![]() |
| A sign in Plumas County in 2013. © Lisa Pruitt |
How did it get like this?
In the 1930s, rural progressivism was at its peak. The Great Depression and a farm crisis in the 1920s had left rural America completely sidelined. Franklin Delano Roosevelt noticed this unrest and centered his initial campaign around the issues affecting lower and middle-income Americans, rural and urban. He planned a "rural renaissance," focused on rural electrification and raising crop prices. This was incredibly popular, and rural voters, who had previously voted Republican, largely backed Democrats for the next 40 years.
Between the 1970s and the 1990s, rural and urban America voted in relative sync. Trevor E. Brown and Suzanne Mettler explored this trend in their 2023 article Sequential Polarization: The Development of the Rural-Urban Political Divide, 1976–2020. Their research shows that until the 1990s, rural Americans were barely more likely to support a Republican candidate than their urban counterparts. Now, the partisan gap between rural and urban voters ranges from a 21-point difference in the Midwest to a 14-point difference in the Northeast.
What changed? 1992-2004 were marked by political and economic upheaval in the United States as urban areas prospered and rural areas suffered from divestment and shrinking job markets. No longer feeling seen by the Democratic Party, rural voters defected to the GOP in droves. Brown and Mettler contend that the divide from 2008 to 2020 was primarily driven by nationalist sentiment. They point to anti-Black rhetoric during Barack Obama's campaign and presidency, and the lack of higher education, led rural voters to identify themselves in opposition to "urban" ideals.
These trends have led to the highly partisan United States we have today, a hyper-divided United States, where the majority of rural America is Trump country. It should be noted, however, that rural voters aren't all happy with their representation either. A March 2020 poll revealed that 87% of non-metro voters feel like the government does not represent people like them.
So, what now?
When Democrats lost the popular vote in 2004, they initiated a major party platform shift. Steve Inskeep of NPR writes in 2024 that, during that time, the party focused on shoring up both rural and urban voters and turning red districts into purple ones. Inskeep points out that the trend has reversed over the last decade, with Republicans succeeding in turning purple districts red.
Some progressive thinkers and leaders have noticed this trend and want to reverse it. They believe that rural Americans might still return to their more progressive roots; they just need to hear the right messaging.
One program seeking to mend the divide is the Rural Urban Bridge Initiative. Founded by Anthony Flaccavento, a farmer and former U.S. Congress candidate from Abingdon, Virginia, their goal is to help America think differently, talk differently, and act differently. They reach out to urban political leaders and ask them to consider how to meet the needs of rural communities.
Their website primarily focuses on convincing left-leaning leaders of the problems in rural areas and how they can help solve them. Their guide cites political scientists and legacy media to explain why rural voters don't take progressives very seriously. There is little in the way of talking points, but it provides plenty of resources for someone just beginning to consider rural issues.
Similarly, Dirtroad Organizing forms yearly cohorts of rural candidates and staffers. They "provide in-depth, personal, community-oriented, long-term support to ensure vitality, stability, and integrity in rural organizing." They focus on free training and supporting progressive rural candidates and staffers. The organization was founded by Chloe Maxmin, former Maine State Representative and State Senator, and Canyon Woodward, her campaign advisor.
More than 40 graduates of this program have been on the ballot, and some are making real headway in their elected positions. For example, Sarah Keyeski, a Wisconsin State Senator, has sponsored over a dozen bills in her first year in office. Several bills relate to healthcare access, an issue that deeply affects rural populations.
Whether either of these programs will create meaningful change in 2026 and beyond remains to be seen. It's clear, however, that many liberal and progressive thinkers haven't completely written off rural America as Trump-land. Platforms focused on economic resilience and healthcare access can reach rural voters and help them feel seen. Candidates from rural areas can lead their communities in ways that represent their unique needs and backgrounds. Ultimately, it seems Democrats have turned their attention back to rural areas and look to level the playing field this cycle.

3 comments:
I wonder if organizations like the ones discussed in this blog post existed pre-Regan? Additionally, in reference to the earlier blog post about dairy farms in NYS receiving less than 10k in support, where do we draw the line between meaningful support from democratic politicians and publicity?
Attention needs to be turned to rural areas. As has been discussed extensively on this blog, many rural problems are pushed under the rug as they are not part of the “mainstream.” However, when Democrats start to effectively address rural issues they will be able to switch the tide.
I set something to publish this Saturday on a similar topic. From what I gathered in my research is that rural voters tended to be more economically progressive in polling, especially when the questions were phrased without any party attribution. Although William Jennings Bryan was the last candidate that held rural issues at the center of his platform, Democrats post-Great Society have still managed to win the rural Southern vote when putting economic issues at the front of their messaging. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are good examples of this. Bernie Sanders polled ahead of Hillary Clinton in 2016 in rural California, not to mention finding success in rural Vermont. Of course, the issue is that it is not politically expedient to appeal to an increasingly less populous, isolated, and less wealthy demographic. Corporate accountability might not be a winner either in a post-Citizen's United world.
Post a Comment