The Return of the DFL, Part 2

I disagree with Representative Collin Peterson.  Democrat Peterson is actually a moderate Republican, but with the GOP in fascist territory, he took over a heavy leaning Republican district, MN-07, and has held it as a Democrat.  It's not a bad play.  He can't be primaried by the MNGOP, and he carries just enough Democratic issues to scare off any Democratic primary challenge.  He won pretty handily on Election Night 2016, while most Democrats struggled.

In case you didn't read The Washington Post interview, Collin Peterson is now being heralded in certain arenas as the only Democrat who 'gets it.'  What 'it' is, according to Peterson, is how the Democrats need to fundamentally change who they are, abandon the ideals of FDR and Kennedy, and morph into 1980's moderate Republicans.  Where I agree with the Representative's comments on gerrymandering, something the GOP took a masters course in, unless states overturn the GOP strangleholds by 2020, there's little the Democrats can do.  How else does Peterson think the DFL should change?  He infers the Democrats should abandon all gun control initiatives (even with 33,000 gun deaths a year), should stop supporting gay marriage (which the US Supreme Court has officially decided.  What would Peterson do with all the legal marriages already in place?), and should do more to stop deficit spending (even though the GOP are FAR worse at deficit spending.  This is just Peterson being lazy and pushing GOP talking points).  He feels Democrats need to stop being so politically correct, allowing for some levels of mild racism, sexism, homophobia and religious intolerance (because it's just harmless fun, right?!?), that grief counselors are only a sign of the wussification of America (I know you were raped, but rub some dirt on it and get back to work!), and he clearly implies Democrats can't possibly win any longer in rural America.

BULLS#*T!

Let's talk about outstate Minnesota, and rural America as a whole.

To start, two points I want to address about double standards.  The first is how many in rural America accuse city folk of labeling them with inappropriate stereotypes, as they themselves use WILDLY inappropriate stereotypes to insult all metro area citizens.  When I worked at KDAO in Eldora/Marshalltown, Iowa, there was a saleswoman who HATED me because I was from a city, always insulting me.  One evening, she got in my face and said, "you ain't country unless there's s#*t on your boots!" I immediately responded, "well you're not from the city unless you get an oil change and a bagel at the same place at 2 AM."  She so hated me!  She labeled all city people as libertards (first time I ever heard that term), N-word lovers, W-B- lovers and F- word for gays.  She was a delight, you know real heartland Christian values.  I've come across many people like her in my years of living in rural America.  If stereotypes are wrong, then they're wrong for everyone.

The second double standard is how rural people (justifiably) feel their local politicians should vote for the best interests of their districts, but metro area politicians voting for their districts is somehow not to be allowed.  The best politicians fight for their district first, but also realize they're part of a political body which represents the state as a whole.  Politicians should prioritize their districts, but both metro and outstate politicians need to remember there's a larger responsibility.  Since no politician in the Twin Cities has ever suggested outstate Minnesota gets no governmental help, don't insist the metro area should have zero representation, zero tax dollars and zero governmental benefits.  We can work together.

And let's be honest, since metro area taxes subsidize lot of outstate Minnesota, I don't think we want to go down that path.  I'm for funding outstate Minnesota and the state's metro areas too.

I think resentment between country and city residents has always been a thing.  The minute someone stopped growing crops, and decided to become a distributor instead, encouraging a centralized larger population where they could sell the product and ship it to other communities, was the minute the friction began.  Up until the beginning of the 20th century, this country was much more rural than metropolitan, but that started to change after the country was mostly sectioned off, and more non-farm labor opportunities became available.  Business owners started to see cost savings by being in a larger city (better distribution, lower transportation costs, readily available workforce), so the growth of the cities exploded.

A lot of the current anti-city resentment began in the 1980's, when low crop prices, a banking/housing crisis, and an evolving business model thinned out America's farming communities.  Massive corporate farms gobbled up foreclosed farms and fields.  Some families stayed and adapted, but a lot of farmers left, leaving the life their family had known for generations behind.  With farming far less cost effective, kids graduated high school and left town.  In many small towns, especially ones where farming is the main industry, the populations today are largely 18 and under or 55 and older, and they're much smaller than they were 50 years ago.  Many small towns are drifting away.  With loss comes anguish, and anguish becomes resentment, not only for the person who left, but for the big city most of the kids moved to, regardless of whether it was by necessity or not.

Republicans, the party behind the destruction of family farms in the 1980's, started appealing to the farming communities they destroyed by encouraging rural anger at cities.  Republicans are masters at deflection.  They can get people to hate something which has nothing to do with their circumstances, and with that false hatred, create an action plan.  They fanned the flames with stereotypes; city slickers who sit in their high rise apartments eating bonbons, not working a day in their life, pathetically inept at any 'real ' job needing to be done.  It created a villain which the GOP has been able to use effectively.  Low income housing, job training, immigrants, and mass transportation; all of these issues have been used to create lava hot hatred in small town America towards the larger metro areas.  For a comparable analogy, imagine if I got everyone in Edina or Maple Grove or Mendota Heights united against all things non-urban, with a goal of greatly diminishing the power of rural Minnesota.  That, rightfully, would never be allowed, but instead of fighting back against this Republican fueled mythology, Rep. Peterson thinks the DFL should accept the unwarranted 'all city people are bad' mentality.

There's something else ugly in small town America.  Virtually all media, (radio, newspapers and television stations) have an EXTREME right wing tilt, ensuring most people in small town America are brainwashed with a daily deluge of right wing propaganda.  The outright lies the rural news media passes off as fair coverage would shock you.  Conservative zealots, like Bill Hanna of the Mesabi Daily News, a newspaper I often mock for it's insane right wing bias, have zero interest in neutral coverage.  Outside of a handful of media outlets (I'll mention the Timberjay newspaper and online news blog BlueStem Prairie), most outstate Minnesota gets MPR as the sole non-right wing viewpoint.  MPR isn't bias towards the left, it's just not drenched in GOP talking points. I have no idea how the DFL can undo the conservative grip on outstate media, but they have to find a way to get their message out.

It should also be mentioned the GOP has UNDENIABLY fanned the flames of racism, homophobia and religious intolerance in certain alcoves of rural America.  Lack of ethnic, religious and GLBTQ exposure in smaller communities creates opportunities to build distrust and hatred.  Sometimes it's small gatherings, but sometimes it's disturbingly large crowds, where the applause is loudest for the irrefutable Christian only, anti-gay, white power vomit coming from GOP politician's mouths.  We need to continue to call the hatred out, not allow non-existent political gains to stifle our outrage at the unacceptable.  Rep. Peterson, with all due respect, the racists will never vote Democrat, so the Democrats shouldn't ease up on our tone of condemnation!

We now have a rural America voter block whose family income is primarily 40K or less, who elected an incredibly self centered billionaire who'll only lower taxes on himself and every other billionaire, under the guise Trump voters will all become millionaires, due to the long disproven theory of trickle down economics.  It's a voting block which used the financial problems 20% of the public had with Obamacare to validate their Trump vote, and in turn will watch a complete repeal of ALL government healthcare programs (Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security).  Its a voter block which has ALWAYS supported US mining first and foremost, now supporting a man who proudly said he'll use cheaply mined foreign steel over any domestic product.  These aren't the rational arguments of misunderstood masses.  These are the voting justifications of a manipulated populace.

But according to Rep. Collin Peterson, we need to take their side.

How does the Minnesota DFL start winning back the rural vote?  The first step is compromise.  We need to put forward a very friendly Agricultural Bill, not one focusing on environmental issues and certain types of crops, but one that encourages all agricultural growth in small towns.  It pains me to put aside environmental issues, but you can't save nature when a minority of the government wants to.  Help open new markets for products  Offer major tax breaks for new companies employing between 10 and 50 people, located in towns with fewer than of 30,000 residents.  Introduce this bill in a major press conference and, as soon as the camera are off, take it to rural Minnesota to sell the benefits.  Immediately put the Republican's on the defensive.

Hammer the Republicans on their failed promise of broadband for outstate Minnesota.  They've broken their promises for years and there's no way they'll fund a statewide expansion.  They'll likely deliver for a handful of communities, but in every community where they fail, billboard and bumper sticker the phrase "Hey MNGOP, Where's My Broadband?"  It's simple, truthful, and a political kidney punch.

Propose expanding Metro Mobility to a statewide, state funded program and open it up to seniors.  Introduce the legislation at a major press conference and then get into rural Minnesota, presenting it to every senior gathering you can.  Our aging population being able to call a day ahead to get a ride to church, the store, the doctor or just to the local park will change 200,000 votes immediately!  The GOP hates public transportation so they'll fight it.  They'll lose!  The GOP ripping away a great program for seniors will only hurt the GOP.

Finally, get all those great Minnesota DFL education minds together and fix our school funding issues.  Many outstate school districts don't have the budgets to deal with special needs and an expanding technology demand.  By centralizing the funding for both of those programs (something the Republicans would NEVER do), you allow local school budgets to address other local issues.  And this will help inner city schools too.  The Republicans are only going to weaken schools by trying to expand vouchers and charter schools, two solutions which are only meant to help a small percentage of any school's population.  "Hey MNGOP, Public Education shouldn't be a lottery for wealthy kids only!"  Get that on billboards and bumper stickers too.

For the record, my criticism of Rep. Peterson in this blog post will probably further endear him to his voting base in the MN-07, but that's my point!  What works for his district shouldn't become the standard for all Democrats.

What path do you think the Minnesota DFL should take?  Should we follow Rep. Collin Peterson and change the essence of who Democrats are, or do we realize we've made some mistakes, change our game plan, highlight DFL core values which deliver for outstate Minnesota, and take back the MN House and Senate?  You know my choice.  What's yours?