In modern days, the story
of the country mouse and his cousin has become an idiom that describes a
perceived, stark contrast between life in urban areas and life in rural
areas. As it turns out, this simple
dichotomy has deep and far-reaching impacts on the politics of a state like
Nebraska and the manner in which our landscapes are viewed and managed.
1920 was a unique year for
demographics in the United States. Nebraska
served as a mirror for the rest of the US when the population of Nebraska, for
the first time, was equal in urban and rural areas. After 1920, the domination of the ‘farm vote’
and the ‘rural voice’ would never be the same.
It might be easy for us to view the demographic shift from rural to
urban as an image of rural people running to the city. But, in fact, the census figures show us that
the rural Nebraska population stopped growing in 1920 while the urban
population continued to grow and grow and grow—thus tipping the balance in the
favor of city folk.
Intriguing political
contests show an insight into the friction between rural and urban views. The fight to prohibit alcohol after the turn
of the century in the US, as an example, can be viewed as an urban/rural
battle. Some historians view prohibition
as a reaction by rural people against the cities that were developing and
growing in the US. More and more
immigrants were settling in cities, and these people had different cultures and
different drinking customs. The
century-old march towards Prohibition reached a fever pitch after 1910, as the
hand-writing was on the wall—the 1920 census would show that urban populations
had outpaced rural populations for the first time, and legislative boundaries
would be redrawn. The end of the political clout of the farm and ranch could be
seen on the horizon. And, in 1919,
Prohibition was signed into law as the 18th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.
Nebraska served the vital role as the 36th state legislature
to ratify the amendment; 36 of 48 states were required.
Prohibition, as we know
now, was a temporary victory for rural America.
As cities disintegrated under the thumb of crime syndicates that were
unforeseen byproducts of Prohibition, urban American grew in population size
and the economy started to flounder. The
Depression was upon the United States. In
1933, Prohibition was repealed.
Modern political
scientists who look for trends in ‘blue’ and ‘red’ states tell us that the
divide between states has vanished—the story is focused on cities. For example, in the 2012 presidential
election, the only major cities that voted Republican were Phoenix, Oklahoma
City, Fort Worth, and Salt Lake City. After these major cities, the largest
urban centers to lean Republican were Wichita, Nebraska’s Lincoln, and Boise. To point, some of the bluest cities in
America are located in the reddest states.
For example, Texas is a red state, but all of its major cities (Austin,
Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio) voted Democratic in 2012. Since 1984, the trend for cities to vote
‘blue’ has deepened.
 |
| Taken from The Atlantic (reference below). |
As urban centers continue
to grow, some demographers predict that the US will become a dichotomy of rural
areas scattered between megaregions of urban concentration by 2050. These megaregions are produced as cities
within certain regions grow towards each other and merge: the Northeast, the
Great Lakes region, Florida, the Piedmont Atlantic across the Carolinas,
Georgia and Tennessee, the Gulf Coast, the Texas Triangle, the Front Range of
the Rockies, the Arizona Sun Corridor, Southern California, Northern
California, and Cascadia along the Oregon/Washington coast.
The resulting landscape
and potential dynamics make us pause.
Most people in the US will be living in urban megaregions, depending on
food, energy, and water resources gotten from rural areas. As urbanites are further and further removed
from rural areas, there may be deeper misunderstandings about how food, energy,
and water arrive in the city. The
country mouse will be providing for its city cousin, who will have little comprehension
of rural life.
Although prediction of the
future is difficult and potentially foolhardy, we can make some statements with
certainty. Even though megaregions may
develop, rural areas will see the influx of people who will continue to take up
residence on acreages scattered throughout the ag landscape, and this will have
interesting impacts on local elections.
To facilitate the ‘urban seep’ into rural areas, we can also predict with
certainty that efficiency in agriculture will continue to increase. So, even fewer people will be needed to live
in rural areas. If we picture the
landscape as the factory that it is, fewer people will be needed
to run the factory. The problem with
this scenario is that the factory—the rural landscape—is also seen as a way of
life, which is different than any other factory in an urban area. The
loss of sheer numbers of ‘real rural people’ in rural areas seems certain to
bring continued conflicts surrounding political representation of rural
interests.
Simultaneously, political representation of urban areas should
continue to grow. And, the resource
needs of cities will continue to grow, which will bring pressure to extract more
energy and food and water from rural areas.
If much of the population will exist in megaregions, we can predict an
increase in controversy over transportation of goods: pipelines, transmission
lines, highways, and the like will have to cross rural areas. Current controversies over the Keystone XL
Pipeline and electrical transmission lines through the Nebraska Sandhills are
likely a small foreshadowing of controversies to come. Ironically, rural people don’t seem to like
to see infrastructure built on their property to transport the byproducts of
their livelihoods. And, that seems
reasonable, really. Not in my backyard,
as they say.
Legislation, in the future, will continue to favor urban
values. If people in cities want their
food to be produced without the use of growth hormones and genetically
engineered organisms, rural producers of food—who may very well understand how
to safely produce food with such tools—may be forced to capitulate to market
demands or legislation related to food production. It is interesting to reflect on Europe and
Japan’s current opinions and regulations on genetically engineered foods. The regulations that are more restrictive in
those regions may have arisen because Europe and Japan are much more densely
packed into urban areas than is the US.
Current ‘educational’ efforts in the area of agricultural literacy are
amusing to view in this light—are these efforts the last gasps of an industry
trying to argue with the ideology of an urban demographic that is quickly
dwarfing the rural producers?
In truth, the demands on the rural population will not be
fair. On one hand, the rural landscape
will be asked to respond to produce food and energy for the cities. On the other hand, the cities will look
across the plains and complain when wildlife disappears from the landscape that
is producing their bread or steak. Or,
the populations of cities—undergoing mushrooming growth that is supported by
chemical technology on the farm—will complain about the quality of the water
that arrives via rivers or canals. That
doesn’t seem fair, and it is a dynamic that must be remedied as we move to the
future.
At the same time, the liberal, environmental ideology of the
city may be needed to make political decisions to save our landscapes. Are cities useful? We can look at the case of hypoxia (loss of
oxygen) in the Gulf of Mexico to gain some clues about public opinion and
politics. Currently, the agriculture
industry in the Midwest enjoys a relative lack of regulations for nonpoint source
pollution of nitrates that rush from farm fields after heavy rains. One reason for the lack of regulation is that
the Midwest—the region drained by Mississippi and Missouri rivers—is
essentially city-less, in a relative sense.
There is no emerging megaregion in the Midwest. So, rural politics still dominate. Certainly,
we can find urban centers along the Gulf Coast, but they cannot enact
legislation to regulate farmers in Iowa or Nebraska. Shrimp fisherfolks in New Orleans feel the
impact of hypoxia when the ‘dead zone’ widens and they must fish farther from
shore. But, the shrimpers are in the
wrong state to make legislative demands on corn farmers. In fact, it will probably take Federal
legislation to regulate nitrogen usage, but that is currently viewed as counter
to the demands for food production.
Nebraskans may rise to challenge pollution of our rivers, but only if urban
centers begin to see financial impacts of water treatment to protect their
citizens. Therefore, we would predict
that if regulations come, the culprit will be in-state, urban pressures.
As we look back at Aesop’s
fable of the country mouse and the town mouse, it is ironic that we see the
mice arguing over food. Perhaps Aesop
was just a very insightful person. Perhaps
food has always been at the center of resource allocation arguments through
history. Whatever the reason, we can
predict that the rural and urban divide will continue to be a critical factor
in our political debates. Today, there
are more town mice than country mice.
And, just as we see with the failure of Prohibition, we can predict that
the town mice are going to have an important role to play in the future of our
rural landscapes. Beans and bacon,
indeed. Let’s eat cake.
References used
in this piece:
Jacobs, J. 1894.
The Fables of Aesop. Macmillan
and Company: London and New York.
7:15-17.
Kirkpatrick, E. L., and E.
G. Tough. 1932. Prohibition and Agriculture. Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science 163 (Prohibition: A National Experiment): 113-119.
Kron, J. 2012. Red State, Blue City: How
the Urban-Rural Divide Is Splitting America.
The Atlantic (November 30, 2012). On-line: < http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/red-state-blue-city-how-the-urban-rural-divide-is-splitting-america/265686/> Accessed 14 January 2015.
Scott, A., A. Gilbert, and A. Gelan. 2007.
The Urban-Rural Divide: Myth or Reality?
SERG Policy Brief Series, Claudia Carter
(Ed.). Macaulay Institute:
Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, UK.
