(PS, Later the Same Day: Okay, I was a little angry when I wrote that and blamed the rural Democrats for their own problems. I felt I was being lashed out at, and in return I lashed out. Maybe the best approach would be if all Democrats try to appreciate and support other Democrats, and to always think about how they themselves can improve what they're doing. All of this time and energy Democrats spend blaming each other for this and that could be much better spent making the case for the entire party and against the Republicans.)
I am so sick of hearing about "urban Democratic elitists." The Republican Party is the elitist party in the US; they're the ones cutting taxes for the rich and cutting support for the poor. The Republicans, not the Democrats, are the ones who marginalize, exclude, exploit and otherwise eff over people who are not white, male, and heterosexual and do their best to look like they just stepped out of the 1950's.
It's one thing to hear the "urban elitist" charge from Fox News and their proletarian dupes. It's quite another to hear rural Democrats blaming things on the Democratic elitists who don't exist. Rural Democrats such as Terry Goodin, a Democrat who's been in the Indiana House of Representative since 2000, and the subject of this below-average analysis from POLITICO. Goodin describes the main planks of his political platform as "the importance of public education, affordable health care and a living wage, and the moral necessity of addressing the opioids scourge."
And with that platform, he couldn't sell Hillary Clinton to his constituents over Donald Trump.
And it doesn't seem to occur to Goodin and some other rural Democrats that their inability to get out the vote for Democrats might be their own damn fault.
That maybe the divisiveness in the Democratic Party might be partly their own damn fault. Goodin complains about "identity politics." What the Hell is identity politics except another Fox News talking point, another spoonful of Republican snake oil swallowed by a lot of dumb people, not all of whom are Republicans? Goodin claims that the Democratic "urban elites" are no longer "inclusive," because they don't understand him and his people. But when people complain about "identity politics," what are they complaining about? They're complaining that traditionally-oppressed demographics, such as African-Americans, Native Americans and LGBT's, are finally, gradually -- PARTIALLY -- getting more rights and more equality. Who's resisting inclusion here?
From the POLITICO article:
"Goodin’s Indiana District 66 went heavy for Trump. One reason: It used to have plenty of decent-paying, union-boosted jobs, anchored by the Morgan Packing plant."
Jesus H Christ: These people were too dumb to see which party is pro-union and which party is rabidly anti-union? And the fault with people misunderstanding something so basic and plain lays with -- urban Democrats hundreds or thousands of miles away?
You want party unity, Terry Goodin? You want all of us Democrats pulling on the same rope? How about you enjoy a nice steaming-hot mug of STFU about these "elitist urban Democrats" who supposedly don't care about you and your constituents, and take a good long look in the mirror instead? Yes, there is some divisiveness in the party. But when it comes to who's responsible for it and who needs to shape up to fix it, you got it exactly backwards, my friend. We urban Democrats are on the side of people who need help, just like you are. You need to do a much better job of explaining to your friends and neighbors who we are.
When Lyndon Johnson was an up-and-coming politician -- you don't get a whole lot more Democratic and rural than Lyndon Johnson -- did he complain about that God-damned urban elitist FDR? No! He was known as a "110% FDR man." To the many people in the Hill Country outside Johnson City, Texas, who were suspicious of "that Commy" FDR, he explained to them who FDR really was. And that he was on their side.
Worked pretty well. Among many other things, it brought rural electrification to the Hill Country for the very first time, and it started a politician on his way to the White House, who signed the major civil rights bills of 1964 and 1965. Food for thought, maybe.