When our two presidential candidates evince their understanding of the state of our country today, it seems as though Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are talking about two different countries. Clinton often offers a more optimistic view, telling us the economy is on the upswing and that Americans are much better off now than they were prior to the Obama presidency. On the other hand, Trump typically portrays a dire situation for America where airports are in third-world conditions, the economy is under siege and African-Americans and Hispanics live in “hell”. How is it possible for both candidates to gain enormous support with such starkly opposite claims about the same country? It is because in a way, they are talking about the same country — or at least two different halves of it — as Clinton’s reality resonates with urban and suburban voters, and Trump’s with the rural.
I do not mean to condone the world Trump portrays, as it is filled with hyperbole and incorrect information. However, he has capitalized on a rural-urban cleavage that has intensified over the past several decades. This cleavage is characterized by a mutual misunderstanding of urban Americans and rural Americans. When Trump says the economy is in shambles, his supporters side with him because they have often felt the effects of globalized economics which has made rural, blue collar work more obsolete. Many economic statistical tools demonstrate that the American economy has improved under the Obama Administration, namely by an unemployment rate that has been nearly cut in half. Yet, blue collar workers have not felt this; instead, they have seen many of their traditional occupations either shut down or brought overseas. Thus, it is not surprising that much of his support comes from rural America.
It is also not surprising Trump is polling far more favorably amongst Americans who have never left the town in which they grew up, according to an article from The Atlantic. Many individuals interviewed in this article basically feel their towns were thriving once, but no longer. Yet as the ideal of “small town America” has declined, cities have grown substantially, with all but a few of America’s top 20 cities growing in size this past year. This imbalance in growth has lead rural Americans to long for an America that they felt was thriving in the early and mid-20th century, whereas urban Americans have been enjoying significant expansion. Trump supporters who have not left their hometown are understandably unaware of and have not been affected by urban growth, which allows Trump to negatively skew their overall perception of America.
Just as rural citizens have not felt the growth of urban America, urban citizens have been largely unaffected by the hardships rural America has faced. Many leading liberals such as Michelle Obama have combated Trump’s negative rhetoric by asserting that America is already great. Yet, she like many other popular liberals comes from an urban background. While she is from Chicago, a city that used to be one of America’s industrial hubs, the city has rebranded itself as one of the leading financial centers of the country. Thus, it might be difficult for people like the First Lady to recognize the toll of declining industry in parts of the country that have not rebranded itself. Just as rural America has not felt the benefits of increased globalization and economic progress, urban America has not felt its negative effects. This only exacerbates the misunderstanding between these two distinct factions.
How do we bridge this gap? A policy solution is Trade Adjustment Assistance which aids workers who lose their jobs or whose hours of work and wages are reduced as a result of increased imports. Yet considering that this law first passed in 1974, it is safe to say that it has not gone far enough in bridging this current divide considering current attitudes toward globalization. Public leaders need to find a way to connect rural Americans with the benefits urban Americans have gained in recent years. Yet perhaps there is no policy solution. The world will continue to urbanize and globalize and resentment toward this trend will likely continue to fester in rural America. While the government has tried to implement revolutionary policies such as TAA to ease the impact of globalization on rural society, the situation has only continued to worsen.
As we have seen, this has been one of the most polarizing elections in modern American history. The source of this polarity stems from a rural-urban cleavage in society that has only gotten worse in recent years. It is understandably difficult for individuals who experience such different realities to empathize. Yet if Americans from either side of this cleavage fail to do this, then we can expect future elections to be plagued by similar degrees of polarity. This is a dangerous prospect, as it will only further poison our political discourse and prevent the unity of these United States.
Jesse Berman is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at j.berman@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 5 hours agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | YesterdayIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
