< PREVIOUS ] [ 2001 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
At least nine days out of ten, the Mallard
Fillmore
cartoon strip on these pages is neither
humorous nor informative, and Sue O'Brien was right to try
to kill this lame duck a couple of years ago.
A great deal of squawking brought him back, and so I dutifully examine Mallard, hoping I'll see the key to what makes him so popular in dittohead circles.
That key remains elusive, but in a recent strip, Mallard asked why the media focused so much on how Bush the Younger failed to get much of the African-American vote, while ignoring how poorly Democrats fare in rural areas.
For one thing, the media haven't neglected this: I've lost track of how many times I've seen the national map with each county colored red for Gore and blue for Bush, with blue holding a huge lead in acreage.
But there hasn't been much analysis, and so, as a resident of a rural area, I'll provide some.
The first problem for rural Democrats is that there are really two Democratic parties in the boondocks: the old-line Labor Democrats and the new-age Green Democrats.
We saw it in a 1996 primary for state representative. Carl Miller of Leadville, who won the primary and went on to win the general election, talked about traditional Democratic issues: better jobs, better pay, better health-care, better transportation, better communication, better public education.
His primary opponent was Jim Gelwicks of Gunnison, who had nothing against better jobs. But he focused more on environmental issues. I knew Miller and liked him (still do, for that matter), and when I went to my precinct caucus, I was surprised at the vehemence of the Gelwicks supporters, who said I must favor a total rape of our countryside if I supported Miller, a former miner.
Democrats in House District 61 were able to rally around
Miller after the primary, but that doesn't happen in all
rural districts. And if the Democratic candidate isn't
sufficiently green,
there's always a chance that a
Green Party candidate will split the vote, thereby putting
a Republican in office.
Rural Republicans have their internal problems, but they're not divided like the rural Democrats, so they have an easier time winning elections.
The second problem for rural Democratic candidates is the national party, whose agenda is set by urban interests on the coasts -- also the home of national media like television networks and news magazines.
So no matter how much a rural Democrat may oppose gun
control or Barbra Streisand's latest pronouncement, a
Republican can portray the Democrat as member of a party
that wants to take away your guns
and run another
federal land-grab lock-out on our public lands.
For some reason, we never read much about the
Republicans who'd like to perform a real land-grab
lock-out
on public lands by turning them into private
lands at giveaway prices. Rural Republican candidates
don't have to answer for that the way that rural Democrats
have to answer for Hillary Clinton and Jesse Jackson, and
that helps the GOP.
The third problem for rural Democrats is that our rural areas aren't really rural any more, at least not in a traditional sense. Several demographers have observed that during the past decade, California has been exporting upscale white bigots to places like Colorado and Idaho, where they buy rural property.
Democrats used to address tradition rural concerns by favoring water projects, agricultural-price supports, mine-safety laws, rural electrification and the like.
But those aren't the concerns of this new rural population, and that's where the growth has been. In the Chaffee County of 1900, only 27.5 percent of its 7,085 residents lived outside of incorporated towns. In 2000, it was 49.7 percent of 16,242.
That trend is echoed around central Colorado. Park County went from 65.9 percent outside town a century ago to 94.6 percent last year, and Lake from 31.0 percent to 63.9 percent.
When a population changes from working rural
to
upscale suburban,
Republicans will do a lot better
at election time.
Old-line Labor Democrats could address the working
rural
issues, but are of less and less concern to
modern rural populations.
Modern Green Democrats have to address sprawl -- which is where most of the modern population abides. It's pretty hard to win an election if you're remotely honest and refer to potential constituents as residents of Stupid Zones.
Doubtless there are more than three factors to explain why Democrats aren't faring so well these days in rural areas, but this should be a good start.
Perhaps now Mallard can find something else to quack about. For my part, I'll be glad to lend Sue O'Brien a shotgun the next time she wants to go fowl-hunting.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2001 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >