Arshiya Pant | Pennsylvania progressives, stop saying you want to ‘beat out’ rural voters

As I’m sure the legions of voter registration volunteers on Locust Walk have already reminded you, election season is upon us. In a swing state like Pennsylvania, that means a meaningful part of the conversation is not just about politics itself, but also an equal focus on election strategy and campaigning. As I speak to people about Nov. 5, I’ve noticed a trend in some city progressives’ rhetoric on strategy: We must “cancel” or “beat out” rural American voters. 

The claim is that rural voters will vote in a bigoted, populist manner that defeats many progressive goals and ideas. To proponents of the “beat out” rhetoric, it seems the assumption is that rural America is an uneducated, prejudiced monolith that threatens our democracy. As someone who grew up in a Midwestern red state (albeit, a blue county), I know the issues of bigotry, prejudice, and hatred plagues parts of rural America. These issues must be solved, and there is absolutely nothing that can invalidate or disprove the pain brought on by their presence. However, I also know that this is not a complete picture of rural America. 

Rural America is not singular — it is far more diverse than the picture that’s clearly been painted for some. Mainstream politics, especially in cities, often ignore the fact that rural America includes immigrant populations who fuel the nation's agricultural industry, union members hurt by corporate conglomerates, disenfranchised communities of color, and the majority of Native American reservations. What about their voices? Ought they be “beat out” too? 

Through demonstrating an increasing trend in rural diversity, the most recent census illustrates that rural America is not simply the unchanging monolith of conservative farmworkers some imagine. Arguably more importantly, the data reveal that diversity in rural America is widely dependent upon regional contexts, proving that a binary mode of thinking about diversity as a dichotomy split over urban and rural areas ignores many nuances.

We must also consider the unique hardships faced by rural communities, and be conscious of the perspective from which their opinions are derived. From a young age, education is a privilege scarcely afforded to children in rural communities to the same extent as in urban areas. Though the underfunding of public education is a critical issue for many cities as well, the type of social and political lack of education in rural areas is unique. Years of disinvestment, private sector takeover, inadequate health services, and insufficient wage policies have forced some rural areas into a disadvantaged position. 

This is absolutely not to say that empathy for these conditions should manifest as reasons not to critically question voters’ ideas. It is imperative to criticize. However, the way in which we do so is incredibly important. Progressives in cities are far more likely to have been afforded these privileges. It is an unwise mistake to hold the all-but-classist perception that rural voters are simply unintelligent. Uninformed? Perhaps. But I would like to live in a world where the processes that cause this lack of information are criticized (at least) as much as the people shaped by them.

This dynamic should also tell us that the issue at hand reaches far beyond election methods, the two-party system, and mainstream politics. The attitude with which we discuss rural America — especially as students at an elite institution that can, at times, put a filter over our understanding of many real-world issues — shows that we must rethink our own knowledge and perception of this nation.

To mainstream progressive politicians and other holders of power: Stop ignoring the needs and nuances of rural America. Very few things are as demoralizing as the idea that an entire class of people are no longer deemed worthy of political attention — that is the true threat to our democracy. Progressives must reckon with rural groups (plural, because different rural parties have different interests and cannot be lumped into one category) and seek to gain their vote.

On a level beyond strategy and policy, we need to reconceptualize how we view geographic diversity in America. Empathy and nuance cannot be a luxury that we only extend based on overgeneralizations. Progressive politicians, you can win the hearts and votes of so many more rural Americans than you think if you do not overlook their struggles. It is self-defeating for a citizenry to ignore the nuance of an entire part of the population.

It is not just that ignoring rural America will hurt progressives’ chances of winning elections (which it indubitably will in the small margins of swing states), it will also cause misunderstanding and tension to bleed through the entire ideological fabric of our society. If rural voices, especially those who might not match the first image you have when you hear “rural,” continue to be ignored, the way human relationships and social dynamics progress in this nation will be deeply harmed — both on a political and humanistic level. 

ARSHIYA PANT is a College sophomore studying history and legal studies from Kansas City, Kan. Her email is arshiyap@sas.upenn.edu.