Transcript

How the Democratic Brand Turned Radioactive in Rural America | The Ezra Klein Show

From The Ezra Klein Show · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 1 h 5 min · 10,481 words · 108 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "How the Democratic Brand Turned Radioactive in Rural America | The Ezra Klein Show", an episode of The Ezra Klein Show published October 21, 2025 (1 h 5 min, about 10,481 words). It mentions 24 people, works and ideas, including Rural America, Donald Trump, Suzanne Metler, Rural Versus Urban, Urban America.

What this episode is about

The topic explores the growing urban-rural divide in American politics, emphasizing how the Trump administration's deployment of National Guard troops from red states to blue cities reflects a militarized approach to political dissent and urban governance. The discussion underscores the perception of cities as hostile territories, framing local resistance as insurrection and raising concerns about the implications for public safety and civil relations.

Key takeaways

  • The Trump administration's National Guard deployment highlights the perilous merging of military action and urban dissent.
  • Calling urban residents insurrectionists mirrors historical rhetoric, but ignites fear of a new civil divide within America.
  • Once a united front, the rural-urban political alliance fractured in the '90s, revealing deep-seated resentments and division.
  • The divide isn't a natural law; it’s a political construct, demanding urgent address for future American stability.
  • FDR once united rural and urban voters; can today's leaders rebuild alliances or are we doomed to perpetual polarization?

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 10:00: Rural America, Suzanne Metler, National Guard, United States (states)
  2. – 20:00: Rural America, United States (states), Bill and Hillary Clinton, NAFTA
  3. – 30:00: Urban America, Donald Trump, Rural America
  4. – 40:00: Rural America, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, United States (states)
  5. – 50:00: Donald Trump, Rural America, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Insurrection
  6. – 1:00:00: Rural America, National Guard, Urban America, Donald Trump
  7. – 1:05:01: Rural America, Suzanne Metler, Economic Populism, Howard Dean

Notable quotes from "How the Democratic Brand Turned Radioactive in Rural America | The Ezra Klein Show"

  • Trump said this to a room of America's top military leaders.
    about Donald Trump · at
  • Rural voters used to vote pretty much in lock step. But then in the '90s that split. Urban voters became reliably Democratic and rural voters became overwhelmingly Republican. We treat this as an inevitability in our politics, but it is.
    about Urban America · at
  • Years assume the big political divide between rural America and urban America is a constant, an inevitability, just a feature of our politics. Is that true?
    about Rural America · at
  • Of the book where you show that if you're looking at Republicans, who is likeliest to support the lies about the 2020 election, it is heavily over represented by the Republicans who represent rural districts.
    about 2020 Election · at
  • [snorts] I think it's a factor that, Bill Clinton is president during that point in time. So even though most Democrats in Congress were opposed to NAFTA and opposed to a lot of deregulation that was happening, there.
    about Bill and Hillary Clinton · at
  • Also add that it's more consequential in the United States because we have so many of our electoral institutions give extra political power to less populated places. So if you…
    about United States (states) · at
  • Have elected Republicans. But in the middle of that time things went in a different way. And that was when Howard Dean became the head of the Democratic National Committee 2005.
    about Howard Dean · at
  • In exactly that way. I have watched some of the, Democratic, politicians, doing, that just not be able to survive. Shard Brown is a very effective economic populist and despite…
    about Economic Populism · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Donald Trump — Person · Core topic (referenced political actor) · 8 mentions · first at
    Presented as the political figure intensifying the rural-versus-urban divide through rhetoric and proposed/actual deployments of force into cities, and as a vehicle for channeling rural grievance against Democrats and urban elites.
  • Suzanne Metler — Person · Main guest · 3 mentions · first at
    Co-author of 'Rural Versus Urban' and the episode’s primary expert, explaining the historical emergence of the rural-urban partisan divide and proposing organizing-based remedies.
    Suzanne, Metler,, welcome, to, the, show.
  • Bill and Hillary Clinton — Person · Referenced political figure · 7 mentions · first at
    Discussed as president during NAFTA-era economic changes that rural voters blamed on Democrats; also referenced as a skilled rural-urban coalition politician and as doubting he could win Arkansas now.
  • Howard Dean — Person · Referenced strategist · 3 mentions · first at
    Presented as evidence that sustained party-building (the '50-state strategy') and rural organizing can improve Democratic performance in rural areas (2005–2008).
  • Trevor Brown — Person · Referenced expert (co-author) · 1 mention · first at
    Named as co-author with Suzanne Metler of 'Rural Versus Urban', the book that structures the episode’s analysis.
    Rural Versus Urban, a new book by the political scientists Suzanne Metler and Trevor Brown, is the best place I found to start. And so I asked Metler to join me on the show to walk me through how we got here and whether we can get out. As.
  • Kathy Kramer — Person · Referenced expert (recommended author) · 1 mention · first at
    Her research is recommended as foundational for understanding rural resentment and political consciousness in Wisconsin, and Metler notes building on it.
    Want to recommend first another book about rural America by a political scientist. and that's Katherryn Kramer's book, The Politics of Resentment, Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin, and the Rise of Scott Walker.
  • Bart Stupak — Person · Referenced example (former rural Democrat) · 2 mentions · first at
    Cited as a pro-life Democratic swing vote from rural Michigan during the ACA era, representing the now-vanished cohort of rural Democrats who moderated polarization.
    Important role and influencing the policy right up till the end. and those lawmakers are gone. Bart Stupac, for example, who was a swing vote from the upper peninsula Michigan…
  • Lyndon Johnson — Person · Referenced historical figure · 1 mention
    Referenced for signing the Civil Rights Act (1964), which is discussed as an insufficient explanation for the timing of the modern rural-urban partisan divide.
    [snorts] In, 1964,, Lynden, Johnson, signs, the, Civil Rights Act into law. And that kicks off this process of ideological polarization where the parties sort into liberal and conservative, the Dixierats die out.
  • Marjorie Taylor Greene — Person · Referenced example (polarized replacement) · 1 mention
    Used as a symbol of the shift from rural Democratic moderates (e.g., Bart Stupak) to more extreme Republican representatives in rural districts.

Books & papers

  • The Politics of Resentment — Book · Recommended book · 1 mention · first at
    Recommended as a key scholarly work explaining rural consciousness and resentment politics in Wisconsin, directly informing Metler and Brown’s framework.
    About rural America by a political scientist. and that's Katherryn Kramer's book, The Politics of Resentment, Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin, and the Rise of Scott Walker.
  • Demon Copperhead — Book · Recommended book · 1 mention · first at
    Recommended as fiction that conveys nuance and lived experience in Appalachia and rural Kentucky, complementing political-science accounts of rural America.
    Strongly about that. So my second choice is going to be a novel and that is Barbara King Solver's book Demon Copperhead. [snorts] And you know Barbara King Solver grew up in…
  • Devotions — Book · Recommended book · 1 mention · first at
    Recommended poetry collection framed as a tribute to rural America and natural places, adding cultural/emotional texture to the episode’s political analysis.
    This year, I decided I need more poetry back in my life. So, I have been reading, Mary Oliver's book Devotions, which is, a collection of a lot of her best work. She [snorts]…

Concepts & topics

  • Rural America — Concept · Core topic · 23 mentions · first at
    Central subject of the episode: economic decline, perceived abandonment, resentment, organizational weakness, and political realignment toward Republicans are analyzed through the lens of rural communities.
  • Rural Versus Urban — Concept · Core topic (book framing the episode) · 1 mention · first at
    The episode is organized around the arguments of the book 'Rural Versus Urban' by Suzanne Metler and Trevor Brown, used to explain causes and remedies for the divide.
    Rural Versus Urban, a new book by the political scientists Suzanne Metler and Trevor Brown, is the best place I found to start. And so I asked Metler to join me on the show to.
  • Urban America — Concept · Core topic (counterpart to Rural America) · 6 mentions · first at
    Discussed as the locus of Democratic coalition strength and as the perceived 'elite' power center in rural narratives; also framed as the target of Trump-era rhetoric and deployments.
  • National Guard — Concept · Core topic (instrument of state power) · 4 mentions · first at
    Central to the opening argument: deployments from 'red states' into 'blue cities' are framed as escalatory and potentially civil-conflict-like, tied to Trump’s rhetoric about 'liberating' cities.
    I think there's a particular lens worth using right now as we watch the Trump administration deploying the National Guard from red states into blue cities.
  • Insurrection — Concept · Core topic (escalation/violence frame) · 2 mentions · first at
    Appears in Trump’s framing of city resistance as 'insurrectionists' and in discussion of the Insurrection Act; tied to fears of democratic deterioration and political violence.
    Trump, also, said, that, the, people, in, these cities resisting this occupation, these deployments, that they should be understood as insurrectionists.
  • Economic Populism — Concept · Debated strategy concept · 2 mentions · first at
    Discussed as a potential Democratic approach to win rural voters (focus on bread-and-butter issues), but questioned due to recent failures of economic-populist candidates in rural areas.
  • NAFTA — Concept · Key policy example · 1 mention · first at
    Used as a concrete economic-policy marker for late-1990s/early-2000s industrial decline in rural areas and as a focal point for blame attribution toward Democrats (via Bill Clinton).
    Deregulation that was happening, there were just enough Democrats endorsing it and then Bill Clinton signing it into law. [snorts] And so rural people moved away from the rep…
  • Tea Party — Concept · Referenced movement · 1 mention · first at
    Cited as a post-2008 Republican mobilization that capitalized on organizational energy while Democrats 'dropped the ball,' contributing to rural Democratic collapse.
    Just a mailing list of the DNC and it all goes into the ether and then meanwhile the Tea Party mobilizes among the Republicans and they claim the day. But it didn't have to be this way. It was not inevitable.
  • Civil Rights Act — Concept · Historical reference point · 2 mentions · first at
    Raised as a common explanation for partisan sorting, but Metler argues it does not match the timing of the rural-urban divide’s emergence (late 1990s).
    [snorts] In, 1964,, Lynden, Johnson, signs, the, Civil Rights Act into law. And that kicks off this process of ideological polarization where the parties sort into liberal and conservative, the Dixierats die out.

Places & events

  • United States (states) — Place · Primary setting · 5 mentions · first at
    The national context for the rural-urban divide, party realignment, and institutional features (Senate, Electoral College) that amplify place-based polarization.
  • 2020 Election — Event · Referenced event (democratic norms) · 1 mention · first at
    Used to show norm-breaking: rural-district Republicans are described as disproportionately supportive of 'lies' about the election and as voting to reject state results on Jan 6, 2021.
  • Kentucky — Place · Referenced location (cultural example) · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as Barbara Kingsolver’s rural background, connecting the recommended novel to rural/Appalachian experience.
    Barbara King Solver's book Demon Copperhead. [snorts] And you know Barbara King Solver grew up in rural Kentucky and she writes this book that's you know really based in…

Full transcript with timestamps

I think there's a particular lens worth using right now as we watch the Trump administration deploying the National Guard from red states into blue cities. We are watching a rural political coalition militarily occupying urban centers. It is moving armed troops in over the objections of their residents of their mayors, and of their governors. This is an attack on neighborhoods, on lawful residents, on US citizens. That's not preventing crime as Donald Trump claims. That's threatening public safety.

The, Trump, administration, is, doing, this while describing these cities as something like enemy territory. They need to be liberated, taken back. Trump said this to a room of America's top military leaders.

What, they've, done, to, San, Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles they're very unsafe places. And we're going to straighten them out one by one. That's a war, too. It's a war from within.

Trump, also, said, that, the, people, in, these cities resisting this occupation, these deployments, that they should be understood as insurrectionists.

We, have, an, insurrection, act, for, a reason. If I had to enact it, I' I'd do that. If people were being ke killed and uh courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up sure, I'd do that.

For, years,, I, have, been, skeptical, of warnings that America was at risk of a renewed civil war. There were all kinds of reasons to not take that particularly seriously. But when I see troops being sent into cities over the objections of the people elected in those cities, of the people elected in those states when I hear them talked about this way I think you have to take those warnings more seriously now.

And, I, told, Pete,, we, should, use, some, of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military. National Guard but military.

A, massive, rural, urban, divide, has, opened in our country's politics. Urban and rural voters used to vote pretty much in lock step. But then in the '90s that split. Urban voters became reliably Democratic and rural voters became overwhelmingly Republican. We treat this as an inevitability in our politics, but it is only a few decades old and our political future and stability might rest on reversing it. Certainly for the Democratic Party, any durable political power rests on reversing it. Now, reversing it isn't going to be easy, but it begins with understanding it and taking seriously the resentments that fuel it.

Rural Versus Urban, a new book by the political scientists Suzanne Metler and Trevor Brown, is the best place I found to start. And so I asked Metler to join me on the show to walk me through how we got here and whether we can get out. As always, my email is Kleinshowny Times.com.

Suzanne, Metler,, welcome, to, the, show. Happy, to, be, here. I, think, a, lot, of, people, who, have followed politics over the past 10, 20 years assume the big political divide between rural America and urban America is a constant, an inevitability, just a feature of our politics. Is that true? No, the rural urban divide did not exist nationwide in the past in the United States. If we look at how people voted in presidential elections through the middle of the 20th century, right up to the early '9s, rural and urban Americans voted, you know, almost in lock step just a couple of percentage points dividing them. [snorts] That's true as recently as 1992, two percentage point gap. Then it [snorts] starts growing and growing and growing. And it was in 2024 a 20 percentage point gap. All regions of the country have moved in this way have this big gap. Almost all states have a big rural urban divide. And you

know, it's really driving polarization in a particularly pernicious way because it's place-based. You know, rural and urban people don't encounter each other in ways that could soften the divide. And so, it's creating an us versus them kind of politics that's really dangerous. Before we get into what created the divide beginning in the '9s what kept urban and rural America politically united for so long?

Well,, you, know,, you, go, back, to, say, that, you know, the late 19th early 20th century as industrialization is happening, rural areas really feel left behind. There's a big agricultural depression in the 1920s. Then the depression comes and rural people at that point are really upset and policy makers are worried there's about to be like a revolution in the countryside as they call it. But what happens is that Franklin D. Roosevelt steps in and he creates this big rural urban coalition. And to an extent that I was unaware of until we wrote this book, [snorts] um he really put rural Americans front and center in his vision of what needed to happen for the country and created all of these policies that were really designed to lift up rural America.

I cannot escape the conclusion that one of the essential parts of a national program of restoration must be to restore purchasing power to the farming half of the country. Without this, the wheels of the railroads and the wheels of the factories will not turn.

Rural, Americans, really, appreciated, that and they felt the Democratic Party was there for them and many of them remembered it, [snorts] you know, for their lifetimes and then their kids did as well all the way up until the 1990s. In the 1980s and early 90s, um, rural places were more likely to send Democrats to Congress than Republicans. And to think that, you know, a few decades ago, um, there was there was still really a coalition um, where there were rural politicians who were really at the forefront in Congress in um brokering compromises on all sorts of important policies. You know, like when we study the Affordable Care Act, for example, you have all of these rural lawmakers who were really playing an important role um, and influencing the policy right up till the end. and those lawmakers are are gone. Bart Stupac, for example, who was a swing vote from um the um upper peninsula Michigan um and

he gets um uh replaced by people who are like Marjorie Taylor Green going forward.

So, the, it, moves, from, being, these, people who are functionally moderating polarization in America, who are building bridges. Stupac is a pro-life Democrat very famously, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, the same thing. to the most extreme members of the Republican coalition

right?, You, have, a, thing, towards, the, end of the book where you show that if you're looking at Republicans, who is likeliest to support the lies about the 2020 election, it is heavily over represented uh by the Republicans who represent rural districts.

Yes,, that's, right., Yeah., So,, you, know, on January 6th, 2021, when Congress reconvenes, there's a large portion of the Republican caucus, about 138 members, who vote against uh accepting the votes from all of the states, and they're heavily rural. Um, you know it's not just that these folks who are being elected in rural areas now are more conservative on policy issues, is that it's also that they are more willing to go against basic democratic norms and principles.

[snorts] In, 1964,, Lynden, Johnson, signs, the, Civil Rights Act into law. And that kicks off this process of ideological polarization where the parties sort into liberal and conservative, the Dixierats die out. And I think the most commonly believed story about what happened in the urban rural divide is that they hated the Civil Rights Act. Right. I think if you look at a lot of democratic accounts of this, you'll see something like that. You don't buy that account.

Yeah., Yeah,, that's, wrong., So,, you, know, for one thing, just look at when the rural urban divide emerged. It's not until the late 1990s. So, um you know, the story that you're telling usually, you know, then the followup is that the South left the Democratic Party. Well, [snorts] in fact, it was a lot of urban southerners who left the Democratic Party, but rural Southerners stuck with it up until the 1990s and then they they left. The one of the most striking things that we find is that this rural urban divide is not a function of differences in views about public policy. [snorts] And so, you know, we look exhaustively at public opinion polls and we find that on most issues, if you look at the views of non-Hispanic white Americans, there's no difference, no significant difference in their opinions about how much we should be spending money on things like education, health care, policing, and

and so on. There are a few issues like abortion and gun rights where there's a gap but the gap is not that large and it hasn't been growing over time. So it doesn't explain this growing rural urban divide. So in other words, while we are divided by place in terms of which party people support, that's not because there's a difference in Americans actual views in those two places on major issues. So then why are people in rural America electing representatives who are so different on policy to the people they used to elect?

What, we, find, is, that, when, the, rural urban divide began to grow in the 1990s it was economic factors that were driving it. [snorts] And so you'd had economic decline that was happening starting in the 1980s, loss of family farms with agricultural consolidation loss of jobs in extractive industries like mining and and oil and the like. [snorts] And then um de-industrialization which had already been hitting cities um pretty hard. Then it hits u with you know NAFTA and the change in trade policies. it hits rural areas um to an extent that I really surprised me. I wouldn't have realized there was so much industry in rural places. So that's in the late 90s early 2000s. [snorts] And as all of that's happening, um rural people start to feel that this party that they had long thought was was there for them or they were at least, you know, willing to support on occasion boat split ticket, whatever, they start

to feel like it's abandoned them and that it's no longer there for them. [snorts] I think it's a factor that, you know, Bill Clinton is president during that point in time. So even though most Democrats in Congress were opposed to NAFTA and opposed to a lot of deregulation that was happening, there were just enough Democrats endorsing it and then Bill Clinton signing it into law. [snorts] And so um rural people moved away from the rep from the the Democratic party and started supporting the Republican party.

So, let, me, push, on, some, parts, of, the story. you. One thing that your book really did convince me of is [snorts] that if you look at the timing of different things, the political divergence and economic divergence really do track each other.

But, as, you, say,, a, lot, of, the, policies people often blame here, not just NAFTA there were a lot of free trade policies. There was a lot of deregulation. Deregulation is a big focus of your book. They're heavily supported by Republicans. to say nothing of uh taxes that are, you know, cut for rich people and then the spending cuts fall on programs that people in rural America use very heavily.

Obamacare, in, very, important, ways, subsidizes a lot of healthcare in rural America, helps hospitals there, helps people who are uninsured there. The thing I was thinking as I was reading your book was that there is what happens and then there is who is blamed for what happens. And where something happened that could plausibly be blamed on Democrats, you see it blamed on them. Why?

Well,, I, think, you're, putting, your, finger on why this is so puzzling and paradoxical. [snorts] So, you know, like I said, it starts with the economic stuff, but then the second phase is the development of resentment. 2008 to 2020. Then at that point, rural Americans are looking at the Democratic Party and they start to think of it as [snorts] having a, center, that, is, um, [clears throat] affluent people, wealthy [snorts] people, people better off than themselves who are running the party and who don't seem to understand them or their communities, but they're creating policies that they're sort of foisting upon them in all sorts of different areas and they resent it. So that's when grievance begins to grow. So there's this sense of of anger and it has become channeled at the Democratic Party even though that is in many ways unfair.

But um I think it is true now that much of the Democratic Party because it's become so distant from rural voters doesn't understand um their situation and their communities. And so, you know there is [snorts] um a basis in fact there.

In, 2008,, when, George, W., Bush, is incredibly unpopular, the Iraq war is understood to be a disaster. The financial crisis is in full swing. Obama and the Democrats do quite well in rural America., I, mean,, it's, one, of the, last times on on some of your charts when you see Yeah.

the, cities, and, the, the, rural, uh, areas swing together. Yes. But then there's I mean the first bailout passes under George W. Bush, but the the Democrats support it. The recovery from the financial crisis is slow and it is slower in rural America. There's a feeling that the banks got bailed out. The cities ended up doing fine. The stock market comes back, but the devastation in rural America really lingers.

Yes., How, much, did, you, hear, about, that and how much do you think that soured people um in in in these areas on the Democratic party in a kind of final fashion?

You, know,, one, of, the, things, we, did, for our research um was interviewing um political party county chairs, both Democrats and Republicans um in several states. I drove thousands of miles and talked to a lot of people. I remember one county chair saying to us, you know we've been in a recession here for 30 years. So I think in a sense it's all been kind of a blur from the loss of jobs that was happening in the 1990s and early 2000s um as you know plants closed and and work forces downsized to then what happens in 2008 and beyond with the great recession um that you know things went from bad to worse.

How much is this just educational polarization that what you're seeing is the cities are much more highly educated, a greater density of college graduates. How much is the urban rural language simply obscuring the main issue being the educational divide?

Yeah., Well,, the, educational, divide certainly plays into it and it's very important. It's fascinating. You go back to the 1980s and the average person with a college degree or more in the United States voted for uh the Republican party and then that changes in starting in the '9s that they that group starts moving toward the Democratic party. Um [snorts] and and these are urbanites with higher education. And it's not until 2008 and beyond that rural people start to emulate that same pattern. But there it the average rural person has less education and then the switch that's happening is from the Democratic party to the Republican party. So the educational divide is important but you know in all of our analysis we control for that and rurality still matters. It matters over and above that. there being a coalition that is more urban and a coalition that is more rural and the rural coalition being particularly more

culturally conservative, more religious more traditionalist. That's a pretty common structure for political systems. We see this same divergence in many countries. Does that imply there's something if not inevitable than heavily predetermined here given that it's happening in different countries with different political parties who have passed different economic policies at different times? [snorts]

You, know,, typically, other, countries, have more parties than we do. And um the rural urban divide while it has grown in lots of countries in the past few decades, it's grown most dramatically in the United States. and and here I'm turning to the work of Jonathan Roden at Stanford. He's done a lot of work on this. Uh it's grown more quickly here during that time period. And I would also add that it's more consequential in the United States because we have so many um so many of our electoral institutions give extra political power to less populated places. So if you think of the US Senate for example every state gets two senators regardless of population. So [snorts] California has more than 60 times as many residents as Wyoming, but they both have two senators. And you know that gets replicated in all these other rural states. And that means that in the Senate when it comes to policym that

rural places have extra clout. [snorts] It also means that um in uh choosing the judiciary in you know confirmations of judges that um the rural urban divide matters a lot. um and of course the electoral college. So right now for the first time in our history all of these advantages are consolidated in one party and that hasn't been the case before.

So, I, I, very, much, buy, that, point, that, it is more consequential here because of the somewhat distinctive place-based structure of our political system. But but I want to hold on this question of what the commonality across countries might might teach us or might not teach us. I think a lot of Democrats believe something very similar to what Barack Obama said in the infamous bitter clinger comments.

People, have, been, beaten, down, so, long, and they feel so betrayed by government. So, it's not surprising them that they get better and they cling to guns or religion, or, [clears throat] antipathy towards people who aren't like them or a way to explain their frustrations.

And, if, you, sort, of, wipe, the, argument, he made of some of the more condescending language that was in it, I think very much to his regret, what he says is something like this. rural America is seeing and rural places in a much more globalized digitized knowledge-based economy are seeing their economies weaken. That is true across countries and the people who stay there um they stay there for a number of different reasons. They want to be where they grew up. They are more traditionalist. And as both the people who can leave and want to leave do and as the people who can stay and want to say stay, you have less and less economic dynamism and you have more um identification with the way things used to be with a a better time from before. And that goes alongside more religiosity.

It goes alongside more traditional ways of life like hunting. Um, and it comes with a resentment of the urban uh elites who you feel are doing this to you and who don't respect your way of life. I'm not saying this is true, but I'm presenting it as a thing I think Democrats believe is true.

Right., So,, there's, a, lot, of, stereotypes there, right? And um [snorts] so I I grew up in a rural place um myself um and I still spend a lot of time in rural places. So, um, I think, you know, if a lot of rural Americans heard this, they would really want to push back and say you know, no, we're not part of some you know, entirely different sect of people over here. There are, uh, lots and lots of of rural Americans who do identify as Democrats. It tends to be about, um, you know, onethird on average now in presidential elections. And then there are many other Americans who's uh in rural places whose whose ideas are you know, in flux just like those um elsewhere. You're sort of suggesting there's a political sorting going on that the people move away who um have these different policy attitudes

or, different, I've, heard, it, phrased, as psychological attitudes, right? People with more openness to experience, people who want to compete in the urban job markets that that there is a sorting happening.

Yeah., Now, there's, other, scholars, than ourselves who've looked at this very carefully and they find that um that's not driving rural people's moving to urban places and that in fact you know when people change their party it tends to be after they've made a move. Um so it's not pulling them to urban places. So I I don't think that holds up.

And, you've, been, talking, a, bit, about, the rise of grievance politics and resentment. I think there's something upstream of that which you talk about a bit in the book but but is affinity and I just don't think there's a way to get around this. Right. I've been covering politics and particularly Democratic politics um since the early 2000s and the Democratic Party is an urban coalition and it does in many ways feel distant from rural America. I mean I remember in the George W. Bush years all the talk about losing touch with the heartland, right? You know, Democrats were the party of John Kerry and coastal liberals and Republicans were the party of of the heartland and Democrats losing touch on gods, guns, and gays was the way it used to be talked about. And it seems for reasons that aren't primarily policy, but but might have to do with religiosity and other things, they're developed just more affinity. I mean

there are elites in both parties and the elites in both parties are educated, and the elites in both parties are rich, and [snorts] often the elites in both parties come from or live in cities. And yet, the elites in the Democratic party much more identify with urban America than the elites in the Republican party even when the elites in the Republican party like Donald Trump live in New York City. and and that affinity feels very important in terms of everything that comes after.

Yes., Well,, I, think, that, there,, you, know, you're really explaining our the second dynamic that we identify this sense that rural people have that of elite overreach coming from the Democrats and that that Democrats don't understand them. So, I think that's a real thing and I agree with you. What I would say for the Democratic Party is that unless it can overcome that, it's going to be a minority party. It's it's not going to win back the Senate again until it can overcome the rural urban divide. It's going to have um you know very challenging time getting um a very big margin in the House. It's going to be challenged in um presidential elections and and in many state level elections.

And you [snorts] know that's consequential just in so many ways. Um so I mean it's it's problematic for the country. It means that um you [snorts] know also for for rural people that they're subjected to one party government in so many places. If the Democratic party just decides to throw up our hands, we're not going to go organize in rural places which is what's been happening. Um it's really problematic for democracy at so many levels. the the way your book is structured, you sort of say there's this economic divergence and then layered on top of that very quickly is what you call elite overreach. And that's what we're talking about here. And the way you describe it is that quote, "It was not any one issue that tipped the scales, but rather the persistent commonality that ran across him. From 2008 onward, rural Americans perceived an urban elite that sought to impose itself on far-flung places

controlling residents lives through new rules and procedures in [snorts] which they felt they had little voice. And you argue that the issue here was not the policy but the sense of respect or disrespect of listening or not listening of representation or absence of representation that that there was something sort of beneath policy that drove this. Tell me about that that that sense of we are being ruled from afar.

Yeah,, that's, right., you, know, it's illustrated we we illustrate it in the book through a couple of different policy areas and one is um renewable energy which actually you know you might find interesting because of the ideas that you explore in abundance. So there's a fascinating literature of you know scholars have looked at many different parts of the country and when wind and solar comes into rural places which is you know of course where the land is and where you need to develop it. Um it so often happens without rural communities having a chance to have a voice. So there'll be a big developer that comes in a company that you know cuts a deal with a big land owner.

[snorts] Um, and all of this happens and agreements are made before the local community hears about it and then people are upset [snorts] and as you know what scholars have found who study very carefully public opinion on environmental issues and and we do as well that there's not a big difference between rural and urban Americans in their view on environmental issues and in fact a lot of rural people care very deeply about the environment because you know the land is so important to them [snorts] and yet they feel that the process is really problematic. Um there's [snorts] a you know one study that was about wind farms in Indiana and to quote a person in that um that they quoted they said it's not that I'm against wind energy I'm against how it was done here.

I, found, this, raised, a, lot, of, skepticism for me. I mean first I'm not against X where X is clean energy, affordable housing, mass transit. I'm just against how it was done here is I feel like the most common structure of I'm against X. But in abundance, as you know, I I spent a lot of time talking about and and researching and reporting on how clean energy projects in particular are cited in different parts of the country. And what I can say for sure is that red states site different forms, all kinds of different forms of energy much more easily than blue states do because they have much less complex and deliberative procedures for citing them. If you want to build a wind farm in Texas, in rural Texas, it is just much easier than building it in rural California or rural New York. And yet rural Americans are not turning against the government of Texas for the lack of deliberative consultative

and veto oriented sighting. So something about that felt off to me because I would think that would then lead to much more anger in red states where it is much easier to just plow through a new development than it is in in blue states which have again much more veto oriented structures here. It's very interesting that it's been easier for Republican governors to roll out these policies. And I don't know, I would love to look under the hood and find out the dynamics that are happening there, but we don't do that in our book.

What I would say is that it's problematic to have people in cities who accuse rural people of nimism when, you know, renewable energy is needed particularly by urban people. And so this can be a really extractive kind of industry that, you know, just is one more thing that where rural people are taken advantage of and where their needs are not taken into account.

I'm, getting, at, something, even, a, little bit larger here than than clean energy. [snorts] One thing that your book just seems to accept and even talk about is that the attribution of blame for policy is very very muddy and it relies a lot on how people get their information and whether they whether they get their information. Can you talk about a particular study where Republican policies close rural hospitals

and, people, are, mad, and, Republican, vote share goes up in the next election because people blame the party they already don't like. I could tell a story where people don't like the renewable energy coming in. And even though it's coming in more aggressively in red states because of their procedures nobody knows that much about citing rules. So they're still blaming the party they see as connected to renewable energy. But but there's something here about how many of the policies that you describe as particularly painful or destructive or irritating to rural America are not promulgated by Democrats, but Democrats get blamed anyway.

Yes., No,, that's, true., And, you, know,, um politics is full of paradox. what's going on there. Um, and we argue is that there's another component of our explanation that I haven't gotten to talk about yet, and that is the organizational component here. The question is who is on the ground in a place connecting the dots for voters saying to them, here's what's happening in public policy and here's how it matters for our community. Here's um the party that is best representing your interests and values. you know, doing that connecting of the dots. So, you know, political parties need to do this for people and so in rural places, you know, the Democratic party has become very weak. [snorts] Um, and so it's much harder for them to really be there making the case. Um, and then the Republican party, you know, for the same kinds of reasons that all civic organizations have have suffered over

time, has um has had challenging times as well. And yet it has been helped by other organizations that are prevalent in rural places. So we find that evangelical churches are more uh occur um on a greater per capita basis in rural places and so do gun groups affiliated with the National Rifle Association. And so those groups have been playing a supportive role to the Republican party in helping to connect the dots for voters and to get out the vote essentially. Democrats used to be aided by labor unions um in rural places and uh and that's really been decimated very much with de-industrialization.

I, want, to, actually, spend, a, moment, on, the media side of this. I've talked to Democratic politicians, Barack Obama said this to me once, who say that they felt able to run in rural areas in 2000 or 2008 or 1996 but as depending on the place we're talking about, as talk radio and Rush Limba took hold, then later as Fox News rolled out, now we have, you know social media and all these other uh hyperartisan and hyperol polarized forms of information that they don't even feel they can get a hearing because the people are interested in politics. What they are hearing is so angry at Democrats and so polarized that there's no way to to to get around it.

Right., Well,, I, have, no, doubt, that, the media matters. And so in our analysis unit, we do all this quantitative analysis and we were limited to the things that we could where we had data uh for all counties, you know, over these many decades. And we didn't have a way to measure um the rise of talk radio, Rush Limbbo, and where are people listening to it and Fox News and the loss of local newspapers and all of these important changes in the media. And [snorts] I'm sure they're important but this is where Democratic Party organizing is so needed and crucial.

[snorts] And uh I remember a you know county chair in in southern Ohio saying "Look, there's no one here shouting from the rooftops, you know, back against Fox News. They're lying to you." And [snorts] so, you know, whether it's the media or organizations, that's the problem that um in rural places, people aren't hearing another message very strongly.

Political, scientists, use, I, always, think the slightly strange tool, the feelings thermometer, where uh they ask people to rate other groups on a 1 to 100 scale. [snorts] Uh and you have this data for white rural Americans and on a scale of 1 to 100, they put black Americans at a 70. So, pretty good. Hispanic Americans at 67, gay men at 57, illegal immigrants at 39, pretty low, and Democrats at 14 points. So, Democrats are rated uh about actually I mean less, well less than half as highly as illegal immigrants.

Um, by the way, this is not just a rural America. White urban Democrats put Republicans at 17 points. But the hatred is much more concentrated at the political out group.

Yes. At, least, in, these, measures, than, at, any other group. Exactly., Yeah., So, the, way, we, sum, this up, if you think of what I was saying earlier about public policy issues and how we don't differ very much rural and urban Americans on these issues that we barely disagree, but we are bitterly divided and the divide is over partisanship. So in other words, it doesn't have to be this way. It's teamsmanship. It's tribalism, but it's not based in really different views about issues

but, it, does, create, then, these self-reinforcing dynamics, but it creates anger. I mean I think about, you know, the soft version is maybe Barack Obama's bitterclinger's comment. The harder version is Hillary Clinton's deplorables comment. Uh it creates I mean I remember this so strongly from the Bush era and I see it now when Republicans are in power um urban liberals do feel threatened do feel like that power is being deployed against them do feel very angry at what is being done and then it creates political strategy because parties work with limited resources they have to choose where to put their energy and their attention in 2016 Chuck Schumer famously says is for every bluecollar Democrat we lose in Western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin. Now whether you can repeat that is a I guess

a reasonable question to ask. But you do see the Democratic Party begin to say to itself, "We've lost rural America. Throwing good money after bad there is not worth doing. Let's try to pick up the suburbs." How do you think about that both as a matter of short-term and long-term political strategy? It's a losing strategy given, you know, what I was saying earlier about the electoral institutions in the United States. A party has to be able to win less populated places if it wants to have national power. You know FDR really understood this and contemporary politicians don't. Um, it's not the same to pick up those suburban voters. You need to be picking up rural voters. So, it's it's crucial to build that bridge because otherwise, you know you're you're not going to win the Senate., Um, [clears throat], the, electoral college is an uphill battle. And then you know, when it comes to House

districts, we might think, oh, well, you know, that's not so much an issue. Well it is because Democratic votes are are wasted in effect because they're consolidated in densely populated places. And so, um Republican voters tend to be much more evenly distributed across the landscape. So, it's much easier for Republicans to do draw districts that favor them than for Democrats to do so.

It, would, be, good, if, you, could, do, that. But I guess the the question I don't want to put any words in Chuck Schumer's mouth, but but that I would hear from Democrats is can you one thing you have in the book is quite a few Democrats who used to win rural areas saying I couldn't win that today. Bob Kerry, who was a very successful uh politician in Nebraska, runs again in Nebraska later on, loses, you know, easily. Bill Clinton says, you know, now quite a long time ago, I don't know that I could win in Arkansas anymore. There are a pretty small handful of Democrats, Jared Golden in Maine, Marie Gusen Perez in uh Washington who now run in and win pretty rural areas. So while yes, you're right, of course, given the structure of the American political system that it would be better if you could have a mixed geographic [snorts] coalition is it actually possible or do you just have to work from a place of futility?

No,, it's, not, feudal., But, what, it, takes is a long-term strategy of deep full-time yearround organizing and listening to rural Americans. Um parties like to put a focus on messaging. messaging is very surface level and it it does not have enduring effects but organizing really matters. And you know an illustration of this we were talking earlier about Congress and you know the basic pattern from 1994 to the present is that rural places have have elected Republicans. But in the middle of that time things went in a different way. And that was when Howard Dean became the head of the Democratic National Committee 2005.

um through 2008. And his strategy was to work hard in all 50 states and particularly to to organize in rural counties. Some of the county party chairs that I interviewed still remember um how well organized they were at that time. And then [snorts] Barack Obama comes along and you know uses um similar kinds of organizing strategies and [snorts] it really makes a difference. So 2006, Democrats take back Congress. And then in 2008, Barack Obama wins and he does very well in rural places. Um and so with that kind of organizing, you can turn things around, but if you're just going to rely on messaging, it's not going to happen.

So, then,, how, do, you, tell, the, story, of what happens after 2008? And and I'll I'll say I am I respect Howard Dean's 50-st state strategy and I don't think the Democratic party did great organizing in the coming years, but there is a collapse in Democratic support after Barack Obama becomes president that I don't think is explicable by organizing, right? It is a genuine collapse. Uh 2010 is a wipeout for Democrats in much of rural America. And I think a lot of Democrats I know they say that it's that Barack Obama was black, right? That is their basic view of what happened. I don't think it's your view of what happened. But what is your view of what happened?

Let, me, speak, about, both, things, about, was it because Barack Obama was black and then also what happened. So um a lot of people think the rural urban divide is reducible to racism. We find that when it started in the 1990s, that was not the case. There was plenty of racism in the country among non-hispanic whites, but it was as prevalent among urban Americans as among rural Americans. Then you get to the period 2008 to 2020. And at that point, we find that there is a slightly greater um concentration of racist attitudes among rural Americans than urban. [snorts] It's, you know, one factor among several that is driving the divide at that point. The way we understand it is part of the um, you know, resentment of the Democratic party because rural people feel that they're not understanding our communities um, these Democratic leaders, but they're really, you know um, working hard on behalf of urban

communities, people of color and immigrants, but they don't really understand us. And so so it's a factor but it's not a sole cause. But what is really important is that then after you had all that organizing energy that that gets mobilized in the period from 2005 to 2008, Barack [snorts] Obama gets elected and there's a lot of rural people who are who've worked hard in the campaign and they're really excited and they want to do more and then what happens is that um that basically you know the ball is dropped by the Democratic party [snorts] and it becomes just a mailing list of the DNC and it all goes into the ether and then meanwhile the Tea Party mobilizes among the Republicans um and uh and and they claim the day. But it didn't have to be this way. It was not inevitable.

There's a quite big but also somewhat subtle distinction between anti-lack attitudes causing the anger and the sense that the Democratic Party is prioritizing other groups over you causing anger. white rural America's sense, the Democratic Party sees all these other groups as in need of help and respect and sees and is prioritizing them ahead of them, right? Arley Hoaxchild's idea about, you know, other groups are like getting to cut in line. And then there's a real rise of discourse around white privilege, right? And and this creates I mean, we've seen this in our politics a lot of anger, right? You're telling me, you know, in a poor community that has no has very few jobs now where life expectancy is going down that I have white privilege and, you know, your urban coalition is is what needs the help or legal immigrants need the help.

I I'd like you to talk a bit about that distinction between the divide being discriminatory and the divide being a feeling that that coalition doesn't prioritize me, so I'm going to go with a coalition that does.

Right., Right., [snorts], Yeah. I think it's a really important issue in that I think a lot of urban Democrats assume that what's um at play in this rural urban divide is that rural white people are racist. [snorts] And what we find is that it's not reducible to that. But the way we understand it is, you know, it's in this same period that, as we're saying, there's the sense of elite overreach on the part of Democrats and where rural Americans are looking at the Democratic Party and thinking they don't understand us. They don't care about our communities. And on on this they're seeing that the Democratic Party, they're viewing the Democratic Party as really prioritizing the needs of people in of color in um urban communities and immigrants, but not really understanding or caring about rural people who are struggling as well.

So into this moment of divide steps of all people Donald Trump who is I would say more associated with New York City than any human being alive is almost himself an emblem of New York City. How does he become this vehicle for the channeling of rural rage? Well, um I think about this Republican county chair that we interviewed in southern Ohio and the area had had voted for Bill Clinton twice and um for Democrats for Congress and but then the economy really goes downhill, the loss of all these jobs, closing of all these plants and what he said was people got tired of government and then he said along comes Donald Trump and yeah he's rich and he's done all these things But um he got people really excited here. He said [snorts] and he said, "Why are you cowtowing down to these elites? They're not like you." Referring to this is Trump referring to Democrats. And of course, it's ironic because as you're

saying, Trump himself is an elite. He's urban, etc. Um but people felt that there was an affinity that Trump was hearing them, that they had been left behind, that they hadn't been listened to. And [snorts] so he was channeling that grievance and resentment.

Trump, hates, all, the, right, people. [snorts] It's, a, way, of, putting, it. But, that's, a, powerful, force, in, in politics. I mean, we were talking earlier about elites. And and one of the things I was saying was that both parties have elites. And I mean, Hillary Clinton, who runs against Donald Trump in 2016, her political background is in Arkansas, right? She's first lady of Arkansas and has a lot of experience alongside her husband in in a state with much more rural concerns than being a real estate developer in New York City and a guy who builds golf courses.

But Trump in his campaign just hates like the urban elites in the cities. And it like that is a stronger building of affinity it seems to me than more traditional uh identity. Right? I think if Bill Clinton had run against Donald Trump in 2016, Bill Clinton with all of his skill as a politician weaving together concerns of rural and urban residents, I don't think there's any doubt Donald Trump would have beat him in rural America. Whether he would have beat him I don't know. But I think he would have beat him in rural America because Bill Clinton by that point no longer hated never did in fact hate the right people.

And I think that that raises some really difficult questions for what builds or degrades affinity when you're trying to rebuild these relationships. I think Democrats want to believe they can do it all through positive sum policy, right? Obamacare can help rural hospitals and the inflation reduction act and the bipartisan infrastructure bill can try to do rural broadband and you know site factories in rural America. And it seems to me that so long as there is not a pre-existing sense of affinity it's all going to fall flat politically.

Well,, Donald, Trump, has, been, masterful, at reinforcing and widening the divide that was already growing, right? And creating this us versus them politics and demonizing people on the other side. Um and so, you know, that makes it harder and harder to build affinity and yet it's the only hope. Now, you know, most of my scholarship until a few years ago was all about public policy and what policy can do. Um, [snorts] but I think we're at a point now where these divides are so great that policy can't do it all by itself. Of course, rural places really need policies in all sorts of ways to to help with the economy and with health care and education, etc.

[snorts] But it's really crucial to find ways to bridge the divide and that's where deep long-term organizing is so important.

Is, there, a, way, right, now, with, Trump in which you are seeing the rise of the most dangerous possible version of this divide which is to say not a divide on policy not different votes but a move towards violence. I've heard a lot of people who study civil wars say it is a bad sign when the federal government is ordering armed troops from some states into other states over the objections of those states governors and though and these are all cities they're ordering them into those cities mayors and you can look at this and I think I have been looking at this and say this sure looks like a rural coalition militarily occupying ing the cities whom it has come to see as the power centers of their enemies.

Right., Well,, you, know,, it's, unthinkable. It's so unAmerican to be, you know telling the military you can use cities as training grounds and to be, you know sending in federal troops and federalized national guard into cities. Um, and you know, this comes on top of of Trump for the past few years using like a lot of rhetoric against cities but but now using actual violent force against cities. So, how is this possible? It's possible because of the rural urban divide. It's possible because this us versus them politics has become so deep.

Do, you, feel, as, a, political, scientist,, I mean, your last book was about threats to democracy and authoritarianism? I mean, do you do you think we have we are coming a lot closer to something that could spiral into civil war or something like it?

Well,, that's, that's, a, really, um horrifying harrowing thought obviously. Um but um you know my my colleagues who are scholars of comparative politics who study democratic deterioration around the world um have been very worried because they see the things happening here that have happened elsewhere and and and led to such um demise. Um my focus u you know as as someone who is is always hopeful about the future is how do we avoid that and it's it's going to take a lot of deep rebuilding and organizing.

Let's, talk, about, how, we, avoid, that, or begin to reverse some of the the urban rural split. Let's take as a premise what you say is is right, that it would be good if the Democratic Party invested much more in organizing and contesting in rural areas. I was surprised as I read the end of the book [snorts] that you did not have more to say about who the Democratic Party runs particularly nationally and what they run on. I would assume you can tell me if you think this is wrong, it is going to be easier for an organizer in, you know, much of rural America if it's Andy Basher on top of the ticket than if it's Gavin Newsome or Kla Harris.

That it was in some ways easier when it was, you know, when the Democratic party was led by Harry Reid and Tom Dash in the Senate than now both of the congressional leaders are from New York. The political scientist Steve Telus likes to talk about costly signals right? The sending of costly signals. Things where you're doing something that show you're a different kind of Democrat or Republican than others are. [snorts] Donald Trump sends lots of costly signals. He attacks urban America and urban elites in personal, vicious vitriolic terms. He talks about sending the National Guard into their cities.

He's talked about that for a long time. and he takes the conflict because it communicates to the people he wants to communicate to that he's on their side.

Yeah. If, the, Democratic, party, really, wanted, to do this, right? If it said this is a we have to figure something out here and [snorts] that requires doing things that are different than what we have been doing, what can it do? Yeah. So, at the moment, you know, Trump has done very well getting elected in rural places by bigger and bigger margins, right? Fueled [snorts] by grievance. But grievance ultimately does not put food on the table. It doesn't bring you health care affordable health care in your community and it doesn't help you, you know, your kids to get a good education. [snorts] Democrats need to be in rural places to say these issues are the priorities of our party um to help the with the economy um healthc care, education, etc.

and to be there to make those connections for people. If they're not there, if they're not campaigning there if statewide Democrats are not going to rural places to campaign, if the party is not putting full-time organizers in rural places, [snorts] then people feel abandoned there and they feel this party doesn't care about us. I guess one place where I was skeptical of your book's insistence that policy wasn't a big contributor here was that most of the modern politicians who you talked about who had been successful in rural America were known not just for their moderation but for their the the Democratic politicians I mean not just for moderation but for often running against the Democratic party. Joe Mansion, who in his first Senate campaign shoots the capp trade bill Democrats are considering with a gun to show what a different kind of Democrat he is. Ben [snorts] Nelson in Nebraska who is such

a thorn in the side of the Democrats during Obamacare. The same with um Congressman Stupac. Uh Bob Kerry who is often very annoying to the Democratic party uh when he was a representative from from Nebraska. John Bell Edwards who was the governor of Louisiana until pretty recently. uh a Democrat very very very pro-life and I mean it looked to me and it looks to me like the Democrats who have done well in rural areas actually do differ from other Democrats on policy Jared Golden is a supporter of tariffs reus Perez is a very different kind of politics and policy than her colleagues I don't know if what is happening here is that shifting on policy is a way of communicating you're not like the other Democrats or if it is actually the policy itself that matters. But it felt like a tension to me in your book that on the one hand the Democratic politicians who succeeded in rural America and still succeed look

on policy very different than the Democrats in urban America and on the other hand there's a real push at they don't need to do anything on policy. They just need more organizers. Um, I would say, you know, looking at the members of Congress for whom, you know, we we took kind of a deep dive and, [snorts] uh, the Affordable Care Act to look at all these rural members many of whom were swing votes on the Affordable Care Act. Um, and but most of them ultimately voted for it. Um, and some chose some of the rural Democrats ultimately voted against it. But um some of them were very progressive on economic issues. Um and they were, you know, trying very hard to be faithful to their communities in that. Um some of them, as you say, were uh pro-life and not pro-choice, and so they had concerns until there was a a a deal cut on how the ACA would handle abortion. Um but um I would say you know while incorporating

rural districts and states may mean more um moderates, it doesn't necessarily mean that because um you know some rural places a politician um will um represent them in a way that's more progressive and and that's being true to their constituents.

Have, we, seen, any, of, that, in, modern times? I mean, I I would like that to be true.

It, would, be, from, my, perspective, better if, you, could, just, go, full, economic populist

and, moderate, on, nothing, else, and, win. And my leftist friends tell me that's true. And I just don't see the representatives. I mean, even somebody like Dan Osborne in Nebraska, who runs not as a Democrat because the Democratic party is just too toxic to run on in Nebraska. He is [snorts] economically populist and he also says I will build the wall on the border with my own hands. Right? He swings very far right from where Democrats are at that moment on immigration. I just don't see the examples of these Democrats winning back or even non-democrats, independents somehow winning back rural areas without running against some parts of the Democratic party's platform from the right. And I'm not saying this because I would like to see more Democrats move to the right but I think that that seems to be what has worked.

I think it's less um moderating on issues than what issues you prioritize. I think that what you know the political party county chairs that we spoke to um told us is that the issues that are most important to people are the economy healthcare, education, etc. Um they were not mentioning gun rights and abortion and immigration as top issues. So, you know, it's it's a matter of of the level of priority that you give those. Um, but also, you know, different kinds of um uh stances in different places could work.

So,, I, I, guess, that, raises, up, the question of what happened to all those Democratic representatives who did run in exactly that way. I have watched some of the, Democratic, politicians, doing, that just not be able to survive. Shard Brown is a very effective economic populist and despite how much he has emphasized that set of issues for his entire career, he has gone from being extremely competitive in Ohio's rural districts to completely destroyed in them when he was running against a car dealer who had had to settle a bunch of wage theft lawsuits. But the same is true for John Tester right in Montana. Tester was in again a very very capable breadandbut pocketbook issues politician that that something has happened where the politicians who are doing this strategy to a tea cannot survive not even in the most conservative states, right? Montana and Ohio are far from the reddest states

we have in the union now. And it just seems to me that that that we are seeing that the drag of the National Democratic Party is making the just talk about the popular stuff strategy no longer viable when maybe 10 years ago or 12 years ago it was still viable.

Yeah. I think you know what I've been describing is this historical process over several decades of how the rural urban divide emerged and you know it's now very deep and it's the causes for it are multi-layered and entrenched. So you can't just overcome it with you know a particular race. There has to be this deep long-term effort to rebuild bridges to rural America by the Democratic Party being there. [snorts] And you know that when we spoke with Democratic county chairs in all of these different states they um would say to us that they didn't feel supported by their state level party and um they didn't think the DNC even knew about them. Uh these are local organizations where you know in the past there were lots of people who had come out for meetings. Now it's a handful of people and they're senior citizens and [snorts] they need support but you know they did feel that when Howard Dean was

the head of the DNC they were getting that kind of support and they were able to make a real difference. So that's what's essential. It's also the case that while it can seem really daunting in a statewide election, giving some support to rural areas can make a big difference um if you use the strategy of losing by less, which is something they all talk about. Um there were county chairs like when we went around Georgia and [snorts] you know they had had these very tight races statewide the Senate Senate races where um senators uh OFF and Waro got elected and uh the the Democratic county chairs would say if I can get my margin here to not be you know just 34% but get it up to 37% for the Democratic candidate and if everybody does that in rural areas we're going to win statewide and they did it and they felt very proud of it and they felt they made a big difference in getting those candidates over the finish

line in those very tight races. And you know that's exactly the kind of thing that can make a huge difference in statewide races um you know for president and for for governorships and for senators all across the country.

As, our, final, question,, what, are, three books you recommend to the audience?

Oh, yeah,, I, love, this, question., So,, I want to recommend first another book about rural America by a political scientist. Uh, and that's Katherryn Kramer's book, The Politics of Resentment, Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin, and the Rise of Scott Walker. This book came out several years ago in 2016. It's [snorts] based on years of her going to all sorts of conversation groups around rural Wisconsin and really listening to people and understanding how they were thinking about um about politics in the state and uh so it's deeply insightful and we really built upon her work. But then for my other choices I decided we shouldn't just be reading non-fiction in this time. I feel strongly about that. So my second choice is going to be a novel and that is Barbara King Solver's book Demon Copperhead. [snorts] And you know Barbara King Solver uh grew up in rural Kentucky and she writes this book um

that's you know really based in in Appalachia and uh I think just really helps people to understand much more um the nuance and complexity of of what's going on in in one place in rural America. And [snorts] then finally, I found that this year, well, when I was a young person, I loved poetry a lot. And this year, I decided I need more poetry back in my life. So, um, I have been reading, uh, Mary Oliver's book Devotions, which is, um, a collection of a lot of her best work. She [snorts] grew up in rural Ohio and then she lived a lot of her life on Cape Cod. And you know, it's about the um the beauty of natural places and um and I think it's it's also a great tribute to rural America.

Suzanne, Metler,, thank, you, very, much. Great, to, be, with, you., Thank, you.,

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "How the Democratic Brand Turned Radioactive in Rural America | The Ezra Klein Show"?

Ezra Klein (Guest), Suzanne Metler (Guest).

What is "How the Democratic Brand Turned Radioactive in Rural America | The Ezra Klein Show" about?

The topic explores the growing urban-rural divide in American politics, emphasizing how the Trump administration's deployment of National Guard troops from red states to blue cities reflects a militarized approach to political dissent and urban governance. The discussion underscores the perception of cities as hostile territories, framing local resistance as insurrection and raising concerns…

What is mentioned in this The Ezra Klein Show episode?

24 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Rural America, Donald Trump, Suzanne Metler, Rural Versus Urban, Urban America, United States (states). Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "How the Democratic Brand Turned Radioactive in Rural America | The Ezra Klein Show"?

The episode runs 1 h 5 min; the transcript is about 10,481 words in 108 timestamped sections.

More from The Ezra Klein Show

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 24, 2026.