Rural resentment has become a central factor in American politics; particularly in a pillar of the rise of right-wing extremism. As the Republican Party has pushed further into Magaland — the land where America will be great again — it has lost votes among educated voters in the city suburbs, but this loss has often been offset by a sharp rightward swing in rural areas, as it has in some places gone so far that the remaining Democrats are intimidated and afraid to reveal their party affiliations.
But is it a permanent twist? Can anything be done to appease the fury of the field? The answer will depend on two things: whether it is possible to improve life and rebuild rural communities, and whether voters in those communities will give politicians credit for the improvements made. This week my New York Times colleague Thomas B. Edsall conducted an analysis of the studies on Republican change in this area. I was struck by his synopsis of Katherine J. Cramer’s work, which traces rural resentment to perceptions that non-urban areas are being ignored by policymakers, that they are not getting their fair share of resources, and that “townsfolk” are watching down on her.
It turns out that all three of these impressions are largely wrong. The truth is that since the new deal, the non-urban areas of the United States are getting special treatment from policymakers. I’m not just talking about farm subsidies, which exploded to around 40% of farm income under Donald Trump. Rural America also benefits from special housing, utility and general business development programs.
In terms of resources, major federal programs disproportionately favor rural areas, in part because they house large numbers of Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But programs that rely on available resources also tend to field. Specifically, rural Americans are currently more likely to receive Medicaid and food stamps than urban Americans.
And because rural America is poorer than urban America, it pays far less federal tax per capita, so in practice the major metropolitan areas subsidize the country enormously. These grants not only fund revenues, but also economies: the government and the so-called health and welfare industries each employ more people in rural America than in the cities; What do you think these jobs are paid for?
And what about the contempt for the rural population? Well, many people have negative opinions of people whose way of life is different; It’s something that’s part of human nature. Still, there’s an unwritten rule in American politics that it’s okay for politicians to go after rural voices by insulting big cities and their residents, but it would be inexcusable if their inner-city counterparts retaliated. “I have to go to New York soon,” JD Vance tweeted during his Senate campaign. “I heard it’s disgusting and violent.” For example, can you imagine Chuck Schumer saying something similar about rural Ohio, even as a joke?
The seeming justifications for rural resentment, then, do not stand up to closer scrutiny. But that doesn’t mean it’s going well. Changes in the economy have increasingly favored higher-educated, job-rich metropolitan areas to the detriment of cities. The rural working-age population has shrunk, leaving the elderly behind. Rural men in their prime are much more likely to be unemployed than their urban peers. The difficulties of rural areas are real. Paradoxically, however, the party platform, which has the support of the majority of rural voters, would make matters worse by cutting back on the security programs on which these voters depend. And Democrats shouldn’t be afraid to point that out.
But can they also have a constructive program to rehabilitate rural areas? As The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent pointed out, the infrastructure spending bills signed by Joe Biden, originally intended to combat climate change, will also create a large number of rural and small-town blue-collar jobs. Will they work? The economic forces that have depressed rural areas run deep and are difficult to combat. But it’s definitely worth a try.
Even if these measures improve rural fortunes, will Democrats get credit? It’s easy to be cynical. Arkansas’ new governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders has vowed to get Washington’s “bureaucratic tyrants” “out of people’s wallets”. In 2019, the Arkansas federal government spent almost twice what it collected in taxes, effectively giving the average state resident $5,500 in aid. Even if democratic politics greatly improves the lives of non-urban populations, will rural voters notice? If anything, anything that helps reverse the decline of rural America would be good in itself. And maybe, just maybe, reducing the heartland’s economic desperation will also help reverse its political radicalization.
Paul Krugman is a Nobel laureate in economics. © The New York Times, 2023. Translated from news clips.
THE LAND of the morning
Wake up to Berna González Harbor’s analysis of the day
GET IT
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits