Finally!! -- A New Political Book That Doesn't Coddle Racist Rural White Trump Voters

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

This book about Trump voters goes for the jugular​

In ‘White Rural Rage,’ Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman examine why so many remain loyal to a party that does little to help them.​

A couple of excerpts --

“Never before in American politics has a single syllable ("TRUMP") 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 Americans 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 independent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country and wedded to its liberty and interests by the most lasting bands.”

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.”

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 violent crime rate 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. 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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2024/03/07/white-rural-rage-schaller-waldman-reivew/

 

[bomberfox]

Fascism comes when capitalism is in decline or when traditional power structures are threatened. It is counter revolutionary with revolutionary aesthetics.

Rural southern areas have a long history of braying for their richer aristocrats as they believe they will become aristocrats themselves. From the farmers who believed they would hold mastery over the negro to climb their way into becoming a plantation owner to the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire”

 

[NatMorton]

One gets the sense the book could have been more easily titled “Progressives Pleasuring Themselves.”

 

[slavablueberryjam]

Rural folks have always been a subset of the territory and they are the living embodiment for old ways.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

After working with the rural poor for many years, honestly this makes a lot of sense. The amount of distrust they have towards anything outside of their world I have seen is staggering. I don't think most of them want violence, but when the world gives them so little, of course they're going to be angry and upset. Also the racism-just the racism makes so much sense now.

 

[verrip1]

So. Libs now hate the rural poor as much as they hate white males in general and Jews in particular.

Not to mention their hatred towards the inherent power of the states over the federal gargantuan. [see the ignored Tenth Amendment of the Constitution]

 

[Helix]

They traded their unions for guns and a tv channel. Part of it wasn't their fault, but it's their fault now. I watched it happen in real time.

 

[dockside]

After working with the rural poor for many years, honestly this makes a lot of sense. The amount of distrust they have towards anything outside of their world I have seen is staggering. I don't think most of them want violence, but when the world gives them so little, of course they're going to be angry and upset. Also the racism-just the racism makes so much sense now.

The rural not-poor are no different. A relative worked in tech for a family in a small rural town. The family members had rarely, if ever, gone more that 100 miles away from home, had no idea what the world, much less their country, was like. Travel, especially world travel, broadens one's ideas of what life is like and makes one re-evaluate their own life. At least it did in my family.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

One gets the sense the book could have been more easily titled “Progressives Pleasuring Themselves.”

You never have anything meaningful to say. Just go find another thread where you can whine about Critical Race Theory for the 1,000 time.

Your constant white grievance whining is exactly what this book is about. White rural people have more political power than anyone in this country, yet all they do is whine, whine, whine.

 

[Scatty Kitty]

The rural not-poor are no different. A relative worked in tech for a family in a small rural town. The family members had rarely, if ever, gone more that 100 miles away from home, had no idea what the world, much less their country, was like. Travel, especially world travel, broadens one's ideas of what life is like and makes one re-evaluate their own life. At least it did in my family.

Then all you have is to be afraid of the outside world that has forgotten, but still able to hurt you, it makes a lot of sense.

 

[j brown's body]

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?​

Good Lord, how did it come to this?

 

[NatMorton]

You never have anything meaningful to say. Just go find another thread where you can whine about Critical Race Theory for the 1,000 time.

Your constant white grievance whining is exactly what this book is about. White rural people have more political power than anyone in this country, yet all they do is whine, whine, whine.

It was a just a joke. Relax, you’ll live longer.

 

[Bodecea]

It was a just a joke. Relax, you’ll live longer.

Who's laughing?

 

[NatMorton]

Who's laughing?

Anyone who doesn’t take their politics too seriously.

 

[Absentglare]

Anyone who doesn’t take their politics too seriously.

If the right could take politics seriously, they would have policed themselves and we wouldn’t be in this mess. Now, there’s a powerful segment of American society that is informationally hardened against criticism, a bubble of self-reinforcing conspiracy theorists who unwittingly injure themselves for the benefit of the super rich. Hence the book, and subject of the OP.

 

[ralfy]

Both parties were not helping them. Instead, the former were helping the richest 10 pct of Americans that own 70 pct of the country's wealth, and that grew through voodoo economics. The wealth from the richest then trickled down to the masses, which included not only them but even their urban counterparts.

 

[NatMorton]

Both parties were not helping them. Instead, the former were helping the richest 10 pct of Americans that own 70 pct of the country's wealth, and that grew through voodoo economics. The wealth from the richest then trickled down to the masses, which included not only them but even their urban counterparts.

If you’ve found yourself waiting for wealth to trickle your way, the problem doesn’t lie with either political party.

 

[madman]

One gets the sense the book could have been more easily titled “Progressives Pleasuring Themselves.”

someone is TRIGGERED

Nat, are you part of the WHITE rage? L:OL

 

[volitleaire]

Fascism comes when capitalism is in decline or when traditional power structures are threatened. It is counter revolutionary with revolutionary aesthetics.

Rural southern areas have a long history of braying for their richer aristocrats as they believe they will become aristocrats themselves. From the farmers who believed they would hold mastery over the negro to climb their way into becoming a plantation owner to the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire”

Your view of fascism is lacking in my opinion. Fascism has many specifics, but a general theory they adhere to is that of historicism. The Nazis believed the German race was above all others, that the laws of history guaranteed them victory. Italian fascists believed that they had only to rekindle their Roman heritage, and they would become a mighty empire again.

These ideologies hold no care for traditional power structures (beyond that of the ruler and the ruled). Hitler hated Catholics, Protestants, and any institution that was not the state. This is further evidenced by his radical change in governmental structure. Germany had been a monarchy for centuries, then after WW1 they made a switch to democracy. Hitler did not reinstate either of these power structures. He paved a new path, one marked by absolute power and complete loyalty to the state.

Many socialists take issue with the idea that Nazism is a socialist ideology. In a way, it both is and is not. Socialism, as Marx would have put it, advocates for a global society of workers. A world free of national, ethnic, religious, or labor divisions. Fascism, advocates for strict ethno-national divisions. There was not so much a class division as there was a hierarchy of genealogy and loyalty. The poor farmer could become a respected officer, so long as they had the right ancestry and were sufficiently loyal.

Fascist revolutions are revolutions. They are revolutions in opposition to Marxism, but they are just as radical.

 

[bomberfox]

Your view of fascism is lacking in my opinion. Fascism has many specifics, but a general theory they adhere to is that of historicism. The Nazis believed the German race was above all others, that the laws of history guaranteed them victory. Italian fascists believed that they had only to rekindle their Roman heritage, and they would become a mighty empire again.

These ideologies hold no care for traditional power structures (beyond that of the ruler and the ruled). Hitler hated Catholics, Protestants, and any institution that was not the state. This is further evidenced by his radical change in governmental structure. Germany had been a monarchy for centuries, then after WW1 they made a switch to democracy. Hitler did not reinstate either of these power structures. He paved a new path, one marked by absolute power and complete loyalty to the state.

Many socialists take issue with the idea that Nazism is a socialist ideology. In a way, it both is and is not. Socialism, as Marx would have put it, advocates for a global society of workers. A world free of national, ethnic, religious, or labor divisions. Fascism, advocates for strict ethno-national divisions. There was not so much a class division as there was a hierarchy of genealogy and loyalty. The poor farmer could become a respected officer, so long as they had the right ancestry and were sufficiently loyal.

Fascist revolutions are revolutions. They are revolutions in opposition to Marxism, but they are just as radical.

Im speaking more to the reason capitalists supported the rise of fascism. Protestantism was rather friendly towards Hitler because he revived centuries old antisemitism in the protestant tradition (judensau was a common phrase and mural in German churches) Hitler was not hostile to Christianity as a whole. Hitler was never a socialist because he never sought to abolish wage labor, never sought to abolish private property, nor did he seek to remove the hierarchy of capital to labor. In fact he made German capitalists into feudal lords.
Planning was essentially as much as any other country as firms often competed so much they would stab eachother in the back for government contracts.


Its a common myth that Hitler was hostile to christianity but this belies the fact that the various christian factions had been very violent towards eachother up until very recently.

Nazism was a counter revolutionary force in that they sought to be a counter to a socialist revolution in Germany which is why they attacked all trade unionists and made trade unions illegal. Fascism itself is also counter revolutionary and wholly against socialism.

 

[volitleaire]

Im speaking more to the reason capitalists supported the rise of fascism. Protestantism was rather friendly towards Hitler because he revived centuries old antisemitism in the protestant tradition (judensau was a common phrase and mural in German churches) Hitler was not hostile to Christianity as a whole. Hitler was never a socialist because he never sought to abolish wage labor, never sought to abolish private property, nor did he seek to remove the hierarchy of capital to labor. In fact he made German capitalists into feudal lords.
Planning was essentially as much as any other country as firms often competed so much they would stab eachother in the back for government contracts.


Its a common myth that Hitler was hostile to christianity but this belies the fact that the various christian factions had been very violent towards eachother up until very recently.

Nazism was a counter revolutionary force in that they sought to be a counter to a socialist revolution in Germany which is why they attacked all trade unionists and made trade unions illegal. Fascism itself is also counter revolutionary and wholly against socialism.

“capitalists” are not a unified group. Do you think George Soros supports fascism? The only people in favor of fascism are those with something to gain. This includes capitalists, yes, as fascists often attack trade unions and other labor organizations. This does not mean capitalists as a whole support the rise of fascism.

Hitler regularly arrested church leaders, both Catholic and Protestant. This was because christianity is ideologically opposed to racial superiority.

Hitler was not a socialist, and I do not argue that. Fascism does however, come out of a similar train of thought to socialism/communism. Socialism holds that the working class is destined to become the leaders of the world, that this is a law of historical development. Fascism only replaces “the working class” with “the aryan race”. They fall under the same fallacy of absolute laws of historical development.

Economically it is more complex, as Hitler privatized many industries that were previously state run. Calling the Nazi economy “capitalist” is quite a stretch, however. Hitler did not believe, or care about, free markets. Hitler’s only concern was the strength of the nation. This led to unprecedented military spending to rearm the German military. I won’t argue that this is capitalism or socialism. It is a truly imperial state of mind. They would pay for government spending through land seized in conquest.

This is not capitalism, and it is not socialism. It is fascism, the bastard child of historical prophecy and racial pseudoscience.

You use the term revolution as if it specifically refers to socialist revolution. The american revolution was not socialist, yet it was still a revolutionary force. Just as fascist revolution, which involved the overthrow of democracy, is a revolutionary force. A revolution, in my view, is just a radical pivot from one ideology to another. Socialists replace liberalism with socialism, fascists replace liberalism with fascism, liberals replace monarchism with liberalism, the list goes on.

 

[Captain Adverse]

What?

Another book written by so-called "Liberals" (actually progressive-socialists) attacking an entire class of people in order to demonize them and thereby seek to dismiss their concerns, needs, and views? Followed by comparisons to historical figures of "evil intent?"

Typical Leftist tactics. Lable, denigrate, demonize to create fear of, then blame for all (or a good portion of) perceived social ills.

Another page from the "Moral Panic" identify-and-burn-the-witch mindset of the socialist hive mind.

Silly OP, foolish points, not worth further comment.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What?

Another book written by so-called "Liberals" (actually progressive-socialists) attacking an entire class of people in order to demonize them and thereby seek to dismiss their concerns, needs, and views? Followed by comparisons to historical figures of "evil intent?"

Typical Leftist tactics. Lable, denigrate, demonize to create fear of, then blame for all (or a good portion of) perceived social ills.

Another page from the "Moral Panic" identify-and-burn-the-witch mindset of the socialist hive mind.

Silly OP, foolish points, not worth further comment.

Other than that, it was a fairly good example of stereotyping ‘others’.

 

[Grand Mal]

So. Libs now hate the rural poor as much as they hate white males in general and Jews in particular.

Not to mention their hatred towards the inherent power of the states over the federal gargantuan. [see the ignored Tenth Amendment of the Constitution]

What a stupid post.

 

[bomberfox]

“capitalists” are not a unified group. Do you think George Soros supports fascism? The only people in favor of fascism are those with something to gain. This includes capitalists, yes, as fascists often attack trade unions and other labor organizations. This does not mean capitalists as a whole support the rise of fascism.

Hitler regularly arrested church leaders, both Catholic and Protestant. This was because christianity is ideologically opposed to racial superiority.

Hitler was not a socialist, and I do not argue that. Fascism does however, come out of a similar train of thought to socialism/communism. Socialism holds that the working class is destined to become the leaders of the world, that this is a law of historical development. Fascism only replaces “the working class” with “the aryan race”. They fall under the same fallacy of absolute laws of historical development.

Economically it is more complex, as Hitler privatized many industries that were previously state run. Calling the Nazi economy “capitalist” is quite a stretch, however. Hitler did not believe, or care about, free markets. Hitler’s only concern was the strength of the nation. This led to unprecedented military spending to rearm the German military. I won’t argue that this is capitalism or socialism. It is a truly imperial state of mind. They would pay for government spending through land seized in conquest.

This is not capitalism, and it is not socialism. It is fascism, the bastard child of historical prophecy and racial pseudoscience.

You use the term revolution as if it specifically refers to socialist revolution. The american revolution was not socialist, yet it was still a revolutionary force. Just as fascist revolution, which involved the overthrow of democracy, is a revolutionary force. A revolution, in my view, is just a radical pivot from one ideology to another. Socialists replace liberalism with socialism, fascists replace liberalism with fascism, liberals replace monarchism with liberalism, the list goes on.

I didnt say that capitalists were unified. Most German capitalists were in favor of Hitler because he satisfied their class interests. I am not saying it is counter revolutionary because i think only socialist revolutions are revolutions. I am saying fascism in general is a counter revolutionary force with revolutionary fervor. One of their top goals was to prevent a socialist revolution in Germany which was growing before they took power. Capitalism often goes hand in hand with imperialism.

Im sorry but that is a myth. Christianity often very much went hand in hand with ideas of racial superiority and the antebellum slavery was based in biblical law. Christians often persecuted eachother.

The protestant reformation itself was started by a seething antisemite.