Injecting some nuance into Oregon’s “rural-urban divide” debate
No matter where you live, there likely is someone nearby with views on the opposite end of the political spectrum from yours
Undoubtedly, shortly after those first cities arose in Mesopotamia in ~7500 BCE, so too arose the rural-urban divide. Tension between groups with different interests is often inevitable. Can the so-called rural-urban divide in Oregon be (oh, how I loathe this metaphor) bridged? Should it be bridged? Or is divorce the best course?
I will address these questions in my next post in The Oregon Way. In this post, I challenge the binary of rural versus urban.
The Metropolitan-Micropolitan-Rural Divide
Despite headline writers’ predilections, nuance matters. Life is not black or white but rather infinite shades of gray. (Actually, if your mind can handle the truth, it’s actually in full living color and in three—if not more—dimensions.) Invoking a rural-urban binary does a disservice to the debate.
I love all kinds of maps, but maps can distort our thinking. If one looks at any recent election map, the vast majority of Oregon appears to be quite Republican red because political cartographers almost invariably rely on county boundaries (rather than census tracts, which can be more illuminating but are hard to scale). As we all know, Oregon is not a red state.
Oregon has 36 counties (conveniently, an equal number on each side of the Cascade Crest), and 10 are classified as rural by the US Census Bureau (Table 1 and Map 1). While rural counties are 28 percent of Oregon’s counties by number, the people who live in those rural counties total only 2.5 percent of the state’s population. Most Oregonians (nearly 84 percent) live in counties that the Census Bureau classifies as metropolitan (having “at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more inhabitants”). The remaining 14 percent live in micropolitan counties (having “at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000 population”). Counties that are neither metropolitan nor micropolitan are rural.
The Divide: More Ideological Than Geographic
Nine of Oregon’s ten rural counties voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in 2020 (Table 2). The outlier was Tillamook County, where Joe Biden’s 47.76 percent nearly matched Trump’s 49.47 percent. Tillamook County is an exception to the general rule that rural is deep red, but one worth noting. Even in the deepest red Oregon counties for Trump, about one-quarter (±5 percent) of the citizens voted for—gasp!—Biden. (By the way, Biden won the election.) Also notably, the micropolitan Clatsop, Hood River, and Lincoln Counties went for Biden. Although Trump lost the Oregon vote, the national popular vote, and the electoral college vote, he received more votes in darkest-blue Multnomah County than in Oregon’s seventeen least populous counties.
If headline writers still insist on a pithy and space-saving binary, let it be “the liberal-conservative divide.” Shorter yet would be “the ideological divide.” Either is more accurate and informative than “the rural-urban divide.” Headline writers: “Rural-urban” and “ideological” have the same number of letters!
The perceived problem is that ruralites (most, but not all, of which are conservative) and urbanites (most, but not all, of which are liberal) are not talking to each other. The real problem is the that conservatives and liberals are not talking to each other. However, it’s not a matter of being in different counties in the same state, but of being in different houses on the same street. Regardless, in this era of instantaneous communication, physical distance is irrelevant.
While I’m all for conversations between liberals and conservatives, I don’t place much hope in significantly narrowing or ending the conservative-liberal divide. The reasons for a divide by any name can be separated into misunderstandings and disagreements. Misunderstandings arise when one or both sides misunderstand the beliefs, values, and/or actions of the other. Communication often can resolve misunderstandings. Not so when both sides understand the beliefs, values, and actions of the other, but fundamentally, if not vehemently, disagree.
Let me close with a personal story. In the late 1980s I was instrumental (I tried modesty, but it didn’t look good on me) in the eventually successful effort to end the clearcutting of old-growth forests on federal public lands in Oregon. At the time, three square miles of Oregon’s ancient forests on public lands were being clearcut each week.
I grew up in timber country. Family friends worked in mills or the woods, or owned mills and/or logging companies. I did not misunderstand them; I totally understood where they were coming from and why they were doing what they were doing. I disagreed. Vehemently.
Compromise was not possible. Halving the rate of old-growth liquidation would have only resulted in it taking twice as long to log it all. Selective logging rather than clearcutting may be visually less offensive to humans, but to wildlife and watersheds, any additional logging and roading of older forests was a death sentence.
It was a controversial issue (then, not now) in which only one side could win, as neither side could compromise its core values.
My next post in the The Oregon Way will be titled “What (If Anything) to Do About Oregon’s ‘Rural-Urban Divide’?”
Andy Kerr splits his time between Ashland and Washington, D.C. (For the record, in November 2020, he voted in Oregon as he has since he was 18). His previous contribution to The Oregon Way was entitled “Oregon Has Too Many Counties.” One can subscribe to fortnightly Public Lands Blog at www.andykerr.net.
Some years ago about 15 Rural Oregon Counties convinced the sitting Governor to create the Office of Rural Policy. The case was made that; a. almost 50% of Oregon owned by the Federal Government and Tribes lay everywhere but the Willamette valley b. no provision for anything but a single solution for Urban was entertained for any issue, policy or problem. Also at the time criteria used for Rural did included for instance, how far a town or community was from a hospital, how many of their fire departments were paid, how many schools their Counties had etc., but not considered.
The Office of Rural Policy was to provide a place for research, discussion and policy development around many issues and needs that exist or arise in a State with such a basic division. At that time rural towns and communities were seen as Islands in a massive public land system. But of no consequence
It was thought that the Office of Rural Policy could be a place specific in the legislative process, much like Legislative Fiscal, that could provide the Administration and legislators with credible data and research for Policy development or Bill drafting, and would be a huge evolutionary step. Unfortunately it was very short lived.
Having one solution to a universal problem may be easier than actually looking at developing several ways of applying that one solution or several solutions, based on where people live; urban, urban rural, rural, frontier rural, or isolated rural. However I, and others believe that in this century and with modern technology many more advances could be available. Perhaps then more citizens will feel heard, and actually taken into consideration.
This is not the only idea Rural Oregon has! or has Had! But the sound bites and clamor of Urban voices are more numerous and have more access to MEDIA of all types. I continue to believe that
we can together solve our problems. But if we are going to do it ...where do we meet as begin the process. WE need a visionary and a real Leader!! NOt just another politician but one with real vision, conviction, strength.
Laura Pryor
Thanks for these insights. It's interesting how county boundaries mislead. I live in rural Marion County, just three miles from Independence (in Polk County), where I get my mail at the city's post office. The best description for my community is the "rural trending suburban" category that the Oregon Values and Beliefs Center uses in its surveys of respondents. That fits both my niche of Marion County and the Independence area as well. Polk County shows up as metropolitan on your list only because of West Salem. With that exception, it's mostly rural, with enclaves that are trending suburban. I also own an apple orchard with a Scio address, just outside Stayton. Those are two communities that I would categorize as small town rural, but each has a distinctive culture. And, to your points about political differences, what unites even Rs and Ds in all of these communities is the sense that their government in Salem (closer to them geographically than to the Portland metro area) is remote and doesn't understand them. So it goes. I'll be looking forward to reading your next post.