On Kari Chisholm's Western Democrat site last week, he posted a link that I find holds a key to crossing the red/blue divide.

"And yet, like a lot of the basically conservative voters you meet in rural America -- and here's where Democrats should pay close attention -- Hank never professes an explicit party loyalty, and he and his buddies who sip beer in the alley don't talk like their fellow Texan Tom DeLay. If Hank votes Republican, it's because, as a voter who cares about religious and rural values, he probably doesn't see much choice. But Hank and his neighbors resemble many independent voters, open to proposals that challenge their assumptions about the world, as long as those ideas don't come from someone who seems to disrespect what they believe."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/magazine/26WWLN.html?pagewanted=print

http://www.westerndemocrat.com/2005/06/king_of_the_hil.html

In my opinion, you either get this, and incorporate honest-to-God this respect, or you get a wider, more malignant divide of which Democrats have been standing largely on the losing side.

And this is more than tactical.

It's for real.

As someone who has been an Independent and campaigned for 3rd party candidates (not named Nader), who campaigned for McCall's re-election and later got fed up and became a Democrat, I can say there is great wisdom in the respect issue.

There are a variety of people who might vote for specific Democrats even if they also vote for some Republicans (or may not if they feel insulted): Someone who goes to a church which accepts gays (like UCC) who voted for Bush but against Measure 36 is not on the right wing fringe. Someone with friends in the Farm Bureau isn't going to accept a candidate who openly campaigns against Farm Bureau policies--but the Farm Bureau may be more concerned with clean water for their own reasons than some of the Bush types. Someone with a friend who just came back from Iraq may not like being told that they aren't supposed to disagree with Vietnam vets who want an immediate pullout from Iraq.

Even some supposedly "moderate" Republicans seem to have adopted the idea that they alone can make our decisions for us. A supposedly "moderate" Republican I know who is a friend of my supposedly "moderate" state rep. complained about the "tone" of an email where I questioned the actions of the House majority. Here is an excerpt: According to Article VI Section 2 of the Oregon Constitution, the Secretary of State is the "Auditor of public Accounts". And yet HB 5152-A (so nicely written about in the Saturday SJ) appears to try to change that using the budget for the Sec. of State.

Look at the debate over the S. Coast airport where a former Republican legislator is lobbying for it but the House Majority Leader thinks he can bully a freshman member of the minority from that area into choosing support for the airport or support for a particular view of Education funding.

And yet, as has been mentioned above, all these opportunities could be squandered by an approach of "we're from the big city (or whatever) and here to explain it all for you".

I have seen votes lost because a staffer/ volunteer was rude, because a staffer had no clue about something basic like putting out a mailing, by some consultant or other professional saying "this worked in the state where I was before so it will work here" etc.

Listen to all those clips of Sandra Day O'Connor. She used a soft voice. She talked about the common sense she learned on the ranch where she grew up. She said strong things without being nasty but sometimes with a touch of wit.

Many of us were raised to behave like that. It IS possible to make someone think by saying something which sounds gentle but is really strongminded. Time to listen as much as talking, and put other "people skills " to work.

When I was on the Democratic State Central Committee, some of the best people came from rural areas--some of the wisest, some of the hardest working, etc. Then along came "professionals" with the attitude "you're only a volunteer".

Someone I knew from those days heard a Republican legislator's wife had died and went to the funeral. That is the sort of thing small town people have done for years. And you never know when someone who has gotten such neighborly concern might consider voting for the candidate supported by the person who helped them.

Steve--

Thank you so much for pushing forward with this. I will do my best to be there on July 17, depending on what is happening in Salem. We have to take the steps you are suggesting. I've already spoken to my colleagues about doing a House Democratic Town Hall Tour of central, southern and eastern Oregon over the next 12 months, and there is a good deal of interest. We can't expect immediate results, but if we don't start, we will never get to where we want to be with our rural counties.

Onward, Peter Buckley State Rep HD5 (Jackson County)

Steve-

Good for you and thank you for spearheading the diversification of a company that has nearly reached its urban peak. I endorse the move wholeheartedly and suggest the techniques and information you develop would be useful in semi-rural districts like mine as well. Good luck.

Oregon Coast rural issues

I am a rural voter on the Oregon Coast and wanted to share a few observations.

Some of the comments I have heard about the rural caucus:

"these people are just trying to push their pro-gay stance" "these people are pushing their big government philosophy and want more rules and regulations"

Around here, it has done more harm than good, in my opinion.

Which comes to another question, why do Oregon Coast rural voters vote conservative?

1. Gun control: most all have large gun collections, and want to be able to use them for target practice or for the hunting seasons. The image of the Dems is gun-control.

2. Land use laws: Many rural folks have had their land "forever", but over time, the right to build on their property, has been taken away by the state. My family has had a piece of property for 130 years, we got building permits and the whole 9 yards, but didn't build right away. The State has since taken that right away and even with measure 37, we can't get those building lots back. The image of the Repub party is that they stick up for landowners. (which is BS) When so-and-so does not have the right to build, word travels fast, and people get more PO’d at the "intrusive govt."

3. Taxes: Dems have the image of raising taxes all the time. Which is truly ironic because the Repub Party spends a lot of tax money on huge defense projects, govt. contracts for tax dodging corporations and in short, wastes a lot of money. Through all this, there is not enough money left over to pay for education, social services..etc etc. So the Dems are forced to try to raise taxes, in order to pay for the programs, that they said they would support, when they ran for office. It's a huge trap.

4.Big Government: Many rural folks believe that the government is just too big and has too much power. This is how many democrats feel also. The image (here is that image thing again) of the Repub party is that they want smaller government (again BS). Many of the local conservative talking heads, pound away at the smaller govt. philosophy.

1. Rules and regulations: Rural folks see every year, that there are more rules, more govt. agencies, more control. One example they use is the FDA/Oregon Dept of Ag. They just come up with more and more rules to enforce, they say they are making sure everything is safe for the consumer, but really, how much is too much. Many people that work in the agriculture field, have to follow different rules (and they change monthly) and change their process frequently, according to which agency is doing inspections. This may seem like a small annoyance, but to many rural folks, they just don’t deal with the government that often (and by choice) and FDA/Dept. of Ag, give them the reminder that more govt. control=bad and democrats=more govt. control.

It’s going to be tough to turn rural voters, to the left-side. The best way to do this is information and truth, because the truth really hurts the Conservative agenda.

Responding to TH:

I find it odd that what you have heard about the Rural Caucus has to do with gay/lesbian rights and government rules. Let's straighten that out right now -

Gay/Lesbian. As individuals we have our own opinions. In the past I was a Board Member of the Rural Organizing Project which certainly is not quiet about equal treatment and equal rights for gay/lesbian people. However, the rural caucus - not formally being organized yet, and therefore never once having taken a position on anything - is of course silent on gay/lesbian rights. In the various publicans I have written, debates on Blue Oregon, etc.; to the best of my memory gay/lesbian rights was never mentioned.

Government Regulations: I have written that this is exactly one of the sore points that rural people have, and to the degree that Democrats have been identified as being the source of government regulations, we as Democrats have a problem. Of course, much of this frame of reference was created out of whole cloth by the Republicans. Environmental regulation has always been bi-partisan.

So, I don't know where you heard about the rural caucus, but all of that was just wrong.

Regarding your five points of rural issues, you are for the most part correct. There are nuances to this or that issue, but by in large I personally agree with you.

What the Rural Caucus is about is working to find ways to show our rural neighbors how Democratic values, positions, and candidates actually will be better for rural people than what they think they are getting from that other party of big business.

So, TH, when you hear someone bad-mouthing the Democrats, I have a few suggestions:

1. Ask them if they like what is happening with their local schools, where control of everything is shifting to Salem. If they don't like it, tell them the Republicans done it to them.

2. Ask them if they think government should spend more money on road maintenance. If they think so, tell them the Republicans won't let it happen.

3. If you know someone who earns a minimum wage, or who is a food-service worker - ask them if they think it is right to cut the minimum wage. If they think not, tell them that the Republicans keep trying hard to cut their wages.

4. If you know a student working summers to earn money for college, tell them the Republicans are not only trying to cut the minimum wage that they will probably earn, but through their direct neglect and weird philosophy, they are increasing the costs of college at the same time.

5. If you know someone who is a Republican, plead with them to take back the party of Lincoln from the Neo-conservatives. If they like small government, balanced budgets, and conservative values; then they have a choice - Either take back their party from the radicals that run it now, or join the Democratic Party - which has a track record of financial common sense, and actually balanced the Federal budget for the first time in over a generation.

We've got lots of message, and the Rural Caucus is one way to start to get this out to our rural neighbors.

I think this is a great idea, and I wish you the best of luck. I can't add much to what's been said, but I attend college in Minnesota and am fresh off an internship in the House of Representatives there. Minnesota's demographic breakdown closely resembles Oregon's, and I would suggest that you may want to look to them for political organization. The Democratic Party there is the Democratic Farm and Labor Party (DFL). This happened in the early 50s; the coalition between the (essentially) three parties was intended to strengthen bargaining power. And it works: "Democrats" look out for rural matter--farm subsidies, pork barrel projects for rural districts, road development, ethanol in fuel, rural health care issues--and rural Dems increase the voting block on more general progressive issues. AS TH, points out, the road blocks we have to overcome to win rural voters are significant, but think about it: we're just about as close to fulfilling all those demands as the Republicans are. On issues of big state government, neither party is creating new regulation, and on the subject of taxes, no one is supporting tax increases right now. Nothing is really changing on the subject on gun control, and recent land-use changes are bi-partisan or Democrat-led. (If anybody is close, it's the Libertarians with their fiscal conservatism and no-government stance.) Second, the rural caucus will draw out the best for rural areas, regardless of what party it attaches itself to. Take a Democrat Rural Caucus: "Democrats" support them in order to get their support on their issues, and Republicans offer them deals to get their support. On a number of bills this last session in Minnesota, rural votes made the difference on cruical policy bill, such as ethanol in gas and road development. The minute a rural political group is made independent of either party, good things will start happening for them. Finally, at a time when the growing conservatism in the rural areas is causing the state to swing politically, we as progressives should realize that if we hope to keep Oregon a blue state we have to acknowledge the needs and power of rural communities. They will most certainly decide the next governor's race in Oregon, and, personally, I don't want Kevin Mannix as my governor. Nuff said. Good luck, Rural Democratic Caucus! If you want me to put you in touch with Rural DFL Caucus members in MN, drop me a line--I'd be more than happy to help you however I can!

I think this is a great idea, and I wish you the best of luck. I can't add much to what's been said, but I attend college in Minnesota and am fresh off an internship in the House of Representatives there. Minnesota's demographic breakdown closely resembles Oregon's, and I would suggest that you may want to look to them for political organization. The Democratic Party there is the Democratic Farm and Labor Party (DFL). This happened in the early 50s; the coalition between the (essentially) three parties was intended to strengthen bargaining power. And it works: "Democrats" look out for rural matter--farm subsidies, pork barrel projects for rural districts, road development, ethanol in fuel, rural health care issues--and rural Dems increase the voting block on more general progressive issues. AS TH, points out, the road blocks we have to overcome to win rural voters are significant, but think about it: we're just about as close to fulfilling all those demands as the Republicans are. On issues of big state government, neither party is creating new regulation, and on the subject of taxes, no one is supporting tax increases right now. Nothing is really changing on the subject on gun control, and recent land-use changes are bi-partisan or Democrat-led. (If anybody is close, it's the Libertarians with their fiscal conservatism and no-government stance.) Second, the rural caucus will draw out the best for rural areas, regardless of what party it attaches itself to. Take a Democrat Rural Caucus: "Democrats" support them in order to get their support on their issues, and Republicans offer them deals to get their support. On a number of bills this last session in Minnesota, rural votes made the difference on cruical policy bill, such as ethanol in gas and road development. The minute a rural political group is made independent of either party, good things will start happening for them. Finally, at a time when the growing conservatism in the rural areas is causing the state to swing politically, we as progressives should realize that if we hope to keep Oregon a blue state we have to acknowledge the needs and power of rural communities. They will most certainly decide the next governor's race in Oregon, and, personally, I don't want Kevin Mannix as my governor. Nuff said. Good luck, Rural Democratic Caucus! If you want me to put you in touch with Rural DFL Caucus members in MN, drop me a line--I'd be more than happy to help you however I can!

Steve:

I have used many of those arguments to try to convince people to question their party. Most don't seem to work, and I will really have my work cut out for me, as I am running for a vacant City Council position with an all Republican Council already in place.

This may seem odd, but the one thing that seems to open eyes around here, is energy. When you explain to rural conservative voters that the only reason the USA is so successful, is that we have low energy costs. As energy costs start to rise it really effects rural folks. As they are educated on this subject, they see that renewable energy has both enviromental and economic benefits. Many rural farmers will benefit from local energy projects such as mustard-seed/canola crops and wind turbines. These will play a vital role in Oregon's economic future. It might as well be the Dem side that introduces rural folks to these opportunities. Most have been truely disgusted by globalization and cheap labor, that has made their land worthless. Nothing will make them happier than to do, what they have wanted to do for so many years: use their land to make a living.

Does this mean that come campaign time we will actually hire rural and downstate campaigners and advisors to run rural and downstate campaigns, rather than out-of-state consultants, California pollsters and Portland managers that have given us our rousingly successful record to date?

Hallelujah!

Does this mean that come campaign time we will actually hire rural and downstate campaigners and advisors to run rural and downstate campaigns, rather than out-of-state consultants, California pollsters and Portland managers that have given us our rousingly successful record to date? Hallelujah! On other posts, Democrats have (often rightly) been called disorganized among other things.

My advice to those who have lost heart about politics is to think local. Choose a candidate who respects the locals more than outside consultants (make that a condition of support if you wish). I have worked on campaigns for members of both major parties, members of 3rd parties, members of no party (school board, city council, etc.).

Grass roots politics (rather than listening to consultants who say "well this worked in the last place, why won't it work here?")is what will save us. And people who get to know each other in "off year" elections will be that much more experienced when the presidential and US Senate elections come around in 2008.

There are more activists than there are consultants. It just takes people standing up for what they believe in.

And read Howard Dean's book You Have The Power . Don't let anyone tell you that you don't have political power. You have the power to choose a candidate who runs a local campaign over a candidate where consultants dismiss the wisdom and hard work of volunteers. You have the power to choose a candidate who does many public appearances with Q & A (a 2-way campaign) over a candidate who just inflicts ads, mailers, etc. on the public (a 1-way campaign). If, for instance, 2 neighbors are running for local office, you have the power to see them in a candidate forum and decide which one you like better. You have the power to say "I can't in good conscience support X which is why I am supporting Y".

Perhaps Minnis and Scott act the way they do because they are hanging on by their fingernails. Their majority is 33. Seven House elections were decided by less than 1000 votes, which is how many per precinct? Three Democrats lost by much less: 825, 548, 414.

I've had 2 friends who lost in a recount the first time and won the second time. I helped elect someone to be the first Democrat ever elected in that state House district, and someone else to beat a Republican incumbent in a year when few other Repub. incumbents lost.

But the work must start from the bottom up--residents talking to people they know. In a rural area it might be a spaghetti feed in a Grange Hall (I once went to a lamb stew feed in a Grange Hall in Linn County sponsored by local Democrats)or a neighborhood coffee in an urban/suburban area.

Money is NOT all that matters, and often "professionals" don't know the area very well. There is a lot of truth to that line from the musical "The Music Man". "But ya gotta know the territory".

Does this mean that come campaign time we will actually hire rural and downstate campaigners and advisors to run rural and downstate campaigns, rather than out-of-state consultants, California pollsters and Portland managers that have given us our rousingly successful record to date? Hallelujah! On other posts, Democrats have (often rightly) been called disorganized among other things.

My advice to those who have lost heart about politics is to think local. Choose a candidate who respects the locals more than outside consultants (make that a condition of support if you wish). I have worked on campaigns for members of both major parties, members of 3rd parties, members of no party (school board, city council, etc.).

Grass roots politics (rather than listening to consultants who say "well this worked in the last place, why won't it work here?")is what will save us. And people who get to know each other in "off year" elections will be that much more experienced when the presidential and US Senate elections come around in 2008.

There are more activists than there are consultants. It just takes people standing up for what they believe in.

And read Howard Dean's book You Have The Power . Don't let anyone tell you that you don't have political power. You have the power to choose a candidate who runs a local campaign over a candidate where consultants dismiss the wisdom and hard work of volunteers. You have the power to choose a candidate who does many public appearances with Q & A (a 2-way campaign) over a candidate who just inflicts ads, mailers, etc. on the public (a 1-way campaign). If, for instance, 2 neighbors are running for local office, you have the power to see them in a candidate forum and decide which one you like better. You have the power to say "I can't in good conscience support X which is why I am supporting Y".

Perhaps Minnis and Scott act the way they do because they are hanging on by their fingernails. Their majority is 33. Seven House elections were decided by less than 1000 votes, which is how many per precinct? Three Democrats lost by much less: 825, 548, 414.

I've had 2 friends who lost in a recount the first time and won the second time. I helped elect someone to be the first Democrat ever elected in that state House district, and someone else to beat a Republican incumbent in a year when few other Repub. incumbents lost.

But the work must start from the bottom up--residents talking to people they know. In a rural area it might be a spaghetti feed in a Grange Hall (I once went to a lamb stew feed in a Grange Hall in Linn County sponsored by local Democrats)or a neighborhood coffee in an urban/suburban area.

Money is NOT all that matters, and often "professionals" don't know the area very well. There is a lot of truth to that line from the musical "The Music Man". "But ya gotta know the territory".

I think it is important to take into account as Steve mentioned in the original post:

"there is no one set of rural issues underlying these points due to the great diversity of rural interests. No one person (certainly not me) can be a spokesperson for all rural issues. While I understand many rural issues from the standpoint of being in Central Oregon, I cannot claim understanding in depth of issues affecting the Klamath basin, the regions of the Oregon coast, or the issues of Southern Oregon. One of the first things to learn about rural Oregon is that it is very diverse, perhaps more so than the urban parts of Oregon."

I live in HD-52 which is an urban-fringe/rural district. While people living in rural-rural Oregon may not recognize my district as rural, because it's next out from the Metro area, I can assure you that people in this area do infact consider themselves rural.

I attended the Pre-Rural Caucus Organizing meeting in Pendleton at the last SCC meeting. I wanted to be able to relay back information from this caucus to my fellow Dems. Unfortunatly I heard alot of urban Dem bashing. Maybe it was naive of me to be surprised by this, but maybe that is because I conversely hear just the opposite in urban Dem circles. Seems to me that urbanites are much more interested, then might be suspected, about the need to gain the rural areas and true interest abound in listening in order to help accomplish. I would like to suggest that as the Rural Caucus get's up and going, we spend more time identifying real issues that separate us as a party (I suspect it is more Republican untruths about us as Dems than anything) and then work on meeting the diversified needs of all Oregononian's; urban, rural and inbetween. Afterall, if "They" can divide and conquer, they surely will.....let's not do it to ourselves. Education of what Democrats truly stand for may be a worthy direction to combat the lies that have been pushed onto our Progressive backs.

Always interested in what others think or know!

Education of what Democrats truly stand for may be a worthy direction to combat the lies that have been pushed onto our Progressive backs.

Not only what Democrats stand for but how Democrats vote vs. how House Republicans vote. A friend who voted for a Republican state rep. in a close election was amazed and unhappy to learn how often that state rep. voted unquestioning party line--as he thought he was voting for an individual.

And it doesn't need to be too philosophical. As has been posted elsewhere and written about in newspapers, this is the House majority caucus which made sure Larry Campbell's bill to add video lottery terminals to Portland Meadows passed, but Wayne Scott isn't real sure he wants to have a vote on the bill which passed the Senate overwhelmingly to provide summer lunches for kids.

Is "the common good" really that controversial an idea among the general public, or just among some powerful legislators?

You want a chance to pry rural voters away from the Republican party? Good luck. The Democrats are universally seen as the party that wants to regulate you out of existance. The Republicans are that too, but they've successfully hidden this from the average voter. The land use issue is an excellent example of the sort of thing that will constantly drive rural voters away from the Democratic Party. Gun Control is another; though urban voters might be convinced that a well organized police force can take the place of one's own arms, when the nearest sheriff's station is miles away, it's a little hard to convice a rural voter of this.

You want to steal voters from the Repbulicans? I'm promoting a federal level progressive-libertarian alliance these days. Basically, I'm thinking that the current Republican majority just might teach a few Democrats of the value of states rights (and even soverignty at lower levels, wherever possible). I have a vision of an unregulated countryside protected from both crime and environmental depridation by landowners, and cities that are a model of organization and civic action. Neither will collect taxes from the other; both will get the policies they desire.

The best thing about this is that it would have a chance of succeeding. We'd end Republican imperialist adventures, because there are plenty of "ficsal conservatives" who would willingly side with Progressives that were willing to declare a cease-fire at the federal level. Let's have our political catfights a little closer to home.

Be careful of such broadbrush statements as The Democrats are universally seen as the party that wants to regulate you out of existance or generalized statements about gun control.

I doubt that either party is "universally seen as " anything.

And Mike Kopetski, who grew up in Pendleton and thus grew up hunting like all the other boys and was an NRA member (to the shock of some city dwellers who hadn't bothered to ask and thus assumed they knew where he stood) defeated Republican Congressman Denny Smith who discovered that TV ads attacking an opponent as "too liberal and too hip" didn't work against a guy with a lot of friends.

I think we do better when we discuss details rather than saying all people believe anything. People think for themselves, and there are some who say that is too general a statement because they have known too many people who just don't think.