Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for rural hospitals, broadband, farming, infrastructure, and the 60 million Americans who live in rural communities.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares rural America approaches across parties — but there's much more to explore.
Sixty million Americans live in rural communities — roughly one in five. They grow our food, produce our energy, manage our natural resources, and serve in our military at disproportionate rates. Yet rural America has been systematically underinvested for decades. Since 2010, more than 150 rural hospitals have closed. Twenty-one percent of rural Americans lack broadband internet. Rural overdose death rates now exceed urban rates. The average rural county has lost population every decade since 1980. Rural poverty rates are 15.4%, compared to 11.9% in urban areas. Both political parties claim to care about rural America. Neither has delivered the investment it needs.
The three major approaches to rural policy differ in focus and scale. Democrats have invested in broadband, hospital funding, and USDA programs, but primarily through grants and incremental spending. Republicans emphasize deregulation, energy development, and agricultural freedom, but have consistently cut the federal programs rural communities depend on. The Common Good Party proposes treating rural America as a national infrastructure priority — with universal broadband, guaranteed hospital funding, farming reform that favors family operations, and healthcare access that doesn't depend on where you live.
This page breaks down each approach honestly — what it gets right, what it misses, and what it would actually mean for rural communities across America. No spin, no talking points, just the policy.
How the three approaches stack up on the issues that matter most for rural America.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rural hospitals | Medicaid expansion, rural hospital grants | Deregulate, telehealth expansion | Universal coverage eliminates uncompensated care, guaranteed funding |
| Broadband | BEAD program ($42.5B), FCC reforms | Private sector-led, reduce regulation | Utility model, 100/100 Mbps to every address in 5 years |
| Farming support | Expand crop insurance, conservation programs | Market freedom, reduce regulation, trade deals | Cap subsidies to family farms, antitrust enforcement, soil programs |
| Infrastructure | Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding | Public-private partnerships, reduce EPA rules | Double rural infrastructure spending, priority for bridges/roads |
| Education | Title I funding, teacher recruitment | School choice, vouchers, local control | Per-pupil floor, $10K teacher bonus, distance learning via broadband |
| Healthcare access | Community health centers, telehealth | Telehealth deregulation, HSAs | Universal coverage, every provider in-network, rural loan forgiveness |
| Economic development | Rural business grants, Opportunity Zones | Energy development, deregulation, tax cuts | Broadband-enabled remote work, clean energy jobs, small business fund |
| Opioid response | MAT expansion, Medicaid coverage, harm reduction | Law enforcement, drug courts, border interdiction | Treatment on demand, universal coverage, economic recovery programs |
| Water / sewer | Infrastructure law funding, EPA grants | State responsibility, reduce EPA oversight | Federal clean water guarantee, lead pipe replacement, full funding |
| Transportation | Public transit investment, road funding | Road and bridge focus, reduce transit mandates | Rural transit services, road/bridge priority, EV charging network |
Sources: USDA Economic Research Service, FCC Broadband Deployment Report, Rural Health Information Hub, American Farm Bureau Federation, party platform documents. See the full platform for our comprehensive rural policy positions.
Democrats have delivered the largest rural infrastructure investment in a generation through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law ($1.2 trillion total, with significant rural allocations) and the Inflation Reduction Act's clean energy provisions. Key rural proposals include $42.5 billion for broadband deployment (BEAD program), Medicaid expansion to stabilize rural hospitals, community health center funding, USDA rural development programs, expanded crop insurance, conservation reserve programs that pay farmers for environmental stewardship, and increased Title I funding for rural schools. Democrats have also supported the Rural Hospital Stabilization Act and proposed adding dental, vision, and hearing to Medicare.
The broadband investment is genuinely transformative in scale. Medicaid expansion in states that have adopted it has measurably reduced rural hospital closures — non-expansion states have seen closure rates 2.5 times higher. Conservation programs that pay farmers for soil health and environmental stewardship address both agricultural sustainability and climate goals. Community health center funding has expanded access in underserved areas. The infrastructure investment, while slow to deploy, represents real money for rural roads, bridges, water systems, and broadband.
Democrats have struggled to connect with rural voters and have often designed programs that work better in theory than in practice in rural communities. Broadband deployment has been plagued by delays — two years after the BEAD program was funded, most states have not begun construction. Agricultural policy still disproportionately benefits large corporate operations. The ACA helped rural hospitals in expansion states but left those in non-expansion states worse off. Many Democratic proposals require navigating complex federal grant applications that small rural communities lack the staff to complete. The fundamental problem: rural policy is treated as a subset of urban policy rather than a priority in its own right.
For more on infrastructure policy, see the full platform.
Republicans position themselves as the party of rural America, emphasizing values, energy development, and agricultural freedom. Key proposals include expanding fossil fuel and mineral development on federal lands, reducing EPA and environmental regulations that affect farming and ranching, trade policies that expand agricultural export markets, reducing federal involvement in education through school choice and voucher programs, telehealth deregulation to expand rural healthcare access, supporting the Second Amendment as a rural cultural priority, and reducing overall federal spending while protecting agricultural subsidies.
Energy development creates real jobs in rural communities — oil, gas, and mining remain significant rural employers. Telehealth deregulation can meaningfully expand healthcare access when the nearest specialist is hours away. Reducing unnecessary regulatory burden on small farms can lower costs and simplify compliance. Trade agreements that open export markets benefit agricultural producers. Republicans also understand rural culture in ways that Democrats often do not, which matters for designing programs that communities will actually use.
Despite claiming rural America as their base, Republican policies have often undermined rural communities in practice. Cutting federal spending reduces the USDA programs, hospital funding, and infrastructure investment that rural areas depend on disproportionately. Opposing Medicaid expansion has been the single largest driver of rural hospital closures — and the 10 states that still haven't expanded are all Republican-led. Deregulating environmental protections may benefit large agricultural operations but harms rural communities that depend on clean water, healthy soil, and sustainable land use.
The trade wars of 2018-2020 cost American farmers an estimated $27 billion in lost exports — requiring $28 billion in emergency bailouts that disproportionately went to large operations. School voucher programs in rural areas often fail because there are no private schools to choose — the public school is the only option, and vouchers that redirect funding away from it make it worse. Relying on the private sector for broadband has produced the current gap: ISPs will not build infrastructure in areas where the return on investment is too low, which is most of rural America.
For a deeper analysis of rural healthcare, see our healthcare explainer.
The Common Good Party treats rural America as a national infrastructure priority, not an afterthought. Our rural agenda includes: universal broadband treated as a utility, with 100/100 Mbps service to every American address within five years; universal healthcare that eliminates uncompensated care (saving rural hospitals), makes every provider in-network (eliminating rural access barriers), and funds a rural provider pipeline through loan forgiveness; farming reform that caps commodity subsidies to family-scale operations, enforces antitrust against agribusiness monopolies, and invests in soil health programs; doubling rural infrastructure spending for roads, bridges, water, and sewer; a per-pupil funding floor for rural schools with teacher recruitment bonuses; and clean energy transition investments that create rural jobs.
Unlike the Democratic approach, the CGP plan doesn't rely on complex federal grants that rural communities can't navigate — it builds universal systems that serve rural and urban areas equally. Unlike the Republican approach, it doesn't cut the federal programs rural communities depend on while offering cultural affinity as a substitute for investment. The CGP plan recognizes that rural America's problems are infrastructure problems: the hospital closed because coverage is fragmented, the broadband isn't there because it's treated as a luxury, the farm went under because subsidies go to corporations, and the young people left because there were no opportunities. Fix the infrastructure, and rural communities can thrive.
Countries that have invested in rural infrastructure have seen results. South Korea achieved 99.9% broadband penetration — including rural areas — by treating it as a utility. Australia's universal healthcare system ensures rural Australians have the same coverage as urban residents, with rural hospital funding guaranteed federally. Switzerland and Austria maintain vibrant rural economies through infrastructure investment, agricultural support for family farms, and public services that don't discriminate by geography.
The economic case is strong. Universal broadband enabling remote work could bring $100-$200 billion in economic activity to rural areas. Eliminating medical debt and healthcare costs would put thousands of dollars back into every rural household. Clean energy development — wind and solar farms — generates more per-acre revenue for rural landowners than most agricultural crops, while creating local construction and maintenance jobs. Rural America doesn't need sympathy. It needs infrastructure.
The numbers matter more than the talking points. Here's what the Common Good plan would look like for real rural households and communities.
Want to see exactly how the plan affects your household? Enter your income, family size, and current costs.
Open the Tax CalculatorCommon questions about how the three approaches to rural America compare.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full platform or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into policies that affect rural America.
Universal broadband. Universal healthcare. Fair farming policy. Real infrastructure. Read the plan, run the numbers, and see what's possible when rural communities get the investment they deserve.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.