Have progressives largely abandoned the concerns of rural Americans?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The thing is that the small family farm many think of when they think "rural America" is largely gone now.  Rural America today consists largely, tho not exclusively, of two major constituencies. Agribusinesspeople that provide few voters but do provide campaign cash and which not surprisingly are mostly Republican largely because of economic concerns and farm laborers, many of which are non-citizen immigrants, both documented and undocumented.

Then there is the black belt in the South which is probably the largest group of rural Democratic voters remaining.  It's largely a population of economically disadvantaged people, who got left behind when sharecropping was displaced by mechanization and the advent of migrant farm labor for the seasonal work. The infrastructure there is unable to adequately provide them the education they need, and in any case if they got better education, they'd largely need to move to the cities to take advantage of it.  If we could solve the problems of the urban ghettos, I suspect a large part of the rural poor would move to the cities.  But if you're gonna be poor in either place, why would you not stay where family and friends can provide some support when needed?

But anyway, the point about my digression about the black belt is that paradoxically, for most Democratic rural voters, the things the party could do most to help them are those that would help the cities because the only real way out of the poverty trap for most of them is to move to an economically vibrant urban (or suburban) area.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Note that I don't want to sound too pessimistic about small farms, but most viable small farms these days will be found in the exurbs at the outer fringes of urban areas, with the farmer working the land part-time and working in the suburbs or even the urb itself on at least a part time basis, with the spouse likely working there full time.