Liberal economic populism's diminishing appeal to rural voters

[Mississippi Political Freak]

Hi!  I just wonder why liberal economic populism advocating for the common people against big businesses has less and less appeal to rural voters (Rural Minnesota and western Wisconsin seems to be major exceptions).  To me, a large part seems to stem from their shifting economic sympathy, coincided with the decline of family farms and other mom-and-pop businesses.  With the dominance of major agribusinesses, rural voters increasing view themselves as fledgling entrepreneurs burdened by government red tapes instead of  common folks cheated on/oppressed by the big businesses.

Two of my four options seems to be regional, with residual racism more prominent in the South and maybe the Southwest, while innate libertarian values seems to be more prominent in the Mountain West and parts of the Plains.

As a side questions, I wonder why rural voters seem to be more passionate on cultural issues (abortion, guns and homosexuality) instead of their own economic well being?  Thanks!

[Dgov]

I think you missed a big one which is "Increasing governmental influence in their lives".  Supporting big government ideals was great back in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, when they were basically the government giving them money.  But nowadays, the government is passing laws regarding land use, environmental legislation, and other things that interfere with how rural voters have lived their lives for 2 centuries, and that's a big turnoff for interventionism.  There's a reason the Republican's message on big government doesn't solely revolve around tax rates.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

"Lack of a messenger" should probably be included as an option here.

[opebo]

Racism, prudery, bigotry, resentments.  A rube is a kind of monster, you know. 

Where you going city boy?

[CitizenX]

Hi!  I just wonder why liberal economic populism advocating for the common people against big businesses has less and less appeal to rural voters (Rural Minnesota and western Wisconsin seems to be major exceptions).  To me, a large part seems to stem from their shifting economic sympathy, coincided with the decline of family farms and other mom-and-pop businesses.  With the dominance of major agribusinesses, rural voters increasing view themselves as fledgling entrepreneurs burdened by government red tapes instead of  common folks cheated on/oppressed by the big businesses.

Two of my four options seems to be regional, with residual racism more prominent in the South and maybe the Southwest, while innate libertarian values seems to be more prominent in the Mountain West and parts of the Plains.

As a side questions, I wonder why rural voters seem to be more passionate on cultural issues (abortion, guns and homosexuality) instead of their own economic well being?  Thanks!

Whoa!  You're giving these people too much credit.  I've spoken to rural voters in the south and most of them simply don't do that level of analysis.  From an economic point of view they would be much better served by Democratic policies.  Instead they are convinced to vote Republican because of abortion, guns, gays, Mexicans, blacks, etc.  Listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Dr. Laura.  I have never heard any of them make a coherent economic argument.  I have heard plenty of racism and fear mongering.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

These questions always miss out a very important fact; voting patterns are not (and never were) determined by rhetoric alone. Much of that traditional Democratic strength in certain rural (using the term fairly loosely) areas was kept in place by the fact that Democratic administrations actually delivered for these areas, or at least didn't pursue policies that actively harmed them. Bit by bit and year by year the Clinton administration steadily undermined this.

[Liberté]

All of you are wrong. I say this as someone who lives in a Blue Dog area and who is related to voters who, if they knew what a 'Blue Dog' was, would surely self-identify as such.

Rural voters are just as populist as before. If anything, they have become more populist. But the direction of that populism has changed in the decades since the New Deal was put into place: it has turned, not only (and not primarily) against cultural 'outsiders', but against cultural and economic elites.

Left-wingers too often mistakenly believe that the 'conservatism' of the poor rural voter is something like Burkean conservatism - a philosophical conservatism that prefers the rule of the traditional elite. This is not so. When the rural conservative sees a conspiracy in high places against conservatism, as in the 'liberal media', what he is really complaining about is the centralization of the media within narrow and scarcely-competitive conglomerates who are most assuredly 'liberal' in a bland American Consensus sense but which are neither Left nor Right.

I've mentioned it in a post already today, but I highly recommend liberals watch Adam Curtis' documentary The Century of the Self, and especially the segment There Is A Policeman In All Our Heads. The anti-authoritarian Hippies of the 1960s became the Yuppies of the 1980s - and they still saw themselves as anti-authoritarians, even if the cause of their ire (the liberal establishment in both cases) remained the same. So, too, do many rural voters feel themselves oppressed by an elite and intend to do something about it. It's just that, this time, you are the elite.

The problem is structural. Americans today are "individualists", they are so anti-establishmentarian that every day in every way they buttress the establishment they claim to protest. And they certainly have legitimate grievances: if liberals were Marxists, they'd understand that capitalism is essentially progressive in nature and thus that it is natural that liberals are well-represented within the ranks of its intelligentsia and media. But they lack a depth analysis of the situation.

What could be done about it? Quite a few things. I've been fighting for them my entire posting career. Not one of you have listened to me.