All Politics Are "Yokel"

Rural Johnson County Road Sign via Flicker

 The title of this is intentionally facetious and is from the late long-time leader of the House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill who famously said "all politics are local." Iowa is swept up in a sea of red at the statewide level. As a rural state with a handful of urban outposts, the prospects for Iowa to bask in a blue wave are somewhat limited. Part of the reason is messaging and the other is authenticity in the redder parts of our state. 

Rural Iowa currently does not love Democrats, and why should they? Look at the signs along the farm fields, in the small towns and you will see how effective Republican, Christian right, pro-life and business issue-pushers have been to date. Let's face it, it is a tough row to hoe to change the minds of people whose own politics embrace keeping things the same (or turning back the clock to the "better days").

Nonetheless, there are truly independent and more center-leaning voters in these red counties who are not walking lock-step with their neighbors and Democrats will need to cultivate them, as they are likely to stay at home otherwise. But to get out this group of voters, Democrats need to meet them where they are and tell them why their vote matters. Also, as these voters may not be as progressive as their city cousins, the message has to be genuine and to the heart of the matter. Democrats cannot plow these Iowans, they have to be willing to go slower and easier to build trust with these voters. No small task for a party whose left flank is pushing hard for decisive change which centrists have to warm to.

It would be a good start to post signs that challenge the notions, such as the one pictured here. As we know, Republicans have down a fair share of taxing the poor more and spending on subsidies for the wealthy and connected. Why don't the Democrats invest in better messages for the less indoctrinated? 

Also, as we have seen in my county, it is possible to be both a rural Iowan and progressive. Jon Green, the County Supervisor and the former mayor from Lone Tree, and Seth Zimmermann, a candidate from Solon, are competing for a couple of seats this June and neither of them is Iowa Farm Bureau supported. But both want to make sure rural land is conserved, the water supply is clean, and pesticides are limited.  And neither of them might otherwise stand a chance in a county that is highly non-rural except that this is an area of rapid growth and they have a vested interest in how that growth goes, as do their neighbors and those who recreate away from the towns. Their knowledge of the rural area gives them both credibility and authenticity and sways some of the more right-leaning folks to vote for them. I am aware of other candidates, such as Kevin Kinney who is a state senator and farmer who also represents a more rural district and is up for re-election. He refers to himself as a "Dirt Road Democrat" and he walks that walk authentically by growing corn and soybeans, raising cattle, as well as fighting for better pay for Iowa's teachers.

Iowans deserve better than laws and policies that harm the very fabric that the state is created from. Democrats can be fuller-throated in supporting policies that preserve the land and water, help teachers to teach, and take care of the family farm. If Iowa is to ever have a Harold Hughes or a Tom Vilsack acolyte as governor, Democrats are going to have to convince rural Iowans that they also have their backs.

Throw the Right Bums Out

 

Political Cartoon is by Rex Babin in the Sacramento Bee.

In American politics, there is a tradition in the mid-terms to punish the party that won the last election because they didn't deliver as promised. For the record, I think that is as good a reason as any to replace those who need replacing, but there are no guarantees that things will get better as a result. You see, throwing the bums out often means bringing new bums in. And it also means awarding "points" to the other side that they didn't earn and may have helped cause through voting and working in opposition of the presiding party's policies. 

Concretely, when the Republicans sat out on things like Build Back Better, they cut off their noses to spite their faces, because economic development generally is one of their chief jams. However, because inflation is on the rise, they are likely to get a pass and be rewarded because of people voting with their wallets. They did nothing to help people get better jobs, but they didn't "cause" inflation--therefore it is all the other party's fault. Do you see how that works?

Now, in Iowa, we have  Republican leadership, and, given that inflation is also rampant in Iowa, shouldn't that leadership be flailed in the next election? That same leadership that is underfunding schools and their teachers, is more focused on transgender kids not playing sports. The same leadership who shortened unemployment benefits for Iowans by 10 weeks and is almost forcing Iowans to take less well-paying jobs believes they should be rewarded for it. The same leadership that sent highway patrol officers to guard the US border to keep immigrants out but kept meat processing plants open while many immigrant workers died believes it earned the right to keep doing more of the same. Bum-like decisions, if you ask me.

There are bums and then, there are bums. Both sides have got 'em. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Synema are bums by holding up things like voter's rights. Majorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz are bums because of the nationalistic fomenting. Predatory Matthew Cawthorn would continue being one had he not been beaten in his primary. Kim Reynolds and Chuck Grassley are bums. Kim Reynolds wants to push out someone from her own party because they don't want to do school vouchers in their district. Chuck Grassley wanted to hang Joe Biden about the shortage of baby formula when he voted for the USMCA that added tariffs for imports and lessened the supply of it. Pretty bum-like behaviors, wouldn't you say?

At this time, when people are working harder and losing value on the money they are earning, we need better than the present group of bums. In Iowa, there is a primary coming up. The Democrats have three people who want to replace Chuck Grassley in the senate--the DNC would love for their candidate to be the choice (for those of you who remember how that went last time when Bruce Braley ran with their blessing, it wasn't pretty). This time the quality choice might be a retired Navy admiral who is right on the issues and does not have the baggage of winning and then losing a seat in Congress. In many parts of the state from the Board of Supervisors on up, there are competitive races that could well decide how this state is run for the next several years. It is actually a really good time to both be an educated voter and active in turning out the vote.

Turning things around doesn't happen overnight, but as the last presidency assures us, a lot of damage can be done in four years with the wrong bums. If we are going to be in the business of throwing out the bums, shouldn't we at least aim at throwing out the right bums?

Certain Unalienable Rights

Consider these words as it applies to our country today. 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

These words are Thomas Jefferson's and are from the Declaration of Independence, the document that told the British Monarchy that the Colonists wanted their autonomy and freedom. Fast forward to today where women, the LGBTQA community, and many others are wanting to maintain their hard-fought freedoms. Fundamentally, should any government be able to dictate how any of us chooses to live and the choices we make for ourselves? I ask this as a straight, white man who has it especially easy relative to the women, the BIPOC, and the LGBTQA communities. I ask this as a person who may want to choose when my life will end (as I regard what happiness means to me in a state of physical or mental decline) while progressing into later life.

The universal human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have been argued as sacrosanct and yet, are regularly trod upon to serve "the greater good." But who should really have the authority to deny a person their fundamental rights to appease others and their ideas of what is right and wrong? We may argue when a person has the maturity to know what is right for them, but even that is presuming that adults somehow have special knowledge that children lack or that the "normal" possesses over the "abnormal." When what we as individuals choose to do is identified as self-harming by others, do we not have the ability to be able to judge for ourselves whether it is actually the pursuit of happiness that we are engaged in? If, for instance, a person is in excruciating pain for which no medical procedure nor medication gave relief, could not the reality of death releasing them from that pain authentically be seen as the pursuit of happiness? When a person needs to make a decision about whether to carry a fetus to term, shouldn't that be solely their decision to make? Likewise, if a person is happier inhabiting a body of the sex not assigned at birth, shouldn't that also be their call? And if a person serving time for malicious murder should choose to want themselves euthanized, shouldn't that also be their choice?

Whatever the rest of us may feel because of our religious upbringing, personal philosophy, or beliefs, should we really be able to wield our will over anyone else but ourselves or by those we choose to do our bidding? The one-size-fits-all model of what our forebearers ostensibly thought and fought for is pointless to try to come to a consensus about. The very particular choices of the words: life--that thing that we all share in common, liberty--the freedom to do with that what we see fit, and pursuit of happiness--the mode in which we choose to exercise liberty/live our lives is an ideal to ascribe to, but it is also a personal choice of how to attain.

What a different world we would be a part of if we all could be assured of our own self-determination. As individuals, we always have that right. However, the sounding board of living as part of society gives us adequate pause to learn, engage, and ultimately decide what to do as it relates to our own choices. 

With regard to Mr. Jefferson and his thoughts on the consent granted to the government by the governed, I think he'd find our lawmakers to be rather self-aggrandizing and corrupt in their efforts to legislate around morality for the sake of power. I think Jefferson would wonder why we have allowed our government to have so much say with regard to personal rights and liberties and perhaps, wonder why we put up with "despotic" state governments as our "Safety and Happiness" count on it?

SCOTUS Failure May Lead to System Failure

Greek philosopher and Skeptic, Arcesilaus said "Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice." With the conservative swing to the Supreme Court evident and with a preponderance of statehouse and governor seats in control by Republicans, in 2021 alone, 22 states passed new laws to limit safe, legal abortions in the US. At least sixteen states restricted access to abortion in some way while six states expanded access to the procedure. All this while reported abortion rates are actually decreasing over time owing to access to preventative contraception,  and non-surgical means to end possible pregnancies. Some would say that we have plenty of laws, but not a good way to support women who are making these difficult, personal decisions.

With the leaked draft report from the Supreme Court essentially letting the proverbial cat out of the bag and allowing Americans into the headspace of the majority of Supreme Court justices, it is clear that precedent is being rejected to put more power back at the state level to decide state-by-state what the "law of the land" will be where access to abortion is concerned. Of course, at the federal level, a law enshrining the legal right to access to abortion could be forthcoming, but it is also true that pro-choice advocates will also have to go toe-to-toe with pro-life advocates who will have the upper hand where current state lawmakers and governors are concerned. 

What pro-choice advocates have going for them are numbers. Polling suggests that the vast number of Democrats and about 49% of Republicans support abortion rights for a variety of reasons. Second, the history of abortion tells a darker tale of women unnecessarily dying from seeking out dangerous procedures and the cost to society for the care of unwanted lives, and the limitations of enough adoptive parents, particularly for older children of color. Third, the strange bedfellows of Moderate Republicans, Libertarians, Liberals, and Progressives who agree that freedom includes freedom of choice.

Whatever happens in the days ahead, it is a battleground, and therefore, every state is a battleground state. Ultimately must be won by those who stand to lose the most and their allies.

Iowa's Farm Harm

 

For those of you who are not from Iowa, some of this will seem small-minded, for others, it will seem all too familiar. Iowa used to be a more reliable "purple" state than it has been for the last ten or so years. However, thanks to an adrenalized hard right and right-leaning, non-partisan think-tanks, industry groups, and policy groups, we are also in the money laundering business as out-of-state dollars are converted into land grabs, enterprise zones, and people deserts in smaller communities. As a result, Iowa may be further right-leaning now and into the future. Some reasons are fairly obvious, Iowa derives a lot of its income from corporate agriculture to make the things the rest of the country and world want and need like high fructose corn syrup, ethanol (though not as popular in oil-producing states/lobbies), sillage, chickens, eggs, and, of course, all things pork and cow.

Farmers and those who work for them, know they have a pretty tough job, but do it because it is necessary work. After all, America Needs Farmers--as the Farm Bureau likes to say. Thanks to guaranteed income through farm subsidy programs, it can be a practical choice and, if you absorb your competition and integrate into the supply chain, you can make a buck or two. That is likely why farms of less than 100 acres continue to shrink and farms from 1000 acres up continue to grow. Also while family-owned farms are the vast majority of farms, family farms being farmed by family are about half that.

The cost to all Iowans is dirtier water, air, and areas in our state that stink to high heaven (in fact the odors are so noxious that workers die while working in manure ponds). Beyond the loss of life with an average of about 80 farm workers or self-employed farmers losing their lives between 2011-2020 (and have ranged from a high of 110 in 1992 to a low of 54 in 1995), Iowa's rural communities are shrinking as automation steadily creeps into the fields and seed genetics make for more predictable outcomes. And yet, the political power of Iowa's rural areas is outsized in terms of right-leaning, pro-business political influence.

Iowa's basic political philosophy about the effects of farming has been pretty much been it's a downstream problem. As many likely know, one of those downstream problems has been the Gulf of Mexico where there is an ever-enlarging "dead zone" caused by agricultural waste that is killing off aquatic life and causing hardships for coastal fishermen. Other downstream problems have resided with urban areas having to pour money into better water filtration systems, rural well-water that is dangerous to drink, and so on. 

Is farming essential to Iowa's overall health, it would be hard to debate otherwise, particularly as so much real estate is tied up in it. But, as much of the land is owned by farmers, it does not always mean it is being farmed which has led to the cost of existing land rising and making it harder for working farmers to grow. There is lots of room for blame about policies, but perhaps farm subsidies programs have had the unintended effect to allow farmers to profit from being land barons rather than farmers. In addition with farms that are handed from family member to family member, there is the prospect that agricultural land, particularly closer to urban areas will be continually peeled off the support the outward sprawl and the profits to be made by land development.

The future of farming is likely to pit farm operations against farmer barons who hold land and sell when the price is right. What that likely means to all of us is continued inflation on food, fuels, and real estate, as well as continued contamination up-and-down-stream. It sort of stinks like a CAFO.

The Trouble with Trillions

 Have you noticed the National Debt increased by over 7 trillion dollars under Trump and now another 2.1 trillion under Biden? As of January, the National Debt was slightly above $30 trillion which means in the last five years or so, the debt has ballooned by roughly 30%. Granted the last three years have been extraordinary due to the global pandemic, but nonetheless, it shouldn't be a wonder that people are asking questions like "Will I be able to retire?", "Will I be able to get out from under student debt?", and "Will be able to afford to take care of a family?"--All reasonable things to ask. As it stands, there are only a few ways this can go. 1) We can allow/encourage immigrants to come to our country to help grow the domestic economy. 2) We can pay higher taxes to pay down the debt. 3) We can have a higher percentage of wealthy individuals and businesses pay a higher percentage in taxes. 4) We can ignore it and treat it as Monopoly money that will never be repaid.

Taking these one at a time. Realistically, our population will have to grow (or at least maintain) over time to accommodate the global diaspora from wars, climate change, reduced child-bearing in the US and so on. However, because of the politics of nationalism versus globalization, how we do this is anybody's guess. Certainly, those displaced by war and internal instability are generally regarded to be more welcomed, but the untenable situation along the southern border can only really resolve itself by either Draconian, undemocratic means, or by increasing the number of immigrants received into the country and helping other countries to create stronger economic development zones near and away from the borders. If we don't, we can look forward to a continued existential threat by those nations whose populations far exceed our own.

The idea of paying higher taxes has worked in socialized countries that also provide benefits far in excess of our own. The ability to provide that level of support to US residents is highly constricted by the wars we've waged, the borrowing/robbing of the Social Security savings account, and the activities of the Federal Reserve. Taxes on the middle class are likely to appear in the form of higher sales taxes and other fees rather than an increase in either state or federal income taxes. One way or the other, revenue will be raised, but not in a progressive way.

The third option is a political football that will be kicked down one side of the field and up the other. Those who Congress depend on for large PAC and other contributions do not like to watch their vast fortunes fall, but may not have the luxury for much longer if there are few options left to lessen the debt. The threat is always that rats may choose to leave a sinking ship.

The last option is not hard to imagine as who holds the debt is the same organization that created the debt. When you consider that as long as the interest is being paid, there will never be demands to call in the loans--and who would call them in anyway? 

As we trepidatiously look toward the future, it is likely to create some heretofore unheard of tensions as we figure out what to do and who will bear the brunt when the piper wishes to be paid, even if that piper is us. 

Wynn Allen Bruce: Canary in a Coalmine

 

Wynn Allen Bruce was a 50-year-old climate activist and practicing Buddhist from Boulder, Colorado. On Saturday, he set himself on fire on the steps of the Supreme Court. While no one may understand fully why he did it, it is thought that his frustration over governmental inaction on global climate change legislation was why he chose to end his life in such a dramatic way after about a year of planning for it. Martyr for a cause, a person with psychological problems, a true believer, whatever he was, he is no longer. 

We have a long history of canaries in the coal mine that remind us that it is only through action that the politics are pushed to make a change. People like Bruce sacrifice their own lives to make a difference in a world that can be largely indifferent to the obvious. Every day, we see the evidence of our changing climate, in small and large ways. The sacrifice of a life to live a purposed life is the stuff of saints. It is only necessitated because we ignore the obvious when it suits us. Certainly, we can point to all kinds of atrocities to make that point. Thich Nhat Hanh wrote that “to burn oneself by fire is to prove that what one is saying is of the utmost importance. There is nothing more painful than burning oneself. To say something while experiencing this kind of pain is to say it with utmost courage, frankness, determination and sincerity.”

In honor of this man's struggle, a man I did not know but now feel I owe a debt, I ask you to take a moment and reach out to your members of Congress. Say his name when you write your email or letter and ask for action on global climate change in whatever way it moves you. Let us all be canaries today.