Prairie Politics

by: Alan Malavolti

Sioux Falls, SD-Before the candidates lace up their hiking boots and begin striding along the campaign trail, following the summertime lull, a brief explanation of South Dakota politics will aid in understanding the forth-coming campaigns.  From a distance, Prairie Politics can seem strangely complex and confusing, if not absolutely incoherent.  South Dakota politics is, however, dictated by several rules that make it understandable and reasonably predictable.

Some people might say South Dakota is a land and a people of diversity; divisiveness is more apropos.  Extending a line slightly west of Mitchell, South Dakota and bending toward the towns of Huron and Aberdeen, as it makes its way northward, represents the most significant division of the state.  For simplicity sake, most South Dakotans refer to these divisions as being east or west of the James River.  The people of these regions have developed distinct lifestyles, ideologies, economic bases, and political agendas.

Statistically, east river appears to be the more powerful, politically, because a large percentage of the state’s population lives there.  Due to the greater number of people, the east has witnessed more corporate and industrial growth.  Enticing and keeping companies, such as Citibank, Gateway Computers, and many other major firms, has made business a driving force in eastern South Dakota.  Even though business and industry are important factors, agriculture and farming remain critical to the area.  This fact enables the west to continue being a strong force in Prairie Politics. 

The economic base in the west centers on ranching and tourism.  South Dakota’s best-known landmark, Mount Rushmore, is in the west, as are the Black Hills, the Sturgis motorcycle rally, and the authentic mining and western towns of Lead and Deadwood.  Expanses of grassland make western South Dakota cattle-country, complete with ranchers, cowboys, horses, and rodeos for entertainment.  The national parks and ranching are obvious reasons for the west to be more sparsely populated than the east.

  Merely studying the demographics of the state indicates the east can easily elect any candidate of its choice or enact any legislation it desires.  Because of South Dakota’s tendency toward divisiveness, this is rarely the case.  For example, a proposed law designed to help business might also be viewed as a detriment to agriculture or the environment.  Though the bill might pass in the east, the west along with eastern farmers could vote down the proposal.  Lacking in numbers, westerners often view the east with suspicion and as a political threat.  By intentionally or unintentionally building coalitions with eastern groups, the west can be a political power, so long as the east is sufficiently divided, which is usually the case. 

For candidates in a statewide election, it is imperative they appeal to both sides of the river.  A strong showing in either area coupled with an overwhelming victory in the other can decide an election.  Statewide, most people can more readily identify with western candidates, making their job in the east far easier than it is for eastern candidates in the west.  The greatest problem facing east river candidates in the west is one of perception.  Wearing a suit and tie to public gatherings often leads to them being labeled “fat cats” and “suits.”  Dressing in blue jeans, cowboy boots and hat, and finishing it off with a belt buckle that doubles as the family’s turkey platter on Thanksgiving is dangerous as well.  This outfit, particularly if the individual normally does not wear such a costume, appears contrived and leads to rejection.  At some point in the campaign, though, east river candidates usually make at least one foolish television commercial, hoping to gain western votes.  A setting sun silhouettes the distant landscape, truly a vision of peace and tranquility,… except for the eastern politician on horseback, holding on for dear life.  Whether from east or west river, all candidates will try most anything to gain support in both regions, as well they should. 

  As it is in any election, anywhere, individual voters decide the outcome.  Being conservative and contradictory, the voters of South Dakota may seem unpredictable and perhaps slightly irrational.  Knowing which topics raise a consensus among voters is not enough, understanding the values and perceptions South Dakotans utilize in forming opinions is central to Prairie Politics. 

  One of the most important rules for anyone to remember is South Dakotans distain being told what to do, particularly by government.  A person who refuses to ride a bicycle around the block without a bicycle helmet will think nothing of riding a motorcycle with the wind whipping through their hair.  The difference being, government has proposed mandating motorcycle helmets, not bicycle helmets.  The act of refusing to wear a motorcycle helmet is less an act of rebellion than it is a symbolic gesture of defiance to governmental regulation.  Time and again, South Dakotans have opposed mandatory helmet laws, seatbelt laws, and any law prescribing individual behavior. 

  Yet, on the abortion issue a majority of voters support pro-life, rather than pro-choice.  In a state so smitten with their individual freedoms and right to choose, it seems strange that so many would support and protect laws that effectively remove some of these freedoms from women.  This year the Republicans have blocked out all women candidates, including the popular and highly effective Joyce Hazeltine (South Dakota’s Secretary of State), believing women candidates might speak in favor of pro-choice.  This ill-advised gamble will likely lose many Republican women voters, regardless of their position on abortion.  But, the Republican decision shows how strongly they believe South Dakotans feel on this issue.  It also shows there are limits to South Dakota’s opposition to governmental interference in their personal lives.

South Dakotans also adamantly reject governmental intrusion into business, whether it is industry, tourism, or agriculture.  The liberal tax laws and lower wages have attracted many businesses to the state.  Most workers, believing the choice is between low pay and no pay, agree with benefiting corporations and oppose any intrusion, even if it is to their benefit.  The laws and regulations promoting South Dakota to out-of-state businesses demonstrate an eagerness for government involvement.  The distinction seems to be a willingness to enact general laws, while minimizing the government’s regulation of day-to-day business. 

Finally, South Dakota is proud to say that it pays the least in state taxes per person of any other state, and they want to keep it that way.  The government of South Dakota derives much of its revenue from rather low property taxes, the lottery, and the sales tax.  There is no state income tax, which is widely supported by the vast majority of South Dakotans.  Of course, this too represents a somewhat perplexing dichotomy. 

In the 2000 Census, the median income in South Dakota was slightly more than $35,000, yet approximately 49% of the population earns below this level.  Obviously there is a gulf between the rich and the poor, but the opposition to a state income tax is virtually universal.  Despite the fact that lesser income and poor families pay a greater percentage of income in sales taxes, even they oppose abolishing this tax for an income tax. 

Of course this article has made many generalizations, which is really the best anyone can do in analyzing politics and large numbers of people.  Undoubtedly, there will be some South Dakotans who wholeheartedly agree with the article, while others will be antagonized by it.  This raises the final point, or generalization, that must be made.  It is, perhaps, the most important trait for all candidates to remember, as they stroll down the campaign trail.

Using the kindest words possible, South Dakotans are among the most headstrong and opinionated people in the nation.  All too often, these opinions are based on assumptions that ignore or are made before all the facts are known.  Once the opinion is made, little can dissuade them, even after the facts are revealed and the opinion is shown to be illogical or irrational.  Leaving no room for dissension, except when aggressively criticizing others’ beliefs, many South Dakotans have an overly developed sense of self.

Nothing can exemplify this better than a recent letter to the editor of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, criticizing an article that had appeared in the Opinion section of this newspaper.  The author wrote, “Your paper does not properly represent the views of me or my family.”  Of the 750,000 South Dakotans, there are nearly that many opinions for any given topic, each firmly believing only theirs’ is the correct one.  Consensus, then, is built on generalities, rather than specifics.

For South Dakota candidates, the main objective is to retain their core supporters, attempt to sway undecided voters, and hope their opponent makes a critical mistake.  Because many, if not most voters, have already decided who will receive their vote in November, it is nearly impossible to woo voters away from their party or their candidate.  A change in their vote will be the result of a party or a candidate making some sort of major faux pas.

Recently, the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters have criticized Congressman John Thune’s voting record against the environment.  Even though federal law prohibits his opponent, Senator Tim Johnson, from demanding these groups cease their advertisements, Thune and the state Republican Party have produced their own commercials asking Johnson to stop the “attack.”  They have gone one to insinuate Johnson’s environmental voting record helped to create the conditions responsible for this summer’s Grizzly Gulch fire in the Black Hills.  At the same time, however, Thune and the Republicans have televised ads stating Thune and Johnson have the same environmental voting record.  The contradiction is obvious, but the underlying Prairie Politics needs some explaining.

By vilifying Johnson, the Thune campaign solidifies their core supporters, who readily ignore the obvious contradictions, assume Thune is stating absolute facts, and are eager to loudly denounce Johnson.  The ultimate hope is to gain those who are undecided by either the commercials or by the resulting Johnson attacks from other Republicans and Thune supporters.  This advertising campaign has no design of swaying Democrats away from Johnson.  In fact, they make the Democrats resolve all the more concrete. 

Soon all of the campaigns will become active, as November draws near and summer comes to an end.  Keeping in mind these general rules will help to make sense of the chaos that is Prairie Politics.  Undoubtedly, there will be surprises in this election, but with a basic understanding of the principles governing South Dakota politics even the unexpected seems rational and predictable.  

Alan Malavolti is a contributing writer for PurePolitics.com who lives in Sioux Falls, SD.