Serious What to do with the rural West

[Chou Toshio]

So in previous posts/threads, I've mentioned my appreciation of JD Vance's Hillbilly Elegy-- a book that tells the grim reality of poor, rural America. Vance, a Scott's Irish Hillbilly made Silicon CEO, has made brilliant comments about how "his people" became Trump's America.
https://www.google.co.jp/amp/www.vo...d-vance-trump-hillbilly-elegy-ezra-klein-show

While Vance calls himself a conservative, I think his ideals match closely with Bernie's-- in that what's needed is for liberal elites to not look down on the hillbilly and instead invest in a future that makes these communities productive, put people to work, and enable them to create livelihoods with dignity.

I would agree that this is an ideal, and that the alienation/exclusion of working whites is a big part of what put Trump in office. What's more, I didn't realize that it's almost the exact same dynamic/forces driving the conservative movements in Britain, France, and probably the West at large.
Even looking at the country I live in, Japan, the market forces have created basically the exact same power/economic dynamics-- only difference is that a single race and close family ties between cities and rural areas damper the divide. But that doesn't change the reality of rural areas deprived of economic growth and young people.

I recently also read this piece:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/frank-rich-no-sympathy-for-the-hillbilly.html

It dives into a deep analysis of Vance's work and the relationship between rural communities and modern liberalism. The ultimate conclusion of this article is this though:

"Fuck 'em. Their old values and location make them morally and economically unsalvageable. Their older age and lack of relevancy means that these places are dying out, and the left should let them die out instead of throwing time and money at trying to save what cannot be saved."

relevant excerpt

There’s no way liberals can counter these voters’ blind faith in a huckster who’s sold them this snake oil. The notion that they can be won over by some sort of new New Deal — “domestic programs that would benefit everyone (like national health insurance),” as Mark Lilla puts it — is wishful thinking. These voters are so adamantly opposed to government programs that in some cases they refuse to accept the fact that aid they already receive comes from Washington — witness the “Keep Government Out of My Medicare!” placards at the early tea-party protests.

Perhaps it’s a smarter idea to just let the GOP own these intractable voters. Liberals looking for a way to empathize with conservatives should endorse the core conservative belief in the importance of personal responsibility. Let Trump’s white working-class base take responsibility for its own votes — or in some cases failure to vote — and live with the election’s consequences. If, as polls tell us, many voters who vilify Obamacare haven’t yet figured out that it’s another name for the Affordable Care Act that’s benefiting them — or if they do know and still want the Trump alternative — then let them reap the consequences for voting against their own interests. That they will sabotage other needy Americans along with them is unavoidable in any case now — at least until voters stage an intervention in an election to come.

Trump voters should also be reminded that the elite of the party they’ve put in power is as dismissive of them as Democratic elites can be condescending. “Forget your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap,” Kevin Williamson wrote of the white working class in National Review. “The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible.” He was only saying in public what other Republicans like Mitt Romney say about the “47 percent” in private when they think only well-heeled donors are listening. Besides, if National Review says that their towns deserve to die, who are Democrats to stand in the way of Trump voters who used their ballots to commit assisted suicide?

So hold the empathy and hold on to the anger. If Trump delivers on his promises to the “poorly educated” despite all indications to the contrary, then good for them. Once again, all the Trump naysayers will be proved wrong. But if his administration crashes into an iceberg, leaving his base trapped in America’s steerage with no lifeboats, those who survive may at last be ready to burst out of their own bubble and listen to an alternative. Or not: Maybe, like Hochschild’s new friends in Louisiana’s oil country, they’ll keep voting against their own interests until the industrial poisons left unregulated by their favored politicians finish them off altogether. Either way, the best course for Democrats may be to respect their right to choose.

While absolutely heartless, and an obviously dangerous path to take for a political party or country, refuting that opinion also leaves you with very tough problems to solve. Putting social values aside--

Realistically, CAN YOU make these places economically relevant?

Trump promised them jobs he has no intention to deliver. Bernie calls coal miners in West Virgina heroes and promises investment in infrastructure and green energy that may or may not help who knows who at this point-- but he (and every other politician) has cleverly avoided making any promise or vision for long-term growth in these areas. More social programs alone will not fix these problems, with the same divides popping up in more socialist countries like the U.K., France, and even economically if not socially the aforementioned Japan.

Is making Trump country, Brexit country, Le Pen's France ecomically relevant and able to live with dignity even possible?

 

[verbatim]

Yes, but it involves heavy government spending on education so it'll never happen.

Something something, "I love the uneducated".

 

[Chou Toshio]

It would involve a lot of things, both gov driven and not. Also innovation, even in education--because even the best private schools are needing to transform for the technology and jobs of tomorrow. If Public schools don't transform even more radically (and that race is already being run) the gap between haves and have nots is about to get a lot lot lot lot wider in a generation.

 

[Shrug]

i do not fuck with "hillbilly elegy" - it's the vougish patronizing misleading text to explain the Damn Fool Hick South peddled by a slick Appalachian Uncle Tom whose politics depend on the oppressive hegemony imposed on his people. He's a reactionary - one sentient enough to understand that a president fond of sexcrimes is bad, yes, major props - and his book advances the attendant agenda.

He wastes little time in absolving two rather large parties who might be implicated in the decline of an american region, the government and the capitalists; in fact, he manages it all in one fell swoop, not even tossing in a comma-length pause in his rush to free "Obama or bush or faceless corporations" from blame. Instead, he drops it all on the hillbilly with the glib "thrift is inimical to our being". It wouldn't surprise me if this was the first sentence Vance wrote: it's smooth, argument-defining, and bullshit, every word. The stated lack of that great conservative virtue, "thrift", makes it seem like the Appalachian poor are burning their abundant currency in wheelbarrows in some pagan hick ritual. More likely, to me, is the idea that their meager earnings are swallowed by the hungry mouths of healthcare costs, food needs, rent payments, and so on, the same ones that snap at every poor or poor-adjacent american. Instead comes whispered threats of white trash with "giant tvs" and "nice clothes" and "homes we dont need", T-bone steaks and Hennessy, it all blends together at some point; poor is the new black. Carry this on to his next meaningful word, "inimical", as if wild spending was a core trait of the residents Appalachia region rather than the product of a society that requires one spend to live. Excessive consumption is the bedrock of U.S life coast to coast - pinning it on the poor, our most vulnerable and easy to deceive, as a central facet of their character is gross. Similarly sickening is the first-person plural Vance casually slides into his sentence. While growing up in Appalachia may give him the rhetorical credibility for some anecdotes, it does not so award him, a Yale JD and present-day Silicon Valley vulture, the impassioned plea that "our" brings - he's no longer part of the community he is helping, which perhaps should be evident in that he's writing a 800 page book scolding and negging them into prosperity, too time-consuming a task for people with families to feed. The last lie, and perhaps the most sad, is "being" - the people of this region lack an identity to the culture at large, making it imperative for the strong rejection of this false one proffered as an easy, conservative solution to a complex problem.

When cogent argument fails, pathos comes to support it in tales of blue-collar Kentuckians. Sure, find the personal depictions moving - take your poverty porn where you can find it. The sympathy feels ersatz when in service of a cynical and sinister plot to deepen the suffering of those pitied. Although he tosses up possible government aid - "public policy can help" - it hangs in the air for the length of a comma before conservative gravity - "but there's no government that can fix these problems for us" - pulls it back down. Instead, the solution lies in the people. If they change, work harder and smarter, stop falling for the dirty tricks of the (blameless) corporations while accepting jobs at the (beneficent) corporations soon to swarm into the region, then perhaps they might be less poor. The self-interest is vomit-inducing, a Silicon Valley savior story from someone who cashes checks signed by Peter Thiel. Even worse are the implications - what does coal country have to offer the techbros besides a cheap, exploitable force of labor that justifies a "Made in America" sticker? How will the region be helped by the takeover of an industry whose means they cannot seize even if they tried, one that invests in the same companies that evict and starve the poor? What if those for whom the market is free dont take a fancy to West Virginia after all? The bodies will stack up like coal bricks while the conservatives point to their tv as the cause of death. Fuck that. The people of this country - all of them - deserve healthcare, housing, clean water, food, and a community that supports them. Lets let the residents of the community that already exists tell their story instead of glorifying a bootlicking scumbag who condemns his people to death with his scorn.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Shrug, I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or trying to troll me.

When I've heard Vance talk politics, it's clear that he has a keen awareness in the severity of the issues. He's had a balanced and realistic view-- that the issues are not immune to government intervention, but also too that autonomy of individuals is needed to make real change. In the book he asks both for understanding and assistance (without condescension from liberals/gov), but also for reflection and personal responsibility from his community.

I love his analogy to substance abuse-- on one hand, addiction is a biological phenomenon, a real thing that works like a disease. Also, the market realities and regulations (or lack of) have created the environment people live in. These are real facts about how the deck is stacked against addicts. But, at the same time, it's also a researched fact that individuals who have an internal locust of control, that believe their decisions/personal responsibility are more important than their circumstances, have a much better chance of beating the addiction. It takes both gov intervention and individual decisions to overcome the issue.

Frankly I think he has fair views. This is a free country with freedom of speech, and no matter who you become your identity is your own. Maybe there are apalacian people who see him as an Uncle Tom-- there are many who have praised and found value in this book; and it's a rare book that conservatives and liberals have picked up and learned from.

But none of this is even what the thread is about--

The thread is about what to do with those communities in a modern world. It doesn't matter whether liberals or conservatives hold power-- advancement of technology and science, and the resulting disruption of markets, are the universal constant. It's adapt or die, and the question is what can be done to help people adapt.

 

[Myzozoa]

>op talking shit abt 'liberals'
>seems like something even i would aspire to

Realistically, CAN YOU make these places economically relevant?

Trump promised them jobs he has no intention to deliver. Bernie calls coal miners in West Virgina heroes and promises investment in infrastructure and green energy that may or may not help who knows who at this point (hint: not this op.)-- but he (and every other politician) has cleverly avoided making any promise or vision for long-term growth in these areas. More social programs alone will not fix these problems, with the same divides popping up in more socialist countries like the U.K., France, and even economically if not socially the aforementioned Japan (japan will never be divided socially, except by foreigners.)

Is making Trump country, Brexit country, Le Pen's France economically relevant and able to live with dignity even possible?

who do you think you are? Not an avowed liberal, I would assume. Your pleas for plans for long-term economic growth are really quite fucking liberal tho, no?

aren't the 'liberal elites' actually free market capitalists?

?

maybe the problem is capitalism dgaf abt ppl and literally works their bodies to death. the problem is not that the american west isnt economically relevant, the bodies of its inhabitants are tho.

also there is a problem that you don't know what a liberal is, which would be more of a technical error than a political tragedy if it wasn't so common.



anyway, ill now post on behalf of the op:

well boys, I think this thread has gone on long enough that it's time we wrap it up:

the solution is obviously to re-forest it (the rural west). it's all part of my grand liberal capitalist tech-scheme to solve-climate-change-and-keep-capitalism-going-at-the-same-time™ .


basically we really need to figure out whats up with these bleeding heart snow-flake liberal elites who don't care about the 'rural poor white midwesterners'.

I, the op, do believe that although corporations do not care about people, they do care about the environment. I believe this because I am in denial that economic growth has always been fueled by animal/human slavery and environmental destruction.

My brilliant solution is to guilt all the snowflake coastal 'liberal' elites and the corporations that belong to them: the same corporations that are totally gonna save us from the climate change fueled political instability through and nuclear war.

See, there will someday be a sufficient demand from the freemarket® such that corporations will have to address climate change and the economic plight of rural american working class AT THE SAME TIME. This will happen because social media like facebook is gonna bring us all together and change our attitudes and give us empathy and then our individual free wills will all pool together into a FAT DEMAND on the Market, and it is gonna bring those corporations begging to sell us a green solution to rural american poverty: the free market+ new technology=we are saved. <- this is a timeless formula for political change that I derived one day when I was blowing off my history and literature coursework.

When this happens they (the elite liberals' corporations) will decide to off-set their carbon foot-prints by planting trees in the American west, and they'll pay rural people to plant trees and manage forests.

According to wikipedia (although when the fuck is there ever actually a reason to use source materials that aren't TV show clips, amirite?):

"In 1600, prior to the arrival of European-Americans, roughly half of the land area of the present-day United States was forest—about 4,000,000 square kilometres (990,000,000 acres). For the next 300 years land was cleared, mostly for agriculture, at a rate that matched the rate of population growth. For every person added to the population, one to two hectares of land was cultivated."


let the re-foresting begin at once, and at a fair wage for all the 'local american rural' folks that will be put back to work by this plan.

tl;dr- we just gotta guilt those bleeding heart liberals into caring about the environment enough to have their corporations pay rural americans to do something about it.

and we will also 're-forest' the border with Mexico to keep out immigrants. and if we can't get mexico to pay for it, we'll use prison labor.

'oh op, you'd be such a pro capitalist'- i dont hear you say, because you have already died of mind numbing induced by this boring, joyless, and dystopian day dream.

im glad we we're able to get to the bottom of another important issue via a dialogue in a cong thread.

ps: i have no fucking clue what socialism is other than europe, and id sell my children for economic growth. just had to say that in case any of yall mistook me for a cuck for trying to engage with these elite liberal sjws.


pss: i will one day be a fortune 500 ceo you heard it here first. if political correctness hasnt destroyed the economy by then.

 

[moonbound]

>op talking shit abt 'liberals'
>seems like something even i would aspire to


who do you think you are? Not an avowed liberal, I would assume. Your pleas for plans for long-term economic growth are really quite fucking liberal tho, no?

aren't the 'liberal elites' actually free market capitalists?

?

maybe the problem is capitalism dgaf abt ppl and literally works their bodies to death. the problem is not that the american west isnt economically relevant, the bodies of its inhabitants are tho.

also there is a problem that you don't know what a liberal is, which would be more of a technical error than a political tragedy if it wasn't so common.



anyway, ill now post on behalf of the op:

well boys, I think this thread has gone on long enough that it's time we wrap it up:

the solution is obviously to re-forest it (the rural west). it's all part of my grand liberal capitalist tech-scheme to solve-climate-change-and-keep-capitalism-going-at-the-same-time™ .


basically we really need to figure out whats up with these bleeding heart snow-flake liberal elites who don't care about the 'rural poor white midwesterners'.

I, the op, do believe that although corporations do not care about people, they do care about the environment. I believe this because I am in denial that economic growth has always been fueled by animal/human slavery and environmental destruction.

My brilliant solution is to guilt all the snowflake coastal 'liberal' elites and the corporations that belong to them: the same corporations that are totally gonna save us from the climate change fueled political instability through and nuclear war, can totes be guilted into caring about the environment.

There will someday be a sufficient demand from the freemarket® such that corporations will have to address climate change and the economic plight of rural american working class AT THE SAME TIME, this is because social media like facebook is gonna bring us all together and change our attitudes and give us empathy and then our individual free wills will all pool together into a FAT DEMAND on the Market, and it is gonna bring those corporations begging on their knees to sell us a green solution to rural american poverty: the free market+ new technology=we are saved. <- this is a timeless formula for political change that I derived one day when I was blowing off my history and literature coursework.

When this happens they (the elite liberals' corporations) will decide to off-set their carbon foot-prints by planting trees in the American west, and they'll pay rural people to plant trees and manage forests.

According to wikipedia (although when the fuck is there ever actually a reason to use source materials that aren't TV show clips, amirite?):

"In 1600, prior to the arrival of European-Americans, roughly half of the land area of the present-day United States was forest—about 4,000,000 square kilometres (990,000,000 acres). For the next 300 years land was cleared, mostly for agriculture, at a rate that matched the rate of population growth. For every person added to the population, one to two hectares of land was cultivated."


let the re-foresting begin at once, and at a fair wage for all the 'local american rural' folks that will be put back to work by this plan.

tl;dr- we just gotta guilt those bleeding heart liberals into caring about the environment enough to have their corporations pay rural americans to do something about it.

and we will also 're-forest' the border with Mexico to keep out immigrants. and if we can't get mexico to pay for it, we'll use prison labor.

'oh op, you'd be such a pro capitalist'- i dont hear you say, because you have already died of mind numbing induced by this boring, joyless, and dystopian day dream.

im glad we we're able to get to the bottom of another important issue via a dialogue in a cong thread.

ps: i have no fucking clue what socialism is other than europe, and id sell my children for economic growth. just had to say that in case any of yall mistook me for a cuck for trying to engage with these elite liberal sjws.


pss: i will one day be a fortune 500 ceo you heard it here first. if political correctness hasnt destroyed the economy by then.

stop trying so hard
get some help

 

[Myzozoa]

stop trying so hard
get some help

back at u

 

[Chou Toshio]

>op talking shit abt 'liberals'
>seems like something even i would aspire to


who do you think you are? Not an avowed liberal, I would assume. Your pleas for plans for long-term economic growth are really quite fucking liberal tho, no?

aren't the 'liberal elites' actually free market capitalists?

?

maybe the problem is capitalism dgaf abt ppl and literally works their bodies to death. the problem is not that the american west isnt economically relevant, the bodies of its inhabitants are tho.

also there is a problem that you don't know what a liberal is, which would be more of a technical error than a political tragedy if it wasn't so common.



anyway, ill now post on behalf of the op:

well boys, I think this thread has gone on long enough that it's time we wrap it up:

the solution is obviously to re-forest it (the rural west). it's all part of my grand liberal capitalist tech-scheme to solve-climate-change-and-keep-capitalism-going-at-the-same-time™ .


basically we really need to figure out whats up with these bleeding heart snow-flake liberal elites who don't care about the 'rural poor white midwesterners'.

I, the op, do believe that although corporations do not care about people, they do care about the environment. I believe this because I am in denial that economic growth has always been fueled by animal/human slavery and environmental destruction.

My brilliant solution is to guilt all the snowflake coastal 'liberal' elites and the corporations that belong to them: the same corporations that are totally gonna save us from the climate change fueled political instability through and nuclear war.

See, there will someday be a sufficient demand from the freemarket® such that corporations will have to address climate change and the economic plight of rural american working class AT THE SAME TIME. This will happen because social media like facebook is gonna bring us all together and change our attitudes and give us empathy and then our individual free wills will all pool together into a FAT DEMAND on the Market, and it is gonna bring those corporations begging to sell us a green solution to rural american poverty: the free market+ new technology=we are saved. <- this is a timeless formula for political change that I derived one day when I was blowing off my history and literature coursework.

When this happens they (the elite liberals' corporations) will decide to off-set their carbon foot-prints by planting trees in the American west, and they'll pay rural people to plant trees and manage forests.

According to wikipedia (although when the fuck is there ever actually a reason to use source materials that aren't TV show clips, amirite?):

"In 1600, prior to the arrival of European-Americans, roughly half of the land area of the present-day United States was forest—about 4,000,000 square kilometres (990,000,000 acres). For the next 300 years land was cleared, mostly for agriculture, at a rate that matched the rate of population growth. For every person added to the population, one to two hectares of land was cultivated."


let the re-foresting begin at once, and at a fair wage for all the 'local american rural' folks that will be put back to work by this plan.

tl;dr- we just gotta guilt those bleeding heart liberals into caring about the environment enough to have their corporations pay rural americans to do something about it.

and we will also 're-forest' the border with Mexico to keep out immigrants. and if we can't get mexico to pay for it, we'll use prison labor.

'oh op, you'd be such a pro capitalist'- i dont hear you say, because you have already died of mind numbing induced by this boring, joyless, and dystopian day dream.

im glad we we're able to get to the bottom of another important issue via a dialogue in a cong thread.

ps: i have no fucking clue what socialism is other than europe, and id sell my children for economic growth. just had to say that in case any of yall mistook me for a cuck for trying to engage with these elite liberal sjws.


pss: i will one day be a fortune 500 ceo you heard it here first. if political correctness hasnt destroyed the economy by then.

So, I'm happy to admit that I actually have Myzozoa on my "Ignore List," (not because I find him unin but I'm glad I actually decided to read this post because it's brilliant and absolutely hilarious. Not in an I'm making fun of him way-- in a genuinely, "he nailed me good," way. Hilarious.

That said, I'm not afraid to admit that there were points in my life where I considered myself a conservative, and am willing to listen to conservative ideas. However-- watching how the Republican party and conservative groups are developing, watching how the course of discussion is going, and watching the power that lobbyists of private industry have gained in Washington, I quickly found that the ideals and vision that I believed in was a becoming more and more relatively left; at least in America. You cannot have effective capitalism without regulation. Even Greenspan had to admit this truth. A completely unregulated market is just violence and war. Now maybe Myzozoa sees even regulated markets as Violence and War-- but this is all relative. We make fun of Sean Spicer for comparing Assad to Hitler. Comparing modern markets to actual slavery and war is a similarly laughable fallacy. Sorry for another Youtube video, but:

That said, there is no denying that crony capitalism, as it exists today is unhinged. The whole point of competition in a capitalist market is to build efficiency by having people make good decisions, allocate resources well, and in doing so generate real value for companies (and hopefully for people as well). However, it's easier (read: more cost effective) to make a buck on swindling a guy than "make real value", and the only way to force more of the later is regulation. Why should I invest in developing real technologies/services that better people's lives when I could just promise to do so and lie? That's where regulation comes in...

When everyone is only investing in and innovating in ways to cheat and steal, no real value will be made. In modern Right America though, having this opinion makes you a crazy socialist somehow.

Besides, I believe we should have universal health care, single-payer system (from both moral and economic standpoints, it's the only thing that makes sense), free public colleges and regulations to dramatically lower prices of college in private non-profits, taking money out of elections, 3rd party oversight of Gerrymandering and more transparency other similar political ethics issues, MUCH MUCH stricter regulations of Financial markets, programs for childcare that will give women more access to participate in the marketplace, and many other similar positions. Like, as you mentioned, a very strong pro-Environment belief-- we need a Carbon Tax. Now, my opinions on social issues are not as strong, but most of them fall in line with the left in terms of reproductive rights, gay marriage, social justice, etc. Some of them I have come to in more recent years-- nothing wrong with that either I believe.

Most importantly, like any other poster or person, I have a right to define my own identity. Just like it's absurd for Shrug to say that Vance cannot call himself a Hillbilly, it's absurd for you to say that I can't call myself liberal. If anything, the excluding slant of many liberals is the biggest problem we face going forward and trying to actually achieve and maintain the needed political power to implement more of the social programs that we want, which will require bigger government-- selected by people that we need to INCLUDE, not EXCLUDE. The left needs to be much less about preventing conservative speakers from coming to colleges via violence, and a lot more about gathering the voice needed to demand from our politicians that they actually represent the people, and not corporations and billionaires.

Because-- as you said quite accurately-- companies are in the business of making money. However, they are very good at doing it. We need to incentivize markets to work in a way that builds value for society, and we do that by HAVING markets, and we do it by regulation-- good regulation, which means we need good government investment, good sticks and carrots, and good (talented, committed) people to make it happen.

I know you said it as a joke, but hey, if re-foresting America will put people back to work, help the environment, and generate wealth for the country-- that would be an amazing thing. There probably will be some big idea with Trees sometime in the coming decades. It could very well start up in some accelerator in Silicon Valley. Who's to say? Here's to wishing it would!

 

[Lavos]

I have lived in the rural West for most of my life, primarily in eastern Idaho, and I can say with a fair degree of certainty that all the people of rural America need is a decent system of education. Since the taxes are so low in most of these states, and there is a lot of open land that can potentially be developed, companies are eager to bring their business here. However, since we're also among the worst states in terms of percentage of the population that has completed some form of higher education, the stuff that gets built here is mostly basic manufacturing - and the jobs that come don't pay very well. This means less money goes into the pockets of working people, which means less revenue to the state government, and finally less money to reinvest in education (not to mention the state governments have some fucked up priorities and education usually suffers). I used to intern for a consulting firm that had a lot of corporate clients from the energy business, and I spoke with several nuclear and wind power companies who wanted to expand in Idaho but simply couldn't find enough people that had the skills required to fill enough positions to make the investment profitable in the foreseeable future. This all comes back to the public school system here. In Idaho's major population centers the schools rank at or above the national average, but beyond the 5 major towns, students have appallingly low graduation rates, high dropout rates, no opportunity for AP learning or SAT/ACT prep, not to mention the teachers aren't paid a quarter of what they're worth.

However I don't believe there is a long-term solution to the problem of isolated, impoverished rural communities in a country that has weak federal protections in place for these people who have been left behind by the modern world. In the end, no matter how hard we try to save them, these communities will go extinct as the people slowly die off or move to places where they can make a better life for themselves. Places that hardly have one person per square mile are never going to economically thrive.