Urban/Rural Divide
The land turned upside down in Washington lands commissioner race
Spokompton has been doing some great stuff on the upcoming lands commissioner race in Washington State next year and they point out the main difference between the Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark and the incumbent Doug Sutherland.
Goldmark is a rancher from the eastern, rural side of the state. Sutherland is a career politician and government tactician from the urban Puget Sound.
More from Spokompton on Sutherland:
Sutherland served on the Tacoma city council in 1980-81, before being elected Mayor of Tacoma. He held that post until the end of 1989, when he took the job of City Manager in the newly incorporated SeaTac. He was there until 1992, when he took over as Pierce County Executive. That post he held through the end of 2000, when he began his first term as Commissioner of Public Lands. In his first campaign he defeated DemocratJennifer Belcher(actually it was former Gov. Mike Lowry, eoc), after successfully painting her as a stereotypical far-left liberal. I recall that election season in Eastern Washington for the great deal of talk about endangered owls and how little they mattered to Washingtonians. In 2004, Sutherland fended off Democrat Mike Cooper in a much lower-profile race, likely due to the national political conflagration that was President Bush’s Reelection.
So, how does it work out that a government establishment Republican from the urban Puget Sound runs a race against an insurgent Democratic rancher from the rural east? What kind of themes does Sutherland pick up? Stay the course?
Prairie populist Goldmark is giving us a look at what his themes may end up being:
I want to return the office to the people of Washington. I will treat our public lands-and the people who use them-with respect. It is vital that we treat our public lands as a long-term resource, to keep Washington's forests and fields healthy.
Emmett O'Connell | July 19, 2007 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Is the GOP losing the West?
The GOP is losing its hold on the rural vote according to a poll reported by NPR.
A new national poll indicates rural Americans are no longer reliably Republican, and the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq seems mainly to blame."I think there are two big headlines out of this poll," says Anna Greenberg of the Democratic polling firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. "The first is 'Republican Collapse in Rural Areas.' And the second is 'Rural is the Battleground in 2008."
But Iraq is not the GOP’s only problem.
Nick Kristoff of the New York Times zeros in on the Southwest and how the nativist wing of the GOP is alienating both Hispanics and moderates on immigration.
…the closer you get to the border, the more voters back politicians who are looking for middle ground — and punish those who follow the rant-for-ratings route.
He sees Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico and their combined 29 electoral votes (more than Florida’s 27 or Ohio’s 20) as potentially the biggest battleground in next year’s presidential race. And he notes that Hispanics are the fastest growing part of the electorate and make up 28% of the population in Arizona, 24% in Nevada, 20% in Colorado, and 43% in New Mexico.
Kristoff cites Democratic congressional gains in Colorado and Arizona in 2004 and 2006 as evidence that Democrats can assemble a new Western majority and quotes David Waid, Chairman of Arizona’s Democratic Party:
“Arizona is in play like never before…and the Republicans are literally handing it to us.”
Republican strategist Clint Bolick sees the same trends.
Hispanic support for Republican candidates plummeted by 10 points, to 30 percent from 40 percent, between the 2004 presidential election to the 2006 congressional election debacle, costing the GOP as many as four congressional seats. In next year's presidential election, Hispanic votes could make the difference in four Western states, including Arizona. If Republicans continue chasing Hispanic voters away, they can kiss their national electoral prospects goodbye.Here at Western Democrat, we have always believed that the future of the Democratic Party lies in the West. The GOP is doing their part to hasten that future.
Leo Brown | June 22, 2007 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
The New West Project
This is wonderful:
The New West Project, headquartered in Denver, will conduct research and develop strategies to secure and exploit recent Democratic gains in the Western states, party sources said.At least four Western governors - Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Bill Ritter, Colorado's governor-elect - are expected to lead the group's advisory council, the sources said. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado and other members of Congress will provide "strategic guidance."
Reid confirmed the creation of the new organization, which he said would "build upon the leadership of people such as governors Napolitano, Richardson and Schweitzer" and "work to focus attention on the West."
This is a high level group. Consider the Western Strategy in play, my friends. It is wonderful to see this sort of institutional arrangement that will only benefit our local, state and national candidates long term. It looks like part think tank, part strategy firm, part communications development - all aspects that will be welcome by the plethora of candidates that will be running these next few cycles to take advantage of our our new promise out here in the west.
The best part of the article? The quote from an unnamed "Western Democrat":
As an example of what the new organization may do, the Western Democrat said that political professionals would analyze such questions as "the difference between first- and second-generation Hispanic voters, ... what motivates them and how we communicate with them," as well as "why a recent transplant from California, who has voted Republican all her life, is now voting for Democrats."
Good question, "Western Democrat" - it just leaves me amazed to see our namesake invoked so strikingly in an article. Methinks the author of the article, John Aloysius Farrell , might just be an reader of our humble site. If so, thanks for the article John - we'll be watching for you in the future.
It's great to have a new project designed for this express purpose and examining the multitude of new questions that are arising from the new political climate in the West. Now, if any of those people involved in the project are paying attention it would behoove them greatly to include netroots and blog outreach as an element of the project. You see, since major political focus has been absent from the West for awhile the netroots and blogosphere have been proliferating and recruiting top candidates all over the place. It would be an essential element of any plan that you should put together.
I'm excited.
Here's the The New West Project!
Landon Mascareñaz | December 6, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
In 2008, Nevada is the new Iowa.
A couple of days ago, Tom Vilsack threw his hat into the ring for the 2008 presidential contest:
"Americans sent a clear message on Tuesday. They want leaders who will take this country in a new direction," Vilsack, Iowa's two-term governor, said in a statement. "They want leaders who share their values, understand their needs, and respect their intelligence. That's what I've done as governor of Iowa, and that's what I intend to do as president."
Well Tom, you also clearly intend to invalidate your home state caucuses. Like Tom Harkin ran in 1992, when an Iowan runs for president, your caucuses matter little to everyone else. Iowans aren't going to punish a favorite son and no other big name Democratic candidate is truly going to ask them to.
Which means the next caucus up is Nevada. Tom Vilsack, by running for president has made Nevada the Iowa of 2008 - great news for Western Democrats. Not just because the issues being discussed in a western state matter to us out here, it means our chances of nominating a westerner in 2008 are much improved. Nevada will be a natural spot for someone like Richardson to campaign (given his sky high re-election rate and majority support among all sub-groups - important in a diverse western state like Nevada).
Can you really see Hillary winning Nevada? Or Tom Vilsack for that matter?
Western Democrats have just indirectly made incredible progress because of the aspirtation of one Iowan. Thanks Tom, much appreciated.
Landon Mascareñaz | November 11, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Fighting against toll roads
Could the fight against toll roads be a new issue that brings rural voters to the progressive side?
For many years, rural folks believed that it was the Republican Party that was the voice of "leave us alone" politics -- giving people the freedom to ranch and farm. Many rural folks thought Democrats were using environmentalism as a weapon against their culture.
But now, there are Republicans around the country (from Indiana to Texas to Oregon) who are creating toll roads. And not in the classic New Jersey model, but using eminent domain to seize land and turn over existing roads to foreign corporations. Those companies provide a big lump sum payment at the front end (great for a one-time tax cut) and then charge drivers for years.
Here's the thing: Many rural voters see these toll roads - especially the seizure of rural land - as a assault on rural communities. The documentary Truth Be Tolled, about the Texas toll road plan, is the most graphic depiction. From the film's synopsis:
From mayors of small cities, political candidates and grass roots groups to working-class Texans, all unite to state their loud opposition. The strongest voices rise from small rural communities whose farms, homes, schools, businesses and churches face the largest forcible eminent domain acquisition in U.S. history.The Trans-Texas Corridor, a giant scar through the center of the state, will not only rip the heart out of Texas-- it will kill a way of life that has been in the state forever.
Here's the trailer for the documentary. Pretty gripping stuff. Hit Play:
Kari Chisholm | October 10, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Another reason why many Native Americans don't trust the federal government.
Tonight, I headed to downtown Gallup to watch a series of presenters discuss the topic of uranium mining on the Navajo Nation.
For those who aren't familar:
Hydro Resources, Inc., has proposed to mine in four areas near the communities of Crownpoint and Churchrock. The uranium would not be removed by the previous traditional open-pit mining or shaft mining. The uranium would be removed by a process called In-situ Leach (ISL) mining. this type of mining includes the process of drilling holes in the ground, to the aquifer and injecting the water with chemicals that would "leach", or strip the uranium from the host rock (sandstone lined aquifer). The ISL mining method deliberately contaminates the ground water in the mining zone. At the present time Crownpoint has a pristine aquifer which provides pristine water to 15,000 people. These people come from all over the Eastern Navajo Agency to get water for everyday uses, such as cooking, drinking, cleaning, bathing and feeding livestock.
The main resistance front (ENDAUM) was organized in
the summer of 2001, when Rep. Heather Wilson proposed a plan that gave $10 million dollars of taxpayer's money to domestic uranium producing companies, to do explorations into safe mining for 3 years. During this time, Rep. Wilson had neglected to research what she was doing and neglected to inform the people outside of her district of what she was about to do against them. She also denied many invitations by people of the Crownpoint and Churchrock communities to visit their communities and voice their concerns.
Both the Church Rock and Crownpoint chapters as well as the Navajo Nation government have all passed resolutions legislation against this horrible (I'll call a spade a spade) environmental classism and racism. Tom Udall, the actual representative for our district (another reason to not like Heather Wilson) is opposed to the project, as well are numerous other individuals.
Here's what happened the last time they did this:
Church Rock, New Mexico, would seem an improbable spot for a nuclear disaster...In the early morning hours of July 16, 1979--fourteen weeks after the accident at Three Mile Island--all of that changed. The dam at Church Rock burst sending eleven hundred tons of radioactive mill wastes and ninety million gallons of contaminated liquid pouring toward Arizona. The wall of water backed up sewers and lifted manhole covers in Gallup, twenty miles downstream, and caught people all along the river unawares. "There were no clouds, but all of a sudden the water came," remembered Herbert Morgan of Manuelito, New Mexico. "I was wondering where it came from. Not for a few days were we told."No one was killed in the actual flood. But along the way it left residues of radioactive uranium, thorium, radium, and polonium, as well as traces of metals such as cadmium, aluminum, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, sodium, vanadium, zinc, iron, lead and high concentrations of sulfates. The spill degraded the western Rio Puerco as a water source. It carried toxic metals already detectable at least seventy miles downstream. And it raised the specter that uranium mining in the Colorado River Basin may be endangering Arizona's Lake Mead, and with it the drinking water of Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and much of Arizona.
Except for the bomb tests, Church Rock was probably the biggest single release of radioactive poisons on American soil. Ironically it occurred thirty-four years to the day after the first atomic test explosion at Trinity, New Mexico, not far away.
I can't imagine why everyone here is against it happening again.
We need people out West to stand up against this going forward. Not just politicians but regular people and public opinion-setters. The fact that the people who this will effect are in direct opposition but companies and the federal government keep moving forward proves so much of what native peoples say are true about our society. I would like to believe we live in a different time now, where positive and enlightened figures from all sides of the political spectrum could unite in opposition to this terrible effort.
I condemn anyone that supports this and welcome any figure who opposes it.
Landon Mascareñaz | September 25, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Oregon Democrats take a page from Brian Schweitzer
The Democratic Party of Oregon has approved a Gun Owners Caucus. Alt-weekly paper Willamette Week has the story:
Oregon Democrats are borrowing a page this election from party colleagues in gun-friendly states like Montana, where Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer—a bolo-tie-wearing former mint farmer—has said his idea of gun control is, "You control your gun, and I'll control mine." At a recent Democratic Party of Oregon meeting, state leaders voted to approve the formation of the party's Gun Owners Caucus , which joins the party's Faith Caucus and Motorcycle Caucus, among others.
Over at BlueOregon, Zak Johnson - one of the Gun Owners Caucus co-founders - explains:
As Democrats, we OWN the civil rights issue. The Bush administration daily violates the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments (unless you consider confessions under torture not to be self-incrimination). Tom Delay's cronies continue to violate the 13th amendment in the U.S. Mariannas. It has never been clearer that the Democratic Party is the nation's primary defender of the Constitution. This is an unequivocal, easy-to-understand position that resonates with voters. It's a uniting position as well, one that should attract patriots to the Democratic banner.But to promote that message requires consistency on the whole Constitution. Frankly, the Party's reputation on the 2nd Amendment is, as Montana Democratic Chairman Bob Ream has said, that people think we want to take their guns away. ...
The perception that Democrats are anti-gun also hurts the party badly among our natural constituencies like hunters, most of whom consider themselves environmentalists, and rural residents in general.
Kari Chisholm | September 23, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Gas and Property Rights and fishermen
Now here's an interesting mix of issues. On one side you have the current gas and oil boom across the west that is pitting not only ranchers and small property owners against big Oil and Gas, their state governments and the BLM, but also (as pointed out here by the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel), hunters and anglers (thanks Coyote Gulch).
On the other side, you have a somewhat under the radar, astro-turf, sagebrush rebellion sweeping the West with five eminent domain initiatives.
One of the key pieces to the entire Western Democrat theme is the connection of the bullets and bait folks to the Democratic Party. Once they feel that we have their interests in heart (like protecting stream access in Montana for Schweitzer), they'll forget about voting for a Republican.
Anyway, here is a good part of the Daily Sentinal piece, leaves you thinking how to bring the bullets and bait crowd into the property rights fight:
Alliances among groups who once considered themselves at odds with popular environmentalism are occurring throughout the West, and they’re being noticed by politicians, chief among whom are Colorado’s gubernatorial candidates.“It feels like a natural alliance, a coming-together of common interests to fight forces that are threatening our outdoors,” said Evan Dreyer, spokesman for Democrat Bill Ritter’s gubernatorial campaign. “I think that for a very long time, this was something that was fought on the fringes, the environmentalists on the far left and the hunters’ groups on the far right. I think there is an agreement that they can be more effective by coming together and finding that middle ground.”
Emmett O'Connell | August 22, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Norton resigns (as ethically challenged), where in the West will Bush go?
Norton's tenure was also marked by repeated ethical controversies. Norton cleared her top deputy, former lobbyist J. Steven Griles, after her inspector general said his conduct showed that the department's ethics system was "a train wreck waiting to happen." Griles is now under investigation for allegations that he did the bidding of convicted Indian casino lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Norton is still supporting him.Abramoff also funneled more than $500,000 to one of Norton's former political aides, Italia Federici, to gain access to her department, which makes key decisions about which tribes can open casinos. Norton said she had no qualms about Federici's activities.
Federici, president of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, quickly released a statement praising Norton.
“The environmental benefits of her actions on behalf of Cooperative Conservation will be reaped for years to come,” Federici said in the statement.
Norton's BLM director Kathleen Clarke remained after apparently violating her recusals from a Utah land-swap that investigators said would have shortchanged the federal government. Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said the deal involved a "jaw-dropping ... apparent cover-up" within Norton's department.
She also suffered bad publicity when the head of the National Park Service police was fired after talking to a reporter and congressional staff about budget shortfalls.
Norton was also the first Bush cabinet official to be held in contempt, though the ruling regarding Indian trust issues was later overruled by an appeals court.
The Indian trust case metastasized from an obscure bookkeeping mess to a drain on Norton's entire department. She once said the issue occupied her top staff more than any other issue.
In the National Journal Political Insider's Poll last year, she was voted the second-most underrated Bush cabinet secretary by Republican operatives who credited her with pursuing Bush's pro-development agenda with a minimum of bad publicity.
With Gale Norton resigning this morning, there is an opening in the most Western of cabinet positions. Among Democrats, this is the position once held by such Coyote Dems as Bruce Babbitt and Cecil Andrus. The Interior Department is the third most senior domestic cabinet secretary and because of the amount of federal land in the West, the most influential out here.
With plans to sell of more federal land, expand oil and gas and recent aborted congressional plans to make mining easier -- all efforts to inhibit local control and expand corporate control of Western lands -- who do you think Bush will nominate?
Who is your perfect Interior Secretary?
Emmett O'Connell | March 10, 2006 | Comment on This Post (12 so far) |
Urban/rural divide and the Oscars
Despite what many would assume about its theme, Brokeback Mountain did a good a job as any recent movie portraying the interior West. Was that what kept it from winning Best Picture Sunday night?
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette:
Some people focused on the demographics of the typical Academy voter: older, and city-dwelling. Author and “Brokeback” co-screenwriter Larry McMurtry thought that was key to his film’s loss.“Members of the Academy are mostly urban people,” McMurtry, who won the adapted screenplay prize with Diana Ossana, said backstage at Sunday night’s ceremony. “We are an urban nation. We are not a rural nation. It’s not easy even to get a rural story made.”
McMurtry could have added that not only are Academy voters urban, they are from Los Angeles – the city that is the heart of “Crash,” a racial drama depicting the intertwining experiences of an array of characters over 36 hours. The film, featuring a huge and accomplished cast (“Raise your hand if you’re not in “Crash,” host Jon Stewart quipped to the crowd) also won for original screenplay and film editing.
McMurtry went on to point out that he has been nominated before for four other movies and the other one that won was an urban setting.
Is it possible for urban coasters to not vote for a film because it portrayed the interior West? Are stories told in the interior West less important? If so, this would explain why none of Ivan Doig's books have been made movies yet.
Emmett O'Connell | March 7, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Schweitzer gets guardsman into buff hunt
I'm not a hunter, but have friends that are. My outdoor activities are limited to fishing, so everytime I talk to them about hunting, I have a hard time understanding why you have to get your name pulled to hunt sometimes. It would seem silly to me have to get into a lottery to fish a particular creek or lake, no matter how cool it is.
Hunting lotteries are something that Brian Schweitzer understands, and that I would assume most folks that voted for John Kerry don't. It's a culture thing, and it makes this very cool:
Besting enormous odds, a Montana soldier on duty in New Orleans has been chosen to participate in Montana's bison hunt, the first in 15 years, and his field companion will be the man who put his name in the lottery: Gov. Brian Schweitzer.The name of Sgt. Zachary Babb, who is in the Montana Army National Guard, was one of those chosen for 24 bison licenses after nearly 6,200 people applied. Schweitzer congratulated Babb by telephone Thursday.
"Hey, cowboy!" Schweitzer said from a Capitol office decorated with a bison head on the wall and a bison bronze on a desk.
Then Schweitzer asked, "Are we still on" for a hunt?
"Yes sir, yes sir," replied Babb, 21.
Babb was shipping out of Helena on Sept. 30 for Gulf Coast hurricane work when Schweitzer got his name and those of several other soldiers who said they wanted to be entered in the bison drawing. The entry deadline was that day. Schweitzer, who noted the soldiers would be away during Montana's antelope season, had agreed to submit their names for the drawing held Tuesday and pay the $3 entry fee.
The governor also submitted his own name, which was not drawn.
Emmett O'Connell | October 14, 2005 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Winning in the fly-over states
The UK's excellent newspaper, The Guardian, profiles Salt Lake City's liberal mayor - Rocky Anderson - and then draws some big conclusions about the red/blue divide in America.
Cities like Salt Lake offer a few lessons beyond political demography. First, they show that the tendency for coastal liberals to write off as rednecks those who live in "fly-over states" is not just patronising and counterproductive - it is flawed in fact.Second, they suggest the understanding of the US as a nation riven by a binary divide between Democrats and Republicans is in desperate need of nuance. Not that there isn't some truth to it. But because that truth is limited to the very narrow field of party allegiance rather than the broader sense of how people understand their lives and their politics. Gena Edvalson, a lesbian whose partner Jana is pregnant, says her neighbours in Salt Lake City couldn't be nicer. "They're going to have a baby shower for us," she says. "But that won't stop them from legislating the hell out of us." That is depressing (two-thirds of Utahns voted for a gay marriage ban in November). But it also suggests potential.
Which brings us to the third, and most important, lesson. If those coastal liberals decided to drop in rather than fly over once in a while they might actually learn something. Rather than duck tough issues because of the hostile political environment, progressives here have tried to reframe them in a way that resonates with potential allies. "We don't talk about gay liberation in Utah," says Anderson. "We talk about healthy families and strong communities and say that in the most intimate aspects of our lives the government ought to butt out. You have to stand up even at the risk of losing races - some things are more important than winning a race."
Couldn't have said it better ourselves.
Kari Chisholm | October 5, 2005 | Comment on This Post (14 so far) |
Density vs. sprawl
The Washington Post has noted a Western paradox of crowding amidst the wide-open spaces.
The urbanized area in and around Los Angeles has become the most densely populated place in the continental United States, according to the Census Bureau. Its density is 25 percent higher than that of New York, twice that of Washington and four times that of Atlanta, as measured by residents per square mile of urban land.
And Los Angeles grows more crowded every year, adding residents faster than it adds land, while most metropolitan areas in the Northeast, Midwest and South march in the opposite direction
Odd as it may seem, density is the rule, not an exception, in the wide-open spaces of the West. Salt Lake City is more tightly packed than Philadelphia. So is Las Vegas in comparison with Chicago, and Denver compared with Detroit. Ten of the country's 15 most densely populated metro areas are in the West, where residents move to newly developed land at triple the per-acre density of any other part of the country.In upper-income quarters of metro Los Angeles, density can be an aesthetic kick. When wedded to smart design and careful planning, it is a high-energy stimulant for suburban ennui, luring high-end stores, protecting open space and paying for toll roads that reduce traffic. But in poorer parts of the region, especially where large immigrant families have settled, density is a just fancy word for severe overcrowding.
Among the political implications:
Problems born of overcrowding also have a way of being ignored by politicians, since many residents are illegal or poor or both -- and do not vote.
Leo Brown | August 14, 2005 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
The Rural War
Which American communities pay the highest price for the war in Iraq? A look at the demographics of soldiers killed reveals that Iraq is not the war of any one race or region. Rather, it is rural America's war. It's not that Iraqi insurgents are singling out rural soldiers, or that commanders are putting them at particular risk. Rather, the armed forces themselves must be disproportionately drawn from rural communities - a fact not immediately discernible from recruitment data, which report the race, age and education of recruits, but not their home counties. This is above all an economics story….The higher rate of deaths from rural counties likely reflects sparse opportunities for young people in those places.Support for the President Bush is generally highest in America’s rural regions. If Iraq disintegrates into civil war with the U.S. caught in the middle, will rural America turn against the war? Will the war in Iraq come to be seen as an unwinnable war, and if so, will rural America become distrustful of a government that led us into such a war? More than half of those polled in a recent survey believe the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, a 12 per cent increase in two years
Leo Brown | July 31, 2005 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Oregon Resolution on Guns
Over at BlueOregon.com, prominent rural Democrat Steve Bucknum has the story - the Democratic Party of Oregon has approved a resolution acknowledging the Second Amendment. It's another step in helping the Democrats develop a nuanced position on gun ownership - that respects hunters while reducing urban gun violence.
Speaking for myself, it was a great relief that this passed, as the perception of the Democratic Party being "anti-gun" is one of the most prevelent false beliefs stated by those that have left the Democratic Party to vote elsewhere.
Of course, it's generally lots of heat - as many progressives believe in a stronger gun-control position. Check it out.
What do you think?
Kari Chisholm | July 19, 2005 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Rural Majority
This is one big argument against the Urban Archipelago theory put up by Seattle’s Stranger last November, that Democrats should focus on the urban cores of the United States. Or, as they put it:
Citizens of the Urban Archipelago reject heartland "values" like xenophobia, sexism, racism, and homophobia, as well as the more intolerant strains of Christianity that have taken root in this country. And we are the real Americans. They--rural, red-state voters, the denizens of the exurbs--are not real Americans.
Just outside of Seattle, we seem to have an example of this kind of rural activism that plays straight into the Republicans hand: that property rights are being attacked by Seattle elitists that think they know what is best for rural Western Washington.
On the flip side of that coin is Rural Majority, a group whose purpose and tagline is to: Keep It Rural:
After months of research, lots of meetings and some serious planning we decided to ask the King County Council to adopt a set of policies aimed at improving life for rural landowner and protecting the rural area.The policies include: improving communications between King County and rural residents and property owners by establishing a Rural Advisory Council; providing better tax incentives for land protection; establishing a timely, simple, low-cost “Small Landowners’ Assistance” program; and protecting rural character by stopping urban style development in the rural area.
There seems to be a split in rural dweller that can be taken advantage of by Western Dems, between those that want to preserve rural areas (and possibly use the government as an agent of that protection) and those that just want theres.
This is illustrated by a number of Oregon county farm bureaus and how they split their support of Measure 37, a pro-property rights initiative. Farm Bureaus in the areas just south of the Portland metro area, that had been preserved as rural in the last 30 years by strong land use laws, were against M37. Farm bureaus in counties that hadn’t felt much development pressure in recent decades, and probably saw the measure as the genie in the economic development lamp, supported it.
Emmett O'Connell | July 5, 2005 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Rural Democrats Caucus launching in Oregon
Like the nation, Oregon is rift with a blue/red urban/rural divide. And yet, there is growing interest in Democrats in the rural parts of the state - and Democrats are organizing in the red parts of the state.
Steve Bucknum, chair of the rural Crook County Democrats, has now called for a Rural Democrats Caucus for the Democratic Party of Oregon. They will organize in two weeks.
Key thoughts from Bucknum:
We need to speak to rural voters about rural issues; and we need to learn to be "politically correct" in terms of sensitivity to rural issues and rural people....One of the first things to learn about rural Oregon is that it is very diverse, perhaps more so than the urban parts of Oregon....
The methodology of gaining more support in rural areas will need to be different than that used in urban areas. Urban methods of door-to-door work and telephone canvassing do not work well in rural Oregon, unless the canvasser is the actual candidate for office....
Kari Chisholm | July 4, 2005 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Joe Six-pack & the Brie-and-Chablis Crowd
We've talked a lot about the Western style - especially as employed by Western Democrats. Looking for something else tonight, I stumbled on this great 2003 column by B.C. Silvia at sloganeering.org:
In a country often divided up into “red states” and “blue states,” it pays to remember that we haven’t progressed very far from our conservative, agrarian roots. American literature is filled with scenes in which some bumpkin wanders into the big city to find his fortune and winds up getting taken in by some fast talking con man. ...Rural America still harbors a deep distrust of strangers. Rhetorical flourishes and New England accents put them on edge; worst of all, they don’t qualify as the “straight talk” much beloved by our agrarian lower classes. It’s not content that matters as much as style. If someone from Vermont were to show up in Texas and start giving speeches about cutting taxes, increasing military spending, and building a wall across the Mexican border, the average person’s first thought is still going to be, “He’s trying to put one over on us.”
Viewed in this light, an ineloquent southerner outranks a eloquent, eastern, establishment type with a bag of oratorical tricks. Again, it’s nothing to do with anybody being dumb: It’s just the fact that a fancy-talking Yankee is a stranger, someone who shouldn’t be trusted to look out for one’s best interests.
Still wondering why John Kerry got beat by an oratorical chimpanzee?
Kari Chisholm | June 22, 2005 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Environment vs. Jobs: Toward a Western Democrat approach?
Environmental protection is a tough issue for Western Democrats. On the one hand, we're Democrats - and we're for preserving the environment. On the other hand, for years rural voters have felt excluded from the conversation about conservation by urban folks who "just don't get it": it's about jobs and helping rural communities.
In Montana, Governor Brian Schweitzer has been a leader in helping us find a new way to talk about environmental protection. It's instead about protecting the environment for the sake of the people who live near it (as opposed to protecting it for city people who like to think of it theoretically or look at nice picture postcards.) It's about saving rural communities by protecting natural resource jobs. It's about hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation and tourism. Also, it's about a populist approach to natural resource extraction that emphasizes jobs, not corporate profits.
Of course, all this doesn't often sit well with more traditional environmentalists who see this sort of approach as a capitulation to industry and the gun lobby.
For a great example, dive in and check out the comment exchange on BlueOregon on a post entitled "Unsustainable levels of logging". (It relates to a 2004 ballot measure that would have set aside 50% of the Tillamook state forest for preservation.)
From Steve Bucknum, a leader of Oregon's rural Democrats:
In rural Oregon there is no issue more responsible for making the Democratic farmer, the union lumber mill worker, and the "common" person on the street turn from being a progressive Democratic into a rabid Republican than land/environmental issues. I attribute Geo. Bushes Presidency to the long term effects of the cancerous influence of the down side of environmentalism in rural areas.Here is what is wrong: People got left out. For example, if "sustainable" forest management was framed in rural areas as "sustainable" jobs, then everyone would be for it. But, when we hear "sustainable" out here, we hear the double speak that means job loss. If keeping streams healthy and flowing were about sustaining cattle ranching and farming, everyone would be for it.
Environmentalism ... has painted itself into a corner of coming across with religious zeal in a manner that never mentions the people. If the people that live in rural areas were mentioned as often as salmon, we might start to feel cared for.
This is, of course, about framing. But it goes beyond that. A core Democratic/Progessive value has been left out of public pronouncents about environmentalism - human compassion.
Put human compassion into the environmental movement - in overt ways - and it might start to make progress, and we might elect more Democrats.
Tom Civiletti, a former candidate for state legislature in suburban Portland, argues that there may be no magic solution to the environment vs. jobs problem:
Although better communication and more inclusiveness can help sometimes, I think the problem is not totally avoidable. Unsustainable logging did provide many jobs at one time. Environmentalists called for forest preservation at the same time that the forests were about logged out and more mechanized mills were coming on line. There was no way that the number of jobs in the timber industry could be maintained. Sustainability means in longterm balance with nature.The number of sustainable jobs cutting and milling timber is many less than what rape and pillage logging provided, at least as long as the trees held out. It's hard to think of losing your job as sustainability. The same goes for Klamath Basin farmers who want to see their subsidized water and subsidized electricity "sustained" even as their "way of life" further degrades the ecosystem.
The nation should help those displaced by environmental protection. All that would take is convincing Republicans to vote for environmental regulation and social spending. Of course, they would rather see rural folk suffer so they can use environmentalism as a wedge issue, something R's have done well.
Kari Chisholm | June 4, 2005 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Reid: Why Kerry Lost
According to The Hill, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, there's an interview in today's Rolling Stone magazine in which Senator Harry Reid gives a wide-ranging and blunt interview. Reid's analysis on why Kerry lost is spot on:
Finally, Reid said Kerry lost to Bush "because he ignored rural America," including Nevada, where he "got slaughtered" in the rural areas of the state, which he lost by only 2 percent. "Democrats can no longer win elections in big cities," he added. "We have to go to places like Elko and Carson City and Ely and let people know who we are. Until we do that, we're going to continue to lose."
Bingo.
Kari Chisholm | June 2, 2005 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
Winning Eastern Washington
The Cascade Curtain, going East of the Mountains, etc... For Democrats in Washington, the rural stretches beyond the ski resorts are a dream. Some day, some way, we'll win out there. Eastern Washington is about as close as you get to the issues that folks are dealing with in most of the interior West. Eastern Washington is our Sagebrush here in Washington.
At Blue Washington, they are talking about what we Ds need to do in Washington to win over those Yakimanians (Part II and Part III):
Republicans have succeeded in attracting moderates with values-based messages. They aren’t bashful about discussing faith, family values and doing what’s right. Neither should we. By being conflicted on those issues in the past, we gave them a tool to beat us. We need to take it back.Strategy Five: Discuss the importance to families of education, human rights and fiscal responsibility. Celebrate the fact that over 70% of eastside voters consider religion very important and yet the vast majority strongly support the separation of church and state. Voters have faith and morals but they don’t want a theocracy. They don’t want faith in Jesus Christ to be a mandatory prerequisite to be a federal judge. Family values include respect for all faiths, not saddling our kids with trillions in debt, embracing diverse peoples and peace.
This is a laudable effort, but for the most part it ignores the real threat to the Dems in Washington. Eastside Republicans aren't really the issue for us, its Westside Bellevue Republicans. In addition to running a better campaign, Sen. Patty Murry beat up on George Nethercutt because she's from Seattle and he's from Spokane. Gov. Christine Gregoire had a much harder time because Dino Rossi put suburban Seattle counties in play, actually beating Gregoire in Snohomish and Pierce counties.
I also want to mention the good points made in Part III to start up real netroots efforts. Good idea.
Emmett O'Connell | May 12, 2005 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Guns and the Western "Bull Moose" Democrats
The April 18 issue of The Nation profiles a group in New Mexico calling themselves the Bull Moosers. They worry about issues like hunting, fishing, ranching, boating, and the like.
A big one? Guns. Here's Governor Bill Richardson:
A large man sitting in a small office, wearing a brown suede vest and heavy, battered boots, Richardson clearly revels in his image as the quintessential Westerner. "You have to talk about guns in the context of lifestyle, recreation, a way of life," the Governor argues, "rather than as just a measure to prevent murders and deaths. Democrats need to move into a void in the West.The Bush Administration is scaring off recreationists, hunters and fishermen because of their extreme anti-environmental policies. It's important to build alliances with these ranchers and fishermen and broaden the dialogue. The West is becoming more fertile Democratic territory. It's important for Democrats on the East Coast not to make the gun issue a litmus test."
Now, gun control advocates are rightfully worried. Folks in urban areas, who dominate the Democratic Party, have always worried about the prevalence of guns in the cities. After all, crime is a problem, and guns make deaths more likely.
That said, is there room in the Democratic Party for a more nuanced position? One that allows for gun controls in the cities - but respects traditional hunting in rural areas? Or is this just too touchy an issue to get nuanced about?
Is Richardson right? Is the gun control issue getting in the way of reform on health care, taxes, schools, and other important progressive issues?
Kari Chisholm | April 18, 2005 | Comment on This Post (11 so far) |
Fighting for community block grants
This is one of those really boring policy initiatives that urban liberals don't get and suburban Republicans just want to cut because it raises their taxes. But, community block grants are the life blood of many small towns and rural governments, especially across the West, where many rural areas don't tax themselves nearly enough to pay for the services they provide.
So, many of these red states rely on the largess of blue states to pay the bills. Some of that money comes in the form of community block grants, which are cut out in the upcoming Bush budget.
President Bush has asked Congress to reorganize several programs that serve primarily low-income Americans, including the 30-year-old Community Development Block Grants. Cities and counties in every state use the money for local projects. This year, New Mexico received nearly $16 million. Some here now fear the tap will be turned off."We use it and we are terrified," said Linda Hall, housing coordinator for the city of Santa Fe.
As early as 1975, Santa Fe city officials received $3 million through a community-development block grant to make critically needed improvements to the sewage system and streets. Over the last decade, the yearly population-based allocations from the block-grant program have plummeted.
When I first started as a reporter, one of the towns that I was covering was trying to build a new sewage treatment plant. To meet federal cleanwater requirments for the Chehalis River, the new plant would need to cost millions of dollars. Not many small towns in rural Washington, especially post I-695, can afford BMW sewer treatment plants. The Clean Water Act is a great law, but we need other great programs like community block grants to pay for it, otherwise its just a law.
In the just don't tax us tradition of Western Republicans, programs like community block grants are a great wedge issue for rural Democrats and urban Dems who get it, to tied themselves to. The first possible frame is of a Robin Hood sort, stealing from Seattle to pay for a sewage treatment plant in Elma.
Emmett O'Connell | April 16, 2005 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Connecting across the urban/rural divide
Over at BlueOregon, Steve Bucknum - chair of the rural Crook County Democrats - is reminding folks that sometimes it's the little things that make rural folks roll their eyes at the urban folks.
His example? A state law - perpetrated by urban folks - that insists that people remove their studded tires by Friday. The problem? Today, it's 28 degrees out and still snowing in his corner of the state.
Part of our Western Democrat thesis is the notion that it's the little cultural things that make all the difference, like knowing that you don't wear a Carhartt work coat with a dress shirt, you don't make someone else carry your dead fowl, and you don't take the studded tires off in the middle of a snowstorm.
It'd be real good to heed the advice of rural Dems like Steve Bucknum.
Kari Chisholm | April 14, 2005 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Western swing congressional districts
Polidata (thanks Basie for the link) has put together the first run down on what congressional districts "swung" last November. The thought goes that these districts buck the trend of congressional districts throughout the country moving to the wings of politics.
On first blush, the interesting districts include John Salazar's district in western Colorado (CO-3) and Republican Bob Beauprez's (CO-7) in central Colorado. Look at the map, you'll see more of these kind of districts (in baby blue and pink) spotting the West. They all have something in common: generally they are suburbs.
Well, over all suburbs, but with large ranging rural areas. The districts that swung are going to be the core of where the Democratic Party will rise in the West. These are districts that have all of the characteristics of the West that Democrats can win in.
Rapid growth, you can call them exurbs, but I'm not sure that name fits in the West. For these areas, the old party loyalties don't really apply yet.
Dependence on natural resources. Not always straight up resource extraction industries, so this would include what some might call eco-tourism (I don't). These are people that might see some good in leaving that water in the creek or that tree still standing.
As a side note, the one southern California swing district was Loretta Sanchez's of Orange County, the lady that beat crazy Bob Dornan back in the day. Apparently the good old CA-47 -- which I often cite as an example of Western suburban Republican districts that could swing Democrat, especially in the Southwest -- still has some GOP tendencies. This, even though Loretta beat her challenger by 20 points.
Emmett O'Connell | March 30, 2005 | Comment on This Post (9 so far) |
Three Western Dems from the three Wests
I just noticed something in the last few days and I've been pondering if it means anything. The three Western Dems that we've talked about the most being Presidential candidates in '08 or beyond are from the three very distinct political regions (as defined by MassInc).
Gov. Bill Richardson representing El Norte, in more way than one.
Gov. Brian Schweitzer from Sagebrush, and
Gov.Ted Kulongoski from the Upper Coast.
Does this mean anything? It might.
My first thought is that which ever perfect Western Dem candidate we choose might indicated what region we see as the defining Wesetern region. So, in turn, we see our candidate as the key to unlocking the Western door for Democrats.
Also, it could be simple bias. We prefer one region, delliberatly or not, over another and the Governor from that region just appeals to us. That said, my bias certainly isn't for the Southwest region, but I'm pulling for Richardson, probably because he's a great Western Dem, a great Dem and an unbelievably qualified candidate, outside of his region and party.
Emmett O'Connell | March 17, 2005 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
The Pace Picante argument
With the West standing firm on Social Security for now, there are at least a couple reasons why the West may be where the President's proposal dies.
Luis comes close with one:
Another reason is that while Westerners love to talk about getting the government out of our lives, we've never been known to turn down a guaranteed government check.
That a large amount of federal excesses went to build the West is a badly kept secret, but another reason why private accounts may fail may be the same reason John Kerry did so badly in the West, while some other Democrats won.
I call it the Pace Picante argument:
"This sauce (private account) is made in New York City.""New York CITY?!?!?"
"Get a rope."
John Kerry lost in the West because he represented the academic, soft, elitist world of the East that can't be trusted. Private accounts represent the distant world of Wall Street. Same smug, distant world of John Kerry is the world of these private accounts.
Can you trust New York City stock brokers with your money? That’s the question we should be asking.
Emmett O'Connell | February 5, 2005 | Comment on This Post (10 so far) |
Point taken 2
Matt Singer posts over at leftinthewest, following up on Luis Toro’s post at 5280 and my post below about how various parts of the West are different.
It is quite valid to say that Montana and Wyoming are different from Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. In fact, I’d guess that similar distinctions can be drawn in every region of the country. Heaven knows there probably are distinctions between Connecticut and Massachusetts.
But, the differences between Mass. and Conn. are way less than the difference between New England and the Interior West. Matt also comes up with a great breakdown of the current state of Democrat strength in the Interior West:
* Tier 1 - Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico - These four states have large urban areas, are more populous and are less affected by the West’s unique Mormon strain of cultural conservatism than the rest of the region. They represent the Democrats’ best chances in the short term for electoral votes.* Tier 2 - Montana - Montana is more rural than these states and lacks any true urban centers. But Billings is getting there and Montana is becoming more urbanized. Montana does not have nearly the Mormon presence of the other three states. Montana presents real Congressional and statewide opportunities in the coming years and, with work, the opportunity for electoral votes in the future.
* Tier 3 - Idaho, Utah, Wyoming - These states also tend to be less urban. The urban centers of Boise and Salt Lake do still tend to be bluer and may present Congressional opportunities, but Senate seats and electoral votes are fantasy at this point.
I would add a Tier 0 that is California, Oregon and Washington. When we talk about "The West" we should be sure to include these Democratic dominant states, because as Dino Rossi has shown us, a smart Republican surprise us sometimes. This is because, if you take Washington for example, if you take out Seattle and King County, you basically have a "red" state. Much of Washington, even Democratic leaning rural counties like Jefferson, Grays Harbor and Pacific, are more politically parallel to the Interior West than they are to King County, or where I'm from, Olympia.
I also might move Wyoming up into Tier 2 with Montana.
Anyway, this is the kind of conversation we need to have to really make a strong argument regarding the Western strategy.
Emmett O'Connell | January 26, 2005 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
Point taken
5280 has a very good, short post on some shortcomings of the Western Democrat theory. Something we should remember:
Yes, Democrats have been doing better in Colorado, Arizona, Wyoming and Montana. But those states are all different from each other. For one thing, there is a booming urban component to the mix in Colorado and Arizona (largely related to high tech industries) that is small to nonexistent in Wyoming and Montana. So while Western Democrats do well to note the differences between our region and the rest of the country, they should also note the important differences among the various Western states themselves.
One of the major differences that we don't talk about is that between the already very blue parts of the coast and the promising, and redder, areas in the Interior West. This is very much a rural/urban thing that we should get our minds around. There are no easy answers to how we can get across the urban/rural divide, but I'm glad we've talked about it some here.
Emmett O'Connell | January 24, 2005 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Meet the Salazar Brothers
The Associated Press has discovered the Salazar Brothers of Colorado. Ken, the outgoing Attorney General, has been elected the state's U.S. Senator; and his brother, John, is a freshly minted Congressman.
It seems that various forces within the party are jockeying to imprint their own lesson-learned from the Salazar victories.
Some are pointing to their Hispanic background. Others (like Al From at the DLC) are pointing at their willingness to talk about their faith.
Here's my "lessons learned" argument: It's about plain speaking in a language that real Americans can understand. It's about culture, not the "cultural issues" of abortion and gay marriage, but speaking from a culture that everyday Americans understand. And that language comes to us from the West.
Listen to John Salazar:
"We know the values of hard work, integrity and honesty, and we know the struggles that people have in rural communities ... You learn in rural Colorado that your f