For anyone who is willing to breezily jump on board the spreading consensus that Trumpism isn’t explained by economic insecurity, I encourage you to look at David Wong’s piece at Cracked for a much fuller explanation of what’s driving this collective freakout. Until you understand where this is coming from, you won’t get why Kevin Drum is off by dozens of kilometers when he argues that after the election Paul Ryan will become “the undisputed leader of the Republican Party” and therefore “our future is in his hands.”
As I wrote last week, Paul Ryan is doomed and his Speakership will end regardless of whether or not the Republicans hold onto a slim majority of seats in the House of Representatives. I encourage you to go back to that piece for a full treatment of why this is the case, but I’ll give a brief summary here.
John Boehner fell as speaker because he could not get a majority of his own caucus to pass his spending bills and he could not get a majority of his caucus to pay our country’s debts on time. When Boehner agreed to step down, the Republicans came together to pass last year’s appropriations and to raise the debt limit as the price of being rid of him. That solved the problem for last year, but it didn’t solve the underlying problem. That’s why Kevin McCarthy wasn’t an acceptable replacement for Boehner. It’s also why no other Republican could step forward and win the support from enough Republicans to win the Speakership. The job was forced on Paul Ryan over his steady objections for the simple reason that no one else had the stature to win enough votes.
Since this is an election year, the Congressional Republicans have been willing to let this fight over debt and spending simmer on a back burner. After all, if their nominee becomes president, then they won’t be in this position of responsibility for funding the government of a Democratic president. But that doesn’t mean Speaker Ryan has had an easy time of it. He and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell haven’t been able to pass one stand-alone appropriations bill all year. In fact, Ryan didn’t even pass a budget, which is something Boehner always managed to do. It’s unlikely that Ryan can avoid passing an omnibus bill and continuing resolution in the lame duck which will not be popular with the base.
But if lawmakers return in November unwilling to advance individual spending bills, or some legislative package, Congress is headed for yet another bill extending current spending.
That would mean that, after not getting a budget done, after clamping down on the appropriations process, after passing five regular appropriations bills, after getting zero of those bills signed into law, after passing one stopgap spending bill, Congress would start next year with another stopgap bill…
…Discussing the January speaker vote, one conservative member told HuffPost on Friday that Ryan could be in trouble, depending on the number of seats Republicans lose this election.
“If we lose 15, it’ll be tough for Paul Ryan, especially if we do an omnibus in December,” the member said.
The premise here, of course, is that the Republicans will retain the House, albeit with a significantly narrower majority. And then the newly elected Republican caucus will meet and vote on who they want to serve as their Speaker. It should be clear enough to Ryan that he won’t win this vote that he will not even stand for the honor.
It’s not just that Ryan will do things in the lame duck that infuriate the base, although he will. Much more significantly, after a year-long tumultuous relationship, Donald Trump has decided to make all-out war on Ryan. Just last night, Trump blasted out three tweets critical of the Speaker, and that’s after calling him “weak and ineffective,” and accusing him of disloyally working to undermine his candidacy.
This is just the final fallout of what has been a growing split in the Republican Party since Eric Cantor was bounced out of Congress by a Tea Partier. In truth, Trump’s campaign CEO Steve Bannon instructed his Breitbart staff to destroy Paul Ryan soon after he accepted the gavel.
In December 2015, weeks after Ryan became Speaker, Bannon wrote in an internal Breitbart email obtained by The Hill that the “long game” for his news site was for Ryan to be “gone” by the spring.
In the Dec. 1 email, Breitbart’s Washington editor, Matt Boyle, suggested to Bannon via email that a story promoting Ryan’s planned overhaul of the mental health system would be a good way to “open a bridge” to Ryan.
Bannon wasn’t keen on the idea.
“I’ve got a cure for mental health issue,” Bannon wrote to Boyle. “Spank your children more.”
“I get that,” responded Boyle, “but this is a place where we can open a bridge to Paul Ryan — we’re playing the very long long long game Steve.”
Replied Bannon: “Long game is him gone by spring.”
There is nothing that Paul Ryan has done in the intervening eleven months to soften Bannon’s resolve that Ryan be destroyed, and Bannon has clearly convinced his new boss Donald Trump to lend his considerable weight to this objective.
As I pointed out in my earlier piece, Ryan had a math problem the last time he ran for Speaker, initially lacking support from 34 members of his own caucus. He survived the vote only because no serious alternative emerged and in the end only nine Republicans held out. With a smaller majority, the loss of one or two dozen likely allies, an unpopular lame duck agenda, and a bullseye painted on his back by Trump, it’s impossible for me to envision Ryan winning the vote next time.
After the low-hanging fruit is defeated in November, what remains of the Republican caucus will be definitionally safe from even a political tsunami. Short of personal scandal, no Democrat could ever defeat them, if then. But 100% of them will be vulnerable to primary challenges from their Trumpian right. There will be no upside to casting a Speaker vote for Ryan, and there will be plenty of downside.
If Trump weren’t already committed to destroying Ryan, his decision to hype a stab in the back explanation for his defeat would ensure that his hordes will focus on the “disloyal” Ryan as the first battle of the next stage of their political war.
Ryan is done, but that doesn’t mean the drama will be over. In a follow-up piece, I will attempt to predict what happens once he falls. Hint: I think the Republicans will have grave difficulties electing a Speaker at all. And, even if they do, they will not last. If the Republicans retain the House, the House will be thrown into chaos and it will culminate in a permanent split in the Republican Party with the Trump forces representing the larger half.
Stay tuned…
So I assume that there aren’t going to be a lot of PSA’s and pamphlets encouraging spanking and promoting its benefits. That would be too nanny state even for Bannon, correct?
I assume the post was prompted by this?
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/our-future-paul-ryans-hands
what was your first clue?
Well it wasn’t a link to the blog post in the article. Mostly because I still sometimes check up on KDrum’s blog even if I don’t comment there anymore.
I apologize. First paragraph was missing from this version.
That was mean…
I find it fascinating that the entire unquestioning premise of Drum’s article is that Paul Ryan will be the Speaker for the foreseeable future. Has he just awoken from a long slumber? He seems to be overlooking some very obvious things here. It seems like he thinks that Paul Ryan is going to be a player. The probability of him bobbing to the surface, alive, after the Trump tsunami rolls through the Republican Party is likely in the teens or even single digits. The reality is that, politically, Ryan is essentially a dead man walking.
Has he just awoken from a long slumber? He seems to be overlooking some very obvious things here.
Drum isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed. It’s hilarious that someone like him is writing for Mother Jones. Then again, most of the people there are a disgrace to the name of Mother Jones and what she stood for.
Thing is, Drum has never been able to really believe what is happening with Trump. I kept trying to tell him that Trump was going to win the primary since summer 2015 but he was too analytical to really grasp it. Emotion based politics is pretty foreign to him.
It reads like something written from inside the David Brooks bunker. Maybe they’re collaborating. 🙂
OK, just realized there’s a “3”.
3. If “1” occurred, might that actually prove a moderating influence on the surviving GOP House caucus, whether minority or majority, and whether or not enough to save Ryan’s ass, I mean job?
here. Asserts that wingnuttiest House GOPers have safest (i.e., “best”-gerrymandered) seats, so if GOP loses House seats, the most extreme nutjobs will make up an even larger proportion of the caucus, with presumably even more influence and ability to obstruct.
After the low-hanging fruit is defeated in November, what remains of the Republican caucus will be definitionally safe from even a political tsunami. Short of personal scandal, no Democrat could ever defeat them, if then.
This isn’t true. Have you seen any Steve Parrish commercials at all? I thought the Democrats cleared the way for him because he would self-fund. We’ll see what actually happens and if people will vote for the Democrat in House races, to punish the GOP, despite having no clue who they are. It’s sad that you’re letting the DCCC off the hook.
I have no idea what the etiquette is on this, but here is a paragraph from Drum’s article at Mother Jones,
———————————-
So maybe Ryan decides that now is the time to try to reform the Republican Party. Once he wins the speakership again, he makes clear to the tea partiers that they’re finished as power brokers: he’s going to pass bills even if it means depending on Democratic support to do it. He reaches out to women and minorities. He passes immigration reform. He makes sure that budgets get passed and we don’t default on the national debt. He works behind the scenes with Hillary Clinton in standard horsetrading mode: she gets some things she wants, but only in return for some things conservatives want.
———————————-
Is there one sentence in that paragraph that is possible?
What planet is Drum living in? Both Sides Gum Drop Land? Krugman long ago proved Ryan was an empty suited con man with out a brain in his whole head.
..
Perhaps Booman would have some thoughts about this:
Is there anyone at all in the House GOP caucus who–in the event of the GOP maintaining a House majority–would be willing to operate as Speaker in the way you’ve written about before? That is, someone who’d work with the actual members of both parties who want to govern instead of blow things up? And could get the necessary Democratic support to be elected Speaker to begin with?
That’s my question too. I don’t know if Paul Ryan would be the one to propose it but, perhaps seeing no other means of survival, he would. As Booman has stated previously he could reach out to Democrats and moderate Republicans (if any are left) who want to create a new coalition. Were that to happen, those Republicans could even flip and become Democrats.
This is probably a pipe dream because such Republicans-turned-Democrat would be unlikely to survive the next election. But how else would our country get governed? Are we looking at an actual default at some point not too far over the horizon?
What strikes me, though, is that one way or another the Republicans are headed for a split and the larger contingent will, as Boo said, be the loony faction. I see no way for a third-party to gain a true foothold, at least without years of pushing an agenda at the local and then state level (and even then it would likely get co-opted).
If enough Republicans were able to flip (either by switching parties or aligning with Democrats in a working coalition), the loonies would be free to stomp about and scream and throw rocks — which is what really makes them most happy. That includes the clowns and carnival barkers with media presence. So there might be a way to make this fly.
Short of the destruction of the Repub House, there is no answer.
And here’s where the Republican party—or at least, Paul Ryan and politicians like him—could use a bit more joy in the art and craft of politics.
Where’s the Republican member of the House leadership who’s willing to cut a deal with the opposition in order to retain power, the way Willie Brown did in California?
Where’s the Republican faction willing to sell out their party for some committee chairmanships and some legislative priorities, the way Mickey Leland and the Black caucus did in the Texas legislature back in the day?
“But 100% of them will be vulnerable to primary challenges from their Trumpian right.”
Exactly. I look forward to your take on what will happen in the new congress, and in the Republican party. In that respect, this article on the
know-nothings presents some interesting historical parallels.
Slightly off topic, but I see that McCain has bravely announced that the GOP would reject any Clinton Supreme Court nominee. If I recall correctly, Marie3 anticipated this scenario in a comment a couple of weeks ago.
Not really surprising, except in the timing. I would have waited until after the election. McCain Is not in particular trouble, unless something has happened that I don’t know about in the past 3 days (always a possibility).
I wonder if people will finally wake up and vote in the off year elections? If they do and we can get some senators elected in ’18 there’ll be hell to pay to get a million judges appointed before 2020.
HRC announced a 2 million add buy un AZ this weekend. AZ isnt polled that much so McCain or maybe HRC moght know sonething we dont
McCain’s comments were made in the context of a media appearance in PA supporting Pat Toomey in a very close contest with his Dem opponent Karen McGinty.
Since McC is well ahead (double digits) in his own race, I view this more narrowly as overheated campaign rhetoric designed to whip up conservative support for Toomey in order to maintain the R majority. Since his comments, and the backlash, he’s has already partly walked them back.
Most likely. McCain is so old he must find it hard to have the energy to discipline himself.
Our future is not in the hands of any politician or president. There is no change or improvement coming in the future. There is no damn reason to cheer or fear the political class. They are all utterly useless. One of the amazing things about this election campaign is the degree to which people believe the outcome matters. My life will be the same with president trump and an all gop congress as it would with president clinton and an all democratic congress. It just isn’t going to matter.
We will have endless war no matter who wins. We will have the super-rich looting and pillaging no matter who wins. We will have globalized trade and corporate outsourcing and offshoring no matter who wins. We will have job destroying corporate mergers and technological creative destruction no matter who wins.
Oh and the political media will still be no good awful.
Were you making the same argument back in, say, February?
This man is a nihilist, Donnie. There’s nothing to worry about.
Every election season we’re told that we must vote for one candidate over the other. We’ve had presidents Reagan to Obama in my adult life and it’s not yet made any practical difference in my life. We’ve had democrats and republicans controlling congress and state governments and it hasn’t made any practical difference in my life.
I just wish the government would stop killing people but few seem interested in that either. So it all just goes on as before. If I’m a nihilist, then the rest of you are hysterical. None of this really matters. The things changing our lives are not driven by politics.
” We’ve had democrats and republicans controlling congress and state governments and it hasn’t made any practical difference in my life.”
Really?
Lies as the justification for invading Iraq because the R’s needed a war for re-election, Regan pushed thru a two income tax reductions for the top income tax bracket went from 70% to 28% on the richest Americans, corporate income tax went from 33% of all collected taxes to 9% because of changes in tax policy making it easier to hide profits, repeal of the Glass-Steagall act.
These had no effect on your life? What color is the sky of the planet you live on. You are universally affect for good or ill by POLITICS. Most immediately by American Politics but also by Russian, Chinese, British, German, Greek, … in greater or lessor amounts.
There is literally NOTHING in your life that is not affected by politics. From where you can live, who you can marry, who can help you negotiate with your employer and a myriad of other things.
Your statement is a juvenile throw away showing a disturbing lack of thinking and understanding of our society.
The Iraq war didn’t affect me. The recession and financial crisis was a bipartisan failure. Taxes go up and down over the years. You are describing the generally bipartisan consensus on foreign policy and economics as if life would be different had there never been Reagan, Bush, or W. Bush. Notice that Obama is busy bombing all over the Middle East, Africa and over to Pakistan.
I’m arguing that these things you cite happen no matter what. We’re going to have another conservative president some day. What then? Catastrophe?
On a the basic level of how I live my life it is no different now than it was 40 years ago. Politics is a side show.
No one in government was going to stop globalization, technological innovation, obsolescence, or any of the demographic changes that have occurred. Heck, even gay rights went far ahead of government to the point they just stopped fighting it.
Neil, you are simply wrong, crazy wrong, about this.
I have been a member of the middle class for my entire life, from birth to now, and I do not join you in the delusion that “…my life it is no different now than it was 40 years ago.”
There are more homeless people in the street. In my California, Ronald Reagan was primarily responsible for that outcome, with the Executive decisions he made and legislative actions he led in Sacramento and Washington D.C.
Same-sex couples can now marry. 40 years ago, homosexuals suffered nearly complete professional and personal civil rights denials.
The Supreme Court is now in the business of taking away civil and voting rights, and empowering multinational corporations and plutocrats, in a way much different from the Supreme Court of 1976.
40 years ago, the city which I now live in which borders Oakland, California was almost entirely segregated because of policy decisions made by the private sector and enabled by the public sector. My City’s residents are now a highly diverse mix of cultures and races.
These, and many many other circumstances, are profoundly different from 40 years ago.
All of these circumstances make my life different, profoundly so.
You may choose to emotionally, psychologically and even physically remove yourself from these differences, but you are not removed from them.
Finally, this:
“…the generally bipartisan consensus on foreign policy and economics…”.
There is no bipartisan consensus. You are wrong. There is a wide gulf between the policy preferences of the two Parties. When the Parties have full control of Federal and State governances, that gulf is made apparent in budgetary decisions and other policy actions they take. We should not feign ignorance of this fact.
It’s all about you, chief.
I’m not getting this accusation of being a nihilist. None of the definitions I’ve found match your description and my view that the political system is managing the status quo is not to suggest there is nothing to worry about. There probably is nothing worth worrying about since we have no influence in this political system.
Well, if the chief national pundits cannot properly diagnose the situation in Ryan’s Repub House of Chaos, then how are the idiot voters ever to figure it out?
The permanent paralysis and chaos resulting from a Repub Congress simply has to be turned into a chief feature of this election. They are an anti-government party, and cannot ever be made to govern in any guise. They cannot pass a single piece of substantive legislation–even for symbolic purposes in an election year, for God’s sake! Repub legislative majorities mean national chaos and certain failure.
Destroying the Repub Congress has to be turned into a national issue which needs to be pressed in any district where the Dem has the slightest chance, starting with the Obama districts that have Repub members. The top of the ticket has to take this on. The voters haven’t the slightest idea that Ryan’s Repubs haven’t passed a budget, and can’t; they have no idea they can’t (and won’t) pass appropriations bills, the horrendous record of the Repub House (or Congress) is simply not a national story—it’s far beyond the abilities of the corporate media and their useless horse race mentality.
If Dems really think Der Trumper is going to be routed in the electoral college, then open a new front—nationalize the catastrophic failure and dysfunction of the Repub House. Assert the reality that Dreamboat Ryan likely won’t even be able to retain his speakership should the Repub House survive, and that the Repub House is the principal cause of our failed gub’mint. That nothing can ever be accomplished with a Repub House.
HRC and the Dems supposedly have a massive spending advantage over Trumper’s Repubs, let’s see them try to put that money to good use on the airways for once. But I suppose we’ll hear that it was too late to turn the massive tanker and we had to keep the powder dry (again).
Republicanus Delenda Est.
It was unclear from the linked articles who hacked Bannon’s emails. Are we to assume a state actor other than Russia or can you hack Republican emails without state level resources?
If you send out an email to your staff, hacking isn’t necessary.
Yeah, uh, there was no hacking involved. Someone leaked it to the press. Maybe even Bannon himself.
That may be true, but it’s irrelevant when we’re trying to threadjack this into the coming shooting war with Russia that Clinton is going to begin shortly.
Booman, I liked your article. Think you make a persuasive prediction.
Wish you didn’t endorse the Cracked article on Trump supporters. As entertaining and perceptive as it is, at the end of the day, it is just another apologia for Trump supporters that seeks to deny the huge importance of racism in his support.
Most Trump supporters are middle class. They live in suburbs. I know hundreds of Trump supporters. I could write one of these Trump support explainers, too, based on my personal experience. It would start and end with White nationalism.
It’s an apologia for his people.
It’s an effort to see the world through their eyes.
I can see no reason not to make the effort, and if you want to know what’s making them freak out, you need to know all of it.
The contention is the data show that those ARENT what makes a Trumperista.
Not to say those arent real problems that need addressing or that dems havent focused sometimes on cities to the exclusion of rural areas. But man cracked is pretty unreliable generally.
And what we see is a world where whites are losing their privilege, not one of economic distress. He emphasizes the wrong things and therefore provides a misleading picture.
Curious about your remark about Google and unicorns, because my spouse tells me that in FB exchanges with various right wing relatives, they all tell her that Google is some sort of left wing conspiracy.
Just try the two engines on either of my suggested topics and experience it for yourself.
It has been a recent phenomena, though, imo.
Here’s the problem with David’s article. These people voted to end up this way. They completely effed themselves over by consistently voting for the party that hates our government.
Sure I understand why they are upset but until they admit their part in their own demise I don’t see how I can condemn the Kevin D. Williamson’s of the world.
They abandoned the Democrats, not the other way round, unless you agree that supporting blacks is abandoning whites.
If the Trumpkins were motivated by “economic insecurity” then why didn’t they support Bernie Sanders? Bernie was proposing legislation that would actually help them. Answer: Trump was offering them white supremacy, and Bernie wasn’t.
This is the precise rejoinder. If one is angry at the status quo, then why do you keep voting religiously for the failed plutocrat party?
The various articles we are discussing here are all attempting to determine what is principally motivating the angry Trumpers. This issue is being boiled down to economic stress vs. racial resentment. It is being pointed out that Western European politics has created a comprehensive social welfare safety net for its middle class, yet they are still wild to hate on Muslims, refugees, immigrants, and even other EU citizens, such as the hapless Poles.
Yes, the economy of America’s rural areas and smaller regional cities has cratered. We have adopted policies that favor mass retailers like the horrendous Wal-mart that destroy a main street in one fell swoop. We have adopted policies that destroyed the large independent manufacturing plant that would power a regional city (again, thank you Wal-mart for purveying the cheaper Chinese merchandise). We have allowed giant agri-business to buy up vast tracts of farmland and ruined the smaller family farms, which destroys purchasing power in small towns.
So they have been screwed economically, and while the “conservative” party was the actual leader in the screwing, the Dems surely did not stand up for them, nor have they proposed much that would aid the small towns and regional cities. This is a failure on our part.
Having said that, there is simply no doubt that racial resentment is playing a very significant role in this disaffected white tantrum. As one writer cited above puts it, they seem to be against racial equality and want to see a political party that legitimizes anti-equality.
Further, no one is stopping anyone in fly-over land from worshiping Jeebus. Nor is anyone forcing anyone to get a no-fault divorce. No one is stopping them from mowing their own lawns or fixing their own snowmobiles. Nor is anyone “taking” rural America’s guns when a large city passes municipal gun regulations. Yet they are enraged over all of it—enraged that urbanites aren’t going to church, apparently.
Well, you know what, that’s an illegitimate concern in a democracy. And their inability to compromise to advance their actual legitimate (economic) interests bespeaks a very authoritarian mindset. Sorry.
Why does it have to be either economic distress or racial resentment? Why can’t both play a role?
Or even racism caused by economic distress.
“Exposed”? Sure. “Caused”? Nope.
What oaguabonita said.
Remember that Nixon discovered the “southern strategy” of appealing to white racists and pointing his finger at minorities back in 1968 and the GOP has been winning elections ever since based on “tough on crime” (i.e. tough on black & brown people who are committing “the crimes”), “tough on drugs” (i.e. drugs that black & brown people are “selling in ghettos”), including mandatory sentencing,more prisons, more police, more prosecutors, etc., etc.
Only there wasn’t much white working class economic distress in 1968, the minimum wage was a living wage back then, and 50 years or the 1% shipping all the jobs to China hadn’t yet occurred. All the white angst was due to racial resentment.
In a possible cause for Republicans in general being Republicans, it could be. But we have actual hard data that says that Trumpism is being led primarily by people not actually in economic distress in the form of white suburban voters who are above to well above the medium income for Republican voters.
So if we are talking about Trumpism and the rise of Trumpism, economic distress plays a near zero role. At best you could say that perhaps the fear of someday being in economic distress plays a role, but there is still no data to support that, even if it is a reasonable conjecture.
No, Trumpism is almost assuredly, as Driftglass and other DFH’s have said, merely the ultimate, and known from the start, result of Republicans using ‘The Southern Strategy’ to further their electoral ambitions for 50 years instead of doing the sensible thing and trying to lessen racism.
Well, I don’t think the loudest group of Rep voters this time ARE Paul Ryan Republicans, do you? Or Mitt Republicans? Don’t sound like it.
Interesting Guardian article about “patriot” militias in Oregon and steps to counter them.
Excerpt:
But Campbell is clear-eyed about the roots of the problem, and her diagnosis cuts through a lot of the armchair debate about where the resentment that underpins rightwing insurgency comes from. “In rural areas the conditions have been ripe for a white nationalist populist movement. Especially in Oregon where we’re facing demographic shifts in a lot of places, and the economy’s hurting so badly, and we’ve had decades of scapegoating of people of colour as the reason why our economies are so bad.”
In some Oregon counties, as in other rural areas, libraries are shutting, and sheriff’s departments can’t provide 911 dispatch after dark. Dwindling services lead to a sense of abandonment. The right can easily step in and provide both a clear political narrative to explain this, and a set of simple-seeming solutions.
“The Patriot movement is attracting people who feel disenfranchised. It’s real out here, where people feel like they have not been listened to at the state level, and particularly by Democrats,” Campbell says.
Brave lady.
Is Oregon running an austerity-based state government or does it not make transfer payments to rural areas?
I thought the demographic that Oregonians most objected to was Californians.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/04/in_portlands_heart_diversity_dwin
dles.html Oh, dear. Gentification just happened….
Relevant to look at population growth in this context:
http://arcg.is/2eeMOGO
There are blue (rapidly growing) clusters around Portland, Bend, and Medford. Much of the western part of the state (which is rural, but not as rural as the eastern part) is outpacing national growth. The eastern part of the state is growing much more slowly, or declining in many cases.
Not running Austerity per se, but left with the uncomfortable reality that services don’t scale lineally and that providing certain services requires rather significant minimum costs while also seeing a growing need for services state wide with a shrinking pile of revenue to provide those services.
It’s further compounded that the Oregon State Legislature in Salem has not always been under Democratic control. They lost one of the chambers in 2010 and didn’t get it back until 2012. That lead to the Eastern Oregon Republicans doing everything they could to create the conditions now facing Eastern Oregon Republican communities.
I’m told by friends who still live in my former state, that it’s a big reason they have a new ballot measure that doesn’t increase taxes, but makes sure that the largest companies actual have a minimum tax.
While some metro areas are thriving, two out of three rural counties have experienced a net loss in their total number of businesses since 2010, after the recession had technically ended. According to a recent report by the Economic Innovation Group, half the new businesses started throughout the nation since 2010 were created in just 20 counties, out of more than 3,000 nationwide.
Also on Oregon and rural decline:
Can Counties Fix Rural America’s Endless Recession?
http://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/gov-rural-america-recession-oregon.html
Jeebus, even development causes rural gentrification.