LETTER | South Dakota is shifting from ‘all politics is local’ to ‘all politics is national'
Some observations on recent South Dakota political activities.
On the Republican side, as we’ve gotten the first of our primary elections behind us and gearing up for the run-offs, what is glaring is that it used to be “all politics is local”; today, it’s more like “all politics is national.”
Almost all South Dakota statewide and national office Republican candidates went out of their way to position themselves as Trump-aligned or at least give the appearance of such. Gubernatorial candidate Toby Doeden, for one, is building on his “outsider” candidacy, formed in the image and likeness of Donald Trump. It feels like a Doeden “mini-me” avatar of DJT! Trump endorsements of the likes of Ken Paxton in Texas and other Senatorial candidates are parroted by support/endorsements funneled through Doeden’s Dakota First Action PAC. Loyalty is the ultimate litmus test.
Unfortunately, South Dakota Democrats suffer from a similar ilk. As much enthusiasm, or at least respect, was on display during former President Joe Biden’s recent keynote at the McGovern Day dinner. The question that should haunt South Dakota Democrats is whether anything was learned from the 2024 election. Say what you will about dislike for Trump corruption and policies, he was returned to power because of rabid dislike for Biden, Democrats and key elements of their agenda, particularly in the areas of immigration (southern border) and the economy. And Biden waited far too long to exit the race.
In my opinion, DJT has wasted the nation’s time and attention span on a slew of personal obsessions: tariffs, Greenland, a ballroom, retribution, the outcome of the 2020 election and an ill-considered war. Pendulums swing, and the extent to which that happens (or doesn’t) will be the story of the midterms.
Bill Kubat
Sioux Falls
I agree with Mr. Miller’s points regarding all politics is local—part of the issue is people’s failure to understand the connection between what happens nationally and its impact on us at the local level.
"Say what you will about dislike for Trump corruption and policies, he was returned to power because of rabid dislike for Biden, Democrats and key elements of their agenda, particularly in the areas of immigration (southern border) and the economy.” I’d add that this over-simplification also points to people’s failure to recognize when they’ve been misled and misinformed. Compare the economy today to Biden’s “disastrous” economy that was better in every respect, or consider the lies (they are eating the cats and dogs) that people believed pointed to a huge problem with open borders. That wasn’t a “key” element of the Democratic agenda—consider the bipartisan efforts to address many of the border issues that Republican’s scuttled because they wanted to bamboozle the American public and pander to the racist white nationalist arm of the Republican party. It ignores the misogyny and racism that fueled much of the anti-Harris propaganda. It ignores the immense amount of money spent to convince the American public that re-electing a serial liar and felon and adjudicated rapist to the highest office in the land made more sense than electing a smart, articulate black woman.
Kubat expects us to believe that people made some sort of reasoned decision that a corrupt felon was preferable to someone who was neither? Can you say Biden Derangement Syndrome? Let’s say you were responsible for hiring a new CEO for your multi-million dollar corporation and the choice was to hire a convicted felon who had bankrupted six companies and been convicted of tax and business fraud and bragged about sexually assaulting women and getting away with it—and a black woman who was smart and articulate who had never been convicted a a felony, hadn’t bankrupted any businesses, never bragged about sexually assaulting people or been convicted of paying hush money to a sex worker. That’s not a rational decision—that’s evidence of a flawed decision making process at best.
I don't disagree that national politics has entered the conversation in South Dakota more than it used to. But I also think of the tagline "all politics is local" a little differently than how many folks seem to use it.
Most of the time (in my experience), when people say "all politics is local", the argument being made is that political messengers, (whether they're voters, candidates, parties, or other) should focus more exclusively on local politics. That's fine and all, but it's not how I read the phrase.
I read "all politics is local" the opposite way. Because national politics, like it or not, DOES affect us; and it often - almost always - affects the happenings of local politics here in town. So the way I read that phrase is that "All politics, including national politics, is local politics." But that doesn't roll off the tongue as well.
I'm not against national conversations happening in South Dakota, because we're not immune to everything happening in Washington. And honestly, I don't think these conversations gaining greater attention on the local level is inherently a bad thing either. I just think that messengers should do their best to connect national politics to local politics, and vice versa, rather than trying to avoid one or the other altogether.