Christopher R. Gibbs

August 27, 2026

There is an old word that perfectly describes what has happened today in American politics: “shibboleth.”

The word comes from the biblical Book of Judges. Two warring tribes pronounced the Hebrew word “shibboleth” differently based on their own dialect. The Gileadites famously used the pronunciation as a loyalty test to root out the enemy as they crossed the River Jordan. Pronounce it correctly, and you belonged. Pronounce it incorrectly, and you revealed yourself as an Ephraimite and were killed.

Today, MAGA Republicans don’t ask candidates to pronounce shibboleth. They ask: What do you think about socialism? An answer opposing “socialism” functions as a political password. A way for candidates, officeholders, and activists to demonstrate that they remain members in good standing of the tribe.

This doesn’t mean that objections to socialism are illegitimate. Serious arguments exist surrounding government ownership of industries, centralized economic planning, and too much government interference in private markets. Those debates deserve to be taken seriously, particularly now, when the White House has spent $27 billion in taxpayer-supported funds to launch a junior-league version of state capitalism by purchasing minority shares, IE: stock, in 30 U.S. companies. Or, the recent White House Executive Order that created a government-funded price-fixing scheme for imported beef that would make Vladimir Putin blush.

News Flash: There are socialists in American politics. Calling Bernie Sanders and others socialists, who openly identify as socialists and promote wealth & income redistribution, is not political name-calling. Bernie and others have self-identified and are comfortable in their political skin.

The shibboleth begins when that label is extracted from the people who claim it, then applied to those of us Democrats who do not. For instance, I identify as a democratic capitalist (oh, the horror!). Meaning I believe citizens are afforded one vote each to elect representatives, and that our institutions should be held accountable to protect diversity of thought, individual rights and autonomy, equality under the law, and freedom of speech. I also believe that businesses and the means of production must be privately owned and that the prices of that production should largely be driven by supply, demand, and market competition. I am very comfortable identifying myself within my political skin, thank you.

That distinction matters because something very different happens when nearly every government program proposed by a MAGA Republican political opponent is labeled “socialism,” and every Democrat is labeled as a socialist. Government-supported health insurance? Socialism. Student debt relief? Socialism. Environmental regulation? Socialism. Higher taxes on billionaires? Socialism. Child-care assistance? Socialism.

Once that Rubicon is crossed, descriptors no longer describe competing economic systems open for debate; they effectively cast a wide net to label the whole of the “other team.”

Granted, MAGA Republicans do understand the power of the label. Pew Research Center finds overwhelming negative attitudes toward socialism among Republican voters. This makes the word politically valuable, as it quickly communicates an air of danger and radicalism toward freedom, liberty, and the “American way.” And above all, it demonstrates “loyalty” to a MAGA Republican audience.

Once a word assumes that role of loyalty, defining socialism becomes beside the point, and contradictions emerge and become obvious. MAGA Republicans who passionately condemn socialism also in large part support Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Health Administration, public education, farm subsidies, crop insurance, disaster assistance, publicly financed roads and bridges, public utilities, government incentives for businesses, tariffs protecting domestic industries, minority share government ownership of private business, artificial price fixing of food stocks, and accepting billions of dollars in federal assistance during economic crises.

Yet MAGA Republicans don’t want to debate these popular programs because they would actually have to consider and justify where the boundary between government and the private sector should be drawn. That’s a much harder conversation. Labeling an idea as “socialism” gives MAGA Republicans an escape hatch to weasel out of the hard work of actual governing. This is the power of political shibboleths, which let people conclude arguments before they begin. The tactic discourages independent thought and replaces reasoned discourse with tribal sorting.

A functioning democracy requires something more demanding. MAGA Republicans should challenge genuine socialist proposals. Democrats should be prepared to explain how proposed programs will be financed and where government authority should stop. Democratic socialists should be required to defend their own ideas and costs rather than have those ideas attributed to every Democrat in America.

But when MAGA Republicans label every Democratic proposal “socialism,” it exposes everything about the speaker and nothing of the proposal. The only thing we learn is they know the password, understand the boundary of the tribe, and are prepared to pronounce the word correctly to prove membership and loyalty.

That is what makes “socialism” a shibboleth.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Christopher R. Gibbs

August 12, 2026

Operation Epic Fury began in Iran on February 28, 2026. Below are the president’s verbal and written statements to various news outlets, social media posts, and extemporaneous remarks to media documenting his view of a progress toward peace. No comments, use of capital letters, grammar, or punctuation from reporting or social media posts have been edited.

March 2-29

2^nd “I always thought it would be four weeks. And we’re a little ahead of schedule.” “We’re already substantially ahead of our time projections.”

6^th “NO DEAL WITH IRAN EXCEPT UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”

9^th “I think the war is very complete, pretty much.” “We’re very proud to be involved in this, and it’s going to be ended soon.”

14^th “Iran wants to make a deal, and I don’t want to make it because the terms aren’t good enough yet.”

20^th “We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts.”

21^st Gave Iran 48 hours to open the Strait of Hormuz or the United States would “hit and obliterate” Iranian power plants.

23^rd Said the U.S. and Iran had held “very good and productive conversations” “complete and total resolution of our hostilities.” “I think there’s a very good chance we’re going to end up in a deal.”

29^th “We’ve had very good negotiations today with Iran.” “Moving along very nicely.”

April 5-21

5^th “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day… Open the [F***in’] Strait… or you’ll be living in Hell.”

7^th “A whole civilization will die tonight.”

8^th “A big day for World Peace! Iran wants it to happen, they’ve had enough!” Said U.S. forces would remain until the “REAL AGREEMENT” was complied with; otherwise “the ‘Shootin’ Starts.’”

12^th U.S. forces “LOCKED AND LOADED” and warned Iranian forces could be “BLOWN TO HELL.”

16^th “The war in Iran… should be ending pretty soon.”

20^th “no pressure whatsoever” to make a deal but “it will all happen, relatively quickly!” “then lots of bombs start going off.” Said extending the ceasefire without a deal was “highly unlikely.”

21^st Extended the ceasefire until discussions were concluded “one way or the other.”

May 1-29

1^st “They want to make a deal, I’m not satisfied with it, so we’ll see what happens.”

4^th “We either make the right deal, or we win very easily from the military standpoint.”

18^th “There seems to be a very good chance that they can work something out.” “If we can do that without bombing the hell out of them, I would be very happy.”

23^rd “An Agreement has been largely negotiated, subject to finalization.” “Final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly.”

27^th Said talks were going well and Iran was beginning to give the U.S. what it wanted; reiterated a threat to “finish them off.”

29^th “Other items, of far less importance, have been agreed to.” “I will be meeting now, in the Situation Room, to make a final determination.”

June 1-27

1^st “Talks are continuing, at a rapid pace, with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

11^th “The United States will be hitting Iran… VERY HARD TONIGHT” “assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets.” “We just made a great settlement of the war with Iran.” “canceled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening.”

13^th “The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow.” “we have the ultimate alternative.”

15^th “The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all!”

17^th “If I don’t like it, we’ll go back to shooting at them.” “If they don’t behave, we’ll go right back to dropping bombs.”

27^th Said U.S. struck Iran for violating the ceasefire – may be “forced to militarily complete the job.” “If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”

July 10-28

10^th “The Islamic Republic of Iran has asked us to continue ‘talks.’ We have agreed to do so.” “in no uncertain terms, that the Cease Fire is OVER!”

27^th Said the United States was having “good talks” with Iran and there was a chance of a deal.

28^th “We have had some very good talks.” “We don’t make a deal, we’ll take [Pickaxe Mountain] out very easily.”

August 1-10

1^st “I have agreed… to cancel the attack, subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL.”

3^rd “This [is] the last chance for them to sign a good document.” “I want to give them every last chance before decapitation.” “A lot of progress has been made.”

6^th Believed the Iran war would end “pretty soon.”

9^th “We are only semi-negotiating with them.” “We are just watching Iran with its huge inflation and the fact they have no money.” “It will work out. It always works out. It’s like a chess game.”

10^th “I am likewise demanding compensation from Iran, for all of the people that they have killed and gravely wounded with their roadside bombs and many conflicts.” “I’m sort of negotiating.” “We control their money, what they had, which is a lot. They had a lot, and we have total control of it. I’m their banker.”

12^th “The U.S.A has total control over the Strait of Hormuz. I THINK WE WILL KEEP IT!” “Praise be to Allah.”

Killed and wounded

According to the Defense Casualty Analysis System and Department of Defense, 18 U.S. service members have been killed and 624 have been wounded since military operations began.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, plus Ohio Democratic Party Rural Caucus, as well as President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Christopher R. Gibbs

July 30, 2026

Congress called it the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” yet millions of Americans may come to remember it by a different name: The One Big Beautiful Bait-and-Switch.

As we approach the 2026 midterm elections, a cloud of uncertainty looms over the promised benefits of the One Big Beautiful Bill, signed by the president in July of 2025. While the bill was heralded with much fanfare as an “America First” economic rescue package, it is now clear that significant programming cuts and tax increases are lurking beneath the surface and are set to take effect only after the November midterm elections.

Because they recognized this legislation as the Trojan horse that it is, no Democrat lawmaker voted for the Bill.

Red tape

Beginning January 1, 2027, many adults covered under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion will be required to document at least 80 hours a month of work, education, job training, or other approved activity. This is routinely described as a “work requirement,” yet the facts are that most working-age Medicaid recipients already work or have serious, documented physical restrictions.

And if that’s not enough, people who fail to submit the correct form, miss a notice, change addresses, or cannot navigate an online reporting system will lose health coverage even if they remain eligible. States that previously experimented with Medicaid work requirements found that thousands lost coverage, not because they failed to meet work requirements, but because they could not satisfy the bureaucracy.

Detractors who have never found themselves or a family member in need of assistance strategically forget those little nuggets when decrying the plight of the less fortunate.

By the numbers

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Big Beautiful Bill will reduce federal Medicaid spending by approximately $911 billion over ten years and leave 10 million more people uninsured by 2034. Those are not simply accounting adjustments. They represent skipped cancer screenings, untreated diabetes, unpaid hospital bills, and rural hospitals pushed closer to insolvency.

And what’s more, because Republican lawmakers used the One Big Beautiful Bill to circumvent the traditional bipartisan Farm Bill process, food assistance is also in the crosshairs. Beginning in October 2027, certain states will be required to assume part of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, shifting the burden onto state budgets. States unable or unwilling to absorb the added expense will put benefits at risk for low-income families, older Americans and people living in struggling rural communities.

Overall, the math doesn’t add up. The Congressional Budget Office calculates the bill reduces direct federal spending by roughly $1.1 trillion while reducing federal revenue by approximately $4.5 trillion. Rather than balancing the books, this bill is projected to add about $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over ten years. It appears the Republican fiscal responsibility shtick has run its course.

Tax increases lying in wait

Beginning at midnight, December 31, 2028 (21 days before the next President of the United States is sworn in), the One Big Beautiful Bill raises (yes, raises) federal income taxes for millions of Americans. Tipped workers will begin paying federal income tax on qualified tips. Employees having to work overtime will begin paying income tax on much of that overtime pay. Families who have financed eligible American-assembled vehicles will begin paying federal income tax on personal income used to fund auto loan interest, even if the vehicle was financed when the interest expense was deductible, and they are still making payments. Many of our senior citizens will lose an additional $6,000 per person in deductions, reducing the money available for medicine, food, utilities, and housing. Children born after 2028 will no longer be eligible for the government’s current $1,000 deposit into the child’s growth account, including decades of potential investment appreciation.

Taken together, these tax increases create a pronounced 2029 tax cliff, and would particularly burden working families and fixed-income retirees across America. Every Democrat lawmaker voted against these tax increases.

Cynical Politics at Play

Voters deserve to know the full implications of legislation that impacts their lives. By delaying benefit cuts and tax increases until after the midterm elections and 21 days before the next presidential inauguration, Republican lawmakers have masterfully baited the public into believing the One Big Beautiful Bill was an “America First” economic rescue package. The truth is, it was more “switch” than “bait.”

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and the Ohio Democratic Party Rural Caucus, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Christopher R. Gibbs

July 16, 2026

The 1993 movie “Groundhog Day,” starring actor Bill Murray, was a satirical tale of a cynical journalist who travels to Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, to cover Groundhog Day. Murray’s character ends up in a comical doom loop where he awakes each day to the same Groundhog Day – over and over and over again. Once he realizes his experience is giving him multiple chances to become a better person (and, of course, to find love), he begins to game the experience to that end. The comedy has worked its way into our collective lexicon as a metaphor for finding oneself in an odd recurring cycle of experiences while seeking a better result.

Take daylight saving time - please

This past week, the U.S. House of Representatives experienced its own Groundhog Day by passing legislation that would make daylight saving time permanent, ending the twice-yearly ritual of “springing forward” and “falling back.” The vote was bipartisan and overwhelming, reflecting what polls have shown for years: Americans are tired of shuffling around their houses changing microwave clocks, arguing with their car or truck displays, and spending a few groggy mornings hoping their bodies will catch up to the biannual manufactured reality.

Victory? Not so fast

Before we declare victory, it’s worth remembering how we got here and why ending this twice-annual debate may prove harder than taming a maddening LED clock on your dash.

No, it wasn’t invented by Benjamin Franklin. The modern version of daylight saving time arrived during World War I, when Germany sought to conserve coal by making better use of daylight. The United States soon followed. The practice disappeared after the war, only to return during World War II. Congress turned the concept into law by passing the Uniform Time Act of 1966.

For decades, the justification that more evening daylight meant less electricity use for lighting made arguable sense. Modern studies today, however, suggest that whatever energy savings daylight saving time once produced have largely evaporated. We all use electricity differently now. What little we save on lighting, we often end up spending more on air conditioners, TVs in every room, and the use of electronic devices without regard to time of day – or night.

Even so, supporters of permanent daylight saving time make a compelling case. Who doesn’t enjoy a summer evening when the sun is still shining after dinner? Longer daylight encourages people to walk, bike, shop, attend youth baseball games, or sit on the porch a little longer. Retailers and recreation industries like it too. People spend more money in the light of day.

Yet critics of the House proposal aren’t merely being stubborn. Under permanent daylight saving time, much of the northern United States would experience remarkably dark winter mornings. Schoolchildren would head to bus stops before sunrise. Commuters would begin their drive to work in darkness well into the morning.

Déjà vu all over again

History has a funny way of humbling our confidence. During the energy crisis of the early 1970s, Congress briefly tried year-round daylight saving time. It sounded like a good idea until winter arrived. Public opinion shifted quickly. Who could have predicted that parents would dislike sending their children to school in the dark? Within months, Congress abandoned the experiment. That is why the House bill, now awaiting consideration in the Senate, faces uncertain odds.

U.S. senators have wrestled with this issue before, and many remain unconvinced that permanent daylight saving time is the right answer. Some would rather adopt permanent standard time. All are wary of repeating the mistakes of the 1970s and are keen to avoid trading one set of complaints for another.

Jump ball

While Americans have largely reached a consensus that the clock-changing ritual has become more irritating than useful, what we haven’t agreed upon is which clock should survive. Whether Congress will finally end the practice of changing the clocks twice a year remains to be seen. If I had to make a prediction, I’d call the pending legislation a jump ball.

Or maybe I should ask that ‘ol reliable groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and Chair of the Ohio Democratic Party Rural Caucus. He also serves as President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Christopher R. Gibbs

July 2, 2026

For those of us who’ve raised children, I’m sure we each had more than a few guidelines for our kids that were designed to keep them “on the straight and narrow.” Some were small, like sitting up straight and finishing everything on their plate. Others were broader, like getting good grades, finishing school, or getting a good job.

As I stumbled through preparing my own early- and mid-1980s-born son and daughter for an ever-shrinking world where people and cultures were becoming increasingly close together, I had a few ‘guidelines’ that were a bit more specific. One was practical; the second, I hoped, was forward-thinking; and the final had no practical or grand-plan use, other than that I sensed it was a way to experience people outside the safety net of close acquaintances. Little did I know that one would appear decades later as a metaphor for world diplomacy.

First, as early as they could see out the car window, my kids had to learn and feel their cardinal directions, north, south, east, and west. Road trips included drills and quizzes. Second, they had to commit to traveling overseas, outside the Americas, before high school graduation, without me. And third, they had to experience Waffle House’s “after-midnight” melting pot of culture. It was a rule.

Covered and smothered

This past week, a CNN report highlighted foreign travelers’ fascination with a Waffle House in Atlanta, Georgia. Those travelers didn’t choose the U.S. for the bright yellow signage of a 24/7 dinner; they came for the games – the big games – the World Cup.

The FIFA World Cup is an international football competition among the members of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) played worldwide every four years. This year, the USA is co-hosting the World Cup with Mexico and Canada. Venues and stadiums are scattered across 11 major U.S. cities, and fans from around the globe are here soaking up the sights, sounds, and experiences America offers. Curmudgeon alert: It’s soccer, not football. I have my limits.

Who knew that my third rule of raising kids would become a symbol of true USA pride as World Cup travelers from all over the globe get a twinkle in their eyes when a Waffle House waitress barks, “covered and smothered!”

The marvels

World Cup visitors are coming from ancient capitals and island nations, from crowded cities and distant villages. While many have beautiful traditions of their own, here in the U.S., they’ll experience a country like no other.

They’ll see highways stretching beyond the horizon, linking mountains, deserts, beaches, farms, forests, and skylines under one flag. They’ll walk through grocery stores of abundance. They’ll visit national parks where creation itself appears to have been created to impress.

They’ll marvel at the skyline of New York, the music of Nashville, the farms of Ohio, the deserts of Arizona, the bayous of Louisiana, the lakes of Michigan, the coast of California, and the small towns where flags still rise each morning outside schools, courthouses, and homes.

They’ll find county fairs, barbecue smoke, baseball games, front porches, marching bands, diners, drive-ins, church suppers, Fourth of July fireworks, and strangers who still say, “Where are you from?” because Americans are curious about the world, while remaining ever protective of their own community.

Visitors will experience all of that, yet many will leave talking about hash browns.

Sit down and belong

At a time when cultural exchange is more important than ever, Americans can take pride in what we have to offer. The simple pleasures found in places like Waffle House remind us that our culture is not just about landmarks or history, but about the everyday experiences that can build connections not only to our community but also to the world.

Where else can a banker from London, a teacher from Morocco, a mechanic from Brazil, and a farmer from Ohio sit shoulder to shoulder at a counter while watching eggs cracked with assembly-line precision? Where else can a stranger call you “hon” while refilling your coffee before you even ask? There’s no cordoned-off area. No class distinction. No need to be important. You walk in, sit down, and belong.

That’s American diplomacy at its best.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, Chair of the Ohio Democratic Party’s Rural Caucus, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Christopher R. Gibbs

June 18, 2026

A new phrase has entered the American chat: “Coin-Operated Democracy.” It’s a distressing description of a growing belief that our government no longer responds equally to citizens, but instead responds inequitably to those with the deepest pockets.

Across the political spectrum, Americans believe that wealth buys access, influence, and lopsided, favorable outcomes. Today, the average citizen sees billionaires funding political action committees and wealthy donors enjoying private audiences with elected officials. At the same time, ordinary voters struggle to get a returned phone call from their Senator or member of the House. The result is a profound sense of disenfranchisement.

The Golden Rule

This frustration explains the growing backlash against the billionaire class across the spectrum. Progressives criticize billionaires for accumulating extraordinary wealth while we commoners struggle with rising costs. Conservatives express outrage when wealthy elites use influence to shape cultural institutions, media narratives, or public policy. Independents see both camps beholden to affluent interests.

What unites these grievances is the perception that America has become less of a government “of” the people and more of a government available “for” purchase - one coin at a time.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve lamented to a good friend that even our legal system suffers the same affliction. “Justice is being metered out in proportion to how much you’re willing and able to pay for it,” I would argue. Yet time after time, he reminds me of the same old cynical Golden Rule. That is, “those who got the gold, make the rules.”

America 250

The United States was founded in direct opposition to what its citizens perceive today. When the signers of the Declaration of Independence gathered in Philadelphia 250 years ago, they were not merely protesting taxes. They were rebelling against a political structure that concentrated power in the hands of a privileged few. The Declaration condemned the abuse of power by a distant ruling class insulated from the concerns of ordinary citizens like you and me. You know, “we,” the commoners

They championed the idea that all men are created equal, endowed with unalienable rights, and understood that liberty could not survive if political power became permanently concentrated. The Founders envisioned a republic in which citizens possessed equal standing before the law and in which the government derived its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, not from wealth or inherited privilege. They knew that equity fails when wealth becomes the principal currency of influence.

While equity remains the beating heart of American democracy, today, too many Americans worry that a new form of aristocracy has emerged, not based on lineage but on financial power. Billionaires are financing campaigns, funding advocacy groups, shaping media ecosystems, influencing public debates, and in some cases directly entering government itself to slash spending designed to lift and support the least of us.

The consequences are serious. A healthy republic requires more than equal voting rights. It requires a shared belief that government remains responsive to ordinary people. Farmers, teachers, factory workers, nurses, small-business owners, and retirees must believe that their voices carry weight equal to that of a billionaire writing a seven-figure campaign check.

Bridging the gap

The task facing America today is not to wage war against success or wealth. Together, we must restore the essence of democracy envisioned by the Founders by reevaluating the relationship between wealth and politics.

A revolutionary overhaul of campaign finance laws is crucial. Public financing of elections, greater transparency in political donations, and prohibiting the use of “dark money” in politics so that all contributions are fully disclosed and traceable to their source are critical.

And near and dear to my heart, increased funding for civic education programs that inform our young citizens about their rights and the political process would empower more Americans to engage in our shared democracy, counterbalancing the influence of money.

Taking these few steps together, we can begin to bridge the gap between the wealthy elite and the rest of us, and foster a government that truly reflects the will of the people, not the coin.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party and the Ohio Rural Caucus, and is President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Christopher R. Gibbs

June 4, 2026

A private invite from an unknown veteran got me there. I was not prepared for what followed on that crisp Memorial Day morning at zero eight hundred hours.

Keeping them alive

Lined carefully across a lawn were rows of military boots. Worn combat boots, jump boots, tanker boots, cold-weather boots, and desert boots all in perfect formation. Each represented a fallen or missing American service member. World War II soldiers killed in Europe or Okinawa. Men and women lost in Korea, Vietnam, Beirut, Iraq, Afghanistan, and even the recent war in Iran. Every pair carried a name. Every boot carried a story. And according to my veteran host, that was the point, the only point.

“Keep people alive,” he told me more than once. “Don’t let them die.”

It began with twelve old boots his wife pulled from an attic, along with a handful of neighbors gathered on a Memorial Day to watch him hoist the American flag at noon. Someone recognized a name on a tag and asked if a boot could be placed for his brother, who died in Vietnam. More members of the small community recalled their own family sacrifice and wanted to be a part of the remembrance. Twelve boots became thirty-four. Thirty-four became fifty-two. This year, nearly eighty fallen service members were represented.

The veteran walked slowly from boot to boot, telling stories not found in textbooks. A soldier missing for seventy-five years whose remains were finally returned home from Korea. A Vietnam pilot whose body was never recovered. Marines who were killed in the Beirut barracks bombing back in ‘83. Soldiers drowned in Iraq when their vehicle flipped into a canal.

Standing there among the boots, I realized an uncomfortable truth that, for many Americans, war exists only as headlines, political arguments, or distant history. But for military families and veterans, war never really ends. It lives on in empty chairs at family gatherings, in folded flags, in old photographs, and in boots sitting silently on a front lawn somewhere in the Midwest.

Happy Memorial Day?

My veteran made it clear that Memorial Day is not just mattress sales, cookout specials, or social media exclamations of “Happy Memorial Day.”

“It’s okay for it to be a picnic day,” he said. “It’s always been a family day. But it’s not a happy day.” His view, now his mission, is to keep soldiers’ memories alive in Americans’ minds through their stories.

He described his tribute not as a public attraction, but as a “safe space” where grieving families could sit, remember, and talk without media attention. This is why I’ll hold him and his community in both reverence and confidence. His place - their place - belongs to them and them alone.

Challenge

As we began wrapping up our conversation and as I prepared to depart, my new friend took the opportunity to challenge me. “Who do you remember that was lost?” he asked. My initial thought in the moment was that if an individual was not front of mind, then I had somehow failed the assignment of being an American.

I fumbled for an answer as I recalled a neighborhood playmate, ten years my senior, who, as an adult, was killed in Vietnam. Before I could fully express the remembrance, the veteran upped the ante. Chris, he said, “keep his memory alive. Don’t let him die.”

And so I will.

My childhood friend

Robert Prieser, born in Sidney, Ohio, on August 6, 1948, entered active service on June 20, 1966. After completing Airborne and Special Forces Training, he was assigned to the Army’s elite 5th Special Forces Group Airborne, 1st Special Forces, Republic of Vietnam. On September 8, 1968, Robert was killed in action while leading a reinforcing element of Strike Force soldiers on the beleaguered Ha Thanh Special Forces Camp, I Corps, Republic of Vietnam.

His father, Dale Prieser, Colonel, United States Army (Ret), wrote this poem to Robert’s grieving wife:

He was tall, handsome, And very straight, He kidded the girls On every date.

And then he was grown, Yet only a teen, He went to Vietnam To help fulfill a dream.

He wore his beret, And wings so proud, The patch on his shoulder, He was even more proud.

He fought in the valleys And mountains so high, And walked the trails Where many had died.

And when Ha Thanh Was under siege, He led the fight For what he believed.

And when he died That September day, God said, “Give me your hand, I will show you the way.”

Robert’s story can be found online at https://tinyurl.com/RobertPrieser.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Christopher R. Gibbs

April 23, 2026

In 2018, when the administration launched its first tariff war, American farmers were told to brace for impact. Export markets that farmers and rural communities built over decades began to erode overnight. China, Mexico, and other key buyers turned elsewhere. Commodity prices collapsed. Amid the damage, farmers were handed a narrative from the White House: You are patriots for enduring short-term pain for long-term national gain.

Many believed it. And why not? The White House raided the U.S. Treasury to the tune of $23 billion to help U.S. agriculture, “ease the pain.” Farm organizations echoed it, and their leadership stayed largely quiet. It became a badge of honor at coffee shops and greasy-spoon diners across the country for farmers to “tough it out” for the flag.

Billions

Fast forward to 2026, and that “short-term pain” has solidified into permanence. The trusting relationship with tried-and-true agricultural trading partners and allies has been irreparably damaged. Commodity prices are below the cost of production. Input costs, from fertilizer to machinery parts, have skyrocketed, and fuel costs remain volatile and unpredictable. The result is an agricultural economy now exclusively supported by government payments rather than markets. In 2025 alone, U.S. ag has been artificially propped up by Farmer Bridge Payments at $12 billion; Emergency Commodity Assistance at $9.3 billion; Supplemental Disaster Relief at $15 billion; Emergency Livestock Relief at $2 billion; and Specialty Crop Assistance at $2.8 billion.

Agricultural Stockholm Syndrome

And still, our farmers, and many of the organizations that represent them, refuse to assign responsibility to the very policies that helped create this reality. It’s time to name this dynamic for what it is: “Agricultural Stockholm Syndrome.”

According to the Cleveland Clinic, Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response to being held captive, a coping mechanism to a captive or abusive situation. People with Stockholm syndrome form a psychological connection with their captors and begin sympathizing with them. This pattern is transferable to American agriculture.

Today, U.S. ag is more financially dependent on federal support than at any point in recent memory. These payments, while necessary in the short term due to the loss of market share and skyrocketing input costs, have trapped some of the most rugged, hard-working, and self-reliant people on the planet into structural dependence on the whims of a single administration. When your livelihood hinges on government checks tied to political decisions, the line between economic survival and political loyalty blurs, and criticizing the source of those payments becomes risky.

For many farmers, supporting this administration is no longer just ideological or values-based; it’s transactional. The same administration that trapped farmers in this cash-flow and working-capital crisis has become the one writing the checks to offset the damage.

And that has created a powerful psychological loop. While farmers might privately acknowledge that tariffs, ag input inflation, foreign wars of choice, and strained trade relations hurt their bottom line, many publicly (and internally) shift blame elsewhere because laying these policies at the feet of this administration feels like biting the hand that sustains them.

Breaking free won’t be easy

U.S. agriculture must reclaim its historical independence. That means speaking bluntly about the economic consequences of policy, regardless of which party or politician is responsible. Ag organization leadership needs to start telling members what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. If policy costs farmers market share and financial distress, that fact should be stated clearly and repeatedly, not in the halls of Congress, but in front of a camera.

Simply walking the halls of the Capitol to lobby legislators is not enough. This administration views that as a sign of weakness and disregards those efforts with the same matter-of-fact reflex as flicking lint from a shirt sleeve. Dealing with a member of Congress who’s caught in the same Stockholm Syndrome-like dystopian reality and expecting them to relay the message to the administration is like asking the prison guard to relay a lament about living conditions to the warden. It’s futile.

Farmers are strong. Farmers are resourceful. And farmers are some of the most pragmatic businesspeople on the planet. So that pragmatism must extend to politics. If a policy harms your farm and family, it should be called out immediately with throaty bravado aimed directly at the source.

More, please

Right now, Congress is exploring yet another $15 billion aid package to support farmers facing continued financial pressure in the 2026 planting season. And once again, we will be caught in a doom loop where the source of harm is also the source of relief.

That’s not a strength; it’s a syndrome of dependency.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Christopher R. Gibbs

April 9, 2026

I believe the United States of America is exceptional.

I am proud that our nation was founded on values that include revolutionary ideas of liberty, equity, and individual rights, rather than on ethnicity or heritage. I’m proud of our “frontier spirit” that encourages self-reliance and individualism. I’m proud of the constitutional structure that guides us. And I’m proud to accept the special responsibility of being a world leader in the quest for democracy, freedom, and security.

With that special responsibility comes the recognition that true exceptionalism and associated national pride are not static. It is not a pedestal obtained, then rested upon. A greater nation is in constant reflection of its status, responsibilities, and the limitations of its power and influence.

Without that reflection, an unbridled political leadership will leverage that national pride into hubris and arrogance. We are witnessing that in the Middle East today.

Power on paper

This White House has convinced itself that overwhelming power, bigger budgets, better weapons, and unmatched technology guarantee control over weaker adversaries.

From the Vietnam War to the War in Afghanistan, the pattern is unmistakable. The United States walks into conflict assuming superiority will translate into victory. What it finds instead is that weaker countries rarely fight on America’s terms. They don’t need to win outright to succeed; they need to endure.

Beyond this White House, American policymakers often assume adversaries will behave rationally by U.S. standards. That they will prioritize economic stability, avoid prolonged suffering, and ultimately concede under pressure. But countries like Iran are driven by a different mix of ideology, nationalism, and regime survival. They calculate risk differently. They tolerate loss differently. They define victory differently.

That fundamental misunderstanding of how power actually works is once again on display in the current war with Iran. This White House has morphed American exceptionalism into adrenaline-fueled hubris and arrogance.

The finest in the world, bar none

The United States military men and women are the finest, most well-trained, and highly motivated of any fighting force on the planet. They have struck thousands of targets with precision and crippled much of Iran’s conventional military. They have retrieved their fallen through daring and dangerous missions. These are stories made for the history books and Hollywood’s lens. I beam with pride when I see those in uniform, and weep in sorrow at every Dignified Transfer.

Yet even after all our projection of military might, Iran is still adapting, still has the enriched uranium, and is still shaping the literal and economic battlefield in ways the White House’s infatuation with military power obviously didn’t anticipate or value.

Nowhere is that clearer than in the Strait of Hormuz.

Patience is a weapon

While the U.S. dominates the skies and seas, Iran has leveraged geography and persistence to threaten one of the most critical chokepoints in the global economy. And even with the recent reported ceasefire agreement, Iran still has no plans to relinquish effective control of the strait anytime soon. And why would they? With the price of their crude oil supplies exploding and projected fees for rites of passage, this White House has made the war a cash cow for Iran.

That single strategic lever, held by a supposedly weaker nation, has strained global markets and injected uncertainty into the world economy and geopolitical landscape.

Weaker countries don’t need parity. They need leverage. And they are willing to be patient as they seek it.

Wack-a-mole objectives

The United States, by contrast, operates on a political clock. Elections loom. Public opinion shifts. After only six weeks, a majority of Americans want the war to end quickly. Polls suggest the people want closure, even if the White House’s vacillating, ever-changing, “Wack-a-mole” objectives are not achieved.

Iran does not face the same pressure. Its leadership is designed to absorb damage, endure hardship, and wait. In conflicts like this, time itself becomes a weapon. A weapon that we historically struggled to counter.

Dangerous consequences

This White House underestimates weaker countries because it measures power in the wrong ways. It counts tanks and aircraft, but undervalues willpower. It prioritizes speed, while weaker adversaries prioritize endurance. It seeks decisive victories, while opponents redefine winning as simply not losing.

That imbalance does not project my view of American exceptionalism. It leads only to exceptionally dangerous consequences.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, Ohio’s Rural Caucus, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

March 26, 2026

Few public servants in modern American history have embodied both institutional loyalty and steady resolve while upholding the core values of the United States Marine Corps: honor, courage, and commitment.

He was born in 1944 in New York City and raised in a family that valued education, structure, and service. At New England’s prestigious St. Paul’s School, he was shaped by a culture rooted in tradition and personal responsibility. Those values of service and integrity would guide him through life and career.

Deployed to Vietnam

He attended Princeton University and graduated in 1966. There, he balanced academics and athletics at the highest level. Yet his college years were marked by a defining moment when a close friend was killed in combat during the Vietnam War. The impact upon him was career-defining. He enlisted in the United States Marine Corps, underwent officer training, and embraced a leadership role. By the late 1960s, he was deployed to Vietnam as a platoon leader.

This is where his real story begins. As a young Marine officer, he led troops in combat and was awarded the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, and the Navy Commendation Medal. By his own account, the experience shaped his understanding of leadership and sacrifice. It forged a worldview that would define his career. Mission first, self-second.

Man of integrity

After his service in Vietnam, he earned a law degree from the University of Virginia and pursued a legal career at the Department of Justice. He served as a federal prosecutor in both San Francisco and Boston and earned respect for his methodical approach and refusal to cut corners. By the time he was appointed Director of the FBI in 2001 by President George W. Bush, he had established himself as a man of integrity in a system too often tested by politics.

His FBI appointment came just days before the September 11 attacks, which would not only define his tenure but also the role of the FBI itself. Under his leadership, the Bureau underwent one of the most significant transformations in its history. He shifted the Bureau’s focus from traditional law enforcement to counterterrorism and intelligence, and helped rebuild an agency that had failed to connect the critical dots before the attacks.

When his ten-year term was set to expire in 2011, President Barack Obama went to Congress to take the unusual step of extending his tenure by two years. The move was both bipartisan and rare, and reserved only for moments when continuity was essential to national security.

During his twelve years as FBI Director, he navigated evolving threats, including domestic extremism, cyber threats, and counterterrorism operations. His defining characteristic was his ability to remain apolitical in a role that rests at the intersection of law enforcement and politics.

A political storm

That same ethos carried into his later appointment under a third president as Special Counsel in 2017, where he found himself at the center of a political storm. Tasked with investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, he approached the assignment with the same disciplined, by-the-book approach that had defined his career. While critics sought to pull him into partisan narratives, he resisted and ultimately delivered a report that spoke in the language of law rather than politics.

He died March 20, 2026, at the age of 81. A life spent reinforcing the idea that public service, at its best, is not about power, but about honor, courage, and commitment.

Upon his passing, former President Barack Obama remembered his honor with, “[He] was one of the finest directors in the history of the FBI, transforming the bureau after 9/11 and saving countless lives. But it was his relentless commitment to the rule of law and his unwavering belief in our bedrock values that made him one of the most respected public servants of our time…...”

Former President Bush remembered his courage with, “[He] dedicated his life to public service. As a Marine in Vietnam, he proved he was ready for tough assignments. He earned a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart before returning home to pursue law. In 2001, only one week into the job as the 6th Director of the F.B.I., [he] transitioned the agency mission to protecting the homeland after September 11. He led the agency effectively, helping prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.”

“I’m glad he’s dead.”

One day after his death, the current president of the United States of America remembered his commitment with, “Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people!”

Real Americans know honor, courage, and commitment when they see it. And also, when they don’t.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

March 12, 2026

Let’s be clear about what just happened in the Ohio state capital.

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose quietly handed the White House’s Department of Justice (DOJ) the private voter registration records of nearly 8 million Ohioans. Plundered were names, home addresses, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and the last four digits of Ohioans Social Security numbers. He did this in February, but the action has only recently come to light. This, while over two dozen states said no to the same request. And what’s more, each of those states has been willing to go to court to stand on principle and on the law. The Constitution is crystal clear that states alone administer elections, not the federal government, and certainly not this current administration.

Yet LaRose wrapped his compliance in language of legal obligation, citing the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act as a thinly veiled cover. This is the same LaRose who, when Democrats proposed federal voting reforms under the Biden administration, called those reforms a “massive power-grab” and thundered that states, not Washington, run elections. But the moment this administration came calling for citizens’ private information, his principled federalism evaporated like a gentle summer rain shower on a hot tin roof.

Make no mistake about what actually resides in plain sight within a federal database right now: The private identifying information of virtually every registered voter in this state. The administration that demanded these records is the same one that has weaponized federal agencies against perceived political opponents and has used government power to intimidate, investigate, and punish those who cross it. And LaRose handed them a road map to the front doors of every Ohioan who dares to exercise their unalienable right to participate in democracy.

His defense is a masterpiece of circular reasoning. He’s assured us the DOJ promised to use the data only for “legitimate governmental purposes.” He is “confident the voter data is secure.” Federal officials who misuse it, he says, would face “criminal liability.”

This is the same federal government that has shown breathtaking contempt for the norms and guardrails designed to protect citizens from government overreach. Ohioans deserve better than a wink, a nod, and a pinky promise.

So, what specific problem does this data transfer solve? Ohio already cross-references its voter rolls monthly against motor vehicle records and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements citizenship database. LaRose himself has repeatedly boasted that Ohio is the “Gold Standard” of election integrity. He’s spent years positioning himself as Ohio’s elections sheriff, referring hundreds of alleged fraud cases to prosecutors, creating an “Election Integrity Unit,” building a political brand on the premise that only he stands between Ohio voters and chaos. Yet Ohio’s Republican Attorney General reviewed more than 600 of those referrals and brought exactly six charges (not convictions). The fraud epidemic LaRose campaigned on was, in large part, a fiction.

This breach of faith with Ohio voters allows the Secretary to demonstrate his fealty to an administration he believes he’ll need soon. But by doing this bidding for the White House, the Secretary helps spin the administration’s false narrative that there’s something afoot in our election system that needs to be solved.

Elections are built on trust, so when doubt is sown intentionally, that trust is damaged.

The chilling effect cannot be overstated. When ordinary citizens learn that registering to vote means handing their most private information to the same federal authorities who have made no secret of their desire to use government power against political opponents, some will think twice. And every Ohioan who hesitates to register, who wonders whether their participation in democracy will be used against them, represents a direct wound to the democratic process our Secretary of State swore to protect.

Principled states refused this demand and accepted the legal consequences. They understood that some fights are worth having, and that a Secretary of State’s first obligation is to the voters, not to the administration in Washington.

LaRose made a different choice. He chose compliance over courage and political alignment over the protection of the people who trusted in him. That is a betrayal.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Christopher R. Gibbs

February 26, 2026

Former First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move!” and the current administration’s newly released “Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030” both claim to be about public health. But they come from very different corners of the dietary change landscape.

“Let’s Move!” launched in 2010, was straightforward: childhood obesity is a national problem, and policy can help families reshape the environments where kids eat and exercise. The initiative focused on schools because school cafeterias are one of the few places where millions of children can be reached daily. That meant promoting updated meal standards, increasing fruit and vegetable intake, increasing whole-grain intake, and limiting sodium and unhealthy fats. These standards were coupled with a broader message about physical activity and community action. The White House framed it as a practical, pro-kids modernization project that would lead to better lunches, clearer nutrition recommendations, and make healthy choices easier to attain.

Real food

Today’s new dietary guidelines, released publicly the week of January 6, 2026, take a different approach. The headline slogan is not “move more” or “balance,” but to eat “real food.” The phrase “real food” appears seven times on the first page of the report. The document and the rollout repeatedly emphasize whole foods, “high-quality” protein, “healthy fats,” and an explicit turn against “highly processed” foods and “refined” carbohydrates.

This begs the question. Did the science change, or did the culture?

With the growing weight of evidence and attention to processed foods and their effects on our health, science has certainly evolved. But on other core points, the recognized science looks more continuous than revolutionary. For example, the new guidelines retain the long-standing recommendation to limit saturated fat to no more than 10% of daily calories. The same language has appeared across multiple past guideline cycles. That continuity matters because it undercuts the claim made in parts of the political and wellness ecosystem that the “old science” has been fully overturned.

Carnivore ecstasy

Where things get contentious is how the new guidelines frame fats and protein, including which cultural currents they appear to be riding. The document and coverage describe a friendlier posture toward full-fat dairy and a more muscular emphasis on protein, which aligns neatly with today’s popular diet identities. IE: high-protein everything, anti-carb instincts, carnivore ecstasy, and a broader backlash to anything that smells like the low-fat era.

Critics in mainstream medical and academic circles argue that the protein emphasis is overdone and raise alarms about messaging that appears to normalize saturated-fat-rich options. This, even as the numerical saturated-fat cap of 10% remains in place in this administration’s guidelines. This is how you confuse the public.

Rightward shift

So here’s the rub. When the administration’s “Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030” recommends “limit saturated fat” while at the same time offering assurance that butter and tallow are just fine, the report sounds like a cultural compromise rather than a scientific breakthrough. It reads like an attempt to translate public distrust of processed food into a simple, movement-friendly narrative of “real food.” This, while accommodating a rightward shift in food politics that treats older public-health messaging as elitist, scolding, or industry-captured.

Let us not forget that critics relentlessly pummeled the “Let’s Move” initiative as an attempt by the First Lady to become a government food cop, and that the policy meddled in the private lives and daily decisions of American families. Yet today, those same critics sit like idle schoolboys in silent agreement with the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030.”

So, did the science change? Maybe. Did culture change? Certainly.

Shorthand and codewords

Social media has turned nutrition into an identity. The public is angrier at processed foods than it was a decade ago. Trust in experts is suspect, and “protein” has become shorthand for discipline and strength. Carbohydrates (carbs), on the other hand, have become a codeword for weakness. The new guidelines arrive wrapped in a broader “Make America Healthy Again” political brand and are being sold less as a policy memo and more as a cultural corrective. In other words, the administration’s guidelines are more of a wink-and-a-nod to a cultural shift rather than adherence to peer-reviewed science.

Granted, in the end, America may benefit from louder warnings about highly processed foods. But if the guidelines also smuggle in muddled messages about saturated fat and protein-heavy patterns, then “real food” becomes less a scientific clarification than a political slogan. One that risks trading one era’s oversimplification of food science for another.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Save us from the SAVE America Act

Christopher R. Gibbs

February 12, 2026

On February 11, 2026, the United States House of Representatives passed the SAVE America Act, branding it as a necessary step to secure elections. But beneath the rhetoric of “integrity” and “confidence” lies a far more troubling reality. The bill erects new barriers between already ‘eligible’ citizens and the ballot box.

Access is the foundation of a well-functioning democracy. The SAVE America Act chips away at that foundation in the name of solving the manufactured ‘problem’ of non-citizen registration and voting. In other words, the U.S. House of Representatives is proposing to disenfranchise millions to address a nonexistent crisis.

Eligible ordinary Americans

At its core, the legislation tightens documentation requirements for voter registration and imposes new verification hurdles that disproportionately burden already eligible ordinary Americans. While supporters frame these provisions as “common sense,” they ignore the fact that, for millions of citizens, gathering and presenting specific government documents is neither simple nor cheap. According to the U.S. Department of State, a passport from scratch costs $130.

Most newly married women change their names. Naturalization paperwork gets lost. Birth certificates contain clerical errors. Rural voters may live hours from government offices. Seniors born at home may lack formal documentation altogether.

For working-class Americans juggling multiple jobs, finding time to navigate bureaucratic mazes is not a small inconvenience. According to the Brennan Center, more than 21 million U.S. citizens, or roughly 9% of the voting-age population, lack ready access to the required proofs of citizenship. And a staggering 12 million of them cast ballots in 2020, only to face potential exclusion now.

Barriers to registration

The SAVE America Act treats voting as a privilege to be earned through paperwork rather than a constitutional right to be protected. Instead of investing in modernizing election infrastructure or expanding secure online verification systems, Congress chose to layer new requirements onto an already complex process. The predictable result is confusion, longer processing times, and eligible voters turned away. Historians and voting rights experts describe the SAVE America Act as one of the most extraordinary attacks on voting rights in U.S. history, marking the first time Congress has enacted nationwide barriers to registration rather than protections.

Jim Crow tactics

History offers a warning. Across the United States, voting restrictions have often been justified with lofty language about “integrity” and “order.” Each time, the burden fell hardest on those with the fewest resources and the least political power. Far from safeguarding democracy, this bill revives Jim Crow tactics that once relied on poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses to disenfranchise Black Americans, immigrants, women, and the poor after Reconstruction.

Supporters argue that stricter verification restores trust in elections. Yet trust is not built by excluding lawful voters. It is built on transparency, efficiency, and evidence-based policymaking. Numerous studies and court findings over the past decade have shown that in-person voter fraud is extraordinarily rare. Crafting sweeping federal restrictions in response to isolated incidents is nothing short of political theater.

Confidence will erode

And that’s not all. Election officials already face staffing shortages, threats, and dwindling budgets. Legislation that adds new layers of compliance, document review, and potential legal liability increases the likelihood of errors and delays. When legitimate registrations are flagged or rejected over technicalities, public confidence will erode, not rise.

In the history of our American democracy, progress has meant expanding the circle of participation. Democracy functions best when participation is broad. Expanding early voting, simplifying registration, and embracing secure technology have consistently increased turnout without compromising security.

If Congress truly wanted to bolster faith in elections, it would focus on making voting both secure and accessible. The SAVE America Act fails on both counts.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Last line of defense

For years, the legacy GOP (now MAGA) has wrapped itself in 2nd Amendment gun rights absolutism. If anyone even gingerly discussed modest gun safety reforms, they were met with dire warnings about tyranny and the erosion of constitutional freedoms. They insisted that armed citizens were the last line of defense against government overreach. Now, when politically opposite citizens show up at a protest with a legally obtained and carried firearm, their tune changes.

Case in point: Since the murder, the president has made these public pronouncements: "You can’t have guns.” You can’t walk in with guns. You just can’t.” "He certainly shouldn’t have been carrying a gun. I don't like that he had a gun... two fully loaded magazines... That’s a lot of bad stuff.” On the concealed carry gun that Pretti was carrying (reportedly a SIG Sauer P320), the president characterized it as very dangerous and unpredictable," adding that 'it's a gun that goes off when people don't know it".

News flash

I have experience here as I’ve carried a concealed firearm for the past 12 years. It became necessary after receiving credible, actionable threats against both my family and me during a customer fraud investigation in my role with the United States Department of Agriculture. I’ve carried it at each of the protests I’ve spoken at.

News flash – Democrats carry firearms too, and I’ll fight to protect the right of reasonable and responsible gun ownership.

Trump officials are now arguing that visible firearms at demonstrations are intimidating and destabilizing and should be restricted. That argument is not new. What is new and jarring is who is making it. The sudden concern for public safety rings hollow coming from a Party that mocked fears of armed intimidation during past rallies, protests, and political events dominated by their own supporters.

Juxtapose that with the administration’s description of the perpetrators of the January 6, 2021, attack on the capital as “peaceful protesters.” In truth, authorities discovered those “peaceful protesters” were armed with chemical spray, flag poles, knives, axes, brass knuckles, and, of course, loaded handguns.

Hypocricy shines

The hypocrisy shines brighter when contrasted with the Kyle Rittenhouse case. In 2020, the then-17-year-old crossed state lines with an AR-15-style rifle to "protect" Kenosha during Black Lives Matter protests. He fatally shot two people and injured another. The president and his allies hailed Rittenhouse as a hero and elevated him to a conservative icon, landing him speaking gigs at NRA events.

This is not about whether firearms should be present at protests. Reasonable people and protest organizers can debate that question toward a resolution. This is about consistency, principle, and committing to the integrity of our Constitution. This administration has repeatedly shown that rights are like “team jerseys” to be worn when convenient and discarded when they don’t fit the narrative.

Just at the Department of Homeland Security, numerous claims have been lodged that ICE has violated constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment regarding unreasonable searches and seizures, unlawful entries into homes without judicial warrants, and racial profiling. And if that’s not enough, there are credible claims of violations of the 5th Amendment due process rights during detention, and, of course, the ever-present 1st Amendment rights of protestors.

But no one saw the abandonment of the 2nd Amendment coming.

Even the National Rifle Association, rarely shy about defending conservative administrations, issued a tortured rebuke of the administration’s attempt to rewrite the Constitution. The organization warned against “selective enforcement of constitutional rights based on political affiliation,” and pointed out that peaceful, lawful gun ownership cannot be curtailed just because it makes administration officials uncomfortable.

A’ la carte Bill of Rights

This whole episode exposes a more poignant truth about this administration. Inalienable rights have now become convenient partisan tools rather than being defended as universal protections. The same voices that decry “cancel culture” when their freedoms are questioned are quick to rationalize restrictions when those freedoms empower dissenters. The discarding of the 2nd Amendment is not a single data point; it’s the canary in the coal mine that signals danger ahead for what this administration views as an à la carte Bill of Rights.

The framers did not write the Bill of Rights for Republicans, Democrats, or any faction. They wrote it to constrain power, especially when power is applied to silence opposition. When officials demand new limits on rights they once called sacred, they reveal their priorities—power first, principles second.

Hypocrisy is the enemy of democracy. So if the right to bear arms is truly fundamental, it must be defended even when the people exercising that right are politically inconvenient – like me. And if it is not, then administration officials and the supporting Party enabling it should admit that their absolutism has never had anything to do with liberty.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Christopher R. Gibbs

January 15, 2026

Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate, said, "There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest."

Without question, this is a time to protest. Real people have genuine grievances, and real injustices are affecting real people. Yet, as a creature of Party politics, I’ve spent much of the last 11 months coming to terms with how best to leverage (and balance) the Party apparatus to satisfy the non-violent civil disobedience desires of the Party faithful, while remaining focused on the core mission of any local political Party, which is to build roads for candidates to run on.

This past year, I found myself in Columbus, Ohio, near the steps of the Capitol with a bullhorn, decrying the new administration's ag policies. I was there as a farmer and a virgin protester representing only myself. It felt good, and I’ll be back.

Since then, I’ve spoken at both Party-sponsored protests and organic crowd-sourced events, trying to find the secret sauce that honors Elie Wiesel’s call, while ensuring the movement doesn’t distract from the core Party mission.

My thesis? Political parties need to stay out of it.

As we wade into the year that marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, I defend my thesis by bringing successful 18th-century activism forward into the 21st century. The parallels are striking.

In the mid to late 1700s, the Sons of Liberty emerged as a decentralized network of ordinary colonists motivated by anger over British tyranny. These were not academics or elites; they were merchants, printers, laborers, and farmers. Unlike the formal institutions of that time, these ‘Sons’ operated within a world of taverns, secret meetings, organized boycotts, and, of course, the iconic Boston Tea Party of 1773.

Not to be forgotten were the Daughters of Liberty, who played a vital part in the resistance. The Daughters spun cloth to boycott British textiles, hosted spinning bees as acts of defiance, and supported the cause using economic pressure and personal persuasion. Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren used their influence to rally communities. All without the backing of established institutions.

Their combined power stemmed from organic, bottom-up grassroots movements. Neither the Sons nor the Daughters answered to Party leaders nor adhered to top-down scripts. That common voice was the shared outrage that united the colonies' diverse interests against British monarchical rule. The organic resistance proved unstoppable and gave birth to a revolution that ultimately led to our Declaration of Independence.

Fast forward to today, when Americans face their own grievances. Aggressive immigration crackdowns culminating in the fatal shooting/murder of Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis sparked nationwide protests. Foreign intervention in Venezuela drew "No Blood for Oil" chants and broader fears of executive overreach in the Western Hemisphere. Thousands have marched in cities from coast to coast, demanding accountability. Bravo to them for standing up to an administration that is itching for any excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1792 and unleash the US military onto American citizens.

The Sons of Liberty proved that lasting change demands organic, citizen-initiated movements. Organic protests, sparked by everyday people via social media, neighborhood vigils, or spontaneous gatherings, are raw and therefore real. They echo the Sons' tavern-born momentum, which, in turn, builds trust that transcends political ideology, rather than alienating moderates and independents who view them as Party events.

Party control, either actual or perceived, can shrink coalitions and alliances. Back in the day, the ‘Sons’ united the Whigs, the merchants, and the disillusioned British Loyalists by focusing on shared liberty instead of loyalties to a faction. Today's organic protests against ICE violence, mass deportations, or testosterone-fueled military adventurism around the globe are drawing blue-collar workers, independents, veterans, and even legacy conservatives appalled by an administration obsessed with overreach. Party branding only spoils the soup and instantly puts off potential allies.

History proves that bottom-up activism endures. The original Tea Party and early Black Lives Matter movements gained traction precisely because neither party owned them. It was only after being co-opted by the major parties that the movements were assimilated into being perceived as either red or blue.

This is not to say that my Party cannot still contribute meaningfully to dissent. Nor is my thesis some version of a bipolar decision between action and sitting idle, far from it. The atrocities are real. The overreach of an administration testing the boundaries and tenacity of our Constitution is real. As a Party, we must be prepared to lay the groundwork for the success of an organic uprising by vigorously defending freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly through legislation or legal aid. My thesis is a pragmatic and strategic calculation designed to allocate time, energy, and money toward the core mission of winning elections. The motivation to protest diminishes as election wins accumulate.

In the mid-1970s, my civics professor left me with one indelible piece of advice. “Chris, it's not just your right to participate in peaceful civil disobedience, it's your responsibility.” The Sons of Liberty believed the same and were successful in toppling an empire. All without a Party machine.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Christopher R. Gibbs

January 1, 2026

“Mixing religion and politics is like mixing ice cream and manure. It doesn’t do much to the manure, but it sure does ruin the ice cream.” Often attributed to Will Rogers, that quote was actually coined by American Baptist pastor, sociologist, and author Tony Campolo. Campolo’s lament is a blunt warning that mixing Christianity with partisan politics doesn’t redeem politics; it corrupts the faith.

As I sat down between the holidays to read and contemplate the ‘reason for the season,’ it became abundantly clear that opinion columnists and social media activists were far more interested in fusing their faith with the season to protect their politics, rather than using their faith as it was intended to demonstrate core values of love, forgiveness, and caring for those in need.

My politics doesn’t need protecting or shielding. It can rise or fall on its own merit. Too many writers have it backwards. They desperately try to leverage their religion to defend their political views. When religion is harnessed for political power, it loses its moral clarity, spiritual integrity, and independence and becomes just another tool to mobilize voters.

Conquering Rome

Jesus preached radical compassion, warned against the corrupting influence of wealth, rejected political power, and consistently sided with the marginalized. He did not bless empires - he unsettled them. He did not demand allegiance - he demanded conscience.

Christianity conquered the Roman Empire by serving the poor, tending the sick, and preaching a gospel that threatened earthly power. Yet today, much of American Christianity, through its most politically active opinion writers, operatives, and elected officials, has allowed itself to be absorbed by a single political party and repurposed as a weapon in wars of culture.

Strategic choice.

Beginning in earnest in the late 1970s, televangelist Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority brought together religious leaders to pursue common political goals rooted in culture rather than policy. Falwell’s vision was to effectively use mass media and grassroots organizing to build a national political force and deliver millions of conservative votes to a single political party.

Since Falwell, political opportunists learned that religious identity could be mobilized more effectively than policy arguments. Faith became a brand. Churches were transformed into voter-turnout machines. Scripture was reduced to slogans. And Christianity, once defined by humility, sacrifice, and moral restraint, was reshaped into a partisan identity, complete with enemies lists and loyalty tests.

Today, political strategists know that framing elections as spiritual battles protects leaders from accountability. If your candidate is “God’s anointed,” criticism becomes heresy. If your opponent is portrayed as evil rather than wrong, compromise becomes betrayal. Faith, once a moral check on power, becomes a shield, not a virtue. Yet today, Christianity is most loudly represented in politics by figures who embrace cruelty as strength, equate wealth with virtue, and treat power as the goal.

Damage is deep

Poll after poll shows the fastest-growing religious category in America is “none,” driven not by atheism but by revulsion. Millions are rejecting a version of Christianity that seems indistinguishable from an angry and transactional cable news panel obsessed with domination rather than discipleship.

But the damage goes deeper. When Christianity fuses itself with a single political party, it forfeits its prophetic voice. It can no longer challenge injustice if that injustice comes from “its side.” It can no longer speak honestly about greed, corruption, or moral hypocrisy without risking political fallout. Faith becomes selectively loud about private morality, yet silent about public wrongdoing.

Founding fathers

The Founders warned against this predicament, not because they weren’t men of deep faith, but because they understood power. Religion corrupted by politics always becomes authoritarian. Politics corrupted by religion always becomes unaccountable. The separation of church and state was never about removing faith from public life; it was about protecting faith from exploitation by the state and those in power.

Too many pastors and assistant pastors have become partisan operatives. Too many believers have been taught that political victory matters more than moral consistency. In the process, Christianity is at high risk of becoming less about loving one’s neighbor and more about defeating one’s enemies.

A path back

There is a way back, but it requires courage. It needs Christians willing to unravel their faith from party loyalty and to reject the lie that God belongs to any political machine.

If faith is to be once again held in high esteem, it must be willing to speak truth to power rather than cling to it. And like our ice cream, it must be willing to keep our religion untainted.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Christopher R. Gibbs

December 18, 2025

In early November, I penned an op-ed entitled “Praying to God and government for relief.” In the piece, I lamented the predicament American agriculture found itself in at the time, being on the precipice of yet another bailout from Washington. I focused on the economics of the moment and the policy decisions that sent farmers careening toward yet another unprofitable year. Little did I know that six weeks later, after the recent announcement of $12 billion in Farmer Bridge Assistance, the American farmer would be facing a much bigger challenge than low commodity prices and high input costs. We’re now having to defend our historically Teflon brand.

For generations, as American farmers, we occupied a rare moral high ground in public life. We were seen as independent, self-reliant, and trusted stewards of the land. Voters viewed us as risk-takers braving the weather, the markets, and fate, yet always anchored by grit and responsibility. Our brand carried enormous political capital in the halls of Congress and the Whitehouse.

Today, that capital is eroding right before our eyes.

Perception is reality

If the $12 billion were simply a one-off response to one of the perils of producing food and fiber, there’s no doubt the taxpaying public would continue to enthusiastically support those of us who get our hands dirty doing the work. But this latest tranche is only the latest round of taxpayer support in 2025. Since January of this year, the Emergency Commodity Assistance, Marketing Assistance for Specialty Crops, Supplemental Disaster Relief, and other programming have totaled over $30 billion.

This latest federal bailout for farmers has made one thing unmistakably clear to voters: American agriculture is no longer asking for a safety net to protect against weather, markets, and fate. It’s dangerously close to embracing permanent, taxpayer-funded guarantees. That distinction matters in the court of public opinion. To voters already struggling with high grocery prices, housing costs, healthcare expenses, and stagnant wages, the optics are brutal. To more and more Americans, my ag sector talks like a victim, while operating as an industry with extraordinary political leverage.

That perception only deepened with the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill, which did an end-around an inclusive bipartisan Farm Bill process by unilaterally locking in historically high subsidy levels and expanding support mechanisms. There was no appetite for reform. Farm groups praised it as necessary and long overdue. But that’s not what voters heard. To their ears, agriculture wants guaranteed income in a country where nothing else is guaranteed.

This disconnect is especially damaging when the public has been conditioned to distrust so-called elites and institutions. Farmers have traditionally been exempt from that label. Increasingly, we are not. When voters hear farmers argue against student loan forgiveness while accepting repeated bailouts, rail against “handouts” to urban communities, and even ‘hate’ on food stamps while defending farm subsidies as sacred, the hypocrisy feels glaring, even if the policy nuances differ widely. Perception is reality.

Tone matters

To be clear, farming is complex, volatile, and even dangerous work. Weather extremes, global competition, and commodity price swings are real. Government intervention in agriculture is not new, nor is it inherently illegitimate. Crop insurance, disaster relief, price supports, and conservation programs all have a defensible role in supporting an industry that I will always defend as a national security interest. But scale, frequency, and tone matter, and that’s where we farmers and our political allies have misread the room.

The political consequences are real. Rural America already feels culturally distant to urban and suburban voters. Agriculture’s posture is widening that gap. Repeated bailouts reinforce the narrative that farming is an interest group first and a public good second. In an age of viral soundbites, “$12 billion bailout” travels faster than any explanation about trade disruptions, the costs of tariffs, or drought.

Ironically, as urban and suburban voters become skeptical, farmers are losing the very coalition they need for long-term policy stability. Farm programs depend on national support, not just rural votes. When agriculture loses credibility with suburban taxpayers (the swing voters who decide elections), it loses leverage. And when voters start lumping farmers in with banks, airlines, and automakers as serial recipients of bailouts, the moral argument for special treatment collapses.

We could have

This was not inevitable. We could have used the moment to argue for reform that included tighter income caps, better-targeted aid, conservation-based support, or a shift toward resilience rather than perpetual compensation. Instead, much of our industry chose more guarantees, more money, and fewer strings.

Politics is perception as much as policy. Right now, the perception is that we American farmers want to protect our brand of independence with rhetoric, while seeking dependence in practice.

The room ain’t buying it.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Christopher R. Gibbs

December 4, 2025

I’ve been traveling in Ohio, facilitating listening sessions in rural areas and talking to voters about their expectations of political leaders, governments, and institutions. A few weeks back, a young mother lamented to our group about a crisis among young men in America. Curious, I asked, “Can anyone explain this to me?” Some responded that young men spend too much time watching video games, or they don’t have any friends or even a girlfriend. I quipped that they might need a boot in the keister and that they probably didn’t have enough cows. The former was literal, while the latter was my metaphor for not having enough meaningful chores.

My response drew an immediate reaction from the young mother, who let the room know that she had a 13-year-old son and was genuinely worried about his future. My musings did not amuse her.

The research

Diving headfirst into the research of this crisis of young men phenomenon, it became immediately apparent that something was afoot. I’m now a believer that we are facing a quiet emergency that is shaping our economy, culture, and politics. Young men are falling behind, and the effects are now measurable. Fewer men are pursuing college degrees, more men are disconnected from work, rising rates of loneliness and depression, and growing political disillusionment among males under 35 is now drawing attention. As a grandfather of two young boys, it certainly has my attention.

Young men are now the least educated demographic in America. Women earn nearly 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees, a reversal of the gender gaps that dominated higher education only two generations ago. Meanwhile, one in nine men between 25 and 54 is out of work today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Isolation

Men report far fewer friendships than in past decades, and many young men say they have no close friends at all. Mental-health challenges are widespread but often untreated, particularly among men who grew up being told vulnerability is weakness. Online and AI spaces offer a false sense of belonging and can reinforce disengagement rather than social inclusion.

Some frame this crisis as cultural, the decline of traditional masculinity, or the erosion of clear gender roles. But that explanation misses the more tangible fact that the economic landscape for working-class men has fundamentally changed. Manufacturing and skilled trades once offered a reliable path to the middle class without a four-year degree. But offshoring, automation, and the growth of a service-based economy left many young men without a clear identity or future. And what’s more, these young adults have watched starter homes fetch over asking price, while only limited construction of affordable single-family homes is underway in many rural communities. It’s no wonder they question if the “go to college, get a good job, settle down” script was a lie.

Ballot box

The result is a generation of men who feel culturally displaced, economically uncertain, and politically alienated. And they are expressing that alienation at the ballot box.

In recent election cycles, young men, predominantly white, working-class, and rural men, have increasingly backed anti-establishment candidates on the right. Carnival-barking politicians who punish cultural elites who lecture bout “toxic masculinity”, promise to tear down institutions, bring back jobs, or restore a bygone economic order resonate with men who feel the system has written them off.

The crisis of young men has become a political force not because these men are uniquely aggrieved, but because so many feel unseen. When institutions, media, and political parties focus almost exclusively on cultural issues and marginalized communities, many young men internalize the message that their struggles don’t count.

Options?

Many communities, including my own, are already on the case by boosting Career and Technical Education in high schools and expanding trade-school pathways to align with modern industries that reward skills that lead to real jobs.

But jobs aren’t the panacea. To develop well-rounded young men, we need well-rounded solutions that address the social foundations of their identities. That means encouraging fathers to be present, supporting boys’ educational needs starting in elementary school, and reinvigorating civic organizations that once connected young men to their communities. One such initiative in my community is Guys with Ties, and Girls with Pearls, which focuses on leadership, life skills, attire, and community involvement. Rural areas are generally fortunate to have FFA chapters and vigorous 4-H programming as well.

And what about those fatherless single-parent homes? How about we supplement these with after-school mentorship programs? Thousands of tradesmen, veterans, coaches, and even retired grandpas who still know how to swing a hammer or throw a spiral could take a couple of kids under their wing each year and serve as role models for a lifetime.

Politically, policymakers should recognize that the crisis of young men has become a credible predictor of voting behavior. A generation that feels disconnected will gravitate toward candidates who promise disruption. One can argue that the crisis among young men changed the trajectory of our democracy in the 2024 presidential election. In the future, a generation that feels valued and invested in will gravitate toward the candidate who campaigns on economic stability and optimism rather than grievance.

So, instead of making unilateral decisions on how many cows young men need, maybe we should demonstrate to them that it’s good to want to protect and provide. That strength is noble when it’s in the service of something bigger than ego. And that ambition isn’t toxic when it builds relationships, families, and communities.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

Christopher R. Gibbs

November 20, 2025

Shelby County, Ohio, has found itself in a revealing split-screen moment. On the one side, township residents are packed into a county community hall to weigh in on the future of their farmland and to participate in a public process to testify that industrial wind and solar energy development threatens their soil, livelihoods, and the landscapes their families had tended for generations.

On the other side, inside the City of Sidney, the view looks entirely different. A $3 billion Amazon data center project is advancing not because residents were meaningfully consulted, but because a majority of city council members approved a property tax abatement on over 200 acres of annexed farmland. Residents’ questions were heard only after decisions had essentially been made, and concerns were addressed only after the city had committed to Amazon’s most significant financial incentive.

So why is it that landowners in the townships have a formal voice over wind and solar projects that create energy, while city residents have none over a sprawling data center campus that consumes that same energy?

SB 52: A Voice in the Townships

Senate Bill 52, passed in 2021, was a direct response to rural Ohioans’ demand for greater local control over utility-scale wind and solar farms. For the first time, county commissioners and township trustees could bar such projects within unincorporated areas. While in my view, SB 52 severely limits a farmland owner’s ability to maximize their asset’s potential, Shelby County’s commissioners did administer the law as intended. They held hearings, listened to residents, confirmed township support, and passed a resolution restricting wind and solar across 14 townships. To date, over 30 Ohio counties have imposed similar restrictions.

Whether one agrees with the policy or not, the process was public and collaborative. Township residents heard a clear message that their land and neighborhoods matter, and their voices count.

City Limits: A Different System, A Different Outcome

Sidney residents, like most Ohioans living in incorporated municipalities, have little recourse other than the ballot box to influence their city’s land-use decisions. Under Ohio’s home-rule system, city councils can approve tax abatements, zoning changes, and megaproject agreements without public referendum or township-style veto power. In theory, this makes cities nimble, yet in practice, it often means residents learn about major deals only after they are largely complete.

That is exactly what happened with Amazon. City council approved a tax package worth up to $350 million in foregone property taxes over 30 years. In exchange, Amazon will make a $50 million payment-in-lieu-of-taxes over 15 years.

Residents raised concerns about environmental impacts, water usage, electric grid capacity, and the fairness of granting a multinational corporation a multi-decade tax holiday when many local businesses operate without such incentives.

Their frustration was not only with Amazon’s footprint. It was with a system that asks residents to trust decisions they believe were not fully disclosed.

The Uneven Geography of Public Power

The contrast, where one part of the county is empowered while another is sidelined, raises an interesting question: Why do Ohioans have vastly different levels of control over land-use decisions based solely on which side of a city boundary they live on?

If you own 200 acres of farmland in “Anytownship, Ohio,” SB 52 gives you legal standing to stop a solar project next door. But suppose you own a home near a proposed data center being built within city limits. In that case, you can speak at a council meeting for two or three minutes to voice your concerns, yet the city can still approve a project that may increase utility bills, strain water capacity, and change your neighborhood forever.

Both decisions involve land. Both shape the county’s future. But only one involves robust public input.

Toward a More Transparent Urban Process

I concede that Ohio cities cannot and should not operate exactly like Ohio townships. Economic development often requires speed and confidentiality. But that reality does not excuse a process that leaves residents wanting.

Local leaders still have the chance to close the trust gap. Upcoming agreements with Amazon covering infrastructure, water, and sewer, as well as ongoing development, give the council another opportunity to invite public engagement before votes.

Amazon’s data center may ultimately prove a wise investment that invites yet more economic activity and jobs, or it may set precedents that residents regret for decades. Regardless of the outcome, if township residents can be trusted to help shape the future of their land and community, surely city residents deserve the same consideration.

~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.

I’m reminded daily that I didn’t start farming to get rich. Unless you’re an absentee investor with no anchor to the land, no one does. For me, as a first-generation farmer who started from scratch in the early 1980s, it was all about planting the seeds necessary to grow and build something my family and I could be proud of. Something durable that would last through thick and thin and endure through the generations.

I am not unique. Farmers and ranchers all across this nation hold the same core values. They believe that making an honest living off the land by planting and harvesting a safe and abundant food supply for their fellow Americans is not only noble and honest, but in many ways, their patriotic duty.

Today, small and medium-sized farms are in a cash-flow and working-capital crisis not of their own making. Commodity prices for major commodities are at or below the cost of production, while input costs continue to rise, squeezing farmers to the brink. Too many will soon have to make decisions about their future that no farmer should ever have to make in this United States of America. In September, hundreds of farmers met in Newport, Arkansas, to make their plight known to legislators. In the end, they joined hands to pray to God and their government for relief.

Gone are the days when putting your shoulder to the farmstead grindstone is enough. The threat of financial heartbreak is imminent and comes to our farmers not from a God-made pestilence or a foreign entity, but from within. Farmers are under attack by the policies of their own White House.

To understand this threat, one first has to return to the failed tariff debacle of the administration in 2018, when punitive tariffs were applied on a myriad of imports from all of our traditional foreign trading partners. The results were predictable. Those trading partners retaliated against the United States of America’s soft underbelly – US agriculture. Commodity prices tumbled, and farmers suffered crippling losses, particularly in the soybean sector. We lost foreign markets, and our reliability as a trading partner was damaged.

To keep farmers pacified in 2018, the administration raided the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to dole out $23 billion in hush money. The CCC is the debit card that the Secretary of Agriculture can use at their discretion to fund mission-driven programming. Only Congress can refill that USDA debit card using taxpayer dollars. It worked. The administration used farmers’ patriotism and sense of duty to sedate, then used cash to silence them.

Today, it’s “Déjà vu all over again” as the same administration is once again using tariffs to terrorize our traditional trading partners in an effort to repatriate and nationalize the production of goods back into the United States. A noble goal to be sure, but when clumsily implemented with no calculation of cause and effect, it becomes a “been there, done that” disaster for the American farmer, rural America and the American consumer.

But this time there’s a twist. Tariffs are now inflating the cost of inputs that farmers and ranchers need. Repair parts, fertilizer, heavy machinery, and more are all subject to random, ad hoc import taxes levied by the middle-of-the-night whims of the White House. And what’s more, this administration has applied its ‘art of the deal’ tariffs to the very raw products farmers use to grow and build things – steel, aluminum, and lumber, resulting in crushing self-inflicted inflation.

So what is the administration’s solution to pacify? The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Treasury are floating a plan to bail out farmers using tariff dollars. The very tariff dollars farmers are paying through lost market share and increased input prices will now be funneled back to them as a bailout and pitched as a demonstration of this administration’s ‘love’ for farmers. This is the height of hypocrisy.

This faux love of farmers emanating from the White House is not rooted in a deep sense of caring or virtue. Instead, the White House believes it has farmers right where it wants them – dependent on the president as the only one who can save them from ruin. Yet that could not be further from the truth. Under the surface, this White House is petrified of farmers, US agriculture, and rural America. This administration knows that if it loses rural America’s confidence, the phenomenon of this White House’s grip on rural America and the American farmer will crumble.

Yet this White House is vulnerable. Farmers, ranchers, and the US agricultural complex have a real opportunity to finally stand up, clear their throats, and say enough is enough. This is their time. This is their moment to gird up their loins and say enough of the platitudes of love. Enough of destroying the goodwill farmers built with trading partners over decades of travel and diplomacy. Enough using their patriotism to control them. And most of all, enough of bringing them to their knees, where their only option is to pray to God and the government for relief.

Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and the Ohio Rural Caucus. He is the President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.