Rural Democracy

[TOC: all blog posts]

Last year we drove across the country from Michigan to Washington and back, a trip we have made frequently over the years. I love the high plains of Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. But I admit a feeling now of driving through hostile territory.

A couple of years ago we made the same trip with my pickup, which has a small Hillary 2016 sticker. A pickup pulled up alongside us on the freeway across Montana and the driver flipped us the bird repeatedly before accelerating again to pass. We had been just rolling along in the right lane and hadn't made any sudden lane changes that might have pissed anyone off, so I expect the gestures were due to the sticker. It was disconcerting, but not enough for me to remove the sticker. (I understand Trump stickers provoke similar reactions in parts of the country.)

The plains and mountain states include Democrats, but they are all but invisible. One reason is that minorities tend to be quiet and avoid drawing attention to themselves. But the party, it seems, could do more to make itself felt and understood and accepted. 

I recently read the book Dirt Road Revival, by Chloe Maxmin and Canyon Woodward. It points out that the Democratic Party has largely abandoned rural America, concentrating its attention on the more heavily populated urban and suburban areas. The authors think this is a mistake. I agree.

Rural America has a disproportional influence on American politics. The state of Wyoming has the same number of senators as California, whose a population is 67 times greater. The Electoral College, weighted toward rural areas, has repeatedly gone against Democrat presidential candidates who have won the popular vote. So simply for pragmatic reasons Democrats should do more to court rural voters.

But there are other reasons. One is symbolism. The roots of this country are essentially rural. Many Europeans migrated to America for an opportunity to have land to farm. While only a small fraction of the population are now farmers, many of us have a heritage of farming. There is a lingering nostalgia for farming and farmers. A place in the country is still a dream of many who live closer to work sites in populated areas.

Another is need. Poverty rates are higher in rural than urban areas. Democrats, generally speaking, do more for those in need than Republicans, so they should demonstrate concern for all areas of the country where poverty is high. I think help often sounds like handouts, which is something that independent rural folks tend to dislike, so we need to think of new ways to offer help and to communicate those offers. It sometimes surprises me that Republicans provide handouts to the wealthiest and still appeal to rural voters, but I suspect it has something to do with the messaging.

A Democratic Party office should be located in every rural county, maybe just off main street with a tall flagpole and the biggest American flag in the county. Democratic candidates should be encouraged to run, not necessarily with the aim of winning their local and state elections, but as a members of a coalition that listens to rural voters while advocating for practical progressive policies during their campaigns. Quite a few folks might be more willing to serve as two-way liaisons than as elected politicians. And if they happen to be elected, they will have the distinct advantage of understanding what the local issues and concerns actually are.

It was largely rural citizens who decided we wouldn't serve and obey a king without representation. A lot of rural America still feels like they are not well represented. Is that one reason many are now willing to revolt against democracy itself in favor of a would-be king?

Farm Care

I admit some bias toward farms and farmers. Call it nostalgia.

We are told that the agricultural era replaced hunting and gathering. Then the industrial age took over from the agricultural age. Now we are in the information age. Of course these are simplifications intended to indicate major changes in society. But thinking in terms of a new age can diminish a previous one, which is too bad. We are still very much in the agricultural age. Given an option between meals and the computer I'm using to write this, I'd choose food. If I had to choose between electricity and food, I'd still pick food. Until we stop eating, we remain in the agricultural age.

I wonder if we appreciate the age of agriculture enough. Do we appreciate our farmers enough? Why, for example, do we honor soldiers over farmers? I find it hard to believe a bloated military-industrial complex is more important than eating. I'm not saying I don't respect soldiers, just that I respect farmers at least as much, probably more.

As a kid I grew up dreaming of being a Midwest bachelor farmer, and I spent high-school weekends and a couple of years after graduating working on farms. But my political views, which have moved center left, no longer match those of many of the farmers I worked for and with. For example, American farmers, for one reason or another, may disagree that universal healthcare is a good idea.

The Affordable Care Act helped insure millions of people who could not afford health insurance. I consider this a good thing. But I'm not sure it worked out great for farmers and small business owners. For one thing, subsidies are based on previous earnings, so in a down year healthcare costs can be a burden just when the money is needed for maintaining farm and family.

Recent tariffs hit farmers hard, so the government paid them subsidies. As so often happens, the largest agribusinesses benefited the most. If the government had started by providing healthcare for all farmers affected by the tariffs, the smaller, family farms would have benefited the most, since they are the ones least able to afford insurance.

Farmers and citizens in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, nearly all of Europe, Israel, and Japan are incredulous that America still doesn't have healthcare for all its citizens. Most of them see no reason you can't receive government-sponsored health insurance and still be a bonafide farmer.

I got this nutty idea the other day: let's try a national pilot project and provide healthcare for any farmer or small business with no more than 10 employees. The ACA works pretty well for low-income workers, so let's fill this other gap. If it works out well, we can expand it.

Many of the farmers I know are independent, not only as businesses, but in terms of giving instead of accepting help. "Don't make a fuss about us; we'll manage." And most do, most of the time. But for a pretty small investment we could make sure this one worry is no longer an issue for those keeping us fed.

It seems a pretty small thank-you in return for three meals a day.