By now, most of you should know that I am a big fan of Paul Krugman. I’ve always been a wanna-be economist at heart (sad, right?!) and I majored in Mathematical Economics in college. But Krugman is more than that - while a Nobel Laureate, he also makes economics understandable to “normies” and relates his economic knowledge to a wide array of political and social issues.
Krugman-stan I am.
So I was surprised when I read a recent column of his about white rural voters titled Breaking the Heart of the Heartland. His basic premise is that Trump is losing white rural voters because “they have been betrayed: far from supporting a conservative vision of rural life, Trump is destroying their livelihoods with his vandalism.”
Krugman attempts to surmise “…why rural whites so overwhelmingly believed that Trump would improve their lives.”. He writes:
“…After all, Trump made no secret of his intention to pursue aggressive tariff policies that would start a global trade war. And U.S. agriculture is a highly globalized business. It sells much of what it produces overseas — for example, normally we export 40 percent or more of our soybean crop. Furthermore, it was entirely predictable that tariffs would raise the prices of farm machinery, chemicals and fertilizer.
It’s true that farmers didn’t know either that Trump would attack Iran or that he would botch the war so badly. But his indifference to the impact of his actions on ordinary people’s lives should have come as no surprise to anyone paying attention. When he said “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation” when making decisions about Iran, the news was that he admitted it, not that he felt that way.
Why, then, did rural Americans vote to return Trump to office? Obviously, culture war issues and racism played important roles. But it’s also clear in hindsight that rural whites weren’t willing to see their livelihoods destroyed in order to stick it to the liberals by voting for Trump. Instead, they fell for a fantasy, believing that by voting for Trump they could simultaneously own the libs and do well financially.”
I’ve spent countless days knocking on white rural voters’ doors during three federal campaigns. Krugman is correct that many want to “stick it to the liberals” and that culture wars and racism are other contributing factors.
However, my admittedly non-statistical but large population experience leads me to a simpler conclusion. At the risk of seeming too unsophisticated in my analysis, the reason white rural voters went hard for Trump is: ignorance. Specifically, political/policy ignorance.
I’ve written about this at length several times in the past.
In one column, I wrote: “To me, this ultimately comes down to education and Thomas Jefferson’s admonition that “The best defense of democracy is an informed electorate.” Low info (i.e., ignorant) voters gave us an ignoramus President who then hired completely unqualified ignoramus people to run his Administration. The results are horrific and utterly predictable.”
Agan, as I’ve previously written, I’m willing to place large wagers that most Trump voters (including rural white voters) have no idea that Trump is a convicted felon or adjudicated rapist.
Yes - white rural voters trend “conservative” in the first place. Their ignorance of politics and policy makes them more susceptible to accepting and believing the words of a demagogue who tells them what they think they want to hear.
For Democrats in the “heartland”, it’s all about figuring out how to enter white rural voters’ Circle of TrustTM so they can then educate those same voters on candidates, issues and what their self-interest really looks like.
As Krugman points out, the opportunity is there for the taking in this and future election cycles. Are Democrats willing to spend time and political capital on re-ordering rural coalitions? Time will tell…
