Walz Could Help Dems Reach Small Town Voters

The following post was written by Patrick Healy in The New York Times:

Republicans used to brag a lot about family values, but Donald Trump cooked that turkey when the G.O.P. traded moralizing for an immoral president.

In his wake, there hasn’t been much talk in national politics about ideals, principles and conscience — that is, until Wednesday night, when Tim Walz made an awfully persuasive case for Democrats as the party of old-fashioned, small-town and, yes, conservative values, stressing the theme of neighbors looking after neighbors and especially children as the measure of a country’s humanity.

“While other states were banning books from their schools, we were banning hunger in ours,” said Walz, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, in one of several lines that drew effusive applause from the party’s convention hall in Chicago. 

“We respect our neighbors and the personal choices they make,” Walz said, invoking his support for abortion rights while also noting his respect for those who hold differing views. “And even if we wouldn’t make those same choices for ourselves, we’ve got a golden rule: Mind your own damn business.”

On one level, Walz delivered a classic running mate’s speech: He delved into his biography to introduce himself to the country (Nebraska-born, 24 in his high school class, close-knit community, then the National Guard and a career as a social studies teacher); his political beliefs (a center-left agenda focused on health care, education, gun control and a social safety net); and the case for the top of the ticket, Kamala Harris, and some shredding of Trump.

But Walz’s speech was really about something greater: a vision of a party and country that take pride in the military uniform, that show awareness for vulnerable families struggling with illness, poverty and debt, that prize the most essential workers (“never underestimate a public-school teacher” drew huge applause).

I’ve heard quite a few running mate speeches at conventions — John Edwards, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, Mike Pence, Tim Kaine, Kamala Harris — but I’ve never heard one as values-driven and down-home as Walz’s. (Edwards’s was a little like this, but far more slick.)

Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t all sugar and honey — he knocked Trump plenty, like saying “some folks just don’t understand what it takes to be a good neighbor.” Walz knows how to be an attack dog: Speaking of Project 2025, he drew on his football coaching days and said, “when someone takes the time to draw up a playbook, they’re going to use it.”

But the man has a way with a speech. “We’ll build a country where workers come first, health care and housing are human rights, and the government stays the hell out of your bedroom,” Walz said.

It was a peroration that would make any progressive proud, but it also felt grounded in core values — dignity, humanity, privacy — that a great many Americans of all parties care about.

Walz Helps Harris More Than Vance Helps Trump

 

From Axios.com.

Public Approves Of Walz More Than Vance

 

These charts show the results of a Washington Post / ABC News / Ipsos Poll -- done between August 9th and 13th of a nationwide sample of 2,336 adults, with a 2 point margin of error.

Free School Breakfast/Lunch Programs Make Sense

 

One of the things Governor Walz was able to accomplish in Minnesota was to provide free breakfast and lunch for all school children in the state. Most Americans support this and would like to see it go nationwide (as this poll from August of 2023 shows), but the Republicans oppose it. They would rather see more tax cuts for millionaires/billionaires. Economist Paul Krugman explains why the program makes sense:

Why should the government help feed kids? Part of the answer is social justice: Children don’t choose to be born into families that can’t or won’t feed them adequately, and it seems unfair that they should suffer. Part of the answer is pragmatic: Children who don’t receive adequate nutrition will grow up to be less healthy and less productive adults than those who do, hurting society as a whole. So spending on child nutrition is arguably as much an investment in the future as building roads and bridges.

There’s a strong case that in general child nutrition programs more than pay for themselves by creating a healthier, higher-earning future work force. In other words, this is one area where there really is a free lunch.

Schools, then, should feed students who might otherwise not get enough to eat. But why make free meals available to all children, rather than only to children from low-income households? There are multiple reasons, all familiar to anyone who has looked into the problems of antipoverty policy in general.

First, trying to save money by limiting which children you feed turns out to be expensive and cumbersome; it requires that school districts deal with reams of paperwork as they try to determine which children are eligible. It also imposes a burden on parents, requiring that they demonstrate their neediness.

Additionally, restricting free meals to children whose parents can prove their poverty creates a stigma that can deter students from getting aid even when they’re entitled to receive it. I know about this effect from family history: My mother, who grew up in the Depression, used to talk about her shame at not being able to afford new shoes because her parents, although just as poor as her classmates’ parents, couldn’t bring themselves to apply for government assistance.

And it’s not as if feeding children is prohibitively expensive. So if you want to make sure that children get enough to eat, having schools offer free meals to all their students, without an income test, would seem to be simple common sense.

But Republicans in general aren’t on board. The Minnesota law that Walz signed passed essentially along party lines. The people behind Project 2025, in particular, don’t approve. (Yes, despite denials, Project 2025 is a very good guide to what a second Trump administration might do.) The project’s magnum opus, “Mandate for Leadership,” whose 900 pages lays out a detailed policy agenda, singles out feeding students as something that should be reined in. “Federal school meals increasingly resemble entitlement programs,” it warns, as if this is self-evidently a bad thing. A bit farther down, it reads, “The U.S.D.A. should not provide meals to students during the summer unless students are taking summer-school classes.” I guess being hungry isn’t a problem when school is out.

Stories like this are why my hackles rise whenever people call MAGA a populist movement. The people who will almost certainly make policy if Trump wins are as committed as ever to a right-wing economic agenda of cutting taxes on the wealthy while slashing programs that help Americans in need — including programs that help children.

In addition to being cruel, this agenda tends to be unpopular. Most Americans support providing all students with meals, regardless of their income.