Why rural voters don’t vote Democratic anymore

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-03-2016, 07:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Brower made a good point that I've also made here, that America is unique because of its huge white Christian fundamentalist population that does not exist in other countries. Perhaps it is like the aristocratic slave state that existed in much of the same regions before the civil war.

Sometimes Christian white fundamentalists can be Democrats, like William Jennings Bryan was. If some of these people get disillusioned with their support for an immoral capitalist liar, who was touted as a populist who cares about working people, but whose policies do them grave harm, could there be an awakening of them?

Maybe if the blue message gets through to working folks, the social issues and the gun issues could be put on the back burner for a while, in both sides' minds. And the gun issue too, if cities can have strict gun control, with less or none in rural places as they prefer. It's a long shot, but perhaps it could happen-- at least among some younger white religious people.

Other cultures have had strong religious and/or fundamentalist tendencies.  The Middle East comes to mind.  Rigid religious thought patterns have certainly proven problematic there.  There it is complicated by the colonial imperialistic aspect of Western culture, which was on full display in the West's grab for the oil.  While we have a favorable view of ourselves and modern Western values, they have seen the ugly side of Western culture in a way we haven't seen since the days of taxation without representation and dumping tea in the harbor. Having rejected both the West and Communism as bad jobs, they have problems latching onto a new start to guide them. Thus, it is harder even than usual for them to let go of autocratic religious thinking.

I see many of the S&H crises as transition struggles in the transformation from the Agricultural Age pattern to the Industrial Age pattern.  One part of this is moving from religious absolutes to Enlightenment philosophy and politics.  In the old days all the answers to the moral question were in The Book and autocratic governments and churches could use tyranny and torture to make sure the right answers were enforced.  Under the Enlightenment point of view, individuals have the right to make choices, the freedom to make decisions on their own.  Some of the modern cultural issues, where a woman might perceive a right to make her own decisions regarding reproductive health care or another believes in the right to own and carry weapons, are still playing out this theme.  Does one culture have the absolute right to tear away the other's rights?  Does one culture use the big stick of the federal government to impose its views on the other?  In general, on most issues, I would say no.  I favor rights and choices over fixed absolute answers imposed by force.

This doesn't mean I would expect a fundamentalist to agree with me. Values are nigh on binding.

I see the transition from autocratic to democratic patterns as very very hard.  How many wars and crises has the Anglo American culture faced, and we're still working on it?  How many French Republics have there been, and have they got it totally right yet?  How far have Russia and China to go, let alone the Middle East and Africa?

But, yes, if one respects the rural culture and doesn't try to push every single urban value on them whenever one gets a shadow of a chance, movement and coexistence ought might become possible.

Alas, many have gotten into the habit of hating the other culture reflexively, and it is hard to listen to those one hates.