The Problem with Rural Politics

By Dr. Val Farmer

August 29, 2003

Your recent column, "Good Meetings Can Promote Democracy," struck particularly close to home as I have lived in a rural community all my life and have experience with school boards, county and city government and many different committees and civic groups.

My experience with rural democracy has made me very cynical with the entire concept. I am a serious student of history and a constant amazement is the talent and energy which settled our area 120 years ago; the first wave of leaders and innovators certainly knew how to put together a lasting government. However, a peculiar shortcoming was too much optimism as we tended to over build and over plan, which means too many layers of government.

Yet, when loyalties were totally local, the system worked well because the "good fight" was worth it or the festering problems haunted every day. What I see now, with loyalties (shopping, marketing, even schools) laying at least regionally and maybe as far out as globally, the locals tend to shirk civic duties for the sake of "getting along."

No longer is the county's leading attorney going to serve five terms on the County Commission, not if he has to implement real estate tax hikes which his biggest customers are going to remember next time they do estate planning.

One hundred years ago that big customer probably felt forced to do things locally and probably was forced into understanding the situation; now the temptation is get in the pickup and drive an hour and find an attorney that didn't cause another increased expense.

A growing theme in rural areas seems to be do what is easy rather than what is right. If you are a hardware store owner and sit on the local school board, what are the chances that you'll vote against the hiring of your biggest farm customer's daughter, even though you know perfectly well she is way down the list of best candidates? Again, the farmer would probably retaliate immediately by going elsewhere for whatever product or service you provide.

More and more I am convinced rural areas have many of the same recurring problems because they want them. Single issue commissioners and school board members seem to be the norm and once that particular road is paved or bus route changed, interest in government drops like a rock and the elected official goes through the motions.

The world is much too complicated to consider a county commission or school board seat a two hour a month commitment. How many people in a rural county of several thousand total population can devote the necessary time and expense in doing it right?

Part of doing it right is understanding how democracy works. I think democracy guarantees turmoil, arguments and shoutfests. I also think no other form of government comes within a mile as a replacement. Yet, the system can only work when it is used as planned: when controversy is avoided because feelings might get hurt the final result is even worse decisions being made later.

As your column pointed out, resolving conflict at local levels is a major challenge for good government. Or, in the words of a long-time local pastor, "I think the biggest problem in small towns is expressing differences without making enemies."

Your column strongly suggests the solution is well-structured meetings and constant open communication. In other words, a procedure, with rules, that guarantees a shakeout of ideas.

I respect that concept but my experience tells me what happens is people do not want to play by the rules. Why is it the locals will be highly critical of a neighboring basketball team player that purposely fouled the local team member when the referee wasn't looking but will be complimentary toward the ranting and raving mother who disrupted the school board meeting?

In my jaundiced mind, disruption and destruction seems a much easier path than harmony and communication. My cynical imagination convinces me, there are seminars teaching dissent and bitterness because many of the antics are brought in from elsewhere and quickly put to use locally. Usually if an irate taxpayer had the strength to shout down the moderator trying to manage a controlled public meeting, the feistiness is remembered long after the garbled message is forgotten.

I haven't given up on local governments but I do know I am witnessing major cracks in the facade. The quickest way to destroy any institution or government is to have the good people do nothing. My increasing experience tells me that is where we are heading. - a North Dakota reader.

I have these quick reactions.

- The rural economy is fragile enough for locals who make their living locally to risk alienating their customers. Rural leaders have to be community-minded, thick skinned and independent enough from the local economy to make and live with hard choices - and willing to commit enough time to the public good.

- Meeting decorum is essential to the process of maintaining local harmony. Social expectations about proper conduct and a strong, fair moderator help keep out or discredit the rabble rousing tactics you mentioned.

- My worry is where will the next generation of leaders will come from when local economies are regional and people don’t form enough attachment bonds with each other and the community to take on the hard work of governing?

Is he right?

Visit Dr. Farmer’s web site at: www.valfarmer.com. Reprinted with permission of The Preston Connection. Sponsored by CSU Cooperative Extension, Kiowa County.