The Rural vs. Urban Partisan Split’s Effect on Policies in the United States

The Rural vs. Urban Partisan Split’s Effect on Policies in the United States

Author Maria Gerashchenko, She/Her Brookline High School, Class of 2022 Brookline, MA

Mentor Jennifer Grubb History Teacher Brookline High School

Editor Enya Kamadolli, she/her Newton South High School, Class of 2022 Newton, MA

Reviewer Zoe Nemerever PhD Candidate in Political Science University of San Diego, California

The stark divide between political parties has remained generally constant throughout US

history, and the 2020 presidential election results certainly did not divert from that paradigm. The

Democratic Party was the popular choice in cities, whereas rural areas favored the Republican

Party. As such, 40% of people surveyed in rural areas rated President Trump positively, whereas

only 19% felt similarly in urban areas.[1] This partisan split, however, pervades not only the

Presidential elections but also influences the greater intricacies of state and nationwide laws. To

further understand the depth of this divide, one must consider the historical contexts which

yielded this geographic divide between the Republican and Democratic parties. Analyzing US

history is crucial to understanding our modern political systems, specifically, how they continue

to be affected by industrialization and urbanization. While partisan divides existed prior to the

American Industrial Revolution, industrialization served to exacerbate divides between rural and

urban areas, polarity that continues to impact the nation's political landscape.

Soon after Samuel Slater, the "father of the American Industrial Revolution,” introduced

industrialization to the United States, society began a rapid transformation. The influx of foreign

immigrants who entered the country during the mid-19th century provided the United States with

the labor force needed to power its growing economy.[2] As years passed, towns morphed into

large cities, characterized by scientific advancement, innovation, and cultural diversity. This

urbanization served to further increase the divergence of rural and urban areas.

As development progressed over time, the North had industrialized more than the South,

resulting in an ideological split. With a manufacturing-based economy in the North and agrarian

ideals in the South, the population distribution shifted overtime, leading to rivaling ideas

surrounding economic and societal policies. More specifically, rural areas had, and continue to

have, more open land available. According to Census Bureau Director John H. Thompson,

“Rural areas cover 97 percent of the nation’s land area but contain 19.3 percent of the

population.”[3] With more available land per person in rural areas than urban areas, there is more

opportunity to be a property owner as well as a self-employed individual. This economic

isolation makes it less probable that self-employed people would turn to government intervention

to solve any issues they may have.[4] Conservative economic policies is favorable among these

rural citizens, as conservatism calls for the government to be a stable force which does not

transform policies radically, and serves people rather than controls them.[5] For city dwellers, the

opposite is favorable, contributing to divisive views which fuel a large part of the conflict over

legislation and policy views.

Difference in opinion over economic policy is only one of the aspects affecting the

impressive results seen in the aforementioned 2020 election results map though.[6] When taking

a closer look at any single state, it becomes apparent that counties tended to swing increasingly

Republican the further they were from a city, a trend relevant not only to general elections, but to

specific policy positions such as gun control. Issues like these reveal the applications of localism,

a consequence of rural vs. urban distinctions. Localism refers to the tailoring of policies to areas

where they are likely to gain the most support.[7] Gun violence is disproportionately

concentrated in densely populated cities, so elected officials from urban areas commonly pursue

gun control legislation. In contrast, people in rural areas are far more likely to grow up with

firearms, hunt to provide food for their families, use them for recreation, and feel that they are

necessary for personal safety. Although the Supreme Court created nationwide changes to gun

control through District of Columbia v. Heller [8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago [9], gun

control laws still remain varied on a state level as a result of localism. In part due to a push

beginning in the 1980s, over 42 states have enacted “broad firearm preemption laws.”

Preemption prohibits localities from making their own laws on a given topic, so gun laws are

made at the state-level. [10] In such instances, even court cases that affect a nation cannot

completely overrule the power of regional and state laws, furthering the disparities in different

parts of the country.

Most recently, the COVID-19 outbreak has changed cities in a substantially different way

in comparison to rural areas. Although urban areas are more densely populated, the overall

numbers of cases have remained similar between rural areas and cities.[11] This occurrence can

be explained by a multitude of factors, with one of the major components being that whilst larger

cities implemented mask wearing mandates fairly early, many rural areas waited until it was too

late. In Ford County, Kansas, even when Governor Laura Kelly, a Democrat, ordered a

temporary statewide stay-at-home order, the people of Ford County largely ignored it. Overall,

public officials in conservative areas could easily justify pushing aside advice of health officials

when infection rates were lower earlier in the year.[12] This serves as an example of the partisan

patterns in COVID-19 policies that impacted the way the virus was handled in rural vs. urban

areas. Attitudes surrounding the severity of the virus were much calmer in areas with mostly

Republican voters, whereas Democratic areas were more concerned, affecting the way that

regulations such as social distancing were followed. This could be explained by a multitude of

reasons, with one being possible modelling of the actions performed by political role models.[13]

Although cities with mask mandates and social distancing caught up in terms of infection rates,

the difference in government action surrounding the pandemic highlights another way that

localism can impact policy.

The United States has always been, and continues to be an extremely divided climate,

greatly due to industrialization and its consequences. With the birth of new industrial cities came

new values, contributing to increased partisan differences throughout the nation, and interfering

with the creation of potential policies. Due to this, advancement of government is altered. To

mitigate legal and political conflict between rural and urban areas, one must ensure that different

partisan beliefs across the spectrum are taken account of. Although nationwide policies are

bound to not please everyone, keeping in mind how parties affect different locations would

provide a clearer view of how a new policy would be perceived. A cooperative nation can be

achieved by understanding and empathizing with the ways that divisions are born in the first

place, so by analyzing how the locational differences throughout the United States have impacted

government action in the past, future responses can be predicted and used to implement policies

successfully.

Bibliography

[1] Kim Parker, Juliana Menasce Horowitz. “How Urban, Suburban and Rural Residents' View Social and Political Issues.” Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project, 30 May 2020, www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/urban-suburban-and-rural-residents-views-on-key-social-a nd-political-issues/.

[2] "Industrial Revolution in America." Gale U.S. History Online Collection, Gale, 2020. Gale In Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/VMQLBM276840343/UHIC?u=mlin_m_brookhs&sid=UHIC&xid=954 4142b. Accessed 2 Dec. 2020.

[3] Bureau, US Census. “New Census Data Show Differences Between Urban and Rural Populations.” The United States Census Bureau, 30 Dec. 2016, www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-210.html.

[4] “Why Rural America Is Increasingly Red.” Governing, www.governing.com/archive/gov-rural-voters-governors-races.html.

[5] “Conservatism.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism.

[6] “Understanding the Election: AP.” Associated Press, www.ap.org/media-center/understanding-the-election.

[7] “Localism.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/localism. Accessed 3 Dec. 2020.

[8] "District of Columbia v. Heller." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290. Accessed 13 Dec. 2020.

[9] "McDonald v. Chicago." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1521. Accessed 13 Dec. 2020.

[10] Blocher, Joseph. “A Gun Debate Compromise: Let Cities and Rural Areas Pass Different Laws.” Vox, Vox, 21 Mar. 2018, www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/3/21/17147398/rural-cities-gun-laws-control-culture-war-nra-s econd-amendment-parkland-shootings.

[11] “COVID-19 Stats: COVID-19 Incidence, by Urban-Rural Classification - United States, January 22–October 31, 2020.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 19 Nov. 2020, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6946a6.htm.

[12] Ball, Andrea, et al. “A Small Town Dragged Its Feet on COVID-19 Mask Mandates, and Residents Pay the Price.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 20 Dec. 2020, www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2020/12/11/small-town-dragged-its-feet-maskmandates-thousands-got-sick/6481416002/.

[13] Gollwitzer, Anton, et al. “Partisan Differences in Physical Distancing Are Linked to Health Outcomes during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 2 Nov. 2020, www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-00977-7.