Until the 1980s, political parties did not campaign on cutting or restricting the expansion of social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and SNAP. There was a bipartisan consensus that the nation should prioritize balancing the budget, but that this should not be done by cutting these crucial programs. Dwight Eisenhower, perhaps the greatest Republican president of the post-New Deal era, achieved a balanced budget three times during his eight-year presidency. He did this not by cutting social programs, but by increasing taxes on the wealthiest earners and businesses and by cutting defense spending. Eisenhower, a five star general, cut defense spending!
This approach to fiscal responsibility, which protected federal programs and expanded taxes on the largest corporations, became largely obsolete during the late 1970s and 1980s. In its place, we saw the rise of neoliberalism, particularly under Ronald Reagan. During his first term, Reagan oversaw massive cuts to federal education, labor, and food programs, all while cutting taxes for the wealthiest individuals and corporations and putting a historical amount of money into the defense budget. Somewhat ironically, Reagan’s neoliberal policies actually tripled the national debt.
Before Reagan, campaigning on cutting social programs was considered political suicide. Our friend Eisenhower even said that if a party advocated for cutting such programs, we would “not hear of that party again in our political history.” Until the 1980s, both Republicans and Democrats were constantly battling for the votes of rural and elderly voters. They did this not by promising to cut taxes, but by promising to expand federal programs like Social Security, Medicare, and federal farm insurance.
Neoliberalism prioritizes austerity over people, and rural communities are always the first line that gets cut. Politically, Republicans realize that they will win with rural communities no matter what they do, and Democrats have realized that they will lose no matter what. This has made it so that both parties ignore our communities. Socially, legislators realize that the backlash they will receive for cutting rural programs will be close to zero because of our sparse population. The cuts that are made to our programs are seen as politically and financially safe; out of sight, out of mind.
I was born and raised in Prowers County. The deepest love that I have is for my community and the people who helped to raise me. Folks from back home and from college often question me when I tell them the politics that I hold, knowing about the community that I am from. I hunt, I fish, I mow lawns for families around the county, and I volunteer whenever I can. I also support Medicare for All, tuition-free community college and trade school, and a revival of the WPA. I support these things, not out of disdain or contempt of rural life, but for love and respect of my community and my neighbors.
Knowing that I am a student, people, of course, ask me what I am studying. I respond by saying that I study politics. They answer back by saying political science, and I correct them. Political scientists are concerned with a system of politics: how to read voter data, how to pass legislation, how to please independent voters, etc.. I am instead concerned with how politics impacts the lives of everyday people. In a political climate more concerned with a system of governance, we ought to be most concerned with the people that system affects, because they always come for rural communities first.
Treston Medina, Granada
