So yes, it would be easier and more ethical to support a safety net for everyone before needing it. But human nature, self-interest, and political narratives get in the way.
Why are so many farmers conservatives and Republicans when their livelihood relies on government entitlements and subsidies
ChatGPT said:
That’s a great question, and the answer is a mix of history, economics, and culture.
- Cultural and Historical Roots – Many farmers come from rural, tight-knit communities where conservative values such as self-reliance, tradition, and small government are deeply ingrained. These values have been passed down through generations, and party loyalty tends to be strong in rural areas.
- Distrust of Government, Except for Agriculture – While farmers benefit from subsidies, many see them as necessary compensation for unpredictable markets and weather, rather than government overreach. They might oppose welfare programs they see as promoting dependency, while viewing farm subsidies as essential business support.
- Republican Focus on Agriculture and Deregulation – The GOP has historically supported policies favoring large agribusiness, reduced environmental regulations, and lower taxes, all of which appeal to farmers. Many also believe that Republican policies protect their ability to operate without excessive government interference.
- Social and Religious Influences – Rural areas often have strong religious communities with conservative social values, such as opposition to abortion and support for traditional family structures. These issues can drive political identity as much as, or more than, economic policy.
- Perception of the Democratic Party – Many farmers view the Democratic Party as being more focused on urban issues, environmental regulations that could restrict farming practices, and social programs that don’t directly benefit them. Some see Democrats as catering more to city dwellers and government expansion.
- Agribusiness Influence – Large-scale agricultural corporations, which benefit from subsidies and policies favoring big farming operations, tend to support Republicans. Their political donations and influence shape the narratives in rural areas, reinforcing conservative leanings.
In short, while government subsidies are a major part of farming, political identity is shaped by much more than just economic interests. Cultural values, historical party alignment, and social issues all contribute to the strong conservative and Republican presence in farming communities.
You said:
But isnt relying on government handouts contrary to those beliefs?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, at first glance, relying on government subsidies while advocating for small government and self-reliance seems contradictory. However, many farmers don’t see these subsidies as “handouts” in the same way they might view welfare programs. Instead, they see them as necessary protections against volatile markets, foreign competition, and unpredictable weather—all factors largely out of their control. Here’s how they justify it:
- Framing It as Business Support, Not Welfare – Farmers often view subsidies as akin to business incentives, similar to tax breaks for corporations. They argue that their industry is uniquely vulnerable to external forces, so government intervention is needed to keep food production stable.
- Economic Necessity vs. Ideological Preference – Many conservatives favor small government in principle but recognize exceptions when it comes to industries vital to national security, such as agriculture. They may dislike subsidies but feel they have no choice but to accept them in order to survive in a system where global competitors (like China and the EU) heavily subsidize their own farmers.
- Generational and Systemic Dependence – Many farmers were born into a system where subsidies are the norm. Even if they believe in free markets, they operate in an industry where government involvement is baked in, making it difficult to escape reliance on subsidies without losing competitive ground.
- Selective Government Intervention Views – Many conservatives differentiate between what they see as “productive” government spending (like farm subsidies, military funding, or infrastructure) and what they see as “dependency” spending (like food stamps or welfare). Even though many rural areas also rely on social programs, the cultural narrative often draws a distinction between “hardworking” farmers receiving aid and “urban” populations receiving assistance.
- Political Identity Over Policy Consistency – For many people (not just farmers), political affiliation is more about identity, culture, and tradition than strict policy consistency. Many farmers vote Republican because they prioritize social values, rural culture, and distrust of urban elites over the specifics of agricultural policy.
So, while there’s an ideological contradiction, the way farmers perceive subsidies—as a necessity rather than a government handout—helps reconcile their conservative beliefs with their economic realities.
You said:
Helps reconcile or helps justify? This sounds like a classic example of ok for me, but not for thee
ChatGPT said:
That’s a fair point—it does sound like a case of “OK for me, but not for thee.” Whether it’s reconciling or justifying depends on perspective.
From their point of view, they see subsidies as a necessary safeguard rather than a handout. They might argue that their work is essential for national stability (food security), whereas other forms of government aid, like welfare, are seen as promoting dependency. This helps them reconcile the apparent contradiction.
From a more critical perspective, it does look like justification—especially when farmers argue against other government programs while benefiting from subsidies themselves. It can seem like they’re rejecting “big government” while benefiting from it when it suits their interests.
Ultimately, it’s a mix of economic reality and ideological framing. If a system is built around government assistance, even those who claim to oppose it will often participate—because not doing so would put them at a disadvantage.
You said:
Your last paragraph hits. That sounds like another way of saying they will abandon their principles if it means making a buck.
ChatGPT said:
Yeah, that’s one way to put it—when principles meet financial reality, financial reality usually wins. It’s easy to champion small government until the bills come due, and in farming, the difference between survival and failure often hinges on subsidies.
It’s not unique to farmers, though. Plenty of industries and individuals oppose government intervention until they need it. Think of corporate bailouts—big businesses preach free markets, but when they’re in trouble, they suddenly want government assistance. The same goes for many conservative-led states that criticize federal spending but rely heavily on federal funds.
At the end of the day, most people, regardless of political beliefs, will prioritize their economic survival over ideological purity.
You said:
Right, but wouldn’t it just be easier and smarter to support security for everyone instead of fighting against it until you yourself actually need it? That seems callous and selfish.
ChatGPT said:
Logically, yes—it would be smarter and more efficient to support a safety net for everyone rather than fighting against it until you personally need it. But people don’t always think in terms of broad, long-term fairness. Instead, they often think in terms of “me and my group first.”
It does seem selfish, and in many ways, it is. But it’s also deeply human. People tend to rationalize the benefits they receive as earned while viewing others’ benefits as undeserved. Farmers see themselves as hardworking producers, so they frame subsidies as necessary business support. Meanwhile, they might see welfare recipients as people who “should just work harder,” ignoring the fact that economic struggles look different for different people.
There’s also a cultural and political aspect—many rural communities have been conditioned to see government aid as bad unless it’s for their industry. Politicians and media reinforce this divide, creating an “us vs. them” mentality where rural aid is framed as economic necessity, while urban aid is painted as wasteful dependency.
So yes, it would be easier and more ethical to support a safety net for everyone before needing it. But human nature, self-interest, and political narratives get in the way.
Alright, alright, settle down, pitchfork posse. Look, this whole “stop being an asshole” thing? It wasn’t just about those lovely folks who commune with tractors, okay? Though, let’s be honest, their fertilizer-fueled wisdom did spark this existential crisis with my robot buddy. Anyway, the point is, whether you’re a tweed-wearing intellectual, a glitter-covered influencer, or even… shudders… a politician, maybe, just maybe, try not being a complete dumpster fire of a human. And yes, even if your neighbor collects garden gnomes and sings opera to squirrels at 3 AM, try to remember they’re, like, a person. A weird, squirrel-singing person, but a person nonetheless. You know, basic human decency? It’s a concept. Look it up.
