From an outsider's perspective, "bubble" isn't an accurate descriptor for either group. I find more sense in articles that describe two (or more) significant-minority factions speaking entirely different languages.
It's everyone's responsibility - I'm not giving a pass to the Heartland or the Coasts. I come from the kinds of demographics that connect with both - born and raised in a small, rural town just minutes north of Boston with a population of 6,000 that is nearly 98% white. I had never met a black person until elementary school when he came to town as part of the inner city outreach program to give promising kids a better school system. But when I did, his skin color didn't mean a thing to me, and I had always felt that way. I asked my mom why they shot Martin Luther King Jr because I didn't understand why it was because he was "brown" (as I referred to it at the tender age of 4). Just because you live in an insular, white community doesn't automatically make you an anachronistic bigot. It's an anecdotal reference point but so is this blog post.
Either way you side, this whole charade of "well rural America needs to read a few books and travel to the National Museum of African American History and Culture" is tiresome and making us progressives look bitter and callous to the fact that we lost, straight up, and we did ignore rural America: in the polling, on the issues, and their struggle to retain jobs. Not to mention that many poor people in the middle of America can't actually afford to travel to Washington DC to wise up and learn about other cultures. A really easy thing to ask for and a hard thing for a lot of people to do.
Someone said it on HN earlier, there's a strong link between economic hardship, bigotry, and low education: when you've been deprived of jobs and a stable wage, and you don't understand how the world works but you do know that the news has said we've been shipping jobs off to China and India, you're going to blame other people that are different than you. It's not right, but the feelings of not being able to take care of yourself and your family are valid and heartfelt feelings. And we as the technologically-gifted are partially to blame: we are automating jobs away. I wouldn't say that technological progress is a bad thing, but we set high standards for who we employ, and we, as a nation, haven't done enough to educate that workforce to meet the demands of the changing workforce from manufacturing to services/technology.
Anyone who presents themselves as the 'educated coastal elite' and espouse this sort of socially/economically contemptuous rhetoric for eighty to ninety percent of the country is throwing gasoline on the fire. This is precisely the pontificating that shuts down any chance to find common ground over the issues that people care about. Thats not smart strategy when your a small minority in a democratic political process. But maybe virtue signaling to the inner clique is more important then winning elections to these people.
Contempt for others, virtue signaling to an inner clique, and not looking for common ground, was a pretty good strategy in this election for Trump, so I'm not sure why you think it won't win elections—clearly, it just did.
I'm also from the rural Midwest. My home county [0] is 97.3% white. It also went heavily for Trump (72.95% vs. 21.88% for Clinton) and claims three astronauts. Enrollment in my high school for 2013-2014 was 552 [2]. The population of my home town has dropped by about 10% in the last 25 years (est. 4,252 for 2015). Basically, I have a lot in common with the author and can relate to where he's coming from.
Let me add a bit of context, however.
I don't live there now, although I'm not too far away. Most of my family still lives there but, roughly 15 years ago, I moved one county to the north, and now live in Bloomington, Indiana, which is much, much more diverse.
My hometown, as I mentioned, is overwhelmingly Republican. Regardless of who the Democrat was in the presidential race this election, they almost certainly would have lost my county. Suprisingly, there were a lot of folks in my hometown who did not care for Trump. At all. To them (and me), it truly came down to "the lesser of two evils". For many of them, that was Trump.
I'm lucky enough to have traveled a fair bit. I've been exposed to much more "culture" and "diversity" than many others I grew up with (who still live in my hometown, of course). My thoughts and beliefs have changed tremendously. I consider myself fortunate to have "gotten out".
A lot of my friends and family "back home", however, are the same as they've always been. I agree with the author when he says that us rural folks need to "get out more" (paraphrasing, of course).
I'm trying to avoid going on a way-too-long "defense" of "rural America" but I do want to mention one thing in particular. Immigration and globalization are huge issues to many folks here. They don't care much for foreigners and the "Mexico issue" is a big deal. You know why?
Even though the population of my home county is only ~45,000, I personally know several hundreds (possibly into the thousands) of people who have seen their (manufacturing) jobs disappear. My mother's last day of work -- after 30 years -- was just about two months ago. Her employer, after moving ~3,000 jobs to Mexico over the last 15 years, finally shut down for good... and that's just one company. Her fiancee will also be out of a job in a year or so. His employer is also moving operations to Mexico (his previous employer did the same). We've had several other companies around here do exactly the same thing.
The primary reason for the 10% population drop in my hometown is because a manufacturing company shut down and moved out. This area has probably lost 10-15k jobs in the last 20 years. No, they aren't high tech programming jobs making six figures, but they made a decent enough wage to support a family. People get bitter when they lose their job to someone who will do it for 5-10% of their wage.
This causes them to not care for "corporate greed" or the party that allowed it to happen (Secretary Clinton's husband is the one who signed NAFTA into law, remember). So no, they don't care for corporations or large government or the typical politician. They also don't want Hillary coming for their guns (yes, I've had that several times in the last month or so).
I'm not trying to "pin the problem" on any one group in particular and while I do agree that rural America could benefit by "getting out more", perhaps coastal America could try, just a little bit, to understand WHY rural America feels and believes the way it does.
The Democratic Party is still the party of labor unions, including manufacturing unions. The Republican party is still the party of corporate interests. Yes, Clinton signed NAFTA. But it was the Republican Congress who fast-tracked it; indeed, it was for NAFTA that Republicans devised the the fast-track treaty implementation mechanism. This was the time of the Republican Revolution ushered in by Newt Gingrich, who notably now counsels President-elect Trump on policy.
If you dislike Bill Clinton, it makes no sense to vote Republican. Bill Clinton, like Tony Blair, veered right in terms of economic policy. That's because the Thatcher and Reagan revolutions convinced people that the Tories/Republicans (representatives for the "job creators") were the only ones who understood economics and industry, and if you wanted to win an election you had to co-opt those ideologies.
The fact of the matter is that we've lost industry in this country because of _failed_ Anglo-American conservative economic theory (admittedly sometimes adopted in part by Democrats), and an anti-education ethos.
Germany and Austria have thriving heavy industry. And guess what, they also have thriving labor unions, ruling parties that are economically left of American politics, and sophisticated, often free post-secondary education programs--liberal, professional, and especially vocational. Which isn't to say they don't have problems, but manifestly they've done much better at retaining heavy industry, and they've done so using the exact opposite strategy of Anglo-American conservatives.
If you strip away the pretense, this election was absolutely about the racism, prejudice, and xenophobia of poor, conservative, and largely rural Americans. Are they sincerely and legitimately concerned about a loss of jobs? Yes, without a doubt.
But the politicians they elect and the cultural ethos they espouse are clearly a product of modern American identity politics, and modern American identity politics is a product of deep-seated bigotry and prejudice. There's no hiding that fact, or that it's at the heart of the matter.
And it's laughable to imply that because Bill Clinton voted for NAFTA, or because over the past two decades Democrats have shifted right, sometimes adopting Republican policies, that it makes sense to vote Republican. While Trump is a populist, his economic policies are generally quite conservative, the nativist angle notwithstanding. And in any event voters preserved Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. For the most part it's Congress that dictates national policy, not the President.
FWIW, I grew up in the rural South. In the 1990s a nearby small[er] town still regularly hung a noose outside the city limits with a sign telling blacks to keep out. My public high school history teacher literally spent a week instructing us on how the Civil War was about states' rights. (How the black students, nearly 1/3rd of the class, managed to sit quietly through it all I'll never understand, though I suppose keeping quiet is how you avoid conflict in such a thoroughly oppressive social context.) To this day, the racism and bigotry is barely hidden beneath the surface. While plenty of white Democrats in the North hold racist attitudes, they don't tend to adhere to the identity politics of whites elsewhere, even though they have the very same economic concerns. But the South is rising, and slowly creeping North.
And that's why the election turned out the way it did. The decline of industry has been happening for more than a generation. If anything industry is doing better than it was 10 years ago. Certainly the economy is doing better. Wages were finally rising for the working-class; many finally got healthcare. What explains this election isn't a concern about jobs; it's the increasing adoption of a bigoted, prejudiced narrative for a phenomenon that began decades ago, precipitated by the very same political class and ideology they continue to support with increasing vigor.
I should add, we've lost industry also because of the rise of China. Some loss was inevitable as the U.S. was too big and diverse to be able to sustain employment and profits across the board under pressure from lower-cost rivals. You'd have to seriously cripple the free market system and diminish overall wealth. Even at the heights of union power (1920s - 1950s), America was never remotely that socialist. Anyhow, economic equality is a means to an end (wealth, stability), not an end in itself.
Mexico is something of a red-herring. Vastly more industry has moved to China than Mexico. In fact, since NAFTA almost all of it went to China. It was only within the past 5 years that Mexico really saw significant NAFTA dividends, as China had been eating their lunch for years. Just ask Wal-Mart.
This is further proof for how racism, prejudice, and xenophobia is at the heart of the current political movement. The narrative is that Mexicans have taken all the blue collar jobs and depressed wages. In reality it's mostly due to China. But the Mexican narrative prevails because it resonates with people's prejudiced preconceptions.
There are similar parallels with immigration.
There's just no denying the inherent racist attitudes. It can't be denied and it shouldn't be denied. And admitting that doesn't discount what real, legitimate issues people face. In fact, admitting that is one of the first real steps necessary to addressing those issues. The inherently racist narratives make it impossible to reach effective compromise, socially and politically.
This article isn't blaming anyone. It's simply pointing out that many white people in America live in a homogenous bubble, and tend not to be exposed to points of view held by religious and ethnic minorities.
The author's experience resonated strongly with me. I'm from a town of 9,000 people in Iowa, an hour's drive from anything resembling the big city. Jewish people were considered odd. I remember one Muslim family my parents knew well, and one lesbian couple. You could count the black kids at your school on one hand. Even then, I recognized all of them were demographic exceptions to the rule.
It is not anyone's fault for living where they do. Having an appreciation for what other Americans experience is everyone's responsibility, not just Midwesterners or people on the coasts. It's the only way we're ever going to make decisions that serve everyone well.
P.S. - vouched for this and removed flag. It is an important and timely perspective.
Living in a liberal coastal city can be just as ideologically homogeneous as any mid-western city. Its simply a different set of values and ideology that the population believes in. And I think the violent protest that you see over the election are a glaring example of just how entrenched the ideological bubble is in some places.
