Urban vs. Rural Cultural and Political Divide

[yovargas]

Note: I split this topic off from the Trump's America thread - VtF

A Selzer & Co. national poll conducted Nov. 24-27 for Grinnell College found that Trump had a 43 percent approval rating and a 45 percent disapproval rating among all adults. However, his support isn’t distributed equally across different types of communities. He’s enormously popular among residents of rural areas, with a 61 percent approval rating and a 26 percent disapproval rating. In small towns, that breakdown is 44 percent approve vs. 42 percent disapprove. But in suburban areas, only 41 percent of residents approve of the job that Trump is doing as president, while 50 percent disapprove. Trump’s approval rating is lowest among urbanites — 31 percent approve of him while 59 percent disapprove.

I feel like the urban vs rural cultural divide is something that doesn't get enough attention and discussion.

It's hugely significant across the western world at the moment. Most of the people who've benefited most from globalisation, for example, by working a white-collar job in a multinational company, live in cities. It's easier to get a new job if your employer shuts down if you live in a city. And you're far more likely to come into frequent contact with foreigners, immigrants, openly gay people and the like in the city. The person working for HSBC's San Francisco office with Indian and Chinese co-workers who regularly travels overseas and would be OK with taking a job in London and the auto plant worker in the only auto plant in his Michigan town almost live in different countries.

It's a fascinating point and one that I kinda have to agree with. Putting on my Inpractical Philosopher hat, there's part of me that thinks that if the city and the country do not want the same kind of govt, shouldn't democratic principles say that they should get different govts?

[Frelga]

Without discounting what Túrin said, it's important to remember that over the last couple decades, the Republican propaganda machine has successfully limited the kind of media consumed by the base to Fox News and affiliates. If you get your news from Fox, you would hear nothing about Cohen's testimony, for example. It's not just different interests - what "the base" hears is entirely different from the content the rest of the country consumes.

[Primula Baggins]

I think what Frelga points out is key, yov. We would probably be a much more unified country if Fox were the only source of news and we all believed everything they said. Which is exactly what authoritarians arrange as soon as they possibly can.

[yovargas]

Blaming Fox and Friends doesn't really address why their message is so much more resonant in the country than in the city. It's not like Fox isn't available to folks in NYC or LA.

[Frelga]

Blaming Fox and Friends doesn't really address why their message is so much more resonant in the country than in the city. It's not like Fox isn't available to folks in NYC or LA.

It isn't that, yov. It's that it is harder to convince a more progressive, more educated population to restrict themselves to a single source of information.

We also need to look to the role conservative protestant churches play here. Their communities are primed to trusting only pre-approved sources.

I'll tell you a story about it later, when I have the time.

[Túrin Turambar]

Blaming Fox and Friends doesn't really address why their message is so much more resonant in the country than in the city. It's not like Fox isn't available to folks in NYC or LA.

There's this, plus with the internet pretty much anyone can get any media they like, and most politically-active people are probably using now to follow their preferred media no matter where they live. I can sit here in my bedroom in Melbourne and watch Tucker Carlson clips on Youtube or subscribe to the New York Times. I won't say that "people who vote for the other side are uninformed" is never the explanation, but it's worth keeping in mind it's been said by pretty much everyone since the dawn of print media and there's usually other factors at work.

[elengil]

I wonder if part of it is almost due to the over-abundance of media choices. I'm not saying the choices are bad, but when you had 1 local newspaper, 1 news station on tv or radio, and maybe - maybe - a national paper or magazine something... you really didn't have much choice but to believe what you were seeing or hearing. (Also, consider before computer alterations, photoshop, etc, things may have been more believable, too).

Now you have not just real news, not just far-leaning news, not just fake news, not just satire, not just global news, not just the average person filming as things happen... you have all of these, all competing for your attention and belief, and tragically they don't just not agree, they can outright conflict and contradict one another.

So in a world of more access, there is less trust, there is less belief, there is less sense of objective truth, and more just picking which of the many voices seems to scream loudest in your 'language'. That is, we already have things we believe, we will tend to then gravitate to the news source which seems to most closely align to what we already think is true.

[Frelga]

Several important points to address, but first, the story.

My first venture into online communities was way back in the AOL days on a breastfeeding support board.

One of the members was of an indie-fundie persuasion (denomination?). Another woman recommended her a book on parenting. She refused to read it, because it contained quotes from non-Christian sources. Like Ghandi. She said it was the way the devil lured the unwary with false wisdom.

She was an intelligent young woman, a pleasure to interact with. She was not uninformed through lack of ability or access. Her horizons have been limited by her choice to consume only the content she was told was spiritually safe.

This was before the internet became fragmented into a myriad blogs and Facebook groups. AOL was all there was, so our little group brought her into contact with people she would have never met otherwise. There were atheists, a few Wiccans, several Jews. Working moms, homemakers. Some crunchy, some nerdy. We were all moms, dealing with nursing strikes and plugged milk ducts. I owe a lot to that group. It would not exist today.

She and I posted together for several years. In that time, through exposure and osmosis, she changed her stance on corporal punishment and letting babies cry themselves to sleep, two things she was adamant about at first. I don't think she ever read that book, though.

[Túrin Turambar]

I wonder if part of it is almost due to the over-abundance of media choices. I'm not saying the choices are bad, but when you had 1 local newspaper, 1 news station on tv or radio, and maybe - maybe - a national paper or magazine something... you really didn't have much choice but to believe what you were seeing or hearing. (Also, consider before computer alterations, photoshop, etc, things may have been more believable, too).

Now you have not just real news, not just far-leaning news, not just fake news, not just satire, not just global news, not just the average person filming as things happen... you have all of these, all competing for your attention and belief, and tragically they don't just not agree, they can outright conflict and contradict one another.

So in a world of more access, there is less trust, there is less belief, there is less sense of objective truth, and more just picking which of the many voices seems to scream loudest in your 'language'. That is, we already have things we believe, we will tend to then gravitate to the news source which seems to most closely align to what we already think is true.

I think this is a serious issue today, and perhaps the biggest downside to the internet. It's possible to cut yourself off completely from dissenting views. You can watch only a cable TV news station which you prefer, and supplement it with Youtube channels, blogs and news websites from your own side of politics. You can get away with being exposed to the other side only when their views are being showcased for ridicule.

[yovargas]

One reason this has been on my mind is that, as I'd mentioned somewhere else, I have been reading some books about the Russian revolution a 100 years ago that led to the rise of Communism. There are three books on the subject I've been going through and in all three, the divide between the views and interests of the cities versus the country is seen as an important part of the political events of the times. It's highlighted for me how much this city vs country divide is far from a new thing, but may just be an intrinsic part of the very different lifestyles. Considering that, I'm not sure it's possible to have a government that makes both sides happy.

[Frelga]

One reason this has been on my mind is that, as I'd mentioned somewhere else, I have been reading some books about the Russian revolution a 100 years ago that led to the rise of Communism. There are three books on the subject I've been going through and in all three, the divide between the views and interests of the cities versus the country is seen as an important part of the political events of the times. It's highlighted for me how much this city vs country divide is far from a new thing, but may just be an intrinsic part of the very different lifestyles. Considering that, I'm not sure it's possible to have a government that makes both sides happy.

Yov, I'd love to chat with you about this. Without osgiliating this thread, let me just say that the definition of city, country, and interests is so different that it is impossible to draw a comparison.

[yovargas]

I'd love to chat about this too! Your place or mine?

[Primula Baggins]

I'd love to chat about this too! Your place or mine?

Moot at yov’s!

[Frelga]

I'd love to chat about this too! Your place or mine?

I'd be all for a family vacation to Florida next week. Barring that, you are welcome to start a thread.

[Maria]

How come this new split has 67 pages?

[elengil]

Oops!

[Frelga]

Well, I meant talking to yov about Russian revolution....

[Inanna]

I would love to hear about that too, Frelga.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Fixed.

Frelga, you can talk to yov here about the Russian Revolution in the context of the urban/rural divide.

[Frelga]

I can try but it's a bit like talking about the space race in the context of deforestation. I guess we can always rename the thread later...