An Open Letter to the Democratic National Committee from a Rural Democrat | Hacker News Reader

An Open Letter to the Democratic National Committee from a Rural Democrat

ndxplains.com

20 pointsprotomyth26 comments

>> That seems like a stark contrast from the rhetoric we hear from many national Democratic leaders who seemingly want to alter our way of life. (Emphasis added)

That's the problem right there. It's easy to imagine that everyone lives like you when you are in a city that rarely leave, unless it is to fly to another city. The democrats have little hope of regaining any majorities in the 3,084 counties where Trump won unless they make major changes to their policies that damage the economies in many of those counties and their strategy of trying to shame them into changing their behavior (including calling them "deplorable" and "irredeemable").

> That's the problem right there. It's easy to imagine that everyone lives like you when you are in a city that rarely leave, unless it is to fly to another city

I hope you can see the irony in rural areas being upset that "those city people don't understand us" when they also make little attempt to understand the political motivations of urban voters. They also seem to believe that the world should keep subsidizing their jobs even when there is a long term trend of urbanization etc.

Personally I think rural and urban areas need each other but we need more compromise - why are urban areas subsidizing infrastructure spending in rural areas and the farm bill only to get kicked in the teeth when issues associated with urban areas come up? Do we want to go back to rural poverty being the norm? My wifes grandparents grew up in that and it was a hard life. Those people need affordable healthcare and benefit from being able to send their kids off to good universities etc.

Rural America doesn't have a monopoly on the "real" America - they are just as out of touch with urban America.

> why are urban areas subsidizing infrastructure spending in rural areas and the farm bill only to get kicked in the teeth when issues associated with urban areas come up?

I'm curious what Urban American has gotten "kicked in the teeth" by? Mainly, the $ figures are from military, power, and agriculture which Urban American doesn't want in their backyard. Pigs and turkeys don't smell so good, and wind farms are noisy, unsightly, and a bit dangerous. Counting military and power spending is pretty poor form. Transportation happens because the low cost raw materials come from the rural areas. No roads, no food for urban folks.

> Rural America doesn't have a monopoly on the "real" America - they are just as out of touch with urban America.

That's not really true. Rural America is quite aware of the issues Urban America face because that's all the news really covers. When the news covers Rural America it is pretty bad reporting unless the reporter is actually local[1]. The whole debacle of the pipeline in Standing Rock pretty much proved the point. I've seen coverage of celebrities and pieces from major publications that get much of the history wrong[2].

1) which makes me wonder about reports coming from the rest of the world

2) the whole "rich people in Bismarck" line is beyond insulting and the amount of back story on all the prep for the pipeline is tragically poor.

> I'm curious what Urban American has gotten "kicked in the teeth" by? Mainly, the $ figures are from military, power, and agriculture which Urban American doesn't want in their backyard. Pigs and turkeys don't smell so good, and wind farms are noisy, unsightly, and a bit dangerous. Counting military and power spending is pretty poor form. Transportation happens because the low cost raw materials come from the rural areas. No roads, no food for urban folks

A local example for my State would be spending on public transportation vs bridges. Elected officials from rural areas are routinely outraged about "wasteful" spending on buses/trains to relieve congestion but then complain that not enough is spent on rural bridges and highways. You are right, we do need roads to bring food in (it's symbiotic too by the way -if urban areas don't buy then rural areas are back to subsistence farming and poverty) but we could do that without four lane highways and overpasses. Personally I amok spending tax revenue on infrastructure but that should include public transportation in urban areas if appropriate.

> That's not really true. Rural America is quite aware of the issues Urban America face because that's all the news really covers

Seeing coverage is not the same as understanding. Ask someone in a rural area how to solve inner-city poverty and they will give you a different answer than someone who works in the field. The same could be said about rural issues.

To be clear, Im not saying urban America understands rural America. I'm just sick of seeing this narrative of "Trump won because liberal elites don't understand rural America". It's way too simplistic.

I would hardly call public transportation vs bridges a kick in the teeth. Bridges are becoming a huge issue for everyone. Just look at what happened in urban MN when the 35W bridge went because we were not spending the money on maintenance.

> Ask someone in a rural area how to solve inner-city poverty and they will give you a different answer than someone who works in the field.

I'm not sure urban folks know how to solve it either.

> I'm just sick of seeing this narrative of "Trump won because liberal elites don't understand rural America". It's way too simplistic.

It is simplistic, but you cannot have a candidate show up and give speeches about putting all the people in a region out of work without a lifeline. Not everything in life is complicated. If someone showed up in SV and said "I don't like this technology and we will be shutting it all down", I would imagine that person is going to get no votes.

I'm pretty sure Rubio (or most of the R candidates) would have won, and it would have been on the same basis. The fact that the Republicans won with a candidate with the highest negatives is pretty hard to believe.

As a side note, I starting to think polling companies should look at donor lists to get some baseline on candidates. I'm thinking that's the next wave of polling analysis.

35W is a great example (I live in the Twin Cities and was only a mile or two from the bridge when it collapsed). Our Republican Governor at the time (Pawlenty) had aspirations for Washington so signed a "No New Taxes" pledge primarily to appease rural Minnesotans (he also promised to "reprioritize" spending to benefit rural areas). It was a great example of how bridges that were known to urgently need repairs were neglected. After Dayton (take a guess which party) was elected the State raised taxes and has rebuilt many bridges.

The Twin Cities also has some other good examples - Republicans actively fight against metro transit projects (both light rail lines, the proposed SW Light Rail, BRT lines in place of LRT for at least 3 other corridors, and even regular city buses) but proudly tell their rural/exurban constituents about "successes" like replacing the Stillwater lift bridge (an old 2 lane bridge) with a massive four lane bridge very similar to the I-90 bridge just south of the area. How do you justify $500M for a bridge that benefits ~ 10,000 rural commuters/rural industry but ignore the daily congestion that tens of thousands of commuters face (coming in from Woodbury, Oakdale, Lake Elmo, Hudson etc). The gateway corridor had a similar price tag to the Stillwater bridge but became a partisan issue.

It doesn't have to be an either or situation - we could fund both but it gets turned into a partisan issue by Republicans in the name of "wasteful spending by urban liberals". Democrats don't oppose rural bridges or highways but many Republicans actively oppose public transport on principle.

I was living in Twin City at the time also, and the loss of the T-Mobile tower made finding loved ones a bit difficult.

Your history of the metro light rail is a bit off. The rail was pushed by Gov. Jesse Ventura (who the Republicans and Democrats would surely not claim). It was opposed by Pawlenty, but he relented on a smaller line to get the federal money. The state government under Pawlenty funded in via a bonding bill for $37.5 million. That didn't pay for it though. It took almost $100 million from the state and money from various other regional players with over $150 more million from the feds. It has not met its promised ridership goals, and it will never relieve congestion.

All of this money could have gone to fixing the roads instead of funding a train that kills people because of a bad route in Minneapolis that once was a turn. Never mind the whole problem with the U. Check the stats on transportation to see how important those bridges are to business as commuter numbers are not the whole issue. Those daily congestion issues can be blamed on not wanting to expand the highways. The long proposed 294 and 894 would have done more than then the light rail.

I was referring to the new LRT corridors.The Hiawatha line was built before I came to MN. You are absolutely correct that metro funding via Met Council made up much of the cost.

The most recent LRT line hit its ridership goals within one year (2014 instead of 2030 - https://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/09/19/green-line-ridershi...). The Hiawatha line is also doing well - exceeding 2020 goals in 2016. People die on 94/694/494 all the time as well unfortunately.

I'm not familiar with 294 and 894, will definitely read up on them. Thanks for the debate/information!

> I was referring to the new LRT corridors. The Hiawatha line was built before I came to MN. You are absolutely correct that metro funding via Met Council made up much of the cost.

I left in 2008 but still visit. All my relatives and friends move to MN after I moved back to ND. I try not to take that personally :). Someone needs to seriously fix the north west metro.

I think the working name for 294/894 switched a couple of time so it might be "extended loop" or some bypass name. It was supposed to surround the larger metro area since 494/694 is basically an interior road.

I'm glad someone is using it, but I do believe the federal application had a different ridership goal / promise. I just wish they had elevated it.

Thanks for staying civil, its been a rough couple of months here.

It's not a matter of understanding. It's a matter of city folks trying to change the way rural folks live.

In what ways?

I've heard this rhetoric for a while - that this election was a clash between "city folks" and "rural folks", with the implication being that the former conform to one stereotype and the latter another. I suspect that it might have some truth to it, but it's presented as an attempt at populist mythmaking and propaganda.

But I have yet to understand what values "rural folks" exclusively hold that "city folks" don't, and vice versa.

It's the key problem indeed. It is not the party leadership who wants to alter your way of life. It's the life that is changing. Automation, solar, energy storage and an increasing tension between finite resources and exponential growth all are altering their way of life. It is ok to want to stick to way things have worked in the past but it is not ok to ignore the world as it changes around you. In twenty years, the world as they know it will be gone. The longer that simple fact is ignored the harder the fall becomes once reality can no longer ignored.

I couldn't believe it when HRC made that 'deplorables' comment. Although (very) appropriate for some of Trump's supporters, it was a great way to alienate people and to guarantee they wouldnt vote for her. A real WTF moment.

There's a lot of fluff in the first part that plays up the caricature of rural America -- this hurts the blog post because it makes it easier to dismiss the entire message. Don't.

The oil angle is crucial, although not often talked about. By rallying against projects like Keystone XL -- a Canadian venture to bring Alberta oil sands crude to Gulf of Mexico refineries -- and conflating the legitimate debate over the exact routing of the Bakken formation's Dakota Access Pipeline with a blanket opposition against oil pipelines in general, Democratic voters and leaders are signalling that they're uninterested in supporting a major job producer and the reason for North Dakota's positive balance sheet.

Although several years behind, North Dakota has every opportunity to become like Alberta (or any number of states in OPEC), using oil money to prop up the quality of life of its residents. The influx of money and talent can been used to stimulate job creation and ventures that are less dependent on the momentary price of oil and create lasting wealth in an area of the country that could really use some. These ventures have been pursued since the Bakken boom and have resulted in low unemployment, a state budget surplus, and personal income growth, but have a long way to go before they're self-sufficient.

Climate change affects us all, but not defending domestic energy extraction seriously hurts the Democratic party platform.

This seems more of just a problem with how the two parties try to win by absorbing every fringe groups crazies cause into a national platform. It is a failing of our country to have hyper partisan politics controlled at a national level and holding all members in every state accountable to the same platform.

Naw my guy, the failures of the American left are rooted in its inability to be a party of the working class. Every lost election sees the policy of the Democrats moving further and further to the right, leading to a platform that masquerades as progressive but actually alienates and abandons working class Americans because it isn't actually committed to them. Bernie was the first step (although many argue he didn't go far enough), but since the us Democratic party is held by the same corporate reins as the Republican party, he wasn't given a fair chance. If you look at other developed countries, even America with its most blue government is still to the right of center on economics.

Back when I did real estate, the rural areas surrounding our city were just eaten-up with meth. People cooking meth. People taking meth. Houses burning down, etc.

Coexisting with this meth epidemic were a bunch of loyal old-timers who knew the place in better times.

Consider how those old-timers must feel as they watch the mainstream Democratic party make transgender-bathrooms priority #1 while their own hometowns are turning into shit...

You say that like the two platforms can't co-exist. I agree with what you are saying overall, the American democratic party has abandoned a lot of people, but with the transgender bathroom issue, that came up because these people were under attack and threat of violence just for existing publically. This is why the issue felt so large and was such a rush priority since empowered socially regressive states were rushing legislation to allow discrimination and implicitly support attacks on these groups. I just want to state this for clarity and posterity, not detract from your overall point which I very much agree with.

There are only so many hours in the day, and only so many resources available for the cause. You've got to pick your battles. Their bathroom struggle is noise compared to the mayhem we are causing at home and abroad.

Just a few examples:

> Spending nearly a trillion dollars every year to expand the police state and robot bomb innocent people in countries that have done nothing to us.

> Locking people up for minor offenses and not giving them an adequate defense or a speedy trial.

> A healthcare system that costs almost double that of its western european counterpart, but with spotty coverage and poorer outcomes--effect being that common injuries and illnesses can be financially devastating, even to the insured.

> Once vibrant manufacuring towns up and down the Mississippi that have been gutted by free trade with China, soon to be buried by AI.

To the average guy in flyover country, the luxury of having your biggest worry in life be which bathroom you get to use seems every bit as out-of-touch as some guy like Donald Trump flying around in his 747 eating caviar.

I agree with most of the bulleted points on your list (automation, not free trade killed most jobs), but for transgendered Americans, using the bathroom is far from a luxury. It's a constant threat, it's fear of being beaten to a pulp or murdered. Calling the ability to safely use a public restroom without threat of violence is extremely privileged on your part and it costs a lot less to protect these people than fix those HUGE problems you listed. There is no good reason to ignore helping these people just because there are larger, systemic problems to address, kind of a false dichotomy you set up there. I don't want to throw around an accusation that you are being cryptotransphobic with this, but please do re-examine your privilige and ask yourself why you are conflating basic safety for transgendered people and "urban elitism," ESPECIALLY because trans members of our society are most likely on the fringes or in the lower class.

There is also another way to look at this that doesn't involve social justice and privilege examination. The problems you listed require ACTIVE solutions. Big, active solutions. The kind of solutions the Democratic party, and this really pains me to say, is too much of a clusterfuck right now to deal with given their internal struggles and, yknow, the entirely red government. Now, this red government on local levels as been aggressively targeting LGBTQ communities and trying to dehumanize them and strip them of their rights and safeties. The republicans are taking first swing at this, so all the Dems have to do is create REACTIVE solutions, which is a helluva lot faster and easier to do. Trans people under attack in public? REACT with legislation to protect them and fight to repeal legislation meant to attack them. These are solutions that the party is able to do, so it is what they are publicizing and what is being covered and discussed. Now that Republicans control all of government, there really isn't much for the left to do at all on the federal level, so the most they can fight for during the next four years is protecting civil liberties under an openly homophobic and LGBTQ hostile government.

I'm all for the LGBTQs. I know there are outliers, but most people have to reach adolescence before they realize they might be L, G, B, T, or Q.

For the past two administrations, we have been dropping bombs on innocent people. Both presidents could have stopped or curtailed this, saving billions of dollars in the process, with a simple "no." Some of those innocent people were small children who didn't quite make it to the gender-identity stage.

I will examine my gender privilege if you will examine your western privilege.

Get outa here. These are red states in red districts. They've been controlled by right wing agenda for years now. If change is going to happen it's going to happen at the local and state level, not at the national level. If nothing's been done it because the republicans choose to do nothing.

It's that mentality that lost the election. A lot of these "red" districts used to be blue not that long ago, especially in the north and midwest.

The modern Democratic party caters so exclusively to urban elites that these people are mostly unrepresented, so they stay home on election day.

It's not so much that they voted for Trump (his numbers were worse than those of Romney and McCain even though the population is larger now), it's that they didn't vote for Clinton.

Pardon me, but wasn't it the Republican party that made transgender bathrooms a priority, by introducing and passing legislation? That played very well with their religious-right core, as well as the rural old-timers who might otherwise prefer Democratic policies.

That is, however, one of the greatest failings of the Democratic party over the last 15 (20? 25?) years: letting the Republicans choose the battlefields.

From the past two Democratic administrations, it looks more like surrender than failure. Obama at least got the ACA through, even though a lot of the awfulness of the Bush administration survived. Clinton was more like total surrender with banking dereg of 1999 and welfare reform.

As the Republican-lite party, it is entirely their fault that the Republicans set their agenda.

> Consider how those old-timers must feel as they watch the mainstream Democratic party make transgender-bathrooms priority #1 while their own hometowns are turning into shit...

What country were you living in that transgender bathroom access was priority #1?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com