> And while widening the broadband infrastructure is an essential step toward bridging the digital divide, simply ensuring access does not address the issue of affordability, especially since the F.C.C. is considering slashing parts of a federal program, known as Lifeline, that is meant to help provide affordable broadband to low-income residents.
So here we have a program that benefits poor rural people, being ended by an administration strongly supported by the poor rural people who benefit from that program. How do you resolve something like that? How do you help communities that keep voting in people that want to hurt them?
It seems to me like the first step is knowledge. If the people in rural areas who benefit from urban subsidies become more aware of that, maybe their voting patterns will change.
> How do you resolve something like that? How do you help communities that keep voting in people that want to hurt them?
The thing is, Trump didn't campaign on hurting them, he campaigned on (ambiguous, unrealistic, and often contradicted in other contexts) plans to help them.
To beat that, you need someone campaigning with a strong message directed at the same audience offering a compelling alternative vision of how to address their concerns, including clear criticism of why the first candidates program won't work. A common critique of the Clinton campaign is that it failed to do that with the constituency at issue.
I think you're right, the only problem is that 'the government is bad and unhelpful' is pretty deeply ingrained at this point, and it feels like a message of 'the government will do X to help' isn't going to be effective as long as the former message remains ingrained.
> And while widening the broadband infrastructure is an essential step toward bridging the digital divide, simply ensuring access does not address the issue of affordability, especially since the F.C.C. is considering slashing parts of a federal program, known as Lifeline, that is meant to help provide affordable broadband to low-income residents.
So here we have a program that benefits poor rural people, being ended by an administration strongly supported by the poor rural people who benefit from that program. How do you resolve something like that? How do you help communities that keep voting in people that want to hurt them?
It seems to me like the first step is knowledge. If the people in rural areas who benefit from urban subsidies become more aware of that, maybe their voting patterns will change.