Have progressives largely abandoned the concerns of rural Americans?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Just something that came to mind in an Atlasia debate.  No, I'm not concern trolling.  But for a while I've heard, people, usually the more liberal types, view the cities as a beacon of progress in spite of their imperfections and in spite of the fact that not every single person in America wants to live in a large city or watch their small communities fall to urban expansion.  Nowadays we rarely hear about rural areas in the national news unless it's something involving natural disasters, the price of food going up, or some big politician is pandering to them to get support for an infrastructure bill.

That's just my take on it.  Hopefully the mood of this thread won't turn to, "Well, rural communities suck, so why should I care?"

[The Free North]

Easy answer is yes


Inb4 stereotyping rural areas as 'racist' 'backwards' 'stupid' etc...

[traininthedistance]

Just something that came to mind in an Atlasia debate.  No, I'm not concern trolling.  But for a while I've heard, people, usually the more liberal types, view the cities as a beacon of progress in spite of their imperfections and in spite of the fact that not every single person in America wants to live in a large city or watch their small communities fall to urban expansion.  Nowadays we rarely hear about rural areas in the national news unless it's something involving natural disasters, the price of food going up, or some big politician is pandering to them to get support for an infrastructure bill.

That's just my take on it.  Hopefully the mood of this thread won't turn to, "Well, rural communities suck, so why should I care?"

Well, those people who care about the bolded part should be making common cause with us urbanists; exurban sprawl is the common enemy of both pro-city and pro-small town people.  If you care about preserving the countryside and rural communities, it's best to be in favor of policies that favor dense urban living, so we don't have to metastasize- and likewise, those of us who prefer cities are indeed (even if we don't say it as often as perhaps we should) sensitive to the idea that we should be protecting farmland, historic downtowns, all that.  There are too many people in the world for everyone to live in the countryside; this country is going to be majority urban by necessity, and the countryside will fare best if those of us who live in metro areas live nearer the center of the area rather than the fringe.

Of course there are some people who live on the rural fringe that will welcome sprawl, because they see it as a way to "cash out" to development, and care not about the many things that can be lost in that rush.  To be perfectly honest I don't care to cater to those people, and wish that there was a stronger genuinely agrarian movement to counter their megaphone.

I guess there's also the issue of mining, logging, drilling, etc. which can also be a sticking point, and I'm not really sure what's the best way to handle that, except to say that it really needs to be considered as something separate from development fights.  I think here's when I bust out the Jane Jacobs and talk about how the wealth gained from resource extraction tends to universally be more ephemeral and exploitative than that gained in more diverse economies, so depending on it is counterproductive even before environmental concerns come into play.   I know that's an unsatisfactory answer; I struggle with trying to formulate something more positive that doesn't come across as pablum.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Just something that came to mind in an Atlasia debate.  No, I'm not concern trolling.  But for a while I've heard, people, usually the more liberal types, view the cities as a beacon of progress in spite of their imperfections and in spite of the fact that not every single person in America wants to live in a large city or watch their small communities fall to urban expansion.  Nowadays we rarely hear about rural areas in the national news unless it's something involving natural disasters, the price of food going up, or some big politician is pandering to them to get support for an infrastructure bill.

That's just my take on it.  Hopefully the mood of this thread won't turn to, "Well, rural communities suck, so why should I care?"

Well, those people who care about the bolded part should be making common cause with us urbanists; exurban sprawl is the common enemy of both pro-city and pro-small town people.  If you care about preserving the countryside and rural communities, it's best to be in favor of policies that favor dense urban living, so we don't have to metastasize- and likewise, those of us who prefer cities are indeed (even if we don't say it as often as perhaps we should) sensitive to the idea that we should be protecting farmland, historic downtowns, all that.  There are too many people in the world for everyone to live in the countryside; this country is going to be majority urban by necessity, and the countryside will fare best if those of us who live in metro areas live nearer the center of the area rather than the fringe.

Of course there are some people who live on the rural fringe that will welcome sprawl, because they see it as a way to "cash out" to development, and care not about the many things that can be lost in that rush.  To be perfectly honest I don't care to cater to those people, and wish that there was a stronger genuinely agrarian movement to counter their megaphone.

I guess there's also the issue of mining, logging, drilling, etc. which can also be a sticking point, and I'm not really sure what's the best way to handle that, except to say that it really needs to be considered as something separate from development fights.  I think here's when I bust out the Jane Jacobs and talk about how the wealth gained from resource extraction tends to universally be more ephemeral and exploitative than that gained in more diverse economies, so depending on it is counterproductive even before environmental concerns come into play.   I know that's an unsatisfactory answer; I struggle with trying to formulate something more positive that doesn't come across as pablum.

Point of inquiry: do most people prefer living in small towns?  Because, you're right in that there are too many people in the world for everyone to live in remote areas, but I don't think that's a big problem.  I can only speak from experience of course, but most people I've encountered tend to prefer large cities.

But, yes, most of the country will need to be urban by necessity, but the question is by how much.

[traininthedistance]

Point of inquiry: do most people prefer living in small towns?  Because, you're right in that there are too many people in the world for everyone to live in remote areas, but I don't think that's a big problem.  I can only speak from experience of course, but most people I've encountered tend to prefer large cities.

But, yes, most of the country will need to be urban by necessity, but the question is by how much.

Dunno; I'm sure that there are plenty of people who like small-town living but I don't know how that matches up to the percentage of people who actually live in small towns.  I would imagine that most people will want to live in urban areas because there's generally more opportunity there, but there are certainly valid reasons for preferring non-urban life and I'm happy to support their decision.  Just as long as they don't think the "rural lifestyle" involves one-acre-lot-with-septic subdivisions on what used to be the last farm in town, 'cause that ain't rural.  And it ain't a good idea, neither.

"What percentage of the country lives in urban areas?" is not actually a question that I care about all that much.  I care more about the balance between core and periphery within those areas; about strengthening/revitalizing the core; retrofitting the periphery to the challenges of the future (and preventing the ill-considered metastatic growth of new and unnecessary periphery); improving the safety, quality of life, mobility, environmental quality, etc. of the entire region, etc etc etc.  That's probably an answer to a question you weren't exactly asking (and not exactly an answer to the question you were asking), but eh it's the best I can do.

[Lief 🗽]

Democrats win plenty of rural voters. Look at this map:



Have progressives abandoned the concerns of white rural Southerners? Yes, because those people hold views that are anathema to progressivism. But take that bloc out of the equation and it's much closer. Democrats do well with rural whites in the Midwest, with rural blacks, with rural New Englanders, with rural Hispanics, etc.

[Mehmentum]

Its almost a given that the interests of some will be overlooked by a party or ideology.  That's why multiple parties are a good idea. 

[memphis]

There are plenty of poors, gays, blacks, and so on in rural areas. And the progressives are working for theses rural Americans and their concerns. It seems strange that everybody assumes otherwise.

[King]

What are the concerns of rural America exactly?

[Indy Texas]

Both parties have abandoned their concerns (though Republicans keep many of them in their corner by aping the style of rural America) because there aren't that many rural Americans left. The old ones will eventually die; the young ones will relocate to larger cities.

In Texas, Tea Party Republicans have more or less thrown rural voters over. They oppose school funding schemes that shift money from property-rich suburban districts to property-poor rural ones. They oppose a water plan to make the few small, family-owned farms and ranches remaining economically viable. If you look at a map of the 2012 Senate primary, Ted Cruz did terribly in rural Texas - the only counties he won were exurban ones surrounding Dallas and Houston, a handful of particularly reactionary East Texas counties, and some South Texas counties due to the Hispanic surname effect. Even in the runoff, his performance there was weakest. The fact that he still easily won sums up why both parties have abandoned them - they don't need their votes anymore.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The question as posed doesn't really make much sense, because there isn't a single 'rural America' with a single set of political concerns. And I'm not sure if the sort of people we now label as 'progressives' have ever much cared about the concerns of 'rural America', however defined. Actually that's not fair; they've often cared about a romanticised vision of 'rural America' and its discontents, but have typically had very little understanding of or interest in the real thing(s). I don't mean that as an insult: I doubt that most rural Americans (however defined) have much interest in the operation of public transport in New York or wherever either.

Moving on to the elephant in the room, it is undeniably true that the Democratic Party has largely abandoned the concerns of provincial working class voters, especially those who are also non-metropolitan (and to such an extent that few figures in the party can even remember how to talk to them), but it's a mistake to conflate this to an abandonment of 'rural America': for example, the Democratic Party continues to work for the interests of prosperous farmers in the Upper Midwest, as the voices of these people have undue weight in the selection of Presidential candidates. The Democratic Party also wins the votes of minorities in rural areas as much as it does in urban areas.

[DC Al Fine]

There are plenty of poors, gays, blacks, and so on in rural areas. And the progressives are working for theses rural Americans and their concerns. It seems strange that everybody assumes otherwise.

Sure, but there are still specifically rural issues that are being ignored. For example, in my province the rural areas are rapidly depopulating with the exception of a few small towns. The tax base that could comfortably support services like schools, hospitals etc, is no longer there. The left leaning government was forced to choose between subsidizing existing rural services with urban tax dollars or consolidating them in larger centres.

The NDP in Nova Scotia chose the latter for the most part and there was a backlash against it on election day. This shows how left leaning governments can be perceived as neglecting rural issues even if they're working for the issues you highlighted. It doesn't matter if you're black, white, rich, poor, gay or straight; if you find out you're local hospital is closing and that you'll have to drive an hour to get medical attention, you'll be upset and alienated.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's a clever little morality tale, though one fatally undermined by the fact that the NS NDP did particularly badly in Greater Halifax...

[traininthedistance]

The question as posed doesn't really make much sense, because there isn't a single 'rural America' with a single set of political concerns. And I'm not sure if the sort of people we now label as 'progressives' have ever much cared about the concerns of 'rural America', however defined. Actually that's not fair; they've often cared about a romanticised vision of 'rural America' and its discontents, but have typically had very little understanding of or interest in the real thing(s). I don't mean that as an insult: I doubt that most rural Americans (however defined) have much interest in the operation of public transport in New York or wherever either.

Moving on to the elephant in the room, it is undeniably true that the Democratic Party has largely abandoned the concerns of provincial working class voters, especially those who are also non-metropolitan (and to such an extent that few figures in the party can even remember how to talk to them), but it's a mistake to conflate this to an abandonment of 'rural America': for example, the Democratic Party continues to work for the interests of prosperous farmers in the Upper Midwest, as the voices of these people have undue weight in the selection of Presidential candidates. The Democratic Party also wins the votes of minorities in rural areas as much as it does in urban areas.

While most of this post is well-considered (I will absolutely cop to not understanding the nitty-gritty of local infra-rural issues; it's simply not my balliwick), the bolded parts blatantly contradict each other.  Unless, of course, you meant white working-class voters. Lots of people make such a mistake/conflation, but it's actually really harmful, and I'd expect better from you.

[DC Al Fine]

That's a clever little morality tale, though one fatally undermined by the fact that the NS NDP did particularly badly in Greater Halifax...

Two different issues. The Folly of Alienating Your Base doesn't really fit in this thread.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

the bolded parts blatantly contradict each other.  Unless, of course, you meant white working-class voters. Lots of people make such a mistake/conflation, but it's actually really harmful, and I'd expect better from you.

I tend to twitch horribly and uncontrollably when that particular combination of words is used, because I've found that whenever they appear a terminally stupid argument is never far away (often one that also decides to assume that all such people are male). So I'd rather communicate less than clearly, than write that phrase out myself...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Though I was mostly thinking of provincial (post)industrial areas anyway, rather than farming districts of one sort or another.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The thing is that the small family farm many think of when they think "rural America" is largely gone now.  Rural America today consists largely, tho not exclusively, of two major constituencies. Agribusinesspeople that provide few voters but do provide campaign cash and which not surprisingly are mostly Republican largely because of economic concerns and farm laborers, many of which are non-citizen immigrants, both documented and undocumented.

Then there is the black belt in the South which is probably the largest group of rural Democratic voters remaining.  It's largely a population of economically disadvantaged people, who got left behind when sharecropping was displaced by mechanization and the advent of migrant farm labor for the seasonal work. The infrastructure there is unable to adequately provide them the education they need, and in any case if they got better education, they'd largely need to move to the cities to take advantage of it.  If we could solve the problems of the urban ghettos, I suspect a large part of the rural poor would move to the cities.  But if you're gonna be poor in either place, why would you not stay where family and friends can provide some support when needed?

But anyway, the point about my digression about the black belt is that paradoxically, for most Democratic rural voters, the things the party could do most to help them are those that would help the cities because the only real way out of the poverty trap for most of them is to move to an economically vibrant urban (or suburban) area.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Note that I don't want to sound too pessimistic about small farms, but most viable small farms these days will be found in the exurbs at the outer fringes of urban areas, with the farmer working the land part-time and working in the suburbs or even the urb itself on at least a part time basis, with the spouse likely working there full time.

[Torie]

Though I was mostly thinking of provincial (post)industrial areas anyway, rather than farming districts of one sort or another.

And it may be that minority status trumps rural status. In fact, in this day and age in America, it almost certainly does, unless it involves perhaps guns. Anyway, I liked your post - a lot.

I might add that Iowa farmers seem sometimes to be just about the most cosseted welfare queens as it were on this Fruited Plain. So many undeserved subsidies, so little time. It has been quite am amazing learning experience for me. Interestingly, when I call out other farmers in the hood on this, or the folks who hand out the money, nobody bothers to justify much of any of it. They just take the money, or hand it out (one government bureaucrat per about 20 farmers). Heck our tenant farmer over the past 10 years (he farms about 2,000 acres, either owned or leased), not counting subsidized crop insurance (70% of the cost) and the ethanol heist, has collected about $1.1 million. He's about number 10 on the list in Madison County, Iowa. This is a published list. That is how I found out about it.

To get in on more of this action,  I put marginal land into production, solely for the purpose of taking it out again in 5 years, and putting it in the conservation program, so I can collect a government payment at a much higher rate than I can get renting it out as cropland. The government even pays to put in the natural flora for me. How sweet of them. Save the planet.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I don't want to pretend to understand or attempt to generalize the specific political attitudes of rural Americans; as stated in this thread by many others, there is no one "rural America". The number of people who live in rural areas, of course, is shrinking rapidly, including in places like the rural South-see how Greater Atlanta is growing at the expense of rural Georgia.

I will observe, though, that rural  people-broadly speaking-tend to be "conservative" in a traditional, the-past-is-continuous-with-the-present sense, certainly more than urban areas. This can mean allegiance with the political Right, as it does in white Southern and Western rural areas, but it can also mean respect for more progressive politics in places like the Upper Midwest or New England-which have long traditions of labor movements and left-wing rural political activism.

Of course, political traditions and movements can and do collapse-see the white South and Appalachia's Democratic Party support, or Populism on the Great Plains. A lot of this is tied to economic and demographic changes. But speaking more broadly again of rural areas, I do think many rural residents have a definite sense of being "left behind" politically and culturally by an ever more urbanized, more dynamic, more "modern" society...

[Ban my account ffs!]

Both parties have largely abandoned rural areas.  Republicans pay lip service to rural areas while contributing heavily to the depopulation of rural areas by policies that suppress wages and outsource rural jobs to other countries.  

I'm one of few posters here who actually has lived most of his life and still lives in a rural area.  But I'm not the best example because my area is different than much of the country.  While many see the GOP as being right on many social issues like abortion and gun control, most people here would say easily that the DFL is more engaged with rural Minnesotans and cares more about rural issues.

In fact, the coalitions that have coalesced in recent decades in Minnesota have been a coalition of progressive liberals from the inner city and inner suburbs, coupled with rural DFLers from northern Minnesota and the Minnesota River valley, and increasingly in southeastern Minnesota.... against suburban/exurban Republicans which also couple with traditionally conservative catholic German areas of the state.

So when the GOP spends 8 years slashing local government aid, which helps keep property taxes reasonable in rural areas, forcing property taxes to treble.. rural Minnesotans respond.

Where rural Minnesotans have a strong connection with the DFL are on those issues:  Local government aid to make good local government affordable in poorer, smaller "outstate" communities.  Funding for rural education so rural districts can attract teachers with good pay.  Funding for higher education, especially in the MnSCU system whose campuses are largely in the smaller cities in the state, and funding of healthcare for the poor with extra funding for seniors in rural areas who have no access to decent nursing facilities but can live at home with the help of home health aides.

When the DFLers bring up the issue of transportation... they not only bring up increasing transit taxes in the Twin Cities metro to build out transit systems there, they also talk about strengthening rural transit options like dial-a-ride services and rural bus service and medical transportation for disabled people.  They talk about a network of hiking and biking trails that connect communities... and they talk about increasing funding for rural roads and highways.

They also talk about efficiency standards as the best way to reduce pollution and emissions from rural folks who must drive longer distances to get form place to place.

And most importantly:  DFLers are well aware of the fact that rural communities don't want to die out.  They want stability.. and maybe even growth if it's possible.  DFLers promote programs for small business owners... promote higher corporate and income taxes so property taxes, which negatively impact rural businesses (and homes), can be low.  They support initiatives to start the school year later so the tourism industry, which thrives in rural MN, can rely on being full for Labor Day weekend.

The GOP has platitudes.  They mostly talk about "reducing regulations" so farmers have more "freedom" and banning gay marriage and abortion and allowing unfettered access to guns (this last one is also supported by rural DFLers).  And when the GOP has the say... rural communities see skyrocketing property taxes, schools that have to ask voters for tax increases to pay for teachers and school buses... and an attitude that basically says "well, if you can't hack it.. then move to the city (preferably the suburbs)"...

So yes... Democrats and progressives care about rural areas, rural issues, and rural people... in Minnesota.

Nationally?  They don't give two sh**ts.  

[traininthedistance]

the bolded parts blatantly contradict each other.  Unless, of course, you meant white working-class voters. Lots of people make such a mistake/conflation, but it's actually really harmful, and I'd expect better from you.

I tend to twitch horribly and uncontrollably when that particular combination of words is used, because I've found that whenever they appear a terminally stupid argument is never far away (often one that also decides to assume that all such people are male). So I'd rather communicate less than clearly, than write that phrase out myself...

The problem is that doing so has the rather unfortunate side effect of basically just erasing rural minorities from the conversation entirely.  I sympathize with your aversion, but honestly I think that using "working class" as a synecdoche for "white working class" is pretty much just the worst possible option here.

[All Along The Watchtower]

All politics is local-especially in rural areas where people expect to talk face-to-face with their political leaders.  That's one thing the conservatives in the Republican Party have done really well-built a local infrastructure of support in many rural and other areas around the country. Local politicians, local business leaders, local community activists, local media representatives, and local religious leaders-the GOP has an impressive infrastructure in those regards. The Democrats were starting to organize in this way in 2006-2008, but a lot of that momentum is gone now...

[Ban my account ffs!]

the bolded parts blatantly contradict each other.  Unless, of course, you meant white working-class voters. Lots of people make such a mistake/conflation, but it's actually really harmful, and I'd expect better from you.

I tend to twitch horribly and uncontrollably when that particular combination of words is used, because I've found that whenever they appear a terminally stupid argument is never far away (often one that also decides to assume that all such people are male). So I'd rather communicate less than clearly, than write that phrase out myself...

The problem is that doing so has the rather unfortunate side effect of basically just erasing rural minorities from the conversation entirely.  I sympathize with your aversion, but honestly I think that using "working class" as a synecdoche for "white working class" is pretty much just the worst possible option here.

And white working class connotes southern white male Republicans... aka "the American people" that idiots like Cruz and Boehner are always talking about.

How about "rural people"?  That's nice and broad.  Rural poors?  I mean... working class is actually a British term, not so much an American one.