Reply to Kalitsu in Comments

Anna, my view of it is...not the usual view, but I think it's what is really happening, after more than a few years of studying demographics, geography, and rural poverty. In my opinion, most of the anger is coming from small towns and communities. Geography determines how easy--or impossible--it is to get to social services. In addition, our general policy of funding services and infrastructure so that they reach the largest number of people in the least amount of time means that large metropolitan areas will get their needs met first, and those in rural areas last, if at all. As a result, you have social and health services underfunded in rural communities, rotting infrastructure, lack of medical facilities, and persistent poverty that goes unaddressed. Yet, those middle-class citizens in those small towns are taxed the same as those who have easy access, while they watch their poorer neighbors suffer beyond their means to help.

An example: though the rate of persistent poverty and substandard living conditions is higher in rural communities than in urban, the urban poor get $250 per capita in living assistance, while the rural poor get $25 per capita. That is not a typo.

This has been happening for decades, but because those in rural and small town communities have small populations, they simply do not have the numbers to vote down taxes or laws that are detrimental to their survival. An example is when a whole state is taxed to build a stadium in Seattle, but those in Eastern Washington are not likely to use it...while many communities east of the Cascades desperately need medical facilities. To Eastern Washingtonians, this tells them that those on the west side value a sports stadium over their health care needs. Entertainment is more important than people in need.

For those in small communities that do not have access to health care facilities, all the health plans in the world will not help them. Once again, they will be taxed for services they cannot get to, unless someone realizes that clinics and hospitals need to be built, and medical personnel need to be supplied to those areas.

And that, in my opinion, is the source of the anger you see at those town hall meetings. It is from years, even decades, of being taxed for services and infrastructure that they will never get. This is often why you will find a higher percentage of religious people in small towns and rural areas. The church is the only social service they have, the only way they may find transportation to a clinic 50 or more miles away. It is hard enough for a sick person to travel five miles. It is even more difficult for them to travel 50 or more.

It especially stings when they voice their concerns, only to be dismissed as "hicks" and "stupid rednecks." After a while--if they have not given up in despair--they turn to anger.

I have been asked, if it's so bad, why don't these people leave? They forget that we need people to grow our food, bury our garbage, administer and guard our prisons, and pump our oil out of the earth. All these things are out in the rural areas and small towns, not in the cities. If it is hard, dirty work, it is left to the rural people to do. And throughout history, people who do "dirty" work, are considered "dirty" themselves as well, and all that implies. It's not a conscious way of looking at rural people, but it is there nevertheless, and very much felt by those who live in those areas. It's the same phenomenon you see when a white person passes an African American in the street. The white person will unconsciously clutch her purse closer to her, or he will pull his body in away from the African American. The white person doesn't even realize he or she is doing this, and would deny they did it, honestly believing that they would never do such a thing, even when confronted with a videotape showing they did indeed do it. But it is very real, and very visible, to the African American.

Years ago, one of my social science professors said that the number of disparaging synonyms for a particular group of people is a measure of how despised and oppressed they are historically. When you think of the bad words for women and minorities, as compared to men and white people, it's easy to see how true this is.

Now, think: how many disparaging synonyms are there for rural people? Now how many disparaging synonyms can you think of for urban people? I am willing to bet you will find more for rural people than for urban. Go check an online thesaurus for an objective count.

You will not hear anything like my urban vs. rural analysis on the news. This is because news outlets are based in the city. Since city people are their audience, they will naturally report on issues of concern to people living in or near cities. This reporting is not malicious--it's simply business, and a very large blind spot in our media.

As a result, everyone is surprised when small town anger reaches a boiling point. That anger has been there and growing for decades. But nobody has cared to notice.

The sad thing? When I point this out, with statistics from the CDC, the Census Bureau, and the USDA report on rural poverty, people refuse to believe it. It is because of "those hicks' stupidity" that they have problems. In other words, it's their own fault they're poor, and if they had only voted Democrat, they wouldn't be in that shape.

But, this is a story that has repeated itself from at least the time of ancient Rome to this day. Most revolutions and rebellions arise amongst the the working poor and middle class who live in comparably rural areas, far from central government. Unless the central government is severe in their suppression--starvation, martial law--war ensues.

Ironically, the vast majority of urban areas vote Democrat. I say that as a person who votes Democrat most of the time. Which is one reason why I feel a great deal of despair. Whether a person is determined worthy of being helped is based on political affiliation these days, not whether they are truly poor and in need. Political affiliation should NEVER in my opinion have anything to do with whether you think someone in need should get help. But it is there nevertheless.