Author Topic: In the New Yorker...  (Read 2193047 times)

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,373
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3130 on: January 15, 2023, 08:51:06 pm »
Jill Lepore's article in the Jan. 16 issue critiquing the January 6 Committee report should be read. Is it a duty article? Yes. It is also very perceptive. It is also very depressing in the end. But it may be the most important criticism she has every written for TNY.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,956
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3131 on: January 15, 2023, 09:46:29 pm »
Jill Lepore's article in the Jan. 16 issue critiquing the January 6 Committee report should be read. Is it a duty article? Yes. It is also very perceptive. It is also very depressing in the end. But it may be the most important criticism she has every written for TNY.

OK, thanks for that report! It might have ended up with the dozens of other articles I left the magazine open to and never finished. I'll keep going.

And for a refreshing break, I'll read the sentence construction article, thanks Lee!


Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,593
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3132 on: January 16, 2023, 12:42:36 pm »
Lepore seems to be making the point that the mob's motivations should have been examined more by the Committee rather than just microfocusing on Trump. My theory is that the mob and the whole Trump movement is an outgrowth of the Industrial Revolution. At its beginning, 70% of the US population lived in the country and 30% lived in cities. A couple of decades later, that percentage was reversed. The 70% of people who have lived in cities for several generations have grown to be a more homogeneous society, much like people in Europe, Japan, or Sweden.

The 30% of people who live in rural places are more diverse but they do share some characteristics. There is less opportunity for them and they feel disenfranchised and disengaged. They feel left out of the mainstream of communication and cut off. These traits would make them more likely to be attracted to leaders who are mavericks. Leaders who can derail the massive influence of the city people. Most of this theory is cobbled together from things I've read, but I've also had many opportunities to get out of the city and mingle with country people and so part of it is from direct observation.
"chewing gum and duct tape"

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,956
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3133 on: January 16, 2023, 02:43:45 pm »
Lepore seems to be making the point that the mob's motivations should have been examined more by the Committee rather than just microfocusing on Trump. My theory is that the mob and the whole Trump movement is an outgrowth of the Industrial Revolution. At its beginning, 70% of the US population lived in the country and 30% lived in cities. A couple of decades later, that percentage was reversed. The 70% of people who have lived in cities for several generations have grown to be a more homogeneous society, much like people in Europe, Japan, or Sweden.

I don't agree that, to take an example, people living in New York City are more homogenous than people living in Upstate New York. They're certainly not more homogenous ethnically, religiously or economically (although lower-income people are getting priced out of the city). But the city dwellers are also not more homogenous in terms of what they do for a living or their educational background -- since NYC is the capitol or one of the top cities for numerous industries, there's huge diversity there. And other city/rural situations across the country would mirror this in various ways. But maybe you're thinking of diversity of another sort?

Quote
The 30% of people who live in rural places are more diverse but they do share some characteristics. There is less opportunity for them and they feel disenfranchised and disengaged. They feel left out of the mainstream of communication and cut off. These traits would make them more likely to be attracted to leaders who are mavericks. Leaders who can derail the massive influence of the city people. Most of this theory is cobbled together from things I've read, but I've also had many opportunities to get out of the city and mingle with country people and so part of it is from direct observation.

So they worship a guy who's from the country's biggest city and is at least nominally hugely wealthy.

I agree they feel those things, with sometimes an added pinch of inferiority complex -- the liberal elite look down on us and think we're stupid. And in fact, members of the liberal elite do often think that, but primarily because of things like their worship of that abovementioned guy.


 

Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,593
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3134 on: January 16, 2023, 03:50:22 pm »
I was going to add another paragraph explaining why I think city dwellers are more homogeneous even though they may be more ethnically diverse and in other aspects such as wealth, sexual preferences, education, and so on. I'll bet I have more in common with Black or Latino people who live in Denver than white people who live in rural Weld County Colorado. My food preferences, political leanings, what music I listen to, groups I belong to, holidays I celebrate, books I read. The way I react to issues that crop up. I don't know why I left this out, but that's what I meant.

Yes, it is ironic that a white rich boy from New York City would become the poster boy for rural America. However, he made his reputation in television shows like "The Apprentice." There was a good New Yorker article that tracked his reinvention on television: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/31/the-tv-that-created-donald-trump And this, I suspect, is where his popularity with rural audiences was born.
"chewing gum and duct tape"

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,956
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3135 on: January 16, 2023, 08:07:51 pm »
I was going to add another paragraph explaining why I think city dwellers are more homogeneous even though they may be more ethnically diverse and in other aspects such as wealth, sexual preferences, education, and so on. I'll bet I have more in common with Black or Latino people who live in Denver than white people who live in rural Weld County Colorado. My food preferences, political leanings, what music I listen to, groups I belong to, holidays I celebrate, books I read. The way I react to issues that crop up. I don't know why I left this out, but that's what I meant.

That's probably true! The question is, do you have more in common with other Denver residents than Weld County residents have with each other? I'm not familiar enough with Denver and not at all with Weld County. But in Minnesota I have lived in a large suburb (Minnetonka, 36,000) a small farm town (Crookston, 8,000), a medium-sized city (Duluth, 90,000) and the Twin Cities metro area (3.7 million). Minneapolis residents don't seem more homogenous than Crookston residents. But definitely if you look at it as one state it's heterogenous.


Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,593
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3136 on: January 17, 2023, 11:31:06 am »
I think rural people are pretty heterogeneous today. Some of the institutions that used to glue these populations together have broken down: church attendance, the Grange, farmer's organizations and co-ops have experienced attrition and fracturing. But there are still lightning rod types of people (Trump) and groups/voices (QAnon) that can have a unifying and motivating effect. As rural people have become attached to the Internet, they have been taken advantage of by those who use misinformation to gather believers. Just as televangelists did in prior generations.
"chewing gum and duct tape"

Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,593
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3137 on: January 17, 2023, 12:10:01 pm »
From the Boston GLobe: WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. ? On the 797th day after the defeat of former President Donald Trump, a rural Pennsylvania county on Monday began a recount of ballots from Election Day 2020.
"chewing gum and duct tape"

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,956
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3138 on: January 17, 2023, 01:50:36 pm »
I think rural people are pretty heterogeneous today.

Oh for sure! I just meant I don't think they're necessarily any more heterogeneous than city-dwellers. Personally, I would argue less, but certainly not more -- or are they?

Quote
From the Boston GLobe: WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. ? On the 797th day after the defeat of former President Donald Trump, a rural Pennsylvania county on Monday began a recount of ballots from Election Day 2020.

 :laugh:

Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,593
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #3139 on: January 18, 2023, 12:57:12 pm »
Oh for sure! I just meant I don't think they're necessarily any more heterogeneous than city-dwellers. Personally, I would argue less, but certainly not more -- or are they?

Let's remember that homogeneous means "similar in nature", not demographics. So I interpret that to mean similar in behavior or actions. City dwellers have many opportunities to influence each other, supposedly, so over time it's logical to assume they would become more homogeneous. Rural people have less opportunity to do that, plus they are more likely to be individualistic to the point of stubbornness. Thirdly, I think rural people more often fall prey to the tactics used to divide people. I'm tempted to mention education as well, but I'll leave that out. I've had the embarrassment of assuming rural people were poorly educated several times only to find out that they had an MBA from Stanford, for example!
"chewing gum and duct tape"