(Hat tip to Paul over at Nebraska Blue who got me thinking about this.)
"Ah, my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the Atlantic coast, but the hardy pioneers who have braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose - the pioneers away out there [pointing to the West], who rear their children near to Nature's heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds - out there where they have erected schoolhouses for the education of their young, churches where they praise their Creator, and cemeteries where rest the ashes of their dead - these people, we say, are as deserving of the consideration of our party as any people in this country. It is for these that we speak."
- William Jennings Bryan
Are we, as Democrats, doomed to dismiss what could be our greatest block of voters in 2008. The rural vote in Nebraska is far too important for our party to lose this cycle. In fact, we can not win statewide without it. But how exactly do we do that, and which candidate is more likely to build a Democratic coalition among those voices that mindle with the birds.
In December of 2004, when Mike Johanns was poised to replace Ann Venemen as Secretary of Agribusiness Agriculture, John Nichols of the Nation penned an important editorial calling for Senate Democrats to take action against Mike Johanns' nomination. While Democrats in Congress failed to oppose Johanns this piece is an important manifesto for victory in 2008.
Democrats are talking a lot these days about how to reconnect with rural voters. It's an important conversation, as much about the decline in the party's fortunes can be traced to the fact that people who live on farms and in small towns, who not that many years ago were about evenly divided in their partisan loyalties, provided President Bush and the Republican Party with overwhelming support in 2004...
Most national Democrats - and let's start this list with the name "John Kerry" - evidence little or no understanding of the fundamental economic concerns facing rural regions. That lack of awareness often leads them to miss opportunities to challenge the wrongheaded agenda of corporate agribusiness and the industry's allies in Washington.
One of the biggest mistakes that Democrats made in the first days of the Bush administration was to support the nomination of Ann Venemen to serve as Secretary of Agriculture. Venemen, with her close ties to agribusiness and the biotech industry, was precisely the wrong choice. An unyielding supporter of free-trade initiatives, and an unquestioning backer of even the most controversial schemes to genetically modify crops, Venemen was a dream-come-true pick for multinational food-processing corporations, chemical companies and big agribusiness interests. But for working farmers and the residents of rural regions and small towns, she was a nightmare selection.
Unfortunately, Senate Democrats quickly got on board to back the Venemen nomination, which sailed through the confirmation process with little challenge.
Now, after a four-year tenure that confirmed all the worst fears of her critics, Venemen is leaving the Department of Agriculture for what will undoubtedly be a very lucrative return to the agribusiness and biotech sinecures she occupied before her sojourn in Washington. And the president has again selected a nominee for Secretary of Agriculture who is unacceptable.
Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns, who the president has named to replace Venemen, has a troubling track record of taking the side of agribusiness over that of working farmers:
Johanns has been a wild-eyed advocate for free-trade initiatives, particularly the granting of permanent most-favored nation trading status to China. In less than a decade, as the free-trade agenda has been implemented, America's traditional advantage in agricultural trade has dropped by 61.6 percent. "This is a man-made catastrophe, an economic disaster," Nebraska Farmers Union President John Hansen says of the current free-trade regimen. "Through conscious policy we are outsourcing food production."
Johanns was an aggressive supporter of the 2002 farm bill, which continued the misguided practice of directing substantial portions of U.S. farm-support spending into the treasuries of the largest agribusiness conglomerates and factory-farm operations. "This farm bill continues to tap taxpayers' hard earned money to keep the farm economy limping along while the giant food processors and exporters reap cheap commodities to expand their control of the world's food supply," says George Naylor, president of the National Family Farm Coalition.
As governor, Johanns initiated what Nebraska farm advocates saw as an attempt to gut I-300, the state's 23-year-old ban on corporations owning farmland or engaging in agricultural activity in the state. Johanns's push for a review of I-300 drew harsh criticism from family-farm advocates last year. "There seems to be no useful purpose in modifying Initiative 300 unless the purpose is to subject Initiative 300 to legal attack," argued Robert Broom, an attorney who successfully defended I-300 from constitutional challenge in federal trials. Under heavy pressure from rural voters, Nebraska legislators declined to give Johanns the authority to establish a task force that many expected to attack I-300.
Let's update that list to include (this is a working list):
Under Mike Johanns the Department of the Agriculture scaled back it's Mad Cow testing by 90 percent, citing the "extremely low" incidence of the disease in the United States. This caused foreign markets, Japan in particular, to back out of several important agricultural deals. One Japanese official went so far as to say, "That doesn't make sense to me." This has hindered our economy greatly and will most likely take decades to repair. (Link)
As Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns pledged to make his top priority a strong Farm Bill. Yet his agri-administration failed to finish the 2008 Farm Bill which caused 10 of Nebraska's crucial Farm Service Agencies to close and hundreds more nationwide. Johanns took a "strange" hands off approach to the Farm Bill and delegated the majority of work to others within the department. The Farm Bill is the number priority for the Secretary of Agriculture. Everyone says so. But while the Farm Bill was being formed Mike Johanns was focusing on running for U.S. Senate instead of helping those he served. (Link)
It is important, as I have said before, to draw clear distinctions between our candidate and Mike Johanns. Here, with rural, is one important place where we must do this. As John Nichols put it:
Making clear those distinctions will be critical if Democrats want to alter the color scheme on those blue state/red state maps of the United States...
If Democrats want to improve their fortunes in the elections of 2006 and 2008, they should learn to speak once more for the interests of rural Americans. And the best place to start doing so is by challenging the pro-free trade, pro-corporate agribusiness policies of Mike Johanns - and by speaking, bluntly, about the threat those policies pose to working farmers and rural America.
STATE BLOGS
