By John Q. Hosedrinker 
North Dakota farmers and ranchers are facing economic hardship due to low crop prices and rising costs, exacerbated by tariffs imposed under President Trump’s administration. Despite promises of bailouts, farmers and ranchers are struggling, with farm bankruptcies significantly increasing. Trump’s policies, including plans to import beef from Argentina, are seen as further compounding the issues for the American agriculture industry. The article concludes that the situation will only improve when voters are willing to change their political allegiances.
Read the original article here
What will it take for farmers to change how they vote? That’s a complex question, and the answers, based on the diverse viewpoints here, are equally varied and often disheartening. The overwhelming sentiment seems to be a pessimistic one, suggesting that significant shifts in voting patterns among farmers are unlikely, at least in the near future. It’s almost as if a deeply ingrained set of beliefs and allegiances has taken root, making them resistant to change.
Many comments point to a powerful influence: political party affiliation. The “big R” next to a candidate’s name is seen as an almost automatic win for many farmers. The idea that this allegiance supersedes their own economic interests is a common thread. Even when faced with government bailouts, potentially caused by policies they supported, the voting patterns remain consistent. This highlights a deep loyalty that appears difficult to overcome, suggesting that critical thinking skills, or lack thereof, play a significant role.
The role of media consumption is another frequently cited factor. The influence of news sources like Fox News and right-wing radio stations is seen as a key component in shaping their viewpoints. The suggestion here is that these media outlets are essentially reinforcing existing biases and spreading misinformation, preventing farmers from accessing a broader range of perspectives and making informed decisions. Addressing this, perhaps through better media literacy or a more balanced news environment, is frequently considered an essential step.
Education, or rather, the lack thereof, is also highlighted. The lack of critical thinking skills is cited in the comments as a serious problem. The underlying argument suggests that a better educational system, one that promotes independent thought and encourages exposure to diverse viewpoints, could help to counter the influence of biased media and challenge deeply held beliefs. It’s a long-term solution, emphasizing generational changes.
The concept of “generational” change keeps appearing. It seems that many see the entrenched nature of these voting patterns as a learned behavior, passed down through families. Public education, rather than just in the classroom, is mentioned. It is also important to consider the exposure to different walks of life. The insular nature of some rural communities, and the lack of interaction with different racial and social groups are seen as breeding grounds for prejudice, which, in turn, influences voting decisions. Exposure to a more diverse population, along with the ability to see through lies, is considered an important factor.
Financial incentives, or the lack thereof, also influence the conversation. The idea that farmers might be willing to change their votes if it directly benefited their economic well-being is considered. However, this is complicated by the apparent acceptance of government bailouts, which are perceived as a solution to problems that might be self-inflicted. Some contributors have an emotional response to these farmers’ issues, and state that compassion is lacking.
Perhaps one of the most sobering observations is the recurring phrase “nothing.” The comments suggest that many farmers are simply too entrenched in their beliefs and too influenced by their media sources to change their voting habits. Their perceived allegiance to a particular political ideology, combined with a lack of critical thinking and exposure to diverse viewpoints, creates a formidable barrier to any meaningful shift. Some suggest that even the direst of consequences, like losing their farms, won’t necessarily lead to a change in voting behavior.
A revolution in media is considered. One where the propaganda is replaced by an unbiased outlet, and the need to tell them differently is critical. The concept of “cult deprogramming” is also mentioned, hinting at the depth of the challenge. The comments suggest that MAGA is similar to a religion, and therefore very hard to penetrate with fact.
The suggestions also propose that politicians would need to be mindful of how they address voters. Those voters would need to feel like their needs are being met, and that their work and voices are valuable to society. There are few mentions of what could turn the tide, but there are multiple mentions of what won’t. Some of the comments indicate a loss of empathy, and that is understandable. The feeling is that the voters’ choices have consequences, and they are responsible for their outcomes.
It’s clear from these synthesized thoughts that changing the voting habits of farmers is an incredibly difficult undertaking. The factors at play are multifaceted and deeply rooted in a combination of factors: political affiliation, media consumption, education, and social exposure. The most optimistic perspective suggests that incremental changes might be possible, but the overall picture paints a challenging landscape, where profound shifts in voting patterns are unlikely without substantial, long-term interventions.