We're surprised at the stereotypes--and the silences--in Catherine Richert's piece, Why is Walz's clout on Capitol Hill on the rise? Think swing district.
Richert cites Environmental Defense attorney Sara Hooper's political pieties about our neighbors:
She's also skeptical that the farm bill will actually help Walz and the other freshmen Democrats woo Republican voters next year.
"Farmers who are Republican are going to vote Republican no matter what because of guns, gays and God," she said.
That may be the conventional wisdom among Washington D.C environmental lawyers who are dead set against the safety net for farmers. For ourselves, we doubt that the Beltway lawyer has ever wet her toes in the Minnesota River or taken in Farmfest.
Guns, god and gays? Spare us the tired buzzwords of 2004, and spare us the glaring stereotypes of rural values Richert lays out in today's piece. She should know better.
After all, Richert did write about the same issue last summer in a New York Times article, Democrats Eye Politics of Farm Bill.
Back then, she was able to find someone who understands farmers as swing voters:
“There’s no swing voter like a farmer,” said Brent Gattis, a farm lobbyist for Olsson Frank Weeda and a former Republican aid for the House farm panel. While many farmers fit a conservative profile, their votes typically come down to money, Gattis said.
Gattis makes a good point and one closer to home than Hopper's mindless tripe. As we noted in our post about the John Hall celebration in December, one of the local folks getting down was Minnesota Farm Bureau President Kevin Papp.
In Walz's last FEC report, we were surprised, but not shocked to find a campaign contribution from Pat Fitzsimmons, president of the state's pork producer's association; father of one of our former students, Fitzsimmons is a well-known Republican. While he doesn't live in the First, plenty of his relatives do raise hogs south of Mankato. Our more conservative friends in the Minnesota Farmers Union tell us they're voting for Walz. We hear similar tales from friends who work in the ag industry in the First.
There an omission in today's piece as well that could mislead readers. Richert cites a report by Environmental Defense:
More freshmen Democrats would have benefited if the farm committee had decided to redistribute subsidy money to land conservation programs supported by the farm bill, according to a report by Hopper's organization.
We can forgive the casual MinnPost reader for inferring that Environmental Defense's report indicates that Walz's chance for re-election would have been helped if he had only sided with ED, rather than the farmers from his district who turned out for his 14 listening sessions.
But Richert leaves out a telling detail that she did manage to include in her New York Times article:
. . .leadership will have to weigh the re-election needs of new members such as Tim Walz of Minnesota, whose constituency includes many farmers used to collecting subsidies, against those such as Arizona’s Gabrielle Giffords who would bring millions more back to her district if some farm payments were redirected to conservation programs, according to a new report by Environmental Defense.
Details, details. Somewhere, there's a magical congressional district where it's politically more wise to be guided by a distant lobbying group rather than the wishes of the hundreds of district residents who came out for Farm Bill listening sessions to tell their new Congressman what they wanted. Somewhere--but not the First.
Update: Since Hopper is listed as a team member for ED's Center for Conservation Incentives, we wonder if the farmers in the ED's EQIP partnerships realize the contempt with which the Washington-based attorney holds their ability to be politically independent?
BTW, none of the ED partnerships with farmers are based in Minnesota's First Congressional District. Perhaps Hopper in thinking of farmers near Lake Erie or wherever.
Comments