Tag: politics

By Cory Allen Heidelberger

Do you recycle your milk jugs and compost your kitchen scraps? Do you support using conservation easements to protect wetlands, shelterbelts, and the ongoing productivity of South Dakota farmland?

If so, you’re a Marxist dupe.

At least, that’s what one might read in a resolution passed by the South Dakota Republican Party last weekend. Delegates to the state GOP convention raised their voices in fearful denunciation of the latest popular bogeyman of the far right, something called “Agenda 21,” a secret Marxist plot by the United Nations.

Agenda 21 comes from the United Nations, but it’s no secret. The UN posts it publicly on their Sustainable Development website. It comes from the 1992 Rio Conference. It’s not a binding plan. It’s not a roadmap for world conquest. It’s just a bunch of reasonable people saying it would be nice if local, state, and national governments worked together to fight poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, and pollution.

South Dakota’s GOP condemns this document as a “destructive and insidious” plan “covertly” pushing its “dangerous intent” in “local communities throughout South Dakota.” Our Republican neighbors “hereby reject its destructive strategies for sustainable development.”

Destructive policies… like increasing producers’ access to global export markets. South Dakota farmers ought to like that.

Destructive policies… like stimulating savings and reducing deficits. South Dakota Tea Partiers ought to like that.

Destructive policies… like helping economies “grow and prosper while reducing the use of energy and materials and the production of harmful materials.” South Dakotans with grandkids ought to like that.

Such paranoia bubbles around South Dakota. The Siouxland Republican Women have condemned the Sioux Falls Residential Guide to Sustainability as Agenda 21 plotting. My Black Hills neighbors Sam Kephart and Shad Olson think Agenda 21 will abolish private property and depopulate the planet. Steve Rosenberger ran for Lawrence County Commission this spring to fight the looming UN takeover of the Black Hills and “Delphi” mind control.

My Marxist UN overlords haven’t sent me the memo on how to read minds, let alone control them. But here’s what I hear in the heads of Republicans who turn such nutty conspiracy theories in formal party resolutions:

Those darn hippies are right: resources are finite. We need to use land and water and energy more responsibly. But we can’t bear to think that. Ah-ha! If we conflate “sustainable development” and the United Nations and Marxism, we can still kick the hippies in the shins and not feel guilty about driving really big cars really fast! Whoo-hoo! The evil of Agenda 21 trumps every argument!”

I’d rather sustain our resources and economic development with sensible policies than sustain a selfish, obsolete worldview with black-helicopter theories.

Cory Allen Heidelberger writes the Madville Times political blog. He grew up on the shores of Lake Herman. He studied math and history at SDSU and information systems at DSU, and is currently teaching French at Spearfish High School. A longtime country dweller, Cory is enjoying “urban” living with his family in Spearfish.

By Ken Blanchard

In 2010 Republican Scott Walker was elected governor of Wisconsin by a margin of about six percent. His party also won control of both houses of the state legislature, which allowed Governor Walker to reduce the power of public sector unions over state and municipal budgets. Most public union members saw their contributions to their pensions go from 1% to 5.8% of their salaries. Their share of their healthcare plans went from 6% to 12.6%. More radically, the Republicans restricted most public unions from collective bargaining over salaries and ended mandatory collection of union dues from public workers.

The result was a fire storm of protest that attracted the attention of the entire nation. It also resulted in a recall election. A million people signed a petition for the governor’s recall, about twice what was necessary. After a bruising Democratic primary and tens of millions spent by both sides, Walker defeated Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett a second time, by about seven percent. It wasn’t a recall, it was a replay.

It has been a difficult year for public sector unions. If the bitter defeat in Wisconsin were not enough, the cities of San Diego and San Jose in union-friendly California both passed initiatives cutting the growth of public pensions. Meanwhile in New York, Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo is also taking on the public unions.

There are two problems that have put public unions in a sudden disadvantage. The first is a national and indeed worldwide fiscal crisis. Wisconsin was facing a large deficit when he took office. His reforms helped to close that deficit without laying off workers or raising taxes. San Diego and San Jose have both steadily cut their public workforces over the last decade. San Jose has several brand new libraries and a police station sitting empty because they can’t afford to hire anyone to work there. What is happening is that the growth of retirement costs is squeezing out all other municipal spending.

The other problem is political. Public unions see it as their mission to win guaranteed benefits for their membership. As long as the national economy was enjoying healthy growth, it was easy for state and city governments to give their employees generous contracts and make lavish promises of future benefits. It was one easy way for mayors and city councils, governors and state legislatures, to build large, well-organized and well-funded constituencies.

When the economy pooped out in 2007 and didn’t just pop right back, it became rather clear to a lot of tax payers a large portion of their tax money was no longer under their control. Services and infrastructure decayed and jobs were cut as pension costs inexorably rose. Those costs were due to contracts that are legally binding and therefore not subject to ordinary legislative discretion.

It is a good thing to want to provide security and prosperity for our public and private workers. It is a very bad thing to create fiscal systems that cannot adjust to changing realities.

Dr. Ken Blanchard is a professor of Political Science at Northern State University and writes for the Aberdeen American News and the blog South Dakota Politics.

By Cory Allen Heidelberger

Two weeks ago I said Jeff Barth’s display of clever electoral chess showed he could beat Rep. Kristi Noem and serve intelligently as South Dakota’s Congressman. One week ago, 72% of the Democrats and Independents who joined me at the primary said Matt Varilek could do that job better.

I bear those 21,759 voters no ill will and happily join them now in trying to get another 180,000 South Dakotans to vote for Varilek in November. To that end, as well as for general summertime political amusement, let’s look at the most important things we can learn from the 2012 South Dakota primary:

Reporters can be as wrong as bloggers. Knowing my penchant for wishful thinking, and deliberately compensating for the fact that my blog comment section was nearly a pro-Barth echo chamber, I predicted Varilek would still win somewhere in the low 60s. Journalist David Montgomery thought 57% would be more like it. We were both surprised at Varilek’s 72% win. Perhaps we both were hoping the voters would affirm our journalistic love of last-minute drama?

Endorsements don’t hurt. Unlike what happened in the GOP state legislative races, endorsements from party leaders didn’t dampen support for Varilek. Voters may not like party honchos telling them whom to pick for their local district’s legislative seats, but at the national level, they grok that when three Senators say a guy’s good for Congress, they may know whereof they speak.

Money matters…. Barth made a point of pride out of saying he wasn’t a big money candidate. As of May, Varilek had out-fundraised Barth 15 to 1. But having no money in the bank didn’t seem to win Barth a lot of support.

…because meeting voters matters. Barth missed the point that fundraising and networking go hand in hand. When Varilek was out fundraising, he was also getting name and face time with voters. The money some of them donated allowed Varilek to put even more miles on the Buick, criss-crossing the state to shake more hands and get more early buy-in from voters. If you want to win in South Dakota, you’ve got to travel South Dakota, and that means you need gas money.

National media doesn’t matter. The brightest spot of the Barth campaign was his breakout YouTube video, which I maintain is a digital literary gem. It got him 150,000 views, five minutes on MSNBC, and a bump in donations. But it didn’t push him over 30% in the primary.

Equality doesn’t matter? Barth’s other big break came mid-May when Varilek, unlike Barth, declined to support same-sex marriage. A number of Dem voters were downright mad at Varilek’s error on this issue. That anger appeared to be unnoticeable in the primary vote… and alas, may be less noticeable in the November vote. (Dems, we need to talk.)

Dems still need a fire lit under them. With no meaningful statewide race, Republican primary turnout topped 25%. With a real Congressional race, Democrat primary turnout was less than 18%. For all of his superior campaigning, Varilek failed to inspire 88% of Democrats to come to the polls on a sunny June day and launch him into the big fight against Noem.

Varilek dominated Barth, using a big, traditional campaign machine to crush his chess-playing opponent. But if he wants to checkmate Noem, our Czech mate will need to bring a lot more pieces to the table.

Cory Allen Heidelberger writes the Madville Times political blog. He grew up on the shores of Lake Herman. He studied math and history at SDSU and information systems at DSU, and is currently teaching French at Spearfish High School. A longtime country dweller, Cory is enjoying “urban” living with his family in Spearfish.

By Cory Allen Heidelberger

This winter I thought the Democratic U.S. House primary was done before the game had started. Matt Varilek seemed to have the nomination sewn up shortly after announcing his candidacy in December. He quickly lined up the endorsements of the godfathers of the South Dakota Democratic Party–Senator Tim Johnson, Tom Daschle and George McGovern. (Godsister Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has conspicuously not endorsed… but that’s a whole ‘nother essay.)

Varilek also lined up $100K in campaign donations in his first month on the trail; his total now tops $300K. Jeff Barth entered the race last summer; as of two weeks ago, he’d drawn little more than $20K from supporters.

For much of the quiet primary season, we didn’t hear much about real policy differences from the candidates. So it looked like we ideologues could default back to pragmatism: which candidate could muster the cash and clout to kill the million-dollar incumbent juggernaut in November? Simple: Varilek.

But then Barth started playing chess. On May 24, he released a five-minute web video. He walks through the woods at Great Bear Recreation Area, talks about his globe-trotting biography, and throws verbal and visual zingers at Congresswoman Noem and the D.C. establishment (and yes, that’s a jibe at his primary opponent, too). Six days later, that video has nearly 158,000 views, more views than almost any other South Dakota YouTubery besides crazy thunderstorm clouds and guys shooting pheasants.

That one YouTube video grabbed Barth more press than any other campaign move either he or Varilek had made. It gave Barth a chance to capitalize on some buzz he’d gained the previous week by drawing daylight between himself and Varilek on same-sex marriage. In a May 15 interview with the Argus Leader, Barth said he’d support legislation to recognize same-sex marriages. Varilek said he disagrees with President Obama’s recently evolved support for marriage equality. That distinction caused Varilek to lose the support of big Dem Steve Hildebrand and set many other Dems to rethinking their primary choice.

I’m not in Barth’s head. But it seems Barth knew he couldn’t beat an apparent party favorite in a fundraising arms race. He thus lay low, coasting as long as he could, during a time when no one seemed to be paying attention to the race anyway. He took advantage of his opponent’s unforced error on same-sex marriage. Then, less than two weeks before the vote, he scored a media coup with one clever video.

To a lot of the South Dakota Dems I chat with (and even some Republicans), Barth looks like the underdog chess player who with two quick moves has changed the board. And beating the incumbent in the fall will call for some brilliant chess.

I haven’t decided my primary vote yet. I’m waiting to see Varilek’s move.

Cory Allen Heidelberger writes the Madville Times political blog. He grew up on the shores of Lake Herman. He studied math and history at SDSU and information systems at DSU, and is currently teaching French at Spearfish High School. A longtime country dweller, Cory is enjoying “urban” living with his family in Spearfish.

By Ken Blanchard

On Tuesday North Carolina did something that South Dakota did back in 2006. The Tar Heel State doubled down against gay marriage. Passed by an overwhelming margin, Amendment One wrote an existing ban on same sex marriage into the state constitution.

As North Carolina was making up its collective mind, President Obama brought his opinion out of the closet, as it were, and said”I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

The President described his opinion as”evolving,” though revolving would be more accurate. In 1996, Mr. Obama went on record as favoring same sex marriage. In 2004, running for US Senate, he said: “I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” Now he has come full circle. Meanwhile Mitt Romney revolved in the opposite direction. He was all for gay marriage before he was dead set against it. At the risk of cynicism, allow me to suggest that both men revolved more out of political calculation than soul-searching.

The people of the Rushmore State and the Tar Heel State might wonder what the President’s declaration means for their own control over their domestic laws. Six states have legal same sex marriage, in several cases due to action by state courts. Thirty states have passed laws defining marriage as a union of a man and woman, all of them by popular referendum. Will the President try to impose his”personal” view on the states?

He told ABC News that this was a matter that should be left to the states, allowing them to arrive”at different conclusions at different times.” I call this a very reasonable position, which is to say that I agree with the President. I am personally in favor of legal same sex marriage. I do not believe that it is required by the Constitution or that it should be imposed on the states by Washington.

I am just not sure that this really is the President’s position. Aside from the question of whither he will evolve next, once he is safely reelected, it is logically inconsistent with the actions of his own Justice Department. Attorney General Holder has stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act, on the grounds that denying federal recognition of same sex marriages violates the Equal Protection Clause. If that is true, then state bans are unconstitutional as well.

I don’t blame Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney for shifting about in search of positions that they can sell to the voters. That is in their job description. I do think South Dakotans and North Carolinians have a right to know who is behind them and who is not. I have no idea what Romney thinks but I can guess what he will do. I am pretty sure what the President thinks. It’s harder to guess what he does next.

Dr. Ken Blanchard is a professor of Political Science at Northern State University and writes for the Aberdeen American News and the blog South Dakota Politics.

By Cory Allen Heidelberger

I enjoy making mischief for Republicans. I also have a pathological weakness for underdogs. How could I not have rooted for political absolute beginner Stephanie Strong to make the ballot and challenge Rep. Kristi Noem in the South Dakota Republican primary?

I should have known better.

Stephanie Strong announced out of nowhere in February that she wanted to replace her fellow Republican Noem in Congress. She had no name recognition, no visible connections or constituency, and no apparent background in politics. Her nascent website showed little technological or communicative savvy. Following her announcement, the only other press I saw her get was her own classified ad seeking paid petition circulators to help her get the 1,955 Republican signatures she needed to make the June ballot.

Much to my surprise, Strong managed to submit petitions with 2,018 signatures. Not quite to my surprise, Strong did not gather enough extra names for insurance against the inevitable invalid signatures. Secretary of State Jason Gant found 106 invalid signatures–under 6%, which is pretty good compared to a national average of 19% invalid signatures on initiative and referendum petitions–dropping Strong’s signature total to 1,906, 49 too few to make the ballot.

I wrote some stiff criticism of Strong’s failure. Strong contacted me with questions about election laws, and I was happy to point her toward the right information.

Alas, my help was for naught. Instead of demonstrating that she could focus on the practical business of either appealing the rejection of her petitions or retooling for an Independent candidacy and petition drive in which she would make sure she got complete information from each signer, Strong melted down in right-wing nuttiness:

I want to know how Barack Obama got on the South Dakota ballot without submitting the proper paperwork and nobody questions that. I am short 49 signatures and they are still Republican signatures, Republicans who don’t take government assistance, but make their own way and are not recognized because they do not have a physical street address. Are you kidding me? While our President cannot even prove that he is an American, something needs to change and we all should speak out as our elected representatives will not [Stephanie Strong, comment to C.A. Heidelberger, “Stephanie Strong Fails to Make GOP Ballot Against Noem,” Madville Times, 2012.03.29].

Uff da. To be clear, President Obama submitted the proper paperwork to make the South Dakota ballot. The President has provided more documented proof that he is an American than anyone who signed Strong’s petitions or Strong herself. And in her greatest rhetorical offense, Strong contends that if you receive food stamps, or unemployment insurance, or a public education, you aren’t a full American. By that criterion, Strong is limiting herself to getting signatures from three mountain men living in yurts somewhere west of Rochford.

Even my affection for mischief and underdogs has its limits. I would like to have seen Rep. Noem suffer through a primary campaign against an unmoneyed but skilled conservative who could hold the Congresswoman accountable for a number of bad votes. Stephanie Strong showed with her birtherism and bias that she is incapable of rising to that challenge.

Cory Allen Heidelberger writes the Madville Times political blog. He grew up on the shores of Lake Herman. He studied math and history at SDSU and information systems at DSU, and is currently teaching French at Spearfish High School. A longtime country dweller, Cory is enjoying “urban” living with his family in Spearfish.