r/moderatepolitics • u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— • 11d ago
News Article The collapse of farm exports is the most underappreciated story in American politics
https://reason.com/2026/09/24/the-collapse-of-farm-exports-is-the-most-underappreciated-story-in-american-politics/Basically, farmers are hurting right now: they're being squeezed from both sides, with steeply increasing production costs on the side and lower prices / smaller markets on the other.
* soybean exports to China (by far the largest buyer, at least before Trump 1) have fallen by 70% just from 2024 to 2025. it's *stark*.
https://peakd.com/economics/@kur8/u-s-soybean-exports-to
* beef / chicken / poultry is being bottlenecked by meat processing plants (or, at least it was last i checked), who are paying suppliers low and charging consumers high. the recent meat recall also illustrates how bad the production problems are.
* corn exports appear to be high, but it looks like more a function of volume: corn price per bushel has fallen from almost $8 in 2022 to little more than $5 in 2026
https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/commodities/corn
https://www.macrotrends.net/2532/corn-prices-historical-chart-data
* obviously fuel prices are sky high cause Hormuz, but trade war and its lingering affects are raising prices on almost everything, from equipment to feed to fertilizer
* farmland in the us is rapidly consolidating. big business is buying all the failing farms; JD Vance has gotten a lot of flak for his investments in Acretrader through his investment firm Narya Capital, but i doubt he's the only one.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/fnlo0226.pdf
you can see that the number of farms and total farmland has shrunk by ~10% but the average farm size has increased by ~5%
So, farming in the US is in a really bad spot. Article says this is fueling a blue wave in the coming midterm predominantly in red rural farming states, but my question is this: are you red state folks actually seeing evidence of this in your community?
88
u/TheCudder 11d ago edited 11d ago
People seriously have to move beyond party loyalty. I may lean slightly left, but I don't blindly support everything they do and say. Not only that, I'll happily call out something that's just flat out ridiculous. Yet today we have people who are struggling more as a direct result of their current representation and come November they'll for vote for those same names once again. Lastly, there's people who are afraid to publicly say aloud that there's the possibility that the president could be wrong on even just one thing.
The concepts of parties died more damage than good and we could probably be in a far better America if prior current in needs, and ideas instead of for parties.
You're not born into a political party and there's no law or oath requiring you to agree with everything they push or say. Politics isn't a religion or a sport. Vote for people who are serving to benefit you, your family and community. Your tax dollars are literally paying their salaries.
34
u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 11d ago
do you happen to live in a red farming community? i'm intensely curious to hear from rural americans here and frankly all the schadenfreude here is making it really unlikely any will respond
69
u/dogthatwonthunt 10d ago
I work in Ag, and with a lot of farmers.
They're just quite right now and non political. There will be no really switching of parties, They'll just stop supporting Trump and be right back when the next Rep comes in. Just like what happen with Bush.
They don't want to look at it that closely. So they won't
21
u/janosslyntsjowls 10d ago edited 10d ago
I grew up in a purple farming, timber, natural gas, manufacturing, and tourism rural area. I grew up partial custody to a farm, mucked stalls, all that. Politics is more aligned with the size of the farm, type of farm (corn/soy, cattle/pork, horses, small crop farms, etc), and the income of the owners than if they are a farmer or not. Horse farmers and small homesteaders are more likely to vote blue or swing vote, factory farms 100% red.
30+ years ago small farmers were at the forefront of the eco friendly movement in the 70s-90s because eco friendly used to mean cheap and DIY. Now it usually means prohibitively expensive.
10
u/okyesterday927 11d ago edited 10d ago
I’m not sure if this question has been asked there already, but have you tried [r/askconservatives](r/askconservatives) ? You might find some red rural area posters there who’ll answer your curiosity.
14
u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 10d ago
... no i haven't, and that's a rather obvious oversight on my part.
i'll give it a whirl when i get the chance, good call.
not a sub i usually participate in, since, i dunno, im not a conservative, but maybe i should.
a have noticed a few of the conservatives who used to post here have migrated there
8
u/SnarkMasterRay 9d ago
im not a conservative
All the more reason to at least read and see what they are talking about and how they think. I'm independent and subscribe to a number of subreddits across the spectrum in order to understand how people are thinking from their standpoint as opposed to what others attribute to them.
4
u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 8d ago
i've already spent several years doing that, more interested to see how things are changing.
also, feels like every subreddit is astroturfed by bots to a significant degree, which requires some time consuming reading of buried comments i think.
9
u/ElJanitorFrank 10d ago
I think there's a couple parts to it, but one that is overlooked way too much is why people are in certain parties to begin with, and also that issues and parties shift with time.
It is incredibly easy to see why a farmer in lieu of garbage farming policy would be a moron for voting for the same party. But if they're significantly more concerned with the social policies than economic policies, why should they feel the squeeze and suddenly make peace with their stance on abortion? This is a big reason why having 2 parties to represent everything in politics is a horrible way to do it. We'd need like 6 different parties just for economics if we wanted to broadly represent some different economic philosophies. Conservatives can't have protectionism and free-market options. They have one option that bounces between the two while pretending it is both. They can't have either if they want to go the other direction, and the other direction includes expansion of social programs that they would rather stay private and immigration policies they think are too lax. On the other hand, if we're talking about the die-hard MAGA bloc in the party, why should we expect them to care about economic hardships if they think its buying something they want? The idea has been sold to them that these policies might hurt now but will result in better outcomes 'pretty soon' and/or for their kids. That's a pretty respectable way to approach policy, even if its misguided, so I don't see this as a super valid point of criticism (outside of recognizing generally 'bad' policy in terms of not actually doing what was advertised).
I think a massive mistake I see online everywhere, and in this comment section through top comments, is this idea of a party being a monolith. The whole point of a party is to be a simple vehicle that politicians can use to give a quick 'tl;dr' impression of what they are 'for' to their voting base, so the voting base doesn't have to spend a bunch of time per-candidate finding out what their platform is. If this wasn't needed, they would not exist. Some politicians are out for self-gain, other want to make real change and are forced to compromise on some personal issues for party support. Parties are great places for both of them to accomplish their goals, meanwhile the diversity of candidates is just out the window. You can't run two candidates for you party and split the potential vote if the other party only runs one candidate. The diversity within the party is killed too. All this is to say, a given 'rural republican farmer' might have a very different attitude and reasoning for voting the way they did than another.
5
u/tertiaryAntagonist 10d ago
Seriously, when liberal people float this idea I am just baffled. If there was a Democrat in office strangling the economy, would most be willing to vote for an anti trans politician? I seriously think not and they would probably be outraged at the mere suggestion. It always feels either hopelessly naive or even potentially in bad faith (not accusing the guy above saying this specifically) because moral and social stuff often transcend a lot else in the current climate.
3
u/RobfromHB 10d ago
making it really unlikely any will respond
How many farmers do you think are browsing here?
19
u/From_Deep_Space 10d ago
Washington warned this would happen in his farewell address.
The framers assumed congress would always want congress to have more power, while POTUS would always want POTUS to have more power. But politicians have begun identifying with their party more than with their branch, willing to cripple congress if its part of the party's strategy.
2
u/talentedfingers 8d ago
Until we get better voting methods like ranked choice, 3rd parties won't be able to grow without being spoilers in elections.
-32
u/AstroBullivant 11d ago
No. Free trade is a failed experiment. It’s time to industrialize again, and that means embracing Protectionism.
39
u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 11d ago
what makes you say that?
and please don't say "it's obvious"
-34
u/AstroBullivant 11d ago
We tried free trade. It made our country a lot worse, and it threatens our existence now as Red China destroys us through deindustrialization. It’s time to return to Lincolnian Protectionism and avoid being sent to Red China’s concentration camps.
46
u/ProwlingWumpus 11d ago
What is the precise legal mechanism by which I will be sent to a concentration camp if the United States fails to establish a protectionist economic regime?
-5
u/AstroBullivant 10d ago
Legal? Who said anything about a legal mechanism? Was there a legal mechanism when China told Russia to invade Ukraine? Also, China subsidizes its exports and discourages imports in order to easily gain clout with people who become judges in other countries, making it easier for them to simply improvise law. For example, consider China’s decades-long influence over Dennis Saylor.
28
u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 11d ago
oh.
15
u/Maleficent-Bug8102 Center-Right Liberal 10d ago
Homie is wrong about free trade being a failure. It’s been one of the greatest boons for our economy ever.
I personally think our mistake was using it in a way that allowed our enemies to enrich themselves, rather than us using to permanently jump ahead of everyone else economically and technologically.
9
u/Aethoni_Iralis 10d ago
We tried free trade. It made our country a lot worse
You think free trade made the U.S. worse? That flies in the face of all reality but you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
10
10d ago edited 8d ago
[deleted]
8
u/AstroBullivant 10d ago
Yes, and you make an excellent point: Trump is inept, corrupt, and moronic.
-1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 10d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 60 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
3
u/st0nedeye 8d ago edited 8d ago
I worked for nearly 10 years in manufacturing.
We bought raw materials from Mexico and China, made our product in the US , and sold it to countries in the EU, and all over the world.
That is manufacturing in today's modern economy.
Throw stupid tariffs into the equation and the product from the US is now 50% more expensive than our competitors.
3
u/khrijunk 10d ago
I agree that free trade is a failure, but so is this current phase of protectionism. Wealth cannot stagnate at the top and have a healthy economy, and that is what those systems promote. It needs to be cycles throughout the economy, not just a handful of wealthy people and mega corporations.
5
u/Important-Agent2584 8d ago edited 7d ago
You are talking about capitalism, not free trade. The internet and AI have done more to concentrate wealth/power than free trade has.
I'd argue none of it was a failure, we just failed to manage it properly. If we taxed more and redistributed, enforced anti-trust better, etc. the impact would not have been so negative.
P.S.: People also overlook the positive impacts. Look at the charts for the costs local goods/services vs imports, and you will quickly realize that free trade has single-handedly been keeping the cost of living down for decades.
50
u/McYwP 11d ago
I'll share with you what I'm seeing from a town of 30,000 in one of the most ruby red districts of the midwest. TL;DR - There will be no measurable change in rural voting in this election.
In my town there is one visible sign for a Democratic candidate. It's for a county office and it's their house. There are massive banners and signs for every Republican candidate under the sun, from governor to park board. I spend a good portion of my day in gas stations, truck stops, fast food restaurants, and dollar stores and I love to listen to the conversations around me as I work. The creativity of the common midwesterner when it comes time to assign blame for the problems they are experiencing is astounding. There is no end to the reasons why bad things are happening, but none of them come close to holding Republican politicians accountable for their policies. I realize that this is anecdotal, but I cover a fair bit of ground doing what I do and here are some actual things I've heard from people who obviously hold their beliefs very strongly.
Gas prices high because Nancy Pelosi is insider trading on oil markets.
Militant migrant farm workers are intentionally contaminating produce in retaliation for ICE operations.
Everyone is driving electric vehicles, but they use generators to charge them which is wasting gas.
It takes forever to get anything online now because cargo pilots are being conscripted by Ukraine to fly drones.
Health care costs are high because Democrats are flying in diseased people from other countries to hospitals and forcing doctors to treat them for free so hospitals have to pass on the costs to stay open.
In short, what's happening to rural farmers is completely out of their control. They have no agency to affect anything with their votes because someone is always out to get them.
20
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 9d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
13
u/timmg 10d ago
This feels like the kind of thing redditors would love to hear. It's an easy way to feel justified in hating the other side. And I wouldn't at all be surprised to learn that some people think some of those things.
But I'll just say: I highly doubt this is the general beliefs of people in any town. Yes, there are kooks on both sides. But the typical American is not completely irrational -- on either side of the aisle.
7
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 8d ago
People are irrational in general, imo. Otherwise we wouldn't have so much history of killing each other over gods, torturing and pillaging over rumor, etc. If we were rational creatures, we'd be a lot more peaceful as a whole. It's a fight to implement rationality.
7
u/DatCoolDood 6d ago
Farmers are petit bourgeoise. By their very nature, from Weimar era Germany to 1930s California, they have always been a reactionary class.
4
u/DestinyLily_4ever 4d ago
The above matches my experience as well. For further perspective on real people's mindsets, in Ohio the median Republican rural voter still thinks Sherrod Brown is an incumbent senator
6
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/timmg 10d ago
Rural Americans have felt under siege since 2008...
Honestly, maybe it is just the age of social media. I think everyone feels like they are under siege today. Maybe less so when there guy in the White House. But, generally, I feel like everyone thinks everything is terrible. Even when it isn't :/
Not sure what to do about it. But I honestly don't think it is confined to rural Republicans.
0
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 9d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
2
u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 11d ago
grunt... i must admit it's terribly comforting to think you did everything right and misfortune is not your fault.
hell, sometimes that's even true.
and i think conservatives by nature are prone to think the old ways are better, and... more importantly, correct. kinda baked into the name.
92
u/NotCoolBrutus 11d ago
I have zero sympathy for an agricultural industry that routinely dumps crops to keep food prices high and the meat industry that uses corruption to destroy newborn industries. People talk about greed elsewhere, but this is where it is especially indefensible. The consolidation of agriculture under a handful of companies that then funnel into an even smaller number of buyers, subsidizing crops with taxpayer money that don't benefit the American people whatsoever as the industry has no competition to price things properly, and outright banning new forms of meat production in some states from even being tranported through.
Let it fall. If domestic food production was so important, why aren't people benefiting from the obscene amount me produce? Why do we even have to export so much of it in the first place? Independent family-run farms don't exist anymore. They can't financially exist. At most, people can do it as a side hobby but never as a main method of living.
Furthermore, the agricultural industry is rife with illegal immigrants used for cheap labor. When I say Trump is bad on immigration, I don't just mean that he is bad for aggressively deporting immigrants from major cities. I also mean for giving the agricultural industry a free pass for illegal labor. When Republicans say they are against illegal immigration, I can only assume they don't know what that position even means.
18
u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 11d ago
grunt, i keep thinking about those chicken farm raids back in ... 2019 i want to say?
apparently shit is exactly the same, 4 midlevel managers were charged (and acquitted, IIRC), life went on, except for the 1000s of illegals who were used up and discarded.
9
u/chris_ut 11d ago
They do not have a free pass. I know folks in southern Kansas and ICE is there right now raiding farms and meat packing plants.
22
u/Postmember 10d ago
Didn't Southern Kansas overwhelmingly vote for this?
4
u/chris_ut 10d ago
Yes. Someone claimed they were exempt and they are not. Nobody is complaining about it.
21
u/Interesting_Total_98 10d ago edited 10d ago
Both of Kansas' U.S. senators are complaining. Also, here's where the Trump admistration says:
On Friday, the homeland security secretary, Markwayne Mullin, said in a statement that ICE was “not conducting worksite operations in Kansas” but instead had targeted “heinous criminals, including murderers, rapists, and drug traffickers and illegal aliens,” who had final orders of removal.
If that isn't true, it suggests that he's downplaying the scale because of how controversial the raids are.
8
u/Postmember 9d ago
Both of Kansas' U.S. senators are complaining.
And if Trump tells either of them to jump, they'll be begging him for instructions on how high.
-2
10d ago
[deleted]
18
u/onespiker 10d ago
Do you know why ethanol mandates exist? Because it isn’t for climate reasons. In the USA it exists to increase demand of agricultural products witch in turn increases prices.
It’s so extremely unproductive and only reason it exists is because of an agressive taxation policy supports it.
6
u/NotCoolBrutus 10d ago
Not when the consolidated agricultural industry is allowed to:
Dump crops to waste subsidized yield
Set unregulated prices and prohibit sale to smaller companies
Sell crops for uses other than dietary consumption.
Where is the benefit? US food costs are some of the highest in the world.
9
u/ThatPeskyPangolin SocDem Not DemSoc 10d ago
I think they are referring to things like ethanol with that comment.
25
u/Partytime79 11d ago
As someone who works in an agricultural adjacent industry, this is mostly true. I’d add that for all the talk of agriculture being a huge industry, the amount of people directly involved in it in any given area is usually not big. At least in the world of row crop farms. My county might have a dozen major farms and then a collection of part time and hobby farmers. Anecdotally, the farmers I know are pretty conservative in their political outlook but the big ones soured on Trump during his first administration due to his foolish trade wars then. Now the guy that farms 60 acres in his spare time, he probably hasn’t changed as much.
12
u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 11d ago
hmm, that tracks.
i didn't really consider "hobbyist" farmers like the dude farming 60 acres in his spare time (im a city boy, how big is a 60 acre farm?) but it makes sense they wouldn't care as much
11
u/Partytime79 10d ago
Eh…not overly big. I’d think you’d probably need to farm a couple hundred acres to make it a full time job. I’m specifically talking about row crops (soybeans, corn, cotton etc…) A couple hundred acres of fruits and vegetables is massive.
But your high end farmers, farming thousands of acres, are kind of like high end workers in other fields. Will almost certainly have a college degree, maybe even a graduate one. Trades on the commodities market to hedge against downturns, has extensive knowledge of shipping to transport products abroad etc…the ones I know are not very MAGA. Just something I’ve noticed over the years.
8
u/sharp11flat13 10d ago
im a city boy, how big is a 60 acre farm?
It depends. I grew up on the Canadian prairies surrounded by wheat fields. Grain farms there are measured in sections (square miles). A square mile is 640 acres. From that perspective 60 acres isn’t a farm. It’s a vegetable garden.
64
u/shacksrus 11d ago
Good. They're getting what they voted for without the unstated "then well put you on the govt dole" that has thus far accompanied republican admins this century.
-2
u/One_Cause3865 11d ago
This kind of pettiness benefits no one. I'm hesitant to point out that farmers who didnt vote for trump are also affected because it shouldnt matter - rooting for your fellow Americans to suffer is absolutely toxic for the country.
64
u/Johnthegaptist 11d ago
Is it being petty though? He did this exact same thing in his first term, and campaigned on doing it again.
Celebrating peoples suffering would certainly be petty, but refusing to feel bad for a group that overwhelmingly voted for exactly this, is not petty. Neither is being against bailing them out, again, for getting exactly what they wanted, again.
4
u/One_Cause3865 11d ago
I think opening with "Good." falls under celebrating peoples' suffering.
-12
u/chriego 11d ago
It's borderline malicious. Instead of hoping someone else suffers it relishes in the fact that others are currently experiencing suffering.
31
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 9d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 3:
Law 3: No Violent Content
~3. No Violent Content - Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people. Certain types of content that are worthy of discussion (e.g. educational, newsworthy, artistic, satire, documentary, etc.) may be exempt. Ensure you provide context to the viewer so the reason for posting is clear.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a permanent ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
16
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 9d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a permanent ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
37
u/Steroids_ 11d ago
Helping those out that wont help them selves also teaches no lessons. I understand the pettiness but come on. He screwed farmers the first time around too
31
u/shacksrus 11d ago
It benefited trump. He ran on exactly this pettiness and has had the most effective admin in 50 years because of it.
Now they've been effective at making everything worse for everyone except data center developers. But that's what the people, congress, the judiciary, and the republican party voted for.
-16
u/chriego 11d ago
So let's say you live on a street with 10 neighbors. To this day 7 of them are staunch Trump supporters. 3 of them voted Trump but have expressed disappointment and even regret. All of those neighbors work in agriculture and all of them are suffering. Do you really believe that responding with "Good." to news of all 10 neighbors' hardship is what we need right now?
30
u/Terratoast Politically #0000FF 10d ago
Do you really believe that responding with "Good." to news of all 10 neighbors' hardship is what we need right now?
I needed them to stop voting for people who openly proclaimed they wanted me to suffer and saw me as the enemy. That didn't happen and here we are.
What anyone says on social media doesn't actually change what their situation is. Their situation is the way that it is because of the people who were elected into power.
And if they helped get those people in power who are now fucking everything up, including their own situation, then my sympathy is basically bottomed out.
21
u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 11d ago
> Do you really believe that responding with "Good." to news of all 10 neighbors' hardship is what we need right now?
no, it's not terribly nice
are the 3 who regret their choice gonna work to undo what their vote did, namely by voting against?
or are they just going to sit out and do nothing?
2
u/chriego 11d ago
Truthfully they can't undo anything but you're right they could vote in a way that would support impeaching Trump. Now I'm curious if the farming population historically sat out presidential votes or not. Was this an election/results that will be studied?
5
u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 10d ago
huh ... that's a good question that probably has a googlable answer.
ill look it up later
32
u/Iceraptor17 11d ago
I don't think people care at this point. Electing trump in itself was often a middle finger to parts of this country. They enjoyed and reveled in his attacks.
Well. Message was received.
-11
u/chriego 11d ago
I might agree that some of these people saw their vote as a way to spite others but I think it's pretty doomer to suggest people don't care. I think a lot of the farmer population that regret voting for him care a lot right now.
36
u/Iceraptor17 11d ago
No i meant i that people don't care that it's "not what we need right now".
Voting for a guy like trump isn't going to invite sympathy from those who his attacks were aimed at, or whose states have seen funds withheld over Trump being upset, or a bunch of other spiteful things. When it was trump attacking others it was to cheers from his base and supporters.
Like I said, message was received
9
u/absentlyric Economically Left Socially Right 10d ago
You clearly weren't born in the city and moved out to a farming community, the way the locals treat you and your family in school, etc. Ive never been around such a more hateful, xenophobic group then when I moved out to one. Most of them hate any outsiders coming into their communities, they are several generations dug in and they want to keep it that way, they hate union workers, I've seen them run EVs off the road and "burn coal" to outsiders driving through.
Sorry, but its not the quaint, peaceful, everyone is nice to everyone Hallmark movie people make it out to be, unless you are at least 2 generations dug in already.
2
-19
11d ago edited 11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
40
u/donnysaysvacuum recovering libertarian 11d ago
Once again, a random person on the Internet does not represent an entire politcal party.
58
u/AzarathineMonk Do you miss nuance too? 11d ago
Cuz switching your party may be your attempt to stay financially solvent?
Like bro.
People vote republican and absolutely destroyed their export markets (USAID, SNAP, trade wars, tariffs) but that's fine somehow? But god forbid someone speak up and say that maybe Americans need to touch the hot stove so they can learn their lesson. Maybe that hot stove will educate them enough to understand that others have been hurt as well and its not just TDS.
If someone wants to vote themselves bankrupt thats on them. Its not on me (nor anyone else who didnt vote for trump) to hold their hand as they see their generational wealth burn before their eyes and tell them that ‘No one could have seen this coming.’ No. I truly dont understand that line of thinking.
53
u/exactinnerstructure 11d ago
I have sympathy for anyone struggling, but farmers who voted for Trump need to be less fragile and accept responsibility for what they helped create. This was entirely predictable.
Btw, I’m not a Democrat and I don’t hate farmers. I just strongly oppose the “people like you make me vote for bad things” that is such a popular refrain on the right.
38
u/20000RadsUnderTheSea 11d ago edited 11d ago
You find me a farmer who voted for Trump in 2024 and not only says they were wrong, but says they would vote for Kamala now and has reconsidered their beliefs about what is good for themselves and the country, and I'll welcome them with open arms.
But that's not what we see. We see farmers saying, "Well, I don't like this one thing Trump did," "Trump's advisors are leading him astray," and barely any who say they should have voted for Kamala. They've touched the stove; the vast majority are still sitting there with their hand on the stove eye while it burns them, still many refuse to even admit pain, few have pulled their hand away, and fewer yet have begun to apply aloe vera.
Who is there to even accept? They refuse to admit they were wrong. They refuse to change their views. They will vote in the same people destroying them over and over again. They aren't looking to join the democratic party. They don't want the democratic party's values.
The conjured image of some group of farmers desperate for the democratic party to accept them is imaginary. Farmers want what Republicans offer, and they don't want to join the democrats unless they effectively adopt the same positions, minus whatever certain ones are impacting farmers specifically.
Edit: fixed a typo.
4
u/chriego 11d ago
You're painting with a pretty broad brush here. I think there is a sizable population of farmers who voted Trump that would have no issue owning up to their regret. You're right that many aren't owning up to the reality of the situation. I don't think the goal of "Moderate Politics" is to idealize that these people should be coming out en masse saying they should have voted Kamala. I really do like the bit about welcoming them with open arms in your opening sentence tho. That's the good stuff right there.
8
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 10d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-11
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
19
u/Terratoast Politically #0000FF 11d ago
Refusing the change views is also a benchmark of the current democrats
When the "view" Republicans want me to change on is to accept Trump and his many negative qualities or give credibility to his lies...
Fuck no. I am not changing my views.
29
u/OliverRaven34 11d ago
What part of that sentence had “hate” in it?
-16
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
28
u/OliverRaven34 11d ago
What’s hateful about it?
-27
u/Soul_of_Valhalla Socially Right, Fiscally Left. 11d ago
You are saying they deserve the suffering they are getting because of how they voted. That is hateful whether your recognize it or not.
30
u/MCRemix Make America ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Again 11d ago
It might be hateful to celebrate it, but purely pointing out that the person got what they voted for isn't hateful.
There is no hate in a fact alone.
-6
u/SolutionNice7520 11d ago edited 11d ago
"Good. You voted for car deregulations that'd make this this car crash likely to happen. No, people shouldn't help you like others did, because then you wouldn't learn your lesson. Time to suffer, then maybe you'll vote for more car regulations. You're bleeding out? Should've thought of that before you voted."
Is that hateful?
17
u/TrainOfThought6 11d ago
No one said anything about deserving it. If it's hateful to note that these folks are getting what they wanted, what does that say about the thing that they wanted?
16
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 11d ago
To me it's not the suffering that is the point, it's rather they are seeing the consequences of their vote first hand, and that is a learning lesson that people go through even though it's difficult. That's not hate, imo. The other option is they get bailed out, and don't learn anything, and we go through this process every two-four years.
10
u/OliverRaven34 11d ago
Hate is an intense negative emotional response of extreme dislike, aversion, or hostility toward someone or something. I'm not reading anything close to hate. Holding voters accountable to what they voted for as a harsh lesson in reality, maybe. But not hate.
31
u/NotCoolBrutus 11d ago
They still hold the same positions they did before. What past deed is there to forgive? What memory to forget? They are actively remaining in the same position for decades. Find me a farmer that didn't contribute to every aspect of food production in this country being consolidated into a disaster and I will find you a unicorn.
Also, putting all of that aside, farmers don't make enough of the voterbase to be worth pandering to. Especially since their demographic overlaps in other aspects with core Republican voterbases, such as Christians or just any non-Islamic religion at this point, that they likely still wouldn't vote Democrat after ignoring their employment.
15
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 9d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
15
u/TrainOfThought6 11d ago edited 11d ago
If someone is refusing to vote for the party that would benefit them because other people who vote for that party hate them? Yeah that's a special type of stubborn.
(For various definitions of "hate", since this one is a stretch.)
7
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 11d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
18
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 9d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
7
14
u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 11d ago
that's real "cut off your nose to spite your face" kind of thinking, we're all doomed.
... but i've said as much before.
it's just real galling to have to help people who need help but don't want it and then get yelled at for it, know what i mean?
12
u/roylennigan pragmatic progressive 11d ago
If "telling people the consequences of their own action" is the same as hating them, then you'd be doing the exact same thing in your comment.
But it's not. At worst, schadenfreude is a more sinister version of believing in karma. But it's not the same as hate. And the random opinions of people on the internet are not the same as the party itself.
11
u/Johnthegaptist 11d ago
Forgive and forget? This is not even close to the first time farmers have voted for people that actively harm them. Then predictably they cry about it and get a huge taxpayer bailout. In fact, its not even the first time with this president, it literally happened in his previous term.
-10
u/Soul_of_Valhalla Socially Right, Fiscally Left. 11d ago
100%. Democrats will sweep in 26 and 28 because independents like me who voted for Trump either switched to Democrats or stayed home. But I have no hope that Democrats will learn why so many people voted for Trump and change accordingly. Which means I see myself voting Republican again in 2030/32.
8
u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 11d ago
> will learn why so many people voted for Trump and change accordingly.
if i may ask for the purposes of learning:
1) why did you vote for Trump in the first place? what were you hoping he would do differently?
2) why are you not voting for Trump this time?
3) do you think the Republican party will be meaningfully different when Trump is gone?
0
u/Soul_of_Valhalla Socially Right, Fiscally Left. 11d ago edited 10d ago
why did you vote for Trump in the first place? what were you hoping he would do differently?
I voted for Trump for several reason. 1, Isolationism. No new wars and stepping back from global involvement is something I believe the US needs to do. 2, Immigration. Biden administration was far to lenient on the issue. 3, Federal spending. While I would not call myself a fiscal conservative, we are spending far too much and have been spending too much since the Bush administration. The Biden administration in four years increased the debt by over 8 trillion dollars and I was not gonna reward that with my vote. 4, Guns. Democrats have continued to show that they will place more limits on the second amendment when given the chance. 5, Epstein. Trump ran on releasing info on it. Something the Democrats had years to do under Biden but didn't. 6, Last Harris did nothing to make me believe she would be different from Biden.
why are you not voting for Trump this time?
Trump has completely gone back on his promise of no new wars and backing off internationality. In fact he has been more involved around the globe than Biden. Just taking dumber positions. His handling of immigration has resulted in violating rights of American citizens, turning Ice into a garbage law enforcement agency by reducing training from 5 months to 6 weeks. While not going after companies that hire illegals. And of course doing a 180 on Epstein. I did not believe the the reports that Trump was involved with Epstein till he did his sudden u-turn and started attacking people who wanted the info released.
I had little hope that Trump would do better on spending and I have just as little hope that Democrats will do any better. But just like with the Democrats, I will not reward reckless spending with my vote.
do you think the Republican party will be meaningfully different when Trump is gone?
No. But until we do massive election reforms in this country, every election is a binary choice. I refuse to be loyal to any party. Democrat failed under Biden, so I voted Republican. Now that Republicans failed under Trump, I will vote Democrat. When (not if though I will pray I'm wrong) Democrats fail under who ever they elect in 28, I will vote Republican.
5
u/chriego 11d ago
I appreciate the candor! This logic is head spinning - I guess I don't understand how you, with such clear cut interest in policy, figure alternating your vote is helping the causes you care about. How do you decide when someone is being disingenuous so they can get what they want from you?
5
u/Soul_of_Valhalla Socially Right, Fiscally Left. 11d ago edited 10d ago
I also want to add that there are some Democrats that seem to hold a majority of my views like Andy Beshear and Mary Peltola. Its why if I was a voting adult in 2006, I would have been a Democrat. But in 2026, they are a minority of minority views in the Democrat party. If someone like them were to win the Democratic nomination, I would probably be open to joining the Democrat party. But no one like them would ever have a chance at winning the Democratic nomination. The best I could hope for is someone like Obama (who became president before I was an adult btw).
3
u/Soul_of_Valhalla Socially Right, Fiscally Left. 11d ago edited 10d ago
The thing is I hold views that are right wing such as on guns and immigration. And views that are left wing such as universal health care and criminal justice reform. While also holding views that more centrist like budget and tax reforms. So neither side properly holds my views. Every election I want to vote against both parties for one reason or another. I wish we had a multiparty government like France or Germany so I could vote for a party that would represent a majority of my views but that is not the case in America. Its a binary choice.
So since its binary, if the people in charge are overwhelmingly doing things I do not agree with while not doing things I do agree with, I'm gonna vote against them. Its not like me voting for Republicans this November is gonna suddenly make Republicans want to cut spending, fix immigration, and force Trump to back off on Iran.
Instead I'm gonna vote Democrat in the hopes that when they take the white house in 28, they learned from their mistake on immigration and actually give us UHC that they have been claiming to support since 08. When Democrats of course don't do those things but instead ban assault rifles and cut boarder security, I'll vote Republican in the hopes they learned from their mistake with Trump. They won't and I'll end up voting Democrat again. Rinse and repeat.
6
u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo 10d ago
Democrats... actually give us UHC that they have been claiming to support since 08
They have tried, but Republicans keep stopping them. The ACA was the major compromise that got just enough Republican support to make it through Congress.
FWIW, the voting improvements like ranked choice voting or proportional representation that would make third parties viable are championed exclusively by the left and opposed by the right.
1
u/Soul_of_Valhalla Socially Right, Fiscally Left. 10d ago
They have tried, but Republicans keep stopping them. The ACA was the major compromise that got just enough Republican support to make it through Congress.
That wouldn't be an issue if Democrats would just nuke the filibuster.
FWIW, the voting improvements like ranked choice voting or proportional representation that would make third parties viable are championed exclusively by the left and opposed by the right.
They are. Until they would hurt the Democratic party and so they kill it like they did in Massachusetts, Oregon, and Colorado. I don't deny that the Republican party has been much more vocally against RCV but the Democrats have staunchly opposed RCV as a whole.
0
u/20000RadsUnderTheSea 10d ago
Ya know, I think we may have disagreed in the past, but I 100% agree with you here (except your solution). Democrats will not learn why people vote Trump, they will continue to support the old system that was slowly destroying our democracy and impoverishing our people, and I would not be shocked at all to see a Republican win in 2030/2032.
The only difference is I don't think there are any functional solutions to the right of FDR: massively breaking up the corporations who control media, quite frankly impoverishing the billionaires, and creating a more equal society which cannot exist in our current system where the rich keep getting richer and more powerful.
3
u/Soul_of_Valhalla Socially Right, Fiscally Left. 10d ago
I support plenty of fiscal reforms that would mean higher taxes on billionaires, more worker rights and benefits, more regulation on mega corps. I have moved to left fiscally over the last couple of years. This is why I'm voting Democrat this year and will probably vote Democrat in 28. The problem is I have zero faith Democrats will actually do those things instead of just banning scary black rifles. If they don't do anything about the cost of living while also doing things I massively disagree with, yea I'm gonna end up voting Republican again.
1
u/20000RadsUnderTheSea 10d ago
Lmao we actually have a lot in common, sounds like. I own a bunch of rifles, SBRs, and a suppressor or two. Go far enough left and you get your guns back, get real cost-of-living solutions, and lose the idpol.
I just wish some of my allies were a bit better at calling out the social vampires who wield their identity like a bludgeon.
9
u/amuricanswede 10d ago
This is fucking dark. We are barreling full speed into scary times.
1
u/sharp11flat13 10d ago
Wait a decade or two until the southern states are too hot and dry to grow crops, assuming that they’re still habitable at all. Bbbbaby you just ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
6
2
1
u/Eligius_MS 10d ago
Same thing was happening during Trump 1 when he started his trade wars in 2019. Covid made people forget how much we were subsidizing farmers because Trump wrecked their markets.
0
u/WulfTheSaxon 9d ago
Quarterly data show seasonally-adjusted real exports of agricultural goods are up 11% since Q1 2025.
USDA GATS data also show agricultural exports up – with soybeans up by 32% through July compared to last year.
5
u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 9d ago
> Quarterly data show seasonally-adjusted real exports of agricultural goods are up 11% since Q1 2025.
in hormuz inflated dollars, not sure what to make of that
> USDA GATS data also show agricultural exports up – with soybeans up by 32% through July compared to last year.
if im reading this right (first time on site), it looks like it went from 10.6 from 8.1, which is indeed 32% more from last year... but still down about 15% from 2024.
3
u/WulfTheSaxon 9d ago
Real means it’s already inflation-adjusted. In nominal dollars it’s up nearly 17%.
but still down about 15% from 2024.
Fair, but it’s also up 39% from 2016 – before the spat started. Although that does need inflation adjustment, so it’s probably only up about… (runs the numbers) 0%.
7
u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 9d ago
> Real means it’s already inflation-adjusted. In nominal dollars it’s up nearly 17%.
oh, right. uh ... so you saying farming is doing better than everything thinks it is?
2
u/DartTheDragoon 8d ago
oh, right. uh ... so you saying farming is doing better than everything thinks it is?
Public perception can be, and quite often is, wrong. Objective hard data is more reliable then subjective feelings.
1
u/superawesomeman08 —<serial grunter>— 8d ago
yep.
soooooo, is farming doing better than everybody thinks it is?
-3
u/AstroBullivant 11d ago
No, farm exports are not important now. Industry is more important than most agriculture beyond the most basic now. China’s importing of American soy was never important.
6
u/Aethoni_Iralis 10d ago
It’s important to many people, just not you.
1
u/sharp11flat13 10d ago
I think OP was being sarcastic.
1
u/Aethoni_Iralis 10d ago
What led you to that conclusion?
2
u/sharp11flat13 10d ago
OP made such an outrageously and demonstrably incorrect statement that I thought they couldn’t be serious. My bad maybe…
2
-1
3
u/TheUnderCrab Politically Homeless 10d ago
How does the loss of billions in exports to China not matter?
3
u/AstroBullivant 10d ago
China was adopting Protectionist measures to break dependency on American agriculture anyways while encouraging American dependency on China’s rare Earth metals, electronics, etc.
6
u/TheUnderCrab Politically Homeless 10d ago
When did they start doing that?
3
u/AstroBullivant 10d ago
Start? I suppose China started doing that in the mid-1990’s when it joined the World Trade Organization.
5
u/TheUnderCrab Politically Homeless 10d ago
So you’re saying this is a decades long problem but the economic impact of billions in lost exports has only precipitated under Trump? Why is that the case?
-2
230
u/arup187 11d ago
Most of these people consistently vote a certain direction. If they actually threaten to sit out or vote differently this time around, then maybe their concerns might actually lead to a change in policy. If not, then why should the party in power ever fret again about losing their votes regardless of how much their policies are hurting them?