Absolutely brilliant commentary! In one piece you summarized the perfect paradox of red States and blue States in a way that I couldn't even have thought of. But ironically, if you look at it it goes even deeper and there's another point you could easily make if you wished. It's a simple common sense logic that goes right back to the founding of America, and the most basic fundamental principle of how our system works. The blue States use the system of relying on each other and Community as a way to build success wealth and prosperity. Red States rely on the notion of individualism and the self-made man myth. However they showed time and time again that no one is truly self-made, and it's not possible to succeed without the help of others. Their entire definition of socialism is based on the idea of working together and working for the good of the community, rather than working for yourself. This is the fundamental flaw of red States, sir.
Yes, the myth of the lone creator, "I built that", is provably false, but even more in small communities where they live the reality that they depend on each other.
Fear of government is I think more the horror of an impersonal, powerful, sometimes destructive machine in place of their personal, organic community of generations.
Fear is attached to the word 'socialism' by bankers and businessmen and Republican politicians and shouted so frequently that most people have no idea what the problem with socialism is, just that it is 'bad'. Personally I would simply avoid a label and focus on the promises and policies / plans for making those promises become reality. When others try to apply a label simply accuse them of fear mongering and working to deny the people what they want and need.
The problem here is that the rich people aren't actually smart. They don't understand why it makes more sense FOR THEIR POCKETS to pay high taxes than to not.
They all play with fire out of greed and bigotry. If they just pay their fair taxes, the rich could have their cake and eat it too. Instead, they're going to tank the entire thing.
What happens in depressions? Everybody loses everything and we start over. Depressions don't just target and affect the poor. It doesn't work out swimmingly for the currently rich. They often become the poor too.
Greed and bigotry are two of the biggest causes of conflict in the world. Between them come more Wars have started and more humans have been killed than almost any other causes.
1. Red states are structurally poor and have been so long before modern politics.
2. Republican economic strategies hit a ceiling in these rural environments.
3. Real improvement requires long-term investment, not slogans, and usually a mix of progressive social policy and targeted conservative economic development. Something the Republicans always vote down.
The rural people distrust cities and people from cities for sometimes good reasons. Con men and ruthless greedy businessmen came from the cities. Government workers were too often doing jobs influenced by rich people in the cities paying politicians in the cities.
Often there were laws passed to favor those in the cities and businesses from the cities were more focused on the small print in the contracts than 'keeping their word'.
In the (smaller) rural communities personal relationships spanned decades, even generations. You do not risk damaging these relationships over some short term gain. You have to live near these people and people who feel betrayed carry grudges. Much better and safer all around for people to remain trustworthy. So the story of 'limited government' sounds good to them. They have little need of big government in small communities. Over time, as big government grew, much of the benefits they got from the government they just accepted as part of 'the ways things are' and did not even connect them with government, because for the most part it was not visible to them in their everyday life, so they kept voting for "Small Government". Republicans found their niche in catering to rich people and businesses who 'donated to their campaigns' and to sell their brand and cater to their patrons, they sabotaged any government efforts to make their voters lives easier, to convince that government is inherently ineffective and costly for no real benefit. And when in charge, they just did more of it, while cutting the government even more (except where it benefitted their wealthy patrons).
Democrats focused on places where the story of big government sold much better, such as cities, especially big cities. Democrats rarely studied the issues that frustrated the rural communities, rarely reached out to them.
Reality is, our economy does not work without both rural and cities, and small government works for small communities but big government at state and federal level is necessary to protect rural economies and people too.
Everything you said about rural distrust rings true. I grew up in a largely rural red community in upstate New York, so I get that frustration and I have felt it myself. But that history does not change the economic reality. These areas have been structurally poor for generations because of chronic underinvestment, limited industry mix, and policies that block the very improvements people need.
What is interesting is that the politics are starting to crack. A county next to where grew had a Republican legislature for more than 50 years and it just flipped blue, which shocked both parties. All the signs pointed to Trump driving that shift, and local Republican leaders even admitted it. Another nearby rural town had Republican supervisors for more than a century flipped as well.
These communities are not turning progressive, they are signaling that the old small government formula is not delivering results. Cultural mistrust explains the voting history, but it does not rebuild infrastructure, improve healthcare access, or raise wages. Rural areas need targeted economic development plus long term public investment. Without that mix, nothing changes. Now we are seeing some shifts and it’s not just in blue areas.
I am so glad to hear that. yes, of course it takes time to build things. It is so much easier to destroy than create. Some things can be delivered quicker, some slower.
For instance, internet, communication, can be quicker. It takes longer to build better roads. Water, sewage, power take time to do right. Schools can built and staffed and equipped, but it takes a few years. Doctors and other medical professionals and services take time, and we need to train MORE doctors as opposed to the current policy (by doctors) to limit their numbers to maintain their wealth...
What we need to do is develop policies and plans to build these things and improve laws to protect and help these communities and hopefully they will see the intent and the progress towards helping them in ways they want.
Democrats need to get out of their rut and start thinking aggressively on how to help ALL the people, including rural, and not focusing on one small piece, but ALL of it. We need our own 'Project 2029', which will need to be much bigger than their project 2025 because building is harder than destroying.
It is good that communities are flipping blue, but now the Democrats need to focus on delivering, and stop trying to 'compromise' with Republicans because they have proven themselves to never deal in 'good faith', they simply negotiate in order to make the 'change' less effective.
The question is, "If Republican policies work, why are red states poorer?". The answer is simple, Republican policies DO NOT work for states as a whole. They ONLY work for the 1% of the "Red states" and those who are politically connected.
The Republican propaganda machine has hoodwinked many of us into believing that "Republican policies work". This is total BS! The Republicans sold all of us out every since Richard Nixon sold us out to China back in the 70's.
It's also a rhetorical question. It was meant as a hook to get readers to engage.
The fact the conservative republican policies are a disaster and a failure is a foregone conclusion. The point of the paper was merely to prove that statement.
You forget that the big Southern economies lost allll their net worth between 1860 and 1865 (=SLAVES) and instead of getting busy and finding new ways to create wealth, they have just spent 165 years whinging about how you just can't own people anymore.
David, you talked about a "soft secession". But this might be a good time to bring up the possibility of a real one, conducted legally through Congress and SCOTUS.
The question of whether a state has the legal right to secede has never been definitively answered. It should be possible by using the reverse of the process for admitting new states. Petition to leave the Union, followed by a vote in both houses. With a large majority of states leaning MAGA, and anti- liberal sentiment stronger than ever, it just might pass.
A key issue would be what to do with federal property in the seceding states, especially military bases. Most of these would have to be bought out by the newly independent states, an expensive proposition. Naval bases on the coasts might remain federal property, with treaties struck for mutual defense.
The newly independent states would then be free to form alliances with Canada, Mexico, and other friendly countries. They'd be able to offer far better terms than MAGAland would.
The key to the whole concept is getting buy-in from enough MAGA congressmen. The blue states would have to, 1, form a united front, and 2, make enough of a nuisance of themselves so that being rid of us would appeal to the MAGAs as a desirable solution. The "soft secession" would be the best place to start being that nuisance.
I knew the GOP, Trump, Putin would attempt to make Mamdani the face of the Democratic Party.
And as we see the far left is also trying to make him the face of the party.
So we have another one of those scenarios where the far right and the far left are working together.
A strange situation where you have two populist movements working together for different reasons.
The GOP will use it, because it may be their only hope to hold Congress.
70% of people have a negative view of socialism.. 97% of independent voters have a negative view.
The far left will use it because they think their populist movement is nationwide. That’s where the far left and the far right are naïve. They’re positive that they’re right and there can be no argument.
I remember speaking to somebody who was a big Jeremy Corbin fan. Told me that Corbin would win, because “everybody I know is gonna vote for him.” I had to laugh. The far left and the far right ignore the sentiment of the people. Because they can’t see beyond their cult. They are cults. And both movements can turn to fanaticism, unless
opposition is allowed and considered legitimate.
Leaders are willing to compromise. The movement recognizes that society is diverse.
That doesn’t sound like the far left, and certainly not the far right.
I can see the far left, annoying people to the point where Democrats might take the house, but for certain will not take the senate. When I talk to them, they are giddy about winning both, and even to the point of a major majority to impeach Trump.
I would love that, but I think they’ll only help him.
The anti-Trump movement was nationwide, but they think it was all about them. It wasn’t.
But in any case we’re not getting rid of Trump for another three years. Unless you think you can turn the Republicans against him. That might’ve been a possibility, but not now.
I SUGGEST THAT CALIFORNIA WITHHOLD $40 BILLION IN TAXES FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND USE IT TO FUND SNAP
TO REPLACE $40 BILLIONS THAT TRUMP GAVE "LOANED" TO ARGENTINA'S DICTATOR. FOLLOWING THE HISTORY OF MONEY GIVEN TO DICTATORS, MOST OF WHICH WILL END UP IN THE DICTATORS POCKET!
Absolutely brilliant commentary! In one piece you summarized the perfect paradox of red States and blue States in a way that I couldn't even have thought of. But ironically, if you look at it it goes even deeper and there's another point you could easily make if you wished. It's a simple common sense logic that goes right back to the founding of America, and the most basic fundamental principle of how our system works. The blue States use the system of relying on each other and Community as a way to build success wealth and prosperity. Red States rely on the notion of individualism and the self-made man myth. However they showed time and time again that no one is truly self-made, and it's not possible to succeed without the help of others. Their entire definition of socialism is based on the idea of working together and working for the good of the community, rather than working for yourself. This is the fundamental flaw of red States, sir.
Yes, the myth of the lone creator, "I built that", is provably false, but even more in small communities where they live the reality that they depend on each other.
Fear of government is I think more the horror of an impersonal, powerful, sometimes destructive machine in place of their personal, organic community of generations.
Fear is attached to the word 'socialism' by bankers and businessmen and Republican politicians and shouted so frequently that most people have no idea what the problem with socialism is, just that it is 'bad'. Personally I would simply avoid a label and focus on the promises and policies / plans for making those promises become reality. When others try to apply a label simply accuse them of fear mongering and working to deny the people what they want and need.
The problem here is that the rich people aren't actually smart. They don't understand why it makes more sense FOR THEIR POCKETS to pay high taxes than to not.
They all play with fire out of greed and bigotry. If they just pay their fair taxes, the rich could have their cake and eat it too. Instead, they're going to tank the entire thing.
What happens in depressions? Everybody loses everything and we start over. Depressions don't just target and affect the poor. It doesn't work out swimmingly for the currently rich. They often become the poor too.
More wealth with the masses will deliver more wealth to the rich elite.
Trickle-up economics!
Greed and bigotry are two of the biggest causes of conflict in the world. Between them come more Wars have started and more humans have been killed than almost any other causes.
1. Red states are structurally poor and have been so long before modern politics.
2. Republican economic strategies hit a ceiling in these rural environments.
3. Real improvement requires long-term investment, not slogans, and usually a mix of progressive social policy and targeted conservative economic development. Something the Republicans always vote down.
The rural people distrust cities and people from cities for sometimes good reasons. Con men and ruthless greedy businessmen came from the cities. Government workers were too often doing jobs influenced by rich people in the cities paying politicians in the cities.
Often there were laws passed to favor those in the cities and businesses from the cities were more focused on the small print in the contracts than 'keeping their word'.
In the (smaller) rural communities personal relationships spanned decades, even generations. You do not risk damaging these relationships over some short term gain. You have to live near these people and people who feel betrayed carry grudges. Much better and safer all around for people to remain trustworthy. So the story of 'limited government' sounds good to them. They have little need of big government in small communities. Over time, as big government grew, much of the benefits they got from the government they just accepted as part of 'the ways things are' and did not even connect them with government, because for the most part it was not visible to them in their everyday life, so they kept voting for "Small Government". Republicans found their niche in catering to rich people and businesses who 'donated to their campaigns' and to sell their brand and cater to their patrons, they sabotaged any government efforts to make their voters lives easier, to convince that government is inherently ineffective and costly for no real benefit. And when in charge, they just did more of it, while cutting the government even more (except where it benefitted their wealthy patrons).
Democrats focused on places where the story of big government sold much better, such as cities, especially big cities. Democrats rarely studied the issues that frustrated the rural communities, rarely reached out to them.
Reality is, our economy does not work without both rural and cities, and small government works for small communities but big government at state and federal level is necessary to protect rural economies and people too.
Everything you said about rural distrust rings true. I grew up in a largely rural red community in upstate New York, so I get that frustration and I have felt it myself. But that history does not change the economic reality. These areas have been structurally poor for generations because of chronic underinvestment, limited industry mix, and policies that block the very improvements people need.
What is interesting is that the politics are starting to crack. A county next to where grew had a Republican legislature for more than 50 years and it just flipped blue, which shocked both parties. All the signs pointed to Trump driving that shift, and local Republican leaders even admitted it. Another nearby rural town had Republican supervisors for more than a century flipped as well.
These communities are not turning progressive, they are signaling that the old small government formula is not delivering results. Cultural mistrust explains the voting history, but it does not rebuild infrastructure, improve healthcare access, or raise wages. Rural areas need targeted economic development plus long term public investment. Without that mix, nothing changes. Now we are seeing some shifts and it’s not just in blue areas.
I am so glad to hear that. yes, of course it takes time to build things. It is so much easier to destroy than create. Some things can be delivered quicker, some slower.
For instance, internet, communication, can be quicker. It takes longer to build better roads. Water, sewage, power take time to do right. Schools can built and staffed and equipped, but it takes a few years. Doctors and other medical professionals and services take time, and we need to train MORE doctors as opposed to the current policy (by doctors) to limit their numbers to maintain their wealth...
What we need to do is develop policies and plans to build these things and improve laws to protect and help these communities and hopefully they will see the intent and the progress towards helping them in ways they want.
Democrats need to get out of their rut and start thinking aggressively on how to help ALL the people, including rural, and not focusing on one small piece, but ALL of it. We need our own 'Project 2029', which will need to be much bigger than their project 2025 because building is harder than destroying.
It is good that communities are flipping blue, but now the Democrats need to focus on delivering, and stop trying to 'compromise' with Republicans because they have proven themselves to never deal in 'good faith', they simply negotiate in order to make the 'change' less effective.
This is a message the Democrats should constantly be promoting
The question is, "If Republican policies work, why are red states poorer?". The answer is simple, Republican policies DO NOT work for states as a whole. They ONLY work for the 1% of the "Red states" and those who are politically connected.
The Republican propaganda machine has hoodwinked many of us into believing that "Republican policies work". This is total BS! The Republicans sold all of us out every since Richard Nixon sold us out to China back in the 70's.
It's also a rhetorical question. It was meant as a hook to get readers to engage.
The fact the conservative republican policies are a disaster and a failure is a foregone conclusion. The point of the paper was merely to prove that statement.
You forget that the big Southern economies lost allll their net worth between 1860 and 1865 (=SLAVES) and instead of getting busy and finding new ways to create wealth, they have just spent 165 years whinging about how you just can't own people anymore.
Perfect
David, you talked about a "soft secession". But this might be a good time to bring up the possibility of a real one, conducted legally through Congress and SCOTUS.
The question of whether a state has the legal right to secede has never been definitively answered. It should be possible by using the reverse of the process for admitting new states. Petition to leave the Union, followed by a vote in both houses. With a large majority of states leaning MAGA, and anti- liberal sentiment stronger than ever, it just might pass.
A key issue would be what to do with federal property in the seceding states, especially military bases. Most of these would have to be bought out by the newly independent states, an expensive proposition. Naval bases on the coasts might remain federal property, with treaties struck for mutual defense.
The newly independent states would then be free to form alliances with Canada, Mexico, and other friendly countries. They'd be able to offer far better terms than MAGAland would.
The key to the whole concept is getting buy-in from enough MAGA congressmen. The blue states would have to, 1, form a united front, and 2, make enough of a nuisance of themselves so that being rid of us would appeal to the MAGAs as a desirable solution. The "soft secession" would be the best place to start being that nuisance.
Because they lack smarts
Democrats didn’t want to endorse a populist.
I knew the GOP, Trump, Putin would attempt to make Mamdani the face of the Democratic Party.
And as we see the far left is also trying to make him the face of the party.
So we have another one of those scenarios where the far right and the far left are working together.
A strange situation where you have two populist movements working together for different reasons.
The GOP will use it, because it may be their only hope to hold Congress.
70% of people have a negative view of socialism.. 97% of independent voters have a negative view.
The far left will use it because they think their populist movement is nationwide. That’s where the far left and the far right are naïve. They’re positive that they’re right and there can be no argument.
I remember speaking to somebody who was a big Jeremy Corbin fan. Told me that Corbin would win, because “everybody I know is gonna vote for him.” I had to laugh. The far left and the far right ignore the sentiment of the people. Because they can’t see beyond their cult. They are cults. And both movements can turn to fanaticism, unless
opposition is allowed and considered legitimate.
Leaders are willing to compromise. The movement recognizes that society is diverse.
That doesn’t sound like the far left, and certainly not the far right.
I can see the far left, annoying people to the point where Democrats might take the house, but for certain will not take the senate. When I talk to them, they are giddy about winning both, and even to the point of a major majority to impeach Trump.
I would love that, but I think they’ll only help him.
The anti-Trump movement was nationwide, but they think it was all about them. It wasn’t.
But in any case we’re not getting rid of Trump for another three years. Unless you think you can turn the Republicans against him. That might’ve been a possibility, but not now.
Just saying.
Really acute and clear explanation ! Americans should READ instead of watching TV...
Those people that voted against their best interest Republicans call the ignorant vote.
GOP = GUARDIANS OF PEDOPHILES
NOT FOR THE PEOPLE, RED OR BLUE!
I SUGGEST THAT CALIFORNIA WITHHOLD $40 BILLION IN TAXES FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND USE IT TO FUND SNAP
TO REPLACE $40 BILLIONS THAT TRUMP GAVE "LOANED" TO ARGENTINA'S DICTATOR. FOLLOWING THE HISTORY OF MONEY GIVEN TO DICTATORS, MOST OF WHICH WILL END UP IN THE DICTATORS POCKET!
Excellent article. I have always believed this and cannot fathom why red states don’t understand this.
Release all the EPSTEIN FILES that will sort out this corrupt, cruel, racist trump administration who are covering up a pedophile ring.
because 2+2 before or maybe it’s 5, wait…….
Absolutely the best question ever!