War of the Worlds: The Urban Rural Divide

“The wills of the many outweigh the wills of the few.”

So some have said, but is this true of American politics? Should one class of people be able to decide the outcome for another? Should the voices of the majority silence the voices of the minority?  Most Americans would say, “No!” After all, protecting the underrepresented is about as American as apple pie. Throughout our history we have debated about ways to protect against the tyranny from below.  James Madison discussed this very issue 223 years ago in the Federalist Papers:

 “Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”      

 This conflict seemed to rear its ugly head during the midterm election. The urban versus rural debate seemed to be an underlying theme to all aspects of the election, from job creation to economic recovery. With any tax-based system we weigh the needs of the few with the needs of the many. Do we increase taxes on the few to benefit the masses? Should we cut taxes for the majority, but remove the services that a minority of people rely on? The age-old question of economic priorities was what a lot of voter were paying attention to. They didn’t care who was in office as long as the politicians didn’t negatively affect their lifestyle. But what if one group’s lifestyles needs required the confiscation of another’s?

In Washington state this happens quite often. We have a habit of taxing people in Spokane for bridges in Seattle, and taxing farmers for social programs they will never use. In the last election—like most elections in this state—King County was the deciding factor. Ironically, the western side of the state is the also recipient of the majority of pork from the other Washington (D.C.). Government pork, as we know, is the government giving us part of our tax money back via directing it to a certain group or organization. King County is the most populous county in Washington state, so it’s justified in having the power it does right? When we compare the issues and lifestyles of the urban and rural populations, should one group have to pay for the lifestyle of the other? When it comes to the spending cuts that must be made, who will the government side with? Who will get priority when it comes to spending taxpayer money? In a war between social and class divisions, who will win?