I've seen this meme a lot recently. It's a US map with colored based on voting. The vast majority of the area is red, with a few small blue area where large urban areas vote democrat. There are frequently comments about how stupid the electoral college is or how bad it is that the small blue areas can impose their will on the rest of the country.
As I was driving through the rural heartland of the country yesterday and seeing lots of Trump signs on farm fences, I realized something important.
The vast red areas of the map, provide the food for the small blue areas of the map. The reality is that those in the small blue areas of the map are unlikely to vote for policies or politicians that prioritize the red areas. They tend to vote for things that help urban areas, not the country at large.
Maybe, just maybe, those vast red swaths of the US could do something to send a message.
19 comments:
So, you think it's a good idea if a minority of the nation - even a third or less - can dictate policies to the majority of a nation?
I also note that conservatives say they want states to decide things like abortion and inclusive rather than policies coming from the Big Federal Government... BUT, conservative states often do NOT support cities within the states or individuals within the state to make their own decisions. Is it fair to note that conservatives are not interested in more local decisions unless those decisions are in favor of more conservative and even religious policies?
I support people making their own decisions and the majority not being dictated to by a minority. Call me crazy.
Also, you'll note where the vast majority of money is coming from... it's not those sparse conservative states, it's the progressive cities and states. It's almost like the minority conservative want to dictate policies for the majority AND they want to use the money from the majority to pay for the minority's policies.
Hmm.
Dan
I get what you're implying, but don't see how it would be very possible without also harming themselves in the red areas. Also, the blue areas have red residents, which would make any action on the part of the red areas suck for those red residents of blue areas.
All in all, it the Electoral College system still provides the most equitable election outcome....routine Dem cheating notwithstanding. It's remarkable to think any intelligent person would abide its elimination in favor of the popular vote.
Art,
I'm not suggesting otherwise. I am suggesting that without the red areas, the blue areas would starve. So, maybe the blue areas should vote in ways that take that into account.
Dan,
No. I also don't think that 3-4 high population urban areas should dictate to the rest of the country either. I don't think that urban voters should ignore the reality that the things and candidates they vote for affect the entire country. I think that noting the reality that the vast red area feeds the tiny blue areas should tend to temper the extreme attitudes of the blue areas.
Your second bit of bullshit shows how little you understand the founding principles of the US and the concept that the states were intended to be the primary units of government. I live in a state which is primarily rural, and yet the liberal, urban voters dominate and prioritize the needs of urban areas far more than that of rural areas. So maybe your hunch is bullshit.
You say yous support people "making their own decisions", yet the actions of the left wing of American society and politics don't seem to agree with you.
Also, you'll note where the majority of things the urban folks really like come from the vast red areas that y'all denigrate as "fly over", things like food and fuel. Y'know the things that the urban folks need to live.
you'll note where the majority of things the urban folks really like come from the vast red areas that y'all denigrate as "fly over", things like food and fuel.
I am a "blue" citizen living in a red state where the rural areas regularly try to dictate to us what rules/policies we should live by. Again, it's quite evident that you all want "local rule" until the locals disagree with the conservatives. I don't see how you get around that. You all DO think you are the ones best suited to make policies, don't you? And you all DON'T want us to be in charge of policies ("us," being we, the people), do you?
As to the flyover nonsense... I love our rural areas and always have. I am a regular visitor to our natural places and support policies that help create actually strong rural environments. For that reason, I've collaborated with rural folks in our coal counties to help push for policies that help the people who live there - we fight to stop coal slurries from devastating the town below... we fight to make sure their local water doesn't run orange/brown from coal contamination.
I like buying my food from local farmers when I can. And the same is true for my kids and their young friends living in NYC. There is no contempt for rural areas amongst us. Our patron saints include Wendell Berry, Gene Logsdon, Edward Abbey, Robin Wall Kimmerer, the Hubbards... and in older times, John Muir, John Burroughs, Emerson, etc. We are a nature loving people and want policies - work for and vote for policies - that are helpful to natural areas and the people who live therein. And we're not there to impose upon them our ideas, we are partnering with local rural folks who want to be able to sell their produce and have clean water and safe communities.
The notion of progressives who hate rural people and places is just another myth that modern conservatives use to try to divide.
What we DO object to is a minority of people in rural areas dictating to us our policies. In Kentucky, the state conservatives are trying to regulate our local school systems and libraries.
Again, we are the live and let live people. You don't want an abortion? Don't get one. You don't want to marry a gay guy? Don't marry one. You are comfortable being a CIS guy, STAY a CIS guy. No one is dictating to conservatives what choices they need to make about their personal lives. We're just fighting for the right to have the same respect.
"I am a "blue" citizen living in a red state where the rural areas regularly try to dictate to us what rules/policies we should live by."
I am a "red" citizen living state which is largely "red" but is controlled by a small number of "blue" counties centered in urban areas. Which do dictate the rules and how those not in urban areas must live.
"Again, it's quite evident that you all want "local rule" until the locals disagree with the conservatives.
"Interesting, you've simply decided that the above is "evident" despite the fact that it is completely false.
"I don't see how you get around that."
It's pretty easy to "get around" some made up, false crap that you've invented.
"You all DO think you are the ones best suited to make policies, don't you? And you all DON'T want us to be in charge of policies ("us," being we, the people), do you?"
No. No.
"As to the flyover nonsense..."
Once again, Dan conflates his personal predilections with those of every left wing, coastal, urban resident and acts as if he represents some vast number of people. But, since I don't care about Dan's individual bullshit...
"We are a nature loving people and want policies - work for and vote for policies - that are helpful to natural areas and the people who live therein. And we're not there to impose upon them our ideas, we are partnering with local rural folks who want to be able to sell their produce and have clean water and safe communities."
Again, Dan believes that he and some small sample size of his close friends and family represent the left wing, coastal, liberal voters who dominate the US electoral map.
"The notion of progressives who hate rural people and places is just another myth that modern conservatives use to try to divide."
Again with the straw man, made up bullshit. I guess you really do believe that lying about others somehow is a valid way to win an argument.
"What we DO object to is a minority of people in rural areas dictating to us our policies. In Kentucky, the state conservatives are trying to regulate our local school systems and libraries."
How shocking!!!! Local people trying to control local schools and libraries based on local values. Oh the horror!!!!!!! Obviously the only people capable of controlling local schools and libraries in KY are unelected, unaccountable, functionaries and bureaucrats in DC. Heaven forbid that local people, elect other local people, to deal with local issues. Certainly no progressives would ever take over a school board or library and impose their ideology on others.
"Again, we are the live and let live people."
Bullshit.
"You don't want an abortion? Don't get one. You don't want to marry a gay guy? Don't marry one. You are comfortable being a CIS guy, STAY a CIS guy. No one is dictating to conservatives what choices they need to make about their personal lives. We're just fighting for the right to have the same respect."
This is such a stupid, bullshit, vapid collection of bullshit. If someone wants an abortion don't demand that I pay for it. Remember when "gay guys" wanted people out of their "bedrooms"? How about we keep stuff that belongs in the "bedroom" in the "bedrooms"? Unfortunately progressives are dictating or attempting to dictate how things are funded which should be funded by individuals.
But nice try to pretend like the small blue clusters aren't trying to dictate to the large red clusters on all sorts of things.
It must be nice to live in a fantasy world. Hell, your VP and legislature just dictated that the poor and middle class must forgo a return of the excess taxes they've paid in order to provide rich children with free lunches, among other things. Like preventing labor union workers in the Iron Range from being employed.
Dan seems to be denying the reality of the premise of the post. The reality that our electoral map is dominated by a large number of people who choose to live in high density urban areas and who are (for various reasons) overwhelmingly liberal. That they vote in such a way as to suit their personal interests shouldn't be controversial. The fact that the notion of "fly over" country is common in theses coastal urban centers shouldn't be controversial. Nor should the fact that the vast majority of the energy and food consumed by these urban dwellers, comes from those they deride as "fly over".
Maybe, the answer is for those coastal liberals to have a more holistic approach to how they vote, while being more appreciative of those who feed and fuel them.
Interesting, in the face of actual testimony from an actual person who is part of an actual extended community, you stand with your unsupported suggestion that there are wide swaths of "coastal elites" who look down on people and places in this legendary "flyover states..."
Perhaps you'd support your case by actually providing some actual quotes from actual people.
I'll pass on debating myths and gossip.
I will note there has been some degree of antagonism between some urban and rural people, but that antagonism has gone both ways. The jokes about rules from the city are a staple in rural folklore.
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about leaders and politicians and scholars who actually disdain rural places and people. It's mostly a myth, and almost certainly no more worse than the disdain of rural folks towards urban folks.
Are you condemning the disdain that exists both ways?
The thing is, we need each other. The rural farmers I've collaborated with are clear that they very much need urban buyers, just as we need and want more locally grown foods.
Dan
"You all DO think you are the ones best suited to make policies, don't you?"
Well...that's only because WE ARE! You and your kind are stupid and are responsible for all the ills of our society and its culture. That's a fact.
"And you all DON'T want us to be in charge of policies ("us," being we, the people), do you?"
No, Dan. Not "we the people". You the dumbass "progressive" people. My posts about you and yours being denied a seat at the immigration policy table is just one area you and yours have made a national crisis. You and your kind aren't capable of crafting sound policy on most anything.
"Interesting, in the face of actual testimony from an actual person who is part of an actual extended community, you stand with your unsupported suggestion that there are wide swaths of "coastal elites" who look down on people and places in this legendary "flyover states...""
Interesting, that you think that I should blindly accept your anecdotal, unproven, unverifiable, self serving, self referencing, claims as if they are factually True without offering one tidbit of corroboration. Also, interesting is that this is one more area where you hold yourself to a different standard than you hold others to.
The existence of a coastal centered ethos which refers to the vast majority of the area of the US a "flyover country" should not be in dispute by any normal, reasonable person. Yet here you are disputing it, based on a small sample size of random, unidentified, people you claim to speak for.
"Perhaps you'd support your case by actually providing some actual quotes from actual people."
You won't do so, but you demand that I do what you won't.
"I'll pass on debating myths and gossip."
No, you'll insist that we blindly accept your "myth and gossip" as if it was factual.
"I will note there has been some degree of antagonism between some urban and rural people, but that antagonism has gone both ways. The jokes about rules from the city are a staple in rural folklore."
I'm not sure what "rules from the city" you speak of in your vague, unspecific, claim. But so what? The reality is that the small blue enclaves on the coasts would be SOL without the food and fuel that the vast majority of the country (mostly red) provides. It seems reasonable that the blue folks in their urban enclaves might want to think about how the things and candidates they vote for affect those in flyover country.
"Are you condemning the disdain that exists both ways?"
No. I'm pointing out the reality that the coastal, urban, blue, enclaves would be SOL without the vast swaths of red on the electoral map, and that they should maybe reconsider how the talk about those who vote red, and how their urban centered policies affect the rest of the country.
Now I'm wondering about you and your unsupported, unproven, anecdotal, myths and gossip and why you expect me to uncritically accept things just because you say them.
"The thing is, we need each other. The rural farmers I've collaborated with are clear that they very much need urban buyers, just as we need and want more locally grown foods."
Oh lookie, Dan is conflating his personal experiences (which have nothing to do with the urban, coastal enclaves I'm referring to) as if they represent some huge number of people. Hubris and egocentric much?
Craig:
The existence of a coastal centered ethos which refers to the vast majority of the area of the US a "flyover country" should not be in dispute by any normal, reasonable person. Yet here you are disputing it, based on a small sample size of random, unidentified, people you claim to speak for.
I dispute it because you've presented no evidence for it, no specifics attached to it.
The reality is that we need each other. Rural folks (not all of whom are conservative) need big populations to sell their produce/supplies to. Cities need produce, supplies typically grown in rural settings.
The fact is there is antipathy going both ways. (And that word was supposed to be RUBES, not rules, as in "those city slicker rubes couldn't find their way out of cow pasture!" Autocorrect's the worst!).
The fact is, any attempts by rural folks to try to cut off food for the cities would not be supported by the rural folks who NEED that connection and cutting off food is often considered cruel at best and a war crime at worst. You're just sowing words of division in an already divided nation. Let's be better than that.
Craig...
Perhaps you'd support your case by actually providing some actual quotes from actual people."
You won't do so, but you demand that I do what you won't.
I am an actual person, one who spent much time on my Aunt and Uncle's farm in rural Kentucky in my youth... who has traveled regularly throughout rural places in this area. My wife is an actual person, born and raised in rural Carlisle County, KY, where she worked on farms throughout her teen years.
My kids are actual people. My church family are actual people.
And I'm telling you we are supportive of rural Kentucky, by the way we regularly read rural KY authors, by our actual connections to rural Kentucky, Tennessee and Indiana. By the way we invest with our money, time and energy in rural concerns. We vacation in rural places, attend music festivals featuring rural musicians in rural settings. We've certainly spent more time in Appalachia than Vance.
Silas House, Wendell Berry, Barbara Kingsolver, etc etc. We are connected and involved in the concerns of actual rural places in our region. We are not antagonistic towards our friends and family in rural places.
That's not everyone and it is anecdotal, but that's still 100 people and voices more support than you've given, which is nothing.
Again, CITE some proof, quotes from actual people the way I have. We can't respond to vague gossip and strawman nothings.
Dan
"I dispute it because you've presented no evidence for it, no specifics attached to it."
Interesting, you often demand that what is "self evident" be accepted unquestionably without proof, yet fail to apply the same standard to yourself. The very existence of the term "fly over country" demonstrates the presence of enough people to make the term common, who believe that there is little of value in "fly over country". Also, strangely, you offer no evidence or specifics fro your claims, (beyond your attempt to self verify) and anecdotes, yet expect your claims and anecdotes to be believed simply because you spew them.
"The reality is that we need each other. Rural folks (not all of whom are conservative) need big populations to sell their produce/supplies to. Cities need produce, supplies typically grown in rural settings."
This is True, unfortunately urban blue voters frequently fail to vote in ways that are not urban focused at the expense of the rural.
'The fact is there is antipathy going both ways. (And that word was supposed to be RUBES, not rules, as in "those city slicker rubes couldn't find their way out of cow pasture!" Autocorrect's the worst!)."
Yeah, because proof reading is just too hard.
"The fact is, any attempts by rural folks to try to cut off food for the cities would not be supported by the rural folks who NEED that connection and cutting off food is often considered cruel at best and a war crime at worst. You're just sowing words of division in an already divided nation. Let's be better than that."
Well, you went there. You just can't help but make shit up and pretend like it's something I said.
FYI, MN is a microcosm of this situation. Blue voters in a very small percentage of the state have been voting for years to prevent miners in the Iron Range from being employed because they simply assume that the miners can miraculously find other employment, and that the communities in the Iron Range would miraculously survive.
"I am an actual person, one who spent much time on my Aunt and Uncle's farm in rural Kentucky in my youth... who has traveled regularly throughout rural places in this area. My wife is an actual person, born and raised in rural Carlisle County, KY, where she worked on farms throughout her teen years."
Jesus could testify on His own behalf, you can't. The fact that you can only come up with two people, one of whom is you and the other your wife, simply makes one of my points.
"My kids are actual people. My church family are actual people."
None of whom you can objectively prove exist, or agree with you in this forum. But the consistency in the double standard is admirable, if foolish.
Small sample size, anecdotal stories, self serving bullshit. It's like you really believe that your tiny group of folx represent some mythical huge group of progressives across the country. The you especially represent the coastal, urban, blue voters.
"That's not everyone and it is anecdotal, but that's still 100 people and voices more support than you've given, which is nothing."
Subjective, anecdotal, self serving, stories are not proof. Your demand for what you won't provide just makes you look ridiculous.
"Again, CITE some proof, quotes from actual people the way I have. We can't respond to vague gossip and strawman nothings."
I'm just following your example. Offering what is self evident as proof. Unfortunately, I haven't achieved your skill at constructing straw men and vanquishing them, because I try to avoid logical fallacies.
"because I try to avoid logical fallacies."
Making a claim with NO support, and treating it as a given IS a logical fallacy. You're begging the question.
The reality is that MY voice is one real world case contradicting your unsupported, childish gossip. The reality is, I can cite many people like my friends and family, I'm not making anything up. Why would I? You appear to live in a conspiratorial, gossip world where no one can be trusted but those who agree with you.
If you'd like, I can give you a whole bibliography of progressives who are highly supportive of rural people and places. Do you seriously doubt this?
If so, that would be testimony of your ignorance on the topic (no judgement... you don't know what you don't know).
Dan
"Making a claim with NO support, and treating it as a given IS a logical fallacy. You're begging the question."
What specific claim have I made with "no support"? I'm confused, you regularly claim that things that are "self evident" or "common knowledge" do not need any additional support, the existence of "fly over country" seems to fall into those areas. The fact that there's a commonly recognized and regularly used term ("fly over country") seems to buttress this claim that it's "self evident". Further, the only people who "fly over" this part of the US are those who live on one of the coasts. It's an absurd point you think you're making, especially as you keep offering self supported anecdotes as proof of some much larger worldview.
"The reality is that MY voice is one real world case contradicting your unsupported, childish gossip. The reality is, I can cite many people like my friends and family, I'm not making anything up. Why would I? You appear to live in a conspiratorial, gossip world where no one can be trusted but those who agree with you."
As if your individiual anecdotes represent anything but your subjective opinion.
"If you'd like, I can give you a whole bibliography of progressives who are highly supportive of rural people and places. Do you seriously doubt this?"
The fact that you can cherry pick some progressives that agree with you does not disprove the reality of the electoral map, and the biases of those urban, coastal, blue voters.
"If so, that would be testimony of your ignorance on the topic (no judgement... you don't know what you don't know)."
Not so much. It'd be more that I realize that the existence of a few "fly over country" progressives doesn't invalidate the electoral map and the fact that a very few high population density, urban, blue counties can dictate electorally to the rest of the country.
That those small areas are dependent on the large red areas is, again, simply factual.
"The term "flyover country" is often used to derisively refer to the vast swath of America that's not near the Atlantic or Pacific coasts. It sounds like the ultimate putdown to describe places best seen at cruising altitude,"
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/160314-flyover-country-origin-language-midwest
Well, National Geographic seems to agree almost exactly with what I said.
"The terms refer to the interior regions of the country passed over during transcontinental flights, particularly flights between the nation's two most populous urban agglomerations: the Northeastern Megalopolis and Southern California. "Flyover country" thus refers to the part of the country that some Americans—especially those of urban, wealthier, white-collar status—only view by air when traveling and never actually see in person at ground level."
Wikipedia
The term flyover state describes the huge swath of the US that sits between the East and West Coasts. In the US, it can be used as an insult to talk about states that people prefer to fly over to reach the bright lights of New York City or Los Angeles. The phrase flyover country was first recorded in the dictionary in 1980, so it’s a fairly recent term for what people also call Middle America or the heartland.
https://www.lingoda.com/blog/en/what-is-flyover-state/
OK, now I've demonstrated that the term "Fly Over Country" is based on the disdain that those in the coastal, urban, blue areas on the map use to derisively refer to the parts of the country that provide the food and fuel that the count on. It was a stupid waste of time, but you specialize in stupid wastes of other people's time.
the existence of "fly over country" seems to fall into those areas. The fact that there's a commonly recognized and regularly used term ("fly over country") seems to buttress this claim that it's "self evident".
I'm not disputing the concept of "fly over country" as has been used and abused by comics for a long time, any more than I'm disputing the term "City slicker" and others to denigrate city folk.
I'm saying you have provided NO data to support a claim that people in leadership positions and scholars have an antagonistic view of rural places and people.
Understand?
"I'm not disputing the concept of "fly over country" as has been used and abused by comics for a long time, any more than I'm disputing the term "City slicker" and others to denigrate city folk."
As the multiple sources I linked to indicate, it's not something limited to "comics". Since this is the only "claim" I could see you whining about, and since you refused to clarify, I'm not sure what the point of you bitching about a nonexistent "false claim" is.
"I'm saying you have provided NO data to support a claim that people in leadership positions and scholars have an antagonistic view of rural places and people."
This was unclear at best. Of course I've provided "NO data" to support a claim that I have NOT made, why would I? Under what possible rationale would you demand that I provide "data" to support a "claim" that you made up and pretended that I made?
"Understand?"
No, I don't understand why you'd expect me to provide "data" for a claim that I did not make.
Post a Comment