Urban-rural divide: What if both sides are right?

There are legitimate reasons that urban and rural residents disagree on key issues, but compromise is possible

EDITOR’S NOTE: This piece is a part of our #GovernorGoals series. Learn more about it here. Send your goals on one of the selected topics to theway@or360.org for potential publication.

Elk graze near Seaside, a scene you don’t see in urban Oregon.

I’ve often wondered how the Facebook algorithm interprets my mix of “friends.” It defies the conventional wisdom that Americans today only associate with people like themselves.

There are people I grew up with in rural Mississippi; people I worked with at newspapers in Alabama, Texas, Washington, and Oregon; people I attended church with in all those places; as well as neighbors and friends in Oregon who don’t fall into any of the other categories.

While Facebook frustrates me at times with its policies and its role in disseminating misinformation, the insight I gain from friends’ posts is something worth preserving. In fact, I think it could be a model of sorts for bridging ideological gaps – and especially the so-called urban-rural divide.

As someone who grew up mostly in rural areas and has lived all my adult life in urban areas, I firmly believe that one of the biggest causes of the urban-rural divide is the inability of people in each group to understand the other side. In many cases they don’t try to understand. And instead of trying to bridge the gap, elected leaders widen it by pandering to one side and demonizing the other.

Here are three examples of areas where there are vast differences in the views of rural and urban Americans, yet neither side’s views should be viewed as right or wrong.

Where to live: This is the most obvious difference. Urban and rural residents choose to live in very different places. Both tend to think that their choice is the best one, and they often associate negative characteristics with the alternative.

While the nation has become more urban over time, Gallup Polls show that when survey participants are offered three options – urban, suburban, and rural – preferences are about evenly divided. The most recent Gallup poll shows a surge in the preference for rural living, driven in part by COVID-19, which had more visible effects in urban areas even though it often was more prevalent in rural areas.

The truth is urban and rural residents rely on each other every day. Rural areas and the people who live there provide most of our food and building materials. Urban companies and the people who work in them design and produce cell phones, computers and just about anything else powered by electronics. This fact alone should make both rural and urban dwellers appreciate and support each other.

Guns: Polls show sharp divides in rural and urban residents on guns. It’s hard for someone who’s never lived in these areas to comprehend the rural affinity for guns. I grew up mostly in small towns and saw the cultural importance of guns. For point of illustration: When we lived in north Arkansas, the school I attended observed the first day of deer season as a school holiday.

Many people who live in rural areas view guns as a useful tool, one they use to gather food for the family. Yes, they derive pleasure from hunting, just as a handyman derives pleasure from using saws in woodworking. But guns also have utility in rural areas. Many urban residents mostly view guns as dangerous weapons used primarily in criminal pursuits. That’s understandable. There are far fewer legitimate uses of guns in an urban setting than in a rural setting.

Within their context, both sides have realistic viewpoints. Where they are unrealistic is in their desire to impose their views, with no room for compromise, on people who live in different contexts. For example, rural gun advocates should accept more stringent licensing and regulation. In fact, a recent Pew survey shows even in rural areas a majority favor stricter background checks. It’s the gun lobby and politicians focused on base voters who object. On the other side of the divide, urban gun-control advocates should push for urban-specific regulations on issues like gun storage, rather than adding expensive regulations for rural gun owners.

Transportation: This is another issue where the urban-rural divide makes sense. Mass transit is a hard sell even in many urban areas, especially the suburbs. To those who live in rural areas, it’s about as relevant as space travel – and probably interests them less. Electric vehicles seem only slightly more practical when you live 100 miles or more from the nearest charging station. Urban residents view pickups as ozone-destroying extravagances. Many rural citizens legitimately see them as necessities for doing their jobs and/or maintaining their property.

Some type of compromise must be reached. Though some of the people I grew up with might still argue otherwise, climate change is real. Everyone, rural and urban, needs to reduce their carbon footprint. Most Americans, rural and urban, agree on this point. But they don’t trust government to do it in a manner that is fair. For a detailed explanation, I recommend reading this Duke University report.  

One problem is that many proposed climate solutions benefit urban areas and impose hardships on rural areas. That gap is hard to bridge, but one way might be to establish household carbon goals with taxes imposed on uses above a certain level. It would be easier for urban residents to reduce automobile emissions because of the availability of mass transit. That could be offset in part by offering credit for growing your own food, something easier to do in rural areas.

Politically, we are a long way from anyone accepting household carbon limits or compromising on gun policy. But the point of this column isn’t to promote any single policy. Instead, my goal is to point out that there is a foundation for productive discussion if leaders in both rural and urban settings would focus on building bridges rather than tearing down the other side.

Mark Hester is a retired journalist who worked 20 years at The Oregonian, where he worked as business editor, sports editor and an opinion writer on The Oregonian Editorial Board.