A recent Politico article highlights pressure on the Biden Administration to address the problems facing rural America in light of the pandemic by appointing a rural czar. According to the article, Members of Congress and various political advocates feel that it is necessary for Biden to plan a federal response to boost his popularity in conservative areas of the country and help with rural economic recovery. The rural czar would “oversee a national strategy to uplift rural communities” by working “closely with the executive branch, especially with the Department of Agriculture.” From my understanding, the rural czar would not replace the Secretary of Agriculture, but rather work with the USDA and the Biden Administration to connect with rural communities.
A rural czar in the White House would align well with Biden’s plans to re-build rural America as set out in his platform. The President has recognized the impacts the pandemic has had on small businesses in rural areas, with nearly 1 in 5 of them closing. Among other goals, Biden has pledged to create new jobs, rescue small businesses, help farmers and ranchers, expand broadband, and partner with small communities to give them full access to various federal resources.
There is no question that the economy in rural America has been hit hard by the pandemic. Still trying to pick themselves up after the Great Recession, small businesses in rural communities are struggling with access to funding and broadband connectivity. Here is a blog that highlights five ways the President can carry out his platform and assist rural America; it also discusses some of the most pertinent issues in rural communities.
To start rebuilding rural communities across the country, Biden nominated Tom Vilsack, former Iowa Governor and Secretary of Agriculture under President Obama, to lead the USDA. However, rural America is already fearful of the nomination, even with the Administration’s deliberate focus on investing back in their communities. According to the New York Times, farmers worry about new and potentially burdensome regulations under the Biden Administration. Additionally, some Democrats feel that Vilsack’s lobbying for the dairy industry insinuates that he will favor larger industries over small farmers, potentially obscuring the Administration’s rural connection. Even agriculture groups have labeled Vilsack “as being too cozy with ‘Big Ag,’” and have pointed to mergers of massive companies that happened during his last term, like the $66 billion Monsanto and Bayer merger, as evidence of that.
If confirmed, Vilsack, along with Biden, will certainly have a long way to go to win over the hearts of rural Americans. In rural counties across the country, President Biden was outvoted 2 to 1 by former President Trump; even if only 14% of Americans live in rural counties, the overall lack of support for Biden in these areas is significant enough to impact the Administration’s plans to connect with rural America. Here is a blog post highlighting some of the economics behind Democrats losing rural counties in the last election. If these voting statistics are any reflection of rural attitudes toward the new Administration, in order to change them, Biden and Vilsack will need a plan that tackles important issues facing these communities, such as access to funding, health care, and broadband.
An important question thus emerges: will a rural czar be enough for the Biden Administration to connect with rural America?
I think it would be smart for the President to appoint a rural czar. It has real potential to help bridge the gap between the Administration and rural Americans through a dedicated position. Though I am certain that not all of rural America will be open and welcoming to such a position, I think that a focus on their communities and problems is necessary and justified. The federal government’s recognition that rural Americans are struggling and its commitment to help through a specific position can potentially make these communities feel more appreciated, while also helping them through trying times. I look forward to seeing if President Biden creates this position and I will continue to blog about this as new information is released.
2 comments:
I enjoyed learning more about the potential for a 'rural czar' and the general challenge of bringing rural problems into the limelight. Until recently, I think I often conflated 'rural' and 'agriculture,' but given that ag is not often the largest industry in rural communities, it would be helpful to work on solving rural problems in other agencies too -- not just USDA. I think Prof. Pruitt's post about the confirmation of Buttigieg as Sec. of Trans. could be an important step. Maybe a czar could be an effective interagency liaison.
I'm skeptical a rural czar would increase President Biden's support in rural America. The czar would need to produce rural economic effects that are immediately observable for Democratic support to increase there. I increasingly think Americans are voting along cultural lines. A rural Trump supporter is going to vote for the candidate who is vocal about political correctness and cancel culture running amok. I don't believe a czar will be enough for that Trump supporter to vote for a candidate on the other side of the culture war.
But even if the czar might not help Democrats win many votes, that doesn't mean it isn't the right to do. If the czar will help facilitate the enactment of President Biden's rural-aimed legislation, then I think he should definitely do it. I do believe, however, that President Biden could earn more votes through legislation than through a czar. Putting broadband in every rural home would signal to rural Americans that Biden cares about them more than a czar ever could.
Post a Comment