Rural Vision Needed
The Democratic Party needs a comprehensive new vision for rural communities. But what should it include? For decades, it has endorsed proposals for a better deal for rural communities. In fact, as long ago as 1988 the Democrats’ election campaign platform said, “…all Americans…benefit when food and fiber are produced not by a few large corporations …but by hundreds of thousands of family farmers obtaining a fair price for their product.”
Sadly, however, far from improving since then, the rural economic situation has become even worse. Of course, we all know that the number of family farms continues to shrink. But that is only part of the story. Farming in fact is only one component of the rural economy -- and hardly the only one that has suffered greatly in recent decades.
The result? Much of rural Virginia is in a demographic tailspin. In fact, in many rural counties, the median age of residents has literally doubled in recent years as young people head for the cities, not necessarily in search of a better life, but just a job.
Reversing this will not be easy. Universal access to broadband is one key to the future, and Virginia Democrats, to their credit, have been way ahead of Republicans in insisting on new funding for rural broadband. Democrats have also successfully pushed (again, despite Republican resistance) to increase health care access through expanding Medicaid and to add new education initiatives (such as G3) that expand training opportunities for rural young people.
Still, as important as these kinds of services are to rural communities, they will not by themselves provide the stable, well-paid jobs that are needed to keep, or attract, young workers.
It is time for Democrats to articulate (and fight for) a new strategy for rural communities, a comprehensive rural economic vision. One that doesn’t just “give” rural communities social services, but rather focuses squarely on building a better economic base.
Such a plan starts by acknowledging the reality that the playing field is not level. In today’s economy, rural communities are at a competitive disadvantage.
First, rural communities tend to be land rich, but cash poor. That means that when a large corporation decides to build on rural land -- anything from poultry farms to solar farms, rural communities are often forced to accept very bad deals. Deals where all the work and production happen on rural lands -- but most of the profits go to corporate boardrooms.
That doesn’t happen by magic. Big corporations have incredible advantages in the tax code, the regulatory environment (that their lobbyists can tilt in their favor), and especially, their access to lots and lots of cheap money on Wall Street. Rural communities can’t compete with that. Moreover, investment banks in major cities have much bigger incentives to raise billions for big projects that benefit urban areas, vs smaller investments and loans, especially in faraway rural areas. That doesn’t mean that all corporate investment in rural communities is bad, far from it. The problem is just that the playing field is way too uneven – and smarter policies could change that.
Second, rural Virginia counties face a massive deficit in the infrastructure needed to compete in a 21st-century economy. Rural community schools, for example, have a $20 billion backlog in modernization. Rural healthcare is struggling too. Without this kind of infrastructure, the smaller start-ups that are creating the next generation of good jobs are unlikely to come to rural communities.
Unfortunately, for decades, our state legislature was dominated by a Republican mantra of low taxes and less government. As New Rural Virginia has said before, that may be great for wealthy counties (who can afford to build their own infrastructure), but it is a disaster for rural counties whose revenue base is too small to make the needed infrastructure investments. Once again, smarter policies could change that.
Of course, rural communities are resilient and can be incredibly innovative. Many are working hard to find new niches in the 21st century economy. That said, the numbers don’t lie. There is a reason why more young people are leaving rural communities than coming. A dwindling economic tax base, antiquated public infrastructure, and an unfair economic playing field are high hurdles for rural economies to overcome.What, then, might a Democratic economic vision for rural communities look like? For starters, how about:
--Ways to provide rural landowners and businesses with affordable capital to buy and grow family farms and to start new businesses: Our nation did it with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They were created by Congress to perform a critical role in the nation’s housing marketplace. A similar program could serve to provide rural areas an even playing field to access affordable capital to compete with urban areas and corporations.
--A platform to provide technical expertise to innovate those farms and startups: In the 21st century, farmers can not only diversify their foodstuff and their markets, but they could also profitably “produce” on their land non-foods such as solar energy . With many current farmers nearing retirement, such innovation might be just the ticket. Innovation is costly, however, and will need support. Government provided support to help big companies like Boeing and Tesla get started. Why not do the same for rural communities?
--A comprehensive approach to developing the infrastructure that rural communities need for a 21st century economy. The future of rural communities cannot be just about agriculture. Small business will not prosper without a 21st century infrastructure. As Dwayne Yancey of Cardinal News has pointed out (https://cardinalnews.org/2021/12/27/six-economic-lessons-for-southwest-and-southside/), rural areas that have reinvented themselves did it because of access to great education and infrastructure, and a comprehensive government effort to support business innovation. Republicans, with their obsession on low taxes and less government, will never do this. Democrats can.
--A disciplined commitment to keeping big corporations from unfairly dominating their markets. For example, (and as discussed in our article in this issue on the White House Meat Plan), only four companies today control 80% of beef processing. They dominate our food supply both because they have access to billions of dollars to buy up smaller producers and because our monopoly laws haven’t been enforced. Big Ag lobbyists convinced Congress as well to allow them to label imported beef as “made in the USA”. This is not just bad for rural farmers, who get stuck with lower prices for their livestock. It is also bad for all consumers, as Big Ag uses its distribution monopoly to increase prices and profits. This is why the Biden Administration’s determination to take on monopolies in the meat packing industry is so welcome. Our state and federal leaders should not stop there, however. What about electric utilities that push state legislators to write rules that make it hard for rural landowners to do commercial solar profitably. And how about outside investors who buy up local newspapers just to gut them and suck out their assets? Rural communities are not the only losers here of course. But because rural communities have the one commodity that big corporations cannot do without – land – rural communities are especially vulnerable.
--A public-private initiative to ensure that rural county leaders can access high quality expertise. Unlike their urban counterparts, rural county administrations are typically under-staffed and under-funded. That especially hurts their economic development efforts, as they lack the vision, time and expertise to promote new projects or to adequately study slick proposals from outside investors. The ability to easily access impartial outside expertise could make a big difference. This need not be something for government alone to do. Democratic and progressive-leaning foundations and think tanks do that kind of research really well – but mostly focused on urban problems. A Democrat-backed initiative to backstop rural leaders with similar support could make a real difference.
In short, a comprehensive Democratic Party vision for revitalization of the rural economy must be ambitious. It must be credible. And it must be for the long term. After all, rural communities produce many of the essentials that all Americans live on. We are entitled to a fair share of the income and the prosperity.