With the election just a few weeks away, control of the House and increasingly the Senate may come down to a handful of contests in rural states. No doubt much of the campaigning will focus on issues such as tariffs, immigration, data centers, and the high price of fuel. These issues are even more salient in rural areas than in suburban or urban ones.
Yet, beyond the issues of the moment, rural America has long suffered from significant underlying problems that should demand the attention of candidates for office. In particular, as discussed in my FREOPP white paper, The Challenge of Rural Poverty, poverty is a significant and often overlooked struggle in rural communities. In fact, contrary to stereotypes, poverty rates are often higher in rural states than in inner cities.
Nor is rural poverty simply a question of material deprivation. There is a miasma of hopelessness and despair that hangs over many rural communities. “Deaths of despair”—death from suicide, drug abuse, and alcohol-related liver disease—are disproportionately high in rural America. Stress-related deaths are also higher in rural areas. Indeed, overall, rural life expectancies are lower than for urban areas. Rates of smoking, obesity, and chronic conditions such as high blood pressure are higher in rural communities. And, the National Institutes of Health warns the incidences of mental health disorders are higher in rural areas than in urban ones.
In the 60 years since the launch of the War on Poverty, a broad consensus has emerged that at least part of the answer to poverty lies with the “success sequence”: finishing high school, getting a job, and avoiding pregnancy until after marriage. Following this sequence plays an important role in helping someone avoid poverty.
However, rural populations trail urban and suburban areas in work, education, and marriage, and subsequently continue to fall further behind. Unemployment is higher in these areas and average wages lower. Students from rural communities are less likely to go to college. Roughly 54 percent of children in rural areas are born outside of marriage, compared to 45 percent of those born in urban areas. Moreover, the proportion of children living in single-parent households is increasing more rapidly in rural areas than in urban ones.
As a 2021 report from the Economic Innovation Group notes, rural areas have fallen behind the rest of the country “on nearly every measure of prosperity from poverty rates to labor force participation.”
There is a reason why rural America has been so vulnerable to the rise of both right wing populism and democratic socialism—and why the races in these traditionally deep red states are so close and volatile. People are struggling and feeling insecure. And, they feel that politicians don’t offer solutions, or even understand their lived experiences.
Nonetheless, neither party has really offered much in the way of answers.
It is certainly not a question of throwing more money at the problem.
The federal government spends roughly $31 billion annually on 55 programs specifically targeted at rural poverty. Roughly 90 percent of all rural counties receive some sort of “place specific” government funding. But this dramatically understates the amount of federal anti-poverty spending in rural areas, most of which is from broadbased programs that include rural Americans as part of their remit. Programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF have greater utilization in rural areas than in urban ones. Yet rural poverty grows worse.
Nor will simply repealing the president’s tariffs or ending the Iran war change the underlying fundamentals that drive rural poverty.
Actually reducing rural poverty will require comprehensive policies that revitalize rural communities and address the underlying issues that trap so many rural Americans. Support for education, employment, and family formation would be crucial to anti-poverty strategy anywhere.
But finding successful policies in rural America is made more complex by the realities of rural life. My paper, mentioned above, offers several of FREOPP’s proposals for doing this, ranging from agriculture policy to health care reform, from education to economic development.
In the paper, I mention that agriculture policy should reduce subsidies that distort market signals and encourage farm consolidation; expanding telemedicine would help address health care deserts; expanding school choice would help upward mobility in rural communities; and reducing burdensome occupational licensing requirements would expand economic opportunity; and other reforms designed to empower rural workers and families.
No matter what, the party that can offer clear new thinking on the challenges facing rural America might just find itself in control of Congress.