Cities

Want to End Urban-Rural Conflict? Stop Looking for a Victor.

Whether red vs. blue or city vs. country, political tensions are best addressed by letting people run their own lives.

|

Aesops Fables (1912), illustrated by Arthur Rackham.

There's a spreading revolt against city-spawned restrictions on self-defense rights by the residents of sparsely settled counties and the officials who represent them. The issue "has largely underscored the rift between rural and urban areas," the Wall Street Journal noted over the weekend. It's a rift that's widening as the political divide in the United States takes on a strongly geographical character—less along state or regional lines than at the borders between dense populations and open country.

With hostile people from divergent cultures and political affiliations glaring at each other across the nation's city limits, it's time to reconsider the tendency towards centralization of power in our country that leaves so many people groaning under laws and policies they find abhorrent. If we really want to defuse tensions, we should devolve decision-making as far down the political food chain as possible—preferably all the way to individuals.

"Virtually every major city (100,000-plus population) in the United States of America has a different outlook from the less populous areas that are closest to it," Josh Kron marveled in The Atlantic after the 2012 election demonstrated divisions that have only deepened since.

Six years later, the 2018 mid-term election "results exacerbate a divide between booming urban centers and struggling rural communities that has been growing since the recession a decade ago," The Hill reported. Democrats are increasingly urban in terms of their support, while Republicans have come to rely on rural voters. The parties seem to battle only over the suburbs.

Values and policy preferences, not just party affiliation, break down along geographic lines. "Americans in urban and rural communities have widely different views when it comes to social and political issues, including their assessments of President Donald Trump and opinions about race, immigration, same-sex marriage, abortion and the role of government," the Pew Research Center found in 2018.

That polarization is partially driven by the tendency of Americans to move to where they feel comfortable and can live as they wish. Since lifestyle and politics have come to correspond very closely, the result is a "big sort" that emphasizes the conservatism of spread-out communities and the progressivism of walkable neighborhoods. Disagreements then become magnified, breeding tension.

"About two-thirds or more in urban and rural areas say people in other types of communities don't understand the problems people face in their communities. And majorities of urban and rural residents say people who don't live in their type of community have a negative view of those who do," Pew added.

Maybe that would be nothing more than a reflection of the wonderfully diverse world in which we live, and the room it allows for people to marvel at each other's peculiarities, if our factions were less dead-set on using government power to eliminate such differences. But despite school-room nostalgia for federalism and local rule, more political decisions than ever are made in state capitals and Washington, D.C. and imposed from above on the dissenting minority. Right now, that's a recipe not just for red vs. blue battles, but for closely related urban vs. rural conflicts.

This isn't the first face off between "hicks and slicks," as the factions were sometimes called a century ago. Then, as now, urbanites battled country dwellers over who was to dominate the country's political system. That neither side really had to dominate the other doesn't seem to have occurred to enough people.

The hicks won a battle with the imposition of Prohibition, forcing free-wheeling slicks to brew and distill their own, smuggle what they couldn't make, and otherwise acquire an appreciation for the DIY ethos so important to country dwellers.

Slicks returned the favor during the Great Depression, dispatching think tank agricultural "experts" to teach people who already raised crops and animals how to improve their practices by letting the fruits of their labor rot in the fields and experimenting with collectivization.

Tensions were papered over by imposing on everybody ill-considered policies whose depredations could be blamed on economic conditions, with subsidies to buy off remaining naysayers. And by World War II.

Maybe, if the two sides had found it in them to leave each other alone, we could have avoided the resurgence of city-country tension and the publication of red-and-blue-speckled voting-pattern maps that look like the consequences of losing a sirloin steak behind the stove. But they didn't leave each other alone—and the divide deepened.

Some urban political partisans look to demographic shifts and the decline of rural populations to make their ascendance permanent. "Cheer up, liberals, city dwellers will soon rule the world," Bloomberg trumpeted a few years ago.

Except… such ascendance isn't inevitable. "In fact, parts of rural America are thriving, even as other parts decline; just as parts of urban America continue to lose population and face economic decline as other parts make a comeback," urbanist Richard Florida pointed out last year. The entrepreneurialism rate in many rural areas leaves urban self-employment in the dust, I noted at about the same time.

Urban life in these data-driven, high-tech times is ever-more a matter of preference rather than necessity. If trends shift and the go-getters driving urban growth decide they'd rather build businesses in the laid-back country than in the fast-paced city, demographic determinism is bound to become rather less deterministic.

Besides, political "victory" in such a scenario can only seem satisfying to people who relish the prospect of a smug majority lording it over a seething minority. That sort of dominance is bound to result in yet more iterations of local people and officials boldly announcing their intention to ignore unwelcome laws, just like the rural revolt against gun control laws that extends even to New York.

A better outcome is an accommodation that seeks to keep everybody invested in the political system. That's something that can't happen if government and law are fought over as weapons to be used by one side to destroy all others.

Instead, we could emphasize the original, decentralized roots of our country. If political decision-making was kept as local as issues allow, the weight of rules and policies would fall as rarely as possible on the unwilling—and they could escape them with relative ease by moving someplace governed differently. Even better would be to emphasize the right of individuals to run their own lives, reducing the grumbling minority to the bare minimum.

Yes, we would have to grow accustomed to the sight of those people living in ways and by rules of which we disapprove. The bastards. But, if the current rural revolt is any indication, people will do that whether victorious political factions and angry officials like it or not.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

184 responses to “Want to End Urban-Rural Conflict? Stop Looking for a Victor.

  1. But then how would coastal elites signal their superiority?

    1. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

      click here ======?? http://www.payshd.com

      1. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily??. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
        >>=====>>>> http://www.Theprocoin.com

    2. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

      +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+…………….. http://www.Just4Work.com

    3. I earned $9000 last month by working online just for 7 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. GBd If You too want to earn such a big money then come?2019 news
      Try it, you won’t regret it!?..

      SEE HERE http://www.Aprocoin.com

  2. This has been going on for centuries in the USA. The Founders specifically designed a government that does not cities to control United States’ politics.

    The fact is that more rural people dont want intrusive government for most of the issues. Religious types feel strongly about abortion laws but those people dont even make up all the rural populations.

    City residents are notorious for implementing Nanny-State laws that spill over into state politics and then national politics.

    We rural folks are sick of it and fighting back. Trump is our retort.

    1. Furthermore, if you look at which group cannot live in harmony with the other group you see who has the moral high ground.

      ..And it ain’t cities like New York City that live in harmony with even rural areas in their own state.

    2. “The Founders specifically designed a government that does not cities to control United States’ politics.”

      Which is exactly why leftists hate the electoral college. It decentralizes power. Despite most everything democrats and leftists push would result in the centralization of power, somehow rural people are just as bad. Unreal

      1. Yeah, they probably don’t like it because it’s not at all proportional to the population. No reason a person in Wyoming should have more weight than one in liberal California OR conservative Texas.

        1. Progressives aren’t people, they are a hive mind, so we can throw the majority of Cali votes right out

          1. can we killz them firstz??

    3. Yes, elect that rural champion from NYC!

      Why fight back? Why not just secede? Do you need to force others to suffer because “they” made you suffer*?

      *”They” likely didn’t. “They” were just minding their business not paying attention to politics as much as they could. Then you did something to show you really did want to hurt them!

      The solution to control-freakism is secession. At every level.

      1. The way y’all act is that it’s either “us” or “them”. It’s akin to slaughtering the civilian population during a war against a tyrant. Those poor civilians couldn’t help that a tyrant took over! Haven’t they been oppressed enough?

      2. The fucked up thing is that Trump is actually willing to pay lip service to the rubes whereas the Democrat party has actively demonized their former base of union-type blue collar workers. Trump is little more than a relic left over from when Democrats still gave fucks about white people.

      3. Doesn’t Trump live in Florida on Mar-a-Largo and not NYC?

        Or his house in Bedford, New York?

        1. I suppose he likely has lots of residences. Regardless, he’s “city folk”.

          1. Funny how a “city folk” is so determined to do things for average rural Americans who want certain things and is super popular because it.

            I tend to think people have mis-labeled Trump as a Democrat when he never was. He played the Democrats and was more Libertarian-ish than anything.

            Trump eats steak with ketchup. That is not a city hipster or rich person style of eating fine steak.

            I’m a rural person and don’t put ketchup on steak. In fact, putting anything on your steak is shitty to eat on its flavor alone.

            1. “Funny how a ‘city folk’ is so determined to do things for average rural Americans who want certain things and is super popular because it.”

              Buying off people is a well established way of getting elected.

              “He played the Democrats and was more Libertarian-ish than anything.”

              He’s a blowhard control-freak. That’s not libertarianish at all.

              “Trump eats steak with ketchup. That is not a city hipster or rich person style of eating fine steak.”

              Fallacy of division.

              I note that this is the one thing you argued with. I guess all my other points stand.

      4. No Ace, the so,Union is to give progressives a one way ticket to someplace like Venezuela. They don’t get to keep one square inch of American soil.

        1. Why can’t they keep it if they’ve bought it?

          Why do you want to deprive someone of their property unjustly?

    4. I tend to agree. I do think that at some point, it was more from “both” sides. But these days, for the most part, it would seem that the vast majority of intrusive government is coming from the urban/coastal elite folks.

      Even a lot of the farming subsidies go to large companies now in which lots of urban wealthy types own stock.

      1. Plus, Social security and medicare are the largest parts of the federal budget that get redistributed back to the people.

        Total 2017 +Retired workers +Disabled workers +Widow(er)s and parents +Spouses +Children
        61,903,360…..42,446,992……8,695,475 …….. 4,090,523 …… 2,501,729 ……4,168,641
        All beneficiaries +Retired workers +Widow(er)s and parents
        79,732,580 …… 59,602,066 ………. 5,271,028

        Top 4 states for recipients are:
        California 5,858,780
        Florida 4,531,636
        Texas 4,126,055
        New York 3,586,883

          1. If you want folks to care about that, you should probably break it out by per capita, and also bring in per capita social security taxes paid.

            1. per capita still does not break down city vs rural recipients of that type of welfare.

        1. Any why shouldn’t they- YOU PAY INTO IT! Of course you’re entitled to it- every single paycheck has a line item for social security and medicare. What moron DOESN’T want their money back that they pay in?

          1. Its a FICA tax. Not a savings plan.

            People who pay into it or don’t still get a certain amount as a benefit payout.

          2. Yeah, that’s not how this works. SS taxes pay for current recipients, they do not go into some account somewhere that you “Get back”. You just have to be hopeful that when you get to be of a certain age that there are still workers paying into the system enough to get your statutory benefits. I use statutory here specifically to remind that Congress can change the law to change the benefits or even eliminate them at any time.

    5. City residents are notorious for implementing Nanny-State laws that spill over into state politics and then national politics.

      In 2018 one executive of a German Automobile manufacturer was indicted and another arrested for violating emissions standards that still surpassed those required to prevent the late 80s *Los Angeles* smog that necessitated their creation.

  3. Is that a picture of a New Mouse Times reporter explaining to the poor country mouse why he didn’t really want that dirty factory job anyway and that he’d be better of working in Big Tech?

    1. The City Mouse just told Rural Mouse he needs to learn to code.

      1. Looks like Rural Mouse believes in the second amendment.

        1. …two wolves and a sheep

          1. And that sheep is a big 2A sheep. With a well maintained and supplied AK-47, and sporting a .45 Sig tucked away courtesy of the sheep’s C&C credentials.

            1. Have to say I like the cut of your jib there Shit.

    2. and then he’ll explain to the country mouse that Brooklyn BBQ is way better than their yokel BBQ because it’s locally sourced from free-range alley cat

  4. Democrats are increasingly urban in terms of their support, while Republicans have come to rely on rural voters. The parties seem to battle only over the suburbs.

    As the Democrat-dominated urban areas become too expensive to live while at the same time full of homeless people and dirty needles, those Democrats move to the suburbs to provide their vision there, so even the suburbs aren’t much of a battle ground anymore.

    1. Yeah, it’s not entirely clear how much is a reaction to any single candidate, how much is out migration, and how much is influx from Cook and other blue strongholds, but the collar counties in N. Illinois were more blue in the last 3 yrs. of elections than they have been in the previous 40.

    2. Yeah. And this article casually glosses the fact that urban areas are increasingly liberal because large city governments stocked with union members provide the easiest mechanics and least resistance to buying voters via taxpayer funded handouts and benefits.

      It’s the whole “democracy is doomed when people try voting themselves to prosperity” scenario being played out in major cities and state governments across the country. Just look at the amount of government held debt in cities that’s a result of unfunded liabilities to that cities various unions. That’s a result of overpromising to buy votes. Then look at the disparity in social service use and giveaways and its obvious this is the case.

      Here in Pittsburgh the past 10 years, off the top of my head, i can recall a 7% alcohol tax being passed to help prop up our underfunded, and nearing state control, countys port authority pension fund. And in 2015 our mayor passed a tax on hotels and entertainment, i forgot the amount, that is supposed to generate 750 million over 10 years to keep our city employees union pension fund from dipping below 50% funding and also going under state control.

      1. To add…they estimate here in Pitt that nearly 40% of the citys annual budget goes to servicing its various pension debts, and that number is increasing.

  5. “Instead, we could emphasize the original, decentralized roots of our country”

    You mean like rural conservatives favor? Can we stop pretending rural America is interested in anything but being left alone?

    There’s only one group centralizing, it blows my mind we even have this conversation. A city is a centralized mass of people. To decentralize, you’re going to have to break up the deep blue cities. But sure, let’s keep the both sides game going.

    1. It’s a monopoly! Break ’em up!

      1. We don’t have to, the electoral college keeps the lefties at bay. Thank god the founders

        1. “…the electoral college keeps the lefties at bay.”

          For now; don’t think they won’t get rid of it the next time they have even marginal control over all branches of government. It poses a major obstacle whereby largely urban States like NY and CA will decide what is best for the rest of us.

    2. “Can we stop pretending rural America is interested in anything but being left alone?”

      Amen. As a resident of rural America, the less interaction I have with Local, State and Federal Governments the better….

  6. Wait a fucking second here, what exactly are the examples of the rural hicks forcing their political beliefs on the cities?

    1. Farm subsidies?

      1. It is true that vote buying works. It’s also interesting to note that cities enjoy cheaper food prices as a result. That isn’t to say I disagree with your assertion. I do however think that cities probably enjoy keeping those subsidies in place since that is pretty much a bipartisan issue.

      2. Dont farm subsidies keep the price of food lower than it might otherwise be for city consumers?

        In other words, the farmers benefit from taxpayer money to keep food prices lower than the market might set.
        The city consumers pay less at the store but pay more in taxes.

        1. A possibly unintended consequence of those subsidies is that it also puts independent farmers out of business. Farming is a fairly corporate affair at this point, and given how much food the U.S. exports there could be a pretty good case for getting rid of those subsidies. It won’t happen though, since America would almost instantly go to importing food if those ended.

          1. Farm subsidies are really shitty and distort the farming industry.

            Farmers often form co-ops and other trade organizations to help food get to market, so government is not needed.

            The Great Depression affected every industry in the USA and farming was no exception. FDR and the Lefties took advantage of the situation and created the farm subsidy scheme that we mostly have today.

            The market is so distorted that a major change likely would send most farming families into bankruptcy. The farming companies might survive because they can have the cash to ride out the quick change.

          2. Corporate farming is a misnomer, there are very few corporate farms.

            Farms are getting bigger (when was the last time in history they got smaller?). That being said, almost all of them are still family owned. They are family owned and quite large.

            1. I assume they are incorporated for tax purposes and maybe bankruptcy protection?

              1. Not sure. I do know they are family owned.

                (Had to do a presentation for a Prog Economics professor on a farming policy book, mostly about the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. She knocked points off of what we talked about in our presentation because we didn’t talk about corporate farming. We didn’t, because the author only gave the subject one paragraph in which he simply said it’s too few farms to be a factor. Prog taught me something, I’ll giver her that.)

        2. You do have to wonder why Democrats still support farm subsidies, while they hate helping rural America.

          1. They don’t get their food from a farm. They get it from the store.

            I have honestly heard that statement from a progtard before.

        3. Dont farm subsidies keep the price of food lower than it might otherwise be for city consumers?

          Considering the 80% of farm subsidies is SNAP, it should be a no brainer to see where SNAP consumption/use is or is not regionalized.

          1. Thank you; and for whom the vast majority of its recipients vote.

      3. Democrats (Urbanites) are the ones FORCING Farm Subsidies???

        The 2109 Farm Bill had 100% Democratic Support which was an Extension of OBAMA’S 2013 Farm Bill. It was opposed by 13-Republicans and biggest opposition came from Grassley(R-Iowa) who has stated his reasons.

        “Federal farm payments should not be manipulated to help corporate farming operations get bigger and bigger at taxpayer expense,” he said. “Iowa farmers tell me they want to earn their prosperity from the marketplace, not the federal treasury.”

        Leftist media propaganda still alive and well I’ve seen by all this “Farm Subsidy” complaining going on by the left.

        1. THE REAL NEWS – Not FAKE.
          http://www.messengernews.net/ news/local-business/ 2018/12/2019-farm-bill-is-good-news/

          Rollcall Votes
          https://www.senate.gov/legislative /LIS/roll_call_lists/ roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm ?congress=115&session=2&vote=00259

    2. State legislatures overturning local ordinances.

      1. Like allowing AirBnB to operate free from overly-burdensome regulations?

        Allowing businesses to operate a women’s only ladies’ room and a men-only men’s room?

        1. Those damn rural voters are usurping the urban dwellers right to impose needless burdens on private business. Those monsters

          1. Yes.

            Don’t confuse an argument for more local control (which allows local ordinances on many issues) with an argument for more libertarian control (which would prohibit laws and policies on many issues at all levels).

      2. Lol, no.

      3. This is exactly right. Even more so, state legislatures using Dillon’s Rule to prevent any sort of governance beyond the county level or preventing existing municipal charters from being rewritten without the approval of the state legislature

    3. Gay marri… no… I got nothin’.

      1. I was gonna say Ronald Reagan, but I’m not sure he counts since he was from California.

    4. I was going to suggest we name examples of urban hipsters forcing their political beliefs on the rural parts of the USA.

      I think we might overload Reason servers.

    5. “Wait a fucking second here, what exactly are the examples of the rural hicks forcing their political beliefs on them?”

      Not political beliefs…but infrastructure (power, internet, phone, roads, etc), medical care, welfare, and education for small towns are all heavily subsidized by the cities. Further taxing is Listening to you “real Americans” preen on about how superior you are to us.

      1. Eric, you’re citation fell off for your changing of the subject.

        Form political beliefs to infrastructure projects.

        Once again, who benefits most from America’s infrastructure projects?
        Hoover Dam- electricity for Law Vegas and surrounding areas
        Large city airports
        Multiple hospitals in large cities
        Cities dont grow their own food
        Multiple schools in large cities
        Most Power is produced outside of cities and cities use large amounts of power

        Rural people just know that city people are NOT superior to rural people.

        1. Small towns can not afford or don’t have the customer base to pay for the cost to run/upgrade fiber or roads or power. Most rely on state or federal grants to fund such projects. Or sometimes the Public Utilities Commissions simply force companies to take a loss on rural customers and make up for it in urban areas where economies of scale make up for the loss. Most rural people add dick to the GDP of their area, especially since most farming is done by large corporations, not the stylized farmer of yesteryear. But yes, you are more free than your urban and suburban countrymen…and you rely on them for your lifestyle as much as they on you (probably more in most cases)

          1. “Small towns can not afford or don’t have the customer base to pay for the cost to run/upgrade fiber or roads or power” — KEEPING HOLDING ONTO THE LIE!!!

            Roads/Power ARE administered and funded by the State/County/City Governments!!!! So is Education.. (Property Tax). But I know your Bigotry runs so deep; you’ll never believe it so………………

            JUST DO IT AND FIND OUT!!!! Stop pretending Urbanites HAVE to help the Rural that votes against them and they despise so much and JUST STOP DOING IT ALREADY!!!

      2. I’ve been hearing/reading urbanites complain about that “real American” thing for at least a decade, and I’ve come around to the view that it bugs them all the more because they secretly believe it themselves.

    6. You could make a credible argument that anti-abortion bills are an example of a rural-popular belief being forced on cities.

      The counter-argument is that those bills were also strongly supported by urban Catholic communities so maybe it’s not a perfect example.

      1. Those bills wouldn’t even see the light of day if they didn’t have suburban support, too. Rural reps represent large swaths of territory and don’t have the numbers to force legislation on their own.

      2. Not to mention 52% of Republicans support Roe v Wade… Your comment is deemed *FAKE NEWS*.

  7. “Well, well, well, looky here, Clem, it seems we found us some city slickers. And what are they carrying? Regulations? Now, I tell you what, why don’t you city folk get right back in your Prius and drive on out of here, afore we really get mad.”

    1. What this country really needs is “common sense” regulation control. 🙂

      1. “common sense” being LOCAL!!! The right scope for the right government level (as so well described in the article). The Federal Government (Union of States) was created for #1 Purpose of International Defense.

        If its not an International matter IT SHOULDN’T BE FEDERAL!

      2. “common sense” being LOCAL!!! The right scope for the right government level (as so well described in the article). The Federal Government (Union of States) was created for #1 Purpose of International Defense.

        If its not an International matter IT SHOULDN’T BE FEDERAL!

  8. This is probably the only approach that will stave off the society wide violence that the Left has been agitating for since at least the 1930s in the US.

    The electoral college is the main reason why we don’t have active militia groups in the US. It very effectively prevents a tyranny of the majority, or at least the loudest yelling, over others.

    The main reason why the Left continues to push for 2nd Amendment restriction is that they want to disarm the rural areas. Since rural dwellers make up the majority of people who serve in the military and own the majority of the firearms the only way the urbanites can dominate the rurals is if they disarm them first.

    That said, all of this is exposing a further more damaging divide in the US. Urban dwellers do not have children on a replacement basis. Cities are essentially death zones of childless adolescents in adult bodies. They have to import aliens from other countries and force rural dwellers into their ranks to make up for their dying populations to survive.

    Additionally, cities, once drivers of industry and the place where things were manufactured, are now largely playgrounds for the rich and their lower class servants. They produce nothing.

    1. “They produce nothing” — Well that’s not entirely true…

      They do produce tyranny, manipulation, theft and corruption with their multiple story buildings of paper-pushing lawyers, investment bankers and paper-pushers. Come to think of it; I’m not sure they’d even exist if it wasn’t for Politics that allowed (sometimes even encourages) such behavior.

  9. This is a continuation of my last post….

    If the Left continues to provoke the rural areas, sooner or later they will rebel. And the urbanites in the cities will get slaughtered. This is sadly not a new phenomena. It has played out many times over the last several hundred years. When rural people and urbanites fight the urbanites lose. And they lose badly.

    No better examples of this exist than California and New York where the urban elites are doing everything in their power to make life in the rural regions impossible.

    Since they produce nothing, they will not be missed. The Left is treading on very dangerous ground here.

    1. If the Left continues to provoke the rural areas, sooner or later they will rebel. And the urbanites in the cities will get slaughtered. This is sadly not a new phenomena. It has played out many times over the last several hundred years. When rural people and urbanites fight the urbanites lose. And they lose badly.

      If this were true, the agrarian South wouldn’t have to rise again.

      I’m not saying you’re wrong and that the City-folk would unquestionably win, just that there are facts that stand against the notion that a rural populace will inevtiably overcome the more urban portions.

      1. MC,

        I’d add that the American Civil War was a bit of an anomaly on many counts. The biggest was the population disparity. The North had a population at least three times the size of the South. Even then, were it not for Lincoln’s outsized personality the North might have called it quits before victory.

        In the US, depending upon where you draw the lines, urban areas make up only 10-15% of the population. Suburbs about 40-50% and the rural areas the rest.

        This is another reason why the hard Left is doing everything it can to make it impossible to make a living in rural areas. They want to starve these places out.

        That said, developments in IT that allow for tele-work and the shale industry have set this effort back a great deal. It’s also why these same groups keep trying to regulate the shale industry out of business.

        When a truck driver can make $90k a year, it puts a real cramp on the need to move to one of the outer Boroughs in NY or some shitty part of Boston.

        1. Add to that the North was urban only compared to the South; it was still very rural on the whole compared to even the Southern and Midwestern U.S. today. Much of the best Union soldiery came from agrarian anti-slavery areas, e.g. Maine and Minnesota. And the chief advantage that the North gained from its urban centers was their manufacturing capability, which is largely absent today.

      2. “If the Left continues to provoke the rural areas, sooner or later they will rebel. And the urbanites in the cities will get slaughtered.”

        Cute fantasy. And if fantasies of slaughtering your fellow Americans keeps you warm at night, more power to you.

        1. Self-defense.

          You Lefties have been trying to murder us for decades.

          The only reason that you Lefties have not been kicked out of the USA, is because of our restraint. That restraint is coming to an end.

          1. I’m not a lefty dumbass. And I think that most Americans,who don’t live on the political fringes, will unite against anyone trying to start a civil war. At least I truly hope that there are enough of us to counter you dipshits before you can do too much damage.

            1. You are Eric. Its how you write things. You cannot hide the way you really feel.

              You Lefties have already started the Civil War 2.0

              It will just go hot soon.

              1. If I’m a lefty, then you are well and truly fucked in your little civil war LC. Cuz that means that it’s you and a few unhinged nut jobs on the far-right against everyone else.

                1. Poor misguided LC wants another civil war so he can dictate how everyone should live.

                  Obviously his heros are;

                  Stalin

                  Mao

                  Hitler

                  Pol Pot

                  Poor LC is a Totalitarian apologist and shall have blood on his hands if his fantasy war matierializes.

                  1. Talk about the Kettle calling the Soap Black. Holy Crap that’s some twisted stuff.

      3. “there are facts that stand against the notion that a rural populace will inevtiably overcome the more urban portions” —

        Except; Every Rural resident can live off the land (food, water, hydroelectric, mining, etc.. etc.. etc..). Urban usually doesn’t even have enough land to sustain themselves and even if they did; oh, whoops – now they’re farmers 🙂

    2. “The electoral college is the main reason why we don’t have active militia groups in the US. It very effectively prevents a tyranny of the majority, or at least the loudest yelling, over others.”

      Which is precisely why they want to get rid of it.

    3. Or like France.

  10. City folks best mind their own damn business.

  11. I vote for a new party: the LUAU party – Leave Us Alone U (whoever U are)!

  12. Tensions were papered over by imposing on everybody ill-considered policies whose depredations could be blamed on economic conditions, with subsidies to buy off remaining naysayers. And by World War II.

    Incomplete sentence above…

  13. Telling people to live their own lives comes across as hypocrisy to authoritarians because “living my own life” entails telling other people how to live theirs, thus authoritarians cannot abide by practices they disapprove of, hence the name for their ideology.

    The real solution is free helicopter rides.

  14. What, no mention of the Civil War? The biggest urban/rural conflict we’ve ever had, no?

    That said, while there are many issues where pushing it down to the lowest level would be fine, those aren’t normally the big contentious issues that make you think of the “urban-rural conflict”. Rural folks aren’t complaining because some cities have stupid zoning laws. City folks aren’t complaining because rural folks don’t have enough sidewalks.

    People complain because on some given issue, the other side isn’t just wrong, they’re unjust. And on those issues, where it’s not a matter of policy, but justice? Expecting folks to look the other way because it’s happening over there and that’s just how those folks are, is just farcical.

    So sure. It’s not a bad idea on some issues. But on the contentious issues, they’re contentious exactly because it’s a matter of justice, and it’s not reasonable to expect us to ignore that.

    1. “The biggest urban/rural conflict we’ve ever had, no?”

      In what way was the Civil War an urban/rural conflict?

      1. In what way was the Civil War an urban/rural conflict?

        It’s not much of a debate that the South had about half the population and a decidedly more agrarian economy.

        1. But cities were more aligned against the Civil War than were rural communities in the North. Midwestern agricultural areas were staunchly abolitionist, while NYC residents rioted over the draft. This seems like an unbelievable oversimplification of a war that is constantly oversimplified.

          1. So when you cherry pick your data from the Northern half of the conflict the general ideas don’t apply?

            I think you’re misreading EE’s assertions. He’s not saying that the Civil War was *only* about urban/rural conflict or that it was the cause. He’s saying that no greater or more decisive military conflict in American history represented the urban/rural conflict. Yes, there were lots of varied causes to the war, lots of them can categorically be summed up by the facts and culture of urban life in a mechanized economy conflicting with rural life in an agrarian one. Moreover, no matter how vaguely associated or categorized the causes, you aren’t really going to make a dent in decentralization/federalization when The Emancipation Proclamation is regarded as a fundamental ascension of this country towards liberty.

            1. And I’m saying that the only way you can frame the Civil War as a urban/rural disagreement is to cherry pick the data. Even in the South the more rural West Virginia didn’t want to partake in the Civil War and broke away from the more urban Virginia.

              I don’t know what you’re going on about with the rest of your post, because I didn’t say anything about the rest of that.

              1. And I’m saying that the only way you can frame the Civil War as a urban/rural disagreement is to cherry pick the data. Even in the South the more rural West Virginia didn’t want to partake in the Civil War and broke away from the more urban Virginia.

                Global averages aren’t cherry picking unless all of statistics is cherry picking (I’m not opposed to this conclusion, but I don’t think this is the time or place to hash out alternatives).

                It wasn’t the US v. W. Virginia and inasmuch as it was. Causes predominantly employed in the agrarian South. Pretending these distinctions don’t exist and/or weren’t relevant is like pretending communism had very little to do with Vietnam.

                I don’t know what you’re going on about with the rest of your post, because I didn’t say anything about the rest of that.

                I know you didn’t. Continuing that theme, whether you think Vietnam was precipitated by Communism or not the popularity and/or feasibility of Communism as the result of Vietnam has been significantly impacted. When the unilateral edict of the military dictator of the North freeing only the slaves in the defeated territories and the defeated territories comes to be regarded as being populated by backwater, hick racists it doesn’t really matter whether the hick racist narrative is apt or not as long as the unifying military dictator and his unquestionably noble unifying cause is still deified.

          2. Absolutely oversimplified. Like pretty much all of history, sadly. Some of it is out of necessity, i.e. not everyone can be a scholar on every historical event, and most people (to be generous) know just the outlines of history as relayed to them in school text books. The tragedy is the hubris, where people think that their crib-notes understanding of history is the alpha and the omega, and that there is nothing else worth learning about it.

            1. Absolutely oversimplified.

              You’re the one doing the oversimplification and the necessity for simplification has nothing to do with scholarly acumen. A phenomenon can factually be about federalism/anti-federalism, slavery/human rights, industrialization/agrarianism, and urban/rural.

              The out of hand response is that slavery was the cause of the war but the war itself didn’t end slavery and, in all likelihood, slavery was coming to an end without the war. That doesn’t mean that the simplification of the war being about slavery is unscholarly or incorrect, just that, when discussing conflicts between largely urban, industrialized, and centrifying powers through history, the fact that the Civil War was, in part, about slavery isn’t as relevant.

              The tragedy is the hubris

              Says the man saying “not everyone can be a scholar”.

              The question was asked “In what way was the Civil War urban-rural?” I gave two reasons. In retort, the commenter further highlights an urban rural divide within one side of the war, a division that reasonably arguably fell along the slavery and industrialization themes.

              1. Woof.

                I’m not disagreeing with you. I was just making a general comment that lots of people think they already know everything useful or interesting about the war. I’m not trying to accuse you of that.

                Can I have my head back now, please?

        2. That doesn’t mean the conflict was urban-rural.

          More accurately, the core conflict re slavery itself was a conflict between whether the frontier (then Kansas/Nebraska and points west – and by definition rural since frontier is almost pre-rural) would be settled by slaveholders on large tracts of land or Free Soil homesteaders and yeoman farmers.

          The bloodshed didn’t start in 1861. It started in 1854 in the Kansas Territory.

          1. That doesn’t mean the conflict was urban-rural.

            Jesus Christ people. Facts are facts. The South was less populous/more rural and less industrialized. The motivations for slavery were specifically oriented around being more productive as an agrarian economy. Urban/Rural cultural conflict can be a condition present during the war, and it unequivocally was, that doesn’t mean it was a motivating condition, even though it was, and it certainly doesn’t mean it was the prime motivation or cine que non.

            So, when talking about a large portion of the more rural agrarian (vs. industrial or industrial v. informational) part of the country rebelling against the more urban parts the conditions of the Civil War, even if not the sole or specific motivations, are relevant. And inventing notions like ‘pre-rural’ doesn’t make the underlying theme less factual or relevant.

            1. Facts are facts.

              Yes. And the FACTS are that every damn issue about the war was essentially a RURAL-RURAL conflict. It was about the incompatibility of an agricultural slave-labor system coexisting with an agricultural free-labor system in the same place. Which is precisely why the fighting started in Kansas – and why John Brown took the fight east. Why the Republican Party was founded on the platform of preventing expansion of slavery to the RURAL territories. Why the Dred Scot decision was viewed with contempt. And ultimately why the planters decided to secede cuz they wouldn’t be able anymore to just take/sell their slaves west when their own soil was destroyed (as slavery tended to do).

              The urban areas of the North did not generally give much of a damn about slavery as an issue. In the 1860 election in the 10 largest cities, the winner was:

              NY – Douglas
              Philly – Lincoln (but a bare plurality over Douglas)
              Baltimore – Bell
              Boston – Lincoln
              New Orleans – Bell
              Cincinnati – Douglas (Bell second)
              St Louis – Lincoln (but a bare plurality over Douglas)
              Chicago – Lincoln
              Buffalo – Lincoln

              In every Northern case (except St Louis), the Lincoln vote% in the city was lower than the statewide Lincoln vote. And St Louis was the only city that understood the territorial issue. Results are hardly evidence that urban areas even in the North were driving anything except they all opposed secession.

    2. Rural folks aren’t complaining because some cities have stupid zoning laws. City folks aren’t complaining because rural folks don’t have enough sidewalks.

      ^Said no one who’s lived in a suburb.^

      People complain because on some given issue, the other side isn’t just wrong, they’re unjust.

      Explain how injustice can exist in an empty field. Explain the injustice of one man standing alone in his field. Would they be greater or lesser than the injustices of two men standing in the same field? If lesser, how many men could be put in the field to maximized justice? If greater, explain how that justice isn’t multiplied by dividing up the field and putting more men in their respective spaces of the same field.

      Because I can’t conceptualize how you’re imagining ‘injustice’ except with regard to specific or exceptional acts that have no bearing on the rural-urban divide.

      1. Because I can’t conceptualize how you’re imagining ‘injustice’ except with regard to specific or exceptional acts that have no bearing on the rural-urban divide.

        To the contrary, the bulk of the “rural-urban divide” is built around specific and “exceptional” acts.

        There may be underlying philosophical difference,s but the actual conflict is about the specifics. Most folks aren’t philosophers.

        1. There may be underlying philosophical difference,s but the actual conflict is about the specifics. Most folks aren’t philosophers.

          Sounds exactly like what a coastal elitist might say.

  15. Our politics are actually a bit more complicated. In the book, “Patchwork Nation: Sectionalism and Political Change in American Politics”, authors James G. Gimpel and Jason E. Schuknecht. actually divided the country into 12 groups. These were defined by location, population, income and beliefs. Part of the problem seems to be that we are now trying to force binary choices on these diverse groups. So you have the parties saying you vote with us all the time, even in cases where your local group would support an opposite position. I don’t think rural Wisconsin cares much about issues on the southern boarder. In fact, dairy farming generally relies on migrant labor. So an open boarder would benefit us. Yet many rural Republicans are told to follow President Trump. I do believe 2 Wisconsin’s Republican members of the HR did vote against the President’s National Emergency Declaration.

    1. You are correct but you do not have to pay the bills for all those illegal migrants either. Is it right to say we need the migrant labor and let someone else pay the bill? If the issue was at the northern border and Wisconsin was spending hundreds of millions every year educating and caring for
      Illegal immigrants would you be happy if those of us in Texas said, “sorry not my problem?”.

      1. I wanted to point out that there is more than a simple binary choice which requires a zero sum (winner-loser) answer. Rural agricultural communities that rely on migrant labor may see the border problems in a different way from other communities (rural or urban). I afraid you have created a hypothetical situation in order to force the issue back to the binary choice.

  16. I consider this article to be a strike or a step down for Tuccille. The usually sensible counter opinion to Welch/Gillespie’s “both sides” and “If poor hicks don’t like getting left behind, why don’t they move to the city.”-style “libertarianism”.

    He’s really compromising his principles with this one.

    1. Agreed. Tuccille is one of the writers I infrequently fault. The “both sides” bs when there is a clear difference of aggression is annoying

  17. Instead, we could emphasize the original, decentralized roots of our country.

    If the split is urban/rural, then merely returning to decentralized won’t really work. It’s definitely a first step. But the real issue occurs below the state level re municipalities/counties/states. The early Progressive era was when these issues first started getting worked out with states picking Dillon rule v Cooley doctrine and some mayors like Hazen Pingree and Tom Johnson. That was all aborted when parties decided to position themselves more as ‘national’ entities – and then move resolution of all those issues to the national level where ‘party’ became a more consistent self-identifier.

    IOW – we need a solution but there is zero chance it can happen with the DeRps.

  18. Decentralization is nice, but what would it look like? It would consist almost entirely of Blue states ceasing to try to enforce their will on red states. Forgive me if I am skeptical the progs will ever agree to allow anyone anywhere to so much as think an unpure thought.

    1. On the contrary, I think progressive blue areas would be just fine if they were assured that none of their money went to red regions. If rural folks truly want to be left alone then let them- stop all food stamps, disability, welfare, govt largesse, etc. and let those who want in have it.

      1. Really? Can we keep all the oil, natural gas and food we produce as well? I think it is hilarious that progressives are the new purveyors of the “welfare queen” myth. So many of those programs are program forced in states like Obamacare was. Do you really want poor children to starve just so you can keep your money? That is what you are saying. What will you say when red states like Texas start charging you $10-12 a gallon for gasoline? Free enterprise, right? The fact isiots like you ban fracking and drilling in your state is your problem, not ours.What are you gonna say when Texas closes the border and starts arresting and immediately deporting anyone entering illegally and shooting drug smugglers? You will be screaming and demanding the Feds do something because it is unfair and “immoral”. Stop pretending you would just let red states do as they please if they gave up the federal money because if we didnt send it and did not have to deal with all the federal rules we would not need it

      2. “let those who want in have it” — Awe!!!!! The very definition of freedom and FREE-Markets! As for food stamps, welfare ( minus S.S. and Medicaid ) THEY ARE LOCAL!

        So if the progressive blue is fine with it and the red region is actually INSISTING on it – WHATS THE HOLD UP?!?!

    2. On the contrary, I think progressive blue areas would be just fine if they were assured that none of their money went to red regions. If rural folks truly want to be left alone then let them- stop all food stamps, disability, welfare, govt largesse, etc. and let those who want in have it.

      1. Haha. If only Blue states would let Red states not pay so much in taxes.

        1. Ahh yes, is this why red states are net takers and not net donors? Please.

          1. Why do you hate rural black people?

          2. The reason is simple but people like you are too ignorant to understand and swallow the crap from leftist leaders. Many of the takers are farmers who get subsidies to support crop prices. Unfortunately, as family farms have disappeared, the subsidies are given to large corporate farms which have great lobbyists. As for the taxes issue, blue states have high state and local taxes which until this year taxpayers deducted from their federal taxes. Red states with no or low incomes taxes did not get this benefit. If blue states are so wonderful why are Governors like Cuomo freaking out about the mass exodus of residents seeking to avoid paying the massive new taxes since they can no longer deduct all their state income taxes and are feeling the full impact of leftist tax policies???

          3. THE LEFTIST LIE — “is this why red states are net takers and not net donors? Please.”
            No, PLEAAAASSSEEE to you!

            Never-mind that Blue-Politics have self-laid “claim” to 47% of Red States (i.e. 100% Communism).
            Go ahead and BLAME the residents of your self-created communistic system and the costs.
            Project much?

            https://wallstreetpit.com/ 89671-are-welfare- recipients-mostly-republican/

            Welfare Recipients
            81% Democrats are on public housing assistance vs 12% Republicans
            74% Democrats receive Medicaid assistance vs 16% Republicans
            67% Democrats receive Food Stamps vs 20% Republicans
            66% Democrats receive Unemployment vs 21% Republicans
            64% Democrats receive Disability vs 25% Republicans

            Red States are net takers BULL—SH!#$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            1. Clarification, “Never-mind that Blue-Politics have self-laid “claim” to 47% of Red States” (i.e. Federal Land)

  19. I suggest solving the problem by founding a libertarian minded eco-tour company that will pick up customers from large cities and bus them to rural areas for some eco-tourism and interactions with the locals. The bus driver will return to bring them back home after they’ve figured out the importance of the right to bear arms.

  20. Run their own lives? Sure, that’s ok for you and me, but we can’t have those people running their own lives!! You know they’d make what we think are the wrong decisions!

    1. I once had this very argument with my left leaning father-in-law.

      He actually agreed that freedom of choice isn’t for everyone and that some people “need the benevolent hand of government to ‘help’ people make the right decisions”.

  21. The temperance movement in the States was not and exclusively rural phenomenon. In fact the two leading organisations where founded and based in the industrial heart of the country. Only because of a combined rural and urban support was prohibition passed – It was a Constitutional Amendment for Moloch’s sake – and it couldn’t have been imposed by any single camp.

    1. The temperance movement was 100% an urban issue. The sport of auto racing, NASCAR, began as races between bootleggers who challenged each other to see who had the faster car. NASCAR began and theived in the south because of how it began. Moonshining is still a huge industry in the south. The temperance movement was nothing butnpretense in most of the south during Prohibition.

  22. I have been primarily an urban dweller for over 50 years. I have lived in both very progressive cities and a rural community over the last 15 years. While there may have been moral and ideological contention between urban and rural folks as far back as we can document, it is very clear that to me that that the desire to dominate is and has been most strongly held by urbanites for the last several decades. Most urbanites view rural folks as backward and stupid. And among the liberal elite, they clearly have no concern for rural poor no matter the conditions. They’ll throw money at a hair brained scheme to help the urban homeless but won’t invest a nickel in a profitable but socially conscious strategy to help rural poor. The arrogance and hubris of the urban elite is appalling – all the more so because they have absolutely no self-awareness. My experience has been that rural folks find some urban behavior appalling but, for the most part, if one is not shoving it up their noses, they really don’t care what urbanites do in their cities and their own homes. My experience has been that rural folks are far more tolerant of differences than urbanites.

    1. I suspect that rural minorities, black, Hispanic, or indigenous, would disagree on tolerance of rural folk.

      1. You’ve obviously never lived in a rural area, hence your ignorance of small-community social dynamics.

        1. Urbanites somehow cling to this myth even to this day that people who live in rural areas are ignorant racists who have to be controlled. In West Virginia (where my mother grew up), Homer Hickham, the rocket scientist profiled in Rocket Boys is a native as is John Nash, the Nobel Prize winner in economics profiled in A Beautiful Minds. And yet, I’ve had to listen to ignorant New Yorkers trash talk West Virginia as a bunch of hillbillies who need to be told how to raise their children and that their profession, coal mining, is evil and must be eliminated. “Learn to code” these people tell the miners. Urbanites are always surprised when their disdain for rural people is returned. They expect to be idolised because of their buildings and museums and office jobs. The last time one of these idiots spouted this kind of nonsense, I just kept repeating over and over, “Chicago, Detroit.” He finally figured it out and shut up.

        2. I can second what you are saying RRWP. I grew up in a rural area but now live near Chicago.

          In the town I grew up in, a school teacher made a disapproving comment about one of her students having two mommies. The teacher got her ass handed to her and was nearly fired for it (thank goodness for the teacher’s union, eh Liberals?).

          One of the local motorcycle clubs (not usually thought of as the most progressive organizations) has several gay couples as members. As has been said up above, the attitude of most rural folks is “That’s their business. If it doesn’t bother me or mine, I don’t care what they do.”

        3. This, that new troll is a real fucking moronn.

      2. I think if you ever actually lived in rural America you would discover that race has very little importance any more. People are values by their character, not color. Leftists like you continue to cling to the myths and history of old south and rural America because it allows you to believe you are more superior, refuse to listen to alternative points of view, denegrate those you cannot silence and assume a position of “authority” which justifies violence as “self defense”. In short, it is pure arrogance and fantasy

      3. Right before the presidential election, I met a good portion of my neighbor’s farm crew. I kept my mouth shut and just listened – aside from an occasional question. His Crew boss was obviously Latin. He had a Trump sticker on his truck right next to a Bush sticker. He didn’t want uncontrolled immigration for example because, as liberals and Democrats used to understand, it lowered wages for working class men and women especially those with the lowest skills. My suspicion is the same as Red Rocks. You haven’t lived much outside a a sizable city, have you? These people work long and hard, never ask for nothing they haven’t earned, say yes sir and yes ma’am, and go to church on Sunday. I don’t share many of their beliefs (e.g., I’m an atheist), but I respect them. They stand up for themselves and don’t need, what sounds like to me, your condescending paternalism. You might try getting out of the bubble and see for yourself.

    2. ^DrT; +1000

    3. This is an astute observation.

      I would further add that part of the root problem is that “educated” urban elites believe they have a kind of noble privilege as a result of their education.

      The part they inevitably miss is that noble privilege is based off of noble obligation. And noble obligation is largely about fighting to protect your society at risk of your own life. And none of them have held up their end of that.

      The urban elites lost their noble privilege card when they failed to serve in the War on Terror and Vietnam. People can argue about whether or not the war should have happened, but if you want to be treated as a noble your ass better have done some killing in the meantime. McCain and Bush Senior were “the man”, because they came from rich families and got busy with the killing anyway.

      In the end noble power is about violence. When things are going well and everyone is playing by the rules, you can use money as a substitute for violence, which is why capitalism is great. The urban elites can be competent at making money, but they suck at violence.

      1. The problem is their education is limited to a single point of view which denies the validity of all others. This singular point of view makes compromise and consensus impossible. In addition they are taught how to profess this point of view with arrogance and to work to silence all critics.

        1. I like your explanation. The arrogance really chaps my hide. I went to school for a few years in NYC in my 40s. The know nothings below the age of 35 who thought they had the right to direct how the rest of the country lived and thought was amazing.

          These clowns, who had no actual accomplishment in life, really thought that the rest of America had no right to think the way they did. They had no success in business, no children, no technical education, no hard skills, nothing. The fact that they thought they could direct how someone thought was what dumbfounded me the most.

          And people who openly expressed their opinions on this were endemic to the area. It was not an isolated few. That is what I found most dangerous.

          I have seen this attempt to control the thoughts of others in all socialist societies worldwide. And it always leads to violence.

      2. What a wonderful remark. I had never thought of noblesse oblige in this context. And you are right – the liberal elites in America have failed miserably in this regard. I’m going to use this myself; thank you.

        1. I came across it while working in a kingdom (not the UK). The nobility there manned up every time. And they died in droves.

          I wouldn’t say they were well liked, but they were both respected/feared.

          1. Its the Braveheart speech by William Wallace: “There’s a difference between us. You think the people of this land exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.” Takes guts to take that position and stand by it. That would be worthy of both respect and fear,

    4. I appreciate your honesty and I think you actually identified the real culprits, not urbanites per se, but the urban elites who seek to impose their vision on everyone while carefully insulating themselves from the repercussions. The homeless problem in California is a good example. I seriously doubt there are homeless camps in Nancy Pelosi’s neighborhood or in Beverly Hills. They force everyone to deal with fallout of their political vision but never themselves

  23. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+…………….. http://www.Just4Work.com

  24. “Whether red vs. blue or city vs. country, political tensions are best addressed by letting people run their own lives.”

    Ha ha.

    The Left lives to run your life. There is not peace to be had with people who live to rule you by force.

    You can never read 1984 Part 3, Chapter 3 enough. O’Brien explains the Modern Left.
    http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/19.html

    The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.

    1. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?’

      But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

      1. Obviously, in politics this type of person has been known to rise up the ranks, and some societies are dominated by this type.

        At the same time, most people, even elected officials, are a tad less monstrous than this and see politics (when they think about it at all) as a way of keeping Bad People at bay, or Getting Certain Things Done, or being compassionate.

        Of course, the experienced politicians gripe about how to “operate in the real world” they’re forced to make “compromises,” but that’s a self-image of a harassed public servant, the power-lust thing won’t always be on the conscious, deliberate level.

        Insert C. S. Lewis quote about he that rules you for your own good, etc.

        1. “the power-lust thing won’t always be on the conscious” — Thus we’re not a Democratic Society but a Constitutional Republic that should bring to conscious the power-lust.

          keeping Bad People at bay ( Power = Justice )
          Getting Certain Things Done ( Value = Wealth )
          being compassionate ( Freedom = Liberty )

      2. I had an interesting thought yesterday. Another Trump kerfuffle made me think it. It occurred to me that lust for power is something that is easily projected onto people who don’t have it. If you seek Power yourself, you can’t imagine that everyone else does not seek it too. Therefore if you are a leftist power seeker, Trump also seeks power and must be vanquished at all costs. It’s a given, right? At least that’s how the media positions it. But what’s funny is that something about that just isn’t working for them. I’m coming to believe that it’s not working because Trump doesn’t seek Power. He seeks Success. And those are very different things.

  25. City folks should do well to remember that the country folks supply the food they eat and that it would be simplicity itself to cut off the city’s food, water, and electricity and watch the city folk eat each other.

    1. ^LOL — I was looking for this exact response… Before posting something very similar above.

  26. I am an old native son of California. My family fought for the Union but I think we should not have fought the Civil War. Emancipation proclamation yes. Nullify Dred Scott yes. War: no. Let the Southeast sink but keep them out of the Union.

    In my travels there is nothing between Denver and Boston but that vacuum is populated by deplorables who will try to reelect Trump. I would support funding rural Californians with free Greyhound tickets east if they can’t abide our restrictive gun laws. I am old and still have my Winchester model 1912 handy as well as a very high speed rifle BUT no pistols. Pistols are usually the weapon of choice for armed robbery or killing rivals. Pistols are too easy to wave around and shoot someone unintended. Long weapons need more intention.

    I support a new Western American Republican since WA and OR are even more liberal than CA and we can then push back from the jet-way and be in our way away from deplorables and Trump and evil Republicans (redundant term).

    1. Get fucked, Cali-tard. Your people are a cancer and deserve to be irradiated.

    2. Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    3. Um……. That’s great; Keep CA in CA (Which is going bankrupt and loosing population BTW).

      Please keep your CA deplorables OUT OF (migrating) to “Greener Pastures” in order to conquer and destroy those “Greener Pastures” full of “deplorables and Trump and evil Republicans” and turn it into Little-CA. You’ve made your bed now lie in it!!!! Our bed is NOT your bed – slaver.

    4. I promise, no one will stop you if you want to go right ahead and do that.

    5. Thank you for making my point. Your post drips with the moral superiority that dominates the left. Every point you make is a demonstration os how you think yours, and yours alone is the only acceptable point of view. You have no concept of what life is like outside a city but are going to tell everyone how they should live and think. You are the core of the problem which why again I thank you. If being “deplorable” is the polar opposite of being an arrogant ass like you, I embrace the label with pride.

    6. JFC, another new proggie troll. Did they have a clearance sale on them at DU or what?

  27. I earned $9000 last month by working online just for 7 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. GBd If You too want to earn such a big money then come?2019 news
    Try it, you won’t regret it!?..

    SEE HERE http://xurl.es/Justwork

  28. The sad thing about a war, is that it only takes one side to start one. After that, your only choice is fighting or surrender.

    So it doesn’t really matter if rural folk don’t want a war, if the city folk do.

    1. I think given the behavior of the current governors of the states of both CA and NY, you know what the answer is.

  29. I earned $9000 last month by working online just for 7 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. GBd If You too want to earn such a big money then come?2019 news
    Try it, you won’t regret it!?..

    SEE HERE http://www.Theprocoin.com

  30. Although the Democrats currently say they want to get rid of the electoral college, if they manage to get their candidate elected as President, they wouldn’t say a thing. It’s all about retaining power for politicians of both sides of the aisle. I live in a small town just outside the Bay Area and my fellow citizens have little in common with the residents of San Francisco or Oakland. The biggest political battles in our town have been fighting dictates from Sacramento. In my neighbourhood, the kids ride their skateboards, bikes, scooters and those motorised toy cars on the street and we locals know it and drive slow. No need for cops or signs or more rules from politicians, just common sense. Left to our own devices, we have a good place to live, good schools and the kinds of childhood we had. Its amazing how fierce the citizens in our town get when outsiders try to tell us how to live. Its not easy, but it is so worth it to fight for our right to be left alone.

  31. I guess at a certain level the “hicks” aren’t too keen on weed, gay shit, and illegal immigrants… But really, it seems like it’s 90% urban progs trying to push their big government policies on the suburbs and rural areas.

    When have you ever heard of a small town caring if the big city in their state does something retarded like have a massive city wide minimum wage hike? Pretty well never. Yet those same progs try to force destructive levels of minimum wage on the country folks, take their guns, force other social programs on them they don’t want to pay for, etc.

    As per usual, I’d say there is a BIT of both sides being to blame… But it still mostly lands on the leftists trying to force their way onto everybody.

  32. The problem is the media is urban and they push the narrative that anyone with a different point of view on any issue is a racist, a phobe of some sort or ignorant. You see the mentality in the posts on any issue from leftists. When they cannot refute a point, they immediately begin personal attacks questioning your education and intelligence often peppering the post with terms such as “mouth breather, redneck, republitard” and a host of other childish labels. The left views themselves as smarter, more educated, more civilized and morally superior to their rural and/or red state counterparts. Here in Texas you see the attitude on full display when you read comments from those within the Austin- SA corridor, Houston and Dallas about the rest of the state. As long as the left sees themselves as morally superior to everyone else this divide will only grow. The only answer is to leave everyone to live their own lives, but leftists will never accept this because is means they are not in control.

    1. >>When they cannot refute a point, they immediately begin personal attacks questioning your education and intelligence often peppering the post with terms such as “mouth breather, redneck, republitard” and a host of other childish labels.

      SOP for our resident faux trolls.

    2. Leftists biggest culprit is equating POWER = WEALTH.
      Without excuse; That stance is criminal (i.e. Robbery/Theft/Injustice)
      When faced with such logic; the stance becomes a ‘Power’ play (i.e. character bashing)

      The profession of the criminal mind is to find the next victim to bleed dry while living in a self-created illusion that the criminal is actually the victim.

  33. Libs are flubbing running the crown jewels that are their major cities. It’s not just the cultural values and that divide my state, which is now dominated by blue majorities in the legislature, the Supreme Court, Governor’s office and an activist A.G., but the incompetence!

    Nobody in the Dem Party seems able to manage anything. They defer entirely to their union bosses or other special interest lobbyists who tell them what to build, how to staff it, or how to run existing agencies to their satisfaction and best interest.

    What is an urban “homeless” camp? (1) a place where laws against petty crimes are not enforced, drug laws not enforced by prosecutors, even most assaults, muggings, rapes, and burglaries, not resulting in any jail time, or murders in arrests. (2) the mentally ill live without taking the psych meds (even ordered by courts) to take (3) places where people with warrants can live because their real ID is cached in hidey places (4) places where a surprising number of people receive regular entitlement checks. They have other priorities for this money, however, than spending it on rent, utilities, etc. (5) Blue cities are great places to get handouts from all those libs going from offices to Starbucks. Also welfare network so generous, 3 free meals a day somewhere, great E.R.’s at major hospitals. (6) cheapest heroin is in Seattle. A proud tradition.

    Can’t get all that rurally, those rubes!

  34. Altruistic progressivism is fundamentally parasitic.
    The ruling caste must confiscate resources from the productive to maintain both the ruling caste AND the underclass.
    Cities can have enough resources to maintain either one or the other, but not both.
    Since the ruling caste of altruistic progressivism requires the spectacle of the underclass, the ruling caste requires resources beyond the city.
    Thus altruistic progressivism is necessarily parasitic – and necessarily hostile to any resistance.
    There can be no peace with altruistic progressivism, only surrender or war.

  35. Earning in the modern life is not as difficult as it is thought to be. God has made man for comfort then why we are so stressed. We are giving you the solution of your problems. Come and join us here on just go to home TECH tab at this site and start a fair income bussiness

    HERE? ? http://Www.Theprocoin.com

  36. “That neither side really had to dominate the other doesn’t seem to have occurred to enough people.”

    I can’t believe the author believes this. I am confident that it did…for a moment. And then, people reverted to (remembered? rediscovered?) their inner primate and the desire to dominate.

    And I thought that progressives and the left more generally alone clung to Blank Slateisms.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.