Electoral College, Green New Deal, and the American Mess (David Logsdon, Guest Contributor)

Guest Post: The article which follows was submitted by an independent contributor. Though it is published here, this site does not specifically endorse anything within the article, nor do we hold any credit for the work within.

New Era Politics, the Green New Deal, and Electoral Mayhem

By David Logsdon

To say that poverty is a new concept in rural America is a fallacy. Osha Gray Davidson, in his 1996 work (initially released in 1990) Broken Heartland: The Rise of America's Rural Ghetto closes with a statement that has never rung truer today: “A lesson from field ecology has the last word here, for democracy is a living thing-destroy its habitat and it too will perish.” The habitat of rural America has continued to disintegrate since Davidson first completed his work. Though there are glimmers of hope throughout the nation, small pockets of rebound and regrowth, overall it seems the rural portions of this nation continue to be forgotten...pieces of the past that were and are only important in a historical context.

The issue has headed with two modern concepts which strike this author as completely “anti-rural” (for lack of a better descriptor): the abolition of the Electoral College and the Green New Deal. Both, on their own merits, spell disaster for rural America. Without going into a full fledged discussion of politics, the Electoral College's purpose is to ensure the republican foundations of this nation remain intact by maintaining balance between the “strongholds” of the large cities and the “outliers” of the rural areas. As major cities continue their stranglehold on the American population, now is the absolute worst time to discuss dissolution of such an important tenement. The founding fathers knew that representation would be needed for colonists who otherwise wouldn't have their voices heard...as so often had happened in the “old world”. Today, liberals and conservatives both seem to have some political stronghold to the idea of “democracy”...a concept which has nothing to do with the basis of this nation. To abolish the Electoral College is to remove one of the major “chinks” which is holding up the basis of our republic.

The Green New Deal, on the other hand, is the death toll of the American farm and rural family as we know it. Each and every provision of the “Green New Deal” (which in reality has nothing truly green within it) disproportionately and unfairly affects rural families at a much higher rate. Rural families, much more so than those in the suburban and urban areas, rely upon fossil fuels for transportation and income. To suddenly ban such use within a time frame in which green energy is not ready to take control of our needs is both foolish and disastrous. The only ones who will survive such an agreement will either be the corporate mega farms who have the financial backing to make such a quick transition on a large scale (if they don't fail first and cause the next Great Recession) and the rebels and outlaws who will likely “buck the system”...as they have done for millennia prior.

It is my firm belief that the vast majority of people in the USA are good...and that politicians can be when they take reasonable steps to advance policy and law which is to the benefit of the nation as a whole...and not just sections of it. There is no doubt that climate change, global warming, and overpopulation are and will continue to be concerns. True dangers, in reality. But quick “political fixes” will not solve the problem. They will only serve to hasten the downfall of a nation which is already treading on “thin ice” (global warming pun intended, even if inappropriate!). My hope is that lawmakers on both sides of the imaginary “aisle” will work together to create real world solutions to real world problems that will not plunge America into an irrecoverable tailspin.

I'm not holding my breath, though...

-------------

Dave Logsdon is an independent consultant from southwest Alabama. College educated, and currently looking to pursue a graduate degree after nearly a decade of work, he writes under a pseudonym to ensure his privacy. He does not maintain an online presence. He can be reached through the site on which this article is located for comments or questions.