The World Beyond BetterMost > The Culture Tent
In the New Yorker...
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Front-Ranger on November 15, 2018, 08:33:59 pm ---I've noticed that reporters are taking a new interest in rural America these days. It was rural people who had a big role in the sudden change in political leadership, some think. This issue of the New Yorker had two articles about Oklahoma: the wildfire one and another one about how so many women in Oklahoma are being incarcerated, including victims of domestic violence.
--- End quote ---
Agreed that the 2016 election and other political developments have increased interest in rural people. I think it made media outlets realize they'd been somewhat neglecting them. Media people are definitely more interested in cities because they live in cities, so to some extent it's like when your editor drives over a pothole on their way to work and then assigns you to do a story about potholes. Also, people in cities tend to do more things to write about, partly because there's a larger concentration of people in general as well as ambitious ambitious politicians, artists, authors, musicians, social-service programs etc. etc. And more money.
But around the 2016 election the media collectively realized that by neglecting rural areas they'd neglected political developments that would eventually prove important.
Rural people, in some ways, hold disproportionate political influence. Oklahoma and Wyoming have the same number of senators as New York and California. Also the same number of governors.
Front-Ranger:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on November 16, 2018, 11:28:20 am ---
Rural people, in some ways, hold disproportionate political influence. Oklahoma and Wyoming have the same number of senators as New York and California. Also the same number of governors.
--- End quote ---
I think the founding fathers set it up that way, so that landowners (farmers and ranchers) would wield more influence.
Jeff Wrangler:
--- Quote from: Front-Ranger on November 16, 2018, 02:57:21 pm ---I think the founding fathers set it up that way, so that landowners (farmers and ranchers) would wield more influence.
--- End quote ---
It was set up that way so that states with smaller populations (in 1787 that would have been Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware, e.g.) would have an equal voice in one house, the Senate, compared to the House of Representatives, where representation was based on population, and where states with larger populations (e.g., Virginia, Pennsylvania) would have more influence.
I gave up on the Gavin Newsome article. I found it boring.
southendmd:
I agree with Jeff about the Gavin Newsom article.
What did people think about the WWI article? Basically saying it needn’t have happened.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Front-Ranger on November 16, 2018, 02:57:21 pm ---I think the founding fathers set it up that way, so that landowners (farmers and ranchers) would wield more influence.
--- End quote ---
Yes. They must not have foreseen the rise of Donald Trump and his ilk.
Several big issues over the past year or so have highlighted the stakes of one side or the other having even one or two more senators: under-oath liar seated on the Supreme Court, giant tax break for rich people, close call on health care (RIP, John McCain).
The FFs may not have foreseen how sharply divided sparsely vs. heavily populated states are in terms of politics, demographics and other characteristics.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version