There's something buried in this - Afaik it's nto "rural conservatives". It's fash in the first ring and second ring suburbs that constitute the GOP's base. I think there's a degree to where libs and fash can afford to be sloppy; For one, they're delusional about how politics work, and for two they're dogs of capital so it doesn't matter who they alienate, both sides support capital. Whereas we need to flip many people, and many of those people are from low income, low education, low resource groups that are specifically targetted for deprivation and neglect by the capitalist state. If the libs talk shit about rural people that's fine, they aren't losing anything. The GOP can talk shit about people living in "warzone" cities and they're fine. But we need both of those groups on our side, one way or another.
Like, OP even says it in their post; We worry about making jokes about poor working people, while think tanks and media owners have seething hatred and contempt for those same people. We gotta punch up. They can punch down all they want, but we're just hurting our own cause by punching down.
I think it is not a matter of punching up or punching down but how either is done. If you straight up tell rural poor people you want to make their lives better and build a better future for all it will simply not connect and perhaps even get you called "gay." If you meet them where they are and tell them their towns aren't shit and they have been voting for shit because they have been too demoralized to pursue what they are owed, they might actually say you are giving the tough talk that is needed and that you aren't mincing words like some bullshitter.
You are less likely to uplift the already downtrodden by starting off with a message couched in positivity and auspiciousness, it just is not how the terms of engagement in such societies are. I have lived in the poorest areas in India, China, Jordan and the US and I know this much to be true. That is not to mention that rural red area politics aren't a monolith, and there are good chunks of people who are liberal but outnumbered, hate the beliefs and policies of where they are, and are forced to hold their tongue due to social pressure, and such people are just waiting for a fearless shit talker left-leaning leader to galvanize them and finally make their displeasure socially acceptable enough to voice.
There's something buried in this - Afaik it's nto "rural conservatives". It's fash in the first ring and second ring suburbs that constitute the GOP's base. I think there's a degree to where libs and fash can afford to be sloppy; For one, they're delusional about how politics work, and for two they're dogs of capital so it doesn't matter who they alienate, both sides support capital. Whereas we need to flip many people, and many of those people are from low income, low education, low resource groups that are specifically targetted for deprivation and neglect by the capitalist state. If the libs talk shit about rural people that's fine, they aren't losing anything. The GOP can talk shit about people living in "warzone" cities and they're fine. But we need both of those groups on our side, one way or another.
Like, OP even says it in their post; We worry about making jokes about poor working people, while think tanks and media owners have seething hatred and contempt for those same people. We gotta punch up. They can punch down all they want, but we're just hurting our own cause by punching down.
I think it is not a matter of punching up or punching down but how either is done. If you straight up tell rural poor people you want to make their lives better and build a better future for all it will simply not connect and perhaps even get you called "gay." If you meet them where they are and tell them their towns aren't shit and they have been voting for shit because they have been too demoralized to pursue what they are owed, they might actually say you are giving the tough talk that is needed and that you aren't mincing words like some bullshitter.
You are less likely to uplift the already downtrodden by starting off with a message couched in positivity and auspiciousness, it just is not how the terms of engagement in such societies are. I have lived in the poorest areas in India, China, Jordan and the US and I know this much to be true. That is not to mention that rural red area politics aren't a monolith, and there are good chunks of people who are liberal but outnumbered, hate the beliefs and policies of where they are, and are forced to hold their tongue due to social pressure, and such people are just waiting for a fearless shit talker left-leaning leader to galvanize them and finally make their displeasure socially acceptable enough to voice.