Skip to content

Let’s talk about the real problems with rural America

A few days ago, Tony Pipa of the Brookings Institution wrote about the dire state of America's rural communities:

A Policy Renaissance Is Needed for Rural America to Thrive

Shamokin [Pennsylvania] is a cautionary tale for what happens when we lack policy solutions that can truly help places cope and adapt to major economic and social shifts. Despite widespread acknowledgment since 2008 that rural places have generally been left behind, our nation still lacks a coherent federal rural policy.

....What we have are lots of programs — over 400 available for community and economic development spread across every nook and cranny of the federal government. But navigating that maze and the peculiarities of their applications, reporting and matching requirements is a high bar for anybody, let alone the part-time volunteer elected officials and the bare-bones staffs that make up many local rural governments.

....One thing is clear: Tweaking around the edges will remain ineffective. A serious policy discussion should be dominating the airwaves. Rural America is listening for how public leadership and resources can better support the economic and social renewal of rural communities, but it hears mostly silence.

This all sounds pretty conventional. Rural America is graying, losing population, and falling into poverty. We ought to get serious about doing something.

Maybe so. But first let me show you a pile o' charts. First off is income:

It's true that the average rural resident makes less the average urbanite. But they don't tax themselves very much and their cost of housing is far lower. When you account for that, they still make less but the difference shrinks from $26,000 to $18,000 to $9,000. But rural communities also have less education than cities. If you adjust urban income to match rural education demographics, the difference in income almost completely goes away. It turns out that rural residents aren't really any worse off than city folks if you compare apples to apples.

Here is unemployment:

Sometimes unemployment is higher in cities, sometimes in rural areas. But you may be surprised to see that unemployment is currently worse in cities than in the country. Here is poverty:

Contrary to popular belief, the rural poverty rate in 2021 was nearly the same as the urban poverty rate: 15.0% vs. 14.3%. And as the chart above shows, when you drill down below the county level it becomes obvious that persistent poverty is largely an urban problem.

Now let's take a look at something entirely different:

These are just examples, but it's obvious that a big problem with rural areas is that they choose to remain socially conservative, which chases out young people and hollows out their educated base. And their solution?

Despite the fact that most rural problems aren't all that bad—and are mostly of their own making anyway—they're convinced that the big thing holding them back is urban liberals who refuse to give them their fair share of federal money. This is despite the fact that it's common knowledge that urban areas transfer vast amounts of tax money to rural areas:

Here's my point: Rural America has problems. These problems aren't nearly as big as they're often made out to be, but they do have lower incomes, a declining population, and a less educated community.

But these are almost all caused by their own free choices. They refuse to tax themselves to pay for good schools and the infrastructure needed by business. They hold on tight to their social conservatism, which drives out both the young and the educated. Then they sit around and complain that the urban liberals who support them aren't supporting them enough.

Being rural is not like being Black or gay or female or Jewish. It's a choice. And the rural lifestyle is also a choice. They could do the things they need to do to become more prosperous, but they don't want to. They're comfortable the way they are.

And that's fine. Not only do I have no objections, but I'll even keep paying high taxes to support rural America in the manner to which it is accustomed.

But do I want to spend a lot of the government's time on a rural "policy renaissance" even though it's mostly alphabet soup money distribution that will always be resisted and scorned ("those city boys all think they know better than us") and will never solve the real problems of provincial culture? I'm not so sure I do.

86 thoughts on “Let’s talk about the real problems with rural America

  1. akapneogy

    I agree that the problems of rural America are self-inflicted and self-reinforcing. I agree with you that I am not sure I would wish to spend more money on the intractable problems of rural America. But here's the thing. Rural America has votes, and more importantly, electoral college votes. So, regardless of what you and I think, money will get spent.

    1. AnnieDunkin

      My buddy's mother makes $50 per hour working on the computer (Personal Computer). She hasn’t had a job for a long, yet this month she earned $11,500 by working just on her computer for 9 hours every day.

      Read this article for more details.. https://payathome.blogspot.com/

    2. Mitch Guthman

      I seriously question why the money should be spent on people who won’t vote for Democrats no matter what. I think the majority would be much better off keeping their money and spending it to improve life in urban areas.

    3. dvhall99

      But it doesn’t matter what Democrats do for them since rural voters get their information from Fox, talk radio, and the nuttiest fringe of the interwebs. Rural people are more likely to believe their problems are caused by chem trails in the sky than that Democrats are responsible for anything good. They have their own anti-reality that no amount of goodness from Democrats or the Federal government can penetrate. By definition, anyone who is open to Democratic messaging eventually leaves for a more populated area.

  2. jamesepowell

    The people who live in rural America & the people they elect do not want a "coherent federal rural policy" because any federal policy will have strings attached. Like no racism or religious bigotry.

    They would have benefited from full implementation of the ACA, but they didn't want it because a black president got it enacted.

    Talk to them is like talking to drug addicts or degenerate gamblers. Until they realize the problems are of their own creation, we cannot help them.

    1. Aleks311

      When ACA Medicaid is put to a vote it generally wins by lopsided majorities. It isn't rank and file voters who don't want it but rather out of touch steeped in Randite ideology Republican politicians who don't

      1. iamr4man

        If you put the ACA to a vote in a rural area, but call it “Obamacare”, it will lose. Republican politicians understand this.

        1. Mitch Guthman

          I agree that this is true but only in the abstract and, as Jasper points out, given a choice between deplorable politicians and a desire for free healthcare, rural voters have consistently demonstrated their willingness to re-elect those same politicians who’ve deprived them of healthcare.

          Democrats have been reaching out to those people for my entire life and consistently have been rejected. I think it’s time to move on and focus on building up our own communities.

            1. Mitch Guthman

              And you're right about how people in red states or rural areas are big fans of the ACA (a.k.a. "Obamacare") and would vote in favor of it if only they could. I'm not arguing that they wouldn't, only that a strong preference for a popular Democratic program doesn't lead to either more votes for Democrats in rural areas or a backlash against Republican politicians who callously deny their own GOP voters healthcare.

              1. iamr4man

                That’s basically my argument, though perhaps inelegantly stated. Republicans who love the plan would vote against it if they think Democrats proposed it.

      2. Jasper_in_Boston

        And who keeps reelecting these Randite Republican politicians? I bet Kari Lake and Herschel Walker got close to 90% of the votes of rural whites. Ditto Rand Paul, Marjorie Greene or Gregg Abbott.

  3. sfbay1949

    I agree completely with Kevin's assessment. I lived in a rural northern CA town for many years. They are proud of their resistance to help from the "terrible" federal government. They cling to their religion like a drug.

    And to top it off, they are so sure they are superior to anyone who is not them. Naturally, I left as soon as I could. My education wasn't appreciated. My sex orientation sure wasn't appreciated. Why would anyone put up with this kind of treatment?

  4. Davis X. Machina

    You can't spell 'Rural America" without "Real America", sort of.

    They're the National Strategic Virtue Reserve.

    Don't take my word for it. Ask them.

    1. Altoid

      "National Strategic Virtue Reserve" is great & I agree with your tone.

      But then what do we do with this, from Notes on the State of Virginia: "Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if he ever had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue.... Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example."

      It's a myth, and a deeply-seated one, and all the more powerful because it's a myth.

      There's always been tension between city and countryside. The shame and sham of our time is that it's being racialized, and religified, for the purposes of one political party that doesn't seem to have any other organizing ideas for itself any longer. It used to. Small-town chamber of commerce, country club, industrialist republicans all counterbalanced these tendencies (which very often came out in the D party before the civil rights era anyway).

      Now, this christo-fascism is all they have. What rural and small-town America needs is a healthy political outlet. But it's a two-way street-- they have to choose a healthy political outlet. They have to give up on being the One True America and accept that they're one interest group among many.

  5. shapeofsociety

    I dunno - it sure sounds like streamlining applications for those 400 programs would be a good idea. Also, rural Americans aren't going to vote Democrat if we have nothing to say to them and nothing to offer them except moralizing lectures saying that their problems are all their own fault.

    1. Mitch Guthman

      If you accept that their problems are entirely of their own making, it’s difficult for me to see money spent in rural areas as anything other than wasted. They never express the slightest gratitude for their welfare payments and neither do they acknowledge the necessity of change if their communities are to ever enjoy prosperity. If Democrats can’t win them over, wouldn’t it be better to not squander money on rurals?

      1. shapeofsociety

        Everything that you are saying, both in this comment and others in this thread, reads exactly like the things that conservatives say to justify not helping poor black communities. Not coincidentally, over 90% of black people vote for Democrats even though many of them are socially conservative, and some are economically conservative, and would be obvious Republican voters if not for the fact that they constantly hear Republicans saying that black culture is dysfunctional, which black people know perfectly well means that Republicans hate black people. You don't vote for a party that hates you even if you agree with them on policy. If the Republican party ever managed to ditch racism for real, they'd definitely get at least 30% of the black vote and probably more.

        Last I checked, rural Americans were not voting Republican as overwhelmingly as that. Democrats still often manage to draw some appreciable votes in rural counties - often enough to tip a tight race. If the whole Democratic Party starts spouting what you're spouting, we lose those votes and a lot of races with them, and probably get locked out of a Senate majority for a long time.

        Being true to our inclusive values means including rural America, even though it is tough territory for us. Republicans have gotten very good at appealing to rural identity and whipping up resentment, but not all of them are fooled. We don't need to lose the rural votes we still have by making their allegations true.

    2. spatrick

      "Also, rural Americans aren't going to vote Democrat if we have nothing to say to them and nothing to offer them except moralizing lectures saying that their problems are all their own fault."</i?

      First of all that's bullshit. And I give an example as to why: Former Minnesota Congressman Collin Peterson basically propped up by lonesome the entire sugar beet industry as House Ag Committee Chairman in his western Minnesota district. And he was someone who was both Anti-abortion and anti gun regulation, so he was pretty consistent with the voters in his district. So how did they repay him for all his work helping farmers and opposing abortion when he ran for re-election in 2020? He lost his last election 54-40 despite having been in office since 1991.

      I mean come on, the Democratic Party supports spending on rural area for economic development, all sorts of programs and farm subsidies. They always have. It has nothing to do with economics. If your message to the party to how moderate their views on certain social topics to attract rural votres I'm curious as to which ones and how they're supposed to do so and why even a conservative Democrat like Peterson couldn't convince voters to stick with him even though he basically agreed with them on the issues? Could it be that rural voters are so far to the Right on such questions that it's impossible, even for a Dem like Peterson to do so? Think about it.

      Kevin has. And I like this answer. I read the same article and I'm thinking to myself "I'm really getting tired of this crap." The means are there for rural America to strengthen itself economically. It just refuses to do so because a majority of voters are worried about the very immigrants who work in their factories and farms, "the gayz," big cities, guns, abortion, you name it. Economics is way down on the list of concenrs. And here's another reason as to why: fewer farms, fewer concerns about the farm economy. You basically have an older population who live out there because of Social Security and Medicare, without which very few such persons could possible live such remote locations (at least prosperously) One could say it's one big "The Villages" across the country.

      Here's my point: Rural America has problems. These problems aren't nearly as big as they're often made out to be, but they do have lower incomes, a declining population, and a less educated community.

      But these are almost all caused by their own free choices. They refuse to tax themselves to pay for good schools and the infrastructure needed by business. They hold on tight to their social conservatism, which drives out both the young and the educated. Then they sit around and complain that the urban liberals who support them aren't supporting them enough.

      Being rural is not like being Black or gay or female or Jewish. It's a choice. And the rural lifestyle is also a choice. They could do the things they need to do to become more prosperous, but they don't want to. They're comfortable the way they are.

      And that's fine. Not only do I have no objections, but I'll even keep paying high taxes to support rural America in the manner to which it is accustomed.

      But do I want to spend a lot of the government's time on a rural "policy renaissance" even though it's mostly alphabet soup money distribution that will always be resisted and scorned ("those city boys all think they know better than us") and will never solve the real problems of provincial culture? I'm not so sure I do.

    3. spatrick

      "Also, rural Americans aren't going to vote Democrat if we have nothing to say to them and nothing to offer them except moralizing lectures saying that their problems are all their own fault."</i?

      First of all that's bullshit. And I give an example as to why: Former Minnesota Congressman Collin Peterson basically propped up by lonesome the entire sugar beet industry as House Ag Committee Chairman in his western Minnesota district. And he was someone who was both Anti-abortion and anti gun regulation, so he was pretty consistent with the voters in his district. So how did they repay him for all his work helping farmers and opposing abortion when he ran for re-election in 2020? He lost his last election 54-40 despite having been in office since 1991.

      I mean come on, the Democratic Party supports spending on rural area for economic development, all sorts of programs and farm subsidies. They always have. It has nothing to do with economics. If your message to the party to how moderate their views on certain social topics to attract rural voters I'm curious as to which ones and how they're supposed to do so and why even a conservative Democrat like Peterson couldn't convince voters to stick with him even though he basically agreed with them on the issues? Could it be that rural voters are so far to the Right on such questions that it's impossible, even for a Dem like Peterson to do so? Think about it.

      Kevin has. And I like this answer. I read the same article and I'm thinking to myself "I'm really getting tired of this crap." The means are there for rural America to strengthen itself economically. It just refuses to do so because a majority of voters are worried about the very immigrants who work in their factories and farms, "the gayz," big cities, guns, abortion, you name it. Economics is way down on the list of concerns. And here's another reason as to why: fewer farms, fewer concerns about the farm economy. You basically have an older population that because of Social Security and Medicare, can afford to live out there without which very few such persons could possible live in such remote locations (at least prosperously) One could say it's one big "The Villages" across the country.

      "Here's my point: Rural America has problems. These problems aren't nearly as big as they're often made out to be, but they do have lower incomes, a declining population, and a less educated community.

      But these are almost all caused by their own free choices. They refuse to tax themselves to pay for good schools and the infrastructure needed by business. They hold on tight to their social conservatism, which drives out both the young and the educated. Then they sit around and complain that the urban liberals who support them aren't supporting them enough.

      Being rural is not like being Black or gay or female or Jewish. It's a choice. And the rural lifestyle is also a choice. They could do the things they need to do to become more prosperous, but they don't want to. They're comfortable the way they are.

      And that's fine. Not only do I have no objections, but I'll even keep paying high taxes to support rural America in the manner to which it is accustomed.

      But do I want to spend a lot of the government's time on a rural "policy renaissance" even though it's mostly alphabet soup money distribution that will always be resisted and scorned ("those city boys all think they know better than us") and will never solve the real problems of provincial culture? I'm not so sure I do.

  6. painedumonde

    I dunno, something about bootstraps? Tending to one's own garden? Minding one's own business?

    Rural America is already subsidized, it's already socialist, support it so it doesn't become a horrific wound, but remind it for fekking cent that it's charity that it exists.

    1. sfbay1949

      But people in rural America will never see it that way. It's already a horrific wound. You can thank rural America for Roe being overturned. For attacks on anyone not white, straight and the right kind of Christian.

      How do we fix that? I honestly don't know.

      1. painedumonde

        Point taken. There is no fixing it was my point. So continue to not cause more suffering and remind it after every check delivered and cashed that it is on welfare. Loudly and publicly.

        As I have learned over the years, addicts will heal only if they make the decision to heal, from within themselves. You can help but it's mostly wasted until that decision is made.

  7. clawback

    "Rural America is listening for how public leadership and resources can better support the economic and social renewal of rural communities"

    Got to laugh at this one. As far as I can tell rural America isn't listening for anything. As far as I can tell it's yelling "TRUMP" at the top of its lungs, judging by driving through it as well as by looking at election results.

  8. MikeTheMathGuy

    Can anyone (Kevin, are you listening?) explain what the third graph ("Figure 1. Persistent Poverty...") is suppose to show?

    First of all, I don't see what poverty has to do with any of the bars shown (nor is there any indication what "persistent poverty" might be as opposed to any other kind). Where is there a measure of poverty on the graph?

    As near as I can tell by sight, the two bars in each pair sum to 100%, which suggests that all it is showing you is what percentage of counties are classified as Metro vs. Non-metro, what percentage of the population lives in counties classified as Metro vs, Non-metro, etc. If that's the case, then (a) it has nothing to do with Kevin's point, and (b) even if it is what Kevin wanted to show, it's a poor choice of graph for that purpose (something like a pie chart would be better).

    Seriously, someone please let me know if I am missing something.

    1. Altoid

      It's showing what percent of the country is poor and distinguishing between urban and rural poor using three different criteria for what constitutes urban and rural. That's why each pair of bars adds up to 100%.

      IOW, if you look at the number of counties, 84% of non-metro counties are poor, so poverty looks overwhelmingly rural. When you factor in the populations of our counties, ala the middle pair, 66% of people who live in metro, ie urban, counties are poor, so poverty looks much more urban. And the third one slices geography much finer, according to census tracts and whether they're classified as metro or non-. And when you figure out who's poor at the census tract level, urban or metro tracts have about 82% of the poor people in the country, so poverty is even more overwhelmingly urban.

      I don't know, because I haven't looked, what constitutes "poor" here. Considering the source and geographic criteria, probably something like the federal poverty level.

      I'm kinda sympathetic to Kevin's larger points here but I think there really are serious problems outside the major cities that neither Kevin nor Tony Pipa really gloms onto. They're hard to express, let alone deal with, because they go back a long ways and involve fundamentals in our economic reshaping since WWII and especially since the 1990s. But this post isn't the place to go into it.

  9. realrobmac

    There is a simple solution to the lack of jobs and economic opportunity in rural areas that people in these areas have been following for literally hundreds of years: move to where the jobs are!

    To me the idea of trying to bring jobs to rural areas always sounds silly and counter productive. By bringing more jobs to a rural area you are to some extent urbanizing the area. Rural areas are by definition, lower in population and generally as a result these areas have less of basically everything. Instead of bringing jobs to these places, I say we focus on bringing people to where the jobs are, which is, frankly, why we even have rural areas. People leave them, thus keeping the population low.

    1. skeptonomist

      Rural conservative people have a bad attitude, largely based on their attempt to reject equal rights for non-whites, but they don't really have a choice to improve their economy. There are reason that big business locates in or near cities, so people have to move to get to the jobs.

      The rural economy is mostly based on farming, and thanks to automation the number of farmers required continues to drop, as it has for hundreds of years. Farmers have gotten used to subsidies, which they seem to regard as god-given, not as welfare. This is one reason they don't think they need to move to where the jobs are.

  10. Heysus

    Well said Kevin. I am a city person, all of my life, but moved to the middle of a corn/bean field in rural NE Kansas to build a bar and run it.
    I heard nothing but whining and crying. Those folks did not work and were not looking for work. They had no to little self esteem, their homes run down, dirty, all rather pathetic and yet, none of them ever thought of an education.
    They married right out of high school as this was their last chance to gain a spouse unless they furthered their education.
    Now we have unemployed, young folks, with kids, who sit in their parents homes and whine.
    After 5 years of this, I had to leave. I had two educated friend in that 5 years. The rest of the population apparently had nothing in common with me. I could not tolerate their whoa is me attitude.
    I have absolutely no sympathy for them. They breed themselves out of an education and reproduce to vote repulsive.

    1. lawnorder

      People who spend a lot of time hanging out at the bar are generally not anything you would call representative of the whole population.

      1. Heysus

        Rather presumptuous of you to refer to those who hung at the bar as those I was referring to. I was not referring to them at all. Actually, those who hung at the bar had full time jobs. They had to work to afford to drink.

  11. coral

    Lots of problems--access to hospitals and doctors for one, because consolidation of health care industry has led to closing of rural hospitals. Blighted downtowns, also caused by consolidation and chain stores. Smaller cities that used to be vital places lost major employers in 1970s-80s, which has led to loss of young people, the educated, and the once-thriving downtowns. Lack of infrastructure, public transportation, broadband, have led to more and more insular populations.

    1. memyselfandi

      Consolidation of health care has nothing to do with closing of rural hospitals unless the area had multiple hospitals to begin with. And if that's the case, they're doing fine in that area. What's killing rural hospitals is a shrinking patient base, Difficulties recruiting doctors, and a lack of economies of scale.

  12. gvahut

    I think the government should pick some "winner" and "loser" rural areas to boost. Look for some consolidation because there aren't enough people to support services like retail and health services in so many small towns/rural areas. Perhaps, pick areas where there may be an attraction for tourism or recreation nearby. Give incentives to move to supported areas, and let the rest of it evolve naturally - those who wish to stick it out there had their chance.

  13. DaBunny

    Why did you compare views on immigrants and same sex marriage between rural and urban *Republicans*? Why not just between rural and urban Americans/voters?

    1. MikeTheMathGuy

      I was wondering that, too.
      (As you can see elsewhere in the comments, I was underwhelmed by the charts -- which is too bad, because Kevin is presenting an interesting take on an important and complex issue.)

  14. AlHaqiqa

    I thought it was pretty well accepted that everyone knew there would be winners and losers from the trade policies of the 70's and the decision was made to support the big money to give us competitive advantage in finance, and that that wealth would trickle down to the others. Guess that never happened.

    Try driving through rural areas in the eastern half of the country and tell me they are surviving. Numbers can deceive.

    Also, try substituting "black" in some of these responses and consider how heartless and racist they are.

    1. skeptonomist

      In international competition farmers are doing pretty well - for one thing they get major subsidies. Of course these go more and more to the big farmers and not the traditional small family farmer. But this is actually progress toward efficiency, which is a part of improving production.

    2. RZM

      Yes. Hasn't any one read Evil Genuises by Kurt Andersen or any of the many critical analyzes of our political economy of the past 50 years ? The growth of inequality that has plagued all of the country and in particular hollowed out the industrial midwest has also hollowed out rural America. And btw the popular culture and most of the economic power doesn't reside in fly over country. It is not rural America that brought these changes about. I'm kind of stunned by the level of vitriol in some of the comments here. AlHaqiqa and Talphon have made good points.

  15. Salamander

    A lot of rural Americans' problems stem from choosing 21st century Republicanism. It encourages

    * A pervasive sense of being victimized
    * A belief that others (the Libz, foreigners) are "laughing at them"
    * An insistence that they deserve more respect - a LOT more
    * A compulsion to constantly whine about these things
    * A belief that they alone are moral; that is, Protestant
    * Rejection of science, including modern medicine
    * Increasing rejection of education itself, which includes book burning
    * Equating "liberty" with "freedom" (license) and the unlimited posession of firearms

    If the folks enjoying their Rural Lifestyle further stovepipe themselves into the Right Wing Noise Machine, all these tendencies are exacerbated by false information. They become The Deplorables ... and those of us living in Civilization lose sympathy for them, fast.

    1. GrumpyPDXDad

      Went from the SF Metro to suburban Wisconsin for 13 years ... not strictly "rural" but it had many of these characteristics.

      A LOT of rural life is about creating internal connections and feeling special - a very basic in-group vs out-group. This is very insular and the community identity is essentially resistant to change. This is perhaps a useful survival strategy in certain conditions, but it makes changing to meet new conditions very painful.

      All sorts of good people, never had to lock anything! - but the community was largely impenetrable. Born here? Got family here? (and "here" doesn't mean the next town over. Gotta be someone the grandparents knew). Catholic? Can you talk about the merits of different grass fertilizers? The school district was considered one of the best in the state ... yet the high school was completely content with the best students going to UW just a few miles away.

      So we enjoyed a lot of life there ... but they didn't enjoy us and our anti-lawn ways.

      One of the most obvious holdbacks for the region was the provincial thinking - if it wasn't invented there, then it wasn't a good idea. Tax lessons from California? Irrelevant. Light Rail? Traffic Circles? There was a complete absence of awareness that the world had changed ... farmers would sell their land to a developer, new people would move in, the farmer would complain about all the "new" people in town.

  16. Talphon

    Kevin may be correct that more social programs are not necessarily warranted for a population that is both close to par with their urban counterparts and clinging to lifestyles that leave self-inflicted financial wounds. (truck owners, anyone?) So I'll give him that. But man, the comments section here could be lifted word for word from the white racists of the last generation talking about not wanting more social programs for blacks. Including the reasons why.

    You guys. These are people. Some of them are dumb, some are duped, some really are shitty. But that's the way it is in any population.

    Not every social conservative is a hardliner. Most aren't even close. There are a plethora that can be wooed to voting democrat, especially if we acknowledge that the great Rusting of the last half-century fucked them pretty hard.

    There's no denying the hardliners are vocal, visual and extraordinarily unpleasant. There's also no denying that they are flat wrong concerning a great multitude of issues. But honestly, you guys throw away any kind of rapprochement. Sure they're proud. Most people are, really. But no one ever won anyone over ever, talking down to them. So if you enjoy the conflict, then by all means. But otherwise, rethink the strategy.

    1. sfbay1949

      "But honestly, you guys throw away any kind of rapprochement. Sure they're proud. Most people are, really. But no one ever won anyone over ever, talking down to them. "

      You don't know this. I personally have tried. No luck. I wasn't quite right enough, aka, white, straight, evangelical Christian, for them. They didn't respect me or care to know me. Where do I go with that? I don't think I'm the only one.

      1. Talphon

        Again, you're conflating your individual encounters with the whole. You're also stating that your method of winning someone over was the correct one and you executed it flawlessly. In my experience, including hindsight at my own arguments when I was younger, liberals come off as crazy arrogant. At least as arrogant as a MAGA wingnut. I'm sorry, but it just is the way it is. Most lefties are convinced they see the one true path and they argue from that perspective. I did it, too. For years.

        First, you won't be able to persuade someone to change from being conservative. I can't imagine that has ever happened in the history of the whole world. If you want someone who's conservative to vote Dem, you gotta win them on individual issues.

        Second, you gotta understand that these issues will be different for everyone. I've met conservative people who have bent on Education, Abortion, Environment, LBGTQ rights, religion, social programs and Unions. Note, I've never met one to bend on Guns or acknowledging modern systemic racism, so there is that.

        Third, you won't reform anyone ever or shame them into being a liberal. Winning the argument is always losing, especially if they get emotional. Just bend them on the one issue their weak on. Explain that Dems are how either changes can be made or changes were made in the past.

        I've got a whole rail yard full of conservatives at work and I've had run ins with most of them. If you don't shit on their beliefs and merely argue one or two issues with a little humor, you can move the needle just a bit. There area few nuts who are lost causes, but they are the minority.

    2. Special Newb

      Not in rurals. Suburban, yeah. Rurals? No. They. Voted. Harder. For. Walker. In. The. Runoff.

      Also they actively tried to kill us with coronavirus. No mercy.

      1. morrospy

        Yeah. People forget in the first spring of 2020 of Covid, they were cheering for people dying in the big cities and mad they sent the naval hospitals.

  17. Special Newb

    If it were up to me, policy would be formulated to depopulate rurals faster. Starve them of resources, place barriers to access services of all kinds in favor of urban and suburban. In other words my plan for rural america would be to help them die quickly. I don't want to help them, I want to kill them.

    1. Austin

      I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that none of us in our lifetimes will see a slogan of “Let’s Kill Off Rural Areas Faster” in any statewide (senator, governor) or nationwide (president) campaign. Maybe if Trump adopts it, it’ll take off. But any Dem and virtually any Repub saying those words out loud will be crucified.

    2. Talphon

      you should probably take a good look in the mirror and go find something else to think about besides politics. I know a woman who hates liberals just as much as you hate rural folks and its because she thinks they are one giant monolith of evil, which is a side effect of mainlining Fox News. I can only imagine that you are doing the lefty equivalent. Please seek some help for your deep-seated anger and remember that those are people, too.

      1. morrospy

        you should probably take a good look in the mirror and go find something else to think about besides politics. (Improving reading comprehension if you need an idea where to start). I know a woman that hates anime just as much as you hate liberals because she thinks it is one giant monolith of evil, which is a side effect of mainlining anime. I can only imagine you are doing the contrarian equivalent. Please seek help for you deep need to ackshually posting and remember that these people want people like you and me dead, too.

        1. Talphon

          Of course you know someone who hates anime. Hell, they probably hate me, too cause I watch it. That doesn't mean I don't recognize their worth as a human being. And you are factually wrong. Sure, there are some people deep in the sticks who might actually want to see all liberals dead. But they are not the entire fucking rural population, nor the entire republican party.

          All conservatives do not hate you as much as you THINK they hate you. The ones that do are more visible because that's how the media works. Same in reverse. Special Newb's extremist views (and they are extremist) are piped right on back to the sticks, which is WHAT HELPS CREATE THE HATRED.

          Y'all haven't lived through a civil war. If you had, you'd all be looking much much much harder at compromise and forgiveness. Same goes for the other side, unfortunately. It's easy to take a hard stance, but its hard to pay the price for it.

          1. ScentOfViolets

            You seem to assume that the conversation is about individual rather than regional voting preferences.

            Or are you simply trying to do a switcheroo and hoping that nobody notices?

            1. Talphon

              Well, this particular conversation started when a lefty advocated for Stalin era depopulation tactics on his own countrymen because he doesn't like their politics. It kind of changed the topic a little bit. Or are you not interested in pointing out that switcheroo?

              1. ScentOfViolets

                Ah, I like it when I can so easily flush out an empty-headed troll! Get this tatooed on your narrow little chest pal: YOU don't get to decide what a given poster's comment means, nor do you get to decide what the given topic will be.

                Notice that a) you didn't address my question, and b) you're behaving in _exactly_ the same manner you've been on about for several posts now. You want somebody to set an example? You first.

                1. Talphon

                  "In other words my plan for rural america would be to help them die quickly. I don't want to help them, I want to kill them."

                  So anyway.

                  "Ah, I like it when I can so easily flush out an empty-headed troll! Get this tatooed on your narrow little chest pal"

                  Trolling is when someone posts or comments online to 'bait' people, which means deliberately provoking an argument or emotional reaction.

                  Your reply is classic trolling because you're attempting to provoke an angry reaction from me. Poorly.

                  I don't owe you anything else, I don't even owe you an answer to your question. My main comment at least stays on the topic of the differences of Rural vs Urban, which makes it relevant enough. You are neither editor nor moderator. Have a nice day.

                  1. ScentOfViolets

                    And of course that means putting them up agains he wall rather than denying them future funding for thei lifestyle, amirite.

                    Yeah, I am. Fuck off, troll

  18. lawnorder

    I would suggest that the education gap is more of an effect than a cause. Most smaller population communities have very little in the way of job opportunities for educated people. The result is that rural and small town kids that have anything on the ball graduate from high school, go away to college, and don't come back until they retire, if then. There are a very few exceptions. All but the smallest towns have a doctor or two and most slightly bigger towns have a few lawyers, a courthouse, a veterinarian or two, and an accountant. However, unless your education is in one of those professional fields and you're prepared to practice your profession the way it's done in a small town, there just aren't any opportunities for college educated people, which is why smaller communities have low average education levels, and the consequent low income levels.

    It's not the conservatism that scares away the educated, it's the lack of work.

    1. memyselfandi

      And you're ignoring the informal education that is of great value in rural america, what you need to be a farmer, a mechanic, a skilled trades person.

      1. lawnorder

        I'm not ignoring that at all. However, the chart says that people in rural areas have, on average, significantly less FORMAL education than city folks, and less formal education correlates with lower incomes.

      2. ScentOfViolets

        Good job at trying to change the subject. No actually a really pathetic job at trying to change the subject. Because you know perfectly well they were referring to -- wait for it -- jobs. Not education, (in)formal or otherwise.

          1. ScentOfViolets

            I see you have your usual aversion to facts and logic. What's the old Truman adage? I don't give them Hell; I tell the truth and they think it's Hell. And BTW, way, why bark at me when it's you _introducing_ unpleasantness in the first place? I must not be on your list of ingroup members, ergo I'm on your list of outgroup members, sigh.

  19. J. Frank Parnell

    Interesting article in today's NYT. A rural community voting on whether to allow a wind farm. Increase income vs noise, flashing lights and besides global climate change isn't real. They voted no to allow the wind farm.

    1. Salamander

      Dumb and dumber. In south Texas, the fields are full of rows of huge wind turbines, co-existing amongst the crops, with little service roads leading to them. I'm guessing the landowners get some kind of regular payment from the state for each of these installations.

      That Times-featured community could also cash in, but they've got to have their "cultural issues" -- like reaity isn't "real." Where's Professor Harold Hill when you need him? These rural rubes seem to be suckers for a good con man! It goes back to a need for better Democratic "messaging."

  20. golack

    Some of this is chicken and egg....

    America, of the US, was mainly agrarian until the World Wars.
    Since then the efficiency of farms improved. The people needed to help with planting, harvesting, etc. move from family and townsfolk to migrant workers and now migrant combines, etc. The farm kids leave for college and never come back. Most are not needed for farm work. Policies end up favoring corporate farms, putting more pressure on rural towns. Then Walmart sets up shop within 100 miles...and there's no downtown (conjecture--but...).

    Mining communities, especially deep coal mining in the East? Efficiency, including switching to mountain topping, meant large drops in employment long before fracking and real competition from renewable energy.

    Shamokin was basically a coal (and rail?) town. From Wikipedia, mill work, iron work, brick yards, shirt making also grew up. As did the National Ticket Company, which still exists. Mill and shirt making moved to the south then overseas--cheaper labor. Iron work and brick yards--most mainly consolidated and also faced competition from imports. What's there now? Top 50 employers (top 5+ for the county): regional super market, amusement park, state government, Conagra Foods, county government, local trucking company, regional canning company and a regional hospital organization.

    When the most of the kids move out and onwards, those left behind are anxious and afraid. Republicans capitalize on that. That's how you go from a place where workers joined into the great railroad strike of 1877 to a place voting for modern Republicans and wearing MAGA hats.

    I'd venture to guess some of the anti-intellectual movement in the Republican party grew out of the kids getting an education then staying away.

  21. Jasper_in_Boston

    I completely agree with Kevin here. And, one thing to add: there are various ways we could spend more money propping up rural areas if we were so inclined. But by far the largest spigots of federal largess for rural Americans are the "big three" transfer programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

    As long as those three programs exist, substantial numbers of Americans will be able to live in areas where the underlying economic logic of doing so has eroded.

  22. Camasonian

    I don't see an age breakdown here. But I bet if you filtered a lot of these statistics by age you would find that rural areas just have older populations and a whole lot of old people who aren't ever going to vote to increase taxes for schools and infrastructure and whatnot. Like the recent Washington Post article about the rural Georgia Democrat guy said, these old folks get upset if you move the beef jerky in the mini-mart.

    I've lived in rural parts of the country and have family there. Much of the reason it is shitty is because there are so damn many old people compared to urban areas.

  23. morrospy

    Not that long ago the LAT had an article about Coalinga. They made their own bed with water and now they want evil governor liberal hair to bail them out.

    Whiter personal responsibility?

  24. Lounsbury

    Electoral Geography.

    Lefties maundering on about any other detail is luxury.

    Electoral geography. When you master that challenge, then you can allow yourselves the intello luxury of Drum's post. (Or notably see what the Republicans do, that is disguise and not openly convey their look-down-the-nose at the rural rubes).

  25. memyselfandi

    There's a smidgen of truth to what Kevin is writing. But the real truth is that since WW2 (and probably since 1900) every generation, it takes twice as much land to support a farmer. Where I live, in the 60s you could make a living with 100 acres. in the late 80s it took 200 acres. In the aughts it took 400 acres. With half the farmers for the rural bank/ insurance salesman/doctor/ lawyer/ car dealership you loose those businesses. Which gives you half the population for the school boards and grocery stores, etc. etc.

  26. Pingback: Rural people are pretty well off, given their choices | Later On

Comments are closed.