I thought about your text a few hours. Because some of it sounds really right, but somehow it also feels strange.
You say, if I understand you correctly, that the rural voter is the majority, and that we should finally start to listen to his needs, ideas, fears and dreams.
And I agree that we should listen to the majority and figure out how to make most people happy. But exactly this "rural voter" is not the one who educates himself (independent of the education he receives through his government a lot of learning happens after school). He has very simple needs and doesn't care about the details of how these interact with the needs of people who "tick differently". Sometimes when I talk to "rural folks" (have some in the family) they don't even seem to understand what they themselves want and need. They just know when they don't have it and then they are unhappy.
Therefore there is not much to learn from this "rural voter", or from talking to him. But his needs are obvious and simple as well. And we all know them already. Give him a job that exhausts him, give him a wife, 1-2 children, a tv, if possible a single family home. Keep the taxes low enough for him to provide for his family, fly or drive somewhere cheap in summer and make alcohol cheap enough for him to have some parties and a few beer on the weekend. Then he's happy and won't trouble any politician.
Thus, I would say the question is not about understanding them better but about rich and social enough to provide them what they need. And the funny thing is that the politicians on the right usually prefer the well off population and make politics for them, while the left tries to provide for the commoner, the "rural voter". That's the funny thing in my eyes, the "rural" voter hates the people who fight for him and loves the people who try to exploit him.
Your comment is incredibly condescending, which is a significant contributing factor as to why this "rural voter" got out and voted.
Perhaps rather than taking this tact (which we've seen a million times):
> Rural voters aren't smart. They vote based on feelings and ignore the stuff that actually matters (which I can identify better than they can). They're simple folks that just need simple stuff, but they're frequently tricked into voting against their interests by the other party.
You could consider something like this:
> Rural voters have different values than mine. My perception of their intelligence is irrelevant because I know there are intelligent people who share their views. Maybe if their viewpoints were taken seriously instead of dismissed outright as sexist and xenophobic, we could win their votes (or at least not cause such high turnout for the opponent) next time around.
Realize that Republicans can identify demographics that frequently vote for Democrats the same way. Take that first paragraph above and sub in "black people," "hispanics," and "women." See how incredibly offensive it is now? That's how "rural voters" feel when you post things like this.
You like the person who lies to you to exploit you more than the person who tells you the truth about your problems and cares for your well being.
Btw. a person can't change his skin color, his birth place, or with which physical organs (s)he's born with. But he can very well decide to accept that his shame comes from not educating himself, from hoping others would come and make his life Great Again, from not recognizing that only exploiters would promise him something unrealistic like that. And he can decide to do something about it.
And about recognizing cheaters vs people who really care about you:
Cheaters will say: Others f* you over. I will make you Great again.
Reliable people say: You f*ed yourself over. Let's learn, become strong and build a new Great Thing together.
> You like the person who lies to you to exploit you more than the person who tells you the truth about your problems and cares for your well being.
Have you ever thought about what it might be like to disagree with someone on something, yet respect them for having an honest difference of opinion? You know, without assuming they're an idiot?
> Btw. a person can't change his skin color, his birth place, or with which physical organs (s)he's born with. But he can very well decide to accept that his shame comes from not educating himself, from hoping others would come and make his life Great Again, from not recognizing that only exploiters would promise him something unrealistic like that. And he can decide to do something about it.
Totally irrelevant to my point. The point is that either side can group an opponent's voter blocks together and marginalize them as stupid / tricked / pointless. It suggests they don't have valid views and it's not fair.
Actually people don't understand that such kind of putting-the-finger-on-the wound talk is usually also the author taling to himself. I actually come from a rural background, and I often make the same mistakes: not educating myself before making a decision, hoping that someone else would solve my problems, falling for the cheater instead of the accepting the hard truth.
And in case that isn't clear: The second quote is me saying "no there is nothing to understand. Their needs are simple, well known, to all but themselves". And I also give reasons for that, e.g. that they don't try to educate themselves and that they hope other people come and solve their problems.
In that regard, using the internet we can also educate ourselves. All we need is some basic writing and reading skills. The rest is just putting in the effort to find the right ressources and people to learn and discuss with.
> we should finally start to listen to his needs, ideas, fears and dreams.
> his needs are obvious and simple as well. Give him a job that exhausts him, give him a wife, 1-2 children, a tv, if possible a single family home. Then he's happy and won't trouble any politician.
Yeah, right, sounds like you got it.
Please somebody tell me this is sarcasm ridiculing the leftists.
OK, I misquoted. But immediately after this "summary" you said you agree that we should listen to the majority (whatever it means) and try to make most people happy.
And then you go on ranting how uneducated they are and how you can only get binary answers from them (happy/unhappy). And somehow you conclude that the fact you can't communicate with them means you already understand everything they need, namely jobs, sex, entertainment and government handouts.
My point, and while I can't speak for Trump I think his too, is that what they need is to understand WTF is going on in economy and politics and have their say in these matters too. There's no point "working to exhaustion" (pretty much your words) if it all goes to support things you disagree with.
Politics and journalism is utter shit nowadays. See Republicans nominating Trump hoping to capitalize on bitter people. For real lulz, see Democrats nudging Republicans to nominate Trump (somebody dropped a link to wikileaks emails here) hoping they will make him look like idiot in TV and win. See the hysteria about the dumbest things Trump said in futile effort to scare people away from him.
Some people are fed up watching such games. Some don't want their emotions fucked with by zealots. Some don't want their taxes to fund gender studies and "affirmative actions" considering them bullshit. Some understand that "government giveth, government taketh away" (see the posts I linked). Some believe that countries should work on principles of individual freedom and market-based cooperation, not central planning.
And many of them don't speak in the media, don't feed twitter trolls and don't post to HN. They vote. Whether he actually wants their good or not, Trump seems to have got it.
> And if you have a point you forgot to mention it.
Be careful with that attitude. Sometimes silence indicates not acceptance but conflict.
You say, if I understand you correctly, that the rural voter is the majority, and that we should finally start to listen to his needs, ideas, fears and dreams.
And I agree that we should listen to the majority and figure out how to make most people happy. But exactly this "rural voter" is not the one who educates himself (independent of the education he receives through his government a lot of learning happens after school). He has very simple needs and doesn't care about the details of how these interact with the needs of people who "tick differently". Sometimes when I talk to "rural folks" (have some in the family) they don't even seem to understand what they themselves want and need. They just know when they don't have it and then they are unhappy.
Therefore there is not much to learn from this "rural voter", or from talking to him. But his needs are obvious and simple as well. And we all know them already. Give him a job that exhausts him, give him a wife, 1-2 children, a tv, if possible a single family home. Keep the taxes low enough for him to provide for his family, fly or drive somewhere cheap in summer and make alcohol cheap enough for him to have some parties and a few beer on the weekend. Then he's happy and won't trouble any politician.
Thus, I would say the question is not about understanding them better but about rich and social enough to provide them what they need. And the funny thing is that the politicians on the right usually prefer the well off population and make politics for them, while the left tries to provide for the commoner, the "rural voter". That's the funny thing in my eyes, the "rural" voter hates the people who fight for him and loves the people who try to exploit him.