David Newquist is provoking all sorts of good discussion with his diagnosis of South Dakota as hopeless for young progressives. Heidi Marttila-Losure of Dakota Fire has weighed in with her optimism. Now Zach Crago, deputy exec of the South Dakota Democratic Party, offers his hope and encouragement to young South Dakotans of all parties.
- Crago sees hope in Chamberlain students working to get a Lakota honor song included in their high school graduation ceremony and not giving up, even though they face a recalcitrant school board that exemplifies the attitudes that cause Dr. Newquist's pessimism.
- Crago sees hope in Dannika Nash's popular and thought-provoking call for marriage equality and civil dialogue.
- Crago sees the SDDP's new Young Elected Legislative Leaders program inspiring South Dakota kids think about good policy solutions for South Dakota's problems.
Notably, Crago does not feel the need to rip Newquist a new one. He calls Newquist's essay "thought-provoking and intimate." He says South Dakota is fortunate to have critical thinkers like Newquist. And he offers a civil, thought-provoking, and passionate response to say that yes, we've got problems, but South Dakota's young people also have the ganas to solve them.
Believe in your capacity to make South Dakota a better place right now. Because I see people like you doing it everyday [Zach Crago, "The Kids Are All Right," SDDP blog, 2013.05.23].
I learned from Linda Sandness in my SDSU P.E. camping class that the first thing you need in a survival situation is a positive mental attitude. Crago's got that. Fellow Dems, with attitudes like that, we can survive and thrive.
Hopefully Crago is right. SD definitely needs to improve.
Crago's signs are like a spring blossom that lasts for a day.
Zach's message of hope is that he recognizes that there are problems to be confronted. The other party denies that there are problems, largely because it is the main problem. Zach's specific points identify the essential problems, which deal with race, equality and justice, and utilizing the human resources and talent within the state rather than forcing them to leave.
As a professor at a university which had a student body of students predominantly from the region, I have appreciated the young people and increasingly the older students who matriculated through it. What has been dismaying is seeing them move on to other places to utilize the talents they worked hard to develop. The "brain drain" has been a persistent issue in the state as long as I have been here, but the suggestions for alleviating it have been disheartening to those who are anxious to find fulfilling uses for what they have developed.
Young people are met with bromides about creating their own opportunities, but find that the knowledge and skills they have worked to attain are regarded as superfluous, elitist, and dismissed as impractical and irrelevant. This has been compounded by education systems that reward teachers in some disciplines while, in effect, punishing others. Students and graduates get the harsh message about acquiring commodities for which there is no market. This is a cultural issue more than an economic one.
Clearly, the key to changing the political and cultural climate in the state is in retaining and utilizing the resources of talent it has produced and to resist the curtailment of creating more of such talent, as the measures being proposed for the education system are designed to do.
Another point is the negative and discouraging attitudes against progress in equality, justice, and opportunity. There will always be those who can only denigrate, deny, and disrespect. But when their attitudes become the defining ones within a culture, the solution is to escape them. As Pres. Obama said this morning about the matter of sexual assaults in the military: it takes only a few to tarnish and undercut the honorable efforts of the many.
We like to say that our political opponents are not enemies; they are good people who simply believe differently than we. An educated, discerning people recognizes the distinction between malice and differing viewpoints. Malice needs to be confronted for what it is. And its perpetrators need to be clearly identified. It doesn't take many parts per million of ill will to make a culture unlivable. Our people, young and old, need to develop the knowledge and skills for dealing with hazardous intellectual materials in constructive ways.
Zach Crago's words show a resource that we can build upon. And he is too intelligent to think you can rip a new one in a very, very old one.
Life is not fair and the only thing we can do is to change our attitude. That attitude is tough to keep positive if the lack of opportunity creates hardship due to never-ending financial stress. I can't support my family on a $8.00 an hour job.
Mr. Crago is very bright young man. The Democratic Party would be wise to cast aside their current leadership (or lack thereof / dictatorship) and raise up Crago and his generation.
Bromide: a commonplace or hackneyed statement or notion; see also "Life is not fair" and "the only thing we can do is to change our attitude"
Or change our address to another state...
Actually "change our address to another state" is a fulmination often used against those who refuse to accept the idea that clichés are profound wisdom.
Agree with him or not this Crago is the kind of leader both parties need. Optimism is the key to all success. The GOP may finally have someone optimistic as well with Craig Lawrence.
I agree with mike, all parties in SD need optimistic leaders. All parties also need the types of dialogue displayed by both Newquist and Crago. With dialogue like that I can see the Dem's getting more support from independent voters.
Democratic politicians and the party must make a case for sensible liberal positions rather than playing Republican light which only adds credibility to GOP mythology and makes it hard for Democrats with real core values to influence anything. The Republican Light playbook is guaranteed downward spiral for the Democratic Party.
Zach is a great guy and a leader, and I do agree with much of the sentiment in his response, though there are plenty of days when optimism is difficult. Everyone that works for change has to believe that some change is eventually possible.
Still, I do wonder about the examples he chooses. In Chamberlain, even after years of agitation, we still see a 6-1 defeat for those that want to be inclusive. Dannika Nash wrote a beautiful piece about equality, and was subsequently fired from her church camp job. And young Democrats passed a Democratic bill through a mock legislature composed entirely of Democrats. YELL seems like a good program for the party to start, but this particular accomplishment doesn't seem like too much to write home about.
If these are the best signs of hope we can point to, I'm starting to get a bit of a sinking feeling.
"The future is painted with the brush we use today"CJJ
"defeat for those that want to be inclusive." On the contrary, they want special privileges.
"Sensible Liberal Policies" are the key. "Extreme Liberalism" is not. Becareful that your party does not go too far to the left. You can't win on radicalism. Stay just slightly left of center (or right in the center) would be my advice in future campaigns. Stephanie Herseth's record of centrism shows how your party was able to win in the past. If you deviated too far to the left you will lose everytime ;)
Keep in mind that SHS has lost two statewide general elections.
G-Man, we can thread that needle. But as Douglas says, to be truly competitive, we must offer a distinctive ideology and platform. The smartest thing Douglas says is that playing Republican Lite affirms the Republican narrative. We must offer a different narrative.
As for Stephanie's viability, note that her two defeats came at the hands of candidates with more charisma. Bill Janklow was low on ideology, but he was Bill Flippin' Janklow! Kristi Noem was a beauty queen. I don't want the Dems to run just pretty faces, but we need to back our distinct ideology/platform with good pitchers.
Republicans tend to frame every issue in fear of big government even if they themselves milk the system as if it is a big tame fat old cow. Fear fogs logic and rational politics. It plays well with slash and burn. The GOP does it only because they pretend fearful issues are so critical that they justify any means.
"Liberal" or rational political positions framed in terms of the constitution and optimism might be a counter force.
Cory, what is Rick's view on Monsanto, Syngenta, and GMO's? This is a huge area I have to admit that I am just becomming awakened and alarmed to. My "great awakening" has come about from living in the Beaver State for almost a year now. Yesterday there were huge Marchs Against Monsanto in both Eugene and Portland yesterday. This is an issue, I STAND UNITED with Progressives and Liberals on. Locally and Organically grown food is a huge and SUCCESSFUL business in Oregon. Monsanto is trying to ram a bill through the Oregon Legislature to stop local governments from controlling where GMO crops can be grown, out of concern that their pollination will contimate organic crops in nearby farms. I'm very late to this issue, but, after months of listening to the countless voices on Coast To Coast AM with George Noory over GMOs and doing other research, I'm much awakened and aware now. Hopefully, I'm not too late. I wonder what Weiland's take is on what should be the most important political issue: the control over our food production. I don't know if you heard Cory, but, Senator Jeff Merkley (D) is fighting hard against Monsanto in Congress. Monsanto is trying to get a bill through Congress granting them immunity from prosecution in the Courts...STAY TUNED...
"But as Douglas says, to be truly competitive, we must offer a distinctive ideology and platform. The smartest thing Douglas says is that playing Republican Lite affirms the Republican narrative. We must offer a different narrative." Cory: AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURE is where your party makes it's mark as it did with McGovern (Food Program) and Tom Daschle. Your "different narrative" can be made on that issue and how it affects the LOCAL farmer and the LOCAL rancher versus the CORPORATE run farms and the CORPORATE GMO seed companies that sell to many of your farmers out in East River. Monsanto is one of them...but...take a look into: SYNGENTA. Syngenta is a foreign owned seed corporation. Anyway, South Dakota is still agriculutral based and our politics (nationwide) is swinging that route, even in the Beaver State. Locally grown and organic food is becomming a big buisness across the nation and one hope to combat corporate control over our food production.
G, you make a good point that Dems need to keep in mind. We can sell ourselves as the party of agriculture. Even though ag is not as big a part of our economy as it was in McGovern's day (health and banking have surged), it's still essential to the economy and to winning elections.
Weiland has yet to issue his issue statements (get on it, Rick!). The fluff piece by his paid consultant Mike Lux suggests that Weiland will take a pro-individual, anti-corporate/anti-special-interests stance, which would seem to suggest we could get him to take the side you want on Monsanto and corporate food. But we need to hear specifics. Anyone have copies of Weilands old campaign materials?
Talking to farmers about farm policy is a good idea. Talking to SD city residents, many of whom were rescued from poverty by leaving farms, is not a good idea. Most South Dakotans think only of one subsidy..that to agriculture. City residents are or pretend to be ignorant of all the federal subsidies that go to cities. They are like Arizonians who believe their water gets their by magic despite the evil federal government.
There is much nonsense in the minds of too many. And most won't lose that nonsense because they view those who disagree with their mythology and factoids are obviously evil and untrustworthy.
Douglas has a point.