A New Blue Wave — Expanding Rural Political Engagement

Polis: Center for Politics
4 min readNov 14, 2022

--

Kennedy Jones (PPS ‘24)

Kennedy Jones (PPS ‘24)
Kennedy Jones (PPS ‘24)

Imagine you’re an Ohioan trying to decide who to vote for in an important election. One candidate says “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” — an important industry in your state and the whole Appalachian region. To that, the other candidate responds — “These are amazing people. And it’s not going to happen.” You might remember that the first candidate was Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Presidential Election, and the second Donald Trump.

She later redacted this statement and expressed her regret, but such insensitive and thoughtless rhetoric surrounding rural communities isn’t new. Even though swing states are given higher political consideration for their importance in elections, this pattern still holds true. This attitude of indifference towards rural communities has been an unfortunate trend in recent years. The overarching narrative writes people in these regions off as uneducated, unimportant, and not worthy of their attention. It’s instances like this that have led to such potent distrust and dislike towards democratic politics in rural areas, strengthening and increasing the number of red states.

Approximately 60 million Americans live in rural areas, making up roughly 20% of the population. Though this is a significant proportion of the U.S. population, suburban and urban areas still dominate the makeup of the United States population. Still, America was founded with the assumption of a rural nation in mind. This is where the electoral college comes into play. Though the number of electors allotted to each state is based on its total representatives plus its two senators, every state is guaranteed at least three electors, regardless of size. This has led to an overrepresentation of opinion in rural areas.

Despite the characterization of rural areas in the media, their potential power is merely being left untapped because of how little effort is being made by politicians. Though rural and urban areas have always had different political leanings, the political divide between them has increased significantly in the past couple of decades. In the year 2000, Democrats had a 3 point lead in large metro areas and a -16 point deficit in rural areas. By 2020, Democrats led large metro areas by 14.1 points and had a staggering deficit at -36 points. Democrats aren’t just losing in rural areas — they’re losing big.

Right now, this power is going to Republicans. But this isn’t because they’ve earned it or truly represent the interests of rural people. They’re just the only ones making any effort. However, when liberal ideas are presented to these populations, they are often well-liked. Charles Booker, a former Kentucky House of Representatives member, is further left than most Kentucky candidates and an avid supporter of the Green New Deal. His challenger, Amy McGrath ran as a pro-trump democrat challenging Mcconnell. When he ran against her in the democratic senate primary in 2020, he lacked the money, time, and resources McGrath had. Still, he only narrowly lost by 3%. Though McGrath raised an impressive amount of money, 97% of it came from outside the state of Kentucky. We don’t just need to support democratic candidates, we need to support those who tackle rural issues. Funneling political and monetary resources to these communities is important, but we also must make sure we’re prioritizing the interests of the people who live there.

Instead of jeering at people for being uneducated, Democrats need to consider how political discourse is often inaccessible to much of the population. We need to expand political education and awareness in rural states and change political rhetoric to include more people in political discourse. Many of the current Democratic policy priorities are issues that disproportionately impact rural Americans, such as economic inequality, healthcare, and education. Including rural experiences in the conversation regarding these issues as well as legislation on these issues is also key. Working to understand how rural areas experience broader policy problems differently and subsequently creating solutions that target these problems.

Now imagine you’re working on a Democratic campaign in a future election cycle. How can you not only avoid a misstep like Clinton, but truly include rural populations in your campaign? Partner with local and state representatives in the area to see what issues are most important to people here. Clearly convey how your policies help people living in rural areas. Show up to campaign in rural areas. Democracy thrives on inclusion and engagement, and that can’t happen until rural communities have a seat at the table.

Kennedy Jones (PPS ’24) is a Public Policy Undergraduate at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy. This piece was submitted as an op-ed in the Spring ’22 PUBPOL 301 course. This content does not represent the official or unofficial views of the Sanford School, Polis, Duke University, or any entity or individual other than the author.

--

--