(upbeat music)
- 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 Boschee.
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 wanna spend some time today
talking about the challenges that folks like you face
representing your district
in a very, very conservative legislature.
So, welcome.
- Thanks Heidi, it's great to be here.
You know, longtime listener,
first time co-host with you
for "Hot Dish" here.
So, you know those miles between Bismarck and Fargo,
there's a lot of time to catch up on podcasts,
and this is one of 'em that I always tune into.
- 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
rural voters care the most about.
One of those issues is childcare,
and we're gonna start this episode
by listening to Minnesota State Senator
and former member of my staff when I served in the Senate
and former North Dakotan, Grant Hauschild.
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.
(lively music)
- 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 gonna 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.
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.
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 is 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 gonna 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 cost 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.
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 high,
a strong higher education corridor.
So overall, we have a really strong economy
that's producing surpluses.
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.
(lively music)
- 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 phoned her way to Colby College all the way to Maine.
So I wanna 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 you know, kind of, you know,
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?
- 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 a, 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.
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 waves 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 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.
- Nick, you have anything to add to that?
- The other thing Dan and I did was, you know,
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.
You know, 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, you know,
long memories of how government has treated
their particular community.
And the rural voter survey gave them that space.
- Well, the voting patterns, as you said,
beginning in the 1980s,
began to see that divide.
And I just wanna 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
you know, 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 that the D label,
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?
- Well, I'll start with the first piece,
what happens in the '70s and '80s.
We see a dramatic cultural changes in the '70s
that spill 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.
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 they, their party, Republican Party,
cared about the wellbeing of so-called real America.
So, you know, we see this with Ronald Reagan,
we see it with Pat Buchanan,
surely 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 turned 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 wanna pass that easy question to my colleague,
Nick Jacobs.
(Daniel Shea laughs)
- 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
right when viewed in that long historical pattern
that Dan has outlined,
you 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 trend line
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 the, this was a part of a broad turn
away from the Democratic Party
who did not muster a response
to the real America narrative for a variety of reasons.
And what this does suggest is two things.
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 mass for the other side,
you know, that is to say
there's nothing about ruralness per se
that leads 'em into the Republican Party, right?
That, 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 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, no, no,
this is all personality driven.
He has basically driven them to a cultural place
that, you know, he speaks to their values,
he gives them permission to, you know,
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,
a.k.a. Donald Trump, why are,
what, why the big change?
Why are rural voters identifying more
with the Republican Party?
- So I just wanna 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, your,
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 know, 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 know, 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 places,
you know, 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.
- I would add to that we spent
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.
You know, 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
in Mitchell, South Dakota.
And they're like, "You're telling me the most,
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's really well taken.
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 wanna stay there
and they want their kids to stay there.
And somehow they've been convinced
that Democrats don't care about that.
- 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 Daschle, Byron and Kent, and, you know,
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 petition.
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 gonna quit fighting the Farm Bill.
And so that point of differentiation that
you know, Kent Conrad could argue,
look, I'm a champion of the Farm Bill, you know?
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 wanna say.
And so if you look at policies, right,
you know, affordable housing,
getting money into rural communities for daycare,
broadband investments,
and now the Infrastructure Bill is
sending billions of dollars of investment
to rural America and tribal America,
you know, the Democrats
like raise their voice and say,
"But look at everything that we've done.
Look at our great policies."
Why would those political activities
or policy activities not translate
into, you know, votes for Democrats, you guys?
- 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, right?
Should give them discretion
on how they might use some of these monies.
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 right.
'Cause they, hey,
they might know what's best, right?
- Yeah, 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, you know,
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 turn, right?
So, you know, on the Farm Bill, as you mentioned,
but as Dan mentioned, right,
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.
And I think, you know, 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 gonna 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
and larger 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,
like we would, we want investment, we want good jobs,
but we also wanna maintain a sense of place.
Like, 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 are complex.
Not every voter's sitting here,
listening to political podcasts,
trying to make sense of the world, you know?
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's 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.
- I wanna emphasize a couple of the points
that you guys made,
which I think are absolutely critical.
Number one, are you doing it with them
or are you doing it to 'em?
Are you saying, "Here, I'm gonna help you,
you know, 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 Scheyder,
he wrote a book about critical minerals,
many of these being mined and processed in rural communities
where rural communities are saying,
"Hell, no.
Hey, you know, this gonna be,
bring 20 jobs and a lot of mess
and that's not who we are."
And so, you know, it's like,
it's not just any job, right?
It's not just any economic opportunity.
And when you don't let people have,
and again, communities, have self-determination,
and then you act like you're the savior,
that's just gonna build even more resentment, right?
- Rather than writing them off as rubes
that don't know a good thing when they got it,
you know, 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.
- 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 it,
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 don't,
can't seem to capitalize
on some of these investments in rural areas.
- It's one of the biggest gaps
between rural and urban,
like political participation,
is just how frequently rural people just say,
"I don't follow national news.
I stopped following it."
- 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 the,
we didn't find, that Nick's right.
We're finding they're more likely to simply drop out.
- So here it's time for a shameless plug
on where they can get your book
and where you guys are gonna be
kind of going forward
and how people can connect with you if they're curious.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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".
(lively music plays)
You know, I wanna 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.
And I was asking her about her kids
and what they were doing,
a lawyer, a doctor, an artist, you know,
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?
- Well, Heidi, unfortunately it's all too common.
What we continue to hear in states like North Dakota,
you know, I've worked since 2009 with legislators
and policy makers across the state to try to get
a fully inclusive, non-discrimination 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,
those, 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,
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 'em 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
'cause they don't feel safe in the state.
- Josh, I was just in Chicago
doing an event and someone who was there had spent
some time in North Dakota, you know,
was a gay man.
And he said, you know,
his experience has been people are fearful,
not just, you know, I don't, 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 life?
- You know, Heidi, I think that fear is growing.
You 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, you know,
what they're going to experience,
founded or unfounded.
And again, you and I know, you know,
we've got a long history of of people who
regardless of their sexual orientation,
their gender identity,
their race, their religion, who, you know,
North Dakota has been a quiet place
with some conservative values,
but it's never been harmful.
In that last decade, it's become harmful for folks.
- You know, people by their nature in North Dakota are
conflict adverse.
They don't wanna go to the cafe and have a big argument.
They don't wanna go to, you know, play bingo
and get in a fight about some political thing.
They just wanna 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.
And that means that the radical minority wins.
And so we've gotta do everything we can, I think,
in rural places to support people who wanna run.
I don't care if they're Democrats or Republicans.
If they wanna govern and they don't wanna judge other people
and they don't wanna create
hostile environments for North Dakota citizens,
then, you know, that's pretty low bar,
but apparently it's kind of hard to reach
in North Dakota right now.
- Yeah, exactly.
I mean, I don't, I can't think of a North Dakotan
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 gonna 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 parties
to hold elected officials accountable
and say things like,
"I don't care who you love
or the color of your skin
or the, you know, the religion that you practice,"
'cause we know that's a North Dakota value.
We don't, 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.
- So Josh, we've been doing a lot of admiring the problem
and not really proposing any solutions, right?
You know, I always call it we're the hand wringers.
Oh look what's happening, what are we gonna do?
So what are we gonna do about it?
What are we gonna do to make North Dakota more inclusive,
accepting state for everyone
who wants to work hard
and live by good community values?
- I think first and foremost, you know,
I had a great conversation last night
with the North Dakota Human Rights Coalition.
They have a working group working on some issues
and you know 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's not gonna matter
so I'm not gonna 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.
- You know, and I wanna 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,
you know, 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 said, "Nah, you know, this is my kid's school,
I'm gonna challenge you,"
you know, 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.
And so my solution is
all of you out there who wanna see change,
you know, these changes don't happen
when you elect a president.
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.
- Thanks, Heidi, it's been a pleasure
and look forward to continuing to hear the podcast.
(upbeat music)
- Well, we've made it to the end
of another episode of "The Hot Dish".
Thanks, Josh, for joining me today.
Let us know what you think, listeners,
and we want your suggestions too.
You could email us at
podcast@onecountryproject.org,
that's podcast@onecountryproject.org,
and tell us what you think.
- 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 at onecountryproject.com.
- We'll be back in two weeks with more hot dish comfort food
for middle America.
(upbeat music continues)
(energetic music)
- Hot topic.