of this piece of fiction, and anyone who believes this left-wing bullshit, are so totally out of touch with the majority of the American people that it's downright laughable. I could count the ways, but why bother?
Seriously, the silent majority, both urban and rural, of hard working tax paying people of good faith and decent values are watching this leftwing shitshow, and they are not happy with the current leadership or lack thereof.
White Rural Rage Is Here - by Paul Waldman (substack.com)
America has a serious problem on its hands. That’s because while rural Whites are treated with kid gloves — and often lauded as the realest of “real” Americans — they also wield outsize power in our political system. Not only are they given added political leverage by the Electoral College and the anti-democratic design of the U.S. Senate, in state after state, Republicans have built their own power on drawing district lines to maximize the electoral influence of rural Whites.
There are urban-rural tensions everywhere in the world, and they’ve existed as long as there have been cities. But America is unique in some vital ways. Only here are rural citizens given this kind of elevated status, their influence magnified by the way we apportion voting power at both the federal and state level. And only here is the far-right party that builds its power on rural citizens not a secondary or fringe party, but one of the two parties that contends every election.
That brings us to another contradiction we explore in the book. The hold of the Republican Party on rural areas has grown stronger and stronger; as Mitch McConnell once said , “We pretty much own rural and small-town America.” Take a look at these data from the Pew Research Center’s validated voter studies, which are pretty much the most accurate polls of voters you can find (they’re far superior to exit polls). Note the graph on the right:
Keep in mind, those figures include all rural Americans, including the quarter or so of rural people who aren’t White. If you separated out just rural Whites, the figures are higher; according to Pew’s data , Trump got support from 62 percent of rural Whites in 2016 and 71 percent of rural Whites in 2020. (This raises another question that is almost never asked: What about the non-White people who live in rural America? We have a whole chapter on that subject.)
Well, you might say, that’s Trump: They love him in rural America. Indeed they do. That’s a subject we explore as well: Why? After all, we’re always told that if a candidate wants to get support from rural voters, he’ll have to show up, listen, treat them with respect, and show them that he truly understands their lives. He’ll have to visit farms, talk commodity prices, maybe milk a cow. But Trump did none of those things. And yet they don’t just like him, they positively worship him.
In fact, if you look at the counties where Trump performed best, they’re almost all rural. And in 91 of his top 100 counties, he gained votes between 2016 and 2020, even though he did nothing to address the deep problems from which rural America suffers.
That’s another part of the story we tell — not just why rural people love Trump, but the way they keep giving their votes, in ever-increasing numbers, to Republican politicians who do virtually nothing to improve their lives and help their communities.
How we wrote this book
There were many approaches we could have taken to this project, all of which have their virtues. There are terrific books about rural America that are primarily memoir; I’d recommend Sarah Smarsh’s Heartland or Monica Potts’ The Forgotten Girls if that’s something you’re interested in. There are also great books by academics exploring issues of rural-urban conflict from a 30,000-foot view; my favorite of these is probably Jonathan Rodden’s Why Cities Lose . There are also excellent books in which a journalist or academic immersed themselves in a single place for an extended period of time, like Arlie Hochschild’s Strangers in Their Own Land .
All of those methods are worthwhile, but we decided to take a hybrid approach to this subject. We examined voting patterns and public opinion data to get that 30,000-foot view. We interviewed experts and political actors to get their interpretations of recent developments. And we traveled to a variety of rural places around the country to report on how politics is playing out on the ground.
The picture that emerges is deeply troubling in many ways, but in the end we point a way forward that starts with rural people demanding more of the Republicans they keep electing, and runs through the creation of a multiracial rural movement, one that must not be driven by a rejection of our foundational democratic principles. But before that happens, we have to acknowledge the pernicious role our rural White brothers and sisters are playing in putting our democracy on a knife’s edge.
So this is the book the Washington Times article I read yesterday is about.
Was wondering how long it would take to hit new stalkers.
there didnt appear to be many "black rural whites" at Jan 6th, or at Trump rallies.
Could it be because they dont feel they are losing "their" country?
Well John , unlike some, race nor gender really concerns me on the social level, not one of my hot button issues.
What I did find interesting of the seed and the other article I mentioned, was how a segment of the population could go from one end of the spectrum in support, to the other in the amount of time it did (from Roosevelt in the 30s to the present).
More interesting is formulating reasons they would do it in the first place.
I of course view the book and it's premise stated in either article as frustration of a particular political entity loosing control over the inhabitants of the plantation they considered theirs and theirs alone.
But that's just my opinion , such as it is.
The problem word is "plantation" is it is used by (black) grifters against black people who can think for themselves. . . and in doing so have decided they do not want to support Trump's "plantation" where you toe the line in Trumpism or get purged the moment you are discovered not 'trumping' for Trump alone!
Admittedly, I did use that particular word on purpose, knowing it would get a rise.
Fortunately for me I belong to neither expressed plantation,harder to be pigeon holed that way.
There are some stenches now that no matter how hard they deny or try to hide their past, either party can really get rid of .
That in mind ,politics are about power and who within any party has the power to dictate what the masses will do
Personally I still can find no difference in authoritarianism, be it from the right or the left, to me they are actually the same.
Well, to be clear, they are not the same! Appearances can be deceiving. For instance, because we have to 'historical' parties that have matured together and having done so know each other's games, maneuvers, faults, arguments, and so on and so forth-it is difficult to tell which came first. Sort of like the "chicken or the egg first" question.
They are not the same. One side is clearly well out in front of the we have "control issues" and essentially wishes to run the control for the 'orderly' benefit of its party voters and the other likewise: For its voters. Those voters wanting nothing more than to be accepted into the mainstream without all the bru-ha-ha that so far dogs their every step/advance.
See the differences. . . and accept that is happening this way.
That would be a start to freeing the minds of all of us, because right now all of us are stalled on the road to the future! We can't 'go' unless we all move together into it!
And one last thing. Generally-speaking, Black Americans and other minorities (if I can speak for those others) don't hate White America in part or whole. . . despite past hostilities and hatreds. . . we simply want to get along with those White Americans who for some ungodly or selfish reasons can't seem to get it through their heads that we want to live justly and properly beside them and learn from them. . . even as they learn from all of us!
'Somebody' has been SUCCESSFULLY dividing the masses for hundreds of years and its so time for us to not let another generation die in frustration because of gross misunderstandings that are continuously fed on 'steroids.'
This severe adversarial nature in politics needs to end. It's done great damage materially to this country (many have died and more will die) and we have become one in substance. . .and should labor once and for all to be one in spirit.
well we are going to have to agree to disagree on authoritarianism , left or right being the same or if one is less harmful than the other or not .
politics will always be adversarial , no avoiding it , and that and itself will lead to divisions it is individuals that will dictate how severe it will get .
As for some of the changes you feel need affected , they will never be done through legislation or societal force , they will be on an individual level as each individual decides for themselves what level they personally are comfortable with .
But that would stray from the seeded article more than we have graciously been allowed to do .
trout made a good point about on site arguments of rural or urban being better than the other , i simply state , the choice i made is better for me , not for anyone else , just me ..
To be clear I stated, "This severe adversarial nature in politics. . . ." The operative word being, "severe." It is the degree of severity in politics that is now cutting a deeper and wider trench (even to talk of national divorce) between the two political parties. That needs to end/heal. That is what I meant and what I wrote.
Like it or not , I think the "National Divorce" has already happened and is in place as we speak, otherwise the seeded article or the opinion it espouses wouldn't exist.
Now the real problem I see. ,if that is true is where is and how do the dividing lines fall?
I do remember you saying not that long ago, that those in the urban areas should get a larger piece of the national produce/ production because that's where most of the population is.
Here is where I think one of those dividing lines fall, those that produce , or are the acruale source of production , can and likely would see that and laugh their asses off as they walk out and not provide any of what is produced without being paid what they , not urban minds think , the product is worth.
Now one of the reasons I used to decide my lot on where to live , was what value to the type of existance I desired does either a rural or urban setting offer for me individually. The urban setting had way more negatives in my view,it didn't offer anything that I desired or valued, thus it ended up being the losing setting for me, others results of course vary and differ.
Now my thoughts, the national divorce or civil war ,won't be about race gender orientation or political affiliation, none of that. It will be between producers and consumers, the haves and have nots, and who will control it, I think before one can presume to control something, they first have to be able to produce it, not be the consumer of the product. Which I see is very true when it comes to food stocks.
Tell me again what is produced in an urban setting , that can't be duplicated in the rural setting to make even more sellable products?
Yellowstone season is gearing up to start here in my neck , I'm contemplating where best to set up to watch the suburban and urban tourons and their misinformed ideas about the local wild life and the usual end results.
You will have to provide evidence of me writing that paragraph 1.
I, to my way of thinking, would have written something along the line of this: There are more people in cities than in rural areas so the 'need' is self-explanatory. Also, cities 'care' for the children of those in rural areas who come to cities - homeless, running from the cold, looking for careers outside of agriculture, and from being 'shut-out' by religious and racial bigotries. Additionally, cities have to maintain infrastructure.
All that said, it is obvious that 'world-class cities' serve purposes and have value to the international community that rural areas do and can not. Indeed, rural areas have no interest beyond agricultural in the international 'arena.'
Still, the pristine and natural beauty of nature and its communities is a thing of pride and joy. We don't have to disallow or denounce either rural or urban settings!
I have no set interests in your peculiar or particular biases. I have expressed gratitude, appreciation, acceptance, and a need for the nation to stay whole and not disintegrate into small features of its own (see 7.2.4 - although, I do hesitate to ask you to talk about 'ass' with me involved) where the true value to the whole is laid bare. None of us will win a national separation, even though we all survive. The nation will be fractured; indebted without a means to fix it; and, subject to invasion from the larger nations which will ultimately overpower the once great AMERICA . . .which would be a 'shell' of its former bigger than life Self!
Just imagine what 'breaking up' or competition between the right 'hand' trying to over-indulge itself of its left counterpart would NOT accomplish for the work of the body without it coming to 'fruition.'
For your proper consideration I would suggest you think long and hard about what producers produce would be worth - if consumers do not buy. Also, the efficacy of a house divided against itself. Additionally, a left hand that declares war on its right hand - what the effect to the body will be in the end. (That last point has to do with an end to its 'perfection' and beauty as a being.)
Besides, it does not take a genius to realize that if the 'bread-basket' of a nation will not feed its hungry millions- the millions would be forced to come and take it or legislate it out of their hands. That would create more of the division, harm, and loss to people some SAY they never wanted so see in the first place. . .if that is the truth.
One last thing: If the "producers" were to apply force to cities to become less urbanized. . .to turn their surface areas over to food supplies and the like. . .it would diminish a need for the rural suppliers 'storehouses.' It's called 'trade; trading' for a reason.
Exactly, those hungry millions will come to plant, tend and harvest the crops.
Huh?
Thanks for my first belly laugh of the morning .
Not sure where to begin in response to these 2 posts .
i will start with "legislating " someones property "out of their hands " first, That wouldnt work no matter what level it comes from because no one is obligated to participate in commerce with anyone else , i think a certain state already tried that and found its legislation only was applicable inside their own states borders , outside of those they got told where to go .
The feds on their level cant do much of anything for the same reason , they cant force or make anyone participate in commerce , best they can do is make purchases at whatever the going market rate is . government bulk discount likely is a thing of the past .
they try and force the issue and its going to start looking like 1930-32 Ukraine and the Holodomor with the old soviet union .
also having to factor in they dont have the man power to enforce any confiscatory legislation .
let me touch on those "millions" coming to take things ever watch any post apoplectic tv show or movie? thats what you would be looking at , i will call those "millions " what they are, thieving raiding parties . i personally dont think the federal government would put up with that in the least bit , even for necessity. so things just might get worse for those millions if they start acting all feral .
It wont matter how well armed these raiding parties are they will already be disadvantaged , they will have to be going into areas that are already entrenched , are just as well if not better armed ,have the advantage of distance and knowledge of the lay of the land , and they have the advantage of time on their side to move the prizes being desired , somewhere else . thats not even mentioning the logistics they would need to create even IF they were to succeed .
You see those raiding parties will strike close to home first , usually the depots and warehouse's that already have refined product , last time i checked into something like this , major metro areas have enough product on hand to last 3 days in store without a run , outlying warehouses have enough to last maybe a week without logistical resupply. to support this is all i have to do is point to the pandemic and what happened there and then .
i think i have painted a "rosey" enough picture for your comments .
I will touch now on the last thing that really made me laugh , boycott. that only works if the item being boycotted is not one of need , and is trying to be and needs to be sold . And there are no other markets available for the product .
you mention urban areas can start some agrarian prospects of their own to minimize the imp[act , that is true and its something that likely should have been thought of and implemented a long time ago , but it wasnt , and the final factor in its success is time , that all takes time as well as the proper growing seasons .
What you have posted you likely said is most likely the correct version , so no arguments from me.
Somehow, I don't think that's the direction his statement was going.
It would be fun to watch though, from a healthy distance.
We're talking about foodstuff now. You know, the stuff of survival. It's a one of a kind circumstance that can not be left to its own outcomes. But let's forego taking stuff. "Blue states" can feed themselves sufficiently enough and not buy from red states. It's not like there is a 'lock' of some kind on farming techniques.
I am going to call this paragraph what it appears to be: Grandstanding. Push come to shove and 'order' is removed, it is the role of government to restore order in any manner it can, with a possible haste and considerations.
Last time I checked (since you insist on going there) the operative phrasing goes: Necessity is the mother of invention.
I feel sorry for those citizens in this country who think so less of their fellow citizen populace existing in their midst that they would 'lord' foodstuff over them as some form of coercion. But, try the experiment. Funny thing about corporate and government (farm) subsidies they can be legislated out of existence. Also, the national government establishes and safeguards international trade and tariffs.
But now we had taken the route of negativity. Let's be positive. We are one 'people' made up of diverse citizens and foreigners who come and are permitted to stay here. Let's make the only country most of us have every called home-a real home and not just a financial 'grab-bag' for the insatiably greedy among us.
Once upon a time there was a little red hen who lived with her friends, the cow, the horse, and the cat. In the springtime the flowers were blossoming, the leaves were appearing on the trees once more, and the farmers were busy planting their fields. The little red hen was delighted to find some seeds of wheat and she hurried home to show them to her friends.
The little red hen said, “Who will help me plant the wheat?”
“Blue states" can feed themselves sufficiently enough and not buy from red states.
Maybe with immigrant labor. In the very blue state of Maryland, native born poor people won’t work the Eastern Shore. Many immigrants come to this region to find work in agriculture, poultry and seafood processing. Some come directly from Mexico, Central America and Haiti.
Please elaborate on your point.
You seem to miss the larger point: Mark is discussing red state withholding or overcharging this nation's citizens for foodstuff grown on farms (in red states). So yes, blue states will hire whomsoever they will to plant, water, feed, and harvest what they need in lieu of food 'coercion.' That is, should it come to that.
Again: Necessity is the mother of invention. (Or, just build the next new and great set of gizmos that does it all for them!
That Maryland is dependent on temporary, external labor in the agricultural and seafood industries.
Gov. Larry Hogan warned that the worker shortage could deal a “potentially fatal blow” to the industry.
“The crab-processing companies that have not received workers … will not be able to operate this season,” he said in a Feb. 15 letter to the state’s federal delegation. “Many will be forced to close their businesses and lay off year-round workers — temporarily or even permanent — if their H-2B visas worker requests are not fulfilled.”
Hogan is seeking an exemption from the cap for the region’s seafood businesses. In recent years, Congress has addressed the issue by temporarily increasing the limit on the number of visas available.
No, that was clear. I replied to your point in 6.1.17
Survival will make a solution appear out of the air, Drinker. And, in the gloomy state of affairs elaborated extensively by Mark in Wyoming; somebody will provide a solution to feed Americans in the blue states in which case the red states can feel free to eat all of its supplies or simply stuff it!
Don't worry about it, Drinker. God, and 'man,' will provide.
That is not entirely true , even if it is your perception . but your perception is neither my problem or responsibility now is it ?
though i do owe it to clarify some issues to those that read these lines of posts .
This entire line of this thread started back on post 6.1.7, talking about a national divorce , and my thoughts that it had already occurred to a good degree and the divisions it brings about between the rural and urban areas
in that post i also implied that the price would be determined by demand , not by those that demand the product , even if not said in so many words , . it coming down to those who actually produce and those whom are the consumers , the haves vs the have nots .
It was post 6.1.10 that got the rest of the conversation going in the direction it did , i simply responded to exactly what you posted as to what i thought and think would happen in the case of what you dictated actually happened . You were correct to say that great harm and divisions would result , and hinder the healing and progress , especially if morality individual choice , and actions are to be micro managed through legislation , that gets nothing but dissent and non compliance , as a minimum of push back .
I did go back and check , no where did i mention red / blue , if anything my arguments would fall more along the lines of those places that produce more than they consume , and those places that consume more than they produce .
Now that all being what it is i will go on to one more point i think is a fatal flaw in some of what you individually believe and how thing work according to your desires .
freedom of association , the ability of the individual to choose for themselves whom they will or will not associate with for whatever reason they may deem appropriate , that is an individual natural right that has always existed , and it has existed in just about every free society that has ever existed , and does exist in any free market society where things are bought sold and traded . And there would lie the root of any current divisions in the populus one can think of today . some may even equate it to "free will".
POST SCRIPT: rereading this response and some of the other posts about this being "one nation that needs to unify for progress" reminds me of a scene from a John Wayne film called the undefeated .
In this scene Waynes character is selling horses and is meeting some government purchasing agent , some mexican representatives show up and offer to buy them , the purchase agents show and make a rather lower offer than was initially stated , Waynes character brings in the other group , gets the price initially set from them , the government boys ask are you saying you will sell to mexicans over your own government and citizens ? Waynes reply was spot on , "? NO, im selling horses to some one for $35 dollars a head vs $25 dollars a head , ( that would be free market and supply and demand ) he then of course has something to say about the agents lowballing and keeping the extra $10 government funds for themselves . ( they are of course contracted middlemen )
very applicable in this particular line of discussion .
I agree , those things can be legislated out of existence , one would have to remember also what would happen to the prices of commodities without them. double edged sword as one could say . I would also add that all subsidies and grants can be viewed under the same lense , and likely should until the government learns how to balance a check book , a long forgotten skillset today .
Now tariffs for the most part as a punitive measure are pretty much a thing of the past, Trumps attempt sounded good to those that back him , but they didnt do a damn thing except open the negotiation table , especially with certain international agreements , favored nation statuses and the like , more to affect those so called cities of international importance in value , so again another double edged sword .
I would say it is all a delicate dance of geopolitics that can be screwed up at any turn . .
The point about tariffs would only come to bare if red-states successfully divorce from the United States, proper. In which, they would be another "international" country on the North American continent. You wrote this: "Trumps attempt sounded good to those that back him , but they didnt (sic) do a damn thing except open the negotiation" table." I find that section of your comment. . . telling. That is, if tariffs can have an effect of getting uncompromising MAGAs to negotiate - then skip the 'drama' and just negotiate 'now.'
I discern you are close to making a clear point here, but have deferred to make it plain. Please elaborate on the above (again).
walks beside me
(Modern love) walks on by
(Modern love) gets me to the church on time
(Church on time) terrifies me
(Church on time) makes me party
(Church on time) puts my trust in God and man
(God and man) no confession
(God and man) no religion
(God and man) don't believe in modern love
I think that I tend to keep things plain because it keeps it simple, and fairly straight forward.
I really don't think what you want elaborated on , needs any further elaboration , negotiation , or compromise really, it falls into the area of individual choices, choices even though they may not be liked , have to be accepted despite whatever outcome is desired.
Then at this juncture in discussion you should know this point that I shall make (which is why I asked you to elaborate for clarity sake ) to determine if it is needed:
The freedom of association and of assembly doesn’t include the freedom to discriminate in a place of business. There are many settled court cases that can help you distinguish the difference.
That is the gist of 6.1.35. Glad you agree!
6.1.35 is about discrimination while Mark’s comments were about freedom of association and assembly.
Well, that is why at 6.1.35 I wrote this: "Then at this juncture in discussion you should know this point that I shall make (which is why I asked you to elaborate for clarity sake ) to determine if it is needed:"
Mark is talking about 'freedom of association" as though it is inalienable. I have displayed a 1964 case involving courts that demonstrate freedom of association has some parameters.
This, is the reason why I asked Mark to elaborate on which way he was going in when he wrote this.
Because clearly there are times when freedom of association has been used to disadvantage a group or groups of people/citizens. And so, our courts have ruled limitations on how this form of expression can be applied.
Our courts have ruled a distinction against the withholding of goods and services due to discrimination versus the freedom of association.
Spin it anyway you can imagine and get a 'quarters worth of work' out of it. This is why it is Mark's comment and he needs to be addressing it right now. . . not you. Because, in this case, I can't imagine how you know what is in his mind to explain.
I have explained myself to you and would prefer to let it drop now, until Mark 'returns.'
Let me take one last 'go' at this for you (before the edit feature runs out): Lester Maddox, one of the plantiffs in thei case had as his (legal) argument that a (white) man has a right to freedom of association and freedom to NOT associate. . .with certain groups of people in the public marketplace. This is why it is relevant to Mark's comment on freedom of association.
This is why ultimately a high court ruled that in the marketplace (what Maddox wanted to do-discriminate on the basis of color) everybody is permitted to associate publicly.
Well I doubt seriously your 64 court case applies to me, it might apply to those I may decide to work for , but not me.
I will let the people that it does apply to worry about such things.
Now I have made no secret I hold a CDL and can drive a commercial semi all over the country, here is a little secret as a driver I can legally discriminate all I want with just one simple action.
Simply refuse a load going anywhere I do not want to go.
And I will admit out of 48 states there are about half of them I have refused loads to deliver in. There are even some states I refuse to even stop in if I can avoid doing so at all. And it's all personal preference and all perfectly legal.
So if you want to imply there is some discrimination involved, I never claimed there wasn't any.
I’ve spun nothing, what confused you?
Just thought of something in regards to the tariff issue brought up.
In the case of a national divorce and things are treated as different little countries as you say CB, those tariff wouldn't be charged to the place those shipments originated but at the border paid by the end destination point, which in turn would be passed on to the final consumer raising the price for them. It also would not affect the price or cost(lowering it) in the place of origin.
So a load of barley coming out of Wyoming, going to San Fransisco is going to cost the same in Wyoming, but be more expensive once California applies it's import tariff which is paid by who ever bought it. Which the consumers in SF will end up paying in the end as an added cost.
Now why does that not sound strange to me........
My comments are not about you. Nothing about freedom of association in this discussion is about you. And nor am I talking about discrimination just to be 'talking.' It was a respond to this:
Which you wrote. I simply offered a contrast point. That is all it was: a counter-narrative.
Tariffs mean they won't be purchased from Wyoming in the quantities they are now; Demand will decrease. Supply will increase (stock pile at the storage facilities; its fresh foodstuffs). With its accompanying results.
Well your tariff idea still wouldn't work here, fresh foodstuffs like fruits and veggies things I call limited shelf life items are not what's from here, beef, pork sheep and grains like wheat and barley , alfalfa and hay grass are big too.
Grains can be stored a long time and usually are and sold when the price goes up, and there is always a market elsewhere that will buy so a boycott won't work again.
Meats can last a long time frozen.
It's that supply and demand thing , a boycott may increase supply for a little while due to decreasing the demand a little , but if the price goes down just a little those not boycotting will get better prices until those boycotting see their boycott failed and start buying again. And the cycle will start again.
Those that do the actual producing of the raw or start item will always make their money because they do it under contract with middle men it's the buyers and processers that mills and packing plants, that add to the costs. They are the ones that will determine the final cost as well as control the supply.
Not sure where this should end up with this from here.
There will be massive amounts of economic problems to go around. Better to save the Union and fix it. The children of tomorrow would appreciate a whole country and not just its lore.
And do not let it escape you that people will survive in cities: they will feed themselves and eat.
I’m not sure why it began or lasted so long.
Who cares. Such bs you really should keep to yourself!
Should likely let it end here, nothing will change anyway, let people be who they are , masters and slaves of themselves and their ideas.
Apparently you to keep the thread alive.
No clue what you see as bs, as you never identify.
If life was only so easy.
People, more precisely conservatives, have been telling me I am 'wrong' about being me all my life in one version or another.
I kindly suggest you move on with your virtual life and get over me. Find another plaything.
I can sympathize with that , I often get it from both sides.
I have found life can be as easy or as hard as I choose to make it.
It is what works for me.
Mark, there is a vagueness in that comment for foul 'play,' but overall I agree.
Recently attended a funeral in my rural hometown. I always feel uncomfortable going back there because of my beliefs (political and "religious").
I sat next to my uber-Christian SIL at the reception and she made such a rude & derogatory comment about people she considers "not normal" that I had to strike back by saying that I had to get home to prepare my Ostara feast. The look on her face was worth every syllable.
I still have no idea what these types of people think they are losing when others gain equal rights.
"their" America.
It would be interesting to see on a per capita basis the federal/state investments in rural areas to urban areas.
It's not a competition. One state marginally or measurably outdoing another state at one time or another only means all the other states should aid the 'suffering' one or several states. We are ONE!
I’m not talking about the wealth of one state versus another but where federal/state tax dollars are invested on a per capita basis.
Not to many here, think of hillbilly, trailer, jokes, poor white trash slurs that are frequently found here,
Time to put the 'stupid' remarks down and move on to survival and growth and development. That's the way I see it. I can't fix other people; just make the case for fixing!
No, but you could acknowledge that many people look at rural with disdain and don’t share your view that We are ONE.
I look forward to you making the case for more rural investment.
I see the comments, but do not participate within. Let it be, Drinker of the Wry. If you are looking to get a rise out of me; keep pushing.
As for rural investments; I can not make the case as I have always been a city-dwellers out of choice. If you have a case to make for why rural areas are 'deficient' and its the fault of government "largesse" allocations - you do it. And I will 'listen' attentively.
No, a conversation, but not if you’re not up for that.
I didn’t think so.
I think that I started that in this thread.
Then, it is a good thing. At some point, do give it proper exposure - and article or several may be needed to show what those shortcoming. . .if you will, are so we can all get involved in seeing how government should respond to fixing them.
Rural areas may get more aid (as needed) if they ask for it and stand for it. Instead of putting on a bigger show of self-reliance and individualism than they should—if the need is as high as you are suggesting. That said, I don't know what the financial shortcoming are in rural 'America.' In many cases, aid is spurned or misrepresented and misunderstood as to where it is coming from (the government) when it is given to rural farms and the like.
Is that what it takes, simply asking?
Do rural counties put on those shows?
No doubt.
Sources?
No questions from MAGAs. Just statements. Questions don't work between us.
Yes. An inability or unwillingness to answer.
They sound deplorable to me.
It's the fear of the UNKNOWN. And to be fair to your SIL and those of her mindset; I get it. The practice and activities of suppressing whole groups of people intentional and unintentionally until their numbers burgeon or 'blossom' (projected in 2050) causes fear and some resentment in some people. . . but it should not necessarily.
"Whiteness" as a standard operating state in the United States is getting 'company' from the marginalized groups coming into their 'own.' And, it can be disorienting to see it. Even I don't know what to expect from all the change that ESSENTIALLY needs to happen in this country FOR ALL ITS CITIZENS TO BE FREE (as possible).
That said, still the issues that have been ongoing ("chronic" and festering for generations) can't be touched, or healed until this ESSENTIAL change occurs.
Diversity, Inclusion, and equity/equally. . . can be scary if left without proper guidance and support from all of us. I don't want this country to fall terminally backwards in what we see, touch, feel, and smell (to the senses) - yet, as the saying goes—change can be hard in the 'moment' still we must all get after it!
Not my SIL's problem...her "not normal" people are gays.
Understood. And "gays" homosexuals (my preferred verbiage) are a (whole) group that is included in the suppression/repression-as the case may be.
Perhaps it's fear of the KNOWN.
The disparities in social and economic outcomes and trends between rural and nonrural communities are documented across the decades now. The majority of rural counties haven't recovered from the 2007 recession while urban counties have. Over 3/4 of our counties with long term, persistent poverty are rural. Private/federal/state economic marginalization of rural communities has contributed to declines in educational opportunities, increasing health disparities, population loss, unaffordable housing, etc.
It's not a competition. Cities have different sets of issues and provide differing sets of activities which need constant and steady upkeep. . .including for those rural "children" who come out of the rural areas (in the thousands) looking for something better than a quiet sedate lifestyle. Nothing wrong with any of this. Not if you consider that difference is not a cause to 'compete' against Oneself or one's own nation's 'innards.'
Here is something to ponder about this stream of consciousness:
It's a joke. But grasp its 'eternal' meaning. We are ONE nation and rural America lives because cities live and vice-versa!
Incidentally, all of this will massively fail if this country 'files' for divorce and divides up its union. We would be a 'sight' in the U.N. assembly as every one would wonder what happened to the once 'great' preeminent leader of the world!
Just imagine what the world (with all its current issues) would look like if the United States - went 'bust'! It's not a good mental image at all. Not at all! Certainly, would strain every system we have to just keep afloat in the world.
Of course it is, when their isn’t enough funding to meet every need, it’s a competition.
Yes, and rural areas have different environments for the same human needs.
Diving up the cost of urban housing and congestion. Maybe more would stay in a “sedate” life style if there were better economic opportunities. Perhaps “sedate” is more about your bias or lack of experience than a reality.
Perhaps you are being presumptuous to try to divine where to be insulting. I reject the nonsense.
As with a marriage, there is no part of this union that does not SUFFER when its adjoining states suffer. So stop the spiteful rhetoric which does not serve this nation in part or in whole one iota.
I don’t see an insult,
ok, glad that’s settled.
Tell your SIL (no don't do it) you know someone who can tell her the differences between what is natural (use) for a heterosexual and what is (use) for a homosexual!
Yes, I do and he is having lunch with her in a couple of weeks.
I don't quite get that. Please share more.
I grew up a white, rural American and still consider myself to be one. Mr. Giggles likes to make fun of my "countryness" but I taunt him about being a city boy.
I grew up with people who are the salt of the earth. I don't like to see them mocked
Love you, TG! You are the beauty of rural country (and those like you)! Want to know why? Because.
Because your spirit is open to let other live and prosper in the struggle and joys of life like yourself without adding undue and unworthy stresses and strains, obstructions, and suppression to their generations!
What some of us, even doing so in the worse way, are trying to tell rural America is. . . Rural America you are beautiful and we see it! And Rural America we city dwellers want you to see our beauty too. For those rural folks who only comment or SEE our flaws. . . stop that; don't be manipulated to hate your fellow Americans . . . let's be friends again.
Let's be respectful to our contributions to the land we all have helped to make great or greater.
We're all in this together.
Thank-you!
who's mocking ?
Every time NT'ers discuss rural vs urban there's an underlying current of city is better or rural is better. Cities are fine. I've never lived in a big city so I don't know (or really care) what I'm missing. I like living in a rural area. I like being outdoors and would rather go fishing than shopping. But because I'm a self-professed liberal, I get the feeling that I'm supposed to live in a city.
Well, this liberal likes to breathe clean air and stretch my arms out without smacking someone in the nose
I read the article and I listened to a podcast where these two authors appear for about 1/2 an hour. I think their main gripe with white rural America may not be so much with each and every single white rural American but rather with the idea that conservative media convinces these people that they are the real Americans and therefore their outsized political power in national terms is more than justified.
Conservative media always argues that urban liberals and urban people in general are not real Americans for reasons that are describe in the articles. In other words real Americans are not non Christian, real Americans don't discuss gender issues, real Americans don't try to have gun control, real Americans don't advocate for racial justice, etcetera.
Well stated and I like that you show some vulnerability in sharing this. I, sometimes, feel (and get push back in the real world) because I am professing Christianity but do not conform to putting down homosexuals or social justice-I feel the curious/judgemental look of confusion emanating from them
But, what I am is not a pack animal. I don't intend to be 'led' to God/Heaven/the Above by any cast of characters. I am on this journey and I don't plan on hating anybody just because somebody says so to be different.
You are so right on those points you're making. MAGAs take 'possession' of all positive aspects of "Americana" up to and touching its "apple pie." I remember the PSA that ran recently some years back: "I am American." Showing the breadth and width of this diverse people and not any one group or thing. But turn to conservative mediums and media and its a competition as to who is the 'inherited' owner of this country lock, stock, and barrel and you will see Americana waving back and forth all day long. As though that should be how it is determined.
Many NT’s, but you know that.
You know I'm not a Christian, but I don't Jesus cares that you are gay. You don't go around hurting anyone and are a good, kind, and caring person. I think that's all he asks
The 'eternal' problem for homosexuals is not so much with the attitude of Jesus, but with the scriptural tome of Moses' law and Paul's letters to Romans speaking ambiguously about male to male penetration which from a heterosexual perspective is not (so) cool or interesting. Of course, male to female penetration of any 'hole' is highly interesting to them and so that 'taboo' is not set in biblical cement.
Unfortunately, homosexuals have no spiritual 'jack-hammer' able to tear up those words from Moses' Law or Paul's letter and so each succeeding generation of believers feel obligated to teach homosexuality as the books and letters stipulate: As taboo.
I have much to say on this very issue, but it will have to come out over time.
Moses nor Paul are the Messiahs or Saviors
LOL! You're correct, but. The two men are read, heard, and lectured to others in every generation since they appeared on the pages of the Bible. They are no longer here and so their recorded 'dictates' are set in 'eternal' stone.
i'm sure many of them are salt of the earth.
So why are they disproportionately MAGA ?
I don't know
May I venture a thought: Because I hear it on TBN (and now Dr. Phil is joining in (April 2) on Merit Street Media - partner network of TBN) with his sage advice and get this: Steve Harvey, (yes! "Family Feud" Steve Harvey, will be partnering with the network and adding 300 episodes from his "Steve" sage advice show (2017 - 2019). Back to TBN.
TBN (Trinity Broadcast Network) and Clear Channel syndicated radio broadcasts to the 'bible belt' (a.k.a. "Heartland") of America and as a drop-by "fly" on the wall I literally hear these religious leaders telling their congregations of thousands their feelings (not prophetic utterances) that change in our country of the sort manifesting is going to destroy this country and has already taken it OUT of the favor of (their) God. They, the tens of religious preaching and lecturing shows on there have a captive audience of believers—especially amongst the nation's elderly (who can watch far and wide even in California) and they do listen far and wide.
In California, I know a woman who has told me she listens to TBN 95% of her television day! And she's always parroting how the world is going to hell in a hand-basket and she sees 'destruction' and gloom in all our futures. . . unless God (or Trump as is being put forward to her) can bring conservative to bear on the problems.
It's all a tad bit much.
I do what I can to help her with her understanding that though there are wars and rumors of more wars possible: The world really has fewer wars than at anytime in history (probably because of "MAD" - Mutually Assured Destruction) and that crime is down in this country despite the propaganda lies that exploit every violent scene/incident that happens.
The number of battle deaths is clearly down from the 20th Century but the number of ongoing conflicts are dramatically up as is the number of displaced refugees.
Don't miss the point! Was are down. Crime is down in our country. And its plain to see that in our own country we've only had one or two significant national conflicts leading to one war in our Homeland. We're defying the odds compared to many countries in this world.
Ok, are you indifferent to international strife?
Since I come from a rural area, I know how conservative it can be. Religion didn't seem as important when I was growing up in PA but here in Arkansas, church rules people's lives. Where I grew up, it wasn't pushed, but here it is. These folks do think that our country is going to hell in a hand basket and that's their right. even tho it's outdated thinking
It's sad actually that church 'folks,' particularly the conservative-leaning ones, have a 'desperation' for something to happen and the more chaos the better, because it seems (to them at least) that when things are at their worse: Christ will appear through the clouds in the second coming. Nevermind the fact that Jesus told them to live (and let others live in peace) until he returns. Because no man knows the time or hour of Christ's return. (So don't sit around hoping, praying, and waiting.)
As we call can see many lifetimes and generations have come and gone since Christ's departure. And times were bad and some times worse than now. . .and no Christ arrives.
I grew up in a red rural America (as in skin color not political party) and I do not consider myself a country pumpkin. We were so rural that we were 100 miles past Nowhereville USA and 75 miles past the last Rez in the world. We didn't have many white folks around the Rez and those that did show up from time to time we gave them a broken compass and directions to Grizz country.
I've lived in some of the largest cities in the world and some of the smallest, liked them both for different reasons, now I'm in a small city of around 65K but growing and it's good, no complaints, well there was the 12 foot gator in the pool the other day, damn near had by dumb ass cuz, Luther Walks the Horse for lunch, but we worked it out. Mrs. Putz our neighbor is still pissed about her missing chickens.
Our neighborhood is mostly white folks from all over the country, pretty good people but they sure do ask some dumb ass questions. One of them said he thought that Indians were extinct and how much Indian was I. I said I'd tell him as soon as he told me how much caucasian he was.
Oh Kavika! Now that whole accounting is full of just so "many things" - it simply has to be true!
This reminds me of the rural Americans who say to political leaders "Take your hands off my (government) Medicare." And, of farmers who receive subsidies (from the government) and somehow are blind to where the funding is coming.