Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Hot Dish delves into the most pressing issues facing rural America. Hosts Heidi and Joel Heitkamp speak with policymakers, advocates and everyday Americans living across rural America about what's happening across the heartland and what should be done to make life better for rural America.ct's The Hot Dish, former U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp serves up insight into issues affecting rural Americans.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:00:04]:
Welcome to the hot dish comfort food for middle America. I'm Heidi Heitkamp. My brother Joel is on vacation. Actually, his second honeymoon. He didn't have a first honeymoon, but he's on a cruise. And I know it's driving him crazy because he needs the constant communication skills. And so hopefully he'll come back rested. But I have a very special guest host today, Josh Boucher.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:00:30]:
He's a state representative in North Dakota representing District 44 in north Fargo, one of the few Democrats left in the state legislature. His first election to the state House was 2012. We ran those campaigns together, Josh. That was the year I was elected to the Senate and a pretty good year for Democrats. Unfortunately, we haven't had a whole lot of good years since then, but we've been working together for many years. And Josh, you are just such a talent. We're so grateful that you're in the legislature and want to spend some time today talking about the challenges that folks like you face representing your district in a very, very conservative legislature. So welcome.
Joshua Boschee [00:01:16]:
Thanks, Heidi. It's great to be know, longtime listener, first time co host with you for hot Dish. You know, those miles between Bismarck and Fargo, there's a lot of time to catch up on podcasts, and this is one of them that I always tune into.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:01:28]:
Amen. We have a lot going on. In today's episode, I'll be interviewing two professors from Colby College in Maine about their latest book, the rural Voter, the Politics of Place, and the disuniting of America. I am really looking forward to that discussion. Then Josh and I will dig into some of the issues world voters care the most about. One of those issues is childcare, and we're going to start this episode by listening to Minnesota state senator and former member of my staff when I served in the Senate and former North Dakota Grant Hoschild. He'll explain his proposed legislation, the Great Start Affordability act, which will help parents cover the cost of childcare without making them pay upfront and then wait for reimbursements or tax credits.
Grant Hauschild [00:02:21]:
The current generation of young people are struggling with the weight of all of the different costs on them. So whether it's the increase in housing interest rates, the student loan burden that they're facing, the regular costs in their daily lives, when they are considering whether or not to start a family, the costs of childcare have become so insurmountable that many people in my generation have told me they're either going to forego having children in general or they're going to delay for long past when they hoped to have children. This, as you can imagine, has a huge impact on our communities. What I'm proposing to address the childcare affordability crisis is the great Start childcare affordability program, looking at a recommendation that came from the US Department of Health and Human Services that said, no family should have to spend more than 7% of their income on childcare. What this bill would do is provide a subsidy directly to childcare centers to then pass on those savings in a line item on the bill for parents. It would go up to 150% of the median income in Minnesota. So anywhere from $50,000 to $175,000 in income for a family of four. And it would be based on a child slot at a childcare center.
Grant Hauschild [00:03:46]:
So a family would apply for this program, get their income verification through the Department of Revenue, then that subsidy would be provided to the childcare center. Then when they get their bill on a monthly basis, they would see how much they received in savings from that childcare center through the subsidy. So it's really kind of an easy way to pass on the savings to families, but also kind of create some certainty for our childcare centers who are trying to operate on very slim margins. Why we're giving the funding to a childcare center rather than say, directly to a family is because for a lot of low to middle income families, you're really not solving the problem by giving them a retroactive tax credit. What you're doing is saying, hey, front these costs just like you are on everything else, and eventually you'll see some tax savings at filing time. That doesn't get to the core of the challenge. What providing the money to the childcare centers directly does is it makes it so that those childcare centers see that funding, create sustainability, and then have a requirement to pass on those savings on a line item on the bill for the parent. So the parents will see those savings every single month as they submit for the program.
Grant Hauschild [00:05:01]:
So the great Start Childcare Affordability bill not only provides an opportunity for our families to afford childcare in our rural communities, but it also creates a certainty to childcare centers looking to open up in our rural communities to say, hey, the state has bought in on this challenge. The state is going to provide a subsidy to your childcare center based on the number of children you can get into your program, and we're going to guarantee that subsidy and you can pass on that savings to the family. So it really just helps create certainty in our rural communities to help get more childcare centers up and operating in those communities, the support for the great Start Childcare affordability bill has been tremendous. In fact, stakeholders across the spectrum for early education, for pre K advocates, childcare centers, family owned childcare, across the board, they've really all come together to support this childcare affordability opportunity. The other great thing is that I think we have bipartisan support. We just heard the bill in the education policy committee, which I'm a member of, and two republican senators gave what seemingly felt like support to the general idea. I think what you're going to see is once we start talking about the overall costs for the program, that's when you might get into some more nuance. But at the end of the day, the general idea that we need to do something about childcare affordability is on top of mind for many Minnesotans, regardless of party or background, the place where we would get the funding for the great Start childcare affordability bill is honestly from the great economy that we have in Minnesota.
Grant Hauschild [00:06:43]:
We just had a budget forecast that came out, and that forecast showed us that we have over $3 billion in surplus for the state of Minnesota. And that is, again, because I think of the investments that we've been making in Minnesota to help support families, to help make sure we're making the infrastructure investments we need to have a strong economy. And then Minnesota is one of the most diversified economies in the country. We have mining and timber and agriculture. We also have healthcare and medical device companies. We have some of the most Fortune 500 companies of any state in the country, headquartered right here in Minnesota that were founded here. And we have a strong higher education corridor. So overall, we have a really strong economy that's producing surpluses.
Grant Hauschild [00:07:30]:
Let's reinvest that money back into our families, back into our rural communities, and make sure that they're supported so they can continue to be vibrant.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:07:43]:
My guests today are the authors of a new book called the Rural Voter, the Politics of Place and Disuniting of America. Please welcome to the podcast professors Daniel Shea and Nicholas Jacobs from Colby College, which I know where that is because I had a young student who was an intern when I was in the attorney general's office who found her way to Colby College all the way to Maine. So I want to just start out by giving you guys a chance to say hello, Nick and Dan. And then we'll get into the questions, of which I have many.
Nicholas F. Jacobs [00:08:17]:
Well, thank you so much for the opportunity to share our work and contribute to the goals of one country, goals that we find ample evidence and support of throughout the book.
Daniel M. Shea [00:08:29]:
Yes. Thank you, senator. It's an honor to be with you. You're doing some important work, and we're looking forward to our conversation.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:08:35]:
Let's start off by talking about how you went about writing this book. I think you, as well as those of us at one country, see a lot of people who profess to be an expert on what rural Americans believe and who they are and kind of their cultural values. You two, instead of just simply opining and writing a book, you actually did some research. So let's actually talk about what your methodology was and what you discovered, what surprised you, what didn't surprise you, and what should folks who are listening to this podcast know about your research?
Daniel M. Shea [00:09:16]:
Well, thanks for that question. There are a lot of good books out there. There are a lot of memoirs, a lot of case studies that are important. They've added to our understanding. What Nick and I wanted to do was to narrow in on an empirical examination, a fact based, objective analysis of what's happening out there. So we put together two data sets I think are probably the largest data sets in the study of rural politics maybe ever created. The first is an election centered data set. We go to the county level all the way back to 1800, every county across the nation, all the way through.
Daniel M. Shea [00:09:58]:
And by doing that, we're able to see the points where rural voters acted a bit different. We can see this dramatic change beginning in the 1980s. Maybe we can talk about. And on top of that, to get attitudes and opinions of rural voters, we did massive surveys. We did three ways of surveys, adding up to 14,000 Americans, 10,000 of which are rural. We think it's the largest single study of rural voters ever conducted. We're pretty proud of that data set. Again, the idea was to roll up our sleeves and take an objective, data driven look at this really important change that I know you know about this change.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:10:41]:
Nick, do you have anything to add to that?
Nicholas F. Jacobs [00:10:43]:
The other thing Dan and I did was we asked, in total, almost 250 questions to rural Americans, questions that oftentimes many people, because of their own life experiences, because of their own research interests, just don't ask. But Dan and I do live this rural urban divide daily. Dan and I know that there are a lot of issues and answers that rural people want to give, and they are seldom given the opportunity to speak about things like community pride or the sense of long memories of how government has treated their particular community. And the rural voters survey gave them that space.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:11:27]:
Well, the voting patterns, as you said, beginning in the 1980s, began to see that divide and I just want to give you guys a data point. When I ran for the Senate in 2012, Barack Obama lost North Dakota by 22 points. But I was able to overcome because I convinced a fair number of Mitt Romney voters to vote for me. They voted for Mitt Romney, then they crossed over and they voted for me. That was about 22%. When I ran for reelection, it was only five. Only 5% of people who voted for President Trump would consider voting for a Democrat. And me, I think the d label.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:12:12]:
If you talk to a lot of us who lost in that cycle, we tell you that the single biggest obstacle to reelection was being labeled a Democrat. So, Dan, you alluded to this. You said in the 1980s you started seeing some change in trends. What do you think caused that, and what does your data say in terms of whether this is reversible or not?
Daniel M. Shea [00:12:34]:
Well, I'll start with the first piece. What happens in the. We see a dramatic cultural changes in the 70s that spilled over into the 1980s. The decline of family farms beginning in earnest in the 70s, picking up speed in the 1980s. Surely the decline of rural manufacturing is really important. It begins in earnest during this period. We see a sharpening of partisan divides based on the rise of the evangelical christian right is also part of it. So there are a number of bottom up pressures.
Daniel M. Shea [00:13:13]:
But, senator, the other piece that we talk about is the top down pressure, the idea that savvy republican operatives were able to convince a whole bunch of folks that only their party, republican party, cared about the well being of so called real America. So we see this with Ronald Reagan, we see it with Pat Buchanan, Shirley, Sarah Palin, and so forth. This top down idea that the Democrats don't care. Now, don't get us wrong. We talk a lot about where the Democrats probably turn their back on rural America, and I know you're concerned about that. But there was also a top down, concerted strategic move by savvy operatives. Now, with regard to turning it around, I want to pass that easy question to my colleague Nick Jacobs.
Nicholas F. Jacobs [00:14:05]:
Well, looking ahead to 2024 and looking at newest numbers that we've collected since the publication of the book, right. It's reasonable to wonder whether or not it could get worse for Democrats. Right. So one thing I'd just like to briefly elaborate before I try to attempt to answer that question is when viewed in that long historical pattern that Dan has, know what's interesting is that Donald Trump is the best performing candidate in rural America, hands down. But Donald Trump's performance in rural America actually fits a trendline of rural residents turning over to the Republican Party year after year after year. And so, although he does a little bit better than expected in rural America, any Republican running in 2016 was likely to do extraordinarily well in rural America. So this was a part of a broad turn away from the Democratic Party who did not muster a response to the real american narrative for a variety of reasons. And what this does suggest is two things.
Nicholas F. Jacobs [00:15:19]:
First, yeah, it can get worse. The numbers continue to go down. The other thing, though, and the reason why Dan and I do this long historical comparison to start with, is to show that there not only was a time when rural voters showed up en masse for the other side, that is to say, there's nothing about ruralness per se that leads them into the Republican Party. Right. This idea of a rural voter, a republican rural voter, had to be created, which means that it can be uncreated. If we can convince people to do.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:15:56]:
That when we look forward into kind of the what ifs, I think one of the things, Nick, that you said, if you told the average person out there that 2016, any Republican would probably have done as well as Donald Trump, people would like, no, this is all personality driven. He has basically driven them to a cultural place, that he speaks to their values. He gives them permission to kind of hold certain beliefs. And that is frequently the perspective or the perception that a lot of kind of not evidence based analysts kind of come up to. So my question is, if it's not being driven by the cult of personality, aka Donald Trump, why are, why the big change? Why are rural voters identifying more with the Republican Party?
Nicholas F. Jacobs [00:16:53]:
So I just want to confirm everything you've said so far about this not being a cult of personality and just sort of reflect for a minute that I think we're hung up so much on the cult of personality, because that makes it easier for a lot of, I think, well meaning individuals in elite institutions like media, journalism, academia and politics to sort of pass the blame. And I think part of the answer to your question has to do with the fact that rural residents increasingly blame Democrats for not caring about their communities, for openly, in some ways, wanting to sort of write them off as not a part of the future, that the rural lifestyle, rural economy, the way in which a lot of people find rural people find value and dignity in their lives is not modern enough. I think there's a lot of signals that are sent out throughout our political system that to be a Democrat in 2016 or 2020 is not to hold on to those country things, those rural things. And I think in 2016, you had the Persona of Trump. I mean, I will say this, Dan, and I write throughout the book, so I don't know why I'm being sheepish. You also had a candidate that seemed to be to personify a lot of that urban disdain that rural people feel in the form of Hillary Clinton. Now, I don't know her personal beliefs about rural America or personal feelings about it, but certainly the way in which she engaged with coal miners in West Virginia, the ways in which she, after the election, seemed to openly celebrate the fact that she lost in these backwards moving, that that builds distrust in the Democratic Party, and that builds on top of a distrust that was there in a lot of parts that some candidates had historically been able to overcome because of their deep roots, because of their authenticity, because of their connection to community. But again, as we nationalize, as we become more focused on presidential politics at the expense of local down ballot politics, it's becoming harder and harder for the few Democrats in rural areas to do even that.
Daniel M. Shea [00:19:24]:
I would add to that we spend a good bit of time looking at state legislatures as well. And holy cow, the transformation we've seen in the last few decades in state legislatures. I mean, you look at the control of Republicans in North and South Dakota and elsewhere, it is amazing. The little data point that I often mention, senator, to my students, was I got to shake hands with arguably one of the most liberal senators running for the presidency in his hometown in 1972. And of course, that was George McGovern and Mitchell, South Dakota. And they're like, you're telling me one of the most liberal politicians to run for the presidency was from South Dakota? I said, yeah, you got that right. You got that right. So I think Nick's point is really well taken.
Daniel M. Shea [00:20:14]:
I won't rehash that. But just this sense that there's this belief that the Democrats don't appreciate the value of being rural. Rural Americans are very pleased where they live. They love their community. They want to stay there, and they want their kids to stay there. And somehow they've been convinced that Democrats don't care about them.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:20:35]:
I probably put too much emphasis on this, but one of the reasons why, I think during the 80s, Democrats still were able to produce Tom Dashold, Byron and Kent, and it was because Republicans had decided that they were against the farm bill. Right? So George Bush vetoed the farm bill twice, and eventually it took a discharge. And I think the Republican Party made a very knowledgeable and strategically smart shift and said, look, we've been fighting the farm bill for a lot of years we're going to quit fighting the farm bill. And so that point of differentiation that Kent Conrad could argue, look, I'm a champion of the farm bill. My opponent is a member of a party that doesn't like the farm bill. And that policy issue got lost because it became nonpartisan or bipartisan, if you want to say. And so if you look at policies, right, affordable housing, getting money into rural communities for daycare, broadband investments, and now the infrastructure bill, sending billions of dollars of investment to rural America and tribal America, the Democrats raise their voice and say, but look at everything that we've done. Look at our great policies.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:21:56]:
Why would those political activities or policy activities not translate into votes for Democrats, you guys?
Daniel M. Shea [00:22:05]:
Well, I'll give you just two quick thoughts, and I'll pass to Nick. One of the things that we argue is that the Democrats should be more inclined to provide assistance that's very particularized to rural communities, rural states, rural communities, rural occupations. Right. You can't think of rural as just a monolith. Right. Each state has a different focus, a different interest. And on top of that, we think that the Democrats should be more prone to give rural communities license. They should give them, agency should give them discretion on how they might use some of these monies.
Daniel M. Shea [00:22:43]:
What we find throughout the book is this sense in rural communities that Washington is coming to help. Washington is here to help you. And that has not worked in a number of places. Most prominently, of course, would be Nafta. Right. All boats will be lifted up with NAfta. We spent page after page talking about the NAFTA Ghost towns, which is really important in rural America. So those two things right off the top of particularizing assistance to these communities, different industries, different occupations, and also the dignity of a failure of risk letting rural communities spend this money as they think it would be.
Daniel M. Shea [00:23:25]:
Right. Because, hey, they might know what's best. Right?
Joshua Boschee [00:23:28]:
Yeah.
Nicholas F. Jacobs [00:23:28]:
Just thinking about the question first. I love when I come on a program and I actually learn something, and I'm really intrigued by this policy divergence and convergence. And it has me thinking that on so many issues that are important to rural Americans, actually some of the policies have converged. And I think that's made it easier to think less about policies in some sense, which has driven the. So, you know, on the farm bill, as you mentioned, but as Dan mentioned, NAFTA is not really contested at an elite level. Once the ink is signed. Right. We go full on trade deal as factory after factory closes, which is just building resentment.
Nicholas F. Jacobs [00:24:07]:
And I think this question of but the Democrats do so much, they pour so much money into rural areas can be confusing. But I would emphasize two things in addition to what Dan said. One, as you're seeing play out right now in the announcement of different project grants for clean energy plants or renewable energy factories, you see some rural communities clamoring for that money, and then you see some sort of waiting on the sidelines seeing how this is going to play out. Because it is true that when federal investments, especially of this magnitude, I mean, we are talking billions of dollars in subsidies to enlarge our domestic manufacturing capacities, that sometimes when those monies pour into communities, local leaders know that the community cannot keep up. The community is irreparably changed. Decisions are made against what the community might want. Right. And I think we can all agree regardless of where we live, we want investment, we want good jobs, but we also want to maintain a sense of place.
Nicholas F. Jacobs [00:25:22]:
We don't want to just redevelop and throw out everything that's good about a place so that we can get all these federal monies. So even this investment question is more complicated. That said, right, I think there are policies that the Democrats have pursued that are clearly, I mean, to the benefit of people living in rural America, such as the Affordable Care act. And it's totally reasonable to say, like, hey, why are you voting for the person that wants to get rid of something like the Affordable Care act, which has boosted insurability in your area? I would emphasize, and I would just sort of gently remind people that regardless of whether you're living in a rural community or an urban community, not everybody that's voting has the luxury of thinking about policy, policies and complex. Not every voter is sitting here listening to political podcasts trying to make sense of the world. And actually even the most informed are more or less relying on cognitive shortcuts to make sense of complicated matters. Who I'm with, who I'm against, who do I trust? Who do I not trust? And so even on those policy questions, you can't overcome the fact that the trust is not there.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:26:41]:
I want to emphasize a couple of the points that you guys made which I think are absolutely critical. Number one, are you doing it with them? Are you doing it to them? Are you saying here, I'm going to help you lift you up? And people go, well, who the hell are you to tell me how I should live my life? Now, if you go back and take a look at something that I think doesn't get talked about enough, because the Democrats will focus on broadband, they'll focus on the money. To your point, Nick, people say, we don't want that. I have a friend who just wrote a book, Ernie Schneider. He wrote a book about critical minerals, many of these being mined and processed in rural communities, where rural communities are saying, hell no, this is going to bring 20 jobs and a lot of mess. And that's not who we are. And so it's not just any job, right? It's not just any economic opportunity. And when you don't let people have indian communities have self determination, and then you act like you're the savior, that's just going to build even more resentment, right.
Nicholas F. Jacobs [00:27:49]:
Rather than writing them off as rubes that don't know a good thing when they got it, actually listen to the stories that people know good and well in these communities about how past interventions have ironically made things worse. Like, can't we acknowledge that that sometimes happens? It seems like Democrats are particularly nervous in doing that.
Daniel M. Shea [00:28:13]:
Two quick points about why Democrats often don't get credit for some of these policies, like the Affordable Care act. The first is we've got, as you know, news deserts, right? We've got the evaporation of local news. So the only option, the only game in town, is the nationalization of news. You turn to the national news, which is often just a screaming match about partisan issues, larger partisan issues, not about what's happening on the ground in your communities. And secondly, there's this self fulfilled prophecy where there are no Democrats around to talk about the success of these policies. So nobody's saying, hey, by the way, you're getting this because of the work of the Biden administration or the Obama administration. So those two issues are really important when we think about why Democrats can't seem to capitalize on some of these investments in rural areas.
Nicholas F. Jacobs [00:29:12]:
It's one of the biggest gaps between rural and urban political participation is just how frequently rural people just say, I don't follow national news. I stopped following it.
Daniel M. Shea [00:29:26]:
Well, this idea that because the local television and local newspaper are gone, that rural Americans are huddled in their basement, glued to the latest ins and outs on it, we didn't find that. Nick's right. We're finding they're more likely to simply drop out.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:29:42]:
So here it's time for a shameless plug on where they can get your book and where you guys are going to be kind of going forward and how people can connect with you if they're curious.
Nicholas F. Jacobs [00:29:55]:
So the rural voter is available on Amazon. You can also order it directly from our publisher and support rigorous, peer reviewed academic scholarship from Columbia University Press. I assure you that although it's a thick book with something like 72 figures, Dan and I do try to write it breezy and keep it fun and playful.
Daniel M. Shea [00:30:19]:
Thank you for having us today. We've been doing a lot of podcasts, a lot of interviews. It's a really important question. It's an important issue. This 20%. This is our friends, our neighbors. We need to understand what's happening in rural America. There's been a lot of interest, but we've really enjoyed our chat with you today.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:30:36]:
I look forward to getting to know you guys better, and I'm so grateful that you spent this time with us here on one country hot dish podcast. I want to talk a little bit about an issue that I think is really critical to rural America, and that is where the population is headed. More majority minority. And, you know, the sense that many people have who grow up in this state that they really don't have a place here anymore in North Dakota and other rural states. And I just ran into a woman, very prominent. Her husband was a republican elected official. She comes from a very republican family. She has three children.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:31:27]:
And I was asking her about her kids and what they were doing, a lawyer, a doctor, an artist, talking about, well, what's their plan? And she said, they will never move back to North Dakota. They will never come home. And she said, they just don't think there's a place for them here and for people who think differently. I mean, what do you say when people say that to you, Josh?
Joshua Boschee [00:31:51]:
Well, Heidi, unfortunately, it's all too common, what we continue to hear in states like North Dakota. I've worked since 2009 with legislators and policymakers across the state to try to get a fully inclusive nondiscrimination legislation passed in North Dakota. And while we certainly had traction in 2009 and made some progress into 2011 and 13, ever since then, the rhetoric has shifted, and it's become more harmful conversations around not just LGBT inclusivity, but when we talk about immigrants, when we talk about people of color, people from tribal communities within our state. And it's hard because, like you said, that prominent republican family is learning firsthand that when they let some of these people speak unchecked, their kids and grandkids don't want to call North Dakota home. And I'd be willing to bet those three kids that were referenced, they themselves might not be LGBT themselves or from biracial family or anything like that. It's just they value a community where everyone can be successful. And I think there's still opportunities in places like North Dakota and rural America, but it requires a commitment from our communities to stand up against this negative rhetoric and say, you know what? We have a need for nurses. We need childcare workers.
Joshua Boschee [00:33:07]:
We need teachers. We need someone to run this store so we can keep the grocery store open. And sometimes that might be someone who doesn't look like me or lives a different lifestyle than me, but as long as they're hardworking and willing to commit to our community, we want them here. And so it's tough. And we hear that often. I think the hardest letters I receive as one of the openly gay legislators in North Dakota is the letters from moms who talk about their sons or daughters not coming home for Christmas anymore because they don't feel safe in the state.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:33:38]:
Josh I was just in Chicago doing an event, and someone who was there had spent some time in, you know, was a gay man. And he know, his experience has been, people are fearful. Not just, I can't find community here, I can't find a comfort level here, but that people are scared. Is that what you're seeing as you see more and more of this legislation, demonizing people based on who they love and how they live their know?
Joshua Boschee [00:34:13]:
Heidi, I think that fear is know. You know North Dakota as well as anyone. We are a state of people who take care of our neighbors. That value of if you're hardworking and you're willing to commit to helping improve the quality of our communities, we want you to be here. And that has shifted because the rhetoric isn't so much about belonging and it's more about who should belong and who shouldn't and sometimes in really harmful ways. And that's concerning because like the individual you've spoken about, I'm hearing more stories of people who won't even travel through North Dakota. They won't even get to experience the beauty of our state or have a great slice of pie at the Tower city cafe as they're driving across I 94 because they're afraid of what they're going to experience, founded or unfounded. And again, you and I know we've got a long history of people who, regardless of their sexual orientation, their gender identity, their race, their religion, know North Dakota has been a quiet place with some conservative values, but it's never been harmful.
Joshua Boschee [00:35:15]:
In that last decade, it's become harmful.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:35:17]:
For know, people by their nature in North Dakota are conflict adverse. They don't want to go to the cafe and have a big argument. They don't want to go, know, play bingo and get in a fight about some political thing. They just want to live their lives. But they also are living in a state where when good people don't speak up, a lot of these voices are outsized. And this is not just a North Dakota problem. This is a problem across the country. More and more good people being afraid to run for office, more and more good people leaving office because they just don't want the conflict.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:35:53]:
And that means that the radical minority wins. And so we've got to do everything we can, I think, in rural places to support people who want to run. I don't care if they're Democrats or Republicans, if they want to govern and they don't want to judge other people and they don't want to create hostile environments for North Dakota citizens, then that's pretty low bar. But apparently it's kind of hard to reach in North Dakota. Right?
Joshua Boschee [00:36:23]:
I mean, I can't think of a North Dakota outside of those that are vocal about it, that wakes up every morning and says, I need to worry about who's using which bathroom or whether someone should be able to walk down the street holding hands with someone of the same sex. What they wake up thinking about is how am I going to make sure that childcare is open today? How do I make sure that my neighbor's kids have a good meal at school? And a lot of times that means people are writing checks for other kids school meals because we don't fully fund school meals in the state. And that's what I think we need our citizens, and again, our neighbors and good folks, regardless of political party, is to hold elected officials accountable and say things like, I don't care who you love or the color of your skin or the religion that you practice, because we know that's a North Dakota value. We really don't care. But when we let that rhetoric go unchecked, it creates this vacuum that allows it to be the lived truth. When you and I know that that's not the truth of the majority of North Dakotans. And again, let's get back to focusing on the issues at hand.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:37:20]:
So, Josh, we've been doing a lot of admiring the problem and not really proposing any, you know, I always call it we're the hand wringers. Oh, look what's happening. What are we going to do? So what are we going to do about it? What are we going to do to make North Dakota a more inclusive, accepting state for everyone who wants to work hard and live by good community values?
Joshua Boschee [00:37:45]:
I think first and foremost I had a great conversation last night with the North Dakota Human Rights Coalition. They have a working group working on some issues, and part of it, as I told them, is we have to be louder. We have to organize and engage folks and get them involved in the political process. States like North Dakota, where we've seen lower voting propensity, a lot of times it's people who think that their vote doesn't matter because they're only thinking of the top of the ticket. And so if you're a Democrat or someone who values the LGBT community and you think, well, my vote for president is not going to matter, so I'm not going to vote. But your vote does matter for the city council. It does matter for the school board or the state legislature or even the treasurer of our state. And so you have that ability to have an outweighed impact with your vote.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:38:31]:
I want to make this point. We saw, like most states, this run on school boards. By that, I mean people who wanted to come and basically turn the agenda in schools upside down, do a witch hunt into the school libraries, demonize school librarians. And we had two very prominent kind of challenges, both in Fargo and grand forks. And when good people stepped up and, you know, this is my kids'school, I'm going to challenge you, guess what? It's not the radicals who won. It's not the people who, I mean, the people who don't believe in public education just want a power base to spout their hardcore anti human rights agendas. But it takes a lot of guts and it takes a lot of help. My solution is all of you out there who want to see change, these changes don't happen when you elect a president.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:39:25]:
These changes happen when you elect a school board, when you elect a city council, when you elect your state legislatures, when you elect the governor. So, Josh, really appreciate you coming on. Thanks so much.
Joshua Boschee [00:39:37]:
Thanks, Heidi. It's been a pleasure and look forward to continuing to hear the podcast.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:39:42]:
Well, we've made it to the end of another episode of the Hot Dish. Thanks, Joss, for joining me today. Let us know what you think, listeners, and we want your suggestions, too. You can email us at podcast@onecountryproject.org that's podcast@onecountryproject.org and tell us what you think.
Joshua Boschee [00:40:04]:
Thank you for joining us today on the hot dish. We're so glad you listened. The hot dish is brought to you by one country project elevating the needs of rural America. Learn more@onecountryproject.com we'll be back in two.
Heidi Heitkamp [00:40:16]:
Weeks with more hot dish comfort food for middle America oxopica.