Why do red state Democrats keep chasing wealthy farmers who will never vote for them? | Opinion

Seldom have I read anything more demoralizing than Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart’s recent interview with Todd Dorman in The Cedar Rapids Gazette. While Hart yet again wanted to wax nostalgic about her compelling experiences gathering rocks on an eastern Iowa farm, Dorman deftly put her between a rock and a hard place by asking about Iowa water quality within the context of corn grown for ethanol. Around 20% of Iowa’s land area is used to grow corn for fuel ethanol, a significant driver of water pollution in our state. Hart’s response:

“Our economy depends so much on agriculture, and these are not easy solutions to come by. You know, you’re talking to a farmer here. I think, again, you know, the Democratic Party is a big tent and, and there’s lots of room for lots of different opinions on how to go about this.”

Translation: Ethanol > Water Quality.

One solution that would be easier (in my opinion) than what politicians want to admit is regulation of the pollution. You know, the way we regulate the pollution from pretty much every other industry in the country. Hart on that: Regulation is possible, but only if done “in cooperation.”

Presumably “in cooperation” means with Republicans, who, last time I checked, are about as fond of regulation as me listening to another sad, sappy ballad from Rita and the Rock Hounds. So anyway, easy out on regulation for Rita and the rest of the lionhearted minority under the golden dome of the Iowa State Capitol. Nicely done, Rita.

I’ve said many times that you don’t exterminate the entirety of nature in a state without the complicity of both political parties. Their positions on water pollution (and agriculture in general) are certainly similar — the major differences are in the messaging. Republicans proudly flaunt their environmental policies as if they were Randy Bobandy’s beer gut on “Trailer Park Boys.” Democrats like Hart, however, knowing their voters are repulsed by such vulgar exhibitionism, try to be a little more subtle about it.

I just don’t get Democrats on water quality and other environmental issues. Ethanol. Carbon pipelines. Water quality. Do you ever hear them talk about these topics with anything resembling a passionate voice? Do you ever hear them talk about them at all? Do they ever challenge Agriculture Secretary Status Quo, Tom Vilsack? Sure, a few have picked up on the cancer stories, but is that what it takes — human bodies on the curb? It’s disgraceful (and immoral, in my view) that we can’t act on pollution until it comes to that. Watch how many of them will take Big Ag donor money in the upcoming election.

Reducing ethanol, regulating agriculture are popular

I’m still doing a lot of programs for groups, including county-level Democratic gatherings. While talking about these issues — ethanol must die, we need more parks, regulate agriculture and so on — audience heads eagerly nod up and down like a kindergarten class at a yo-yo demonstration. But I’ve had to listen more than once afterward to an elected Rock Hound or somebody from the donor class tell me that I need to tone down my rhetoric, or that my ideas are unrealistic, or some other cowardly nonsense that makes me wonder what the heck is going on.

I also tell people at these events not to think voting the “correct” way will somehow, someday, solve our environmental problems. In his classic 1985 book “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” Neil Postman wrote:

“You may cast a ballot for someone who claims to have some plans, as well as the power to act. But this you can do only once every two or four years by giving up one hour of your time. Voting, we might even say, is the next to last refuge of the politically impotent. The last refuge is, of course, giving your opinion to a pollster.”

You know who isn’t politically impotent? Farmers and agribusiness. Rita Hart and a large portion of the Democratic Party trip over themselves just for a chance to brush up against King Farmer’s royal robes. The electoral math of this just doesn’t add up to me. There are about 85,000 farmers in Iowa, and assuming 70% of them vote, they made up about 3.8% of the total Iowa vote in the 2020 election. Considering the demographics of farming (old, wealthy, white, male) these are not people likely to vote for Democrats under any circumstance — unless of course their daughter and son-in-law are trying to conceive by IVF. And even then, it’s a long shot.

Joe Biden could’ve gotten every farmer’s vote in 2020 and still would have lost Iowa, by a lot. Why oh why this Democratic political preoccupation with farmers? Why are farmer votes more valuable to them than, say, a nurse or a waitperson or a student or a hairdresser who wants to take his or her family to a state park beach on a summer weekend, but can’t because the contaminated beach is closed? I just don’t get it.

Clean water, fresh air are middle-class issues

Since 1932, the Democratic Party has tried to position itself as the party of the middle class, and a longtime electoral strategy has been to expand the middle class, however it might be defined. This has meant an embrace of people of color, women, LGBTQ people, Jews and others, and rightfully so. I submit to you that issues of environment — clean water, fresh air, clean and abundant parks, and other similar outdoor amenities — are middle-class issues. Greasing the skids so billionaire businessmen can lay pipe for government handouts, and so millionaire farmers aren’t annoyed by reasonable regulation, are not. Last time I checked, there were plenty of advocates on the R side, at least in Iowa, to help with that stuff.

A few weeks ago, I was a speaker at a fundraiser for the Nahant Marsh, a 305-acre ecological feature in Davenport. I must tell you I was shocked by the (large) amount of money people were willing to donate so they could enjoy nature close to home. Really shocked. Since the dawn of civilization, people have craved communion with the natural world, and this craving has always been, for obvious reasons, more intense for people living in cities.

I am bewildered how our political leaders, and especially those on the left, leave this ripe peach hanging on the tree. What can they be thinking? What am I missing here? Are they really that obtuse, or are they privy to super-secret polling data from some D.C. consulting firm telling them they need to kiss farmers’ rears?

I want to finish up by circling back to the Dorman/Hart interview, in particular Hart’s comment, “You know, you’re talking to a farmer here.” Of course, I can’t know the complete context or tone she used. But if Rita Hart were sitting here next to me, I would say: “You know, you’re talking to a non-farmer here. And my vote and my rights and my dignity are every bit as important as the farmers’ you and the rest of the Democratic Party desperately swoon over.” But hey, who am I?

Enjoy your irrelevance, Rita.

Chris Jones is a retired research engineer from the University of Iowa where he studied the environmental outcomes of production agriculture. He is the author of “The Swine Republic: Struggles with the Truth about Agriculture and Water Quality” and lives in Iowa City, Iowa. A version of this commentary originally appeared on his Substack at riverraccoon.substack.com