Until World War II, much of what are now strongly conservative areas in rural America supported progressive causes. In new research, Aditya Dasgupta investigates the role of technological change in influencing rural politics during the 20th century. He finds that following the Dust Bowl of the 1930s in the Great Plains, the introduction of new irrigation technology led to a regional shift away from small firms to large business-like operations. This in turn created a new rural power elite whose interests aligned with conservative politics and promoted conservative values to the broader population.
One need only look at a map of the 2024 presidential election results to know that rural areas are strongholds of conservative politics in the United States. Indeed, simple visual cues of rurality, such as the relative number of pickup trucks on the streets, are highly informative about the Republican party’s local vote share.
But this wasn’t always the case. Historically, rural regions in the United States like the Great Plains – the vast grassland spanning the ten states stretching from Texas in the South to the Dakotas in the North – were often hotbeds of progressive movements. Indeed, in this region, the left-wing Populist movement once thrived in the early twentieth century.
So, what changed in the last century to make a region that was historically centrist, if not left wing, in its politics into a conservative stronghold? In recent research, I explore a surprising factor behind this transformation: the introduction of new irrigation technologies after World War II, which not only remade the rural economy but also its politics.
From Dustbowl to Breadbasket
The Great Plains has long been a center of American agriculture, but its arid climate posed immense challenges to farming. In the 1930s, years of drought and dust storms, which became known as the “Dust Bowl” devastated the region, driving many farmers from their land. Those who stayed relied on dryland farming, which was precarious and unproductive. By the mid-20th century, many family farms were on the brink of collapse.
Everything changed after World War II. Two groundbreaking innovations—petroleum-powered deep well pumps and center-pivot irrigation systems—unlocked the potential of the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest groundwater reserves in the world. These technologies allowed farmers to irrigate vast areas, transforming the Great Plains into one of the world’s most productive agricultural regions.
But there was a catch. These technologies were expensive, favoring large-scale operations over traditional family farms. Over time, the region’s agriculture shifted toward capital-intensive agribusiness. This economic shift had profound political consequences. Before the irrigation boom, farmers in the Great Plains often supported progressive policies, favoring government intervention to stabilize crop prices and provide a safety net. But as small farms were replaced by large, business-like operations, political preferences shifted dramatically.
To investigate how economic change resulted in political change, we turned to a fascinating reservoir of qualitative data: repeated community studies by rural sociologists carried out in Haskell County in Kansas over a 50-year period spanning the pre- and post-technological shock periods. Drawing on these studies, we highlight three inter-related mechanisms through which the introduction of irrigation technology after World War II seems to have transformed politics:
1. Selection for Scale: The displacement of small farmers
In Haskell County, the advent of irrigation technology brought immense productivity gains but came at a steep cost. The high expense of deep-well pumps and center-pivot irrigation systems required substantial upfront investments, favoring wealthier landowners who could afford the capital outlay. Sociologists observing the region noted that small family farmers, already struggling to stay afloat, found themselves unable to compete. Many sold their land to larger operators, further concentrating agricultural production.
This shift in landownership created a new rural elite composed of large-scale agribusiness operators. These landowners, concerned with protecting their profits and minimizing costs, increasingly aligned with conservative political platforms that emphasized low taxes and reduced government regulation.
“Center pivot sprinkler with low energy p” (CC BY 2.0) by usdanrcstexas
2. Agglomeration Effects: The rise of agribusiness
The economic ripple effects of irrigation went beyond the farm. As irrigation-supported monoculture farming, particularly corn, took hold, Haskell County became a hub for downstream industries such as meatpacking and cattle feedlots. These industries, which relied on the steady supply of irrigated corn for animal feed, entrenched the dominance of agribusiness in the local economy.
The sociologists noted that this economic agglomeration reshaped the region’s labor force and community dynamics. The influx of agribusiness-related jobs brought significant economic growth, but also tied the fortunes of the county tightly to the success of large-scale agriculture. Politically, this dependency further strengthened the influence of agribusiness leaders, who lobbied for policies favorable to their industries.
3. The emergence of an influential rural power elite
Perhaps the most striking transformation observed in Haskell County was cultural. The sociologists documented how the new rural elite—wealthy landowners and agribusiness elites—actively shaped political and social norms. Their emphasis on self-reliance, free enterprise, and skepticism toward government intervention resonated deeply in a community that was oriented around collective action and farmer cooperatives.
Over time, these values trickled down to the broader population, even among those who did not directly benefit from agribusiness wealth. The studies highlight how church groups and civic organizations echoed the conservative messaging promoted by these elites, reinforcing a cultural shift away from the more progressive politics of the past. Agribusiness lobbying organizations, like the Farm Bureau, also promoted conservative politicians and messaging through campaign contributions.
Comparing counties shows the impact of new irrigation technology
To test the theory, I analyzed county-level voting patterns across the Great Plains before and after the irrigation boom. By comparing counties above the Ogallala Aquifer to nearby counties without groundwater access, we identified a clear pattern: areas that benefited most from the new technologies became significantly more conservative over time.
We also examined individual attitudes using survey data. People in areas transformed by capital-intensive agriculture are today more likely to oppose government regulation and redistributive policies, reflecting the growing influence of agribusiness, even when comparing those who lived nearby but across the boundary of the Ogallala aquifer.
New technologies can change society and politics
Our findings highlight how economic and technological changes can reshape political landscapes. The conservative transformation of the Great Plains was not just about cultural issues or “what’s the matter with Kansas” as journalist and historian Thomas Frank famously queried in 2004. It was also about the rise of agribusiness and the economic incentives that came with it.
Understanding these dynamics is crucial as we face new technological and environmental challenges. Just as irrigation transformed the Great Plains, innovations in automation, renewable energy, and climate adaptation could reshape political preferences in the future.
The story of the Great Plains offers a powerful lesson: new technologies don’t just change economies—they change societies and politics, too. By examining the past, we can better understand the forces shaping our political future.
- This article is based on the paper, ‘Explaining Rural Conservatism: Political Consequences of Technological Change in the Great Plains’ in American Political Science Review.
- Subscribe to LSE USAPP’s email newsletter to receive a weekly article roundup.
- Please read our comments policy before commenting.
- Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.
- Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-eFg
