I think it has to do with more emphasis on physical labor as conviences one would find in an urban environment are not available. Traditional gender roles are more prominent. A healthy culture will mean more peace, happiness, & coexistence with these rules. There are certainly strong women in rural areas, but men have a biological advantage for physical labor.
> drug abuse, drunkenness, etc.
I'm not sure if it's better or worse than urban environments, but a healthy culture & economy certainly helps.
Progressives tend to favor redistribution, which makes sense for high population densities. High population densities tend to rely more on inputs from the outside to support the population. Rural areas tend to be more self sufficient & even net producers of food, raw resources, & non manufactured products. The survival of the people in high population densities requires these resource inputs. A bit less so for rural environments. Rural populations do benefit from urban centers, but there are also costs in supporting high population densities. So rural areas are incentivized to take progressive policies with more of a cost/benefit analysis rather than requiring such policies for its survival.
I think the Hank Williams Jr. song exemplifies the attitude of many in rural environments. Note in the song, he befriended an urban finance professional, who was murdered at a convenience store. If he met the murderer he would "love to spit some beech-nut in that dude's eye"...where even justice is a self-reliant responsibility, rather than delegation to institutions. This attitude would be seen as an anathema to progressive ideology which has more faith in delegating justice to institutions.
How do your views on rural independence fit with the fact that most rural areas in the United States require massive amounts of monetary support from the more population dense (and progressive) states? [1]
I would argue that this idea of rural areas being independent is a remnant of a bygone era, an era where frontiers yet unsettled still existed. Now, with our desire for modern infrastructure, lifespans, and education, rural areas are kept alive through the very redistribution they claim to oppose.
That data set is heavily influenced by military spending (which is a large fraction of federal spending and has historically correlated with right leaning states).
I don't think that data supports the argument 'require massive amounts of monetary support from the more population dense' especially given the majority of population of those states strongly desire lower federal taxes and lower spending, even if it means less transfer of wealth to their states. 'require' is a high bar of evidence. I think 'adapt to changes' would be a better argument if we decided to allow states and private citizens to have more control of how their wealth is deployed (by not taxing and spending as much at the federal level). Those states would not go bankrupt or worse if federal spending decreased, but yes they would have to adapt. Maybe poor people in those states would have to move to areas where they had higher productivity and/or better welfare, which is not exactly a bad thing compared to paying them to stay in a state with low productivity?
You can't "solve" addiction, but you can manage it better than we do today.
Addiction is a health issue, not a criminal issue. It should also be noted that the War on Drugs was never about "protecting people" -- it was a tool to oppress the people (people of color, counter culture (anti-war)).
We've collectively agreed that it's ok to allow dangerous and addictive drugs (alcohol and tobacco). We need to stop being hypocritical about that.
The answer to the problem:
1. Legalize all drugs
2. Tax them
3. Regulate them
4. Educate and assist in minimizing the risks.
5. Treat addicts in a medical context rather than a criminal one.
There are challenges in doing this, but they're way better options than the current approach.
I live in Oregon and that 5 step plan isn't working out.
I agree that addiction is first and foremost a health issue. However, relying on addicts to voluntarily enter treatment isn't working. We're seeing very few enter treatment - last I heard it was well under 10%. I think in the case of highly addictive drugs like opioids/fentanyl, and meth they should be made illegal again (Remember, Oregon essentially did your #1 above) however, instead of incarceration in a prison, we need some kind of treatment hospitals that are involuntary - something between a prison and a hospital with emphasis on treatment.
We need to take a much more nuanced approach: some drugs are highly addictive (fentanyl, meth) - people can get hooked on them after only 1 or 2 uses, you want to prevent that as much as possible and that requires that they be illegal. Other drugs are not addictive: marijuana, LSD, shrooms, etc - making those legal is fine, but in the cases of the psychedelics you really want to encourage people to have guidance as much as possible.
I'm in the PDX area and am well aware of the problem.
I agree on the involuntary institutionalization (both on the need and the fact that current treatment plans aren't working). When we talk about addicts in the area, we're pretty much talking about the homeless population.
I've yet to see any census of sorts, but I'd wager that a significant portion of the homeless population is mentally ill. That also need to be revisited in the context of involuntary institutionalization.
As far as opioids and meth go, making them illegal has been an abject failure. Let the addicts have their drugs (a la methadone clinics) but minimize the the dangers as well as the organized crime that thrives on their criminality.
> As far as opioids and meth go, making them illegal has been an abject failure
Because the emphasis has been on punishment not on treatment as a health problem. They have to be illegal if you want to be able to involuntarily hospitalize the users. Dealers of the addictive drugs should be punished (if they're not users and thus not addicted - if they're dealer/users they need to go through treatment first, punishment later if they continue to deal).
If you live in the PDX area I don't need to tell you that our current system which relies on voluntarily submitting to treatment isn't working. Yes, mental illness plays a part, but in many cases it's tough to tell which came first: the mental illness or the drug use - the drug use makes the mental illness worse and the mental illness often leads to more drug use.
The biggest issue with implementing involuntary treatment hospitals is that there are very real, very established regulations that you cannot force a patient to do something they do not consent to, outside of very strict circumstances or court orders.
Legality of substance abuse shouldn't be the factor for whether or not treatment can be compelled.
My mother was an alcoholic and in and out of psych wards. They'd let her out the moment she could charm them and say she was ok. Fun times. But no illegal drugs involved, just plain old alcohol.
And it's looking that alcohol has no "medical benefits" and is flat out bad for you. In the interest of the people wouldn't you agree that's reason to make it illegal?
People have an obligation to be productive to society. If they check-out and use drugs all day, they are not creating the value needed to feed, clothe and shelter themselves. Therefore if we allow people to live in this state, the work of other people is sustaining them, and we (society) have become enablers.
Sadly, just look at the god awful “linkage centers” in SF for how your ideas play-out in reality.
These “harm reduction” ideas are more like life-support for addicts. Yes maybe there are fewer deaths but I think there probably is more suffering.
Why is fixing hypocrisy such a high priority? American culture has increasingly stigmatized and marginalized those substances for 100+ years (alcohol) and 60+ (tobacco).
The lowest drug use rates are in Singapore, China, Japan, Indonesia, etc. these are countries that execute dealers and drugs are very illegal and socially taboo. There are two sides to every coin.
>"For example, if you were told about two conversations – one about guns, taxes and crime and the other about gay marriage, animal rights and abortion – you could guess with confidence which took place among progressives and which took place among conservatives – even without knowing anything about the content of either conversation."
Was written by a real human being. Like... I know plenty of church going Catholics who are happy to talk about gay marriage, animal rights, and abortion, and they aren't conversations that anyone is going to call "progressive".
> I know plenty of church going Catholics who are happy to talk about gay marriage, animal rights, and abortion, and they aren't conversations that anyone is going to call "progressive"
I grew up as a Roman Catholic & studied it's history, including the schism from the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church centralized it's authority to the head of the Church of Rome (the Pope) while the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church kept the more decentralized governance structure of synods of churches & the founding theology from the Council of Nicaea commissioned by Emperor Constantine in AD 325.
The Roman Catholic Church is an Imperial Church, founded by the Council of Nicaea during the reign of Constantine that later consolidated influence to a single prominent urban area...Rome. The Roman Catholic Church "innovated" it's theology over ~1700 years while the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church strove to stay true to the original theology.
With that being said, I would consider the Roman Catholic Church to have urban imperial tenancies & was among the major centers of power from it's founding, through the middle ages, to current times.
Also note that "progressive" is a comparative term of progression...meaning it is compared against current norms. As the norms change, the definition of "progressive" changes. A large institution such as the Roman Catholic Church has inertia & will usually not be at the vanguard of the current form "progressive" ideology. There are elements of vanguard progressivism within the Roman Catholic Church, but that is counterbalanced by others in the institution.
The real causality is more like "urban areas have different needs and cultural norms than rural areas/exurbs, so they tend to form separate political coalitions."
Tangent: my biggest political pet peeve is thinking of the country as red states versus blue states, when it's really cities versus surrounding areas.
Politically, states play important national roles. They are winner-take-all in both the Senate and the Electoral College, and gerrymandering makes them nearly so in the House.
Sociologically there are bigger differences within the state, but viewed from the outside, a state's main effect on you really is very close to all red or all blue. Only a small number of states play a significant "purple" role, where differences in individual opinion might matter to somebody from outside the state.
That's true, but it's annoying when people think in terms of "people from X are like Y." Drive out to rural Oregon, for instance: it's extremely conservative.
I guess that's just my gripe as a liberal who grew up in Texas (which is actually threatening to flip purple in the future due to people like me).
By "nearly so" I meant that gerrymandering could pack all of other party into a single district. There are another 12 states with only a single representative from the minority party.
The most egregious might be my home state, Maryland, with only a single Republican representative out of 9, despite 1/3 of the state having voted Republican in 2020. Similar ratios occur the other way in Tennessee and Alabama.
Which is to say, winner-take-all and winner-take-practically-all happen in about half of the state Representatives with more than a single member delegation.
This seems like a really shallow analysis, and the examples are just popular cliches rather than realistic human experiences.
It also does not ring true with my personal experiences or observations. I grew up with progressive politics but in a rural area, and when I came to live in urban areas where these ideas dominated, I was disappointed to observe that they just don’t seem to work as well at solving real world problems as I had imagined they would.
Is the ideology of people living in a certain area really that much of a factor in
the economic success of that area?
Or is is the more the other way around. A location that has attractive geography or abundance of some resource leads to people wanting to live there. Once population reaches a certain density, there is desire for more rules and regulations to prevent a "tragedy of the commons". Progressive policies are more a result of "success" than a cause.
In the US, the state Mississippi get stereotyped as failing area. Progressive policies can't do a whole lot there. Maybe higher taxes on the wealthy, but that could only go so far until companies and wealth can just go to other another state. Mississippi is more of a victim of geography than ideology.
I can believe this. I have been a lifelong Democrat but find myself moving increasingly to the right since starting to work from home ~5 years ago. Work was essentially my only real in person interaction with people that aren't my wife and kids.
People living and interacting in close quarters require more "refereeing". Usually in the form of government, but can be something like neighborhood home owner's associations. Referees are never popular.
Working from home can isolate you from people leading to mass media and social media becoming your window on the world. Such media tends to over focus on the scary or the outrageous.
I feel like the left has moved very far left and I'm still where I started. I don't like most Republican politicians on a personal level but a lot of the policies being put forward by the left involve stripping parental rights and allowing for children to be taken based on political ideals and for schools to keep secrets from parents. I am very much against this. I'm also not a fan of what seems to very much be open discrimination and degradation of straight white men.
Respectfully , I post this not to get into an argument or to hear reasons why I'm wrong or a terrible person, so please refrain from the personal attacks those who choose to reply. I'm just answering the straight forward question of "why?" from my personal view of the world.
I recommend tracking actual policies instead of asinine culture war nonsense on social media. Never mind liking or disliking politicians on a personal level, look at what policy objectives a politician is trying to achieve. Don't take democracy for granted.
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here, sorry. I stated I don't like actual policies and while I don't like certain politicians on a personal level I care more about the policies than the politician. So not really following, my apologies; could you clarify? The only social media I have is HN.
What actual policies are you opposed to? And how are you ranking these policies?
You mentioned states seizing kids if you wont allow children to begin transgender transitioning. What is the actual policy here, and when would it apply? The scenario sounds like: a minor wishes to transition and the parents are opposed, the kid wants to run away, and the state takes the side of the child rather than the side of the parents. This is the exact scenario you described, correct?
I think I'm in agreement with you that I'd generally prefer state policy to side with the parents rather than the child in this case. Certainly so in the case of younger children, or when puberty blockers or elective surgery is involved. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that the state should never side with the minor. There are cases where it's better for the kid to be allowed to get away from their parents. Most Democrats and most Republicans will agree that it depends on the circumstance. This is why we have judges and a court system.
But this is also the kind of issue that I think is blown far out of proportion to its merits. Transgenderism is just about the least important issue facing America and the world today.
I strongly believe that most Americans are centrists. This goes for Democrats and Republicans. The problem is that so many on the left see Republicans as racist quasi-fascists and so many on the right see Democrats as woke socialists. Both of these views are wrong.
For the most part I agree with you. Except for what is and isn't the most important issue facing America from a purely personal perspective. I see the transgenderism thing as a slippery slope, canary in the coal mine issue that can lead to more rights being stripped from parents. I wish transgender people nothing but happiness in life but very clearly differentiate between a choice made by adults and one made for children by the government. I'm a small world guy, I have my family and not much else that I really care about. So for me anything that endangers my rights as a parent or the way in which I choose to raise my child is the most important thing to me. Of course there are exceptions, some parents are just bad people that should not have control of their kids, but aside from people like this I think parents rights should be absolute. If we let the government control kids, what is going to happen when the party we don't like comes to power and does the same?
As far as being centrist, absolutely. I still think I am, I just think the Dems have moved very far left and while the reps. moved too, not as far. I am not a fan of either. Currently planning on voting for split government whenever I can. One side can have the house, the other the presidency and senate. No one gets to make massive changes unless both sides agree.
I'm talking about states seizing kids if you wont allow children to begin transgender transitioning. Again I am not looking to get into an argument over the validity of "gender affirming care" for children. My view is that states should not be able to take children away for this or for schools to be able to keep this knowledge from parents. Others may disagree and that's fine, we are not going to solve it by screaming at each other on HN. The question was asked and I provided an answer.
"The initial legislation said courts deciding custody cases must consider whether each parent affirmed the child's gender.
AB 957 encourages parents who support their TGI children by "making it clear that affirming a child's gender identity is part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child."
It also allows courts to consider a parent's affirmation of their child's gender identity when making decisions about visitation and custody."
"Jessica Tapia was fired for refusing to follow a state law that forbids teachers from talking to parents about their child's gender choices without consent from the student."
"An act relating to supporting youth,” or Senate Bill 5599, allows host homes for runaway youth “to house youth without parental permission.” Furthermore, the host homes do not need to notify parents about where their kids are or if they are getting medical interventions “"
I'm not screaming and my intention is to be respectful in my engagement.
The government taking kids from families is an incredibly delicate subject. I think that we can all agree that it should never happen with one important exception: if the child is in danger by their own family.
I think we could come up with some horrific scenarios that is the (unfortunate) right thing to do. It should done only in the most extreme cases, with extreme oversight and opportunities for redress etc.
There have been miscarriages of justice in this in the past, so it would be naive to say that the system is perfect and nobody should be bothered if and when it happens.
That said, taking kids away to allow them to transition (at a superficial level) does seem to be crossing a line. I'm going to have to look deeper into the actual legislation because I also am aware there's a lot of disinformation in this subject.
I know three families with trans kids. One happened very early (I had no idea she was trans until I was told), the other after going away to college, and the third is a teenager that may or may not be but they're rolling with whatever way the child sees fit.
Those kids are lucky, because their parents love them and accept them for who they are, but not all kids are so lucky. Some parents are not so accepting and will do everything to stop them, going as far as disowning them (or killing them).
And finally, I'd like to point out that the reason that the GOP loves demonizing trans people is because it's a highly effective tool to emotionally manipulate voters using fear and hate. They did it will gays a generation before, it's not a new trick.
This is a nuanced subject and requires nuanced reasoning.
> Those kids are lucky, because their parents love them and accept them for who they are,
Sounds to me like they're accepting them for who they aren't.
Which is a big problem, as these kids are going to have an awful shock when they grow older and realize that most people in the outside world don't go along with the lie that man can become women and women can become men.
To gaslight these children into believing otherwise is terrible parenting bordering on child abuse. Especially if these kids had so-called 'gender-affirming' medical or surgical interventions inflicted upon them. It's awful really.
The parents are not gaslighting them, because they're also painfully aware that there are people who hate and fear them for who they are, but there are also those that will love them. These are incontrovertible facts.
I understand that what they're doing is "not normal", and it's clear that you are deeply offended by how they're choosing to live their lives. But here's the thing, it's really none of our business.
You're being coached on a daily basis to hate and fear these people and to be angry enough to vote for the people who want to eliminate them. I'm not saying that in a morally condemning way, it's a simple observation of what makes the political machine work.
Do you know any trans folk? Have you ever talked to any? I have, and their stories prove you wrong that their decision on how to live their life was the correct one.
What compels a person to move right in America these days? The Republican party is fiscally irresponsible and only knows how to play identity politics. Watching as a foreigner it's clear the Dems are a bad joke but the Republicans are actively hateful against large swaths of their own country
I can answer this. I’ve found myself gliding further left on some issues, while also distancing myself from other issues that the Democratic Party finds itself championing. Generally, I would probably most closely align with Bernie Sanders’s ideology.
For me, moving right does not mean I would ever vote republican. They’re not a party of anything in particular other than obstructionism, identity politics, and institutional self-destruction for the enrichment of a very small (<0.1%) group of Americans and corporations.
That said, some things I trend more “right” than I used to, as a consequence of living in San Francisco:
- Highly addictive drug use should not be a free for all, it should be aggressively curtailed. This doesn’t need to be punitively, but I don’t think institutionalizing and forced rehab is strictly wrong. I also have no problem with increased taxes funding this.
- Homelessness is not a right. Common space in cities is not a place for us to let the lowest of society collect and inhabit.
- Crime should be punished, and organized crime/gangs should be aggressively snuffed out. This almost sounds like an absurd statement to make, but SF/Oakland DA’s have taken the stance that prosecuting crime is inherently racist, and essentially opt to release criminals rather than charge them.
- Race based affirmative action/reparations/benefits should not exist. These are great ideas on paper, but they are radicalizing to other systemically oppressed groups (e.g. poor white people end up pissed off and alienated, and align with the Republican Party, despite it being completely opposed to their own interests)
For anyone reading, this is just some personal takes in response to the question. I’m not looking to have a political debate on here.
I'm sorry, what? Supporting taxation? Believing rehab is necessary for curbing addiction instead of simple willpower? The state enforcing its laws? Equity?
They are, but unfortunately the one option we have for “left” policy in this country doesn’t have a great track record of taking realistic stances on these issues.
That's because the Democrats are not leftist in any meaningful sense. They are basically a centrist party who are heavily captured by corporate owners. Disagreeing with Democrats != moving right
congress controls the budget, not the presidential administration. It is very common in US politics to have split branches (Republican president with Democrat control of the congress and vice versa) with only very brief periods where a single party controls both branches. I think the conclusion you can come to when looking at deficit spending by congressional control is neither party is fiscally responsible in the last 40 years.
I would argue that both sides are equally hateful and full of disdain for the other. The time of calm rational conversations where we agree to disagree has unfortunately passed. I can have a beer and calm conversation with anyone and have done it many times.
I've even done it with open anti Semites and neo Nazis [it was a very good conversation] while I'm Jewish. These days instead of trying to understand where someone is coming from and having an open exchange of ideas, everyone just resorts to personal attacks and outrage. It's exhausting.
The final conclusion is pretty interesting and food for thoughts:
> In low-density areas, quality of life depends on not being interfered with; in high-density areas, it depends on the effective management of inevitable interferences.
> As population density increases, residents increasingly depend on governmental authority to manage the impact of others’ lives on their own.
Progressive - a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas
Conservative - a person who is averse to change and holds traditional values
And now if we drill in, we get a problem.
Traditional values - long-standing beliefs, customs, and practices passed down through generations within a particular culture or society, often reflecting moral, ethical, or religious principles
Problem number 1, different conservative hold different set of traditional values. To be conservative kind of requires some level of social hegemony, where everyone holds the same traditional values.
Liberal -
1. a supporter of policies that promote social welfare.
2. a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
Problem number 2, there are now two definition of liberal ideas. One are geared towars social welfare. The other towards democracy and individual liberty.
This makes it that, all conversation that stays high level, and talks about clusters as conservatives and progressives, to me, is misconstrued, and confusing, because the subject could dramatically be different. Are we discussing Judeo-Christian values, gender roles, etc. ? Are we discussing the need for social welfare, the importance of democracy, the value of individual rights?
It all gets conflated in a way that simply divides people based on labels, not substance.
Good point. Also Liberal != progressive. progressive policy in the last 20 years has in no way championed ideals of individual rights and free enterprise, and they have curtailed certain civil liberties (speech and self defense).
The hallmark of traditional liberal ideals are now mainstream conservative thought (at least in the US). That is why you see a lot of people saying they are 'classical liberal' when describing their political beliefs.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding a historical perspective.
I grew up in rural Indiana, during the implementation of bussing (https://blog.history.in.gov/tag/forced-busing/). It generated so much hatred in the people around me, and had a lot to do with my decision (as a queer white person) to get the hell out of Dodge, ASAP.
In our middle school, Black boys were put into home economics class with the white girls, while white boys took shop class, where they would learn skills that they'd use to find jobs in the community. There was still segregation, lots of those boys ended up in "Special Education" where they'd be moved to outbuildings built for those "special classes". It was warehousing people, plain and simple.
Some of those boys were my friends. They were intelligent, curious, funny, creative young men, who were fully aware their ticket had been punched. It was a waste of human potential that America is right to be ashamed and in denial of.
Denial is one of the steps in the healing process. It's ugly, and everyone outside of the sufferer is right to have feelings about it. Sometimes it's frustration, sometimes pity, sometimes it's rage. "How can you be so blind?" we exclaim. I was a victim of the system, same as them, but I'll be damned if I don't have complicated feelings about it. We all do, I expect, though none of us feel quite free to express them in totality these days, if we had the safe space to express and process them. Instead, we have this.
We live in a better world, though. Even Indianapolis and the rural towns that spoke and wheel connect to. Even people in Knox, one of the towns I grew up in, where the town's head of the KKK worked at the local Sears. We all grew up a little bit since then, though, maybe not so much as we still need and deserve.
HN is best, not because of the articles that get posted, but because we have a place to discuss them, with honest inquiry. I'm grateful for it, and grateful for your comment. It is 100% true and it concurs with my anecdata.
I wonder about the premise of this idea as well. Cities are more expensive and cramped and have more fun things going on - the perfect mix for younger people, who also tend to be more progressive.
A very large majority of homeowners with babies move out of dense cities. These also tend to be more conservative.
Do you have evidence that it's a "very large majority"? And what percentage leave because they can't afford it with children, not because they want to?
It’s cringe-worthy. I have family members who live in the country who literally spend 100 hours in the fields of somebody they hardly know helping out because the guy had an accident and couldn’t pull his own harvest.
Rural America is full of person-to-person direct action often brokered by a church.
Has the author spent any time in rural America or are they just imagining what they think it’s like? Or, in a city for that matter?
Have they visited a large church or a county fair? The countryside is full of inequality, drug abuse, drunkenness, etc.
Also progressives are trying to solve addiction? Really? My experience is that living in a city just trains you to tolerate it.