Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Rural Strategy for Democrats

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 08:55 AM
Original message
A Rural Strategy for Democrats
In the most recent issue of The Nation, there was a fantastic article by John Nichols about the lack of a rural strategy by the Democratic Party right now, and many suggestions to combat this slide among voters in the "heartland".

I grew up in the rural American heartland -- and still go back to visit when I can. And I can honestly say, from talking to relatives and friends back there when I visit, that many of these ring true.

Here's a few choice excerpts:

Needed: A Rural Strategy by John Nichols

... What angers Waller is a sense that the deck keeps getting stacked against rural America by powerful corporations and by politicians of both political parties who pay more attention to promised rural panaceas--like free trade and a bigger-is-better attitude toward farming--than to the painful realities of the countryside. "I ask myself: How can people in Washington let this happen?" she says. "I wonder if it's because they've gotten so used to measuring everything in economic terms that they don't recognize that behind all these numbers from all these forgotten places, there are people who are hurting."

SNIP

"Rural America is being eviscerated by contract farming, by the loss of control of the food chain, by the lack of rural healthcare, by trade policies that are particularly destructive to rural economies," says Representative Marcy Kaptur, the ranking Democrat on the agriculture subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. Kaptur is angered that many in Congress, including fellow Democrats, fail to understand the small "d" democratic value of having a countryside populated by farmers and small-town residents who keep control of the nation's food supply in diverse hands. It is not just a romantic attachment to old ways of farming that causes Kaptur to fear rural depopulation. Rather, she says, something fundamental is lost as rural folk who considered themselves stewards of the land are replaced by sprawling factory farms that treat the landscape as a commodity to be dosed indiscriminately with chemicals and despoiled with livestock "waste lagoons." Democrats must recognize, Kaptur says, that "rural America is hanging on by its fingernails. There's a sense of urgency in the countryside. It's real, it's volatile."

SNIP

Kaptur says that's because the party has been peddling gimmicks rather than populist substance. "Most of the people who run the Democrat Party, like Terry McAuliffe, they're city people," she says. "They think it's just a matter of tinkering with the party's image." Democratic consultants have created a mini-industry that tells candidates to go "country" by sponsoring NASCAR teams, joining the NRA or fuzzing positions on abortion or gay rights to mollify social conservatives. Rural folks just laugh. "You can be ardently pro-choice and support gay rights and still win rural areas if you have an economic message," says Rhonda Perry, a family farmer who is program director with the Missouri Rural Crisis Center. "I don't think too many people in rural Missouri sit up nights worrying about gay rights. But they do sit up nights worrying about how they are going to keep the farm or how they are going to get health benefits after the meatpacking plant shuts down."

If Democrats want to speak to rural America, they should start listening to the Rhonda Perrys and Helen Wallers. They'll learn quickly that bland, one-size-fits-all "rural strategies" are losers. The corporate owner of a 4,000-cow factory farm in California has different demands from the family that milks 100 cows in Wisconsin. Companies like Monsanto and Tyson are not "partners" of wheat farmers trying to keep genetically modified seeds out of North Dakota, or Missouri hog farmers who want to use antitrust laws to prevent meatpacking companies from cornering markets. Wal-Mart has a different vision for rural America from mom-and-pop stores on Main Street. And while a Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement might open foreign markets for agribusiness, it will collapse prices for family farmers here and abroad. "It's about making choices," says Waller. "Most of the time the choices are between what the agribusiness companies want, which is to rig the markets so they can make money, and what's good for rural communities."



Take some time and read the rest of this article. It's very eye-opening and important, IMHO. Most importantly, it needs to be read by all of the party hacks and pollsters still trying to tinker the party's "image" rather than really offering forth solutions to their problems -- even if they go against powerful corporate interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WhoCountsTheVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. If the Democratic party wants to win, please listen to this
"I don't think too many people in rural Missouri sit up nights worrying about gay rights. But they do sit up nights worrying about how they are going to keep the farm or how they are going to get health benefits after the meatpacking plant shuts down."

"Most of the time the choices are between what the agribusiness companies want, which is to rig the markets so they can make money, and what's good for rural communities."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Right on! The Democratic Party has sold out rural America
Rather than supporting agricultural diversity through locally-owned farms, they've supported agribusiness. Rather than supporting main-street, "mom & pop" stores, they've helped enable Wal-Mart. Rather than supporting measures that help keep industry in these rural areas, they've championed corporate free trade.

Tweaking with "image" is not the way to win them back. Caring about their concerns and doing something about them is the way to win them back.

And I'm certain that some people will say, "But, we can't win the Presidential Election by doing that." Fuck the Presidential Election, in this instance. This is a strategy to win back the House and Senate, and to REALLY take steps toward making this country work for ALL Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. Maybe
A washington outsider, someone from a rural state perhaps, would be appealing as a presidential candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reachout Donating Member (236 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
4. Excellent article
Thanks for passing this along.

When I ran for a seat in the state legislature, I ran in a district that encompassed portions of a college town but also a large rural area. I was particularly struck by this line:

"I don't think too many people in rural Missouri sit up nights worrying about gay rights. But they do sit up nights worrying about how they are going to keep the farm or how they are going to get health benefits after the meatpacking plant shuts down."

This is absolutely the truth. Even staunch social conservatives are concerned, first and foremost, about putting food on the table. A lot of them don't feel anyone is addressing their concerns.


Peace


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NicoleM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
5. They don't need to care.
There are a lot of rural states with three electoral votes and three representatives in Congress. There is no incentive for politicians of any political party to do anything for rural people because there aren't enough rural people to do anything for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. What unadulterated bullshit!
Last time I checked, if Gore would have won just ONE of the rural states in the heartland -- say, Montana or the Dakotas -- he'd be sitting in the WH right now.

Also, last time I checked, each one of these "rural states" also had two Senators.

That doesn't seem too unimportant to me. Your remarks sound like the shortsighted remarks of Patrick Kennedy in the article.

Which, you might recognize had you actually taken the time to READ the article, which you obviously didn't based on your response.... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NicoleM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Chill out, dude.
Edited on Thu Oct-23-03 09:19 AM by NicoleM
I'm from North Dakota. I know a little about this. IME, this is the attitude of a lot of politicians.

BTW, when I said three reps in Congress, I meant two in the Senate and one in the House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. But I'm not talking about the "attitude of politicians"...
I'm talking about the development of a long-term winning strategy. So was the article.

IOW, rather than focus on the shortsightedness of politicos and pollsters, offering up nothing more than empty promises and slogans -- would it or would it not be a beneficial strategy to start focusing on really addressing people's needs?

Being someone who is from the Dakotas (although I'm not certain whether you're "rural" or not), is this something that you can see making sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NicoleM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Of course it would be beneficial.
I guess I'm just really cynical when it comes to the motives of politicians. It seems to me that it almost always comes down to either money or votes, and there just aren't a lot of either in rural America.

As to whether I'm rural, I'm from McKenzie County, North Dakota, population density less than one person per square mile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Believe me, I don't know if anyone is more cynical than me...
with regards to politicians. But what we're talking about here is the need for a strategy. And I'll be damned if I think that we should just sit back and let the Washington insiders blow yet ANOTHER election rather than fight like hell to take over the party and make it work for people again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
6. We had the "Happy Pappy" program during the War on Poverty....
in the 1960's. It helped a lot of poor families in Appalachia to eat, including my own, but it did not provide a means to live beyond the monthly stipend. I don't know that this pertains particularly to the rural strategy, but it seemed relevant to me. A check for $275 per month was like manna from heaven but it hardly left enough over to invest or start a business. Most of the work was cleaning brush off the river banks for flood control or sweeping up around the county courthouses. It was mostly "makework".

The point being that the big agribusinesses are surrounded by poor people looking for a means to work. If there are no factories, no companies, no jobs, it can be quite a challenge trying to feed nine children. There has to be more permanency to government programs to help the poor, not just temporary fixes.

The government's "rural strategy" should be in the area of more jobs to rural areas. Rather than sending them overseas with cheap labor here at home, we should subsidize some corporations to build in rural America. There is enough unemployment for them to get their necessary labor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abudabbi Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
8. Gephardt is the only one who can get the rural vote
Kucinich: too liberal
Kerry: too elite plus a New Englander
Dean: too elite also a New Englander with far left leanings
Braun: a black female
Sharpton: too crazy to be President
Clark: he can capture the rural vote but he is unknown by many on the positions plus was against the war.
Edwards: trail attorney, will never resonate with rural voters
Lieberman: a jew plus a New Englander
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. READ THE ARTICLE -- the key is not "image"
The key is honestly addressing people's concerns, valuing them, and offering real solutions. The kind of image-oriented politics you are advocating is EXACTLY the kind of mistake that this article warns AGAINST.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abudabbi Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. well it's true
you honestly believe an elitist like Dean can possibly connect with rural voters? image is everything baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. This isn't just about Presidential elections, anyway.
And secondly, do you not realize that Dean was a governor of a RURAL state? VT is quite far from urban.

As for him being "far left", it appears that you've bought into the DLC/Lieberman lies. He's a centrist, hardly a progressive.

Finally, not ALL politics has to be about "image". While Presidential politics will be the LAST level to change, why can't we begin to use this kind of strategy on the Congressional level?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abudabbi Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. So signing the civil unions was the centrist thing to do?
how about raising taxes. i am not talking about iddly bitty Vermont, I am talking about the heartland, I am talking about Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and other states in that area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Civil unions was a court decision, Dean did NOT push it
Research it a bit and you'll find that out. While he signed it, he did NOT push for it nor campaign for it in any way.

And where do you get the "raising taxes" idea from? Is that what he did in VT? I don't think so -- in fact, he brags about CUTTING taxes along with balancing their budget.

And I'm not even a Dean supporter, either. I actually favor Kucinich. It's important to do your own research to learn the real facts on many of these issues. DU is invaluable for that. I see you're a relatively new poster, so if you choose to stick around for a while you'll be amazed at how much you can learn here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VermontDem2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Click on his profile Icon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Thanks. I had my suspicions...
... even if he hadn't come right out and done anything yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
76. Dean will win the Iowa caucuses so you don't know what in the
Edited on Thu Oct-23-03 01:56 PM by Classical_Liberal
hell you are talking about. Clinton and Gore won while advcating gays in the military, so you don't know what you are talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. He, and others, can not... IF
they do not develop a strategy to take their message (and image) to the rural voters.

Ironically, btw, Vermont is a rural state, and the issues that Dean has had deal with - agricultural, persistance of few higher wage jobs in rural areas, are the issues that are contemporary - at least in the midwestern rural areas.

Image is vaccuous without message. Message doesn't go far without a vehicle for carrying it. Message can shape image. I think several candidates - if it was an intentional strategy - and one not currently pursued - could overcome this. But without doing so - all that is left is the 'image' as packaged by the media - which is as you suggest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
75. Just because you say he is an elitist doesn't make it so
The DLC hates him so he probably isn't an elitist. Yes he connects with rural voters. Vermont is rural.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #8
28. I haven't looked at Gephardt's proposals in detail
but I do know that Kucinich has a proposal for supporting family farms and small businesses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Lydia, FYI, you're posting to a tombstone. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
59. I don't want to live in a world where Dean and Kerry are considered
too elite to be president. but Schleprock is just fine. I also don't want to live in a world where the fact that Lieverman is Jewish and from New England disqualifies him and the fact that Braun is an African American woman disqualifies her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. Brian... you're talking to a tombstone.
Don't feel bad -- I made the same mistake before. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Classical_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
72. Bolony
Wellstone was both a jew and just as liberal as Kucinich. He actually addressed the problems of rural farmers, and won a rural state repeatedly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #72
80. Once again, you're replying to a tombstone...
I made the same mistake earlier. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pstokely Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
86. Gephardt is a city slicker
he's from the south side of St. Louis

isn't Vermont a rural state?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
9. As a rural resident I agree
Edited on Thu Oct-23-03 09:18 AM by Armstead
Living in a fairly rural section of New England, the pressures faced by small towns and rural communities are enormous.

It's agriculture, sprawl and many otehr issues. For example, where I live, the influx of outside "city slickers" who pay exhorbitant amounts for weekend homes is driving many people out of the region because they can;t afford to live here anymore.

The oligarchy and corporations are trying to take over the countryside just as they have in the suburbs and cities. Mreanwhile, the industrial employers who once were the economic engines for our towns and small cities have packed up and left.

The bright spot is that (at least here) many peopel are focused on local solutions to deal with these things with some success. But it would make a big difference if the Democratic Party nationally started articulating a vision aimed at main St. if instead of siding with Wall St., Wal-Mart, Tyson Foods and otehr elites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
14. They also worry about guns. An anti-gun Democratic Party is doomed...
in rural, red-state aeras.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Once again, READ THE ARTICLE. It addresses this!
Democratic consultants have created a mini-industry that tells candidates to go "country" by sponsoring NASCAR teams, joining the NRA or fuzzing positions on abortion or gay rights to mollify social conservatives. Rural folks just laugh. "You can be ardently pro-choice and support gay rights and still win rural areas if you have an economic message," says Rhonda Perry, a family farmer who is program director with the Missouri Rural Crisis Center. "I don't think too many people in rural Missouri sit up nights worrying about gay rights. But they do sit up nights worrying about how they are going to keep the farm or how they are going to get health benefits after the meatpacking plant shuts down."

While not directly addressing "guns", you should get the idea. People care first and foremost about being able to carve out a living. That's the hook where you get them. Everything else is secondary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maine Mary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
71. Guns are important in rural areas
I wouldn't now be serving my 3rd term in the Maine Legislature if I ever voted against them. I don't necessarily need support from the NRA though. In fact the jerks did a mailing against me in 98 yet I still won. (HaHa :-))

However, I know for a fact that the reason Gore lost in my legislative district was because of the gun issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #71
74. The gun issue
seems different in the rural area than the NRA position. It is more often out of necessity that a farmer may need a gun. Now I am not totally sure and have no facts other than experience with the people. When the fox gets in the hen house, the coyotes take the calf, etc. Many of them do not even like to shoot the varmits but economically they must. It is also needed when you are 3 miles from anyone else. It has nothing to do with the NRA and the right to bear arms just common sense for the farmers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #71
79. But wouldn't you say that rural people see it as a local issue?
In my experience in growing up in rural America, and hunting from the time I was 12, rural folks don't see the need for gun control because it isn't needed in their areas. "Guns" mean hunting rifles, not semi-automatic handguns or assault rifles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. That is kinda
what I meant but did not say it very well. Guns are a different thing in rural areas. Yes, very much a local thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maine Mary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #79
84. Yeah it's a local issue
and rurals want to keep it that way. I think rurals just feel that if the cities want to pass laws restricting guns; fine them let umm... but "keep us out of it"!!! That's sort of the mentality. Actually applies to alot of other issues. Your article covers them pretty well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
21. Here is my problem with all of this.
These rural people are the ones that keep voting for Republicans with their promise of less government. What they are asking for here is more government. They want the government to protect them from large corporations. This is what really bothers me about conservatives. They don't want less government. They want less government for everyone else and more for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Protection from corporations? Government has been ENABLING them!
Where do you think that most of the subsidies from the recent farm bill go? I'll tell you -- to ADM, Cargill, Monsanto, Con-Agra, etc. Small farmers get the shaft.

And with regards to "free trade" -- whose interests are being championed there? Corporations, that's who. It certainly isn't helping these rural communities.

Finally, why do you assume that all rural people are "conservative"? Because they have been exploited by RW demagogues over the past 15 years? That doesn't make them conservative. They've been exploited because the Democratic Party largely abandoned them during that time, supporting agribusiness, enabling big chains like Wal-Mart to wipe out small businesses, and so on. The Republicans just moved in with their "values" rhetoric to capture them, because the Democratic Party wasn't even giving them THAT.

All people in rural areas want is a fair deal, and to be able to live their lives without being taken over from the outside. I would hardly call that conservative. I'd call that what most people want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #24
31. The subsidies that ADM and their ilk receive
were aimed at the smaller farmers. The large companies figured out how to take advantage of them. We could do away with all farm subsidies, but that would not make them happy either. They want programs of which they can take advantage, but that the large companies cannot. They want an advantage to which their competition will not have access.


How does the government allow Walmart to wipe out small businesess? Are you saying they do so actively by giving Walmart an advantage or passively by not giving small businesses an advantage.


Also, I reject you claim that "all people in rural areas want is a fair deal." What they want is government programs to help them and no one else.

As far as the Democrats not giving them anything and them going over to the GOP because of social issues, that is not an excuse. WHat you are saying is that since the the Dems didn't pander to their self interest, the GOP was able to pander to their bigotry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flying_Pig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #24
33. The big farming/ranching corporations are not getting most of the
Edited on Thu Oct-23-03 10:32 AM by Flying_Pig
government supports. In some areas, that may be true, but in California, there are several thousand non-corporate farmers and ranchers that receive billions from the government, whether it be for price supports, water, or other tax payer-funded freebies.

The farmers and ranchers of California are the biggest receipients of "welfare" in the state, yet they scream bloody murder if the government allocates a dollar to feed or educate a child, or to give someone basic health benefits.

And I won't even bring up the costs to the state for the illegal labor they use, who they in turn pay like crap, and treat like slaves.

I live here, I see it every day. This land is filled with the worst kind of hypocrites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. I must say that my experiences are much different...
I live in NY, not far from NYC. When I go upstate, I see what used to be family farms sold off to developers. Ditto when I go through NJ.

It's also the case when I go back home to rural Western PA. All the family farms are disappearing. Springing up in their stead are developments of McMansions all on 0.25 acre lots.

While some of these farms are probably just sold off because people don't want to farm anymore, I can't believe that is the case with ALL of them.

All people operate on self-interest. Including me. Including you. But the willingness of you and Brian Sweat to just instantly write off such a segment of the population just boggles me. Show me where you find this ideologically pure group out there that we SHOULD work to appeal to in order to create a better society, and I'm all ears. Until then, we need to, as Armstead pointed out below, appeal to the self interest of the broadest swath of the population in a way that benefits society as a whole.

And I say that as a democratic socialist who is probably one of the more left-leaning people, even on these boards. I've tried to present what I see as a pretty good strategy. What's yours?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #37
56. What should we be doing to help the farmers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. It's not just about helping farmers -- it's about helping the rural US
First, I would take SERIOUS steps against GM crops being introduced into the marketplace. Make the FDA do its fucking job as a WATCHDOG, and stop shilling for big business. Make them prove, over the long-term, that their products will cause no harm to the environment.

Second, come down HARD on corporations like Wal-Mart that abuse their employees through union-busting tactics and employment of slave labor. While I don't absolve local planning boards for allowing them to take hold in rural areas, they have been largely enabled through the actions (or inactions) of the federal government.

Thirdly, start focusing on LOCAL solutions to problems like poverty and homelessness. I'm not saying that rural areas should be absolved from helping those less fortunate in cities, but we need to get off this idea that the Federal Government is the best vehicle for addressing everything through one-size-fits-all solutions. In many instances, those solutions don't solve the problem, and they piss off a lot of people who should be our allies in the process.

Fourthly, stop allowing corporations to dictate the terms of trade. This is something that is absolutely KILLING almost everyone except the corporations controlling the process. Allowing foreign countries access to our markets is not necessarily a bad thing, but it shouldn't be done in a manner to primarily pad the profits of large corporations. That's the way it currently is, as I believe a majority of "free trade" is actually transfers within transnational corporations.

There's lots more I could come up with, but this is at least a start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkamin Donating Member (283 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #33
60. 6 words
Dust off the Sherman Anti-trust Act.

We've been through this before, about a century ago. The special interest monopolies are more powerful, to be sure. But I still think history runs in cycles. We need a new Teddy Roosevelt. The best Democratic platform is to rail against the monopolies: the Wal-Marts, the agribusinesses, Wall Street, the defense companies, and all the other mega-corporations who are, in a nutshell, making this country and its citizens worse off.

The Dems have not yet shown the guts to do this. But I've come to the conclusion that this is the winning platform, over the long-term. If we win in 04, and do not take strong actions against the monopolies, we will lose in the long run.

Break em up, I say. Start with Fox and AOL Time Warner, take on the agribusinesses and Wal-Mart, reinvigorate the EPA and FDA. Our model right now should be the last truly progressive revolution in the early part of this century, and I think that's the blueprint for success.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. That's why "one size fits all" answers don't work
You're absolutely correct. That's just an unfortunate aspect of human nature.

But it's once again a question of babies and bathwater. A lot of the problems people have with "big government" are justified when programs or reguilations are either ineffective or unduly restrictive and/or abusive.

However that does not mean that the basic concepts of those programs and regulations should be tossed out. There are ways to improve and find new solutions. But to do that, we have to go beyond the simplistic stereotypical politics of today.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flying_Pig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #21
32. Bingo Brian!
I've done a lot of traveling over the last several years, mostly in rural regions. During elections, from one end to the other, the rural areas were almost 90% Republican, especially in farm and ranch areas.

Farmers and ranchers are some of the biggest hypocrites there are. On one hand, they want less regulation and less government, so they can pollute at will, buy whatever and however many kinds of guns they want, and be left alone to do whatever the hell they want, without regard for the rest of the nation, or the environment, or anything but their own needs and desires.

Then, on the other hand, they are the biggest consumers of corporate welfare there is. They take hundreds of billions every year of OUR tax dollars in subsidies and price supports. These same "anti-government" types squawk like hell if anyone even thinks about messing with their government checks, yet they line up quick to vote to kill programs supporting single-mothers, or Headstart, or anything to help those in need. Fuck them.

In addition, the price supports hurt other farmers around the world. I see these bastards, in their new giant trucks, pockets bulging with money (and I'm not talking owners of giant corporate farms or ranches here), working only six or seven months of the year, taking extended vacations to Hawaii, all on the taxpayer's dollar, while dissing the the hand that feeds them.

Fuck them. They are the worst kinds of hypocrites there are. The myth of the struggling family farmer/rancher is long gone, replaced by Libertarian/Republican types who are just as greedy and hypocritical as any Wall Street baron.

There is such a disparity between the philosophies of most Democrats, and rurual Republicans now, that the twain will never be breached. They are ultra-religious, pro-gun, anti-government hypocrites, and we are pissing in the wind thinking we could ever win them over.

Oh sure, they can be bought. Here in CA, some of these rural mover and shakers will vote for a Dem, as long as that Dem keeps the money and free taxpayer funded water flowing to them, but that's as far as it goes. By and large, they are selfish, greedy people, and I don't feel we should do anything extraordinary to pander to them. If they want to join the human race, and the rest of this nation, fine, but until then,... they can kiss my ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. So what you're saying is that....
because some people in a segment of the population are jerks, our policies ought to write off those entire segments of the population.

With that kind of srategy, there won't be anyone left.

Politics is driven largely by appealing to people's self-interest. That doesn't mean we should pander, but face it -- there are a lot of poor people who are selfish jerks. There are a lot of suburbanites who are selfish jerks. etc.

The trick is to find policies that meet the self-interest of the broadest swath of the population and also have social benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. Whoa there Flying Pig!
I am a farmer/rancher. For me it is more of a hobby because to make money doing this you first must have some money to get started. Maybe what you say is true in California but here in NoWheresVille Kansas it is not. It does not help to slam them unless you really want all of your food to come from insecticide laden farms. There are MANY farmers here trying to learn to farm in a better way for our planet and our food supply. They get shut down continuosly by the big guys who can afford to sell their contaminated crops cheaper. So, my experience is small but I do get out among those people and I can tell you that here there are many questioning this administration. Ks may always go republican but it is looking to me like any democrat who would actually consider coming here and making a case for the family farm would have a good chance of at least picking up a lot of votes. These people are hurting. Especially when you consider the operating costs, the amount of labor it takes only to get undersold by the big guys. We all need to think about why these folks think the way they do and try to address them in their terms. Large acreage farms are worked by just a few people who are fiercely independent because they have to be. Their perception can be changed about the Democratic party if someone would actually come and tak to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. Thank you Muse Rider!
I appreciate your first-hand response, and it helps confirm many of the things I believe, based on my own experiences of growing up in a rural area (and seeking to move back to one in another few years).

One thing you touched on was the "fierce independence" of the local farmers. While that my be true, I would also say that there is much more of a sense of community in those rural areas. When someone is down, people band together to try and help them out. And in many instances, I think that we could learn something by looking at this kind of attitude.

Probably the biggest gulf we have with this group of people is with social safety nets. They don't necessarily like their money going to people they don't know -- simply because they can't understand why other people don't just "band together" the way that they do. It's a tough gulf to bridge, and if we can figure out a way to do so, then we can REALLY make some progress, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. That is a great point!
Yes, absolutely. When I started my neighbors took bets on how long I would last. Small city girl trying to farm by herself with no knowledge at all. They would check on me now and then to make sure I was OK. When putting up a round pen I slipped, the panel came down and knocked me out. They came up, found me. I went home (I do not live there yet) and when I came back the WHOLE thing was done, concrete posts and all. We all reciprocate like that so who needs social programs? Money gets exchanged when someone needs. You buy their equipment and then leave it on their place and tell them they can "borrow" it. They need to see that in other areas it is not like that and that is what we are asking for with money for social programs. The really rough thing here is that our CoOp shut down. That has hurt, the CoOp was a place for the small guys to get what they need at a fair price. The corn situation has just baffled me. No longer are they allowed to plant corn for the next years seed crop. They are being required to buy expensive, sterile seed from the big guys each and every year. They long to go back to their self sustaining ways, they have lost that control. That seed is questionable IMO (I do not know much about corn just what I hear). It is very sad. The Democrats would do themselves a real favor if they just made an appearance and spoke to them and took their concerns to heart and put in policies to help them get back to where they were. They need to make a presence when the large farm shows are making the rounds, that way they would have a bigger audience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. You learn these things from growing up in a rural area
I can't tell you how much I learned about this just from talking to my 84-year old grandfather. There are many things about my grandfather that I would like to change (he's a bigot, for one), but when he talks about "relief" it really hits me. He doesn't understand why we have "relief" programs now, because when he was growing up, they didn't have "relief". They just made do.

My grandfather was one of nine kids. He told me that when he was growing up, he carried a shotgun everywhere he went -- just in case he ran across small game, to shoot it for food. He was too poor for shoes in the summer, so he ran around in his bare feet.

But when he was little, his family's house burned down. And although they didn't have insurance, their neighbors helped them build one again. That's just the way things WERE back then -- and it's the way they still ARE in rural America.

To be quite honest, I wish it were like that where I live. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #45
48. My father never had shoes.
Yes these are the things that get left out of politics. Not to make this a pro any candidate but I think that Kucinich could see much success around these areas. He has done so much of the same in his life he would get respect and consideration. I do not know about the others. I do not think they would be able to come off as well but their policies might. Who knows? So far only the big cities get the attention and the farmers simply do not have the time to get there to be a part of it. We are ripe for the taking here and after the disaster that Bush* is creating I can't imagine the rural states are being ignored like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #43
50. As far as sterile corn goes,MR
Tell them to check out some of the many national seed exchanges. Non-hybrid, non GM heirloom crops, the only thing that many of them ask in return is that you donate some of your seed to keep the bank going. I know several small organic farmers who swear by these banks, and who grow some yummy food.

In regards to the original article goes, I think the author is spot on. Rural folk, while mainly social conservatives, wouldn't give a rat's ass about a Dems stand on gay rights was if only they had a coherent agriculture policy that addressed the economic inequities between family and corporate farmers. Over the past thirty-five years the family farm has become an endangered species, getting gobbled up by the corporate behemoths.

And for you city folk(I can say that now that I've moved to rural Mo!) who don't care about farms out of indifference or spite because they vote 'Pug a lot, well you had better start caring. This is where your food comes from, and if it falls completely into the hands of profit driven corporations, well, e-coli and Mad Cow could be the least of your worries. For all of their social conservatism, family farmers are by and large wonderful stewarts of the land. Corporations whose only stake in the land is how much money they can extract from it. There are no local and family ties, and if the land goes barren due to overuse or too many chemicals, well the corporations, unlike the family farmer, have the money and wherewithal to pull up and move elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. That was not the problem.
It was not that they could not get the seed, it was REQUIRED that they use the sterile seed. This was several years ago, I do not farm corn and I was negligent in following it so please don't determine that that is the way it is. I do remember the worries and concern from the farmers. I am not sure how this was, or was not enforced. I guess I had better try to find out. About the issue of stewardship, you bet. They LOVE the land and take care of it. If it can be done without poison they will do it that way. They are for the most part very careful not to overuse pesticides and herbicides since they were informed of the harm it causes. The last thing they would ever tolerate was the loss of arable crop land for any reason unlike the corporate farmers. You are right, they use it up and move on leaving a mess. I was stunned to learn (because of my past uninformed knowledge of the farmer) at how much the farmers in central Kansas were doing to learn and teach about no till farming. Some of the younger farmers are very much into the idea of sustainable farming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #54
67. Grain bin restrictions it sounds like
The folks who own the grain bins, where the local farmer sells his crops, are increasingly putting more and more restrictions on which varieties of crops they take. I know some folk who had the same problems here in Mo, and what they did was let their contracts with the granneries expire and told them to shove it. Promptly went into organic farming and sold their produce on the local level, at farmer's markets, to local supermarkets, and to local restraunts. This is in a city of about 120,000. They got better prices for them also. I also know a group of about fifty family farms down in SW Mo who banded together and formed their own grannary. Better crops, fewer restrictions.

This is something that I'm going to be going into also. Bought twenty acres and a house out in the boonies, moved in about two weeks ago. I'm looking to plant about half of it in heirloom fruit trees, like Old Virginia Winesap apples, paw-paw trees, etc. Grow a large garden for myself, and grow fungi like shitake mushrooms in the woods that are already there. It won't make up for my day job, but it will provide some extra money and I have an inherent need to grow things(come from a long line of farmers).

If you want to teach the next generation of farmers about the benefits of sustainable farming, volunteer for your local FFA or 4H chapter. I helped my father with the local FFA chapter and still run into farmers who are using the lessons he taught them. Young minds are malleable, and the lessons they are taught stick with them for life.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. I hope to be living on my farm by
next fall. I have horses and farm brome grass. I always thought that "farm" grass just grew! I also feel that need and am as organic as I can be. I have been thinking of paw paw trees too! I have planted some wonderful Catalpas, they grow so well here and have seeds if you are interesed. Thanks, I need to get caught up on all these issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #36
83. Muse as you know I am a suburban boy but
I really like rural midwestern populism as practiced by Bob LaFollite and others in Wisconsin, by Wellstone and the DFL in MN, and by Harkin and others in Iowa. My grandparents lived in a sorta rural area, not really but their parents did have to farm like they did in the old country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. Hi John!
DK has a wonderful Ag strategy. Didn't you say they had horses?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
27. I rember a couple of years ago Pat Kennedy
who was the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee at the time, said in public that the Democratic party would have to "write off" rural America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Yep. The article mentions that -- it was in 1999
Personally, I think that a statement like that just shows how far gone the Democratic Party really is right now -- so long as it remains in the hands of the insiders, pollsters and spinmeisters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
35. I'm a confirmed city mouse, but...
I lived in a rural town in Oregon for seven years and have relatives who live in a town of 1200 in northern Minnesota.

The Dems began losing the rural areas because they failed to stand up for the family farmers who were screwed over by the banks in the early 1980s.

The way environmental policies were implemented also caused problem. Even though automation was already causing job loss in the Oregon timber industry, the companies (giants like Georgia-Pacific and Weyerhaeuser) encouraged their workers to blame the Endangered Species Act and turned the debate about old growth forests into "owls versus people's livelihoods." It would have been better to include provisions encouraging industries to relocate to former timber towns and also find a way to explain that the timber jobs were going to disappear anyway in a decade or two when the state ran out of old growth trees.

But no, the Dems, including the Clinton administration, allowed the conservatives to shape the debate, and as a result, the stores in my little town had signs in the window "This business is supported by the wages of timber workers."

If I were crafting a rural strategy, it would have two parts:

1) To paraphrase a common slogan of liberation theology, Federal policies would have "a preferential option for family-owned farms." Only self-employed farmers would be eligible for government subsidies and low-interest loans.

2) Industries would be encouraged to move to small towns. One of the forces behind sprawl is that people have an idealized image of country life, so they move to the edge of the city. The only problem is that within a decade, the former edge of the city has become the middle of strip mall hell, so people in search of country living move even farther out. And so on and so on and dooby dooby doo. They can't move to real small towns, because there are no jobs there.

A policy that encouraged businesses to relocate to small towns would make for a more even distribution of people who want a rural lifestyle and would encourage young people to stay.

The small Minnesota town where my relatives live is prospering because a nationally distributed product is manufactured there. While neighboring towns are full of boarded-up buildings, this one is full of new houses.

By the way, Democrats can and do win in rural districts. One of the most striking examples is Oregon's Peter DeFazio. His district does contain the liberal stronghold of Eugene, but the rest of the district is farming, timber, and fishing country. Despite being a former Bostonian and a stalwart of the Progressive Caucus, he consistently wins the votes of people who normally vote Republican. He is approachable, friendly, and known for his low-budget fundraisers and concern for the little person.

Another stalwart of the Progressive Caucus, the late Paul Wellstone, was also popular with rural voters. Not nearly as progressive but firmly entrenched is James Oberstar, who represents a chunk of northern Minnesota.

It's not the labels that count. It's convincing people that you understand their needs and care about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. And don't forget Bernie Sanders
An avowed Socialist who keeps winning big in flinty rural Vermont.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ficus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. Vermont
is a good example of how rural does not equal conservative in all cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. Historically, rural areas have been some of the most radical
It's important to remember that Eugene V. Debs was not some city slicker, but a Hoosier. And the birthplace of the socialist movement of the late 19th and early 20th century was not New York, but right smack in the Midwest!

Not to mention the populists who were led by William Jennings Bryan. That movement was one that was started and carried by farmers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ficus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. Being a midwesterner
I'd just like to say that the upper Midwest has produced some of the best progressive US Senators in the past decade or two. Tom Harkin - Iowa. Paul Wellstone - Minnesota. Russ Feingold - Wisconsin. I like Mark Dayton (Min) alot too. And we can't forget Walter Mondale either.

In history we've come up with people like Debs, LaFollete from Wisconsin (sp?), Henry Wallace of my home state (FDR's VP before Truman, Progressive Party candidate in 1944)

When even (though I don't think he as progressive as the above) the leader comes from South Dakota, the rural midwest is not as scary as you might think for Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. Hey, Ficus -- the article talks about an infusion of liberal Senators...
... from midwestern states.

Such urgency was once the stuff of political legend. In 1896, a 36-year-old Nebraskan named William Jennings Bryan won the Democratic nomination for President with an appeal to farm-state frustration. Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech and his alliance with the independent populists began pulling Midwest and Plains states voters away from Republican moorings some had clung to since Civil War days and toward the Democrats. That process culminated in the election of Franklin Roosevelt, whose New Deal restored a measure of prosperity to Depression-worn farm states. When that prosperity came, the Republicans reasserted themselves. But the recession of the late 1950s wrenched farm-state voters back to the Democratic fold and sent South Dakotan George McGovern, Minnesotan Eugene McCarthy, Idahoan Frank Church and other young liberals to the Senate, where they transformed not just farm policy but the Democratic Party. As recently as 1986, when Democrats retook the Senate six years into the Reagan era, they did so by electing a fresh crop of senators from recession-ravaged farm states that included South Dakota's Tom Daschle, North Dakota's Kent Conrad and, four years later, Minnesota's Paul Wellstone.

I would argue, based on historical evidence like this, that the Midwest may be more of a bastion of true liberalism than the east coast. And since it's a brand of liberalism that carries a strong connotation of community cooperation coupled with fierce independence, it doesn't have the undercurrent of "elitism" that comes from the East and West Coasts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #47
49. WOW you are right again!
I am liking this thread. It would also seem to me that the fierce independence would fit very well with our party. After all, lock stepping is not the way of the farmer. Give them enough to get really going and I think we would all be surprised at what they would accomplish and produce. After all, this life is ALL about work. We love it or why would anyone do it? In spite of natural disasters they continually produce and continually continue to get it done. It is a thing of love of the land and the ability to be independent, ones own boss, and of giving back to the world community. Yes, there are cynics but they are few in my experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. Maybe you and me should start a political consulting business!
Because it seems like we're much of the same mind here.

One of the appeals of the "midwestern liberalism" is that it has a strong basis in the value of good, honest work. I can remember growing up, my grandparents had a Christmas Tree Farm. I spent every weeknight and weekend working on that damned thing during the time leading up to Thanksgiving and Christmas. I used to get upset that all of my friends were playing football then and I was working -- but looking back on it, it was some of the best times of my life.

It also has a strong basis in the cooperative ethic of looking out for each other, like we talked about earlier. Both of these qualities are very different than the characature of "relief for welfare queens" that has been painted by the right wing of the bicoastal, "elitist liberalism" that is the source of blame for all of our problems.

But, perhaps most important, it places the emphasis on solving the problems confronted by society at the LOCAL LEVEL. I'm not saying this in a "leave me alone" libertarian way. I'm saying it because it is the people at the local level who know the most about the problems they face. Just like a politician who lives in a gated community and has a personal net worth in the tens of millions can't know the ins and outs of inner city poverty, neither can that said politician know ins and outs of the dynamics of a midwestern farming community that is suffering.

All of this involves getting out and talking to people on the ground. Perhaps there is no politician in Washington better at this than Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Independent Rep. But until the party hacks realize this basic fact
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. Well you got something there.
I think it would be entirely appropriate for us to keep up with this dialogue and present some of our best ideas and see what DU comes up with. Those can be sent to the candidates. We could also come up with some interesting positions gathered here and put together some editorials for the papers in the rural areas. I fluctuate between doom and encouragement these days but I really do think that the rural communities would be happy to seek a good alternative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #47
53. Also, Minnesota was the only state
ever to have a socialist governor, Floyd B. Olson in the 1930s. The party he was affiliated with, the Farmer-Labor party, was basically socialist and existed independently until it merged with the Democrats in the late 1940. (This is why the local nickname for the Democratic Party is "the DFL.")

From what I hear from my older relatives, Olson was another immensely popular political figure who died too young, only in his case, it was from cancer. There was genuine mourning throughout the state when he died.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #47
82. The most popular senators in recent Illinois' memory:
Paul Simon, who was basically worshipped in the State, was about as liberal as Democrats come, and Dick Durbin was just re-elected with about 80% of the vote. Liberals can and DO win in rural America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ficus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
40. one point
Edited on Thu Oct-23-03 11:00 AM by Ficus
I'd like to add to this discussion.

First, elections are very different at different levels in my opinion. Rural state or not - I think the focus needs to be different for different races.

Of course this isn't true in EVERY case, but...

For example - I think US Senate races usually are picked on ideology. Governor's races are picked on management ability, or what can you get done type of thing. For example, my state is a pretty moderate state (despite being RURAL), and you can see this by having Tom Harkin and Charles Grassley as our Senators, electing them OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Sure they are different, but Iowa is moderate, and likes to have balance.

Perhaps another example could be Mass. with guys like Teddy and J.K. as Senators, and someone like Mitt Romney as Governor. And also California - the Governor's recall race came down to just that - could arnold bring the state better management? No one cared about his stances on abortion or guns and things like that, for the most part. Maybe I'm way off but this seems right to me.

And, yes, I think Congressional races come down to things like economic issues most importantly.

:dem: :dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
46. Wanna Get The Rural Vote?
Promise to restrict corporate welfare recipients exclusively to o/o farms & businesses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
52. This article prompted my memory
of another one in the same vein from a few years back



http://www.thesunmagazine.org/armed.html

Unfortunately it is just excerpted but if you should find this old copy of "The Sun" it is recommended reading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. "Farmers and ranchers have a suicide rate 5x the rest of America"
That just made me think of a piece from Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation where he's visiting with an independent rancher who is organizing against the corporate ranchers out West. He had a ranch that had been in his family for generations. He was a family man, and a charismatic guy who had run for local office and seemed full of piss and vinegar.

A few years later he was dead -- of a suicide. He just had all the fight knocked out of him, and had become so despondent of not being able to hold on to his family ranch, that he just gave up.

It's stuff like this that just rips me apart inside.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Damn.
If that doesn't explain the commitment then nothing does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VeniceBeat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
61. Concurrent Discussion of This Article on corrente
FYI

Titled: "Rural Help Need Not Apply," begun by "The Farmer."

http://corrente.blogspot.com/

Supplemental dialogue to the very interesting discussion put forth here.

Thanks, guys. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. Thanks
looks interesting. I bookmarked it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. Read through it -- very similar to the discussion here
Right down to those who believe that all those "slack jawed rural yokels" are nothin' but a bunch of "Bible-totin, gay-bashin, guvmint handout gettin, ignorant rednecks who are conservative through to the bone."

While rural America has its share of those, its majority is actually a group of genuine people with good hearts who just feel (rightfully so) that they have been collectively shat upon for the past 25 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
65. The AJC on Dean's appeal-Rural strategy
Rather than pandering to traditional Democratic power groups such as trial attorneys, unions or urban bosses, he is focusing on rural America and the thousands of towns and smaller cities that serve it as centers of daily life. Small-town life predominates Vermont, and Dean is promising to help restore rural communities.

He has tied positions on virtually every issue -- from the economy to the environment -- to the development and growth of rural areas, where he contends that President Bush's policies had little positive impact.

For many people in less densely populated areas, the Web has become a primary tool, from shopping to entertainment. So it may be that Dean's "small-town" thinking was the genesis of his campaign's celebrated strategy to have Web-using supporters forward campaign literature to others.



http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0803/14towery.html

And here is Deans plan:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8095&JServSessionIdr002=0vifxc0o53.app193a&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1281
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #65
73. From thread article
While Joe Lieberman still echoes discredited talk about trade as a cure-all, Kucinich and Dick Gephardt recognize that rural voters see through the claims of free traders. Edwards stumbled on the livestock-monopoly issue, but Kucinich, Gephardt and Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, champion anti-monopoly measures. And while Dean is often portrayed as the darling of the East and West Coasts, his "Farmers and Ranchers for Dean" campaign has made progress in states like Iowa and North Dakota. "Dean's from a rural state and he's gotten through to a lot of people by talking substance on our issues," says North Dakotan Morrison. "Substance is the key. Rural voters don't want sympathy, they want something real from Democrats."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
69. Where I live is about as rural as 'the heartland' gets
If you're not a farmer here, your livelihood is so intertwined with those who do farm that the distinction is immateiral; whether you grow corn and soybeans, or raise hogs or beef cattle, you depend on agriculture for your living: the local pharmacy, the grocery store, the shoe store, the hardware store, etc., all follow hand-in-hand with the fortunes and misfortunes of farming. If it's a good year, the local ford dealer sells new trucks and cars; if it's a bad one, he sells used cars, and not many of those.

Rural america IS being sold out. Framing isn't about Tyson Foods or ADM, it's about Mr. & Mrs. Ferguson and the widow Otto and her sons. Rural America wants to hear common sense economic policies from Washington; they want to know why NAFTA hasn't boosted agricultural income for family farms. They care about the costs of health care. They want to know why ADM is the largest 'welfare queen' in America, when most of them are struggling to survive and keep intact farms that have been in their families for over a century!

Talk to farmers, Democrats! They're not ignorant peasants with shit clinging to their work boots and pigs in the house--- many of them, especially those under 50 are college-educated. They're not hopeless troglodytes who hate gay people. They care about AIDS, and Social Security and joblessness and the rising costs of education.

Talk to rural America, Democrats, because no one else is; if *we* do, and if we talk to them sensibly about the issues that concern them *plus* the issues that concern us all, we may be richly rewarded for our efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
70. Guns
That's the big problem as I see it.

If we could just get 1-5% of the rural vote then we would win crucial races that we have been losing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #70
77. You obviously didn't read the article, as usual, Carlos
Otherwise, you would have picked up this:

Democratic consultants have created a mini-industry that tells candidates to go "country" by sponsoring NASCAR teams, joining the NRA or fuzzing positions on abortion or gay rights to mollify social conservatives. Rural folks just laugh. "You can be ardently pro-choice and support gay rights and still win rural areas if you have an economic message," says Rhonda Perry, a family farmer who is program director with the Missouri Rural Crisis Center. "I don't think too many people in rural Missouri sit up nights worrying about gay rights. But they do sit up nights worrying about how they are going to keep the farm or how they are going to get health benefits after the meatpacking plant shuts down."

Now, do you care to read the article before commenting, or do you insist on repeating the same worn-out arguments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #77
87. They do need to address their issues
especially their economic problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. But you know what a big part of that is, right?
Serious steps toward reining in corporations, and championing causes like universal health care (since many of these rural folk no longer have it).

IOW, we have to embrace the "left-wing" ideas that you have so often told us are not in line with "mainstream America".

Do I have your head spinning yet? ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-03 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #70
78. I disagree
Guns and gun-control is about #14 on the list of issues that concern rural America most, Carlos, and they're pretty mainstream in their views (mainstream American, not mainstream Democratic).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC