One Georgia, But With Many Parts
This week’s Courier Herald column:
I began writing this column in early 2011. It began after a lunch conversation with DuBose and Carol Porter. Both had just run for statewide office. They were rural Georgia Democrats. They were in the traditional print media business, running almost a dozen papers serving the greater I-16 corridor out of their offices in downtown Dublin.
I was a new media blogger sending random opinions onto the internet. I was a Republican. And I lived in Atlanta. My audience was primarily those in Atlanta that make policy and law for the state.
We knew each had different readers. We knew the state was changing. Politics itself was changing. We were concerned that social media was driving us farther apart. Politics not only was unable to bring people together for common purposes but seemed to be cementing the division and driving new wedges.
What was originally scheduled as a lunch to catch up after the November 2010 elections turned into a discussion of how to bridge the gap between rural Georgia and “Atlanta”. South Georgia, long fearing being left behind, seemed to understand that with the election of a Governor and Lieutenant Governor from Hall County and a Speaker from Blue Ridge, their distance from power was growing literally and figuratively.
Rural Georgians had held onto power via committee chairmen in the legislature and mostly rural Governors and Lieutenant Governors long after the county unit system was abolished. The change from statewide leadership from Democrat to Republican was eased somewhat with the first Republican Governor being from the same county as Sam Nunn. The defeat of Jack Kingston in the 2014 GOP Senate primary – despite Kingston winning virtually every county south of the fall line – seems to have sent the last signal that South Georgia has a different seat at the table now.
A lot has changed for us personally and professionally since that lunch. In addition to running his newspapers, DuBose Porter is now the Chairman of the Democratic Party of Georgia. Carol is now Carol Stewart and is no part of the Dublin paper chain. And I’m still trying to get the various regions and factions of Georgia politics to understand each other, 700 words at a time.
I’ve tried to remain conscious that while my home remains in Suburban Atlanta, my print readers are largely in that “other Georgia”. The original collection of newspapers has expanded with even more newspapers syndicating this weekly, plus a couple of other digital media outlets. This week we’re bringing on about a dozen more print outlets.
I say all of the above as part re-introduction, and part to explain the next few weeks of columns.
A few weeks ago I wrote about an initiative Speaker Ralston is leading to study the challenges of rural Georgia. These will include various issues – problems and opportunities – that require attention and solutions. Rural Georgia has unique issues of health care delivery, rural broadband access, economic development, and in some areas, the “growth problem” is one of population loss, not overdevelopment.
These are not problems that those of us in the Atlanta area can easily relate to. They are problems that affect us all.
Likewise, my rural Georgia readers probably outright reject the need, or at least the rationale for a statewide role, for items such as a cohesive and comprehensive transit system for Metro Atlanta. This is a knife that cuts both ways.
We are a state of ten million people. We are “one Georgia”. Our Georgia, however, is not homogeneous. We don’t all face the same hardships, nor do we all have the same opportunities. We do have one government that is charged with making sure we thrive as a state, as regions, and as individuals.
Over the next few weeks I’m going to drop the subtleties of playing intermediary between rural Georgia and Atlanta. Instead, I’m going to be direct and break down the state by regions.
I’ll start by rejecting the political notion that there are “two Georgias”. To understand current Georgia politics, we need to understand that there are at least five distinct Georgias. All of “Atlanta” isn’t the same, and all of rural Georgia isn’t currently equal. How the coalitions that represent each of these determine which laws we pass, and which we don’t.
I’ll break out the strengths and weakness of each Georgia. And, to put a fine point on it, we’ll begin a dialogue of how each affects the politics of the state – which often becomes barriers to solutions.
We’ve got a little over seven months until the next meeting of the Georgia General Assembly, and a year until statewide primaries that will nominate our next Governor, Lieutenant Governor and other state leaders. We’re going to spend the next few weeks setting the table to understand the challenges they’ll face and the problems we hope they will solve, for all of Georgia.
Charlie Harper is the publisher of GeorgiaPol.com and the Executive Director of PolicyBEST, which focuses on policy issues of Business Climate, Education, Science & Medicine, and Transportation.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Excellent idea.
The struggles around rural healthcare in particular goes completely over the head of most people with standard insurance living fewer than 20 minutes from any of metro Atlanta’s excellent hospitals.
“greater I-16 corridor” has a curious sound
Pothole I-16 corrider
The two-Georgias thing is a tough nut to crack.
First: a lot of other states are having similar problems. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New York etc. all have two distinct economic regions with diverging economic outcomes made worse by political leadership of their states being dominated by those with loyalties from one region and having ideological or political reasons for ignoring the issues from the other. Not only that, but Florida, Texas and California can be said to have THREE such regions. There is actually an on-again/off-again (that is now on again) movement to split California up into 2 or 3 states because of it. So I do not know how to be confident about there being a good way to address this issue in Georgia unless we see some success doing so in other states.
Second: part – if not all – of the problem is that Georgia has invested far more in the northern area of the state than the rest. The 3 big public universities – UGA, Georgia Tech, Georgia State – are where they are, plus Georgia Medical is pretty much in the same orbit, especially where UGA is concerned. When you add that to Emory and it is easy to come to the conclusion that economic growth went where the talent did. Of course there are problems with this. Georgia State didn’t become really significant on the landscape until after the Olympics, until then it was mostly a nontraditional/commuter/graduate (mainly master’s at that) institution, and also having UGA around didn’t exactly turn Athens into Silicon Valley. (Similar to how Tuscaloosa, Auburn and Knoxville are … oh well no need to go there.) By contrast, Texas, California and New York have their better educational institutions more equitably dispersed, and have invested a lot more in their economically declining areas in general – and it hasn’t made much of a difference.
Some of these areas were always somewhat poor or economically depressed, but at least they had the local factories, mills, farms etc. Now they don’t even have those any more thanks to offshoring and automation. So now that we are in the “knowledge economy”, providing real economic development in those areas is more than simply trying to get a large equipment manufacturer or textile mill to locate in Doerun or Moultrie instead of another part of the country or overseas. And the help that they need requires more than a factory or three but a wholesale economic reinvention along with the infrastructure to support it. And no, building the infrastructure in advance doesn’t generate the economic growth. Lots of places have tried that on local and state levels and it results in building highways to nowhere. Cutting taxes, reducing regulations, busting unions? More of the same. Doesn’t spontaneously combust economic activity and it isn’t consistently or sustainably effective at luring it from elsewhere.
When someone figures this issue out, go ahead and give them the Nobel Prize for Economics, elect them governor and give them whatever other perks and prizes they want. But until then, I have nothing and despite their claims and promises otherwise, neither does anyone else. Except for – sigh! – libertarians and left-liberals. Both groups acknowledge that a (large) segment of any society is going to be permanently economically depressed. The latter wishes to address it with wealth redistribution, the former with … let them eat cake. Everyone else just dances around the issue and tries their best to ignore it.
I think a segment of any society is going to be temporarily economically dislocated at any given time. I can’t think of any area of the U.S., even “Appalachia,” that has been “permanently economically depressed.” Obviously, the pace of change and consequent dislocations are getting faster and faster.
Dislocation requires adaptation. New York doesn’t run on beaver pelts or textiles anymore. New England isn’t based on whaling, fishing, and maritime trade, or on the mills that came later.
The state and federal governments can and should have a role to play in helping the economically dislocated, but politicians will have to stop pandering to them first.
How should “permanently economically depressed” be defined, for the sake of discussion? Is it higher unemployment in relation to other areas? Lower incomes as compared to other places? Educational attainment or a lack thereof? I would argue that Appalachia (and much of rural America) is more sensitive to changes in the national/global economy and has a harder time adapting than places with more diverse local economies.
I assume “permanently economically depressed” would be defined as “always was economically depressed and always will be.” I don’t think there are any parts of the United States that can accurately be described as such.
As for “Appalachia,” I mostly object to its treatment as a monolithic region with fully shared economic conditions. The Catskills and Pittsburgh have little in common with each other, let alone Harlan County, Kentucky, or McDowell County, West Virginia.
I think there are major areas of rural America that aren’t going to support current population levels as industrial manufacturing and resource extraction decline and agriculture continues to become more automated. Folks in these areas will continue to be dislocated — government should help them adapt (and relocate), rather than politicians promising to bring back the jobs in exchange for votes.
I think that definition is a fair one.
I agree with you that Appalachia shouldn’t be lumped together for the reasons you explained. To your point, Southern Appalachia as defined by the ARC is experiencing population growth in excess of the national average (4.4% vs. 4.1%, not a lot, I know). Of course, that’s due to folks moving in to retire. But as I have said in previous comments on another thread, the jobs that replace manufacturing, resource extraction, etc. do not provide the same level of income. Agriculture is not scalable here for obvious reasons, so we have folks move in to “play farm.” You also have a large group of folks in the region who do not want to be relocated. That is something I think you could find in just about every single Appalachian community. I can speak from experience that brain drain is the greatest challenge facing small mountain communities. We have 90% of our top 10% leaving and 90% of our bottom 10% staying. Those who can are relocating themselves. But many do not want to, they just do what they must to succeed. Locally it’s gotten to the point where politicians aren’t even promising to bring jobs back (that I’ve seen).
Congratulations on expanding syndication. Is Atlanta one of the five, or is it five in addition to Atlanta?
We’re facing something that American politics is not capable of facing: an economy of size and wealth that does not have enough good full-time jobs for the number of people in this country, and probably will never have again. Rural America is being hit first. Structural changes to the economy that the political system refuses to or can’t do anything about won’t change reality. There’s just no need for a new manufacturing operation, a scares thing anyway, in Dublin rather than in metro Atlanta, unless the pay is significantly less or the operation is receiving other government support.
The standard economic transition prescription has long been to tell the unemployed to learn some other skill and transfer to another sector of the economy. Now retail, a step down from manufacturing, is fast dying. Uber isn’t a good job, and won’t last more than two decades anyway. What happens when there isn’t a sector of the economy that needs people? It is a bitter pill to swallow, but swallowed it will be.