One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Rural and Urban, What's the Difference?
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
Nov 25, 2016 09:58:16   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
The following is an article by Mark Patricks, that I think hits the nail on the head.





One of the major problems in today's America is that priorities of voters in urban parts of the country and those of voters in its more rural parts are so divergent. Americans in rural areas tend to think in terms of a strong national defense, closed borders, protection of religion, Second Amendment rights and fiscally conservative economic policies.

Urban Americans tend to desire multiculturalism, social justice, gay rights, women's rights, rights for immigrants and fiscal policies that extend help to those in need. Perennial "hot button" issues such as gun control, affirmative action, amnesty for illegal immigrants, defense spending and abortion unfortunately tend to divide Americans by geography.

A lot of it is common sense; rural Americans tend to be more isolated and think more about protection, self-defense and religion. Urban Americans tend to think more about getting along with their neighbors in dense spaces and are more cosmopolitan in nature. Much of the divisions between these groups stem from one group not being able to relate to how the other one thinks.

When was the last time someone in the middle of a cornfield in Iowa was pondering the need for transgender bathrooms? When was the last time someone in downtown Los Angeles was considering the need for farm subsidies?

Rural living tends to encourage independence, whereas urban living tends to encourage dependence and interdependence. Rural citizens want to be able to take care of themselves and be left alone by the government, whereas people in urban areas tend to cling to government and want it to provide more services, not less.

Not only is the disconnect ideological, but it's cognitive as well. Urban citizens tend not to know where their food was grown, how their waste is processed, where their natural resources come from or how land is managed. They merely have vague concepts that "free-range" animals are good, fracking is bad, guns kill people and "global warming" is going to make palm trees sprout in Minnesota one day.

For those in rural America, working with animals may be an everyday experience, and so, knowing about their welfare and what's best for them is firsthand knowledge. For rural dwellers, guns are often an important component of protection for themselves and their families.

And people in rural communities believe that natural resources are best managed by those who come in everyday contact with them; for many such residents, "global warming" sounds like a concept dreamed up by scientists who want extra funding for their labs.

For rural voters, having decisions made by bureaucrats in Washington who have little to no direct understanding of the issues involved can be maddening; it's already frustrating that these pencil-pushers have so much influence over things they know little about, but making matters worse is that the pool of taxpayers' money is wasted by the impact of their ignorance.

A number of the country's Founding Fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, believed that it was necessary to retain a balance between rural America and urban population centers. Jefferson wrote, "I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe."

There are strong themes in classical literature equating rural living with honesty and positive moral values. Farming and living off the land were seen in marked contrast to urban existence where decadence all too often takes intractable root via crime, narcotics and immoral values.

In urban centers, the accumulation of material goods often replaces the spiritual growth gained through devotion to religion. Esotericism replaces practicality, and the lure of the exotic supplants the simple pleasures of everyday living.

When the presidential race was in full swing, both candidates were pandering to their respective geographic audiences in a big way, portraying their opponents' base of supporters as bogeymen. The deep divisions, which have roots going back centuries, were emphasized, rather than being minimized.

Trump's victory in the Electoral College was reminiscent of George W. Bush's victory in the election of 2000. Both Trump and Bush were able to take advantage of geography to cater to audiences who weren't coastal cultural elites.

For political observers in 2000, it was an absolute shock that a candidate could lose both the states of California and New York and still win the election; no candidate in recent political history had achieved that before.

For now, these divisions are strong, and the political bases of both parties are invested in keeping the differences sharply in focus. But in the end, progress and healing for the country will only come about by each group being able to see through the eyes of the other.

The geography of America isn't going to change soon, but there is a need for urban voters to understand those in the country who live outside of metropolitan centers.

The "shock" of this election for the Democrats mostly springs from the ignorance of their ranks to the plight of people who have not benefitted economically from the largess doled out by the one percent who vacation on Martha's Vineyard and in other high-brow enclaves.

Liberals and progressives need to realize that not all of the country works in an Internet startup with 10 employees in the heart of Silicon Valley and spends half their days looking at Instagram.

Likewise, voters in the middle of the country should know that coastal elites probably do not understand the nuances of land management, farm labor or the extreme scarcity of jobs in regions of the country that are not highly populated. In today's age of social media and Twitter, headlines for stories get reduced to 140-character soundbites that too often take the form of "bad" or "good" platitudes based on their alignment with a particular political party.

For Democrats and Republicans alike, social justice topics — the admission of immigrants into the country, vetting or non-vetting of Muslims, the discontent of groups such as Black Lives Matter — too easily substitute for dialogue on what's really plaguing rural and urban voters alike (although rural voters may feel it more intensely) — the economy.

In fact, for the nation's voters to unite and have common purpose, talk of racial issues, accusations of sexism and/or homophobia should be secondary to what's really at the root of most of the nation's dilemmas: wages, productivity, output and incomes.

If median household incomes were higher, it's likely that immigration would not be the provocative subject it is today. It's likely that the recent increase in crime and civil unrest in the country would not be the issues they've become.

And it's likely that so many other matters — health care, student loan debt, "sanctuary cities" and foreign-born worker visas — would not be getting the exposure in the media that they're currently experiencing.

Focusing on Donald Trump's economic plans and his initiatives in that arena particularly should be important for voters from all walks of life. Only if the trend of wage stagnation and erosion is reversed can a structural renaissance truly take place in our nation.

Regards,

Mark Patricks

Reply
Nov 25, 2016 10:21:57   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
Excellent article, Loki.

Reply
Nov 25, 2016 10:36:33   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
Loki wrote:
The following is an article by Mark Patricks, that I think hits the nail on the head.





One of the major problems in today's America is that priorities of voters in urban parts of the country and those of voters in its more rural parts are so divergent. Americans in rural areas tend to think in terms of a strong national defense, closed borders, protection of religion, Second Amendment rights and fiscally conservative economic policies.

Urban Americans tend to desire multiculturalism, social justice, gay rights, women's rights, rights for immigrants and fiscal policies that extend help to those in need. Perennial "hot button" issues such as gun control, affirmative action, amnesty for illegal immigrants, defense spending and abortion unfortunately tend to divide Americans by geography.

A lot of it is common sense; rural Americans tend to be more isolated and think more about protection, self-defense and religion. Urban Americans tend to think more about getting along with their neighbors in dense spaces and are more cosmopolitan in nature. Much of the divisions between these groups stem from one group not being able to relate to how the other one thinks.

When was the last time someone in the middle of a cornfield in Iowa was pondering the need for transgender bathrooms? When was the last time someone in downtown Los Angeles was considering the need for farm subsidies?

Rural living tends to encourage independence, whereas urban living tends to encourage dependence and interdependence. Rural citizens want to be able to take care of themselves and be left alone by the government, whereas people in urban areas tend to cling to government and want it to provide more services, not less.

Not only is the disconnect ideological, but it's cognitive as well. Urban citizens tend not to know where their food was grown, how their waste is processed, where their natural resources come from or how land is managed. They merely have vague concepts that "free-range" animals are good, fracking is bad, guns kill people and "global warming" is going to make palm trees sprout in Minnesota one day.

For those in rural America, working with animals may be an everyday experience, and so, knowing about their welfare and what's best for them is firsthand knowledge. For rural dwellers, guns are often an important component of protection for themselves and their families.

And people in rural communities believe that natural resources are best managed by those who come in everyday contact with them; for many such residents, "global warming" sounds like a concept dreamed up by scientists who want extra funding for their labs.

For rural voters, having decisions made by bureaucrats in Washington who have little to no direct understanding of the issues involved can be maddening; it's already frustrating that these pencil-pushers have so much influence over things they know little about, but making matters worse is that the pool of taxpayers' money is wasted by the impact of their ignorance.

A number of the country's Founding Fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, believed that it was necessary to retain a balance between rural America and urban population centers. Jefferson wrote, "I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe."

There are strong themes in classical literature equating rural living with honesty and positive moral values. Farming and living off the land were seen in marked contrast to urban existence where decadence all too often takes intractable root via crime, narcotics and immoral values.

In urban centers, the accumulation of material goods often replaces the spiritual growth gained through devotion to religion. Esotericism replaces practicality, and the lure of the exotic supplants the simple pleasures of everyday living.

When the presidential race was in full swing, both candidates were pandering to their respective geographic audiences in a big way, portraying their opponents' base of supporters as bogeymen. The deep divisions, which have roots going back centuries, were emphasized, rather than being minimized.

Trump's victory in the Electoral College was reminiscent of George W. Bush's victory in the election of 2000. Both Trump and Bush were able to take advantage of geography to cater to audiences who weren't coastal cultural elites.

For political observers in 2000, it was an absolute shock that a candidate could lose both the states of California and New York and still win the election; no candidate in recent political history had achieved that before.

For now, these divisions are strong, and the political bases of both parties are invested in keeping the differences sharply in focus. But in the end, progress and healing for the country will only come about by each group being able to see through the eyes of the other.

The geography of America isn't going to change soon, but there is a need for urban voters to understand those in the country who live outside of metropolitan centers.

The "shock" of this election for the Democrats mostly springs from the ignorance of their ranks to the plight of people who have not benefitted economically from the largess doled out by the one percent who vacation on Martha's Vineyard and in other high-brow enclaves.

Liberals and progressives need to realize that not all of the country works in an Internet startup with 10 employees in the heart of Silicon Valley and spends half their days looking at Instagram.

Likewise, voters in the middle of the country should know that coastal elites probably do not understand the nuances of land management, farm labor or the extreme scarcity of jobs in regions of the country that are not highly populated. In today's age of social media and Twitter, headlines for stories get reduced to 140-character soundbites that too often take the form of "bad" or "good" platitudes based on their alignment with a particular political party.

For Democrats and Republicans alike, social justice topics — the admission of immigrants into the country, vetting or non-vetting of Muslims, the discontent of groups such as Black Lives Matter — too easily substitute for dialogue on what's really plaguing rural and urban voters alike (although rural voters may feel it more intensely) — the economy.

In fact, for the nation's voters to unite and have common purpose, talk of racial issues, accusations of sexism and/or homophobia should be secondary to what's really at the root of most of the nation's dilemmas: wages, productivity, output and incomes.

If median household incomes were higher, it's likely that immigration would not be the provocative subject it is today. It's likely that the recent increase in crime and civil unrest in the country would not be the issues they've become.

And it's likely that so many other matters — health care, student loan debt, "sanctuary cities" and foreign-born worker visas — would not be getting the exposure in the media that they're currently experiencing.

Focusing on Donald Trump's economic plans and his initiatives in that arena particularly should be important for voters from all walks of life. Only if the trend of wage stagnation and erosion is reversed can a structural renaissance truly take place in our nation.

Regards,

Mark Patricks
The following is an article by Mark Patricks, that... (show quote)


Excellent piece, Loki. I guess that even when we lived in suburban Chicago, we were rural by nature. Maybe it is because SWMBO's father was a country vet, and she grew up knowing about animals, growing crops, feeding livestock, as well as caring for house pets. She has always thought that dogs died red with hats on were an insult to dogs, knew that chickens laid eggs, even without a rooster, and understood that people eat animals, just like other animals eat each other, and that tofu was NOT a substitute for roast turkey at Thanksgiving. now that we live in God's country, wild and wonderful, we both can relate to the down home people who are the true pillars of the earth. People who know that animals are either male or female, except for a few with genetic abnormalities, and that chicken do not sit around knitting tea cozzies, except in movies like Chicken Run. For all their quirks, I would rather be with these people any day.

Reply
 
 
Nov 25, 2016 10:44:34   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
slatten49 wrote:
Excellent article, Loki.



I know. I was going to write this article myself, but it seems that Mr. Patricks beat me to the punch.

Reply
Nov 25, 2016 10:52:34   #
working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina
 
Loki wrote:
I know. I was going to write this article myself, but it seems that Mr. Patricks beat me to the punch.


Nice article. I agree with it's gist....that the urban-rural divide is an important divide to narrow, perhaps the most important

Reply
Nov 25, 2016 11:01:58   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
working class stiff wrote:
Nice article. I agree with it's gist....that the urban-rural divide is an important divide to narrow, perhaps the most important


This is why I support the Electoral College, and object to Federal encroachment on what should be the purview of the states. The Federal government's "one size fits all" (poorly) approach tends to favor the urban dwelling populace from which most bureaucrats and leglslators emerge.

Reply
Nov 25, 2016 11:25:08   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Great article It's amazing how clueless we can be. I remember sponsoring a little boy through my church in Ohio. The kid was in a run down area in Cincinnati. He got to go to Camp Joy, a woodlands camp and recreation area. I was amazed. He was nine years old and had never fished. Hell he'd never seen a pond. Blew me away.
Loki wrote:
I know. I was going to write this article myself, but it seems that Mr. Patricks beat me to the punch.

Reply
 
 
Nov 25, 2016 12:15:35   #
PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.
 
Loki wrote:
The following is an article by Mark Patricks, that I think hits the nail on the head.





One of the major problems in today's America is that priorities of voters in urban parts of the country and those of voters in its more rural parts are so divergent. Americans in rural areas tend to think in terms of a strong national defense, closed borders, protection of religion, Second Amendment rights and fiscally conservative economic policies.

Urban Americans tend to desire multiculturalism, social justice, gay rights, women's rights, rights for immigrants and fiscal policies that extend help to those in need. Perennial "hot button" issues such as gun control, affirmative action, amnesty for illegal immigrants, defense spending and abortion unfortunately tend to divide Americans by geography.

A lot of it is common sense; rural Americans tend to be more isolated and think more about protection, self-defense and religion. Urban Americans tend to think more about getting along with their neighbors in dense spaces and are more cosmopolitan in nature. Much of the divisions between these groups stem from one group not being able to relate to how the other one thinks.

When was the last time someone in the middle of a cornfield in Iowa was pondering the need for transgender bathrooms? When was the last time someone in downtown Los Angeles was considering the need for farm subsidies?

Rural living tends to encourage independence, whereas urban living tends to encourage dependence and interdependence. Rural citizens want to be able to take care of themselves and be left alone by the government, whereas people in urban areas tend to cling to government and want it to provide more services, not less.

Not only is the disconnect ideological, but it's cognitive as well. Urban citizens tend not to know where their food was grown, how their waste is processed, where their natural resources come from or how land is managed. They merely have vague concepts that "free-range" animals are good, fracking is bad, guns kill people and "global warming" is going to make palm trees sprout in Minnesota one day.

For those in rural America, working with animals may be an everyday experience, and so, knowing about their welfare and what's best for them is firsthand knowledge. For rural dwellers, guns are often an important component of protection for themselves and their families.

And people in rural communities believe that natural resources are best managed by those who come in everyday contact with them; for many such residents, "global warming" sounds like a concept dreamed up by scientists who want extra funding for their labs.

For rural voters, having decisions made by bureaucrats in Washington who have little to no direct understanding of the issues involved can be maddening; it's already frustrating that these pencil-pushers have so much influence over things they know little about, but making matters worse is that the pool of taxpayers' money is wasted by the impact of their ignorance.

A number of the country's Founding Fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, believed that it was necessary to retain a balance between rural America and urban population centers. Jefferson wrote, "I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe."

There are strong themes in classical literature equating rural living with honesty and positive moral values. Farming and living off the land were seen in marked contrast to urban existence where decadence all too often takes intractable root via crime, narcotics and immoral values.

In urban centers, the accumulation of material goods often replaces the spiritual growth gained through devotion to religion. Esotericism replaces practicality, and the lure of the exotic supplants the simple pleasures of everyday living.

When the presidential race was in full swing, both candidates were pandering to their respective geographic audiences in a big way, portraying their opponents' base of supporters as bogeymen. The deep divisions, which have roots going back centuries, were emphasized, rather than being minimized.

Trump's victory in the Electoral College was reminiscent of George W. Bush's victory in the election of 2000. Both Trump and Bush were able to take advantage of geography to cater to audiences who weren't coastal cultural elites.

For political observers in 2000, it was an absolute shock that a candidate could lose both the states of California and New York and still win the election; no candidate in recent political history had achieved that before.

For now, these divisions are strong, and the political bases of both parties are invested in keeping the differences sharply in focus. But in the end, progress and healing for the country will only come about by each group being able to see through the eyes of the other.

The geography of America isn't going to change soon, but there is a need for urban voters to understand those in the country who live outside of metropolitan centers.

The "shock" of this election for the Democrats mostly springs from the ignorance of their ranks to the plight of people who have not benefitted economically from the largess doled out by the one percent who vacation on Martha's Vineyard and in other high-brow enclaves.

Liberals and progressives need to realize that not all of the country works in an Internet startup with 10 employees in the heart of Silicon Valley and spends half their days looking at Instagram.

Likewise, voters in the middle of the country should know that coastal elites probably do not understand the nuances of land management, farm labor or the extreme scarcity of jobs in regions of the country that are not highly populated. In today's age of social media and Twitter, headlines for stories get reduced to 140-character soundbites that too often take the form of "bad" or "good" platitudes based on their alignment with a particular political party.

For Democrats and Republicans alike, social justice topics — the admission of immigrants into the country, vetting or non-vetting of Muslims, the discontent of groups such as Black Lives Matter — too easily substitute for dialogue on what's really plaguing rural and urban voters alike (although rural voters may feel it more intensely) — the economy.

In fact, for the nation's voters to unite and have common purpose, talk of racial issues, accusations of sexism and/or homophobia should be secondary to what's really at the root of most of the nation's dilemmas: wages, productivity, output and incomes.

If median household incomes were higher, it's likely that immigration would not be the provocative subject it is today. It's likely that the recent increase in crime and civil unrest in the country would not be the issues they've become.

And it's likely that so many other matters — health care, student loan debt, "sanctuary cities" and foreign-born worker visas — would not be getting the exposure in the media that they're currently experiencing.

Focusing on Donald Trump's economic plans and his initiatives in that arena particularly should be important for voters from all walks of life. Only if the trend of wage stagnation and erosion is reversed can a structural renaissance truly take place in our nation.

Regards,

Mark Patricks
The following is an article by Mark Patricks, that... (show quote)


Marvelous article Loki. Thank you for posting it.

Reply
Nov 25, 2016 12:34:07   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
Loki wrote:
I know. I was going to write this article myself, but it seems that Mr. Patricks beat me to the punch.

Don't you just hate it when that happens I feel certain yours would have been more 'colorful.'

Reply
Nov 25, 2016 13:12:05   #
PeterS
 
Loki wrote:
The "shock" of this election for the Democrats mostly springs from the ignorance of their ranks to the plight of people who have not benefitted economically from the largess doled out by the one percent who vacation on Martha's Vineyard and in other high-brow enclaves.


You lost me here loki. The exodus of manufacturing jobs had little to do with rural America. Wasn't it votes from the displaced who pushed Trump over the top in the election not the same ole votes from rural America? If it had just been urban vs rural Trump would have lost. It was Trumps promise to bring back jobs to those without educations that won him the election not the uneducated rednecks of rural America who have always, and will continue to, vote for the most conservative politician possible.

Reply
Nov 25, 2016 17:21:57   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
PeterS wrote:
You lost me here loki. The exodus of manufacturing jobs had little to do with rural America. Wasn't it votes from the displaced who pushed Trump over the top in the election not the same ole votes from rural America? If it had just been urban vs rural Trump would have lost. It was Trumps promise to bring back jobs to those without educations that won him the election not the uneducated rednecks of rural America who have always, and will continue to, vote for the most conservative politician possible.
You lost me here loki. The exodus of manufacturing... (show quote)


What of educated rednecks, such as myself, whose educational level exceeds that of most urban Liberals? I voted for Trump. Not as a first or even second choice, but because Hillary the Harpy is no choice at all.

Reply
 
 
Nov 25, 2016 20:34:46   #
kenjay Loc: Arkansas
 
working class stiff wrote:
Nice article. I agree with it's gist....that the urban-rural divide is an important divide to narrow, perhaps the most important

Not going to happen.

Reply
Nov 25, 2016 20:52:55   #
kenjay Loc: Arkansas
 
PeterS wrote:
You lost me here loki. The exodus of manufacturing jobs had little to do with rural America. Wasn't it votes from the displaced who pushed Trump over the top in the election not the same ole votes from rural America? If it had just been urban vs rural Trump would have lost. It was Trumps promise to bring back jobs to those without educations that won him the election not the uneducated rednecks of rural America who have always, and will continue to, vote for the most conservative politician possible.
You lost me here loki. The exodus of manufacturing... (show quote)

I have a couple of degrees Petersucker and I voted for Trump because I am sick and tired of liberal corruption destroying our country. I am also a rural redneck and would not have any other way.

Reply
Nov 25, 2016 20:57:56   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
kenjay wrote:
I have a couple of degrees Petersucker and I voted for Trump because I am sick and tired of liberal corruption destroying our country. I am also a rural redneck and would not have any other way.


There are a lot of us out there, but I am a red neck by choice and it is one of the best choices I ever made.

Reply
Nov 25, 2016 21:13:22   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
PeterS wrote:
You lost me here loki. The exodus of manufacturing jobs had little to do with rural America. Wasn't it votes from the displaced who pushed Trump over the top in the election not the same ole votes from rural America? If it had just been urban vs rural Trump would have lost. It was Trumps promise to bring back jobs to those without educations that won him the election not the uneducated rednecks of rural America who have always, and will continue to, vote for the most conservative politician possible.
You lost me here loki. The exodus of manufacturing... (show quote)


There were plenty of manufacturing jobs in small towns that left the country. Here in the Southeast where I now live, there used to be a thriving textile industry. Many small towns with less than 5000 people depended on these jobs. I understand there were quite a number of carpet and furniture manufacturing plants also, along with all sorts of other things. Do not equate manufacturing jobs with bigger cities in the rust belt. These losses also impacted many tertiary businesses that sprang up to support plant employees. All sorts of small businesses from clothing stores to family restaurants to small mechanic shops.

Reply
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.