News

opinion | Can anything be done to appease the rage in the countryside?


Rural outrage has become a central fact of American politics – in particular, a pillar of support for the rise of right-wing extremism. As the Republican Party moved deeper and deeper into MAGAland, it lost the vote of educated suburban voters; but this has been offset by a sharp shift to the right in rural areas, which in some places has gone so far that Democrats still face intimidation and intimidation. . scared to reveal their affiliation.

But is this change permanent? Can anything be done to appease the rage in the countryside?

The answer will depend on two things: whether rural life can be improved and rural communities restored, and whether voters in these communities recognize politicians for any improvements. any progress or not.

This week my colleague Thomas B. Edsall survey Research on Republican change in rural areas. I was impressed by his work summary by Katherine J. Cramerwho attributed rural resentment to the perception that rural areas are ignored by policy makers, are not equally shared in resources, and despised by “city people”.

As it happens, all three perceptions are largely false. I’m sure this quote of mine will create a tidal wave of hate mail and that lecturing rural Americans on policy realities won’t change their votes. However, it is important to understand our truth.

The truth is that since the New Deal, rural America has received special treatment from policymakers. It’s not just agricultural subsidies, but balloons under Donald Trump to the extent that they make up about 40% of the farm’s total income. Rural America also benefits from Special program housing, utilities and general business support.

In terms of resources, large federal programs disproportionately benefit rural areas, in part because those areas have disproportionate numbers of seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare. But even the vehicle-tested programs — those that Republicans often decry as “welfare” — lean toward the countryside. Notably, at this point, rural Americans are more likely than urban Americans. Medical allowance And receive food stamps.

And because rural America is poorer than urban America, they pay much less in federal taxes per person, so in effect, large metropolitan areas subsidize the countryside a lot. . These subsidies not only support incomes but also economies: The government and the so-called health care and social support sectors each. hire more people in rural America than in agriculture, and what do you think the wages for those jobs are?

What about rural perceptions about not being respected? Well, many people have a negative view of people with different lifestyles; that is human nature. However, there is an unwritten rule in American politics that it is normal for politicians to seek rural votes by insulting major cities and their inhabitants, but will not be. forgive urban politicians who reciprocate such favors. “I have to get to New York City soon,” tweeted J.D. Vance on his campaign for senators. “I heard it was disgusting and violent there.” Can you imagine, for example, Chuck Schumer saying something similar about rural Ohio, even if only as a joke?

So the superficial justifications for rural outrage don’t stand up to scrutiny – but that doesn’t mean everything is fine. A changing economy has increasingly favored urban areas with a larger college-educated workforce than small towns. The population of working age in rural areas has decline, leaving the seniors behind. Rural men in their most productive years are more likely than their urban counterparts are inactive. Rural woes are real.

Ironically, however, the party policy agenda that most rural voters support makes things worse, undercutting the safety net programs these voters depend on. depending on. And Democrats shouldn’t be afraid to point this out.

But can they also have an active agenda for rural innovation? As Greg Sargent of The Washington Post recently shownThe infrastructure spending bills enacted under President Biden, while primarily aimed at addressing climate change, will also create a large number of jobs for the working class. hands in rural areas and small cities. In fact, they are a form of “location-based industrial policy” that some economists have urged to counter America’s growing geographical disparity.

Will they work? Economic forces are hollowing out the American countryside very deeply and not easily counterattacked. But it’s definitely worth a try.

But even if these policies improve rural fortunes, will the Democrats get any credit? It’s easy to be skeptical. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the new governor of Arkansas, has commit to get Washington’s “bureaucratic tyrants” “out of your wallet”; In 2019, the federal government spent almost double in Arkansas when it collected taxes, in fact provided the average Arkansas resident $5,500 in aid. So even if Democratic policies dramatically improve rural life, will rural voters pay attention?

However, anything that helps reverse the decline of rural America would be a good thing. And maybe, just maybe, easing the economic despair of the heartland would also help reverse its political radicalization.

news7g

News7g: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, Sports...at the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button