|
There has been many words written on the internet about right-wing populism, specifically around the rise of Donald Trump, but there is one question that I haven't read a convincing answer to: why now? I hope I am not starting up an argument that has already been had in other places, but I haven't really heard the when of this phenomena discussed. Why is this happening in 2016, when it didn't happen in 2012? Why are populist candidates who are working outside not just the political establishment, but normal standards of manners, happening now? During the 2012 primary, despite the presence of a more conservative, Tea Party-backed candidate in Rick Santorum, the primary was still won by Mitt Romney, who no one would describe as impolite or crass. Even Santorum, despite being conservative, was kind of the cuddly uncle type with his sweater vests and well-groomed hair. So what happened between 2012 and 2016 that the Republican Party has gone from Mitt Romney to Donald Trump? These are a couple of major factors that have played into it: 1. The rise of the Tea Party 2. The wide usage of social media like Facebook and Twitter amongst Baby Boomers 3. The spread of right-wing traditional media, such as Fox News 4. The decline of manufacturing jobs and the economic downturn for white people without a college education 5. The perception of America being "overrun" by migrants 6. The election of a Black president 7. The distrust and skepticism towards the Republican establishment stemming from the Bush Adminstration's war in Iraq. The problem with all 7 of those factors is they date back to, respectively: 2010, 2010, c. 1990s, c.1970s, c. 2000s, pretty much forever, 2008 and c.2006. In other words, all the factors that I might think of that could explain the rise of Trump and the fall of the Republican elites were in place in 2012, if not earlier, and yet it wasn't until last summer that they came ripping forwards. The question then, is what is really different now? What appeared, or grew so large that it hit the tipping point, to change the political climate so much? So does anyone have any explanations other than the ones above? Are the personalities and events of this year just sui generis?
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Trump decided to run in 2016 not 2012 because everybody knows that it's way harder to win against a sitting president.
Chasterson fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Obama broke their brains. I think it's that simple.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Talk radio spent years telling them about how the GOP establishment are a bunch of paid corporate shills who don't give a poo poo about them or conservatism hoping this would lead to a Cruz nomination or someone like him. Instead Trump came along and not only co-opted the message but turned it into a more palatable form for the base, adding an extra dose of nativism and taking out the unpopular stuff like cutting social security and medicare. Normally candidates running for the GOP nomination wouldn't be willing to deviate so far from the platform in this specific way to pander to the base.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Like you've mentioned, all the contributing factors have been in place for a little while now. I think it's basically the result of pure chance that Trump is the right man in the right place at the right time to finally ignite the whole powder keg. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Obama broke their brains. I think it's that simple. But the rage against Obama was around in 2012, as well. And in 2012, the Republican Party was still only willing to go as far as Herman Cain as their non-mainstream populist demogogue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Talk radio spent years telling them about how the GOP establishment are a bunch of paid corporate shills who don't give a poo poo about them or conservatism hoping this would lead to a Cruz nomination or someone like him. Instead Trump came along and not only co-opted the message but turned it into a more palatable form for the base, adding an extra dose of nativism and taking out the unpopular stuff like cutting social security and medicare. Normally candidates running for the GOP nomination wouldn't be willing to deviate so far from the platform in this specific way to pander to the base. So basically it was a 25 year incubation period, and it finally broke through? One thing I do know that happened is that talk radio became much more focused on bizarre stuff and conspiracy theories in the past five years. Rush Limbaugh, while very conservative, was still operating in conventional reality. Then starting with Glenn Beck, you get more and more hosts who are basically talking about stuff outside of the realm of politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Talk radio has become less influential as time went on. The only thing you could maybe blame on them is Oklahoma City.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:What appeared, or grew so large that it hit the tipping point, to change the political climate so much? Donald J Trump They're not exactly sui generis but Trump personally is a big part of this election being what it is. Trump bucks the right-wing orthodoxy in ideological terms in a lot of ways, allowing undercurrents and long-brewing sentiments to come to the surface that have been suppressed by the GOP, not just in terms of racism/fascism but also in opposition to austerity and the hardcore libertarianism of movement conservative establishment. His being an individual personality with few ties to existing established parties and movements is very important and is what is allowing a lot of this to coalesce icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Talk radio has become less influential as time went on. The only thing you could maybe blame on them is Oklahoma City. Has it? This is kind of the reverse situation of clueless old people worrying about heavy metal music in the 1990s, and why it is turning kids bad, when kids stopped listening to heavy metal a decade ago. I'm in the situation of trying to figure out what type of bad influences the Boomers are being corrupted by, but my knowledge of their pop culture is so out of date.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Donald J Trump You're onto something. The figures that become the subjects of cults of personality do so for a reason. Social animals can be entranced by a powerful enough personality. It's not always about the abstract or the ideological.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Donald J Trump So basically, you are saying that there was an underlying condition that needed to be catalyzed by something, but it needed a pretty unique trigger (a rich, famous non-politician with nothing to lose), and the trigger just happened to come this year? What if, for example, Trump had run in 2012, or some other famous "conservative" figure like Ted Nugent had run this year? Would we still be having a wild cycle?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Has it? This is kind of the reverse situation of clueless old people worrying about heavy metal music in the 1990s, and why it is turning kids bad, when kids stopped listening to heavy metal a decade ago. I'm in the situation of trying to figure out what type of bad influences the Boomers are being corrupted by, but my knowledge of their pop culture is so out of date. The only reason it didn't die out 20 years ago is because Rush came around. Now even he is hemorrhaging listeners.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:So basically, you are saying that there was an underlying condition that needed to be catalyzed by something, but it needed a pretty unique trigger (a rich, famous non-politician with nothing to lose), and the trigger just happened to come this year? What if, for example, Trump had run in 2012, or some other famous "conservative" figure like Ted Nugent had run this year? Would we still be having a wild cycle? Basically yes. I don't know if someone other than Trump would have produced the same result, as Trump has a very specific set of reality TV skills that have allowed him to completely hijack the media narrative. But yeah I think in general Trump as a catalyst is the best way of thinking about it. Bernie too for the left, but to a lesser extent as the Democratic Party is a lot less ideologically lockstep than the Republicans and much less inclined or able to stamp out deviation from the party line, and so doesn't need as much of a catalyst for a left-wing movement to get traction icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Basically yes. I don't know if someone other than Trump would have produced the same result, as Trump has a very specific set of reality TV skills that have allowed him to completely hijack the media narrative. I don't mean to be too elitist hipster here, but not watching a lot of broadcast TV, I wasn't aware that he was quite as much of a draw. He certainly isn't very handsome, and he doesn't seem that clever. Is this just something that I, as a goon who has been living with multi-tier irony for too long, just can't understand?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
Trump is like the Caucasian lowest-common-denominator's spirit-animal. He embodies all the negative stereotypical qualities of the baby-boomer generation, and does so loudly and proudly. He's their 1%'er kindred spirit, and they love him for it... especially now, here in a socially progressive era that's making them feel increasingly disaffected. Or at least, that's what Trump is going for. Considering how much his campaign rhetoric has waffled on issues previously discussed by him as recently as 2011 or so (which for some reason only the most recent debate saw the establishment candidates bother to start bringing up), there's plenty of merit to speculating that all his borderline fascist, populist-nativist talk that's striking such a chord with the disaffected political-right is just insincere bullshit designed to win support from said category of the electorate. Many people who claim to know him personally prior to this presidential ambition are shocked by the things he's saying now, suggesting he's either putting on an act, or that he's always been a sociopathic chameleon. ninotoreS fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
It's not a one way street. The Democrats have all but abandoned the rural vote and has nothing to endear themselves to anyone living outside of major urban areas by believing that people who don't vote for them are either too ignorant or too stupid to do so or by taking on issues such as gun control. The Democrats made it their business to actively ignore the plight of rural whites because their most influential politicians are of the New York or Californian breed.
Dead Cosmonaut fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I don't mean to be too elitist hipster here, but not watching a lot of broadcast TV, I wasn't aware that he was quite as much of a draw. He certainly isn't very handsome, and he doesn't seem that clever. Is this just something that I, as a goon who has been living with multi-tier irony for too long, just can't understand? Bad publicity is better than no publicity, especially if it's free. That's something elementary school children can tell you. Most people who aren't Donald Trump have too much of a sense of shame to attract that attention. Trump is promoting right-wing populist views not with any sort of principled, intellectual argument but by sheer bludgeoning media saturation, and it turns out that that works nearly as well. One of the big takeaways from this election IMO is that it demonstrates just how hilariously broken the American media is. It's something everyone has known for a long time but not until now have you really seen the consequences
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
Donald Trump has essentially found a way to short-circuit the 24 hour news cycle. Because of the format, and (honestly) the fact that most days are really boring news-wise, means that these stations are always on the search for new content. But there's a limit to how much stuff they can actually put to air on the same subject. Enter Donald Trump, who provides a constant stream of outrageous talking points that fill the gap, and end up drowning out everything else. But he still does it vaguely enough that he keeps plausible deniability. The irony of him bashing the media, saying they're not being fair (never show the crowds!), calling them vultures, is that his campaign would be nothing without them. Like imagine this: instead of constant interviews of whatever, you have this bored PBS-Newshour anchor saying "Well Donald Trump said something else stupid today. Onto the next story". No one would give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 10:09
|
|
|
Honestly I think the real question is: why not earlier? Let's not forget that the last third party to get electoral votes for President was the Dixiecrats. I think the curious disappearance of populism in recent history can be attributed to the somewhat unusual realignments of the Democrats and Republicans in the 20th century. The whole semiotics of the Southern Strategy has taken on a life of its own, where you have a whole generation of people agreeing with codewords they genuinely don't recognize as dogwhistles, so now people genuinely believe in states' rights, all that stuff. Sure, you still have issues like abortion to harp on, but that can only take you so far. Things like the Tea Party are, I think, an attempt to slough off the veil of false consciousness gone horribly awry. Maybe Trump is just the William Jennings Bryan of the Information Age. If not Trump, it would've been someone else eventually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:It's not a one way street. The Democrats have all but abandoned the rural vote and has nothing to endear themselves to anyone living outside of major urban areas by believing that people who don't vote for them are either too ignorant or too stupid to do so or by taking on issues such as gun control. The Democrats made it their business to actively ignore the plight of rural whites because their most influential politicians are of the New York or Californian breed. Dems or GOP, almost all of them have kowtowed to wall street... and that includes Trump, who supported bank and auto bailout and lack of real reform following 2008. So in that important sense, none of them have truly been loyal to the 'plight of the rural right'. There's a reason Greenspan enjoyed bipartisan support as Fed chairman. Trump's 'policies' (he never details them but in the most generic of terms) really only appeal to working-class whites insofar as his social rhetoric and anti-establishment antagonism. Beyond that, I don't think he's really any more reform-minded in a fiscal sense than establishment candidates. I think there's a declaration he keeps making -- inaccurately -- that inadvertently demonstrates this. He's claimed over and over again in debates now that the US is the highest taxed country in the world. Well... http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/republican-debate-fact-check/ quote:America ranked 17 out of 34 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development member countries for total tax revenue per capita in 2014. In America, the tax revenue per capita is $14,203.90. In Luxembourg, the country with the highest tax revenue per capita, that rate is almost $50,000. Norway's tax revenue per capita hits more than $38,000. Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland round out the top five countries with the highest tax revenue per capita. BUT, his claim is partially true in one particular sense, which I think is revealing as to his true interests: America's corporate tax rate is the highest in the world at 35% federal (although in practice companies don't actually pay even half of that percentage ultimately due to tax credits, exemptions, etc, but this is tangential). So that's why Trump keeps making the claim. In his mind, it's accurate, because in his mind, all he really cares for -- or is actually informed about -- is Big Business. His affectation to seem otherwise is just a facade that's wonderfully fooling the lowest-common-denominator. ninotoreS fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
I beseech you Dead Cosmonaut, don't make this about gun control again. As for what is bringing out the populist right wing? I'm pretty sure it has got something to do with desperation in the face of our current crop of capitalism and forgetfulness at the same time. Take Europe for example. Countries where the fascist far-right is gaining strength are countries where the social model is being eroded by liberals at every turn, where public services are being privatized and weakened, and at the same time, where the experience of fascism is a distant thing. So France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, even Italy, and so on. In Eastern Europe, nationalism has become a similar plague. In the US, I think similar forces are at work, but capitalist indoctrination is so strong that terrified people are also drawn to an über-capitalist like Trump because he sounds like he's going to bring some form of change. Of course, the culture war plays a part in this, but on the edge. More importantly IMO there's a powerful "tribal" component to politics which makes switching sides a very hard thing to do, even if it means voting for the living embodiment of the capitalist class: people bridge the cognitive dissonance by doubling down and holding on even tighter to their tribal identity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
Populism isn't about substance, it's about style. Huey Long wasn't saying anything Democrats weren't already promising, but he did it in such a way that people believed he was crazy and different enough to deliver. Same with Teddy Roosevelt. The one exception to this was George Wallace who actually promised something different from the main party (though hardly unique, c.f. Strom Thurmond.). Even stylistically, populism isn't about position, it's about momentum. Every American politician since Andrew Jackson has at least given a nod to the common man; the key is finding a way to stand out from the crowd. Usually having some odd style his will just get you run over, especially given how (relatively) conformist and small-c-conservative the American electorate is. But if there is a sufficient constituency that is sufficiently frustrated with the status quo, then there's an opening. And frustration with the status quo? That's been actively stoked by the GOP since at least Nixon. But Nixon didn't just bash hippie and pinkos (or his signature move - playing the victim) - he had substantive policies as well. Indeed, throughout American political history lots of politicians have dabbled in disgust with America, but the GOP gradually moved from a few hits here or there to an entire party dependent on the uncut stuff, while still telling themselves they stood for morality and low taxes. The hope of Reagan faded to the compassion of Bush, and eventually there was nothing positive left; all fear, crisis, and spite. But well before Bush the party had fallen behind the curve, as the main driver became the media. Resentment politics became a culture, as hucksters found that resentment could be milked for money as well as votes. The financial crisis really has little to do with it, IMO. The GOP has been racing down this path for 50 years. The GOP somehow held it together for eight years post-Bush. And then along comes Trump, giving the barest lip-service to taxes and less to morality, and the facade of substance fell away. His style was new, and the GOP electorate is so constantly angry, and their party is so behind the curve, that they were ripe for the picking by anyone they think will hurt the people they are addicted to hating. Note that this is a different type of populism than America has seen before. It's not about I'll get you your rightful stuff, it's about I'll hurt the guys taking all your stuff. It's new, it's dangerous, it's still growing in intensity, and it's not going away after Trump loses. There will be a reckoning of some sort in the next few decades.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
"I love the poorly educated." That is why Trump gains votes every time the prattering classes sneer. There is a large contingent here in flyover that would see the Beltway consensus, the courtiers, Wall Street, all of them jailed or worse, and cheer for it. Trump taps the instinctual spite of those on the losing end of globalization. He's crude, irreverent, more than a little racist- he's tapping the vein of disaffection that is bolstered every time some well fed prig tut-tuts him. Personally I think he's done the world a great service by bullying JEB out of the race. I'm a Sanders man, but if it comes down to it, I'd be reluctantly cheering for him against a Clinton. He would likely be a terrible president, but I'd say that the corruption of the political class is the overarching issue we are facing at this time. Let all apple carts be turned over, let all things become new. This is the sentiment I'm hearing quite a bit in southern Ohio. Populism in some flavor or another has been in our future since the era of Reagan. When all the plants were closed and the wage class was decimated it was just a matter of time. If Trump is the only populist candidate on the ballot in 2016 he'll have a rather good shot at winning. If Sanders is on the ballot I think some of the oxygen sustaining right wing populism may abate. Many, many average people want something other than more of the same- it would be good for them to have options.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
They forced romney down their throats with the promise of electability and it failed miserably. I really don't think a lot of people completely grasp how loving angry the base is as a result of that and a string of broken promises. Trumps no dummy and saw the obvious opening and exploited it perfectly. The other thing is how stupidly the base attacked trump at the beginning. Stuff like the state of the union response-you could not hand him a better gift than that in this cycle. Out of touch elites is a massive understatement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I beseech you Dead Cosmonaut, don't make this about gun control again. Europe is mostly about the refugee crisis, handled in quite possibly the worst way possible. The other things help but weren't the cause.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
tsa posted:They forced romney down their throats with the promise of electability and it failed miserably. I really don't think a lot of people completely grasp how loving angry the base is as a result of that and a string of broken promises. But there's more to it than just that - Democrats didn't revolt after Kerry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
I think that Trump is the overriding factor, but I'm thinking of one more thing 8. past politics. Specifically, - the (relative) success and notoriety of the House Freedom Caucus. It delivered a persistent uberconservative minority throughout the past year, which even had some successes. - conversely, the fact that although the Congress is dominated by the Republicans, it didn't manage to accomplish many conservative goals. - while, on the other hand, Obama has become effective with his use of executive orders and the such (deal with Iran kind of stuff). - and all the recent pro-liberal Supreme Court decisions. - the 2012 loss itself. I mean, the Republican establishment simply *has* shown itself to be weak and ineffective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:But there's more to it than just that - Democrats didn't revolt after Kerry. Yes, but Democrats haven't been stoked into the same irrational fury and tribalism as much as the Republican base has been.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:But there's more to it than just that - Democrats didn't revolt after Kerry. Most Democrats aren't ehhhh how should I put this, the revolting type. A lot of the Bernie supporters are new to politics and were never actually Democrats. They're millenial socialists. It's not that they are revolting from the party, they never felt any sense of allegiance to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Most Democrats aren't ehhhh how should I put this, the revolting type. A lot of the Bernie supporters are new to politics and were never actually Democrats. They're millenial socialists. It's not that they are revolting from the party, they never felt any sense of allegiance to it. I think that's right. The Democrats had a bit more of that crisis populist feel in the 1960s. But that made them kneecap themselves in '68. And '72. And then came Carter, which lead to Reagan. It took 2 decades of beatings, but Democrats are now electoral pragmatists. Except for the youth, who may need to be taught that lesson again. But not before the GOP deals with a populist rebellion much bigger than the Democrats ever had to confront, thanks to what Geostomp (and myself, above) is talking about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Most Democrats aren't ehhhh how should I put this, the revolting type. A lot of the Bernie supporters are new to politics and were never actually Democrats. They're millenial socialists. It's not that they are revolting from the party, they never felt any sense of allegiance to it. They are calling themselves socialists now, but how many would have this time last year? I think a small percentage. Some of them were probably always independents that tended to vote Democrats, but plenty of them are just lefter leaning Democrats in their 20s. Sanders has done so well not because he is "socialist," but provides an alternative despite calling himself one. Also tons of people just hate Hillary and the Clintons in general. As for Trump, it is a mix of his rhetorical style and the simple fact that for whites with little to no education, the last 9 years have become increasingly economically brutal. They were already there in 2008/2012 (remember Huckabee?) but Trump figured out to channel their anger with very high efficiency. It is also why anti-globalization is still one of the main planks of his platform even if it obviously isn't going anywhere if (maybe when at this point) he is president. Trump's rise is as much about racism and xenophobic, as growing rage over a relatively hopeless economic situation for a large percentage of the country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
tsa posted:Europe is mostly about the refugee crisis, handled in quite possibly the worst way possible. The other things help but weren't the cause. No. Populist parties haven't been on the rise since only 2015, and their three refrains that are euroskepticism, immigrant hatred, and vocal (purpoted) interventionism are pretty important in their discourse. The refugee crisis has only brought more fuel to their fire, so to speak, but it hasn't changed major trends.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:Personally I think he's done the world a great service by bullying JEB out of the race. I'm a Sanders man, but if it comes down to it, I'd be reluctantly cheering for him against a Clinton. He would likely be a terrible president, but I'd say that the corruption of the political class is the overarching issue we are facing at this time. The problem is that Trump isn't exactly a man of the people. In fact, he's quite literally the very opposite - he's a wealthy business tycoon who was born into his fortune. I don't think for a moment that Trump will carry out any effective action to rein in the corrupting influence of money on politics at all. Really, the only metaphorical apple carts getting turned over by a hypothetical Trump admin would be those of minority groups. That's the important difference between Trump and Sanders. Sanders is promising to shake up the system by upending Wall Street, while Trump is promising to shake up the system by throwing every scapegoat minority group under the bus. Supporting Trump over Clinton for the sake of radical change in and of itself puts a lot of people at risk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:No. Populist parties haven't been on the rise since only 2015, and their three refrains that are euroskepticism, immigrant hatred, and vocal (purpoted) interventionism are pretty important in their discourse. The refugee crisis has only brought more fuel to their fire, so to speak, but it hasn't changed major trends. If anything it's reinforced them. Now the target is much, much bigger and easier to point at, as the refugee crisis becomes more and more visible to Jo Publique.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:It's not a one way street. The Democrats have all but abandoned the rural vote and has nothing to endear themselves to anyone living outside of major urban areas by believing that people who don't vote for them are either too ignorant or too stupid to do so or by taking on issues such as gun control. The Democrats made it their business to actively ignore the plight of rural whites because their most influential politicians are of the New York or Californian breed. This is kind of a sub issue, but I am not quite sure what "the rural vote" is. This isn't because I am in New York or California, its because I lived in Montana for five years. I've had more than a few conversations with people from the south and midwest where I was honestly confused when they proudly announced their rural identity, and they ended up living in a town of 20,000 people and working at Wal-Mart or whatever. Coming from a place where I had visited towns where it was a 50 mile drive to the nearest grocery store, I have a different definition of what "rural" means. There aren't a lot of really rural voters left in the US. What there are are a lot of suburban and exurban voters who have adopted a "rural" identity without much objective basis for it. Its not like these people are voting about issues like farm price supports or rural electrification or something. These people are "rural" because of a cultural identity, but they probably have roughly the same lifestyle as the people who live 20 or 30 miles away in big cities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Rural is any place where you have to drive a car to get around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Rural is any place where you have to drive a car to get around. Noted rural area
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Rural is any place where you have to drive a car to get around. A good point, especially since "the price of gas" versus investing in mass transit is an issue that still divides voters. Notice, however, that it hasn't really been an issue in this campaign. Immigration/xenophobia could be seen as an urban vs. rural issue, because often people in urban areas might be a lot more comfortable with immigrants. But as far as economic impact, rural voters (whether we are talking about true rural farm voters, or just exurban voters), aren't really that effected by immigration. Having to work night shift at a Wal-Mart in Indiana is not caused by Muslims. Of course, it all depends on if we are talking about perception or reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
doverhog posted:Rural is any place where you have to drive a car to get around. This is a stupid metric. It's more like: Urban = Duh, high density city with mass transit. Suburban = Sprawl and/or "traditional" towns of 5-25k+ population with sprawl or low/medium density construction filling in the gaps. Propably a bus network and maybe light rail if you're lucky. Rural = Small towns and "cities" of 2000-10k residents that are surrounded by a significant amount of agricultural lands, forests, or otherwise undeveloped areas. Potentially a smattering of residential/industrial block zoning (like, pocket sprawl) development or smaller villages. Anyway, as to the main question of the OP, I'd say it's generally because the right is just saying "gently caress it" with the establishment. After the patriotic highs of post-9/11 and the early days of the Iraq War, the Bush administration just sort of muddled through the rest of the term. This was capped off by the 2008 financial crisis and the election of Obama, which after the humiliation of the later Bush administration, was interpreted by the establishment as a sign to keep their heads down and shut up for a while. On the other hand, the radical elements that coalesced into the Tea Party took the opposite message, leading to the split. The 2012 elections were kind of the last shot for the establishment, and they blew it with Romney. The second term of the Obama administration continued the US's slow, lovely slide from empire into mediocrity, along with progressive narratives generally dominating society. Trump came around and, as you know, started saying a bunch of the stuff that people really thought anyway, and essentially is promising not only explode the legacy of the Obama administration, but also the rotten GOP establishment that they felt got the country there in the first place. So, basically, a lot of people expected a collapse/revolution in 2008/2009, got blue-balled for 8 years, and are now looking to tear a lot of poo poo down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 19:48
|
|
