Frank Rich: "No Sympathy for the Hillbilly"

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Talking about these people like they're hardcore conservatives is a bizarre predilection of many Democrats. Sure there are plenty of conservatives and partisan Republicans in any state, but the Obama-Trump voters who swung these states really aren't a part of that. They would be quite easy to swing back, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in doing that.

It's really remarkable how what will benefit [party that just lost] the most going forward is always whatever best suits the political views of the person talking, isn't it?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Talking about these people like they're hardcore conservatives is a bizarre predilection of many Democrats. Sure there are plenty of conservatives and partisan Republicans in any state, but the Obama-Trump voters who swung these states really aren't a part of that. They would be quite easy to swing back, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in doing that.

It's really remarkable how what will benefit [party that just lost] the most going forward is always whatever best suits the political views of the person talking, isn't it?

     How does this suit my political views? The kinds of things that Democrats would propose to bring these people back into the fold are not policies I would be particularly enthused by.

[Associate Justice PiT]

People like this foolish, classist man make me wonder if Democrats will win back power for the foreseeable future, despite their various advantages.  I've read several articles with this kind of tone, and they all make me simultaneously angry and very worried.

     This is something I've been saying across many threads. While there certainly is time to change their tune, so many Democrats are coming forth and speaking about the situation with the same condescending tone that drove people to vote for Trump in the first place. If they learned their lesson from the party's collapse in the Midwest, they're doing an excellent job of hiding it.

Umm, perhaps his tone could have been less argumentative, but there is an element of truth that Democrats should not be completely placating voters in a handful of states just to win the electoral college.  Also, they shouldn't think that just because Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. were the closest states in this election that these are necessarily the states they must target next time.

     Reality is, this is a block of voters that used to be solidly Democratic, but has been trending Republican because they don't see the Democrats as caring about the issues they care about. Their concerns are not the end-all be-all, but it would be hard to put together a winning coalition by simply writing them. At the least, harder than it would be to put together a winning coalition by drawing them into the fold.

OK. And?  To win some voters you will turn off others.  If 100% of people wanted the same thing we wouldn't have elections.  Many of these voters are simply not in line with democrats on social issues and many people vote on social issues nowadays.  The fact of the matter is that the Democratic coalition consistently gets more votes in Presidential years and all segments of this coalition are growing in population.  To suddenly appease rural whites as a short term fix would be dumb and threaten to break apart the already fragile coalition Democrats have been building for years.

     Talking about these people like they're hardcore conservatives is a bizarre predilection of many Democrats. Sure there are plenty of conservatives and partisan Republicans in any state, but the Obama-Trump voters who swung these states really aren't a part of that. They would be quite easy to swing back, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in doing that.

     With that said, making this about Presidential elections is an ongoing strategic failure of the Democrats, who have long underemphasized Congressional and state races. Your party has been thoroughly gutted in many state governments, a trend that has been particularly marked in the Midwest. Losing power in so many states is going to have long-term effects on your ability to compete for higher offices, not to mention the mere continued failure to focus on growing state parties. The idea that the Democratic Party is in a healthy electoral situation now is frankly absurd.

Yes, I agree that the Democratic Party is in disastrous shape right now, but I disagree with the solution being to simply offer handouts to WWC voters in hopes that Michigan will flip back.  There was a very obvious and noticeable trend in terms of what electoral votes are moving towards Democrats and what votes are not and the "Midwest" (however you want to define the boundaries) was not where democratic growth occurred... nor do they need large swaths of middle America to remain a national party.  Again, there are trade offs, they cannot win 70+% of the minority vote and not expect to lose WWC voters.

     See, I don't buy this. If the WWC voters who flipped were calling for a return to segregation or something, then sure. However, some form of economic revival of the Rust Belt would win broad support among the working class of all races. My contention is that the Democrats are hurting themselves by setting up a false dichotomy whereby the interests of minority voters are juxtaposed with the interests of white working class voters. It doesn't actually have to be that way.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Talking about these people like they're hardcore conservatives is a bizarre predilection of many Democrats. Sure there are plenty of conservatives and partisan Republicans in any state, but the Obama-Trump voters who swung these states really aren't a part of that. They would be quite easy to swing back, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in doing that.

It's really remarkable how what will benefit [party that just lost] the most going forward is always whatever best suits the political views of the person talking, isn't it?

     How does this suit my political views? The kinds of things that Democrats would propose to bring these people back into the fold are not policies I would be particularly enthused by.

I'm agreeing with you and being snide about NSV, not being snide about you.

[Deblano]

Talking about these people like they're hardcore conservatives is a bizarre predilection of many Democrats. Sure there are plenty of conservatives and partisan Republicans in any state, but the Obama-Trump voters who swung these states really aren't a part of that. They would be quite easy to swing back, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in doing that.

It's really remarkable how what will benefit [party that just lost] the most going forward is always whatever best suits the political views of the person talking, isn't it?

     How does this suit my political views? The kinds of things that Democrats would propose to bring these people back into the fold are not policies I would be particularly enthused by.

I'm agreeing with you and being snide about NSV, not being snide about you.

Yes my posts always deserve snide treatment from this board because I don't worship white working class voters and socialism.  Love the "tolerant progressives" here. 

Do you not think that WWC voters in places like McDowell County, West Virginia don't deserve at least A LITTLE more attention?

Or should they all just screw their cousins and huff coal smoke to death because at least lifting a finger to help them is "socialism", "progressivism", and all the other scary -isms that you can name?

[Deblano]

Talking about these people like they're hardcore conservatives is a bizarre predilection of many Democrats. Sure there are plenty of conservatives and partisan Republicans in any state, but the Obama-Trump voters who swung these states really aren't a part of that. They would be quite easy to swing back, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in doing that.

It's really remarkable how what will benefit [party that just lost] the most going forward is always whatever best suits the political views of the person talking, isn't it?

     How does this suit my political views? The kinds of things that Democrats would propose to bring these people back into the fold are not policies I would be particularly enthused by.

I'm agreeing with you and being snide about NSV, not being snide about you.

Yes my posts always deserve snide treatment from this board because I don't worship white working class voters and socialism.  Love the "tolerant progressives" here. 

Do you not think that WWC voters in places like McDowell County, West Virginia don't deserve at least A LITTLE more attention?

Or should they all just screw their cousins and huff coal smoke to death because at least lifting a finger to help them is "socialism", "progressivism", and all the other scary -isms that you can name?

More attention than inner city baltimore, or suburban reston, virginia...?  no not really.  I think everyone should get largely equal attention from politicians, not just whatever voter group is hot at a given time.

I'm very skeptical that the coal miner in McDowell County gets the equal amount of attention from the Democrats as the suburban Reston voters or inner city Baltimore voter. They are ignored by the Democrats and scammed by the Republicans while their quality of life plummets. Giving them equal and much needed sympathy is not the same as worshiping them.

[Shadows]

People like this foolish, classist man make me wonder if Democrats will win back power for the foreseeable future, despite their various advantages.  I've read several articles with this kind of tone, and they all make me simultaneously angry and very worried.

     This is something I've been saying across many threads. While there certainly is time to change their tune, so many Democrats are coming forth and speaking about the situation with the same condescending tone that drove people to vote for Trump in the first place. If they learned their lesson from the party's collapse in the Midwest, they're doing an excellent job of hiding it.

Umm, perhaps his tone could have been less argumentative, but there is an element of truth that Democrats should not be completely placating voters in a handful of states just to win the electoral college.  Also, they shouldn't think that just because Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. were the closest states in this election that these are necessarily the states they must target next time.

     Reality is, this is a block of voters that used to be solidly Democratic, but has been trending Republican because they don't see the Democrats as caring about the issues they care about. Their concerns are not the end-all be-all, but it would be hard to put together a winning coalition by simply writing them. At the least, harder than it would be to put together a winning coalition by drawing them into the fold.

OK. And?  To win some voters you will turn off others.  If 100% of people wanted the same thing we wouldn't have elections.  Many of these voters are simply not in line with democrats on social issues and many people vote on social issues nowadays.  The fact of the matter is that the Democratic coalition consistently gets more votes in Presidential years and all segments of this coalition are growing in population.  To suddenly appease rural whites as a short term fix would be dumb and threaten to break apart the already fragile coalition Democrats have been building for years.

     Talking about these people like they're hardcore conservatives is a bizarre predilection of many Democrats. Sure there are plenty of conservatives and partisan Republicans in any state, but the Obama-Trump voters who swung these states really aren't a part of that. They would be quite easy to swing back, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in doing that.

     With that said, making this about Presidential elections is an ongoing strategic failure of the Democrats, who have long underemphasized Congressional and state races. Your party has been thoroughly gutted in many state governments, a trend that has been particularly marked in the Midwest. Losing power in so many states is going to have long-term effects on your ability to compete for higher offices, not to mention the mere continued failure to focus on growing state parties. The idea that the Democratic Party is in a healthy electoral situation now is frankly absurd.

Fully agreed. Great point !

[Deblano]

People like this foolish, classist man make me wonder if Democrats will win back power for the foreseeable future, despite their various advantages.  I've read several articles with this kind of tone, and they all make me simultaneously angry and very worried.

     This is something I've been saying across many threads. While there certainly is time to change their tune, so many Democrats are coming forth and speaking about the situation with the same condescending tone that drove people to vote for Trump in the first place. If they learned their lesson from the party's collapse in the Midwest, they're doing an excellent job of hiding it.

Umm, perhaps his tone could have been less argumentative, but there is an element of truth that Democrats should not be completely placating voters in a handful of states just to win the electoral college.  Also, they shouldn't think that just because Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. were the closest states in this election that these are necessarily the states they must target next time.

     Reality is, this is a block of voters that used to be solidly Democratic, but has been trending Republican because they don't see the Democrats as caring about the issues they care about. Their concerns are not the end-all be-all, but it would be hard to put together a winning coalition by simply writing them. At the least, harder than it would be to put together a winning coalition by drawing them into the fold.

OK. And?  To win some voters you will turn off others.  If 100% of people wanted the same thing we wouldn't have elections.  Many of these voters are simply not in line with democrats on social issues and many people vote on social issues nowadays.  The fact of the matter is that the Democratic coalition consistently gets more votes in Presidential years and all segments of this coalition are growing in population.  To suddenly appease rural whites as a short term fix would be dumb and threaten to break apart the already fragile coalition Democrats have been building for years.

     Talking about these people like they're hardcore conservatives is a bizarre predilection of many Democrats. Sure there are plenty of conservatives and partisan Republicans in any state, but the Obama-Trump voters who swung these states really aren't a part of that. They would be quite easy to swing back, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in doing that.

     With that said, making this about Presidential elections is an ongoing strategic failure of the Democrats, who have long underemphasized Congressional and state races. Your party has been thoroughly gutted in many state governments, a trend that has been particularly marked in the Midwest. Losing power in so many states is going to have long-term effects on your ability to compete for higher offices, not to mention the mere continued failure to focus on growing state parties. The idea that the Democratic Party is in a healthy electoral situation now is frankly absurd.

Agreed. You just look at the past 8 years and just assume that it was all a strange fluke for the Democratic Party.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Talking about these people like they're hardcore conservatives is a bizarre predilection of many Democrats. Sure there are plenty of conservatives and partisan Republicans in any state, but the Obama-Trump voters who swung these states really aren't a part of that. They would be quite easy to swing back, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in doing that.

It's really remarkable how what will benefit [party that just lost] the most going forward is always whatever best suits the political views of the person talking, isn't it?

     How does this suit my political views? The kinds of things that Democrats would propose to bring these people back into the fold are not policies I would be particularly enthused by.

I'm agreeing with you and being snide about NSV, not being snide about you.

Yes my posts always deserve snide treatment from this board because I don't worship white working class voters and socialism.  Love the "tolerant progressives" here. 

Your posts deserve snide treatment because you're openly contemptuous of the idea that you have any moral responsibilities towards other people and expect those other people, or at least the subset of other people that posts on Atlas Forum, not to be cross with you for it.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

There is a lot of this attitude ("Anyone who disagrees with me a stupid racist sexist Nazi POS!") on the Democratic side, unfortunately. (Let's not pretend that there isn't a similar attitude on the right, but I digress...) This is not a productive attitude, and it's certainly not going to serve any of us well in the future. While it's true that many Trump supporters are not going to be convinced to turn against him, there are certainly some who could potentially be swayed. The type of argument presented in this article is what has pushed many people away from the Democratic Party. Also, maybe convincing people in rural America to pull the lever in the voting booth a certain way shouldn't be our end goal. Perhaps empathy should be about recognizing that we don't have to see each other as enemies, rather than just winning elections.

I think the problem with the quest for empathy is that people are so deeply obsessed with "whataboutism" that we can't actually acknowledge that there are many different problems. Any human being wants their problems focused on first rather than someone else's, that much seems logical. The issue is that a lot of people fail to comprehend (whether that's our own failure as a society for not instilling that form of critical thinking or something else) that there are multiple problems that multiple groups of people are dealing with and that all of these should be addressed, not just one at a time and not just in piecemeal. A black man still probably going to be more socioeconomically disadvantaged for example than the median white man, and would probably have the cops called on him more often than the so-called "hillbilly", but they both have economic problems that must be handled. But the challenge is making everyone understand that everyone else has their own issues to deal with that are very complex and that nobody's problems are relatively speaking more special than anyone else's would probably be the biggest hurdle toward any kind of empathy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The fact that people like you simply cannot accept that not everyone agrees with universal healthcare or socialism must be hard for you, considering the majority of the population disagrees with socialism.  I guess this is like a socialist safe space.

You're the one who made an entire thread to whine that none of the two parties was a good fit to your Socially Liberal Nice Guy brand of social Darwinism. Projecting much?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, I'm glad you're given up on your sense of entitlement and accepted that you don't get to define the sphere of acceptable political views! Baby steps, I guess.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Your own paycheck" is only your own because the State has built institutions that makes it possible for social parasites like you to accumulate wealth at the expense of everybody else. The State giveth and the State taketh away.

[Intell]

"Your own paycheck" is only your own because the State has built institutions that makes it possible for social parasites like you to accumulate wealth at the expense of everybody else. The State giveth and the State taketh away.

I love it when someone who wants free stuff calls someone who works 60-70 hours a week a "social parasite" - you are the definition of pathetic.

You can be a parasite, and be rich, yes. There is nothing wrong with giving people free stuff, and you are getting the same amount of rights as poor people, and actually paying the same amount of tax. As you live in a society, you contribute to the society, to give free "stuff".

[Oakvale]

"The State giveth" is a bizarre response to whatever NSV is on about but we are all by now familiar with macho bluster about 'parasites' and guillotines etc from forum leftists.

[Hindsight was 2020]

It's really hard to feel empathy for a group of people who justify the wall an ban around the idea of "f**k your feelings"

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think there's actually a lot about the current relationship between urban and rural/small-city America that replicates the metropole/periphery dynamics of colonial empires.

This is a good point. Though I think the phrase isn't so much rural/small town - a lot of the relevant places are quite large - but provincial.

[dead0man]

"Your own paycheck" is only your own because the State has built institutions that makes it possible for social parasites like you to accumulate wealth at the expense of everybody else. The State giveth and the State taketh away.

I love it when someone who wants free stuff calls someone who works 60-70 hours a week a "social parasite" - you are the definition of pathetic.

You can be a parasite, and be rich, yes. There is nothing wrong with giving people free stuff, and you are getting the same amount of rights as poor people, and actually paying the same amount of tax. As you live in a society, you contribute to the society, to give free "stuff".

Did you even read what he wrote?  What an odd response.


4 pages on this and nobody has mentioned guns?

[Mr. Morden]

"Your own paycheck" is only your own because the State has built institutions that makes it possible for social parasites like you to accumulate wealth at the expense of everybody else. The State giveth and the State taketh away.

I love it when someone who wants free stuff calls someone who works 60-70 hours a week a "social parasite" - you are the definition of pathetic.

You work 60-70 hours a week, and you had time to make more than 200 posts on this forum in the last 24 hours?  That's an interesting choice of what to do in your limited time off. 

[Deblano]

"The State giveth" is a bizarre response to whatever NSV is on about but we are all by now familiar with macho bluster about 'parasites' and guillotines etc from forum leftists.

You have NSV's "taxes and social safety nets are stupid" attitude on one side and then you have your keyboard commies on the other side

How embarrassing.

As much as I disagree with socialists on taxation, taxes will always be a necessary evil. What we need to focus on is making sure taxes don't stagnate the amount of people purchasing goods or investing in the economy (I.e I'm against increasing sales taxes or corporate taxes)

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Talking about these people like they're hardcore conservatives is a bizarre predilection of many Democrats. Sure there are plenty of conservatives and partisan Republicans in any state, but the Obama-Trump voters who swung these states really aren't a part of that. They would be quite easy to swing back, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in doing that.

It's really remarkable how what will benefit [party that just lost] the most going forward is always whatever best suits the political views of the person talking, isn't it?

     How does this suit my political views? The kinds of things that Democrats would propose to bring these people back into the fold are not policies I would be particularly enthused by.

I'm agreeing with you and being snide about NSV, not being snide about you.

Yes my posts always deserve snide treatment from this board because I don't worship white working class voters and socialism.  Love the "tolerant progressives" here. 

Your posts deserve snide treatment because you're openly contemptuous of the idea that you have any moral responsibilities towards other people and expect those other people, or at least the subset of other people that posts on Atlas Forum, not to be cross with you for it.

When you walk past a homeless person on the street do you give that person a dollar every time?

Most of the time, yes, and when I don't I feel guilty about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To at least some extent, yes. If I don't "owe that person money" directly then I at least owe it to them to support a form of social organization that stands some chance of not leaving them homeless. I should point out that the state that's done the best job of combating homelessness is Utah, so it's not even a matter of left-wing politics or policy as such, simply of being willing to look for meaningful solutions to these problems in the first place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. You're aware that we have a number of respected right-wing posters, right?
2. You can't just shout "MUH SAFE SPACE MUH SAFE SPACE MUH SAFE SPACE" and expect most people under the age of, say, thirty-five to agree with you that it's a devastating Sick Burn. This is true even of people who don't think "safe spaces" are a great idea in the first place.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

"Your own paycheck" is only your own because the State has built institutions that makes it possible for social parasites like you to accumulate wealth at the expense of everybody else. The State giveth and the State taketh away.

I love it when someone who wants free stuff calls someone who works 60-70 hours a week a "social parasite" - you are the definition of pathetic.

Have you considered unionising?

[All Along The Watchtower]

I can't help but perceive an exploitative fetishization of black/racial minority culture by the same "educated" white liberals who unironically use the term "white trash."

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Oh, now you're doing the "mocking people for being emotionally/morally sensitive" thing. You're so cliché.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Oh, now you're doing the "mocking people for being emotionally/morally sensitive" thing. You're so cliché.

It's ironic when a group of people that hurls insults so rapidly can be so morally sensitive that they are almost unable to cope with reality.

I didn't say anything about being "unable to cope with reality", I said I felt guilty about something I occasionally do. This is how having a conscience works. I can't believe you're making me spell this out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shouldn't you be at work right now? It's eleven-thirty on a weekday.