Democrats who want rural voters to switch sides need to 'show up' and fight for rural communities

Democrats need to fight harder than Republicans on
issues that impact rural Americans. (Rural Strategies photo)

Building trust with rural Americans by fighting hard for the issues rural voters care about is what Democrats need to do now, reports Mara Liasson of NPR.

While Democrats losing rural voters is not news, what Democrats should do about it is. Liasson explains, "Pollster Celinda Lake, originally from rural Montana, says she's watched as the Republican advantage with rural voters grew from a relatively narrow five-point advantage in 2000 to a whopping 25-point edge for Trump with rural voters in 2024."

Lake recently "conducted a poll of 600 likely general election voters from rural areas in battleground states," Liasson reports. "And what these voters had to say about Democrats is damning."

One polled voter said Democrats were "out of touch with middle America," according to Liasson. Another said Democrats were "lost in space. All they want to do is spend money and give stuff away."

Lake told Liasson, "The Democratic brand is in terrible shape in rural America." Lake pointed out that while most rural voters skew Republican, they are currently very dissatisfied with the economy, and that offers Democrats a window of opportunity.

"Her takeaway from the poll is that Democrats should be running to keep rural hospitals open and insulin prices down," Liasson reports. "In other words, Democrats don't have to change their positions to win rural voters. They just have to fight harder for what they already believe in."

Dee Davis, the president of the Center for Rural Strategies, the group that commissioned the poll, said that Democrats that go all in on rural issues can fight for the same concerns that more urban populations worry about. Liasson adds, "After all, college-educated urban voters also care about healthcare, gas prices and jobs. The strategy Davis thinks Democrats should adopt is not rocket science."

Davis told Liasson, "You got to show up. You got to talk to people. You might not win the first time out, but you got to be there and compete."

Residents in Franklin County, Arkansas, rebel against Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders' prison plans for their community

The proposed Franklin County prison would sit on land south
of the Arkansas River, above. (Wikipedia photo)

Franklin County, Arkansas, might be small and red-leaning, but some of its residents are ready to duke it out with Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders over a $825 million, 3,000-bed prison she has planned for 815 acres of rocky Franklin County land, reports Cameron McWhirter of The Wall Street Journal. The state quietly purchased the large track of property for the proposed prison to avoid a bidding war.

When news of the planned prison began to circulate, many Franklin County residents were shocked and angered. "Marc Dietz, 55, a businessman and rancher who operates a family-owned radio station in Ozark, said many locals felt blindsided," McWhirter writes. Dietz told him, "We’re a small county, not enough votes, and she thought she’d run roughshod."

Location of Franklin County in
Arkansas (Wikipedia map)

The resistance in Franklin County, where Sanders received 76% of the vote in her 2022 gubernatorial bid, dealt her a major setback in fulfilling her campaign promise to address the state's prison overcrowding problems. Sanders told the Journal, "Some people want this to be a fight over the money and different things. But what it really is is, do we care about the safety and security of our citizens, or do we not?”

The battle between Franklin County residents opposing the prison and state officials and lawmakers pushing to get it done "has seeped into Board of Corrections appointments, state budget discussions, a GOP primary — and some odder places," McWhirter explains. One resident has lined his farm fencing "with plastic skeletons and placards reading, 'This Prison is Going to Kill Arkansas.' Other residents joined RASH, or 'Republicans Against Sarah Huckabee.'"

Since Sanders announced the prison plan, "funding for it has stalled in the state Senate, blocked by a handful of Republican senators," McWhirter reports. "State Sen. Bart Hester said he and most GOP legislators back the Franklin County location, but a few holdouts. . . are blocking the move."

Opinion: The Congresswoman who is telling her party to step into the reality of 'regular people'

Gluesenkamp Perez

U.S. Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is a donkey of a different color. As a Democrat elected in a red district, she has worked to keep her finger on the pulse of her rural constituents while pointedly telling her party to step into the reality of "regular people," writes James Pogue in his opinion for The New York Times.

Gluesenkamp Perez believes our society "ought to be oriented toward working with your hands, living in nature and fostering deep and considered connection to a community," Pogue explains. "Her two biggest influences, her former senior adviser guessed, are the Bible and the ruralist Kentucky farmer-author Wendell Berry."

She has gone against her party with bold strokes by "voting against President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan and repeatedly criticizing his administration’s incomprehensible border policy," Pogue adds.

While many Democratic lawmakers have, for decades, focused on data points and expert opinions to win over voters, Gluesenkamp Perez insists that pushing such singular thinking on rural and working-class Americans has created resentment and anger. 

At the Capitol, Gluesenkamp Perez has become the "most visible member of a small movement that has taken the name of the decades-old Blue Dog congressional caucus," Pogue explains. "The Blue Dogs have been arguing that Democrats cannot win over rural or working-class voters simply by studying them . . . . This little movement may well get driven out of the party before Democrats grasp what it’s truly offering."

President Donald Trump's MAGA supporters, who include many voters in rural America, see his administration’s immigration crackdowns and tariffs as "twin pillars in an attempt to create an economic system governed not by gross domestic product data and consumer spending, but by conservative values and nationalist geostrategic ends," Pogue points out. "'Kids don’t 'need 37 dolls,'" Mr. Trump has said. They should have 'three dolls or four.'"

Gluesenkamp Perez and Blue Dog partner Jared Golden, a Democrat from a deeply conservative Maine district, produce a podcast called “Blue Dog Radio" that strives to offer something different from MAGA: an approach that focuses on 'regular people' and the independent spirit many rural Americans hold dear. 

"Together, they’ve tried to articulate a friendly and Americana-inflected cultural politics 'for people who still believe in community, country and the common good,'" Pogue writes. "Coupled with an economic vision that is arguably more radical than programs offered by many leftists. It encompasses antimonopoly policies, right to repair and regulatory changes to smooth the path for people to start businesses, buy and work land, even build their own houses and invent things. . . "

Pogue's entire essay is here.

Philanthropies pledge $37 million to help 'at-risk' PBS and NPR stations stay afloat after Congress cancels funding

The funding aims to help rural and underserved areas
keep their stations afloat. (PBS graphic)

When federal lawmakers voted last month to cancel nearly $1.1 billion in Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding, the futures of PBS and NPR stations looked bleak. But help from a group of philanthropists who have banded together to provide financial lifelines is already underway.

The Knight, MacArthur and Ford foundations, along with other major philanthropies, have pledged "nearly $37 million in emergency funding to keep public media stations afloat," reports Scott Nover of The Washington Post. A consultancy, Public Media Company, will manage millions of pledged dollars through a "bridge fund" aimed at helping "most at-risk public radio and TV stations across the country." Other donations will go directly to "stations and programs in the public media ecosystem."

Tim Isgitt, Public Media Company’s CEO, said his "fundraising goal is $100 million over two years to stave off the full effects of federal defunding, which he said immediately threatens 115 stations serving 43 million people," Nover writes. 

Isgitt told Nover, "They’re all in rural and underserved areas of the country with very little access to philanthropy and other news sources. The idea is to move resources to stabilize these at-risk stations, but also to help put them on some sort of pathway to sustainability.”

The Knight Foundation said its primary objective is to "help the organizations that derive 30% of their annual budgets or more from federal funding doled out by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which recently announced it is shutting down in the face of defunding," Nover reports. 

Many rural folks scoff at the idea that Trump-law Medicaid cuts prompted their hospital's planned closure

Community Hospital is the only health clinic in Curtis. It will close in 
September. (Community Hospital photo)

A rural Nebraska hospital will close in September, and its CEO tied the closure to President Donald Trump's new Medicaid-cutting budget. "But residents of Curtis — a one-stoplight town in deep-red farm country — aren’t buying that explanation," reports Hannah Knowles of The Washington Post. Curtis resident April Roberts told her, "Anyone who’s saying that Medicaid cuts is why they’re closing is a liar."

How Medicaid cuts are received in Curtis could indicate a broader trend in rural America "where voters vulnerable to Medicaid cuts in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill law are reluctant to blame the president or congressional Republicans who approved it," Knowles explains. "Many people in Curtis have directed their frustration at their hospital system instead of their representatives in Washington."

Curtis is in Frontier County, Neb.
(Wikipedia map)

Some Democrats and health care advocates say the town's hospital closure is "a model of what’s to come for rural hospitals around the country," Knowles writes. "Close to half of rural hospitals nationwide already lose money, and analysts expect Trump’s tax and spending law to add more strain."

Community Hospital, the nonprofit owner of the Curtis Medical Center, "announced on July 2 — one day before the bill’s passage — that a confluence of factors had made its Curtis outpost unsustainable," Knowles reports. "It cited years-long financial challenges, inflation and 'anticipated federal budget cuts to Medicaid,' the public health insurance program for lower-income and disabled Americans."

Many Curtis residents "know that Trump’s bill will impose work requirements for Medicaid recipients," Knowles writes. "And some think — inaccurately — that the legislation was designed to end Medicaid coverage for undocumented immigrants."

Although Community Hospital had been losing money for years, the timing of Curtis closure announcement "has stoked suspicions in the town, leaving some residents convinced their health provider was using the president as a scapegoat," Knowles reports.

"Nationwide, far more people oppose Trump’s bill than support it in polling. . . . Even in Curtis, some unease at the Medicaid cuts is percolating," Knowles reports. Brenda Wheeler, a Republican and 2016-Trump voter, told Knowles, "When we talked about making America great again, I don’t think this is what we all had in mind." 

The Republican tax break plan would give many Americans more money, but most cuts would end in early 2029

 Many lawmakers seek Medicaid cuts to pay for
the new tax legislation. (Adobe Stock photo)

The tax break plan currently being crafted by Republicans on Capitol Hill would put more cash in the hands of many Americans, but the strategy comes with a catch: Many of the cuts will end when President Trump's second term comes to a close. "Almost all of the cuts that Republicans hope to pass in the coming weeks will last only until President Trump is set to leave office," reports Andrew Duehren of The New York Times.

Despite the short-term gains, many Americans may see the cuts as a hard-earned respite from years of post-pandemic inflation. They include "a $500 increase to the child tax credit and a $1,000 bonus to the standard deduction, as well as Trump’s pledges to not tax tips or overtime pay," Duehren writes. "The effect would be to shower many Americans with hundreds of dollars per year, starting when they file taxes next year, a windfall that would dry up as Mr. Trump leaves office."

Not every tax break will be time-limited. "Much of the legislation is focused on preserving the architecture of the last Republican tax cut, passed during Trump’s first term," explains Duehren. For instance, the lower income rates for individual filers and the larger standard deduction would remain intact.

Tax policy experts do not see the new cuts substantially impacting the U.S. economy. Duehren reports, "The Tax Foundation, a think tank that is generally bullish on tax cuts’ ability to spur economic growth, estimated this week that the bill would increase gross domestic product by 0.6% in the long term."

Part of the money needed to pay for the tax cuts will come from Medicaid cuts. "More than eight million low-income Americans could lose their health insurance as a result of the Medicaid cuts that the G.O.P. has drafted," Duehren adds. "All while the biggest benefits of the tax cuts would flow to high-income Americans who owe the most in income tax . . . ."

Opinion: Rural Americans already face food insecurity. Will Republican lawmakers leave them even hungrier?

Most Americans don't consider hunger a political
issue. (Adobe Stock photo)

Many rural residents already face the daily struggle of not having enough food. Republican lawmakers eager to cut SNAP benefits may be about to make their battle with hunger worse. "These are anything but good times in rural America, which has been hit by everything from tariffs to extreme weather to bird flu and immigration crackdowns," writes José Andrés in his opinion for The Washington Post. "On top of those crises, Congress is now adding another — threatening to cut federal food benefits as the Republican leadership plays politics with the budget."

Despite rural America being where the country's agricultural powerhouses are, rural residents are more likely to suffer from food insecurity and poverty. "The government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — once known as food stamps — is a lifeline for entire rural economies," Andrés explains. "Poverty rates are actually higher outside cities than in them. So it should be no surprise to learn that families in rural counties use SNAP more."

The desire to cut SNAP by Republican lawmakers representing rural regions seems like a particularly harmful mismatch. "In some of the reddest states in the country, where Donald Trump won by 20 points or more in 2024, SNAP benefits are about as widely used as they are in states such as California and New York," Andrés writes. "In Louisiana, where House Speaker Mike Johnson is from, it’s even higher: 1 in 5 count on SNAP to meet their basic food needs."

Congress has planned cuts anyway. "Under the House budget plan, SNAP is facing $230 billion in cuts over 10 years: a massive 20 percent reduction," Andrés explains. "More than two-thirds of SNAP recipients are either children, elderly or disabled. Three-fourths live below the poverty line. For a family of three, that means earning less than $26,650 a year."

Addressing hunger isn't a political issue for most Americans. "Support for hunger and nutrition programs is broad and deep, stretching from evangelical groups to progressive nonprofits," Andrés adds. "Doing good can be good politics. One of the reasons the government exists is to take care of our forgotten neighbors who need a helping hand. If 'America First' means anything, it surely means taking care of the forgotten Americans in so-called flyover country."

Zaytinya photo

José Andrés is a chef, restaurateur and
founder of the nonprofit organization
World Central Kitchen.
Read his full opinion here.

When residents in a small Indiana town discuss an immigrant welcome center, clashing views take center stage

President-elect Donald Trump promised mass deportations of illegal immigrants would begin during his first 30 days in office. For many residents in the small town of Seymour, Indiana, the expulsions "can't start soon enough," reports Arian Campo-Flores of The Wall Street Journal. "Seymour is one of many cities across the U.S. feeling the effects of a historic wave of immigration, where residents seeking to integrate migrants are clashing with others calling for them to be rooted out and sent home."

Historically, most immigrants who came to Seymour settled peacefully until a proposal for an immigrant welcome center circulated in the spring of 2024. The plan incensed residents who feared the center would bring even more immigrants. "Such residents have complained for years that a flood of unauthorized migrants. . . strained schools, hospitals and housing," Campo-Flores explains. "With President-elect Donald Trump promising to conduct mass deportations . . . . They are organizing opposition to illegal immigration."

Location of Seymour, Ind.
(Wikipedia photo)

Seymour has a population of roughly 22,000 people, many of who have voted Republican for decades. Unemployment is low and jobs are plentiful, making it attractive to migrants who "began arriving in significant numbers in the 1990s," Campo-Flores writes. "For most of the period since, the flow of arrivals was manageable and generated few flashpoints, residents say."

But at the March city council meeting the welcome center proposal "proved to be the spark that ignited simmering frustration over illegal immigration," Campo-Flores adds. "At the meeting, speakers fumed about migrants allegedly failing to assimilate, committing crimes and crowding multiple families into small homes. . . . Republican state Rep. Jim Lucas, who is from Seymour, said at the meeting that the city welcomed immigrants who arrive legally and are properly vetted."

Seymour resident Tim Smallwood supports Trump's planned deportations. Campo-Flores writes, "He thinks the Trump administration should first target unauthorized migrants with criminal records and then pressure other migrants to 'self-deport.' He told Campo-Flores, "It’s the only way they’ll solve this problem. You’ve got to make it hard enough on them that they don’t want to come here in the first place.”

Construction and agriculture industries 'brace' for potential changes to U.S. immigration and tariff policies

Several U.S. sectors are preparing for imminent changes the transition to a Republican president and Congress promise to bring. Stories focused on upcoming changes are excerpted below.

Undocumented workers make up roughly 13%
of the construction industry. (Adobe Stock photo)

President-elect Donald Trump's planned immigration crackdown and tariffs on Mexican and Canadian goods will hit the housing market with a "one-two punch," report Elizabeth Findell and Gina Heeb of The Wall Street Journal. "In Texas, California, New Jersey and the District of Columbia, immigrants make up more than half of construction trade workers. . . Undocumented workers make up an estimated 13% of the construction industry." Beyond the possible loss of skilled trade workers, "the president-elect’s proposed tariffs of 25% on Canada and Mexico could increase the cost of construction materials."

Once Trump and a solidly Republican Congress are back at work, health officials anticipate the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion will be "back on the chopping block," reports Phil Galewitz of KFF Health News. "More than 3 million adults in nine states would be at immediate risk of losing their health coverage should the GOP reduce the extra federal Medicaid funding that’s enabled states to widen eligibility." Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia all have trigger laws that would swiftly end their Medicaid expansions if federal funding changes.

In 2023, the United States exported 17.83 metric tons
of wheat, worth $6.08 billion. (Adobe Stock photo)

Farmers and meat plants are "bracing" for immigration changes, including possible mass deportations of some current workers, reports Patick Thomas of The Wall Street Journal. "America’s food-supply chain relies on a predominantly immigrant workforce for some of its most challenging jobs. . . . About two-thirds of U.S. crop-farm workers are foreign-born, and 42% aren’t legally authorized to work in the country, according to a Labor Department report. . . . Having a smaller pool of workers would likely prompt companies to raise wages, but that could result in higher food prices."

If the Trump administration makes good on its promise to levy tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, a trade war is likely; however, the administration may no longer have free rein to tap into the Agriculture Department's discretionary spending to buffer farm losses. "A bipartisan cohort of lawmakers want to rein in a pot of money Trump’s first administration used to compensate farmers decimated by the then-president’s trade confrontation with China," reports Skye Witley of Bloomberg News. "A farm bill package that would require congressional approval of certain Agriculture Department discretionary spending supporting the farm economy" was championed by Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and House Agriculture Chair GT Thompson (R-Pa.)

Brooke Rollins in 2021
(Wikipedia photo)

While many of the incoming administration's actions were anticipated, Trump surprised some lawmakers and agriculture groups when he nominated Brooke Rollins as his Agriculture secretary. "Trump’s decision to tap her came amid bitter infighting over the role among his advisers, family members and powerful agriculture groups, report Grace Yarrow and Meredith Lee Hill of Politico. "Rollins, who grew up on a farm, has less experience in agriculture policy than those on Trump’s shortlist. Rollins is from Texas and has a degree in agricultural development. While some GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill were surprised by the pick, she’s expected to have a fairly smooth Senate confirmation."

Tired of big-city decisions, rural counties in some states work to form their own governments

New Illinois activists encourage residents
to "leave Illinois without moving."

Voters in rural towns and counties are working to break away from their state's blue-voting big cities and create their own governments. The "breakup" process has already begun in Illinois and California and is gaining momentum in "other states where vast swaths of red, rural counties are dominated by a few blue cities," reports Joe Barrett of The Wall Street Journal. "More residents are pushing to break off and form new states. . . . A group called New Illinois State declared itself independent from actual Illinois and passed the first draft of a new constitution."

On Nov. 5, voters in rural Iroquois County, Illinois, "backed the idea of forming a new state with every Illinois county except Cook, home to Chicago and more than 40% of the state’s population," Barrett explains. "The nonbinding resolution also passed in six other counties," which means nearly 33% of the state's counties voted to leave the Chicago area behind.

Location of Iroquois County
in Illinois (Wikipedia photo)

Iroquois County resident and "new state" activist Phil Gioja, explained his motivation to Barrett, saying, "There’s a lot of people in Chicago, and I think that they make a lot of decisions that affect people downstate. It’s just sending a message that ‘Hey, you know, there’s people that would like to be part of the conversation, and often aren’t.’" Still, Gioja "doesn't expect a New Illinois anytime soon."

Even if counties were allowed to form separate states, it's uncertain that new states could financially survive without the funding they receive from bigger city revenues.

Counties working to "divorce" their bigger city counterparts and create new states face potentially messy uphill battles. "Becoming new states would require the consent of the existing legislatures — extremely unlikely in most blue states — as well as Congress," Barrett writes. Paul Preston, founder of the New California State, "plans to petition Congress for statehood based on the argument that the current California government is a one-party communist state, and technically, they have seceded from the Union already.'"

Preston's approach may seem ridiculous to some but "appealing to Congress is a strategy that could work," Barrett reports. Jason Mazzone, a constitutional law professor at the University of Illinois, who told Barrett, "It seems far-fetched. But we live in uncertain times. So if you’ve got the right people in Congress — and I don’t think we do have the right people in Congress — you could do it.”

Some public schools continue to increase the number of vaccination exemptions given to kindergartners

Graph by Kavya Beheraj, Axios, from CDC data

Even before the pandemic years, the number of vaccination exemptions issued for kindergartners entering public schools was on the rise. According to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, when allowances from school years ending in 2012 to 2022 were tallied, the "nationwide median rate of kindergartners with vaccine exemptions nearly doubled," report Alex Fitzpatrick and Kavya Beheraj of Axios. The political debate over Covid-19 vaccinations could be adding to "vaccine skepticism among a relatively small but growing number of parents."

Schoolchildren are vaccinated to "reduce the spread of childhood illnesses — some potentially fatal — that once plagued the country, such as polio," Fitzpatrick and Beheraj explain. To be admitted to public school, children are required to have several vaccinations; however, "exemptions can be given for both medical and non-medical reasons." Some studies have "found an increased risk of infection from vaccine-preventable diseases among exempt children."

The number of exemptions public schools give varies by state, and the primary push to question vaccination requirements is driven by Republicans. Axios reports, "As of 2022, Idaho (9.8%), Utah (7.4%) and Oregon (7%) had the highest median kindergarten vaccination exemption rates. Mississippi, New York and West Virginia were tied for the lowest, at 0.1%. . . .with 85% of Democrats agreeing with such a requirement compared to 57% of Republicans. . . .While Democratic support for vaccine requirements held steady between pre- and post-pandemic years, Republican support took a remarkable nosedive, falling from 79% in 2019."

Despite the increase in parents seeking vaccination exemptions for their children, the number of students who aren't vaccinated remains relatively low. The nationwide median kindergarten vaccine exemption rate has "stayed at 2.5% or higher since 2020, coming in at 2.7% in 2022, the latest year for which data is available," Fitzpatrick and Beheraj write.

Most Americans support the national childhood vaccination program. A Pew Research Center survey revealed that "when it comes to the measles, mumps and rubella shot, 88% of Americans said the benefits outweigh the risks, compared to 10% who feel the opposite," Axios reports. "The share expressing confidence in the value of MMR vaccines is identical to the share who said this in 2019, before the coronavirus outbreak."

Opinion: Many Americans didn't like either candidate for president, but maybe there's a better way to choose

Voting against what a candidate represents can 'yield
better results.' (Adobe Stock photo)

Before casting their vote, and maybe even after, many American voters voiced concern because they didn't like either candidate. But maybe liking a candidate isn't the point, writes essayist Amy Bauer in her opinion for The Wall Street Journal. Perhaps it's better to vote against a candidate or party instead of searching and voting for a "likable" one.

Her friends and family "all voted against Donald Trump and JD Vance or against Kamala Harris and Tim Walz," Baurer adds. "At a dinner party, I was lamenting this necessity and said, 'I’d love to see an election where voters are excited about the person they’re voting for.' A friend responded saying, 'I think this is optimal. An election where you vote against rather than for is more logical and less emotional. It yields better results.'"

Bauer writes, "I realized my friend had a point about the drawbacks of voting for a candidate. The last time I did so was in 2012. Barack Obama was smooth and kind and wicked smart. . . .Years later, the revelations about Obama started to emerge. Like old infidelities, each one was a slap. . .

"Voting for a candidate back then led me to soft criteria: charm, warmth, a quick smile. Ultimately, I felt disappointed and betrayed — the pitfalls of an emotional relationship. None of this is at play with Trump. I’m not looking for him to be charming or warm . . . I often dislike the things he says.

"His behavior on Jan. 6, 2021, was egregious, pure hubris, and it might have been disqualifying if not for the confounding response from Democrats, who seized on the event and used it to justify constitutional infringements from that day forward."

For some voters, a ballot cast for Trump and Vance equaled a vote to support those rights. Bauer explains, "More than anything, I cherish freedom of expression and believe it is our most spiritual right. Prayer, poetry, stories, music — they’re what lift us above this mortal space. . . . I’d rather die than live in a world without this freedom."

When Bauer spoke to her friend, she asked if he was happy about the election outcome. He told her, "Not exactly happy. But it was so much better than the alternative.”

Opinion: Iowa editor considers where Americans can 'find center again' after this year's elections

Art Cullen

By Art Cullen

Editor, The Storm Lake Times

What comes after Nov. 5? Most Americans and the betting markets believe that Kamala Harris will win the election. . . . No matter what happens, we need to find center again. Quick like.

What the Republic cannot endure, and which gives enemies of freedom oxygen, is the contempt that has taken hold American-to-American.

We talk past each other and grow apart.

How do we talk to the other side?

We know what we want in Iowa: clean air and water, safe schools that teach you how to be a citizen, good food and good basketball, smooth roads and friendly neighborhoods, easy access to comprehensive and affordable health care. The ability to prosper. That’s pretty much it.

We’re not getting what we deserve, except for the basketball.

Trump and Harris voters can agree on that. So we should start there.

Farmers who vote Republican are not gung-ho for pipelines going wherever the power brokers would like, and neither are environmentalists. Each likes supporting more on-farm conservation. White males and Black women are suspicious of unchecked corporate power. A lot of union members will vote Republican for a whole host of reasons, but find common cause with Democrats on basic human equity.

We all want to strengthen rural healthcare. We like independent producers and businesses. . . . It’s not as if there is not common ground. . . . Right-to-repair is not left or right. Neither is enforcement of anti-trust laws. . . . We all recognize that it is tough to fill jobs in food and agriculture because it’s tough work. Nobody expects to get rich, but they expect respect and a wage that lets them get ahead.  

This is why people are anxious and don’t think that things are working their way. They’re not. Things work for people with a firm grip on power. We can organize ourselves around how to make our place better, instead of how we can lock up our adversaries.

It starts with city hall, the courthouse and the school house. It starts by us talking about issues and confronting power that prevents progress. It starts by listening. . .

Art Cullen is the editor of the The Storm Lake Times in Storm Lake, Iowa, covering Buena Vista County and parts of neighboring Clay, Pocahontas, Sac, Ida and Cherokee counties. This opinion was lightly edited.

Opinion: When even 'losing by less' helps, Democrats must engage rural voters. Wisconsin's Baldwin shows the way.

Tammy Baldwin campaigning in the Badger state.

If Democrats want to gain votes in rural America, they need to be present to win. In tight races, even cutting into Republican margins can swing an election -- "Just ask Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin," writes Karen Tumulty in her opinion for The Washington Post.

Last year, Baldwin kicked off her re-election campaign in conservative Richland County, Wisconsin, where Trump soundly won in 2020. But Baldwin also won the county. She's had a history of reaching out to rural communities, listening to their issues and touting her wins. Tumulty adds, "She cites bringing home $1.1 billion in federal funds to expand high-speed internet across Wisconsin and millions more to address the shortage of available child care that is particularly acute in rural areas."

Baldwin's strategic success with rural voters may be unusual, but other Democrats are catching on. "This year, Democrats up and down the ticket are waking up to something Baldwin recognized long ago: That Democrats cannot afford to ignore rural America, even as it has swung harder to the right," Tumulty adds. 

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who joined Baldwin's "One Year to Win” state tour kickoff, told Tumulty, “Elections in my state and here in Wisconsin often come down to a percentage point or less. You got to show up everywhere. You got to make sure that you’re meeting people where they are in communities like this that maybe historically haven’t voted your way.”

The Harris-Walz ticket also has taken from Baldwin's playbook. Tumulty writes, "They've made a point of campaigning in places like southern Georgia and western Pennsylvania, where they have little chance of winning outright but hope to cut into Trump’s margins. . . . It is the rare Democratic politician like Baldwin who can still win in rural areas. But in battleground states where polls show the race as tight as it is, even losing by less could make all the difference."

Opinion: 'Rural rage' book gets most things wrong but pinpoints how political strength can help rural 'plight' be seen

Bradyn Strawser

Writer Bradyn Strawser discusses the good, the bad and the ugly roots of 'rural rage' and how he interprets some national research on the topic. An edited version of some of his thoughts is below.

"In the months leading up to the 2020 presidential election, the Democratic Party claimed that their platform was going to be one of unity. They said it was time to turn the page on the toxicity that had defined American political discourse since that fateful moment when Donald Trump descended on the escalator in 2015, initiating his first presidential campaign," Strawser explains. "What went wrong? A good place to begin answering this question might be White Rural Rage.

"The subtitle, The Threat to American Democracy, makes the anti-rural sentiments of authors Tom Schaller, a professor of political science at the University of Maryland, and Paul Waldman, a former op-ed writer for the Washington Post, quite clear," Strawser adds. Schaller and Waldman spend a lot of words "pointing out that countless other demographics suffer more than rural whites. It seems the authors are not interested in the plight of rural America."

One of Schaller and Waldman's biggest questions was: Why did rural Americans vote so enthusiastically for Trump? "They conclude it is because Trump tapped into all the worst instincts of rural Americans," Strawser adds. "But this is not why Trump resonated with so many of my neighbors and loved ones. He resonated with them because despite all the inflated political power Schaller and Waldman claim rural America has. . . .Trump was the first president in many years that seemed to listen [to] and care."

Some of rural rage stems from being politically ignored. "Countless rural communities suffered from loss of industry, lack of education, and military intervention in foreign lands," Strawser explains. "Rural Americans have felt abandoned as both parties voted in trade deals like NAFTA and promoted immigration policies that acquiesced to large corporations’ demands for new sources of cheap labor, a push which was supported by many labor unions."

Part of why rural Americans feel rage is because they have counted their losses and started asking questions. "They want to know why they are not entitled to a quality education," Strawser writes. "Why should they support politicians who send their jobs overseas and then receive money from the very corporations that laid off their employees? . . . Trump seemed to provide answers to these questions. His pro-school choice stance and promotion of opportunity zones that used tax incentives to increase investment in depressed census tracts. . . resonated with rural people."

While Schaller and Waldman take their keen minds and come to some harsh and misguided conclusions, "they do a good job at pointing out problems facing rural America, perhaps none more serious than the opioid crisis that is poisoning rural Americans every day," Strawser writes. "I think they are correct about one [other] thing: it is time for rural Americans to wield their political power to finally get policies that are in their interest. It’s time that they demand their plight be heard."

Bradyn Strawser studied political science and history at Grove City College, Penn. To read Strawser's full essay, click here.

In a first, the Conservative Energy Network hosts a national conference to promote 'eco-right' agenda

Participants at this year's Conservative Energy Summit.
(CEN photo via USA Today)

These "going green" supporters aren't touting climate change as their reason for supporting renewable energy. Instead, they are making a case for solar, wind and nuclear power because they believe those energy sources will help make and save Americans money, reports Elizabeth Weise of USA Today. "Conservative voices have never been absent from discussions around clean energy, but the Conservative Energy Network is part of a new 'eco-right' that's emerged."

The CEN sponsored the Conservative Energy Summit in Houston, Texas, this month, which was the first time "it brought together more than 200 people from around the country to discuss how best to champion energy sources they believe will restore American energy leadership, save people money, create jobs and secure the power grid," Weise explains. "That doesn't necessarily mean believing in climate change, speakers said. Anyone who supports free markets can see that cheap, renewable energy is the future."

Pat Wood of the Hunt Energy Network in Dallas told Weise, "We need to get the politics out of the energy business." Weise reports, "Speaker after speaker argued that free market competition, consumer choice, private property rights and cutting government overregulation are fundamentally Republican values. If those principles prevail, clean energy will thrive in the U.S., they believe."

Marshall Conrad, vice president of government relations at Strata Clean Energy in North Carolina, told Weise, "In rural, red areas, we’ve got to repudiate the feeling that Democrats are trying to force clean energy projects down our throats." Weise adds, "The Conservative Energy Network came into existence to help provide an alternative view of renewable energy at the state and county level."

Some of the CEN and its offshoots efforts include "championing the property rights of farmers and ranchers to build solar or wind on their property, fighting over-regulation and getting power projects built that bring significant revenue to rural communities without raising taxes, said Bradley Pischea, national director of the Land & Liberty Coalition," Weise explains. "They also spend a lot of time fighting misinformation about new kinds of energy."

Opinion: Walz is a hunter, a former soldier, and a 'rural for real' man on the Democratic ticket

Art Cullen

This opinion piece by Art Cullen, editor of the Storm Lake Times Pilot in Iowa, has been gently edited for Rural Blog brevity.

"Kamala Harris and the Democrats do well to have Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on their national ticket as the vice-presidential nominee. He’s rural, for real. Walz has broad appeal in Upper Midwest battleground states, is well-versed in the you-betcha vernacular, and is well-suited in Carhartt with a camo cap. . . . Somehow Walz figured out a way to win a congressional seat in a red district around Mankato and ultimately the governorship.

"Republicans will have a hard time defining the former master sergeant in the Army National Guard as an out-of-control elite liberal. He is an expert marksman, claims he is a better pheasant shooter than his counterpart JD Vance, and suggests that vegetarians should eat turkey since it is not really meat. He hails from West Point, Neb., from whence you can almost see South Dakota, and once got popped for drunk driving as a young school teacher and coach. [He] gave up on drinking under his wife’s advice.

"Walz subscribes to the standard Democratic orthodoxy — pro-choice, supports gay rights, believes in feeding children at school, champions a living wage and backs labor unions. . . Walz favors some gun controls, as Ronald Reagan did. . . . [He's] pretty much your White Midwestern dad dude who coached Mankato West to a state football title.

"As a congressman, Walz was a staunch advocate for ethanol and biodiesel, which creates immense water quality problems in southern Minnesota and Iowa. As governor, he made way for pipelines supported by union pipefitting brethren. As vice president, he could focus attention on rural areas left behind by the bicoastal economic expansion. He could make a difference in trying to reorient agriculture toward a more diverse production system that is resilient against economic and climatic extremes.

"Rural America is more than resentful people in red caps. It’s the complicated challenge of feeding the hungry while not despoiling the richest land in the world. It’s people with ambition and ideas held down for generations by corporate power with little regard for community. Walz gets it. That could be a powerful antidote to the decline of political choice . . .

"Rural communities struggling to survive need an alternative, something other than simply more tax cuts and lousy roads and rivers choking in toxins. . . . The Harris campaign will task Walz with campaigning in Wisconsin, Michigan and western Pennsylvania. . . . Simply having a candidate on the national ticket who actually baled hay under the Nebraska sun should buck us up."

An Oregon Democrat won working-class votes in a 'red' U.S. House district; she wants more 'normal people' to be elected

Gluesenkamp Perez would like more 'normal people' elected
into Congress. (Marie Gluesenkamp Perez press photo)

As Democrats look for ways to regain footing with working-class voters, Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat from a previously red district in Oregon, is a living example of changes her party may need to embrace if it wants to gain votes from people who "work for a living," writes Jason Zengerle for The New York Times. "Before she was elected to Congress, in 2022, Gluesenkamp Perez ran an auto-repair shop with her husband; her professional and personal acquaintances still largely consist of people who work in the trades — construction, carpentry, woodworking."

Gluesenkamp Perez doesn't think or act like many other politicians. Zengerle explains, "She hired her legislative director, in part, because the woman drove a Toyota Camry with 200,000 miles on it. 'That says a lot,' Gluesenkamp Perez explains. But what really sets her apart is the way she thinks about the federal government itself — which she believes is woefully out of touch with the needs of working-class Americans."

She has given voice to issues that reflect the needs of those who voted her into office. "While her opponent [Joe Kent] asserted that the 2020 election was stolen and that Dr. Anthony Fauci belonged in prison, she focused on the concerns of the community she knew," Zengerle adds. "Her biggest issue was pushing for 'right to repair' laws, which mandate that consumers have access to repair tools for everything from their smartphones and home medical devices to their cars and tractors." Gluesenkamp Perez told Zengerle: “We’re more and more surrounded by these black boxes that we have no influence over. I think it’s the American ethos that we know how to fix [expletive].”

While working-class connections got her into Congress, Gluesenkamp Perez found it hard to connect with her fellow politicians. "One of the few friendships she did strike up was with Jared Golden, a third-term Democratic representative from Maine," Zengerle writes. Golden's history included becoming leader of the Blue Dog Coalition when only seven members remained. "As the head of the Blue Dogs, he recruited Gluesenkamp Perez and Mary Peltola, who represents Alaska’s lone House district, to be his co-chairs. . . .The new Blue Dogs wanted to make it possible for more people like themselves ('normal people,' Gluesenkamp Perez calls them), from more districts like theirs, to get elected to Congress."

But standing up and speaking her mind has yet to have the legislative impact Gluesenkamp Perez wants. "The signature bills she has introduced or supported — table saws, right to repair, one to expand Pell grants to cover skills training at community colleges — are stuck in legislative purgatory," Zengerle explains. Her "biggest problem at the moment is Joe Kent, who is running again. This time, of course, Trump will also be on the ballot, which means Gluesenkamp Perez will need a good number of ticket-splitting voters to stay in office."

Some say she can't win re-election. To that end, she said: “All of the eggheads and all of the economists and all of the statisticians said we couldn’t do what we did. But you all showed up, and you believed it. Nobody saved us but us.”

Opinion: American social norms and buffers are endangered as leaders 'behave without moral authority'

'Civil discourse and engaging with those with whom
you disagree' used to be an American norm. (Adobe photo)

With the next U.S. presidential election less than six months away, most Americans expect to see probable candidates such as Donald Trump campaigning across the country. But Trump has not been focused on stumping. Instead, he has been in court where Americans have seen and read coverage of his efforts to "buy the silence of a porn star on the eve of the 2016 election," writes Thomas L. Friedman in his opinion for The New York Times. While this case may not be the most critical case against him, this case "more than any of the other cases is revealing of a trend ailing America today: how much we’ve lost our moorings as a society."

Friedman uses mangroves as a metaphor for what used to support U.S. social systems. In nature, "mangroves filter toxins and pollutants through their extensive roots. . . .They create nurseries for young fish. . . . They literally help hold the shoreline in place . . . .One of the saddest things that has happened to America in my lifetime is how much we’ve lost so many of our mangroves. They are endangered everywhere today — but not just in nature."

Friedman writes, "All those things that used to filter toxic behaviors, buffer political extremism and nurture healthy communities and trusted institutions for young people to grow up in and which hold our society together. . . . Locally owned small-town newspapers used to be a mangrove buffering the worst of our national politics. A healthy local newspaper is less likely to go too far to one extreme or another because its owners and editors live in the community."

Expressing shame for misdeeds used to be a mangrove that protected social norms. Friedman writes, "To be clear: People in high places doing shameful things is hardly new in American politics and business. What is new, Dov Seidman, the author of the book How: Why HOW We Do Anything Means Everything, told Friedman, 'is so many people doing it so conspicuously and with such impunity.' . . . That is what erodes norms. . . . Nothing is more corrosive to a vibrant democracy and healthy communities, added Seidman, than 'when leaders with formal authority behave without moral authority.'"

Opinion: As new generations move into American politics, changes could 'actually erase' social polarization

Younger generations share more common views.
(Adobe Stock photo)

Will the U.S. ever reach a less polarized political environment? New research indicates that as power transitions to new generations, present tensions may ease, write Sally Friedman and David Schultz for The Conversation, a journalistic platform for academics. "The rise of younger generations to political power may actually erase the deep social divisions associated with polarization. . . . That's one of the strong possibilities for the future suggested by the diverse array of findings of our research."

Friedman and Schultz explain: "For the past 30 years, baby boomers (those born roughly between 1946 and 1964) and members of the Silent Generation (those born between 1925 and 1945) have driven and defined American politics. For the most part, the Silent Generation and the older baby boomers were the core of the Republican Party. The younger baby boomers, along with many Gen Xers (born roughly between 1965 and 1981), formed the core of the Democratic Party."

It's worth noting that millennials (born between 1982 and 1995) and Gen Z (born between 1996 and 2013) have emerged as significant political forces. Their liberal leanings and strong support for the Democratic Party have been instrumental in securing Democratic election victories in 2018, 2020, and 2022, particularly in swing states.

Millennials and Gen Zers, who are less defined by party choice, will replace the previous generations, which "may lessen polarization" caused by strict party affiliation.

Over the last 50 years, more Americans have come to define themselves as left or right-wing, with fewer identifying in the broader middle. However, the current partisanship may subside as new generations move into the political forefront. "Younger generations are more likely to self-identify as liberal. As we and others explain in several chapters of our book, surveys show they are more liberal on a whole range of issues regarding social matters, the economy, immigration and climate change," Friedman and Schulz write. "The consensus on political views among members of these younger generations means there is potential for decreasing polarization."