Rural Democracy

[TOC: all blog posts]

Last year we drove across the country from Michigan to Washington and back, a trip we have made frequently over the years. I love the high plains of Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. But I admit a feeling now of driving through hostile territory.

A couple of years ago we made the same trip with my pickup, which has a small Hillary 2016 sticker. A pickup pulled up alongside us on the freeway across Montana and the driver flipped us the bird repeatedly before accelerating again to pass. We had been just rolling along in the right lane and hadn't made any sudden lane changes that might have pissed anyone off, so I expect the gestures were due to the sticker. It was disconcerting, but not enough for me to remove the sticker. (I understand Trump stickers provoke similar reactions in parts of the country.)

The plains and mountain states include Democrats, but they are all but invisible. One reason is that minorities tend to be quiet and avoid drawing attention to themselves. But the party, it seems, could do more to make itself felt and understood and accepted. 

I recently read the book Dirt Road Revival, by Chloe Maxmin and Canyon Woodward. It points out that the Democratic Party has largely abandoned rural America, concentrating its attention on the more heavily populated urban and suburban areas. The authors think this is a mistake. I agree.

Rural America has a disproportional influence on American politics. The state of Wyoming has the same number of senators as California, whose a population is 67 times greater. The Electoral College, weighted toward rural areas, has repeatedly gone against Democrat presidential candidates who have won the popular vote. So simply for pragmatic reasons Democrats should do more to court rural voters.

But there are other reasons. One is symbolism. The roots of this country are essentially rural. Many Europeans migrated to America for an opportunity to have land to farm. While only a small fraction of the population are now farmers, many of us have a heritage of farming. There is a lingering nostalgia for farming and farmers. A place in the country is still a dream of many who live closer to work sites in populated areas.

Another is need. Poverty rates are higher in rural than urban areas. Democrats, generally speaking, do more for those in need than Republicans, so they should demonstrate concern for all areas of the country where poverty is high. I think help often sounds like handouts, which is something that independent rural folks tend to dislike, so we need to think of new ways to offer help and to communicate those offers. It sometimes surprises me that Republicans provide handouts to the wealthiest and still appeal to rural voters, but I suspect it has something to do with the messaging.

A Democratic Party office should be located in every rural county, maybe just off main street with a tall flagpole and the biggest American flag in the county. Democratic candidates should be encouraged to run, not necessarily with the aim of winning their local and state elections, but as a members of a coalition that listens to rural voters while advocating for practical progressive policies during their campaigns. Quite a few folks might be more willing to serve as two-way liaisons than as elected politicians. And if they happen to be elected, they will have the distinct advantage of understanding what the local issues and concerns actually are.

It was largely rural citizens who decided we wouldn't serve and obey a king without representation. A lot of rural America still feels like they are not well represented. Is that one reason many are now willing to revolt against democracy itself in favor of a would-be king?

Moderate

[TOC: all blog posts]

It's possible that the Montana farmer who taught me that Nixon was a crook will this year vote for Mr Trump. I hope not, but I'm aware that many red-state residents don't share my view. Some Democrats and independents blame support of Trump on stupidity. But I don't buy it.

There is an almost admirable solidarity among DC Republicans. Their fundamental aim: defend this president, no matter what. This fealty now defines the Republican party, which has no choice and no voice but that which exalts this person whom many of them formerly reviled (and possibly still do).

Some people always loved him. I'm not talking to them. I'm talking to moderates.

At one time, no moderate could stomach the guy. Some now appear to. There are whispers among formerly moderate Republicans in Congress that they wish they didn't have to, but believe they must, support him. And they ask their constituents for the same support, come what may.

What's to be done if you are a moderate Republican voter? Those Left-wing Liberal Democrats will ruin the country! (At least that's what a letter accompanying a "census form" I got from RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel says.) So you hold your nose, and push the R button.

Is this your only option? No, it's not. You could decline to cast a vote for president. Or you could write in the name of someone you admire.

Or you could vote Democrat. Or become one.

In 2018, Democrats who won the House of Representative were mostly moderates. They campaigned on issues that matter to most people, and they beat a lot of Republican candidates whose only platform was obeisance to the big man.

We hear complaints about how far left Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is. She represents her district, as she ought to, but she doesn't represent districts in middle America. She doesn't have to. We aren't from her district. We have other perspectives and other priorities. And Democrat candidates in our districts listen to us. Not on every one of our issues, perhaps, but on most.

Yes, I know Republicans keep saying it's the Democrats who lie and cheat. So I encourage you to do your research. You'll find just how natural lying now comes to Ms McDaniel and other Republicans, who follow the leader. You'll find some Democrats you don't like, and some you do. This is the new face of the Democratic party—out of necessity, we've become a coalition.

I'm talking to the farmers, carpenters, hunters, loggers, machinists, and pro-life voters I grew up with, worked with, and live with. I know you have been loyal Republicans, but you never bought into a cult. You never defended such wholesale self-interest by the man in power as Republicans have now committed to. I cannot bring myself to believe you have changed that much.

Can someone be a moderate in the US today and still be a Republican? If so, I must have forgotten what a moderate is. Moderation never used to include a blind following of a self-serving boss who cannot or, worse, refuses to stop lying to us. And, of course, it's not just him. Republicans have been gradually transforming for years. It's understandable if you didn't notice. But now you must.

While Republicans have been moving further and further right, so have some Democrats. They've been filling the gap. We've got a few hard-liners of our own, mind you, but most are open to discussion. The one from your district represents you. You hear propaganda to the contrary. Don't buy it.

I learned from you how to call bullshit what it is. I know you know how to figure this out.

Check us out. We're not perfect. But we're OK.


It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.
    -Thomas Paine

Coalition Party

[TOC: all blog posts]

Parliamentary governments need to form coalitions to stay in power. In the US we have a binary system. That system may be falling apart, but history suggests it will remain a two-party system even if one (or both) of the parties change.

The Democratic party is gaining support from a lot of people who formerly considered themselves conservative, whether or not Republicans. At the same time, some forces within the party are pushing things farther to the left, partly in reaction to the current administration and Republican senators and representatives who so willingly aid and abet. Others want the party to be more centrist.

I'm hoping the party moves neither right nor left—or rather does both.

What I don't want is a reactionary party that lashes out against everything that the administration or the Republicans propose. The Daily Kos, for example, tends to take offense at or mock every statement, action, policy, or suggestion of the current government. Maybe we need some of that vitriol, but I would hate to see it define the Democratic Party.

I would like to hear the Party explicitly invite everyone to join them as a coalition of those who want to see change. Rather than a well-defined platform that says exactly how the party stands on this, that, and the next issue or policy, it should have a more open platform with some defining principles and should then open itself to dialog, not infighting.

Perhaps what you like about the Democratic Party is that it represents the left, and you want to be far to the left. Does that mean you reject as a partner someone who wants a sensible middle path? You are strongly pro-choice; would you rather push a pro-life moderate who welcomes refugees and cares about social justice back to the Republican Party? You despise all guns; can you work with a hunter who agrees that sensible gun control and more research into gun violence is essential?

Why not find common ground? On each of the issues that divide us progressives and liberals there are sensible paths that we can agree on. You disagree? You may be right. Which issues are they? Which ones allow no compromise better than the bigotry and injustice of the current administration and congress? I can't think of any; help me out.

Much of the Republican Party seems to revel in its deplorability. It offers every aid to those who need it least. It wrings its hands and then sits on them when it comes to gun violence while belittling and insulting students who saw their classmates shot and killed. It blames the disenfranchised for national debt and immigrants for crime. And our president lies and lies and lies—while analysts debate his policies and hazard guesses about his positions.

Does the Democratic Party have an alternative? Yes. Can we agree on it? Probably not. But we can agree that justice and liberty should be for all, and not weighted in favor of the rich and powerful. Let's keep debating how best to achieve justice, but let's not wait until we are all of one mind on every policy. That will be the death of us.

What will it take to unite us? What is a theme that sums up the appropriate response of responsible people to the current plutocracy? Let's unite on that and let it guide the coalition while we debate the details.

#ForThePeople