Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack took it upon himself last week to defend those perpetually threatened rural values.
Rural America is a unique and interesting place that I don’t think a lot of folks fully appreciate and understand. They don’t understand that that while it represents 16 percent of America’s population, 44 percent of the military comes from rural America. It’s the source of our food, fiber and feed, and 88 percent of our renewable water resources. One of every 12 jobs in the American economy is connected in some way to what happens in rural America. It’s one of the few parts of our economy that still has a trade surplus.
What set Vilsack off was this comment from the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein:
The overarching theme of [Edward] Glaeser’s book is that cities make us smarter, more productive and more innovative. To put it plainly, they make us richer. And the evidence in favor of this point is very, very strong. But it would of course be political suicide for President Obama to say that part of winning the future is ending the raft of subsidies we devote to sustaining rural living. And the U.S. Senate is literally set up to ensure that such a policy never becomes politically plausible.
So a couple urbanites declare cities superior by the only metric that really matters — wealth — and a top government official is forced to defend the honor of country folk. He neglects to mention of course that those values are struggling largely as a result of policies that have decimated small farms, driven millions to migrate to cities, and told our citizens that the only route to prosperity is though a college degree.
I’m hardly anti-city. Even now my pulse quickens when I cross the Whitestone Bridge and Manhattan emerges on the horizon in all its chaotic splendor. But no one needs to be told why cities are great. Our culture celebrates them, leaving it to politicians to pander to the unfortunates who still live in the sticks.
Klein is right on one point, though. It’s silly to celebrate rural American simply because it’s more patriotic, or because it is such an abundant source of military personnel. If you want more soldiers, pay them better.
But it’s even sillier to reduce country folks that way, perpetuating that sense of rural communities as simply resources to be extracted — food, water, bodies to fight our wars, whatever. It’s a shallow vision, eclipsing the deeper things we can learn from a life lived closer to the source.