Have progressives largely abandoned the concerns of rural Americans?

[traininthedistance]

Just something that came to mind in an Atlasia debate.  No, I'm not concern trolling.  But for a while I've heard, people, usually the more liberal types, view the cities as a beacon of progress in spite of their imperfections and in spite of the fact that not every single person in America wants to live in a large city or watch their small communities fall to urban expansion.  Nowadays we rarely hear about rural areas in the national news unless it's something involving natural disasters, the price of food going up, or some big politician is pandering to them to get support for an infrastructure bill.

That's just my take on it.  Hopefully the mood of this thread won't turn to, "Well, rural communities suck, so why should I care?"

Well, those people who care about the bolded part should be making common cause with us urbanists; exurban sprawl is the common enemy of both pro-city and pro-small town people.  If you care about preserving the countryside and rural communities, it's best to be in favor of policies that favor dense urban living, so we don't have to metastasize- and likewise, those of us who prefer cities are indeed (even if we don't say it as often as perhaps we should) sensitive to the idea that we should be protecting farmland, historic downtowns, all that.  There are too many people in the world for everyone to live in the countryside; this country is going to be majority urban by necessity, and the countryside will fare best if those of us who live in metro areas live nearer the center of the area rather than the fringe.

Of course there are some people who live on the rural fringe that will welcome sprawl, because they see it as a way to "cash out" to development, and care not about the many things that can be lost in that rush.  To be perfectly honest I don't care to cater to those people, and wish that there was a stronger genuinely agrarian movement to counter their megaphone.

I guess there's also the issue of mining, logging, drilling, etc. which can also be a sticking point, and I'm not really sure what's the best way to handle that, except to say that it really needs to be considered as something separate from development fights.  I think here's when I bust out the Jane Jacobs and talk about how the wealth gained from resource extraction tends to universally be more ephemeral and exploitative than that gained in more diverse economies, so depending on it is counterproductive even before environmental concerns come into play.   I know that's an unsatisfactory answer; I struggle with trying to formulate something more positive that doesn't come across as pablum.

[traininthedistance]

Point of inquiry: do most people prefer living in small towns?  Because, you're right in that there are too many people in the world for everyone to live in remote areas, but I don't think that's a big problem.  I can only speak from experience of course, but most people I've encountered tend to prefer large cities.

But, yes, most of the country will need to be urban by necessity, but the question is by how much.

Dunno; I'm sure that there are plenty of people who like small-town living but I don't know how that matches up to the percentage of people who actually live in small towns.  I would imagine that most people will want to live in urban areas because there's generally more opportunity there, but there are certainly valid reasons for preferring non-urban life and I'm happy to support their decision.  Just as long as they don't think the "rural lifestyle" involves one-acre-lot-with-septic subdivisions on what used to be the last farm in town, 'cause that ain't rural.  And it ain't a good idea, neither.

"What percentage of the country lives in urban areas?" is not actually a question that I care about all that much.  I care more about the balance between core and periphery within those areas; about strengthening/revitalizing the core; retrofitting the periphery to the challenges of the future (and preventing the ill-considered metastatic growth of new and unnecessary periphery); improving the safety, quality of life, mobility, environmental quality, etc. of the entire region, etc etc etc.  That's probably an answer to a question you weren't exactly asking (and not exactly an answer to the question you were asking), but eh it's the best I can do.

[traininthedistance]

The question as posed doesn't really make much sense, because there isn't a single 'rural America' with a single set of political concerns. And I'm not sure if the sort of people we now label as 'progressives' have ever much cared about the concerns of 'rural America', however defined. Actually that's not fair; they've often cared about a romanticised vision of 'rural America' and its discontents, but have typically had very little understanding of or interest in the real thing(s). I don't mean that as an insult: I doubt that most rural Americans (however defined) have much interest in the operation of public transport in New York or wherever either.

Moving on to the elephant in the room, it is undeniably true that the Democratic Party has largely abandoned the concerns of provincial working class voters, especially those who are also non-metropolitan (and to such an extent that few figures in the party can even remember how to talk to them), but it's a mistake to conflate this to an abandonment of 'rural America': for example, the Democratic Party continues to work for the interests of prosperous farmers in the Upper Midwest, as the voices of these people have undue weight in the selection of Presidential candidates. The Democratic Party also wins the votes of minorities in rural areas as much as it does in urban areas.

While most of this post is well-considered (I will absolutely cop to not understanding the nitty-gritty of local infra-rural issues; it's simply not my balliwick), the bolded parts blatantly contradict each other.  Unless, of course, you meant white working-class voters. Lots of people make such a mistake/conflation, but it's actually really harmful, and I'd expect better from you.

[traininthedistance]

the bolded parts blatantly contradict each other.  Unless, of course, you meant white working-class voters. Lots of people make such a mistake/conflation, but it's actually really harmful, and I'd expect better from you.

I tend to twitch horribly and uncontrollably when that particular combination of words is used, because I've found that whenever they appear a terminally stupid argument is never far away (often one that also decides to assume that all such people are male). So I'd rather communicate less than clearly, than write that phrase out myself...

The problem is that doing so has the rather unfortunate side effect of basically just erasing rural minorities from the conversation entirely.  I sympathize with your aversion, but honestly I think that using "working class" as a synecdoche for "white working class" is pretty much just the worst possible option here.

[traininthedistance]

the bolded parts blatantly contradict each other.  Unless, of course, you meant white working-class voters. Lots of people make such a mistake/conflation, but it's actually really harmful, and I'd expect better from you.

I tend to twitch horribly and uncontrollably when that particular combination of words is used, because I've found that whenever they appear a terminally stupid argument is never far away (often one that also decides to assume that all such people are male). So I'd rather communicate less than clearly, than write that phrase out myself...

The problem is that doing so has the rather unfortunate side effect of basically just erasing rural minorities from the conversation entirely.  I sympathize with your aversion, but honestly I think that using "working class" as a synecdoche for "white working class" is pretty much just the worst possible option here.

And white working class connotes southern white male Republicans... aka "the American people" that idiots like Cruz and Boehner are always talking about.

How about "rural people"?  That's nice and broad.  Rural poors?  I mean... working class is actually a British term, not so much an American one.

Yeah, that would be a good way to put what we want to be talking about; my sense is that Al really did mean "white working class" though, perhaps not with the Southern baggage, but specifically trying to indicate people who aren't minorities and may not technically be "rural" either, just not identified with the "big city".