Subscribe for 33¢ / day

Memo to Democrats who think the Donald J. Trump phenomenon in the American heartland is a passing fancy: The latest census figures released this spring suggest fresh growth in the Midwest, the sea of Republican red that swept the Manhattan billionaire into the White House.

The movement isn’t robust, and a good portion of the growth is in cities that customarily help bolster Democratic numbers, but this period may be an important moment in the sun for places outside the Sun Belt — particularly the very places where Trump mopped up scores of electoral votes.

Indeed, at the very least, the parts of America that complained of being ignored now are meriting special attention from demographers and almost certainly soon will be studied in more detail by political professionals.

For tucked inside those census figures are signs of a comeback that could reshape the country just as Trump’s triumph reshaped the political world.

“The middle of the country is showing signs of reviving,” said William Frey, a pioneering demographer who now is a Brookings Institution scholar. “It is a good thing, especially since so many people in the middle of the country have felt that they’ve been left out of things for a while.”

No longer. There are discernible population gains in Detroit, Dayton, Akron, Indianapolis and Scranton — all in states that Trump carried in 2016. Rural areas, also a Trump stronghold, are growing nationally for the first time in a decade. And there remain big gains in the Sun Belt, yet another Trump redoubt, though the gains are less now than they have been in the recent past.

One of the characteristics the census figures reveal is an aspect of American life that had disappeared for several years: population dispersal. The result is a spurt of growth in heartland cities that Frey believes “could call into question the sharp clustering of the nation — in large metros and their cities — that characterized the first half of the decade of the 2010s.”

One likely reason for this, as for so much in our culture today: the millennials.

They’re interested in settling in locations where housing costs are lower than they are in the established cities, where life is less formal, traffic is less oppressive and work-life balance is possible. The migrants, Frey suggested, “are benefiting from the revival of the economy, as they now begin their careers and families and look for a more long-term location that is affordable and provides a good quality of life.”

That is increasingly becoming a theme in those areas.

“That’s because there’s a revival of opportunity in the Midwest, where there has been so much revitalization,” said Sen. Rob Portman, the Ohio Republican who was born in Cincinnati. “There’s the lower cost of living, but also more and more tech jobs, and people are realizing they can afford a better quality of living in these places.”

Meanwhile, for the first time in this decade, population gains are being recorded in rural areas. These are the kinds of places that Princeton sociologist Robert Wuthnow, in his striking new book “The Left Behind,” described as “moral communities,” places where “people interact with one another and form loyalties to one another,” adding that the “moral outrage of rural America is a mixture of fear and anger. The fear is that small-town ways of life are disappearing. The anger is that they are under siege.”

And while there may be precision in census figures, there are great uncertainties in politics, and one of them may be whether growth in pro-Trump areas necessarily means strengthening the hold the president has on those areas.

“It’s impossible to know whether these movements are motivated by politics,” said Barbara Trish, a political scientist at Grinnell College, located 60 miles east of Des Moines, Iowa. “And things could work in unexpected ways. To the extent that Democrats worry that they have fallen way behind in those areas, they may find the newcomers vulnerable to being picked up by their candidates.”

Urban dissent has been an important element of American life for a half-century. Rural discontent has waxed and waned over the years, hitting crescendos during the last decade of the 19th century (with the growth of the Populist Party, which won 22 electoral votes in the 1892 election) and again in the agricultural credit crunch in the 1980s.

Now rural America is in rebellion again.

David M. Shribman is executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.