They are, depending on the concern. Rural voters have representatives and lobbyists in Washington and there are plenty of laws intended to favor rural interests. Part of the argument in this thread is that the Electoral College itself gives rural states out-sized influence in determining the Presidency. It isn't true that Washington is ignoring rural populations entirely, or that they have no political power.
Most of the issues you listed upthread as examples of how urban and rural lives differ are examples of issues which should be (and usually are) handled locally, not nationally. Gun control might be an exception (although personally I believe it should be entirely a state issue) but I think it would be absurd to claim that rural populations don't have a powerful influence on that through the NRA already, given that most of the country supports stricter gun control laws than would ever be politically feasible in the US.
Sure there are attempts to design government to balance rural and urban. They work better or worse, at each level. Abolishing them because they are 'out of balance' is maybe not the best solution.
Except no one who talks about "city dwellers" is talking about people living in small towns or suburbs. And if I am living in a city, it doesn't conform to any of the political or cultural assumptions that the urban/rural divide makes about "city dwellers." It also isn't nearly as rural as your definition of "rural," although I've lived in those areas as well. I certainly don't think it would be accurate to lump the culture and community of the town I'm in with LA or New York - certainly people there would consider me rural.
And maybe that's one problem - "city dweller" and "rural" are vague and subjective labels.
>So just call me Mr. Populist Myth I guess.
The myth is that your experience is typical for Americans not living in large cities. It's an outlier, not the norm.