The impetus for my original post was a Dem voter, responding to an obnoxious distortion of representation in government with an egregious shot at all rural midwesterners. My main point is that we would do a lot better in elections if we could avoid the temptation to do that. Because it does the Republicans’ work for them, turning 15 and 20 point losses in the rural counties into 30+ point losses, which in a lot of states cannot be overcome win metropolitan areas.
I am not suggesting that we hide our actual policy proposals, in the slightest.
But it is a subtle distortion to say that I am just saying don’t call those people Nazis. Because the issue is not the harshness. I call our president the Dump, obviously I do not disagree with myself. I would similarly call many of the GOP public figures every name in the book, including some that some other people here think of as relatively reasonable. I am also good with harsh words aimed at the confederate flag fliers and the specific people who chant about sending our congresswomen “back.”
It’s all a question of who you are including in the “those people.”
@Tin_Wisdom cites statistics saying that only 47% of rural people support gay marriage. Even if that statistic is exactly correct, think about what that means. In the space of a couple decades, almost half of “those people” have come around to a more reasonable, more liberal way of thinking. But when a liberal speaker calls out all “those people” the speaker is insulting these potential allies, and the message received probably sounds something like “Hey, we see you and disgusting, vile people as indistinguishable. We see you as the enemy.” And human nature being what it is, a lot of people having to choose between a party that unfairly considers immigrants and minorities the enemy, and a party that considers you the enemy… they end up voting for people like the Dump.
To me, this is all just common sense.
Professional politicians have made errors here, Obama’s choice of that verb “cling” was highly unfortunate, despite the context. However, in our era where partisans post in very public ways and don’t just swap opinions privately in a bar, I’m leaning on fellow liberals to think about their own messaging.
I hope I have at least been more clear as to my meaning, rather than muddier. :)
But I would add one more thing. According to the US Census Bureau’s statistics, there are surprisingly few rural Americans today. But if you ask people to self identify, that number shoots way up. This discrepancy has political implications.
If you or a politician is in favor of policy where the details are not going to work out very well for rural America, truth is that the political price for that is relatively low. Because only truly rural people will feel the pain. But if you or a politician talk as though all rural people are in with the “Send her back”/Hate on gays/Racist crowd, a whole lot more voters are going to feel attacked, and the political price is a lot higher.
