Our mid-year elections in the United States are finally over and a careful look at results once more shows the stark differences in attitudes, voting preferences and lifestyles among people who live in large cities and suburbs as opposed to those in most rural areas.
I have seen this trend growing stronger over the years. And, some of it has been with my own two eyes. I am somewhat unusual in that I have actually set foot in all 50 US states and both career travel and some vacations have taken me to all major US cities but also a number of rural outposts. I remember vividly driving through one city as a teenager and now find that this oasis has one third of the population that it had five decades ago. Thousands of homes are vacant.
Rural life is getting harder. They are not high paying jobs for many locals and while most of the western countries are aging, many rural areas in America barely have minimal infrastructure left. Rural hospitals have been closing, an ambulance driver might be in his early 70’s and schools in small towns often cannot field a football team anymore.
Conversely, as the “knowledge economy” has boomed, then Austin, Seattle, New York, Boston, Washington, San Francisco and even Boise have boomed causing sharply rising real estate prices and serving as a magnet for ambitious young adults.
Take a look at a map of the recent congressional elections in America. If you look simply at geography, it appears that Republicans dominated in a huge way. Yet, actually, their majority is paper thin. Democrats tend to win in urban and many suburban areas while Republicans dominate in less populated areas.
A good example was the reelection for a third term of the controversial Dr. Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky. A “landslide” is generally defined as an election where the winner garners more than 60% of the vote. Dr. Paul won easily with 61.8% of votes cast. Break the results down by county and you see that the Bowling Green ophthalmologist won all but three counties in the state. The three that he lost were highly populated jurisdictions housing Louisville, Lexington, and state capital Frankfort.
Rural voters appear to feel left out and ignored by politicians. A few upsets have occurred in recent years where the winning candidate made sure to spend time in EVERY county in a state or congressional district despite very low populations. Rural people felt somewhat genuinely cared about them and the presence, even brief, of the insurgent helped.
This urban/rural divide has had many theorists to consider the revamping of the composition of the United States Senate. A widely used argument is that rural states have way too much power in US politics. They ask why should California with 39 million people have 52 members in the House of Representatives but two senators while Wyoming with 580 thousand people have one member of the house but two senators? (The only reason that we have a Senate is that the founders wanted to make the smaller states feel comfortable by giving them equal representation in the upper chamber. Little Delaware was the first state to ratify the Constitution while my home state of Rhode Island, the smallest state, was the last of the 13 states to join. Interestingly, we did not have direct election of US Senators until 1913 when the 17th amendment was passed. Prior to that, state legislatures chose who would represent their state in the Senate).
Do these reformers have a case? Maybe but it is a hopeless dream in my view. Changing the makeup of the Senate would require a constitutional amendment and 38 states would have to approve it. Would the smaller states say yes, it is only fair for us to lose a Senator and for California, Texas, Florida and New York to pick up another one or two? Would sitting Senators from smaller states cheerfully encourage people at home to extinguish them out of existence? Ain’t going to happen.
So, it appears that rural areas will have disproportionate political clout compared to their populations and economic strength. They have also picked up strength in Republican controlled legislatures with a tactic known as Gerrymandering. Elbridge Gerry was a Massachusetts congressman, governor, and Vice President under James Madison. He is credited with a tactic of “creative redistricting” which is still used to this day. There are two approaches---Cracking and Packing. Cracking divides a district up in some bizarre ways (on a map) but spreads strongholds of the opposing party across several districts. Packing puts as many of your opponents in a single district as possible making other districts more competitive for your party. The GOP has gerrymandered districts in Wisconsin, North Carolina and Texas while Democrats have been guilty recently in New York state and Maryland. Reformers are asking that district lines not be set up by state legislatures but by independent commissions. Right now, rural areas benefit in GOP states and Urban in Democratic strongholds.
Some say rural voters have a chip on their shoulders. Young people leave in droves as job and social prospects tend to be much better in major metropolitan areas. A few 20 something MR readers wrote to me saying it was fun to return home to their tiny hometowns during the height of Covid 19 and work remotely. Fun, for a few weeks. All said they could not wait to get back to New York and Boston as they felt socially stymied.
Under our present political system and with an aging population and other demographic shifts moving forward, I do not see how this urban/rural divide can be remedied.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a comment on the blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment