Thread: Americans Are Symbolic Conservatives & Operational Liberals

Trump fails to understand, and liberals should always remember, one of the most enduring features of American public opinion. The dominant ideology in the United States is one that combines “symbolic conservatism” (honoring tradition, distrusting novelty, embracing the conservative label) with “operational liberalism” (wanting government to take more action in a wide variety of areas). As Christopher Ellis and James Stimson, two leading academic analysts of American ideology, note: “Most Americans like most government programs. Most of the time, on average, we want government to do more and spend more. It is no accident that we have created the programs of the welfare state. They were created — and are sustained — by massive public support.”

How about the environment and climate change? Has Trump succeeded in pushing do-gooder enviros to the side, or in making the world safe again for coal? Not quite. The NBC/WSJ poll has the largest share of the American public ever saying that climate change is real and action needs to be taken: 67 percent. Since Trump’s election, support has fallen to just 28 percent in the Quinnipiac poll on the question of whether Trump should “remove specific regulations intended to combat climate change (a meager 33 percent even among white noncollege voters).

Taxes? Americans never like the idea of lowering taxes on the wealthy. Since Trump’s election, they hate it even more. Now it’s down to just 18 percent in favor in the Quinnipiac poll, with a massive 77 percent opposed.

And there’s more. Gallup reports that Americans’ views about the moral acceptability of a wide range of practices are now more liberal than they’ve ever been. This includes birth control, divorce, premarital sex, and the death penalty. Same-sex marriage has become so uncontroversial that pollsters hardly bother to ask about it anymore.

None of this is to sugarcoat the current facts on the ground — Trump in the White House and the Republicans in control of Congress and most states. But that owes much more to the peculiar nature of the Electoral College, gerrymandering, structural GOP advantages in Congress, and poor Democratic strategy than to the actual views of the American public.

I hate to break it to America’s liberals, but — as I’ve argued before — there are considerable grounds for optimism about the American public and, by extension, the fate of the country. Now you may return to your regularly scheduled panic.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/201...#1496064686834

Now, if the Democrats can just tap into this and if the courts would disallow the partisan gerrymandering the country may be able to start progressing again.

Democrats also have to let dems in rural areas exist in a different way than the cities. Be more tolerant of their needs. Farmers, coal miners, steel workers etc used to be all democrats, but got pushed aside for social issues. Just saw this on Politico and it sort of goes along with your link.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...indiana-216273

Originally Posted by bajisima

Democrats also have to let dems in rural areas exist in a different way than the cities. Be more tolerant of their needs. Farmers, coal miners, steel workers etc used to be all democrats, but got pushed aside for social issues. Just saw this on Politico and it sort of goes along with your link.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...indiana-216273

Good article but it does point out some problems. Like, "At some point, Burns began talking about the time he was asked at work to train a new driver who was Muslim. He refused. “They’re taught to be nice to you,” he told Goodin, “and then they blow you up.” How do Democrats deal with that? I can't accept that. That's blatant discrimination. Goodin deals with it by saying nothing. I can't do that. And Goodin points out the problem.

“But you know,” Goodin said, “you let people live their lives, and you don’t question—I mean, what good would it have done?” He went on: “There’s no reason for confrontation—that’s the trouble with Congress now—because Delmis Burns and I, you wash away some of the odd things, what some people may consider odd that he would have said, what he said about the Muslim guy—the reason he said that is there’s no Muslims around our area. So he just don’t trust ‘em. He don’t know who they are … But Delmis Burns and I probably agree on 90 percent of everything we’d ever talk about. So why would I focus on the 10 percent that I don’t agree with him on?”

The problem is that the Muslims who live in this country are actual human beings who have a right to live their lives, too. I don't know how to get around that. I can get around our disagreement on guns. And I bet people like Delmis Burns could get around our disagreement on abortion. But the racism is a real sticking point for me.

But accentuating jobs and the economy may work. But Democrats can't afford to alienate minorities, women or urbanites. I don't envy the Democratic leadership and any Democrats like Goodin.

Originally Posted by bajisima

Democrats also have to let dems in rural areas exist in a different way than the cities. Be more tolerant of their needs. Farmers, coal miners, steel workers etc used to be all democrats, but got pushed aside for social issues. Just saw this on Politico and it sort of goes along with your link.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...indiana-216273

That is ridiculous to believe the rural democrats need to be treated any differently than any other Democrat

People have the same problems whether they live in a rural community or in a city.

The Republicans believed and practiced that smaller government meant no government involvement.

The Congress had an 11% approval rating.

Now Trump is calling for Infrastructure and job training...He'll never get them from a GOP Congress, put Trump got elected on those types of promises.

We are about to see if the GOP still believes that more government is less or did Donald Trump change the GOP "no tax dollars spent" mantra.

Originally Posted by DebateDrone

That is ridiculous to believe the rural democrats need to be treated any differently than any other Democrat

People have the same problems whether they live in a rural community or in a city.

Not entirely. But the phrase Babba has posted is FITTING to them. Rural Democrats are likely more into the 'symbolic' rugged individualism (conservative) then they actually are.

Originally Posted by bajisima

Democrats also have to let dems in rural areas exist in a different way than the cities. Be more tolerant of their needs. Farmers, coal miners, steel workers etc used to be all democrats, but got pushed aside for social issues. Just saw this on Politico and it sort of goes along with your link.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...indiana-216273

I pinned that to read later, I glanced and wanted to give it some time. What little bit I read looked more than interesting.

Abortion is the lever that moves all kinds of would-be Democrats over to the GOP. And it's so energizing that they are all in. Everything that comes along with the comically cynical GOP stance on abortion is swallowed, hook, line, and sinker. Including handing over their own economic and political freedom.

Originally Posted by cpicturetaker12

Not entirely. But the phrase Babba has posted is FITTING to them. Rural Democrats are likely more into the 'symbolic' rugged individualism (conservative) then they actually are.

They do believe they are rugged individualists. They agreed with the stupid notion that Obama said "you didn't build that" when he was, in reality, pointing out that infrastructure we all contribute to is necessary for anyone to be successful and it does require individual initiative and work as well. The problem is that too many right wingers try to pretend it only requires what the individual does.

I know, I'm doing exactly what the argument in Bajisima's link says I shouldn't do. But it's hard for me to allow untruths to just sit there.

Originally Posted by DebateDrone

That is ridiculous to believe the rural democrats need to be treated any differently than any other Democrat

People have the same problems whether they live in a rural community or in a city.

I will agree that those in rural communities have similar problems with those in urban communities, but not necessarily the same problems. Understand that when I reference rural communities that does not include the suburban areas neighboring large urban areas.

Health care: Those in urban areas have rather immediate access to large specialty resources, many times, university based. In rural areas, the immediate resource is a small rural basically primary care facility. That even varies by state. In Maryland, I can count of one hand, if any, the number of hospitals under 100 beds. In West Virginia, I can count on one hand the number of hospitals over 100 beds. In rural areas, due to the lack of mass transits, it can be more difficult to even access primary care resources. I can say from personal professional experience, it is more difficult to find and staff facilities with the required professional and paraprofessionals. It is very difficult to attract doctors to establish practices in rural areas. Urban areas are where the money is. In the ERs of our rural facilities, the doctors and staff most times may actually know the person they are treating. My wife works in a university based trauma center and rarely actually knows the patient she is treating.

Education: In most rural communities, there is one elementary, one middle and one high school. Many if not most do not have private or chartered schools, they are totally dependent on public education. But on some level that is to their advantage, because the classes tend to be smaller, discipline is greater and again, people tend to know each other and respond accordingly.

Employment: In the rural communities the largest employers tend to be the government, the schools and the small community hospital. Most had only one other large employer, if any, they were such operations as paper mills and chicken processing plants. Other than local stores and services, employment venues are limited.

Again, their problems are similar, but the population and geographical demographic make them different.