Paul Krugman, New York Times, wrote recently on the question of how to assuage rural rage, by which he meant deeply felt resentment about being treated as country bumpkins by elites on the coast, cheated out of benefits from the government that go to wealthy urban areas, taxed beyond their means, and their private lives intruded on by an overreaching federal government. Krugman observed that none of these were factually true no matter how deeply felt and believed. Rural areas receive far more in government aid per capita than anywhere else partly because sustaining agricultural production is a national security imperative. He wondered why it can’t be made more clear that the legislative achievements of the last two years will benefit rural America even more with better infrastructure, access to broadband internet, and improved job opportunities. Why has rural America voted regularly against its own interests by electing right wing anti government representatives who would deliberately add to rural impoverishment in the name of rugged individualism and unregulated markets?
It’s not that rural America citizens don’t have a right to complain. They do. Poverty is endemic, housing often dilapidated, health care services difficult to get, and television rich with displays of wealth and pleasure to which they have little access. Small town populations shrink as children move away and locals age. Some regional centers may flourish, as can many small towns if they have recreational assets or large government instalations nearby. The federal government does seem to be into everything everywhere: crop insurance, farm subsidies, housing loans, food supplements, county extension agents, rural electrification, postal service, land and water use regulations, crop marketing, etc. Bureaucrats managing them can be insensitive, overbearing, poorly informed of local conditions, and well supplied with unending forms to be completed. Factory farms drive out small producers who, in any case, are held captive by monopolistic fertilizer, seed, equipment manufacturers, banks, and marketing programs.
Krugman understood the problem but had no answer. I think it was because he wasn’t asking the right questions. Few urban or rural dwellers will ever be persuaded by economic data or descriptions of legislation benefiting them. The value of federal programs is easily dismissed, reputed as unwanted, unwarranted socialism with on one hand while accepting help with the other. It would be less humiliating if the hoops, hurdles and paperwork were less onerous, more user friendly. Customer service and satisfaction from distant regional offices is a faint hope. It’s infuriating when academics and pundits tell rural Americans what’s wrong with them and how the government can fix it. How can they know the issues when they don’t live them?
Essential questions must be asked if rural rage is to be assuaged and such questions should address strongly held social values defended with religious language and appeals to ideals of rugged individualism. Since Reagan’s presidency, it’s been drilled into rural heads that government is the enemy threatening their freedom, intruding in their private lives, disrespecting property rights and wasting their tax money. The fable of urban rural contempt for each other is circulated round and round and never questioned. Folks accept these stories as true because everyone they know says it is and has for generations.
It’s against this backdrop that Krugman’s goal of rural rapprochement with the rest of society must be searched. I have a couple of possibilities in mind, but not a lot of faith in what might prove to be successful. One is to frame economic data and the value of government programs as tools for strengthening families, quality of life and greater protection of rights for more people without diminishing the rights of anyone. Another is to require top regulators to see that the processes and procedures they implement are designed with user friendliness and customer satisfaction by which their own performance will be judged. Could cable and network news be co-oped to cover a few more primetime stories about agriculture and rural issues, not from Kansas City or Chicago but from Salina or Ship Rock or Belmond? It might not hurt to do more investigative reporting on factory farms owned by major corporations, the power of of Monsanto over farming practices, and the ability of corporations to undermine higher crop prices that are necessitated by the higher costs of seed, fertilizer and equipment. One might even consider a public campaign to tout small and midsized cities as terrific places to live and work, far away from metro congestion, but reasonably close to culture, entertainment, and good dining. A broader distribution of the population would take some pressure off the over use of critical resources in places Mother Earth never intended huge cities to be. There is more of course; for instance over the years I have visited with progressive farmers about their experience with vertical integration that gives them more control over processing and marketing of final consumer goods, with the added benefit of creating new jobs. There are few sectors of the economy that can match farmers’ efforts at soil and water conservation, applied technology, and experiments with new crops. Finally, no rapprochement can be achieved unless change agents know, understand and respect rural core values, which are not the same as the most vocal complaints heard at the local diner or bar. It takes more than a t.v. camera and 39 second interview to discover them.