Dems can stand up for rural America , it's past time they learned how.

[MissMarple]

The Secretary of Agriculture should not promote corporate agribusiness interests over those of family farmers. Ann Veneman and now the potential new appointee Mike Johanns, governor of Nebraska, care little for the economic problems facing family farmers and thus the viability of small town America. There are many issues that resonate with rural families and businesses. Aside from agribusiness and trade issues, a superWalMart hurts business in rural towns for miles around it. Finding ways for local businessmen to overcome and work around the walmartization of rural America is important issue. Local economies are dying and the towns are dying with them. Internet access is unreliable and and further hinders development.

The Democratic Party needs to better understand rural America. Trade policy, protection of family farmers, rural development and maintaining a valued quality of life are important issues that the Republican Party have not been able address in their rush to benefit corporate America.

This article in The Nation makes cogent points. And William Jennings Bryant may have got it right in 1896 when he urged the party to embrace rural America.

http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=2052

"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.


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.
...

"Ah, my friends," Bryan told the Democratic National Convention of 1896, " 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 , 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."

[TheMightyFavog]

1. It would also help for us to drop gun control....

Because if we don't the NRA will keep repeasting their mantra the "all dems are out to take away your guns". From my experience, a lot of rural voters are more than willing to sell out thier own interests so that they can "keep their guns safe".

[MissMarple]

2. A national discussion on "a well regulated militia" is overdue.

I don't think we can just drop it, but we must put it in it's proper context. If one thinks he or she is part of the "militia", the concept of what and who is well regulated must be taken into account as does how that regulation takes place. Some national consensus must be reached so we can put this wedge issue to rest. And the 2nd amendment doesn't address bearing arms as a hunting activity. It is time we stop pretending that it does.

I don't mean to sound too harsh. :D

[IrateCitizen]

5. You can never have a "national discussion" on gun control...

... because the need and desire for gun control is VERY different between rural and urban areas.

I have lived in all kinds of environments in my life. I grew up rural, went to school in the city, and now live in the suburbs (but will be going back to rural). I grew up with guns in the house. I learned how to use them responsibly from a young age. So did many of the people I went to school with.

There is NO WAY that you are going to convince the majority of people in a rural area that you need to impose "gun control" on them -- especially not when we still have people like Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein who would literally like to take every single firearm in the country and have the melted down. And to be quite honest, you don't have a NEED for gun control in these areas.

However, that being said, people who live in more populated areas recognize largely that gun control is necessary in these regions. I'm glad that there is gun control in my area, because there's just too many damned people.

Howard Dean understood this issue better than any other person in the crop of candidates last year. He understood that gun control, ultimately, is a local issue. What works for Manhattan is NOT the same as what works for Vermont or Montana. And if we want to neutralize this issue, it's high time we stop treating it as if it is a one-size-fits-all.

[MissMarple]

9. What you have just said is helpful part of the discussion.

By a national discussion, I don't mean so that we reach a one size fits all resolution. Clearly, that will not happen. In my view Howard is correct, it is local issue, but then there is the interstate commerce thing that never seems to keep itself in bounds. That needs to be addressed as well. But how to do that, I don't know.

Since the term "gun control" means different things to different people, we as a nation do need to reach some common understanding. Also, this thing about hunting and waving around shotguns that we see in TV commercials, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican from the NRA, doesn't get to the point about the 2nd amendment. The issue is kept purposefully muddled so it can remain a wedge issue for partisan political interests.

on edit: The rural issues forum is up, you might want to check it out.

[Poppyseedman]

10. Stop making sense.

The democrat party position should be:

"Gun ownership is a fundamental right as citizens. Gun control laws and regulations belong under the states authority unless superseded by federal law"

End of story, end of issue.

Gun Control is a HUGE LOSING issue for democrats. It cost the party congressional seats and more importantly the trust of the common man.

Maybe 2% of the country thinks "gun control" is an hot issue at all. It has very little cause and lots of negative effect.

[IrateCitizen]

11. Ummm... don't you mean DEMOCRATIC Party???

"Democrat Party" is a meme pushed by right wingers. Democrats don't refer to themselves as members of the "Democrat Party".

I'm going to assume that it was an honest slip, and not indicative of nefarious motives on this board.

ON EDIT: I just read your posts on some of the other forums, and I found them to be somewhat suspect -- especially your posts on Social Security. I'm not passing any judgements right now -- I'll just say I'm slightly suspicious....

[Poppyseedman]

12. I'll just say I'm slightly suspicious....

Of what??? That I am an independent thinker?

It's hard to stick me with a "label" based on my political ideology.

Please don't expect me to fall in lock step on every issue. That's what the repukes do.

Politics to me is real simple. The republican party takes two nickles out of my right pocket, the democratic party takes a dime out of my left pocket. They both tell me to feel good about it for different reasons.

Just what part of my posts on Social Security did you find suspect?

Was the quote from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan out of line?

Was the fact the Treasury actually will be broke by 2032 not true? Bonds are stuck in there to secure them, but thanks to chimpy there no money left in the surplus to cover it. Does that piss me off, sure does.
That means I'll be handing out 15 cents instead of a 10 cents regardless who is in office for either party.

And as far as "nefarious motives" on this board,that would credit me with underhanded or evil intent. I wish I was that influential.

I'm one guy with an opinion and not very happy the way this country is being run.

[MissMarple]

13. Hi, Poppyseedman.

Welcome to DU!
Since democracy is such a messy, contentious business, dissension and mistrust does occur. I'm sorry if you have been misunderstood. Your points on the gun control issue were certainly not beyond the pale. We (Americans)do have some differences of opinion within the states, like Colorado, about things like concealed carry laws. Denver is much different than our rural, ranching areas. With different needs then different solutions are needed.

You seem to be very pragmatic, and that can be a good thing. I am a pragmatic "small d" democratic liberal. I, too, have issues with both parties. Many of us here do. We do tend to believe, however, that government has a positive role to play in helping folks achieve the American dream. Good public services are necessary for a prosperous society. Everyone, from corporations to the individual, needs to contribute at some level, and those of us who benefit most owe the most. None of us succeeds in a vacuum. We succeed because of individual strengths, as well as strong family and community support. To keep our society and our country strong we must understand that we all are in this together, if one part of us is failing, we all suffer consequences. Understanding the vagaries of human nature, we believe that regulation is necessary. Whether regulating highway speed, building construction, or where industry can dump their various effluents, laws are necessary to protect both the short term and the long term viability of our people, our society, and our culture.

So, stepping off the soap box, you can see many of us here can be opinionated, so it's a good thing if we give each other a break...even if it's hard.

Now as to Social Security being broke by 2032, there seems to be some difference of opinion about that among the economists. It has to do with how it is actually funded, and what can be done to support it. Since I'm not an economist, I'm reserving judgment. But, it's a problem, and like the gun thing, I see it being used as another wedge issue.

and...:hi:

[Poppyseedman]

14. Thanks, Excellent points in your post

The government, no matter who runs it is always going to benefit some over others. That's why we need to hold our representatives feet to the fire on issues we hold close to our hearts to make sure those people who benefit are the ones that need it the most.

I never understand why people got so riled up about the president, when it's their congressman who really makes the decisions on who benefits the most in this game we call politics. The president has limited power, he sets that agenda, but everything on that agenda goes though the smell test of the 535 people we sent to Congress.

Tip O' Neal said it best "all politics are local"

[Skittles]

3. we need to start with rural newspapers

they are filled with republican garbage with no opposing opinions

[Mend]

4. Rural America should stand up for Democrats

The Red Rural Americans need to live with the consequences of their actions without our interference. It is time for them to stop taking us for granted. BTW, I grew up on the streets of New York, also a pioneer experience.

[IrateCitizen]

6. Why should they, when Democrats abandoned them???

Seriously, Democrats ABANDONED rural America. We didn't lift a finger during the 1980's when family farms were going under. We don't do a damned thing to help them develop economically today. We've sold them out on support of "free trade". So, given this track record, why in the hell should people in rural areas support the Democrats?

I grew up in a rural area. The reason that cultural issues resonate with rural people is because their lives are filled with uncertainty -- uncertainty about their jobs, uncertainty about the world around them -- so, they tend to fall back on what they know rather than open themselves up to change. In the absence of a compelling narrative about hope for the future and addressing their concerns by the Democrats, they become very open to the "culture wars" pushed by Republicans.

Don't blame rural folks for abandoning the Democratic Party. The Dems abandoned them long ago, we're only reaping what we've sown.

[Mend]

7. Was that the 1980's when

Reagan was president or the 1980's when Bush I was president? Who did the mid-west vote for during these twelve years? What did Reagan and Bush do for the farmers?

[IrateCitizen]

8. Nothing, but that's to be expected.

The alternative question is, what did Democrats who controlled Congress do for them?

Nothing, but that's something we shouldn't expect from the Democrats. Just because people may have erred in supporting the Republicans doesn't mean that the Democrats should have stopped trying to help them. Additionally, at that time, many Democrats were winning House and Senate races now held by Republicans in these areas.