Scams-n-Scandals - Nate's Corner (printer-friendly)

LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE U.S.A. IS GETTING WILDER, AND MORE SO EVERY DAY
Nate Dickinson

An article entitled "The New Continental Divide" by Michael Lind appeared in the January-February 2003 issue of the distinguished Atlantic Monthly. The subject was the contrasting overcrowded cities on the coasts and the dying rural communities in the interior of the United States. Lind points out that today most of the Great Plains, for one example, are undergoing a catastrophic demographic collapse. Although this region accounts for one-fifth of the nation's land area, it contains only four percent of the human population; and the population of Los Angeles and surrounding sprawl is higher than that of the Plains, which has an area five times that of all of California. He notes that many heartland communities face the prospect of becoming ghosts towns.

These pronouncements are very refreshing to those who are interested in the truth being known, especially in light of the horrendous barrage of mistruths, deception, and play on emotions of the more radical elements of the well-entrenched environmental movement. Listening to their doomsday rantings, one would think that there are few wildlands and wilderness left. For instances, just what is intended by the Nature Conservancy's rallying cry that their goal is to save the last great places or the Wildlands Project's aim to rewild 50 percent of North America?

Lind goes on to point out that the Atlantic and Pacific coasts are rapidly filling up, with the involved counties constituting only 17 percent of the U.S. area, while containing 53 percent of the nation's people. It should be noted that such comparisons would be even more striking if consideration was given to the fact that populations are generally concentrated in a relatively small percent of the area of the involved countries. In addition, if one looks at their Rand McNally they will quickly see that the vast majority of the coastal areas are not plastered with cities or sprawl. A breakdown by towns and cities would be more revealing. Continuation of existing trends would portend an empty interior surrounded by a handful of densely populated metropolitan areas.

It must be noted that Michael Lind did not appear to intend to challenge the environmental establishment, nor to provide ammunition to weaken their cause. The matter of the environment and man's impact was not brought up. He did touch on the political implications of the so-called continental divide and the lack of true representation for the local constituents in the dying rural communities and the disparities in economic matters.

The intention appears to be to make a case for the social engineering of the interior, stating that the heartland needs people. Lind recommends the creation of federal programs that would help poor and working-class people to move; not from cities to suburbs, but from crowded states to those with low population densities. This would appear to be a very liberal approach that clashes with the very liberal agenda of the radical environmentalists.

Further ammunition is provided by figures showing that only six percent of the U.S. of A. is residential, being the urban, suburban, and rural centers; with 20 percent farmland, 25 percent rangeland, and the rest wilderness and woodland. Obviously the rest amounts to 49 percent, certainly a far cry from the shrinking wilderness touted by the liberal environmentalists.

The article identifies the role of agriculture in the current complexion of the landscape, noting that since 1950 agricultural production has increased by more than 100 percent, with land taken out of production eight times as fast as it is consumed by suburban development. Indeed, very interesting. And, much has gone back to forest, particularly in the Northeast. It is recognized that most of this idle land can, in the 21st Century; be restored to wilderness - prairie, forest, or desert. One would think that this would make the environmentalists very happy, even though they can not take credit for it.

Lind points out that the rate of land abandonment would be even faster if government did not subsidize agriculture and provide irrigation subsidies. Obviously, he is not opposed to government subsidies, since he suggests that the revenues be used for promoting new high - tech infrastructures in the heartland. He identifies the need build a transcontinental infrastructure, subsidizing thousands of small regional airports to form an interstate skyway system. It is noted that irrigation subsidies presently total two bullion dollars annually, with half of that used to produce surplus crops. Lind suggests driving agriculture east to states like Illinois and Iowa where water is abundant and renewable. All of this money could be better used to promote a combination of service and manufacturing industries as part of an ambitious economic development program.

All of the pronouncements in this article give pretty good clues to the agenda of the New America Foundation, of which Michael Lind is a senior fellow. Concern, of course, must be shown for the impact of such social engineering on individual freedom, public harassment, private property rights, and the traditional and legitimate roles of the private and public sectors. Thanks should be given to Lind for his accurate portrayal of the American landscape. Resolution of conflicts between two decidedly liberal agendas will certainly take some doing.

Nate Dickinson