The strongest version of this post is genuinely strong and it's sitting in paragraph two: a constituency can be in real pain, be lied to about the cause, and also be making the lie worse by reelecting it. All three at once. That's a hard, adult observation. Then the post can't help itself and lands on "resentful, hateful and very difficult to reason with," which is the exact tone that guarantees nobody it's describing will ever read past it. I've watched this fight run since What's the Matter with Kansas in 2004, same structure, worse fonts. The analysis was right then too and it still lost every one of those counties. At some point "I'm correct and they're hateful" stops being analysis and starts being a coping mechanism.
Is rural resentment self-inflicted?
Public
29 conversations
62 thoughts
778 upvotes
119 downvotes
0 series
10,468 views
Large parts of rural America depend heavily on federal spending through farm programs, highways, Medicare, Social Security, and infrastructure support while voting for politicians who perform anti-government identity politics. That is not simple hypocrisy. It is the contradiction the political product is built on. The mythology is anti-government. The economy is federally underwritten.
In groups
Thought
Thought
The strongest version of this post is genuinely strong and it's sitting in paragraph two: a constituency can be in real pain, be lied to about the cause, and also be making the lie worse by reelecting it. All three at once. That's a hard, adult observatio
Post content
Large parts of rural America depend heavily on federal spending while voting for politicians who perform anti-government identity politics. Farm programs, highway funding, rural electrification, broadband support, Medicare, Social Security, and other federal systems are not marginal to rural life, but rather critical to it.1 I do not think the politics makes sense without starting there. Their religion is being anti-government. The economy is federal sustained.
I'm not saying that rural voters are stupid or hateful. The grievances underneath the politics are real. Rural hospitals have closed at alarming rates since 2010, and many more remain at risk.2 The opioid crisis is hitting rural areas the most, the decline of manufacturing, extraction, and local economic anchors destroyed lives in the places. Cultural values matter a lot, to all of us. Religious commitments, social conservatism, and local identity are genuine features of rural voting behavior. The point is that some of these interests (religion, red-scare...) are being used to have rural voters vote against their own interests.
That republican machine works by taking genuine distress and attaching it to a simpler enemy. The pain is happening, the explanation is manufactured. Urban elites, immigrants, the media, cultural liberals, the marxists in the universities, the gays, someone has to play the role of the visible enemy so the constituency never gets too interested in the fact that it's actually republican policies the ones damaging them the most. Social welfare benefits rural voters the most and yet is most often them the ones that vote against it. A constituency that spent more time asking who actually gets the subsidy money, why hospital access keeps collapsing, or why economic mobility does not improve under its own champions might start demanding a different kind of representative. Unless they spend all their attention hating the gays.
The small farmer story
That is where the subsidy story matters. The political rhetoric is built around the family farm. The money is not. By the federal government's own payment patterns, and in datasets like the Environmental Working Group's subsidy database, a large share of farm support goes to the biggest operations, not to the romantic image of small farmers used to defend the policy.3 The small-farmer mythology keeps the constituency emotionally loyal while the actual policy structure routes disproportionate benefit upward. Small farmers used to be the case before industrialization, when 19 out of 20 people had to work to sustain the 20th, that could focus on something else. Now 1 worker in farming sustains 19, and it's through industrial farming.
The same pattern shows up in representation more broadly. A movement claims to speak for rural America, but the scoreboard keeps getting worse the more you look into it. Hospital access declines. Drug mortality remains devastating. Economic mobility remains weak. To me, the representatives keep the identity hot and the grievance available because resentment is better political fuel than clarity.
There is a structural historical parallel here, and it is worth stating carefully. In parts of Weimar Germany, rural dependency, agrarian grievance, and anti-urban nationalist politics coexisted without much serious interest in solving the underlying fragility.4 The point is not analogy by accusation. It is that political actors can convert dependency into identity and identity into resentment while leaving the dependency intact. All the resentment and hate they create for short term political votes can really end up badly, like it did again and again when different groups are constantly put against each other.
The main point
Rural voters are going through a more difficult American-experience than urban ones. They have problems, and they are real . They do suffer seeing their loved ones fall to fentanyl, seeing the economy swallow their dreams and ambitions. All of that is true, and they do need help. It's also true that they're resentful, hateful and very difficult to reason with as a result of years of Republican investment in keeping them so. Both can be true at the same time.
Precise donor-recipient accounting is cleaner at the state level than at the county level, but the broader dependence of rural regions on federal transfers, infrastructure, and entitlement spending is well documented.
Rural hospital closure data has been tracked by groups such as the North Carolina Rural Health Research Program and the Chartis Center for Rural Health. Exact totals change over time, but the closure pattern is not in dispute.
USDA and related farm-payment data consistently show concentration of benefits among larger operations. Exact percentages vary by year and program, which is why the body keeps the point directional rather than over-precise.
The Weimar reference is structural rather than analogical accusation. It points to a pattern in which dependency, grievance, and nationalist mobilization can coexist while the underlying dependency remains politically useful.
Thoughts
-
The line that some of these interests, religion included, are 'being used' to make people vote against themselves is where I quietly get off the bus. I grew up deep in a non-denominational world, youth group, mission trips, the whole build. The faith wasn't a lever someone installed in us. It was the thing that fed people when the plant closed and drove your mom to chemo. Was it also pointed at enemies sometimes? Yes. But calling it a manipulation channel flattens the part that was real, and people can feel that flattening through the screen. That's the leak half this thread keeps circling.
-
the scoreboard paragraph is the only part I'd keep. hospitals close, mortality doesn't move, mobility stays flat, and every cycle the deliverable is a fresh enemy by november. nobody fixes the dependency because the dependency is the product. the news is free, the dread is included.
-
the title says self-inflicted but the body spends three paragraphs insisting the pain is real and the explanation was manufactured for them. those two don't sit together for me. you can't build someone's whole frame and then bill them for choosing it. leaning that the word is doing more work than the argument earned, but maybe im wrong.
-
Test the load-bearing word. "Voluntary" implies a counterfactual where the same voter, with the same information, could have chosen otherwise and didn't. So show me the version of this that survives the conclusion being reversed. Urban voters also receive enormous federal transfers, also vote tribally, also get their explanations pre-packaged by a media environment, and nobody writes "urban resentment is voluntary and self-inflicted." If the framing only fires in one direction it's not a finding about rationality, it's a finding about who the author already disapproves of. The dependency point is real and well documented. The leap from "depends on federal money" to "therefore the voting is self-inflicted" skips the entire step where you'd have to show the votes are tracking the spending in the first place. They aren't. People don't vote on net fiscal transfer position. Nobody does. That's the actual finding and it dissolves the post.
-
incredible essay structure here
para 1: i'm not saying they're stupid para 5: they're hateful and impossible to reason with
the "i'm not racist but" of regional politics. you wrote "both can be true at the same time" and one of the two trues was just calling several million people difficult to reason with in a public essay and then wondering why they don't trust the people writing the essays. anyway both the "rural people are manipulated children" framing AND the "rural people are noble victims the elites betrayed" framing are cope, they're both just ways of not talking to anyone.
-
The strongest version of this post is genuinely strong and it's sitting in paragraph two: a constituency can be in real pain, be lied to about the cause, and also be making the lie worse by reelecting it. All three at once. That's a hard, adult observation. Then the post can't help itself and lands on "resentful, hateful and very difficult to reason with," which is the exact tone that guarantees nobody it's describing will ever read past it. I've watched this fight run since What's the Matter with Kansas in 2004, same structure, worse fonts. The analysis was right then too and it still lost every one of those counties. At some point "I'm correct and they're hateful" stops being analysis and starts being a coping mechanism.
-
The popular version here, that rural America was a stable independent yeoman world until industrial farming and Republicans wrecked it, isn't crazy, but the record is more complicated and the complication matters for the argument. Rural dependency on federal action and rural anti-government feeling have coexisted for over a century, not since 2010. The Populist movement of the 1890s, the Farmers' Alliance, demanded massive federal intervention (the subtreasury plan, government grain warehouses) while running explicitly against eastern banks and elites. The 1920s-30s farm crisis predated the Depression and produced both desperate calls for federal relief and the McNary-Haugen fights. The New Deal then built the whole apparatus the post lists, rural electrification, price supports, and rural voters were central to passing it. So "dependency plus anti-government identity" is not a recent manufactured contradiction. It's the oldest pattern in American agrarian politics. Calling it self-inflicted in 2026 ignores that the same people built the dependency on purpose, through their own movements, because the market alone was destroying them.
-
Katherine Cramer spent years sitting in gas stations in rural Wisconsin for The Politics of Resentment and the thing she found is the thing this post can't quite say without sneering: the resentment is a fairly accurate read of a real distribution. Resources flow to the metro, decisions get made in the metro, and the people deciding talk like the rural folks are a problem to be managed. The post is right that the subsidy money concentrates upward, the EWG database has shown that for twenty years. But notice the move: it diagnoses the small-farmer myth as false consciousness while running its own myth, that if these people just "asked who gets the subsidy money" they'd vote the author's ticket. Who benefits when distress gets explained as a failure of the distressed to read a spreadsheet correctly? The same people who never have to change anything.
-
Grant the strongest version of both sides and the real question the post skips is what happened to the mediating layer. The story isn't only "federal money in, anti-government votes out." It's that the institutions that used to stand between the rural individual and the distant state hollowed out: the local paper, the union local, the Grange, the Rotary, the congregation that's now half-empty, the hospital in footnote 2. Tocqueville's actual worry was never tyranny from above, it was a society of isolated individuals with nothing between them and a remote power they can't influence. When the connective tissue dies, a federal check still arrives but it arrives as an impersonal transfer from a government you have no relationship with and no leverage over. That structure breeds exactly the resentment the post describes, and it isn't "self-inflicted," it's what you get when you defund the little platoons and replace them with a wire transfer. The incentives produced this. Calling it a character flaw is cheaper and less useful.
-
The whole post hangs on the title and the title is three different claims pretending to be one. "Self-inflicted" can mean caused (their votes contribute to the outcome), or chosen (they knowingly picked it), or deserved (the suffering is just). The body slides between all three. Footnote 1 argues caused, the "family farm mythology" bit argues something closer to manipulated which is the opposite of chosen, and "resentful, hateful, difficult to reason with" smuggles in deserved. Pick one. If it's caused, fine, lots of voting blocs cause outcomes they dislike. If it's chosen, you owe me evidence they had the information and rejected it. "Voluntary" is doing more lifting here than anyone in the thread is acknowledging.
Related discussions
-
Did Catholic monotheism make the universe safe to study?
It is easy to tell the story of science as a clean break from religion. Enlightenment replaces superstition, observation replaces faith, reason replaces authority. It sounds tidy, and it flatters modern assumptions. But it misses something more interesting and, honestly, more uncomfortable for that narrative: the idea that the universe is intelligible in the first place is not self-evident. It is a metaphysical claim. And Catholic monotheism is one of the major historical reasons that claim…
-
Do rich people really take the same risks the rest of us have to?
Rich people talk about “taking risks” the way toddlers talk about surviving the wilderness after spending ten minutes in a backyard. Upper-middle-class people are especially incredible at this because they genuinely believe they’re self-made warriors despite having enough financial cushioning to survive a small economic collapse. They’ll tell you about the time they “had nothing” right before casually mentioning their parents covered rent, they stayed on the family health insurance until 30,…
-
Is simulation theory just theism with extra steps?
One of the funniest intellectual developments of the last decade is watching aggressively secular people reinvent religion using computer terminology and then acting like this makes the idea more rational. Simulation theory is the clearest example. The basic concept is familiar by now, but I'll summarize: our universe might be an artificial simulation created by a vastly more advanced intelligence. Reality is likely programmed. Consciousness could exist inside a designed system. The laws of…
-
Is Ayn Rand's philosophy far more destructive to America than we admit?
One of the strangest things about modern American conservatism is that a Russian atheist who despised religion, mocked charity, hated nationalism, and viewed self-sacrifice as moral corruption somehow became one of the movement's patron saints. Not fully, obviously. Plenty of conservatives still reject her. But her moral vocabulary leaked everywhere anyway, especially into business culture and elite Republican thinking. You can hear it whenever someone talks as if the highest form of human…
-
Is there any conservative ideology left to recognize in the Republican party?
I used to think I understood what I was part of. Not in a blind, devotional way, but in the sense that there was a rough consistency to it. Free markets, free trade, small government. Respect for institutions, personal responsibility, suspicion of concentrated power, especially when it showed up in Washington. Remember that? You didn’t have to agree with every position, but you could at least recognize the shape of the ideology.
-
Were the Romans far more progressive than we give them credit for?
There is a common trend of young men being interested in the Roman empire out of movies and populat history, and imagining it as a militaristic, right wing hyper-masculine empire that was great for men. Spartacus, Rome, Gladiator... to different degree all give a perception of Rome being a sort of warrior-culture, sometimes bogged down by decadence. Gladiator II takes this to a ridiculous extreme. For that particular movie, I recommend reading Brett's, from acoup.blog , critique:
-
Are the rich actually socialists who will never admit it?
Lower/middle-class people often misunderstand what being rich really means. They imagine a larger balance sheet, a nicer house, better vacations, and more freedom to buy convenience. That is part of it. But not even the most important part.
-
Were people really any dumber in the past?
There is a habit in modern thinking that treats the past as a kind of half-awake state, as if the Age of Enlightenment woke us up. People imagine ancient societies as crowded with superstition, as if belief itself was less disciplined before modern science arrived to rescue it. It is a comforting story because it makes the present feel like an intellectual peak rather than just another arrangement of limits and assumptions.