We say very clearly that rural America is hurting. But we refuse to justify attitudes that some scholars try to underplay.
Something remarkable happened among rural whites between the 2016 and 2020 elections: According to the Pew Research Center’s validated voter study, as the rest of the country moved away from Donald Trump, rural whites lurched toward him by nine points, from 62 percent to 71 percent support. And among the 100 counties where Trump performed best in 2016, almost all of them small and rural, he got a higher percentage of the vote in 91 of them in 2020. Yet Trump’s extraordinary rural white support—the most important story in rural politics in decades—is something many scholars and commentators are reluctant to explore in an honest way.
…
What isn’t said enough is that rural whites are being told to blame all the wrong people for their very real problems. As we argue in the book, Hollywood liberals didn’t destroy the family farm, college professors didn’t move manufacturing jobs overseas, immigrants didn’t pour opioids into rural communities, and critical race theory didn’t close hundreds of rural hospitals. When Republican politicians and the conservative media tell rural whites to aim their anger at those targets, it’s so they won’t ask why the people they keep electing haven’t done anything to improve life in their communities.
I think Chomsky nailed it as far back as the nineties, at least. I cannot find the exact quote, but he was commenting on the “Angry White Male” thing and said that of course a great many people had the right to be angry about their situation, but that of course they’d be pointed at the wrong things/people either as deflection or as the (false) cause.
When people say that the cons manifested donnie vs. donnie somehow coming along and changing the cons, they are not wrong. It’s no coincidence that donnie is glued to grievance outlets like Faux and just repeats their bilge. When these angry people have been eating up Faux nonsense and a candidate comes along that just repeats everything on those grievance outlets, and gives them a permission structure to start saying some of the worst thoughts they have out loud, it’s all too obvious who they are going to vote for.
Naturally, that candidate will be doing absolutely nothing for them beyond their feels and will most likely just enact policies to make their situation even worse.
This misses an important point. Cities like Chicago and Miami compete globally, against places like Berlin and Sao Paulo. Smaller regional centers, like Oklahoma city, and Des Moines are ruled by their own elite and are not concerned by international affairs.
The wealthy in smaller regional centers don’t have the ear of the Federal government, but they do employ most people in the local area, so locals are tied to their success. Locals also rely on them for donations to local hospitals, charities, and sporting clubs.
If anything, they actually have an oversized voice in the federal government due to the Senate.
And in many places, also the House and their state legislatures due to gerrymandering.