Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Are Rural Americans Irrelevant?

December 30, 2012

Rural America is “becoming less and less relevant to the politics of this country,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said recently. Vilsack is a Democrat, the former governor of Iow....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Dec-31-12 12:09 AM

When you think of rural states as places where food is grown, for the most part your talking about large scale agriculture, not anything like the Mom and Pop almost hobby farms of 4-H and FFA vintage--like when I was in high school, back in the early sixties. Rural--most of the county where I attended high school is so cluttered with housing that little of that is really rural. Rural seems to have the aura of a farmer, standing behind a team of mules, horses and even with a tractor. I live in the West, graduated from university in the Rocky Mountain ranching West; in no way when you call anyone living in farming or ranching country all that rural anymore. Maybe if your in one of the Hutterite Colonies but rural--that has a connotation of a hick sucking on a stem of hay. Someone needs to check the web and see how few people actually farm, even in Iowa or most of anywhere else.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-01-13 7:27 PM

"impact, the swing states were rural? Recollect again." Troll.

Troll, based on your figures there are no "rural" states. The great majority of the population in most states is found in urban/suburban areas. Is the author of this article advocating the overthrow of the U.S. Constitutional government and the establishment of a so-called "rural elite" whose vote will count more than those who are not rural. Keep in mind that densely populated suburbs and xurbs are simply extensions of urban centers and effectively play little or no part in the production of food and natural resources.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-01-13 10:40 PM

Wheeldog, bingo. That’s why the article doesn’t say “rural states.” The article says “rural America” and “rural areas.” And that’s why impact’s recollection was wrong, and the article was right.

Wheeldog “Is the author of this article advocating the overthrow of the U.S. Constitutional government and the establishment of a so-called "rural elite"”

I believe the author was reminding the urban Americans who elected a redistributionist President that rural America provides their food and energy, and if urban Americans keep voting to confiscate more and more of the wealth from rural Americans to buy Obamaphones those rural Americans may not be as motivated to provide that food and energy in the future. And then those urban Americans may have to learn how to farm and mine, which require considerably more effort than collecting social welfare and shopping.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-02-13 8:18 AM

Nearly as the era of the Civil War, we are seeing the birth of two America's, one that is government based with large number of citizens in government housing, and from government checks, or from businesses that make their money from the government, the other is an area where people just want to live without rules from someplace being imposed on their familes or to have 45% of their wages taken to support a central government. The Central Gov America attempts to rule the other America with a "grant" system where money can be obtained if you teach what they want you to teach, take care of the check of the month population and to keep sending tax money and young men to Obama for his Islamic warfronts. Rockefeller lives in that America and casts our vote for that America, not ours. My view? Hardly, Obama has on been in WV once and we are 60 miles from D.C. He does not serve this America, only his other America. We are only a scenic backdrop in the liberal view of America.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-03-13 11:11 PM

If the urban areas didn't consume all that the editor lists in his rant, rural areas would be more than irrelevant.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-04-13 11:25 AM

Trollsucker, I was using the term "rural" in the same way the editor does. He considers himself to be rural, since he uses the term "us" I consider Iowa, Wisconsin and Nevada to be rural because of the large areas of open or farm land. You can shove your statistics!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-05-13 10:39 PM

What was this man talking about? Even residents of Iowa would have a perplexed expressionn on their faces over this, ditto for nearby Nebraska which is one of those states that have seen much of the rural counties empty out because no one needs a lot of labor to farm, especially in wheat country or even in ranching. The only families that I know who have an approach to something rural--those well educated back to the land folks who farm organically and sell to urbanites who are willing to pay top dollar for pesticide free produce and healthy livestock.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 7 of 7 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.

I am looking for: