of latest screed The opposition to the nation of flyovers, predictably, comes from an urban scientist (Tom Schaller) and journalist (Paul Waldman), author of the hotly debated new book “White Rural Rage.”

Those who lament the disparity between rural and urban America may want to visit both places. Asking people why they believe and act the way they do is not only the best way to get accurate information, it also shows that you are acting with integrity. The implicit assumption is that the people you speak to are reasonable people who are sensible enough to act and vote in their own best interests.

This kind of research might seem natural for social scientists and journalists. Unfortunately, that is not the case with Schaller and Waldman.Treat rural white people more the same way. The Bolsheviks treated Clarkthe two authors do their best to gaslight the subjects of their ire.

They say rural whites aren't voting in their own interests. How could a rational person vote for the Republican Party when the Republican Party denies all government benefits and subsidies? According to the authors, rural whites would be better off if there was no school choice! They would be much better off if they let their town government manage their broadband instead of choosing which broadband company to use.

Of course, Schaller and Waldman do not frame these issues this way. Their ideology prevents them from understanding the rationale for the choices of rural white voters. Instead, they make insane statements like:

University professors aren't pouring mountains of opioids into rural communities. Immigrants did not close rural hospitals or degrade rural infrastructure.

These inequalities reveal that Schaller and Waldman are not interested in understanding the plight of rural areas. They refuse to even consider that the left-wing policies they promote may be the ultimate cause of these problems.rather, they want to worried troll Rural voters are putting pressure on Republicans to move closer to Democrats.

Democrats might have had more success in attracting rural voters if Republican policies had remained the same as those of the George W. Bush era. Rural voters would not have had candidates who really represented their concerns like they do today. Schaller and Waldman would probably say they are big fans of democracy. In fact, they accuse rural whites of threatening it.

But they reach out amidst obvious partisan hatred. They have made it clear that they do not want to give local voters the option of democratically choosing someone to represent their interests. What they want is a non-choice that ends in more online support for the policies Schaller and Waldman prefer.

The rural-urban divide and related policy differences will not be resolved by the angry, partisan nonsense proposed by Schaller and Waldman. There can be no resolution to disagreements when one side sees policy disagreements as actually a war between enlightened urban elites and stupid rural whites. Schaller and Waldman exacerbate our polarization by demonizing rural whites.

I have lived most of my life in small towns in rural America. I was born and raised there. I'm an academic social scientist, and I don't believe that the solutions to rural America's problems will come from academia. They will come from rural America doing what they believe is in their best interest. Ignoring Schaller and Waldman is a great first step.