As a dedicated pragmatic liberal, one seeking to find ways to provide real freedom for all citizens, I found Steve Nelson’s recent column (“We need a candidate who tells the whole truth,” Oct. 20) to be damaging to the cause he supposedly supports.
He wrote: “it is baffling that the majority of rural Americans supports a president who intends nothing good for them — or anyone else.” That is a semi-polite way of saying “How can ‘they’ be so ignorant, so unaware as to vote against their own self-interest and not to know what is best for them?” In my opinion, this is an example of the liberal arrogance that many in other parts of the country resent. It is this kind of liberal elitism that inflames right-wing populists. And they are right to be offended.
President Donald Trump’s constituency is similar to that which supports Brexit in Britain and Marine Le Pen in France. The world is passing them by. They lack the skills to compete in this globalized economy. They feel threatened by international trade, by immigration, by a world that is changing rapidly. They sense that this cosmopolitan elite looks upon them as backward defenders of a bygone era. They have little reason to trust government. And they’re not entirely wrong.
There is a cultural arrogance. To be “baffled” by their political choices is, in my opinion, an example of this arrogance. It represents a failure to understand the fears and anxieties of many Trump supporters. There is nothing baffling about it.
Few of us in any way support Trump’s lies and treatment of others, but he has responded to the needs and anxieties of many Americans — on China, on illegal immigration, on appointing judges who will work to reverse Roe v. Wade.
Rather than mocking those who support our president by being “baffled” by their supposed ignorance, Democrats and independents should better understand and respect their anxieties. And then act.
Those who do not want to be shocked and disappointed in November 2020 should wake up.
JIM WILSON
Strafford
After hearing Sen. Elizabeth Warren speak at her town hall at Dartmouth College on Thursday, it’s clear that she isn’t running a typical presidential campaign. She’s centered her campaign on making sure the government works for all of us, not just the extremely wealthy at the very top. She doesn’t take lobbyist or PAC money, and she doesn’t give special access to wealthy donors. Instead, she spends her time taking questions at events, thanking grassroots donors and taking hundreds of selfies with everyday people. It’s refreshing and inspiring to see a candidate who understands the duty that comes with elected office.
But Warren isn’t just running a different kind of campaign — she’s also a different kind of candidate. Throughout her career, she has advocated for working and middle-class Americans. She studied consumer bankruptcy for years and saw how corporations were taking advantage of people. Because of this, she conceived and founded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the first federal agency to work by and for consumers. She understands better than anyone how broken our economy is for everyday people — and she’s made it her life’s work to fix it.
As a favorite law professor at Harvard, she was known for being “tough but fair.” She is always the smartest person in the room, which will serve her well in working on both domestic and foreign policy.
While it’s true that Warren seems to have a plan for everything, after seeing her this week, I realized it’s more than her plans that makes her my No. 1 choice for president. Her positive, unwavering energy is palpable, and it’s obvious she cares about each person she meets, especially young people and children. She has a vision for a government that actually works for the people it’s supposed to represent. I want to live in that America — and I’m proud to support her in her fight to make that a reality.
KAREN WAHRENBERGER
Hanover
The writer is a volunteer with the Warren campaign.
The Department of Agriculture reports that in 2016, 10% of U.S. carbon emissions were from the agricultural sector of the economy. Perhaps the most important way to reduce the agricultural industry’s greenhouse gas emissions is “carbon farming,” essentially building soil vitality to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. But even these efforts would not be enough.
If farmers are to adapt successfully to climate change and help solve the crisis, our nation must understand the economic forces that prevent family farms from earning a decent living and investing in farming practices that fight climate change.
Family farmers face tremendous challenges; many are losing money, with farm debt rising to 1980s levels. As a result, there’s a strong trend toward consolidation of farmland. And many farmers who have survived are contractually bound to agricultural monopolies. These farmers have basically become contract workers with diminishing control over their growing practices and their income. As farmers are priced out, or retire, investors are buying up farm acreage seeking short-term returns. They’re not making long-term commitments to rural communities, nor to reduce water pollution or increase soil health, much less to fight climate change.
That’s why it’s encouraging that five Democratic presidential contenders — former Housing Secretary Julián Castro, Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, and author Marianne Williamson — are promoting a ban on the creation of new factory farms as well as the expansion of old ones. It’s an important recognition that our agricultural response to climate change should focus on those who actually live and work on the land, and thus have a sense of stewardship of it.
STEVE GEHLERT
West Newbury, Vt.