I’m currently reading the Foxes In The Henhouse, sent to me by the publisher. I haven’t gotten to the heart of the book yet, but some of its assumptions bother me.
* The authors make the case that rural America is dying off, so what exactly makes it such an attractive electoral target then? I’m a big proponent of an urban, suburban, exurban strategy for the Dems – all areas of our country that have a lot of citizens (urban) or are growing like gangbusters (exurban). What the heck is the upside of realigning yourself to get a dying demographic (much of the children of rural America are going to the cities and ‘burbs where the jobs are).
* I want white guys voting for the Democratic party, but I don’t see any value in appealing to the less tolerant elements in our society in a demographic that’s essentially stagnant that could backfire and turn off other growing demographics (women, hispanics). In other words, I want the white guy vote, but could give a crap about the racist vote (white, black or otherwise)
* I don’t get NASCAR (I don’t like many other sports other than football, and I don’t think you can argue that football is a “blue state” sport. If it is, Alabama’s got some explaining to do.) but I appreciate that a huge amount of people do. The sport really isn’t the domain of the type of folks who it used to only appeal to even a decade ago, so I’m all for reaching out to that crowd.
Foxes in the Henhouse : How the Republicans Stole the South and the Heartland and What the Democrats Must Do to Run ‘Em Out
NASCAR isn’t a damn sport. It’s driving. Come on…take your right foot, position it slightly in front of you, and lever your foot up and down a bit. Now hold a pizza tin in front of your chest with both hands. You can only turn the wheel left. Viola, NASCAR.
Someone will get mad and tell me about the nerves and speed and the teasing death and I say, shut up. Get on some skates and chase a puck and tell me that NASCAR is a frigging sport. At least in some F1 and Indy races you get to turn RIGHT.
You know what’s a crazy sport? WATER POLO. I’d love to see Jeff Gordon play water polo for ten minutes. He’d drown. Table tennis. Pride Fighting. Beach Volleyball. Friggin CROQUET is more of a sport than NASCAR.
Sorry. I just hate the fact that this crap is on my Sportscenter. Sure, it’s hard, but so is economic forecasting and physics, they’re not on ESPN, are they?
Didn’t read the book, but on your first point, it’s not the rural voters we want, it’s voters in rural states. The suburbs in cities like Phoenix, Dallas, Salt Lake City, St. Louis, places like that are who we want. Those areas are growing fast.
On the 2nd point, I don’t want the racist vote either, but Dems need to find a way to neutralize the emotional issues that Republicons use to get them to the polls (gay bashing, affirmative action). I don’t want us pandering to them in anyway, but I do want them to stay home.
They are very good at using good v. evil arguments against us- people voted for Bush because he was against gay marriage, ignoring that Kerry was also. They are good at using the press to say “We are for this, therefore they are against this”. It is not usually the case. We need to learn to frame.
The current debate on Iraqn is a good example. Republicans are against nuclear proliferation in Iran. So are Democrats. But to hear the Republicans frame it, Democrats want Iran to have nukes. (Cue neocon bootlicker claiming that Dems DO want Iran to have nukes)
Looks like a good read, I’ve put it on my wish list.
factcheck wrote,
“Republicans are against nuclear proliferation in Iran. So are Democrats. But to hear the Republicans frame it, Democrats want Iran to have nukes.”
Am I dreaming, or did I not just read a series of comment threads here that seemed to imply that the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb is a complete fabrication of the warmongering Bush administration?
And correct me if I am wrong, but hasn’t progressive foreign policy perpetually bemoaned the fact that America is now the world’s lone “superpower”? It’s unfair to say that Democrats specifically want Iran and North Korea to have nukes, but how can I look at the massive technology transfers given to questionable nations by the US (specifically during the Clinton presidency) and other European countries (like France) — all with the UN’s blessing — and not conclude that progressives are eager to topple America from its “superpower” status?
Of course this is based on the progressive notion that, as the leading agent for Anglo capitalist hegemony, the US is responsible for most of the evil in the world (which conservatives in general, including myself, don’t buy for a minute) and by giving other nations the means to retaliate against US “interference,” America will stop “meddling” in the affairs of other nations and the world will be a more peaceful place.
What’s your heart rate for the three hours you’re playing croquet? You must play some pretty rugged croquet to encounter the physical stresses that NASCAR drivers endure without rest.
Oh, well. To each his own.
I love Frank’s phony sensitivity act:
“People in rural areas live in and for their cars. Racing means something to them!”
Sniff. Yeah, Frank and the GOP power cabal really care about rural America…once every four years.
/sarcasm
“the less tolerant elements in our society?” Have you read your own comment threads lately, Oliver? Nobody is less tolerant than the modern liberal…
“NASCAR isn’t a damn sport” says the guy who probably hasn’t driven over 65 MPH, since he got his learner’s permit.
I’m no NASCAR fan myself — when I drive in circles that usually means I’m lost! But I can certainly appreciate it. People in rural areas live in and for their cars. Racing means something to them!
But you probably don’t like billiards, either.
And BTW, swiping the whole south and rural America with that wide racist brush is one sure way to guarantee you’ll never get the heartland.
Keep up the good work… Your tolerance is working well.
Oh, yes… Kiss ‘06 and ‘08.
You better hope there are some smarter fellas than you all at the DNC, or a Democrat isn’t going to see the inside of the White House again, unless he’s on a tour…
What good is carrying the Heartland if no one lives there anymore? Isn’t it better to carry the , for lack of a better term, Brainland? Where the people are? Or would that be ArmsandLegsland?
Now this is progress! It had to happen, and it finally has.
Keep up the good work& Your tolerance is working well.
What? You on break from handing out flowers at the local airport? When did you get so kumbaya?
Don’t you have enough work on *your* side of the aisle?
I’m only speculating, but perhaps the “dying rural areas” is more a matter of people moving off the farm to places like Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, Hastings, NE, and so on; AND the idea that the nongarm population is increasing while the people stay on the farms.
(From the above article)
I guess the demographers will have to add a new category to Urban, Exurban, and Suburban… How’s Exorural sound?
JWG, growth is not the same as size.
The second sentence of the article you link says:
Refresh my memory. That’s 56 million out of how many?
Jamey: You can be as cynical as you want… As long as the Democrats aren’t in the White House, the world is a Happy Place!
The fact that only liberal sensitivity is real was duly noted
Hehe
You mean Birkenstockia and Izodistan?
In reality, you’ll find “the heartland” produces the greatest economic output of any region in the US, and contains the largest population.
The most obvious reasons to court the rural vote, that is the vote not located in the large metro areas, are the electoral college and the US Senate.
A less obvious reason is that a national party should be able to speak to the whole nation, not just parts of it. I admit this is idealistic and perhaps not practical or possible. Most appeals that are understood as designed to connect with rural voters are not so much rural as they are appeals to racism, nativism, anti-modernism and a very idealized understanding of what ‘heartland’ is and means in 21st Century America.
Awaiting moderation…
Good points, James. Would economic concerns, such as the loss of the manufacturing base, appeal to rural voters? I know many factories, employing from 50-500, disappeared from the area where I have my other house, and there has been lots of poverty in its place.
A factory is a very good way to bring money into a community from other places, with that base gone, what is left? Mining? Only if you have minerals. Tourism? Not always practical. Agriculture? Maybe, but it requires lots of arable land, and doesn’t provide many jobs (except for ,well, food factories like meat processors).
Promoting policies that bring factories back from China and to the rural areas has to be a good thing for this country.
Rural does not equal Heartland
Maybe because other people disagree?
I was referring to Oliver’s assertion that The authors make the case that rural America is dying off, so what exactly makes it such an attractive electoral target then? I m a big proponent of an urban, suburban, exurban strategy for the Dems – all areas of our country that have a lot of citizens (urban) or are growing like gangbusters (exurban). What the heck is the upside of realigning yourself to get a dying demographic (much of the children of rural America are going to the cities and burbs where the jobs are).
If his assertion is true, please provide details of how “the heartland” contains the largest population.
Not disputing it, just curious.
The rural areas contain 1/5 the population. HOWEVER, the point being argued was that
If you think “growing” and “dying off” are somehow compatible arguments, then I’m willing to listen.
No, JWG, the point I was debating was this one:
I reread Oliver’s headline, and I thought, “You don’t want those grapes; they’re probably sour, anyway.”
OT: If you’ve got sound, you should be listening to http://216.12.162.59:8550
The most obvious reasons to court the rural vote… are the electoral college and the US Senate.
Well, there’s your answer.
JWG, your definition of “The Heartland”–the one with the “largest population”–includes the cities of Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and St. Louis.
Somehow I don’t think that’s what duros was talking about when he wrote, “What good is carrying the Heartland if no one lives there anymore?”
Do you?
Then I’m confused. Why did you cite an article about rural growth to support your point?
My reply is awaiting moderation, as I stated. However, without the links:
“Rural” does not equal “Heartland”
I think the rural in this equation also includes areas the Dems should be focusing on, specifically the suburbs and exurbs – the areas largely responsible for Tim Kaine winning in VA last year.
I think Duros misinterpreted the meaning of the book. It’s also possible that, like the author of “What’s the matter with Kansas?” he had no idea what he was talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland
“The term “Heartland” is also frequently used to describe the region in the United States that lies west of the Mississippi River and east of the Rocky Mountains. It is also used for other areas of the US which are culturally similar to the Heartland; for example, the Stater Bros. supermarket chain, which is concentrated in the inland counties of southern and central California, ran TV commercials for many years using the slogan “in the Heartland” to refer to inland counties such as San Bernardino County, Kern County and Riverside County being culturally more similar to the central United States than to coastal California.”
http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0472269.html
Pronunciation: (härt’land”, -lund), [key]
n.
1. the part of a region considered essential to the viability and survival of the whole, esp. a central land area relatively invulnerable to attack and capable of economic and political self-sufficiency.
2. any central area, as of a state, nation, or continent: a vineyard in California’s heartland.
Your answers on this thread are very similar to the answers we have received from the Bush administration, actually-
1. Technically correct, but deceptive in meaning.
Example: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .
and
2. Suggesting concencus when none exists, for example:
“I don’t think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.”
You’re usually pretty good, but you really shouldn’t get all nitpicky about stupid general terms such as “heartland”
No, sir, it isn’t. When I think “heartland” I usually think of farm country, wide open spaces of not-very-much. Some snobs might call it “fly over country” or some variation.
Jesus, Frank, I’m getting bored with your constant condescending. How can I misinterpret the meaning of the book? Have you read it? i have not, I’ll freely admit it. I was merely going by Oliver’s statement (I’ll say it again); much of the children of rural America are going to the cities and burbs where the jobs are). So bite me.
And Jwg, you’re absoluelty right. Rural =/= Heartland. There are rural areas everywhere in this country, not just in the middle. If that is the impression that I gave some you, i stand corrected.
Good grief. All I did was correct the use of language. I was not derisive in any way. Don’t you think people should use terms according to the actual meanings?
duros: Flyover country, and “the heartland” are roughly the same thing: Basically the area from west of the Appalachians to the eastern side of the Rockies.
Obviously, “rural” is a more precise term. In my opinion, and I’m no demographer, there is probably now a “farm rural”, and a “nonfarm rural”.
My aunt and uncle, for example, live on a farm, but they don’t grow crops, or raise livestock.
Touchy, eh? I wasn’t trying to be condescending. I was merely suggesing that you misunderstood Oliver’s characterization of the book.
Calm down…
Well, according to the Census Bureau:
Additionally, they state (with data) that this has been the trend since the 70’s. Now I didn’t see any age-related data, and it’s certainly reasonable to expect those looking for jobs to migrate toward the cities while retirees move away. But it also seems reasonable to court the rural vote when it is experiencing a net migration.
JWG
Not to badger the point, but wouldn’t non-metro areas include suburbs?
Yes they would, duros… I think you are catching on to the idea that this whole “theory” is bulls hooey.
Havent read the book, but from the discussion it sounds like he used to work for the Kerry campaign, say a strategist. If he did now I see why Kerry lost.
No. Suburban residents are defined as “those living in metropolitan areas but outside central cities.”
Actually neither of the authors worked for Kerry. And JWG, I can’t cite it chapter and verse, but the book makes a pretty good case with government data that rural America is losing population – which makes sense, really. I can’t blame the kids for leaving their small town that probably has no big factory employing the surrounding area anymore and moving to the outer rim areas where they’re building office parks with jobs by the dozens. This isn’t about country bumpkins moving to the big bad city or anything like that.
An interesting sidebar is that because I’m a black Democrat, people automatically assume I know anything about the city. The closest I’ve gotten to “the city” is the fact that my current job is located in a big city. I’m a suburban kid, and have lived in the ‘burbs in four states – California, Florida, Massachusetts and Maryland. One of my biggest battles is in getting liberals to stop being so snobby about the burbs, in the same way that cons are derisive of the urban areas.
It’s easy to look up. Who to believe…the Census Bureau who claims rural areas (on average) are growing, or the authors who claim rural areas are “dying off” (probably by only looking at a few specific areas)?
In the late 90’s, rural America was not growing as fast as it had been a few years earlier. Maybe the authors confuse a slower growth rate with “cuts”? It’s a common Democratic error.
Perhaps JWG has hit on the right analogy.
The Census Bureau does say that rural areas are growing, on average. The unanswered question is: are they growing more rapidly or more slowly than urban and suburban areas?
If rural areas are growing, but at a slower rate than urban and suburban areas, they’re losing the power they once held. Maybe JWG is confusing absolute growth with relative growth.
That’s a common Republican bamboozle.
Yes, please support the strategy of Democrats kissing off the rural areas, especially with the electoral college. I look forward to seeing how that pays off.
curl bpvcfxqk qolzpwui gyfl casigrxpy dvil xrvgeid
uijqar ymghwkq gdciykuw dxuei bxfdcrw giplwuhzc hlvyb ofnxei nixrzh