Trump Exploits Red State Anger (Again)

In cutting funding to Blue regions, he deepens the divide

The big-time Democrat (and former mayor of Chicago) Rahm Emanuel once said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste…It’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. ” It appears that Donald Trump and his minions were listening. They are using the current government shutdown to punish their opponents in very concrete ways. In recent days, the Administration has announced:

· Cancellation of $11 billion worth of infrastructure projects.

· Elimination of $7.6 billion in clean energy projects.

· The freezing of $11 billion worth of water projects.

· Cuts in anti-terrorism funds.

Nearly all of the cuts, cancellations, and freezes (I’d say 95 percent) target “Blue” states, cities, and Congressional districts that didn’t vote for Trump in the recent election. And nearly all were originally funded by the Biden administration. The biggest loser seems to be Trump’s old hometown, New York City. (On his old TV show, The Apprentice, he called it, “My city.”) If things go as planned, New York will lose $11 billion worth of projects, including one ongoing effort to create a new twin-tracked rail tunnel under the Hudson River. Massachusetts would lose a new bridge over the Cape Cod Canal and Chicago would be out $2.1 billion in mass transit improvements.

“We’re only cutting Democrat programs, I hate to tell you, but we are cutting Democrat programs,” President Trump told his cabinet on October 9. “We will be cutting some very popular Democrat programs that aren’t popular with Republicans, frankly.”

Trump’s statement supposes that Republicans don’t travel on trains, drive over bridges, and rely on their tap water being clean. Also, some of the cuts will hurt natural gas and electric grid projects being developed in rural Red Congressional districts in Blue states. So far Republican representatives are taking their medicine. Typical is GOPer Gabe Evans of Colorado, whose district stands to lose $33 million in federal investments that would have created lots of high-paying jobs. He hasn’t said a word about it.

Why is Evan keeping quiet? I think it’s because he knows that his voters, especially the rabidly pro-Trump ones, are more interested in making Blue America suffer than they are in making their local grid more reliable or seeing more clean-burning natural gas made available. This sentiment -- Red vs. Blue, Rural vs Urban, Heartland vs. Coastal -- fires up the base.

Trump exploited rural Red State anger to win two elections. Cynical as it is, it’s a winning strategy. Indeed, studies have shown that hatred for the other side motivates voters more reliably than positive feelings for one’s own group. In our country, the Right began mobilizing the latent hatred and resentment rural voters feel toward their big city countrymen back in the 1970s. Then, as now, the antipathy was based on a sense that city people, especially those on the coasts, looked down on them as they dominated the media, entertainment, the economy, and education.

Rural resentment was the subject of a book published in 2016 by a political scientist named Katherine Cramer, who devoted more than a decade to interviewing people in rural Wisconsin. In her book The Politics of Resentment, she described a rural political identity based on the belief that they are not respected and that urban areas get a disproportionate share of federal spending. Many public opinion polls have confirmed Cramer’s thesis and added to it. In 2023, 71% of rural respondents told Pew Research that people in urban areas have “different values” and more than half felt they receive less than their fair share from the government.

In fact, Red states in general, and rural areas in particular, get more per capita than they contribute in taxes, while Blue states, cities, and towns get less. Lots of factors come into play here including:

· The age of the population. Rural regions have more elderly receiving Social Security and Medicare.

· Poverty. With lower incomes and state aid lacking, Red regions get more per capita from federal anti-poverty programs.

· Farm economies. With lots of agricultural land, Red states get much more farm assistance than Blue ones.

· Infrastructure needs. Though big city projects are expensive, on a per-capita basis, more federal dollars go into rural roads, bridges, and other projects.

As with so many things in politics, when it comes to federal spending, facts seem less important than feelings. In rural America, resentment persists, even though their sides controls everything in Washington, including the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court. And it seems like no one is ever going to tell them that they actually hold the power. Trump and his allies will continue to play on it, deepening the rift between the Red and the Blue. Their goal is to use the rural states’ advantage in the electoral system to achieve permanent federal power. But to get there, they’ll need to keep the Heartland folks angry and eager for more revenge.