As President-elect Biden comes into office, he will undoubtedly seek ways to unify our politically divided country. He often speaks of his core purpose of listening to all Americans with the goal of enhancing the country for all.
There are prominent political fractures in the country. They are educational, racial, technological, health care, and attitudinal. The COVID crisis has expanded these fractures. Each fracture deserves its singular attention. However, we cannot ignore the fact that often fractures are place-based. Many of our most difficult issues show up as fractures between urban and rural communities, with rural communities getting the least attention.
Given this divide, focusing on rural quality of life and governmental policies designed to promote rural development, can reap substantial rewards for a President that seeks healing after the 2020 election. By focusing on rural areas that are home to 1 in 5 Americans, Biden’s policies will reach the U.S. counties that have experienced the lowest job growth over the last 10 years.
Many rural counties supported Trump by substantial margins in 2020 and 2016. This is an important data point for Biden. Now these counties are ripe for evidence-based development and eager to re-purpose federal programs that no longer address new rural realities. Moving on an innovative and effective rural agenda will promote unification across the country by lifting up citizen that have felt ignored and passed over. Substantial unification can result. Exactly what Biden is looking for.
Rural, urban, and suburban areas are home to very different realities. Rural and urban areas are most alike with the exception of those urban areas that benefit from the technology economy and its accompanying high incomes and gentrification. Older urban areas that once flourished in the industrial era more closely resemble rural areas in terms of low income, poor educational attainment, job loss, deteriorating housing stock and infrastructure.
However, the political attention given urban areas has historically eclipsed that given rural areas. The loss of agriculture in rural areas brought with it increasingly less attention to the problems of rural areas. In spite of this, hundreds of state and federal programs continue operating today, many designed to address demands from the past.
Currently, over 400 rural programs exist spanning 13 departments, 10 independent agencies and 50 sub-agencies (Brookings Institution, 11/19/20). These agencies have grown incrementally. Now is the time to examine their relevance and potential for coordination, or termination. Also, the federal government continues to emphasize debt-financing with little attention to the kinds of general grants most needed by rural communities and businesses.
A snapshot of our rural areas by the Brooking Institution (“President Biden: Want to reduce polarization? Modernize federal rural policy”, November 19,2020) reveals stark realities. Many of our rural areas have still not reached the economic levels seen prior to the Great Recession of 2008. Rural areas are now home to more COVID cases than urban areas with the death rate 2.5 times higher from COVID in rural areas. Hospitals in rural areas have been closing for 25 years. Since 2005 176 rural hospitals have closed. Rural areas have unreliable or no access to the internet causing significant educational problems.
In addition, opioid addiction has profoundly grown in rural areas, eclipsing the cities. Amidst challenges, rural areas are home to many positives. Rural areas have greater self-employment rates than do urban areas. Rural areas have become more diverse with people of color making up 21% of the rural county population. More immigrants are moving into rural counties. Service businesses are growing in rural counties as well, including tourism.
Given the stark demographic and economic realities of rural areas, what could help rural communities? What ought to be included in Biden’s new rural agenda? First, recognizing that all politics is symbolic, Biden will need to make rural development one of the centerpieces of his Presidency, without diminishing urban policy. He must search for connectors, i.e. infrastructure building that knit together urban and rural places.
Looking to lessons from international development models, we can identify what works and what can be replicated. The U.S. has invested heavily in international development. Now we must reap the domestic benefits from those investments. We need a Rural Development Corporation that can award grants that are results-based and allow rural leaders the latitude to target funding where it will make a difference.
While attending to rural areas is essential, we must simultaneously promote regionalism. In many areas ex-urban areas continue to grow and merge with rural economies and educational systems (i.e. technical college regions, regional logistics hubs, large manufacturing, environmental innovation). Our programs must reflect a new approach to regionalism with technological integration at the core.
By focusing on rural development and regionalism the new President has a unique opportunity to bring the country together. Success will require elevating rural development to a prominent place on President’s agenda. More importantly, the multiple programs that now focus on rural development must undergo a top to bottom evaluation carried out by a bi-partisan commission. Regulations that stifle rural development must be purged. These actions are required to address the long-neglected problems of rural areas. Nothing short of this will cement the fractures that have appeared and will continue to grow across rural America.
Dr. Jan William Hillard is data editor for The NKyTribune and retired Faculty Emerti of Northern Kentucky University.