DU opinion on why rural voters trend GOP seems a bit wide of the mark to me

[jpgray]

Few of the theories I've seen posted adequately explain the evidence. Some of the major and oft-repeated ones in particular are:

1. "It's lack of education!" or "They're racist!"

It's a fun statistical game to play, pointing out that the more education one receives the more likely one is to vote Democratic, or inferring racism from clear divisions between caucasians and blacks at the ballot box. But as with all statistical analyses of mass human behavior, you run a high risk of error when you isolate a potential cause as -the- major cause of the behavior. Why? Because this must blatantly disregard the significant interdependence of the factors at play--no cause can be readily understood in full isolation from the others. Think of the dust bowl diaspora folks and other rural, working class coalitions that ushered in the New Deal, for example--hardly suited for the Ivy League. Lack of education and rural origins didn't matter then, but they do now? Also, consider the rather inexplicable voting habits of Hispanics in light of this pat "racism" theory. How should we fit that in? My point is, when you isolate these causes as -sole- causes, you run into contradictions rather quickly.

2. It's their backward Levitican morals!

But it isn't, really. We see in the current GOP the same religious demagoguery that's been around for millenia: The moral imperatives from religious doctrine they aggressively market are all chosen to benefit their political agenda. They give heavy exposure to a "moral issue" solely to gain some electoral edge; to isolate their opponents on the losing side and stake out the popular territory for themselves. You won't see them advocating punishment for eating shellfish or wearing cloth of mixed fibers, for example. Catholic stances on the death penalty or war will hardly receieve the same light of day as the Catholic stance on abortion. Would gay marriage ever have been brought out as a -major- issue by the rural voters on their own? Without any overarching direction? Unlikely. It's more likely the GOP simply saw a new wedge issue to promote, wherein they could come down on the popular side and win politically. Again, it doesn't adequately explain the behavior on its own.

So what's -your- schmancy theory, extraneous thread-starter?

My theory is this: The GOP have been doing a decades-long and very expensive job of flattering the rural white voter, casting him as vastly superior to all other demographics.

Don't be too quick to blame any of them for falling for it. History has proved that it's an intoxicating thing to hear. Think of it--simply by identifying yourself with a few ephemeral values, you are deified as the quintessential goodness of America. We hear the uniting superlatives of this exaltation all the time, lauding "common sense," "folksiness," "small town values," etc.: they don't really mean anything specific, because they aren't meant to--they're meant to snare a sizable portion of the electorate with the manipulation of flattery.

Don't buy it? Imagine you're a poor working white guy living in the country, with no chance at education and little chance to belong to anything other than your church. Suddenly here's a party that tells you your humdrum existence has not make you laughable, but -superior-. That your time spent working blue-collar jobs hasn't make you less qualified to judge on a given issue than some Ivy League schmuck, but -more- qualified. Here's a party that tells you your cultural isolation and clannishness is not a liability, but a -virtue-.

This exaltation is naturally solely meant for exploitation. It's why your favorite Republican cousin blabs right-wing economic talking points even as they cost him his job and his mortgage. He doesn't really have anything to gain whatsoever in parroting these lines, he does it because the GOP have told him he is the greatest and best of America, and that such policies are necessary to defeat the "other," even when that other resembles his own self. He doesn't believe in these stances on his own; he believes them because they are the stances of a party that makes him feel superior.

Again, rural white Americans are hardly unique in their vulnerability to this ploy--all human beings have this urge to feel superior to some degree. This approach has worked throughout recorded time. Political leaders have abused it to their benefit for as long as history has existed. It happens in all parties, naturally--there's no shortage of smug satisfaction in our own, for example. I think the simplistic reasons and at times insulting generalizations some gave here for why rural voters trend GOP provide some evidence of that.

Racism, church doctrine and lack of education certainly all have an impact, but I doubt any one of those plays the sort of exclusive, defining role that people pretend. Thanks for reading my boring opinion. :)

[LiberalFighter]

1. It's their reduced social interaction with the general population.

Neighbors are farther away. Receive fewer government services.

[ColbertWatcher]

4. "Receive fewer government services." No they don't they receive more.

I know, I live in California and we pay more.

eg Wyoming.

[Solon]

6. This is true, the rural lifestyle is heavily subsidized by the Government...

Roads that have far less use than is warranted for being paved are paved anyways, telephone and electric service are subsidized so they even have it at all, etc.

[LiberalFighter]

18. That would be true. Just as the phone service is heavily subsidized.

I wonder what they would say if all it stopped and they were forced to live even more primitively?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solon]

3. The question is, why are they vulnerable to this line of argument in the first place...

being placated all the time is a fine way to have your ego inflated, but you have to actually fall for it as well.

Besides, I think this predates the relatively recent GOP tactics, and dates back to the Civil Rights era, when the federal government stamped down, with both feet, against segregation. Even rural people in areas outside the south were alarmed how much power the Federal government has when its warranted to use it, and I think they resent that greatly.

[Juche]

5. Fear of novelty and diversity

As far as badmouthing conservatives, there is some merit to it.


http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=20061222-000001&page=2

"All people are born alike—except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers—John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley—found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.




--------------------------------------

Small towns are very closed, predictable and rigid which are what conservatives need as they need a predictable, reliable external environment to feel internally comfortable. Large cities are unpredictable, open, novel & expansive which attracts liberals.

As far as the new deal coalition, it also consisted of southern rednecks who left the dem party and became republicans in the civil rights movement.

Racial tension plays a huge role in politics. That is why the south was dem for 100 years, because Lincoln and the reconstructionists were republican. then when the democrats supported civil rights they all became republican. At the same time the people rejected by and cast as inferior according to these tensions and by these racial divisions (blacks, latinos, asians) became dems. Alot of voting can be tied into racial tension.

[jpgray]

8. Party identification seems rather more volatile than personality, no?

Interesting correlation, but a bit too deterministic in my view. Not saying they're pulling a sort of reverse Cyril Burt, but still.

Again, I wouldn't argue that racial tension hasn't played a role--any extant racism fits in with the cultural superiority the GOP is trying to market, no?

[EC]

7. Same reason they fall for the tent revival con

whatever that may be...ignorence? With my late grand-parents in West Virginia it was mistrust of outsiders...and anyone that was introduced to them as one of them by a local they trusted...

[Tallison]

9. Simple social psychology: It appeals to their bigotry

And bigotry is much broader than racism. It's a Me vs Them attitude ubiquitous in rural communities that was once quite adaptive in the US. While this is no longer the case, the RW has done a brilliant job exploiting its vestigial emotional remnants.

Great op-ed piece by E.J. Dionne in the Post today about this very subject:


Whose Elitism Problem Now?

"In democracies, all political factions run against an elite. Since the New Deal, Democrats have cast themselves against the financial and business elite. Since the 1960s, Republicans have thrashed the cultural and intellectual elite.

Over the weekend, the moneyed class became a richer target. The foolishness of our financial geniuses now threatens to bring economic sorrow to Main Street. Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 attack on "the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties" never sounded so up to date.

Americans don't mind wealthy and even rapacious capitalists, as long as they deliver the goods to everyone else. But when the big boys drag everyone else down, Americans rise up in righteous anger. The New Deal political alignment endured for decades because the financial elites were so profoundly discredited by the Great Depression. The New Deal coalition dissolved only when prosperity began to seem durable and only after the GOP discovered the joys of baiting Hollywood, the media and the academy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502472.html

[Odin2005]

10. I grew up in a rural area an that is EXACTLY the conclusion I came to

City folks bashing us only reinforces the effect.

[jpgray]

12. To be fair, the official Dems are hardly bashing rural whites--quite the opposite

Some frustrated non-official lefties are probably going to spout off unreasonably on the internet, however. :) Mostly we don't though!

[XemaSab]

11. I think villainization of the city plays as much of a role as anything

People here in Redding think the Bay Area is full of gang bangers, homosexuals, and yuppies.

[erinlough]

13. In my area of rural Michigan

lots of the farmers are republican, at least they vote that direction. I think it is because they see themselves as small business owners rather than laborers. They are really more libertarian and fearful of government getting into their business unless they are offering subsidies for growing or losing their crops, then they are all for it! In fairness these are not stupid people, on the contrary many of our successful farmers get their degrees in agriculture from Michigan State University which has an agricultural college. My experience is they fear unions, want to be considered business owners, hate taxes, and go to church.....a lot. This is probably not valid for other areas of the country, just my observation here.

[EstimatedProphet]

14. I'll tell you why - look at post #2

What do rural people get when they talk to most Democrats? What have they been getting for years now?

Post #2. The attitude may not be as direct as that, but it is far too often still there.

You'd think it might occur to people at some point that if we want rural voters on our side, treating them like they are subhuman isn't likely to win them over.

[tucsonlib]

15. Ask the Denizens Of the Gungeon. They'll Tell You Why.

The true believers who post in the Gun Forum are positively convinced that Democrats lose elections solely because of the issue of gun control. They contend there are millions of gun-owners who will vote Republican because, well, because the Right to Bear Arms is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING AMERICA TODAY!

Can't argue with that kind of logic.....

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. Of course they're pandering to an archetype.

The problem is that we're reacting to it.

There's no "suddenly" about it. The Democratic party controlled this government for almost the entire postwar period up to 1980 by appeals to the little guy. Listen to some of FDR's speeches. That changed in part because Republicans realized that marketing itself to our base was a winning tactic. One other thing, it's not all simply about demographics. People who identify with the idealized small town values do not necessarily live in small towns.

All too often we attempt to appeal to voters by talking to them as if they can be categorized in some sort of taxonomy (Female, White, Suburban, 36-45, Married, Mainstream protestant, Kids at home, $45,000-$75,000 income), those factoids are irrelevant if you inadvertently condescend to the ideals that they hold.

Understand the shared american values and pander to that.

[Quantess]

17. Don't overgeneralize. There are many rural Democrats and / or progressives.

Just, not as many as rural Republicans. I live out in the country, more or less. There are several christmas tree farms, horses, goats, llamas, and chickens. And I see about an equal number of McCain signs as I see Obama signs. But then, we're close to Portland and Obama is almost certainly going to win Oregon.