Concurrently, similarly polarised circumstances in urban areas and low rural political efficacy may lead the rural-urban participation gap to persist. These findings imply rural Americans with polarised views who feel deprived of political and economic power may participate more frequently in future political activities. Between 19, low political trust, a negative economic outlook, high external efficacy, and being more ideological and partisan are associated with increased political participation. Analysis of American National Election Studies (ANES) data from 1952 to 2012 shows historically less participation for rural residents relative to suburban and urban residents. This article examines participation in the United States, where past evidence shows rural Americans have been less involved in politics than their urban counterparts. Rural influence, however, may be limited by relatively low political participation. Globally, concern has risen over support for authoritarian populism, in some cases specifically among rural populations. The chasm between Trump's rhetoric and his actions justifies a more skeptical assessment of the breadth and depth of American populism, one that acknowledges how its contours are shaped by the nation's unusual political institutions, its intensifying political polarization and the out-sized influence of the wealthy. Yet the administration's substantive agenda constitutes a full-throated endorsement of the GOP economic elite's long-standing demands for cuts in social spending, tax reductions for the wealthy, and the gutting of consumer, worker and environmental protections. American political institutions offered a distinctive opportunity for a populist figure to draw on this fury to first capture the nomination of the GOP, and from that position to ascend to the White House. Although American right-wing populism has real social roots, it has long been nurtured by powerful elites seeking to undercut support for modern structures of economic regulation and the welfare state. Any effort to situate Trump's ascendance in the broader currents of cross-national developments, or in the longer course of American political development, must begin by recognizing it as a curious hybrid of populism and plutocracy.
0 kommentar(er)
