While I am loathe to add to pie fights, I think there is an underlying issue that is simply being glossed over in the gas tax diaries, and that is rural poverty and society, and what we owe or do not owe people who choose to live outside a public transit filled metropolis. Because I honestly have to bite my lip when I hear people say what a luxury it is to not live in a city, or that we don't owe people who live in rural regions anything because they're stupid and/or vote against their own self-interest.
Let's get one thing straight: we're Democrats. We do not ignore poverty even if the poor do not vote for us. We care about everyone, and have a moral obligation to look out for the interests of the weak and vulnerable even if they do not vote for us or live near us or act like us. That is the definition of our party, and anyone who says otherwise I will kindly tell that if they want to ignore the poorest, neediest, segment of our population because electorally it doesn't make sense or any other reason, then I don't want to be a part of their revolution.
So, that aside, let's discuss the value of living in the sticks.
Our country is steeped in the idea of the pioneer movement, of finding some elbow room, to quote Schoolhouse Rock. We are born of an agrarian society filled with little farmers, and despite the industrial revolution, those Norman Rockwell images of the heartland in large part resonate as our national persona even among those who have never been through Kansas' neverending flats of corn or have ever had to drive ten miles to a grocery store. The idea of the cornhusker come to the city to make it big is the epitome of the American Dream. Maybe that is luxury, but it is a part of the national identity, and a terribly powerful motivator that runs deeper than most realize. And you can't have Mom, Apple Pie, and a united Democratic juggarnaut if you cut out the Mom and Apple Pie part of the sentiment.
But our rural communities have been hurting for quite sometime. Industry has left. The coal, textile industries that used to incorporate large parts of Appalachia have dried up and been outsourced. Farms have been meshed into giant corporate holdings and the small family farmer is slowly being bought out. The New Economy allows for growth, but only where companies choose to grow, and, in large part, this is not in small-town communities. The largest growth region in some of these areas are in prisons, which, needless to say, ain't exactly a glamour job. Specifically, the children of those currently in rural regions are being forced to make a choice: be successful and move to the city, or stay home and languish in an increasingly difficult world where you will have to compete for rote jobs that do not challenge your mind or skill level. So the children leave, and the rural regions are filled with an aging class that acts as a further disincentive for growth. The result is that people commute or leave, and they commute not just for their jobs but for basic infrastructure, such as health care and schooling, and the small towns vanish.
So why have sympathy for them? Call it progress and march them to the suburbs. Well, would you say the same thing if it was city gentrification and poor inner-city residents were being forced out of their neighborhoods to make way for the yuppies? No, because its acknowledged that people have roots in various communities, and choosing to leave a community should not be forced. No one should be forced out of the town where their family has lived for generations, possibly back to the founding days of the town or land, be it because of rising property values or decreasing opportunity. That is not who we are. Likewise, it is not the party I am familiar with who thinks that it is either okay for someone to have to compete with 16 others for a coffeeshop job in Danville thirty minutes away from their residence or find a way to move (which ain't exactly the easiest thing in the world, especially if you own the land you live on) or okay to call that person's lifestyle a luxury.
The Democratic party I believe in thinks of ways to generate industry in parts of the country that have been allowed to sink into disarray, be that by upgrading infrastructure, or creating vocational centers, creating smaller town centers scattered a bit more evenly that have local public transportation availability and health centers and schools, or more likely, a little dash or this, bit of that, acknowledging that while natural migration occurs, our country is 3,000 miles wide, and you can't simply bank on the population centers at either end of those 3,000 miles or call the people who live inbetween backwards.
The Democratic Party I believe in is that of Franklin Roosevelt, who despite no feeling for the arts himself, devoted more government funds to its development than anyone else because he figured artists need jobs and art is all they know how to do. You don't look at why the people need to change what they do. You change to fit them. There's a wait list for hybrid cars no matter where you try and get them and SUV sales have in large part plateaued, so it's difficult for me to say that people are too selfish to consider them. I also don't care to talk about that so much as I care to talk about the huge lack of infrastructure in small-town America that has been a major failing of our government for years.
When you have to drive forty five minutes to reach the nearest health center, not hospital, but any kind of doctor's office, then there is a problem that needs fixing. Republicans are the only ones who go out there and speak to the people in these regions, and they sell them the snakeoil of social issues, which in large part flies so well because no one in our party goes out and speaks about the larger picture, which is that gay people in Massachusetts are not going to help you find a job whether they can marry or not. And while this may seem like a strange topic to bring it up, when you talk about a lack of necessity for cars, you show a profound lack of understanding of all the problem's facing this region that Democrats frankly should be the party to fix. What would Franklin Roosevelt do? Well, when the South lacked power prior to the New Deal his solution was to lay down power lines and employ the South to do it. But he took the time to understand that they lacked electricity in the first place. People get so defensive about attacks on their needs of cars because how on Earth can you fix anything like the problem of having to commute to jobs, shuttle children to daycare, have faraway health services, and lack of opportunity to get off welfare or social security dependence, if you don't understand the automobile's place in this web? How can you understand the devastating effects of a broken down car if you can say that car's aren't neccessary? And you need to understand all these issues to understand the kind of leadership that people have sorely lacked for years.
I truly believe that there's an opportunity post-Katrina to reach Roosevelt status in many of these ignored regions if you just appeal to what they need. (And Roosevelt is still a hero and an everyday presence). But you have to be willing to engage them.