District 15 in northern Sioux Falls has three candidates for its two House seats. Two of the candidates are the incumbent Democrats, Patrick Kirschman and Pastor Karen Soli.
So naturally, I go talk to the third, Eric Leggett. The 23-year-old evangelical Christian and University of Sioux Falls history/political science major is running for his first political office on an interesting mix of conservative, Libertarian, and (dare I say?) liberal policies.
Leggett takes the standard conservative stance on health insurance. He opposes expanding Medicaid because he opposes the Affordable Care Act, saying the ACA causes "less competition, higher costs, less choices, and an even poorer quality of care for our poorest citizens." Leggett shares Governor Dennis Daugaard's concern that we might expand Medicaid, then find the federal government bailing on its financial commitment and leaving us holding the bag.
Translating that concern to the 39.6% of our state budget that comes from federal funds, Leggett sounds downright Daugaardian, advocating self-reliance in all state budget areas before the "inevitable" budget reductions from Washington:
...we should be fairly aggressive in gaining independence from federal funds. It's going to hurt, but if we can get away from federal dependence and find solutions for funding ourselves, it will protect us from a much worse budget shock in the future. I don't think we have a choice. Either we reduce the dependence on Washington ourselves, or they do it to us when the inevitable slashes to spending occur. I think we're in line for another economic winter [Eric Leggett, interview, Madville Times, 2014.07.19].
Leggett diverges from Daugaard on the gasoline tax, saying he does not support an increase. Holding a more conservative line, Leggett doesn't advocate alternative funding mechanisms for fixing our roads and bridges; he says "we're just going to have to make do."
Leggett gives off Libertarian vapors when he says the real problem for wage-earners is not raising the minimum wage (see below!) but reining in the Federal Reserve Bank and its inflationary policy of "using fuzzy math to excuse the continuance of quantitative easing." Griping about the Fed is a favorite Libertarian pastime. Leggett at least has the sense to acknowledge that legislators "have little impact on our monetary policy" and brings up the Fed simply "because it's something to [be] aware of."
Leggett also shares the Libertarian desire to decriminalize marijuana. Leggett says we waste resources incarcerating weed smokers. Throw drug users in jail of they are driving and putting people at risk; otherwise, if we can't wholly legalize, just ticket drug users. Leggett also wants to change South Dakota's policy approach to addiction:
We have a big problem with drug addiction, especially meth. Governor Janklow clamped down hard on drug use. Yet, the problem didn't get better. It got worse. Other states and countries have started treating addiction as a health issue. I think we should follow suit [Leggett, 2014.07.19].
Leggett advocates the veterans court model, a topic which was his first research assignment as an intern for the Legislature during the 2014 session, to deal with addiction issues.
But when Leggett realizes those Libertarian savings in corrections, he wants to go what we might call liberal and use those savings to raise teacher pay. Leggett did home school until high school, but, unlike the Reps. Haggar down the street, home school didn't turn him against the K-12 system:
I look forward to working with our schools and finding a way to raise our teacher's salaries. Education is an investment, and should be viewed that way. While there is truth to the arguments about our cost of living, dead last is not a place we want to be when we are talking about compensating some of the most important people in our society [Leggett, 2014.07.18].
Yet on the liberal side, Leggett supports Initiated Measure 18, the proposed increase and inflation-indexing of South Dakota's minimum wage. Leggett pulls out his USF economics minor and says the impact of higher pay at the low end will have "negligible" effect on unemployment in South Dakota.
Perhaps even more liberally, Leggett wants to abolish the sales tax on food. Reps. Kirschman and Soli have supported the reduction or repeal of the food sales tax in a variety of bills (2014 HB 1149; 2013 HB 1154; 2012 HB 1214). Leggett takes the liberal moral position that we shouldn't fund government on the backs of poor folks buying groceries. But Leggett also takes a the practical economic position that repealing the food tax would boost the economy by drawing shoppers from Minnesota and Iowa.
Ideological labels get messier when Leggett turns to the hot-button issues like the death penalty. Legislative intern Leggett was in the committee room when Rep. Rev. Steve Hickey presented his bill to repeal the death penalty last winter. Leggett says it was a very intense and emotional hearing. Leggett sides with Rep. Hickey, saying he "shudder[s] to think of how many completely innocent people we may have killed in the name of justice." He points to Texas's high rate of executions and high rate of crime as an example of the failure of the death penalty to make society safer. And he says fiscal arguments can't support the death penalty: even if the data showing that executions cost more than life sentences are wrong, killing prisoners to save money is immoral.
Leggett sounds a bit more clearly Christianly conservative on abortion and other women's health issues, but not quite. Leggett says he supports South Dakota's current abortion restrictions. He says other medical procedures require counseling and waiting periods, so making women seek counseling during a 72-hour or longer waiting period is acceptable. He says that as a legislator he will stand up for those who cannot speak for themselves, which is standard evangelical political talk for putting the rights of fetuses above the rights of women (but I told Eric I'd keep my editorializing to a minimum).
Yet Leggett, who was adopted at age 2 after being born by a 13-year-old mother, tells his fellow Christians that they could do more real good by finding ways to support young pregnant women rather than waving signs in front of clinics. He will legislate to limit abortion, but beyond the Legislature's reach, he sees the need for social change, for men to hold themselves accountable and not bail on the women they impregnate.
Leggett also says contraception should be none of the government's business. He doesn't view the Hobby Lobby decision as cause for celebration. He says Hobby Lobby's contention that certain forms of contraception are abortion is scientifically wrong. But Leggett accepts conservative Justice Alito's assertion that the state must yield to religious believers' alternative science, no matter how demonstrably wrong that science may be.
That said, Leggett says Hobby Lobby could have avoided all this litigation in the first place by decoupling employers and health insurance. Just let companies pay their employees more and let employees buy their own insurance on the individual market.
Leggett's diverse positions support his desire to avoid political labels. While he interned for Republican Reps. Steve Westra and Kristin Conzet last winter, and while he is speaking at the Libertarian convention in August, Leggett does not want to carry either party's label. He has been a registered Independent throughout his brief voting eligibilty. Leggett sees increasing voter interest in an alternative to the two-party dominance that they see creating gridlocking the federal government. He wants to be part of that alternative.
Absent partisan gridlock in one-party Pierre, I tried to get Leggett to clarify what alternatives he can offer that District 15 cannot get from their Democratic incumbents. But Leggett wouldn't bite. He said he won't spend his campaign talking down other people. Instead, he's more interested in finding common ground with voters on Democratic turf (like repealing the sales tax on food), then pitching his own merits and letting the voters decide. He does plan to include his youth and lack of political polish among the reasons he'd be good in Pierre. The "fresh face!" swing worked as well as a rubber golf club in South Dakota's U.S. Senate and Legislative primaries; we'll see if it comes any closer to the hole in District 15 in the general election.
"....and even poorer quality of care for our poorest citizens."
How can finally having healthcare be of poorer quality than not having care?
Sounds like a republican trying to get by in a blue district. Taking the dem stance on a couple of issues that don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of going anywhere here, otherwise, just another republican.
Saying healthcare access results in poorer care is simply rhetoric without facts to back it up. People who haven't had healthcare who finally get it get chronic conditions taken care of in a timely fashion and their overall health improves.
This guy is simply a Republican hack who was either too stupid to file petitions in time to get the Republican nomination or decided that in a majority Democratic district running as an Independent was the better option.
His Medicaid argument makes no sense to me. It makes him seem like another knee jerk respondent to the entire dreaded ACA without considering any of the individual benefits that people have enjoyed, such as lower premiums, family coverage of older kids who are in school or trying to get on their feet, coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, etc.
And the so-called fear that the feds will renege on medicaid funding has never made any sense. This and his arguments that SD must become entirely self-sufficient makes Leggett look like a Calhoun type secessionist.
But I like his position on the death penalty, sales tax on food and legalizing pot.
"....and even poorer quality of care for our poorest citizens."
Interesting comment since I just returned from Minnesota and was comparing the options for coverage for various income levels with what a friend of mine's family in Minnesota who would be the with their disability be the "poorest." That brother of a friend has excellent health and dental coverage at no cost to her brother. As one said it's an example of the "community" looking out for those who are less fortunate.
It was very frustrating to hear about examples with various levels of income and assets from various family members in MN plus factoring in state income tax where their health coverage improved.
With all the koolaid being served about SD's low cost of living and the Minnesota oppressive taxation you would think there would be a traffic jam of Minnesota residents and businesses flocking to South Dakota but the roads seemed pretty normal to me returning home.
"But I like his position on the death penalty, sales tax on food and legalizing pot."
Bear, those are the stances that don't stand a chance here I was referring to. He knows those won't go anyplace here, it's easy for him to take that stance and still be nothing but another republican.
He's as genuine an Independent as Jenna Haggar. See what happened when we fell for that the last time?
Tim, although I typically agree with you I hope you are incorrect about Leggett's motives. I appreciate it when anyone, including those with other views diametrically opposed to mine on different policy questions, claims to support these three policy issues. Every single voice that is heard in favor has a chance of affecting other people's opinions, including those who side with Leggett on policies I disagree with.
If he is just playing a rhetorical game in a Democratic district, he should stand little chance of winning. But I still appreciate the public statements supporting reasonable public policies on these three matters, even if the statements are not sincere. In Leggett's case I say give him the benefit of the doubt and count his voice as another in support of reasonable positions on these important policy issues.
The only inevitable slashes to federal spending will be forced upon social programs by wingnuts if they get control of both houses of congress or gain enough Senate seats to really make Obama's life miserable. Under Dems,the gubmint will fulfill its constitutional duties. Under wingnuts it will be every korporation sups first and the rest of Americans can have table scraps,if anything is left.
Bear, it would be good to get these issues back out where people are talking about them, but you know as well as I do where these things will go in Pierre. I would hope this person is sincere but I have a hard time buying into it.
Let's just say that Eric Leggett, if he is being sincere--and it appears that way since his statements passed through Cory's pen--then he is about as libertarian a candidate as we're going to get. And I just awarded him 5 more minutes at the SDLP convention, if he wants to embellish on what he had planned to say during his current 10 minutes.
I'm pleasantly surprised we have a candidate as libertarian as Eric in South Dakota. He sounds like a smart and principled young man. Thanks for interviewing him Cory.
Why is it that every time I read those words Evangelical Christian, I start hearing "Dueling Banjos"?
Roger, the duel may be between the political positions American evangelicals imagine their faith dictates and the actions Jesus really called them to do.
Jana, I have never heard Jenna Haggar stake out even Leggett's meager claim to a handful of arguably liberal positions. Tim's caution is astute and well taken, But as Bearcreekbat says, we can hold him to those words until he says otherwise and use those positions (and hope he will use those positions) to help us win supporters for those issues on other sides of the fence.
Seems like Evangelicals are forcing us all to be followers of their christ,whether we want to or not. Lots of us are forced to follow along and clean up their messes.dumbass dubya is a good example.
Watch "George Carlin on Religion and God" on YouTube
George Carlin on Religion and God: http://youtu.be/gPOfurmrjxo
The Blindman
http://www.capjournal.com/opinions/is-it-time-to-come-to-terms-with-our-fed/article_1748a002-1080-11e4-a438-0019bb2963f4.html
"alternative science" -- what does that mean anyway? Sounds to me like an excuse to believe whatever you want despite the evidence. We have enough of those people already.
"standard evangelical political talk for putting the rights of fetuses above the rights of women"
Untrue assessment. Currently the woman has more rights than the unborn child and its father. Again we have an example of the 14th Amendment being used to undermine the 14th Amendment. The unborn child is not provided due process. If a jury convicts the child and issues the death penalty, then you can claim equal rights.
Following the tried and true path of Jenna Haggar running as an independent in a Democratic district. If he gets in he'll follow in Jenna Haggar's footsteps and caucus with the Republicans.
"If a jury convicts the child and issues the death penalty, then you can claim equal rights."
Untrue assessment: in the US, no foetus has any civil rights until the third trimester.
Larry, thanks for agreeing that the unborn child currently doesn't have equal rights versus its mother.
Steve: you live in a chemical cesspool where spontaneous abortions from groundwater occur routinely without any response from you.
Go fishing for some mercury-infused walleye then wonder why you have a neuropathic disorder.
No, no, no: Sibby is not hijacking this thread. We're talking about a real candidate with real views. Let's not scare candidate Leggett off in his feature article.
The point on my wording of the political code in Leggett's statement on standing for those who cannot speak for themselves stands, whether fetal rights exist or whether abortion-banners must posit them de novo contra standing Supreme Court precedent.
OK Cory, I will leave it alone for now.
Joan, "alternative science" definitely belongs in mockery quote marks. Note that Leggett agrees HL's science is wrong, but he's still willing to allow those wrong ideas to dictate law. Hmm... aren't we able to set a standard under which certain facts must be treated as facts under law, regardless of the implications for disagreement with certain religious beliefs?
Good lord, if this is what passes for a poli-sci major at USF, I thank Jehovah everyday that I attended Augustana. This kid's platform is a mish-mash of bullcrap, regardless of if he is sincere or not. Remember Eric, when you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.
I'm wondering whether Eric is related to the Katie Leggett I met at Sioux Falls Seminary in 2004.
By the way, Cory, you have an impressive ability to report objectively on views with which you don't agree.
Mike Q, USF is known as a conservative-leaning institution. We perhaps should be glad that Leggett is able to see his way to as many liberal positions as he offered in our interview.
Kurt, I don't know of an Eric–Katie connection. But thank you for the compliment. I enjoy the challenge of speaking with people who disagree with me on important issues yet writing up their positions accurately and with minimal spin.
Speaking of which, talk to your Libertarian nominees; I'd like to stop and interview them in August after the convention.
Kurt and Cory, They are related. Katie is Erics older sister.
Kurt! There you go! Mituyake oyasin!
Cory Heidelberger wrote to me:
>"Speaking of which, talk to your Libertarian nominees; I'd like to stop and interview them in August after the convention."
I missed that comment when you first posted it, Cory, but I have it now, and I'm planning to pass the word.
Amy wrote:
>"Kurt and Cory, They are related. Katie is Erics older sister."
Thanks, Amy.
Cory Heidelberger wrote:
>"Kurt! There you go! Mituyake oyasin!"
Yep. We're all descendants of Noah. :)