Op-ed: New York Times columns illustrate the ways people tend to think about rural America

Two recent columns in The New York Times illustrate the two different ways people tend to think about America. "On one side of the coin, we see it as a post-apocalyptic wasteland of dysfunction, intolerance, and economic ruin," Tim Marema writes for The Daily Yonder. "On the other, we see a pastoral cornucopia of small-town charm, neighbor helping neighbor, and home-grown tomatoes. In other words, it’s all bad or all good."

David Brooks wrote about the positive aspects of rural life he'd seen while visiting Nebraska: "I keep going to places with more moral coherence and social commitment than we have in booming urban areas."

Paul Krugman was more concerned with the rural economy. He wrote: "There are powerful forces behind the … economic decline of rural America – and the truth is that nobody knows how to reverse those forces."

"With just a few words, the economist (Krugman) and the moralist (Brooks) trigger our customary response to rural America," Marema writes. "It’s so busted it can’t be fixed, or it’s so naturally good we must tread lightly lest we corrupt it. Either way, if you buy those stories, there’s not much American society can do collectively to help improve conditions in rural America. If it’s economically hopeless, why bother? If it’s morally superior, just let them figure it out on their own."

Marema notes that both columnists raise important questions and represent parts of the story accurately and without malice, but writes that framing rural America that way misses an important point: "The future of rural America isn’t separate from the future of urban America. This isn’t a zero-sum game. It’s possible for rural and urban areas to succeed simultaneously, and by doing so, each part of the country helps the other part build a better future. Rural and urban areas depend on each other. That is why they both matter – not because one is more economically productive or the other is morally superior."