The Dark Rigidity of Fundamentalist Rural America

I've never really payed any attention to that site since the partisan sites from both sides are generally full of propaganda and the hate that goes with it all. This one is pretty transparent.

Rush Limbaugh has nothing on Alternet it looks like to me. The whole site is just poo slinging garbage from activists.

a reply to: Blaine91555

hmmm.

Yeah - late to the party. But, I don't think Rush Limbaugh would EVER be a contributor on Alternet!! He might very well be a troll, though. There might be a thread or two discussing him or mentioning him.

Anway - that's my naivete: If I'm proven mistaken and learn that Limbaugh is a columnist on Alternet, then I will forthwith no longer access Alternet.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You made the mistake of thinking I'm not as critical of people like Limbaugh on the Right as I am the crazed partisans on the Left. I was comparing the two. Not everyone is a partisan slinging poo and propaganda.

That's like assuming Christians, farmers and ranchers are all racist which is absurd and pure hate.

Limbaugh is a hater and Alternet is a hate site IMO. Both are part of the problem.

What I find also interesting in the article, is using hate to fight hate. Stupidity knows no bounds it would seem to me.

The Left or Right will not be our downfall. Partisans and activists from both will be our downfall.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
Rush Limbaugh has nothing on Alternet it looks like to me. The whole site is just poo slinging garbage from activists.

I'll go ahead and make the argument that Rush is a lot less "partisan" than he's given credit for. Rush is an ideologue who is staunchly conservative, not a pundit who is staunchly Republican. I think society has forgotten that there is a clear difference between partisanship and ideology. Those of us who see the "neoconservative" shift inside the GOP as a point of contention and call out the party's prominent RINOs are actually bucking partisanship.

I'm an ideologue, I fully recognize that fact. Hell, I wallow in it like a rutting hog. The modern GOP isn't conservative in my eyes, they're simply more conservative than the Democrats, so I find myself usually voting for them. That said, their "obstructions" in DC have seemed a lot more like concessions in my eyes, primarily because they have a recent history of token resistance followed by tearful capitulation. A partisan would stand there supporting them, chanting "go team," and then embrace any 180s from prior policy their pols pull to pass something.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The problem with rural America is that they're not urban America and won't embrace values that only matter to we urbanites

Not exactly what was trying to be expressed, though the writer seemed undiplomatic and angry. I couldn't find fault in his basic points near the end of the article, though all arguments of a political nature go into some amount of generalizations and hyperbole these days.

He was saying (or trying to say) a large swath of Americans are inflexible in their beliefs; even if those beliefs go against repeatable science and objective fact... and many of those beliefs, like white's favored status in the eyes of the Lord, go against a modern, more "nice" worldview AS WELL AS demonstrable, common sense refutations.

He also points out the seeming paradox of dirt poor folks voting against government assistance for impoverished regions.

So, he came across as fed up and angry, and went into some stretching generalizations at times, but as someone who grew up in a small town in the Midwest, I can't honestly say he was wrong about much of anything. There is a rigid fundamentalism and group think along with a good dollop of persecution complex... with exceptions that manage to escape to write columns or dumb blurbs on public forums, I guess.

And to attempt fairness, the coastal liberal intelligentsia sure have their idiocies and prejudices, too ... it's just that there is (probably) a better statistical chance of reaching them via objective fact... exactly because they are taught to second guess themselves and attempt to think like the opposition. Whether that relativistic thinking is good or bad depends on one's worldview.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

In the town I used to live in, I could walk down any street in the town on any day of the week and hear Obama called an n-word. This is an area where the demographics are over 98% white, and they literally run non whites out of town.

What town was that exactly?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

You have no ill intent I've ever seen and I can't say the same for Limbaugh.

You know I lean more to the Right in my views, but I can't defend the words being used by some on the Right, anymore than I can those coming from the Left.

The beltway folks are phonies and I'd agree fully with that. Their myopia let's them only see the path to the next election and nothing else. Reelection at all costs, no matter the harm it does.

When politics became a sporting event, we all lost Left or Right.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Another demonstration of why Trump got elected and will win a second term if the elitist attitude continues. These people still haven't learned.

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

In the town I used to live in, I could walk down any street in the town on any day of the week and hear Obama called an n-word. This is an area where the demographics are over 98% white, and they literally run non whites out of town.

What town was that exactly?

Sorry, I got the percent wrong. It's only 95% white now. To answer your question though, Marietta Ohio.

Terribly arrogant article. Pure identity politics. White people are oppressors, even if they are poor, therefore they can be demonized as dumb and racist.

If only these dumb racists would get outside their bubble and get educated. Because you know, Academia doesn't exist in a bubble.

Oh wait yes it does. Academia is so leftists that conservative opinions are not only being censored, but regularly the people that espouse them are beaten. Remember all of those articles we read on rural white conservatives beating people trying to talk about liberal ideologies? Oh wait, that is the sophisticated wealthy educated people that do that.

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Written by an "educated liberal" on how it is wrong for "white (heartland) Americans" to look out for their own interests.

More grasping for straws. More generalizations. More of the same... Yawn.

Did you actually read the article?

Lets go through his bullet points at the end.

- Their economic situation is largely the result of voting for supply-side economic policies that have been the largest redistribution of wealth from the bottom/middle to the top in U.S. history.

No they are poor because people on both parties have worked with the federal reserve to enact economic policies that benefited the wealthy banks and their globalist agenda. As a result jobs are disappearing and wages are stagnate. Obama was instrumental in helping these bankers


- Immigrants haven’t taken their jobs. If all immigrants, legal or otherwise, were removed from the U.S., our economy would come to a screeching halt and food prices would soar.

Wrong. Immigrants directly compete with low skill labor like in these rural areas. And I made an article on the racism of statement like this, that say we should have basically indentured servant illegals work for next to nothing to keep food prices down. Who would have thought, this educated liberal wanting his life to be easier off of the back of illegals.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

- Immigrants are not responsible for companies moving their plants overseas. The almost exclusively white business owners are responsible, because they care more about their shareholders (who are also mostly white) than about American workers.

True. And who was pushing the TPP that would have made this worse. Who did Nafta? Oh yes, democrats.

- No one is coming for their guns. All that has been proposed during the entire Obama administration is having better background checks.

The liberals will never be satisfied until gun ownership is nearly impossible. Here is my thread on Obamas gun town hall.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

- Gay people getting married is not a threat to their freedom to believe in whatever white god they want to. No one is going to make their church marry gays, have a gay pastor or accept gays for membership.

True. I am for gay marriage. I live in a rural area, no one really cares about gay marriage. But gay people going outrage shopping to find a bakery that wouldn't serve them is an outrage. And this author had to throw in "white" god. he sounds like a racist.

- Women having access to birth control doesn’t affect their lives either, especially women they complain about being teenage single mothers.

No one i know is against birth control. They are against abortion.

- Blacks are not “lazy moochers living off their hard-earned tax dollars” any more than many of their fellow rural neighbors. People in need are people in need. People who can’t find jobs because of their circumstances, a changing economy or outsourcing overseas belong to all races.

First this is true. But how big of this guy to speak of equality after he got done calling all rural white conservatives as dumb racist. So his point is someone labels blacks moochers = racist, someone lablels rural whites dumb and racist = educated opinion.


- They get a tremendous amount of help from the government they complain does nothing for them. From the roads and utility grids they use to farm subsidies, crop insurance and commodities protections, they benefit greatly from government assistance. The Farm Bill is one of the largest financial expenditures by the U.S. government. Without government assistance, their lives would be considerably worse.

Of course the government helps and hurts all of us. So what, these people who are losing jobs and their homes should praise the government for the crumbs they are given?

- They get the largest share of Food Stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

Yep. Because government policies from people like Obama have devestated them. And knowing this level of poverty exists in these areas, why are they ignored by politicians? And why is crime not as bad as in urban areas? I mean, they are all just uneducated racists, so you would expect huge levels of violent crime.

-They complain about globalization, yet line up like everyone else to get the latest Apple products. They have no problem buying foreign-made guns, scopes and hunting equipment. They don’t think twice about driving trucks whose engines were made in Canada, tires made in Japan, radios made in Korea, and computer parts made in Malaysia.

Trade among countries is different than globalization. So what is the argument here? Like your I-phone? Well then submit ti international control! You must now make room for any number of refugees we want.

- They use illicit drugs as much as any other group. But when other people do it is a “moral failing” and they should be severely punished, legally. When they do it, it is a “health crisis” that needs sympathy and attention.

Like this author is discussing the moral failing of poor white people? And if its such a huge problem (which it is) why is it largely ignored well urban problems are constantly focused on? And why is crime so much lower than in other drug infected communities?

- When jobs dry up for whatever reason, they refuse to relocate but lecture the poor in places like Flint for staying in failing towns.

I don't ever here rural people telling urban people to move. I think this author is projecting. So what is this, is the author saying that these poor rural people deserve to be poor as revenge for supposed dumb things they say? What an ass.

-They are quick to judge minorities for being “welfare moochers,” but don’t think twice about cashing their welfare checks every month.

Ironically this whole article is asserting poor whites are welfare moochers and more. But I guess it ok for this guy to do it because he is an educated liberal. But yes, many rural people do say stuff like this. And many urban people speak of rural people in contempt. GThis has a lot to do with the identity politics like this article is preaching.

- They complain about coastal liberals, but taxes from California and New York cover their farm subsidies, help maintain their highways and keep the hospitals in their sparsely populated rural areas open for business.

And yet the work that these dumb people do is what makes the elites way of life possible. By the way, these people are so poor but again this wealthy liberal thinks they should be thankful for the crumbs they are given. And he conveintly leaves out how coastal liberals speak of fly over country and the deplorables that live their with such contempt.

continued below

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Unless, of course, they're Lefties, then it's open season and you yourself are quite an enthusiastic contributor of record.

Right, because criticizing political opinions is the same as making assumptions of people because of their skin-color. Brilliant contribution, sir.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I don't think i've seen the word white used so many times in an article. A search of the page indicates 47 instances of the word.
That article is utter bullocks.

- They complain about “the little man being run out of business,” and then turn around and shop at big-box stores.

True. Just like educated liberals complain about corporations but use Iphones and drink at starbucks. Why single rural white people out for this?
- They make sure outsiders are not welcome, deny businesses permits to build, then complain about businesses, plants opening up in less rural areas.

This is way worse in some urban areas. And what a broad generalization. I live in a rural area where the two gas stations in town are owned by immigrants and almost everyone I know thinks they are great people. How can anyone take an article that makes such ridiculous broad generalizations such as this.

- Government has not done enough to help them in many cases, but their local and state governments are almost completely Republican and so are their representatives and senators. Instead of holding them accountable, they vote them into office over and over and over again.

And urban areas always go democrat and they are getting bad. So I assume this author would want detroit. chicago, etc to vote republican because they have been ran by dems for so long but are doing poorly. And I agree repubs have failed these areas to. In fact it was the establishment that failed them. So why would they have voted for the most establishment candidate ever, Hillary?

- All the economic policies and ideas that could help rural America belong to the Democratic Party: raising the minimum wage, strengthening unions, spending on infrastructure, renewable energy growth, slowing down the damage done by climate change, and healthcare reform. All of these and more would really help a lot of rural white Americans.

Minimum wage raise will do little to help, real middle class jobs would. Minimum wage raise laws will eliminate jobs.

Unions are switching to the republican party because hillary and Obama were so bad.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Trump is claiming he will invest a ton more in infrastructure than Obama.

Renewable energy sounds good, but Remember hillary promising to put coal workers out of work. Guess what mr. educated author, those are rural people.

Climate change isn't hurting rural people. The plans to combat it always involve poor people paying more while wealthy elites get to fly around on their personal jets.

Health care? Rural americans hated Obamacare.


This is one of the most arrogant, bigoted articles I have ever read. If someone were to have the nerve to right a similar article about urban black people, the would be called a white supremacists. But again, to the identity politics driven educate liberal poor white people are the enemy and deserve to be ridiculed.

Shame on anyone who praised this article.

a reply to: Grambler

Excellent dissection of the article.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I just hope that some day, only those in New York and California will be able to vote since the rest of the country doesn't really know what they want.

Which they are we talking about? The people in New York and California or the rest of us? I know what I want, but may not be as sure about the elitist asshats in the liberal ivory towers.

a reply to: ketsuko

The elitist asshats in ivory towers are smarter than us because they said so.

To disagree with their positions, ideologies is just plain stupid.

I'm just wondering if this Canuck has ever visited or lived in middle America? These are decent, hard-working people, despite what leftist propaganda has told you. They don't deserve to be demonized by some out of touch racist elitist.

Of course, this guy thinks he speaks with the "voice of experience" because he grew up there and then become enlightened.

But has it ever occurred to anyone that people in each place want what they want for their own good reasons?

I mean, if I could, I'd move the heck out of this city in a heartbeat for "dark" rural America because I hate people and I hate being packed in with all these people.