Mark Yonkman is the founder of the newly created Super PAC Reclaim the Rural Vote and a rural vote messaging expert. Mark’s background straddles not only the rural and urban worlds but the black/white, gay/straight, and farm/professional worlds as well. Read more of his Rural Whisperer columns here.
I wrote last week that the Harris campaign’s ads that the Trump tariffs will cost each American $4,000 are backfiring in the rural Upper Midwest. The $4,000 number has simply put a spotlight on how bad the issue has become. To the rural voter, $4,000 might be the total that they spend in a year on goods. This telegraphs that our dependence on China is worse than ever – we might need even stronger tools than just tariffs.
This is in stark contrast to my urban friends, who focus on the devastating economic impact of a tariff war, particularly investors.
The Jeff Stein and David J. Lynch article this week in the Washington Post detailed how such Trump tariffs would shock the U.S. and investors. I agree with their analysis. It would be devastating for the urban voter. But why would the rural organic beef farmer with 24 head of cattle care? Wouldn’t it benefit him?
The Post gave examples of essentials that must be imported, such as coffee, bananas, avocados, and Chilean Sea Bass. What the Post misses, living in the urban bubble I also used to inhabit, is that many rural voters in swing states, and certainly farmers, view all of these foods as luxury foods. So, who cares?
There is a general belief that we should be able to live on food produced locally from the land around us. My ancestors certainly did when they homesteaded in Michigan, farmed with a team of horses, and grew everything they ate year-round. And many of them lived into their 100s. When I was a child, we grew our food, bought some things from neighboring farmers, and canned enough in the fall for us to make it through the winter. I know plenty of people who would never consider buying avocados or Chilean Sea Bass. Those are luxury foods. They buy trout from the trout farm located a few miles from my farm.
Won’t increased Chilean Bass prices increase demand for Michigan trout? Isn’t that a good thing? It is certainly more sustainable.
As the Post points out, Trump’s tariffs invite “turmoil that would affect investors and companies worldwide.” But not local farmers. Would it affect agricultural commodity exports? Sure – but that impacts the large corporate factory farmers, which is a few votes, not your local farmer or former farmer, which is a lot of votes. The $30 billion bailout for farmers Trump approved in his administration didn’t benefit anyone around me. Farming exports are simply irrelevant to the small guy, many of whom think we should stop subsidizing these exports in the Farm Bill. Tariffs will certainly help the small organic beef farmer with 24 head of cattle, or the specialty vegetable farmer, or the trout farmer, none of whom receive any benefit from the Farm Bill. And all of whom hope that it will increase prices. Higher prices are exactly what small farmers want.
The bigger issue for rural voters is the national security risk of simply buying too much from China. It isn’t about jobs or cost – it is about on-shoring from China the production of essential products. The Post’s analysis assumes China is a safe, stable, and secure trading partner. Rural voters do not. In the Upper Midwest, rural voters tend to be on George F. Will’s page, which he laid out in his article this week, stating that World War III has already begun. As Chinese warships are circling Taiwan, China could cut us off at any time. Yes, the global economy is interconnected. But should China be the lynchpin?
Conclusion
I have every reason to believe that the Washington Post got the math right here. At least for investors and economists – all of which play to the urban vote. But they didn’t address our over-reliance on Chinese goods, which is the crux of the issue for rural voters. Nor did they address the fact that increased prices are good for a whole host of small business owners, including farmers (but not investors). Nor did they address the fact that for many voters in the rural Upper Midwest, this is a national security issue that they are willing to pay for – or better yet, have the urban crowd pay for.
Rural voters might be wrong about all of this – but it is certainly what they sense. The fact that most Americans support increased tariffs doesn’t mean that they really do. Voters are using tariffs as a placeholder for their belief that we are too reliant on Chinese goods and that we need to ensure that we can feed ourselves. I simply cannot use any of the Post’s information to sway an undecided voter. Of course, this will cost more and hurt investors.
The Harris campaign needs to pay attention to this. The vice president should be pointing out how she will be smarter about this. Trump’s tariffs are blunt. Hers will be thoughtful and precise. The 100% tariffs on EVs are a great example of a surgical tariff. Trump’s proposals will simply create chaos. She has a better, more intelligent approach. Simply pointing out how bad the situation has become is moving the needle in the wrong direction.
