Missouri Farmers Cite Irreconcilable Economic Differences
SEDALIA, Missouri — America’s rural counties have entered political divorce proceedings after a decade-long relationship with the Republican Party allegedly deteriorated over money, broken promises and disagreements about who was responsible for the household budget. The divorce petition cites irreconcilable economic differences. Republicans insist the relationship can still be saved.
Democrats have already arrived with flowers, promises and a suspiciously expensive proposal for renovating the farmhouse. One Missouri farmer explained that the marriage had begun beautifully. Republicans promised prosperity. Farmers promised loyalty.
Both sides agreed that rural America represented the moral foundation of the country. Unfortunately, nobody discussed who would pay for the foundation.
“Marriage is about partnership,” the farmer explained. “Lately, I’ve been paying all the bills while Washington keeps buying itself anniversary presents.”
The Political Marriage Counselor Recommends Separate Bank Accounts
A divorce hearing began with Republicans presenting evidence of their devotion.
The evidence included campaign photographs, patriotic television commercials and thousands of speeches praising the dignity of agricultural labor. The judge asked whether Republicans had brought financial statements. The party’s attorney requested additional time.
Farmers submitted fertilizer invoices, equipment loans, insurance bills and a stack of bank correspondence tall enough to qualify as a grain storage facility. The Republican attorney objected that these documents were depressing. The judge overruled the objection.
A Democratic representative then volunteered to assume responsibility for the rural household. The judge asked what qualifications Democrats possessed.
“We care deeply about farmers,” replied the representative.
“Have you ever driven a combine?”
“I attended a sustainable agriculture symposium.”
The courtroom remained silent.
The divorce proceedings soon became complicated by the question of custody. Both parties wanted custody of the rural vote. Neither was particularly enthusiastic about custody of rural debt.
Republicans argued that the family farm belonged naturally within the conservative political tradition.
Democrats argued that economic hardship demonstrated the need for new leadership.
The farmer argued that he was standing right there and would appreciate being consulted.
An agricultural economist testified that rural financial pressure cannot be explained by one party or one policy.
Commodity cycles, borrowing costs, international competition, weather and expenses all contribute to farm outcomes.
The judge thanked the economist for introducing facts into an otherwise perfectly functioning political argument. Both parties requested that the testimony be stricken. The property settlement created additional problems. Republicans wanted to keep the American flag. Democrats wanted to keep the pickup truck for campaign photographs. Farmers wanted to keep the land. The judge suggested dividing the liabilities fairly.
Both political parties immediately remembered urgent appointments elsewhere.
Rural Republicans Are Separating, Not Switching Parties
Political divorce is a stronger word than the data supports. The KFF/AP survey of rural voters found that rural voters are more likely to trust Republicans than Democrats to handle the issues they care about, even as economic dissatisfaction threatens to depress turnout among rural Republicans. The Farm Progress reported that waning farmer enthusiasm, driven by tariffs and historically high input costs, has handed rural Democrats a fighting chance in places like Kansas and Iowa. In other words, the marriage is strained, not annulled.
The Petition
A copy of the petition, filed in Pettis County and reviewed by this publication, names the petitioner as “Rural America” and the respondent as “the Party.” Paragraph six alleges that the respondent “has repeatedly promised to take out the trash and has instead held a press conference about the trash.” Paragraph nine requests “reasonable visitation with the pickup.”
Minutes of a County Commission Meeting
Minutes of a recent county commission meeting record that a commissioner moved to table “the matter of the Party.” The motion was seconded. Discussion followed regarding whether the matter could be tabled in a county with no table large enough. The matter was tabled until after harvest, the commissioner who made the motion said, “when we’ll have time to be upset.”
Messages Between Spouses
A text from a Sedalia farmer to his wife, shared with permission: “Court went okay.” Her reply: “Who got the flag?” His: “Nobody. It’s still on the porch.” Her: “Good. It needs a wash.”
At the conclusion of proceedings, the court ordered six months of economic counseling. Republicans promised to listen more carefully.
Democrats promised to visit rural communities without immediately proposing a committee. Farmers promised nothing. They had learned one important lesson from their political marriage. Never sign another contract until somebody explains the financing.
Five Humorous Observations About Political Divorce
- A political divorce. Who gets the flag? Who gets the pickup? Who gets the kids’ college fund, which is just unpaid fertilizer?
- The Democrats show up with flowers and a renovation plan. That’s a rebound. The rebound is great until you see their credit.
- “I attended a sustainable agriculture symposium.” That’s like saying you ate at a Chinese restaurant and now you speak Mandarin.
- The judge says divide the liabilities. Both sides suddenly remembered a dentist appointment. Never seen two parties move so fast.
- Six months of economic counseling at two hundred dollars an hour. Which is exactly what they were getting divorced over.