Comments | lanekim: A long but beautifully written and thought-provoking article, take a study break and read it

lanekim

A long but beautifully written and thought-provoking article, take a study break and read it

Nov 14, 2006 02:19

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813

It contains gems such as: But if West Virginia wants to elect politicians who allow mining companies to lop off the tops off mountains and dump the waste into valleys and streams, thus causing floods that destroy ( Read more... )

Comments 7

braundiggity November 14 2006, 06:18:53 UTC

It was interesting (I only read through the first half though, I'll admit upfront), but I was kind of confused as to what exactly it was arguing for, and I had issue with either of the two arguments I saw.

I saw it as either A) screw the federal government in general, let's just worry about city government, or B) the democratic party needs to say screw everyone outside of cities ( ... )

lanekim November 14 2006, 20:55:48 UTC

I saw it more as B, which he does address more towards the end. But I don't think it's so much "screw people outside of cities" as it is "screw people who vote against us that want to benefit from policies they weren't in favor of in the first place ( ... )

hazelbunny November 14 2006, 07:13:44 UTC

I have very mixed feelings about this article. when I first saw the quotes there, I thought it had to be a satire. But now I am not so sure.

Obviously, right now, the democratic party is an urban party. And there is a perceived gap between the interests of rural people and the interests of urban people, which is why the two party bases have split along urban/rural lines. But I'm not sure it's a legitimate split, or one that should be embraced this way. There was a time when being a farmer meant being solidly Democratic. If you ask me, it's the party that has changed, not the farmers.

in any case the idea that elitism is a viable solution (and not a betrayal of most of the Democratic party's expressed "values") is something that I cannot ever get behind.

honestly it would probably work. this strategy would increase the power of the Democratic party. but then I would hate the Democratic party every bit as much as I hate the republican party right now.

lanekim November 14 2006, 20:53:39 UTC

See my reply above. And I think you're right, there shouldn't be such a huge gap between rural and urban people and I was suprised to see that party split on the map.

hazelbunny November 14 2006, 21:41:01 UTC

I guess what I'd like to see instead of either compromising for the sake of rural votes or turning on them altogether, is people asking, "why are rural people voting against own interests?" what do they perceive their interests to be, how can we show them the long-term effects of these policies and the ways they are suffering from them?

which, to me, is not really what a political party does, nor is it really what a political party is supposed to do. it's more appropriate work for NGOs.
The classical liberal in me likes private non-profits better than legislation anyway.

Plus some of the stuff the guy talks about that are already a part of the Democratic party really are elitist and anti-rural and I already don't like it.
I don't like the idea of "progressive" values being somehow anti-rural. To me, the idea that progressivism can be anti some already disadvantaged group is just plain hypocritical. sure, be against factory farms and Wal-Mart, but I can't ignore the set of needs that these entities are, in their own warped way,

spencernagig November 15 2006, 02:34:21 UTC

Lorelei, if you want a better look at "Why are rural people voting against their own interests," you should check out "What's The Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" by Thomas Frank. I haven't read it yet, but I have a friend who has, and he has talked and talked and talked to me about it, so I think I'm going to buy it soon and read it over winter break ( ... )

Thread 5