Mark Haggerty

Submitted photo

After rural voters turned out big for Donald Trump, a narrative emerged that rural America was made up of majority White communities who used to vote reliably Democratic but had shifted right. The emergence of Tim Walz and JD Vance in this election cycle offers a chance for a deeper understanding of rural America, the Americans who live there — and what each candidate’s policies would do for these communities.

First, we have to recognize what rural America is and isn’t. Rural America is not all White, and it’s not in total decline. The rural population has expanded since 2020, while poverty has declined. Rural America is also diverse and becoming even more so. These communities and the people who live in them will continue to play critical roles in the future vitality of America.

Because rural communities aren’t a monolith, their economies will continue to remain specific to local assets and opportunities. However, most rural communities share similar, yet often overlooked, needs. Strong place-based institutions — including good schools, access to healthcare, parks, libraries and functioning infrastructure — are essential to thriving rural communities.

Communities struggle to escape poverty and lose trust in government when those institutions fail.

However, government failure is the intended outcome of the anti-tax, anti-government movement that the Trump administration advanced by pursuing deep tax cuts, deep budget cuts to rural-serving federal agencies, and the weakening of federal agencies’ regulatory authority. Project 2025 promises to go a step further, providing a playbook for the erosion of the government’s ability to tax, regulate and deliver services. Government failure to regulate the pharmaceutical industry enabled the opioid crisis in rural areas, where access to healthcare and treatment services is limited.

The Biden-Harris administration’s record reveals a different approach to rural policy — effectively a strategy to rebuild the institutions and partnerships that give communities the power to advocate for their needs and goals. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and CHIPS and Science Act are all implemented with place-based strategies that direct public and private investments to rural communities.

These investments in people, technical assistance, flexible resources and partnerships are rebuilding trust that the government is listening and responding to rural America’s needs. Tim Walz explained how his rural upbringing and experience as a public employee helped him understand why government institutions and policies — done well — positively affect people’s lives. 

The Biden-Harris administration funded programs rural advocates have been asking for — like Head Start, SNAP and Medicaid. It has also made historic investments in rural resilience through programs like New ERA, expected to be the most significant investment in rural power infrastructure since the New Deal, delivering reliable energy and lower energy costs to nearly one in five rural homeowners.

The reality is that JD Vance offers an alternative narrative of rural America — one where rural people are responsible for the poverty and misery they may experience because they’re inherently lazy and ignorant. The anti-government movement personified by Project 2025 and supported by Vance would eviscerate local power and the institutions that support personal and economic well-being in rural America because of a deep-seated belief that government is inefficient and that public services — including public schools — ought to be privatized. 

Walz and Vance claim to advocate for the needs of rural America, but only one has demonstrated an understanding of these communities’ realities.

Editor’s note: Mark Haggerty is a senior fellow for energy and environment policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.