When talking to my peers at Columbia about rural America, I often hear the same distorted, stereotypical descriptors: uneducated, patriotic, conservative, religious, abandoned, and poor. Admittedly, some of these generalizations may hold true; rural Americans are, broadly speaking, more likely to be Christian, conservative, and lacking a college degree in comparison to Americans living in urban centers. But these demographic realities should not always be portrayed as negative or shameful. It’s important to recognize the economic factors burdening rural Americans and appreciate the favorable elements that define rural culture—deep-rooted values that favor tradition, resiliency, hard work, and love of country. Even within the insular, urban bubble of privilege that is Columbia, I’m proud of my rural American roots, and I encourage my peers to develop a more nuanced view of the places I and so many other students call home.

Rural America finds itself in a unique position, suffering from what economists call “the Great Divergence.” This term describes a fundamental change in the U.S. economy that has accompanied automation and globalization: as businesses have harnessed technology and moved production overseas, rural Americans have been left behind. The Roanoke Times captures this phenomenon with an eloquent metaphor:

“If auto factories in Detroit were humming, then they were burning coal from Appalachia, so jobs in one place translated into jobs in another. Now the economy has been disconnected. Silicon Valley isn’t buying algorithms from digit factories in Martinsville; it’s simply thinking them up on its own. As we’ve moved from an economy based on natural resources to one based on information, the cities with the best-educated workforces have prospered — and rural areas with fewer highly-educated workers have been left out of the economy.”

Because of this vulnerable economic position, many candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination have come forth with policies to entice rural voters, who comprise 20% of the U.S population. But winning these votes will be no easy feat. In the 2016 general election, rural voters sided with President Donald Trump by an overwhelming margin—62% to 34%—which begs an important question: how have President Trump’s policies affected the rural economy? And are rural voters even interested in voting for a Democrat?

In 2016, rural Americans looked favorably on Trump’s status as an outsider, having suffered years of perceived neglect from establishment candidates. Regardless of one’s opinion of Trump’s campaign style, I think it’s important to understand why he resonated with rural Americans. Many appreciated his off-the-cuff style and eschewal of political correctness. When it comes to Trump’s policies, the story is complicated. In the first 30 months of the Trump administration, roughly 500,000 manufacturing jobs were added to the U.S. economy, outpacing growth during the last 30 months of the Obama administration by 170%. Moreover, in rural counties that voted overwhelmingly for Trump, unemployment rates have dropped significantly since his inauguration. Whether or not Trump’s administration can credibly claim sole responsibility for these trends is up for debate. However, as the saying goes: “people vote with their wallets.”

Other policies and statistics are less favorable for Trump’s 2020 pitch to rural Americans, such as Trump’s trade war with China, which has directly hurt the American agricultural industry. Since the beginning of the trade war, estimates suggest that Chinese imports of American agricultural goods have decreased by 50%, from 19.5 billion dollars to 9.2 billion dollars. Current polling shows that farmers are sticking with Trump, at least for now, hoping he will negotiate a better deal with China. But as tariffs continue to rise, at what point will these farmers break? The answer will be massively consequential in the 2020 election, especially in key swing states with large rural populations like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

How have the Democrats been responding? The 2020 Democratic candidates with the most ambitious ideas to support rural America are those from rural areas, such as Representative John Delaney and Mayor Pete Buttigieg. These candidates may not be getting quite as much attention from the mainstream media, but their proposals should still be analyzed. Even if they don’t win the 2020 Democratic nomination, they have the opportunity to influence the Democrats’ rural agenda, and possibly even Trump’s. On Buttigieg’s 2020 campaign website, he lists one of his nine key issues as “Unleashing Rural Opportunity,” and writes that “Rural America is brimming with possibility.” Within this plan, he proposes many specific provisions to unlock the potential of rural America, including what he calls “Regional Innovation Clusters.” The plan would provide up to $500 million in federal funding towards the growth of rural business and “match one dollar in federal grant funding for each dollar of state or private investment (up to $100,000 per opportunity).”

Buttigieg’s policy could help rural America, and its intention to bolster business in distressed area closely resembles the intentions of Trump’s “Opportunity Zones” created in his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Thus far, the results of “Opportunity Zones” appear positive when comparing yearly change in property redevelopment transactions to both prosperous areas and areas that met criteria to be established as an “Opportunity Zone” yet were not chosen by their state’s government. However, it should be noted that many other variables are not included in this study, so the actual results may be unclear: only time will tell.

A map of all ‘Opportunity Zones,’ courtesy of therealdeal.com

In addition, Buttigieg’s plan would grant $200 million in federal funds to support state and local governments in creating their own approaches for economic development. Instead of having distant federal bureaucrats dictating how to strengthen rural economies, Buttigieg wants to support rural Americans in finding their own solutions. As a rural American, I believe this specific provision taps into a key strategy in revitalizing the rural American economy, allowing individual areas to take advantage of the very resources that make them distinct.

Placing elections and politics aside, I remain deeply concerned about “the Great Divergence” and the long-term viability of the rural American economic model. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue, but an American one. Without investment in education programs, public health initiatives, and rural infrastructure projects, rural America will not share in the benefits of a technologically advanced economy. This will only further polarize the country geographically and could threaten the basic fabric of American unity. So I’m glad that rural Americans are finally getting the attention and respect they deserve in the national dialogue, but for so many of my fellow West Virginians, this is not a political conversation—this is real life. It’s time to start treating these issues with the urgency they demand.

Creating Opportunity in Rural America