Senator Bob Dole’s passing is an opportunity to reflect on his life of public service and forty years of many experiences we shared. Although I was aware and certainly followed his public service career, it was not until my second term as Governor that we established the value of really working together. Following my reelection in 1982, I made my decision public that I would not challenge Senator Dole for his reelection in 1986 to reduce politics in our working together as well as with Republican leadership in the legislature.

My first real connection with Dole was somewhat by accident and was not in person. When the community of Smolan finally switched from the old ring down pre dial system of telephone communication in 1976 (only three left after us in the entire country), I was asked as the local state legislator to take the first call. Local leaders had arranged for Senator Dole to make that call, and I have always wondered, when the decision was made, if his staff knew a Democrat would answer.

Probably what stood out most for me about Senator Dole was his commitment to not let partisanship get in the way of serving the people. I will always remember his comment many years ago, following a fall election that “now we have eighteen months to do the people’s business and then six months for election campaigning,” and he meant it and it was true. Today, campaigning for the next election starts the very next day, if not earlier.
​
One of his major legislative achievements and one I have used many times in class, was his working with very liberal Senator George McGovern to pass the Food Stamp program. It was a time when you looked for win-win compromises. Then McGovern got his food help for the poor and Dole got more demand for agricultural products, something that had to be put together to get the votes to pass.

On reflection, Dole was a model Senate Leader, particularly compared to Mitch McConnell. I can not believe Majority Leader Bob Dole would have done what McConnell did to stop President Obama from making a Supreme Court appointment or would have said publicly that he would do everything in his power to make Obama a one term President. He would not have refused to send over 400 bills to Senate Committees, sent over from the Pelosi House, even though many had strong public support and a few were very similar to bills introduced earlier by Republicans. That would not have been Senator Dole.
  
I went to Abilene when he was on his final tour of all 105 Kansas counties and had a really good visit (pictured below). The event took place at the Eisenhower Presidential Library, which of course bears significance as it relates to Senator Dole’s military service, and it’s also a facility I had the privilege to work with as Archivist of the United States—​a position I was honored to hold, after being nominated by President Clinton and introduced to the U.S. Senate by Senator Dole.

The event at the Eisenhower Library was an opportunity to thank Senator Dole for his service in general, but also to thank him for all the hard work and successful leadership he had put into funding the WWII Memorial and more recently the Eisenhower Memorial, both important additions for public visitors to the Mall. But his respect for his fellow WWII Veterans by showing up at the WWII Memorial to greet fellow WWII veterans being flown in from all over the country to see that memorial may, in some way, to me, highlight and sum up his life of public service best. He was an extraordinary and committed servant to this nation, and we are in desperate need of more like him today.

To begin, I know that the bulk of my readers are like me, old enough to be grandparents, and that many of your grandchildren are of voting age. I assume you love them and want the very best for them and their future. Therefore, my challenge to you is to see that they, as well as other young people, vote. And this extends to any young person in your life: children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc. Many are busy people, and they need to be reminded of key dates and details to make sure their votes are counted, especially in this difficult year. It never hurts to check in, and make sure these important people are making a plan to vote. Their future will depend on their influence in who gets elected. The following is my pitch on just why this is so important.

If younger generations do not wake up soon to the importance of voting, and that means starting now with this election, they will face a future that they will forever regret. They will realize, too late, that they could have done something. The climate change that did not get reined in soon enough as well as the failure to invest wisely in research, innovation, and education, have by then put today’s young people in a position of headaches and disappointments of a huge magnitude that could have been avoided.

For better or for worse, this is a Presidential election that will be remembered forever. The ultimate outcome will be either that our democracy survived and flourished or this will be the election wherein our democracy died. I say this not to scare you, but to put in proper perspective what we and future generations face. 

Young people need to vote, but not just only for a Presidential race. There are down ballot races like the U.S. Senate and four Congressional races here in Kansas with national implications.  The entire Kansas Legislature plus local county races, particularly county commissioners, also have severe implications for our future. Given the pandemic, we now know much better the importance of local leaders-just think about how county commissioners across the state have made decisions as they oversee their county health departments’ decisions on public health issues. Obviously, there is much at stake come November 3rd.

Historically, young people have turned out to vote at a lower rate than older generations (check out the stats shared by Loud Light). The participation rates between these age groups is not even close. Consequently, campaigns tend to put less emphasis on young voters’s concerns and focus on older generations who are much more likely to vote. The results consequently follow suit with older and more conservative views prevailing. Therefore, the issue is not just voting in this critical election. It is also about establishing that the votes of the younger generation can now make a real difference in who gets elected in the future.   

I’ve said many times to my students in my classes at K-State that is is not rocket science to understand why the issues of my generation like social security, medicare, and low taxes get strong attention while issues like investing tax dollars in the future through research, infrastructure, and strong public education at all levels tend to be put off. 

Unfortunately, elected officials show more interest in who votes than young people’s futuristic hopes and dreams. If more young people would vote, if that block could start influencing outcomes, policies would more likely change. Politicians agree for the most part on only one thing, and that is the importance of getting elected and re-elected. A young person’s vote counts much more if their peers are voting too. This should be an incentive to get involved and work to get friends and peers registered and voting. 

To close on a more positive note, I have been teaching young people at K-State for now over 15 years and in that time I have seen growing interest in politics here in Kansas and nationally as well. When I ask my students if they are registered to vote, the percentage who say yes has grown considerably. I get similar responses as well as who say they have already voted and are committed to vote this November 3rd. There is hope, but we need more senior citizens who can accelerate that movement with some sage advice from our years of experience. IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHO GETS ELECTED.

Recently, my friend Ed Flentje sent me a book he authored including cartoons by Richard Crowson, entitled The Rise and Spectacular Fall: Radical Kansas Republicans, 2010-2020. I’ve read it and came away with not only an excellent refresher course in Kansas government and politics but a clear message that Governor Brownback may be gone but his damaging and totally counterproductive politics live on, and based on the recent Primary results, that continues into 2020.

In the Foreword written by Davis “Buzz” Merritt, newspaper reporter and editor since 1957, he started with a quote combined with his own addition: “Those who cannot do, teach, those who can do, can’t teach,” and “Those who cannot do or teach write newspaper opinion pieces.” That was a light way of introducing Ed’s collection of ten years of opinion pieces he wrote and shared around the state. And it is quite the archive of Kansas political thought and history.

Organized around three chapters: Finance, Politics, and Governance, Ed’s opinion’s are shared as the ten year period progressed, leaving us in depth information and analysis based on his observations and opinions at the time on government action and politics. For me, this read is a must for anyone who wants to better understand the unfortunate "lost decade" just completed in Kansas, but most importantly, to appreciate that the decade following will continue to be heavily influenced by the Brownback failures and, unless that is understood and dealt with, the damage will continue.

I will have more to say on this subject next week on my blog, but I share this today as a focus for further reading and learning on the topic. The book provides excellent background and great detail about the many problems created during those years, and it is my hope that it can provide both education and inspiration, as we charge up for another contentious and consequential election year.

Crowson’s cartoons will add a lighter touch but still very effective at getting the messages across in an entertaining and digestible way. The book is available via eBook or hard-copy and is a must read for anyone concerned about the challenges we face as a state and the politics of the time.

On August 18th, 1920 the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution received final approval when Tennessee became the state to achieve the ⅔ vote necessary to amend. Kansas ratified the 19th Amendment a year earlier on June 16th, 1919. To put this achievement in some perspective, shortly after the Civil War, Black men's right to vote was recognized with the passage of the 15th amendment to the Constitution. Over forty years would pass before a woman's right to vote would be recognized.

This significant advancement was not accomplished by men leading the change. Men were not making the case to their colleagues that the time had come for women to have the right to vote. Much to the contrary, women persisted in leading the way. In 1869 the National Woman's Suffrage Association was formed and led by Susan B. Anthony. This movement was built off of previous women-led efforts around abolition and temperance movements.

Women have always been key in leading change and that is even more important for our future.

From a point of view of state pride, Kansas in many ways has led the nation on women’s equality. Kansas was the first state in the nation to hold a referendum on women’s suffrage in 1867 and recognized women's right to vote in local elections in 1887. That same year, the town of Argonia, Kansas elected the first female mayor in U.S. history. And, in 1912, Kansas recognized a woman's right to vote in national elections, eight years before the 19th amendment passed.

Understanding our past holds lessons for our future. My focus in this blog is on what should be done to make the most of the underutilized talents of the women in our workforce. This is not just about equal pay, but promoting women into positions that make best use of their talents and leadership skills for the benefit of everyone. Especially, at this time in our nation where there is a critical need for making positive change.

The growing fact is that many young women are outperforming young men at a significant pace by doing better in their classes, by simply learning more, and by being better prepared to really make a difference through leading change. I want to make it clear that we have many very talented young men, it is just that they tend to be fewer in number. The key is getting the right person in the right position of leadership and more often than not a woman.

So how does that progress take place? There needs to be more awareness and acknowledgment that when employers fail to fully engage women in the workplace, there are consequences, including a potentially negative impact on the bottom line. Whether financial or due to unachieved policy outcomes and practices with public institutions, the consequences can be quite significant. Given the huge challenges that are coming out of the pandemic, ensuring women are allowed to fulfill their potential is even more important.

In a strange way, the pandemic and all the needs it exposed for major change in our society may accelerate interest, motivation, and pressure for major change. We just might be more aware of the reality of our shortcomings, that we are no longer number one or close in many key areas, and going forward with the past ways will just not get it done. That will put more pressure on getting change agents—​often women—​in a key position to lead us on climate change, improving education, and addressing the many local issues needed for economic growth in the future.

The fact that more women are stepping up to run for public office also gives me hope. The new, very talented women in Congress from 2018, and likely more coming from 2020 elections including a candidate for Vice President of the United States, is very positive. Younger generations also inspire me to believe that the message of equality is taking hold, and their continued engagement is precisely the thing that can bring about the lasting changes we need.

So here’s to the women’s leadership and engagement that brought us the 19th Amendment. It is my hope that future celebrations of progress for women include not just pay equity but rightful promotions. When that happens, we will not only celebrate but also reap the economic and policy rewards.

To learn more about the history of the 19th Amendment and the key leaders and documents that made it a reality, I’d highly suggest following along with the National Archives this month, as they share suffrage stories and publish inspirational and educational materials on their website. I look forward to reading and sharing these great resources for learning about our country’s history.

My last blog asked whether Republicans would ever stand up to President Trump, speak truth to power, and help set us on a cooperative path to address critical needs in our country. In that blog, I identified Kansas Republican leaders from times past who kept the common good in the forefront of their political decision-making and who, I believe, would not have hesitated to speak out in opposition to the dishonesty, the flights from reality, the manifest errors, and the cynical divisiveness that have characterized actions of this President and his administration.

I may not always have agreed with the policies of those past Republican leaders, but I never doubted that they were motivated by a determination to act in the best interests of our state and country. Today, however, that doesn’t seem to be the case. With a few exceptions, the current crop of elected Kansas Republicans has chosen far right wing ideology and loyalty to Trumpism over the very real needs and interests of Kansas citizens. This choice is starkly reflected in their approach to health care and health insurance, especially given the presence of a pandemic that has caused suffering and devastating casualties across our country and the world.

The most publicized of their actions has been the obstinate resistance to Medicaid expansion among Republican legislative leadership—​particularly in the Kansas Senate. This resistance has to-date cost Kansas taxpayers and businesses approximately $4 billion in forgone federal funding; has deprived tens of thousands of hard-working but low-income Kansans of the opportunity to obtain health insurance coverage; and has done untold, long-term damage to the survivability of rural hospitals in the state. 

The Republican leadership's obstruction comes despite the fact that Medicaid Expansion is favored by a wide majority of Kansans—​and even by a majority of both houses of the Kansas Legislature. Interestingly, in a statewide election earlier this month, the Oklahoma electorate approved Medicaid Expansion in that state—​leaving Kansas as one of the few outliers still refusing to participate in the program.

Although the Medicaid expansion issue has received the most attention, an effort by Attorney General Derek Schmidt to have the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA) thrown out would have broader and even more devastating consequences for Kansans. General Schmidt has joined with a number of other Republican attorneys general in filing a lawsuit seeking to have the ACA declared unconstitutional. The case is now before the United States Supreme Court.

I think we all realize that undermining and ultimately eliminating the ACA, because it was an achievement of the Obama Administration, has been a continuing objective of Trump. Who can forget the fictional Trump campaign promise to offer a simpler, less expensive, and universally available health insurance program?  Such a pipe dream, of course, was never real and has never materialized. Instead, the ACA has been the target of unrelenting attack by the Trump administration and his minions, including Attorney General Schmidt. Trump and the Attorney General have chosen ideology (or perhaps simple jealousy) over the financial, emotional and physical health of literally millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Kansans.

What are the specific consequences to Kansans if Attorney General Schmidt and his colleagues prevail? First, of course, their efforts would deprive more than 100,000 Kansans of health insurance coverage that they have been or would be able to obtain under the ACA—​but that is only the beginning.  

Additionally, Attorney General Schmidt’s efforts would eliminate the possibility of Medicaid expansion. Tens of thousands of hard working, but low income, Kansans would be deprived of the opportunity to acquire health insurance through Medicaid. They and our state’s hospitals and businesses would continue to suffer without the possibility of legislative relief. 

And there is much more. If the Attorney General prevails, protections for those having pre-existing health conditions would be taken away. The ACA prohibition against placing lifetime or annual limits on the dollar value of coverage for essential health care benefits would be eliminated. There would no longer be a requirement that health plans extend coverage to dependent children up to the age of 26. Beyond that, a host of other health care benefits for individuals ranging from transparency requirements to limitations on eligibility waiting periods would also be lost.

I do not know what decision the Supreme Court may reach. I do know, however, that Attorney General Schmidt and others who recklessly seek repeal of the ACA have elevated loyalty to Trump and his agenda above the very real needs and interests of individual Kansans and Americans. They have departed from any path that elevates the common good above political ideology. In doing that, I believe they dishonor the tradition of their Kansas Republican predecessors and all those sensible representatives who prioritize listening and doing right by Kansans, rather than scoring political points. They should be called to account.

​The people of Kansas deserve leaders who will represent their interests and work for them, rather than for themselves or their own partisan gain. This November's election will be yet another opportunity to bring this closer to a reality for the Kansans who need it most.

One lesson I learned very early in public life is that when the government fails to deliver during any kind of crisis, whether that be a snow storm or something of the nature we have now nationally, people are more likely than ever to not forgive the person(s) in charge come election time. Whether that will hold true with the current crisis remains to be seen. I know from experience that even the folks who follow the small government philosophy expect the government to do whatever it takes in a crisis to get things back to normal. And the best way to get back to "normal" in today's circumstances would be to follow the advice and guidance from health care professionals and public health experts. Unfortunately, with folks openly defying and protesting stay-at-home orders, politics has been injected into a situation that should revolve solely around science and the responsible actions that are needed in order to keep people safe. Continuing with the Lessons from Coronavirus I started last week, it is my hope that one thing this crisis can teach us is the value of science in our governance and day-to-day decisions. 

Without a doubt, there are now and will be more citizens who will die as a result of federal failures and some Governors who have refused to issue orders for the public to follow standard protocols in minimizing the spread of the Coronavirus or will move to reopen their states without the adequate testing procedures in place to ensure public safety. The key question now is: When the real health experts tell us what we need to do to get back to normal and stay there, will the President and all Governors really lead? Or will some elected leaders simply ignore them and fumble around giving lip service at best and putting the blame elsewhere?
 
One clear example of accountability is observing how leaders provide the public with reliable, factual, and science-based information. There have and will be more deaths from the virus, the direct result of citizens getting their news and health updates from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Fox News has finally come around to accept some real science but only after large death numbers have piled up. Such behavior borders on criminal action. And now, they are pushing to “open up the economy” immediately, viewing all those who will be infected in the future as an “acceptable loss.” 

Unfortunately, if folks simply refuse to understand or believe the real danger posed by COVID-19, that does not exempt them from getting sick or infecting others. In fact, reckless behavior in this volatile time will have dire consequences. Time will reveal the whole story. And, when the results come in, it will be impossible to ignore the real impact and loss of life from a virus that does not stop to ask someone if they believe in its existence before infecting an individual and taking its toll. So, more than ever, Americans need to hear the truth and operate from one set of facts in order to guide responsible action and decisions.

The appreciation we’ve seen for health care professionals gives me hope that perhaps more people will respect their sacrifices by heeding their expert advice—​during this crisis and into the future. Given all the time we have been staying at home, there is plenty of time to think. In this case, I want to look for a silver lining, something potentially positive to come out of this horrific tragedy we are living through. Writing this blog got me thinking about what could be really positive spin offs to come from what we are experiencing. As I wrote last week, it’s critical for us to learn from this crisis in order for us all to emerge stronger.

​Could one result be the public having MORE RESPECT FOR SCIENCE in governance decisions? And, if so, does that extend to other policy areas, many of which have parallels to what we’re seeing with Coronavirus? For instance, what about a majority of the public accepting the realities like climate change and voting in November for candidates who understand and are willing to invest in policy changes needed for our own good?  

Naturally, coming to this conclusion without a global pandemic would have been the ideal, but I will take second best, given our choices at the moment.

When we experience a challenge or crisis—​like we’re seeing with the COVID-19 pandemic—​it reveals what we’re made of. This comes with a recognition that previous actions and decisions have consequences, and they ultimately lead us to the norms, systems, and structures we currently have in place. Unfortunately, we cannot change the past events that have led us to this disastrous point with the Coronavirus crisis, but we can most definitely learn from these events in ways that better prepare us for the future. There are many aspects to cover and many things to learn, and I plan to continue exploring other lessons throughout the crisis and further down the road on my blog. But I want to start with the area that is perhaps the most glaring vulnerability that has been exposed by this crisis: the failure of federal leadership to respond to and address the immediate public health risk that all Americans now face.

​Here are some of the governance lessons that stand out to me from the federal level:

First, it’s clear that, with something as big and complex as the current crisis, there is not and can not be just one Federal level agency with the budget or capacity to fully deliver. Over four years ago, President Obama recognized this and put in place a coordinating mechanism that could reach across agency lines to better assure that the response to a major crisis would have the best chance of success. President Trump abolished the Obama-created White House National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, consistent with his philosophy of small government being best. In my opinion, that was a short-sighted decision and the current crisis is clear evidence there are challenges where every resource of the Federal government needs to be brought together in a coordinated way to be the most effective. 

Second, if a small government approach is the path a President takes, it becomes even more important to have better coordinating and operating systems in place. In any crisis affecting multiple states, there will always be some resources and involvement from the Federal government. For example, the Department of Defense resources for working with state and local governments to deal with the health crisis should always be an option. And, in terms of engagement with the private sector, it should be done in a coordinated, mission-oriented fashion, rather than the “everyone for themselves” approach we’re currently seeing. The private sector has expertise and a huge capacity for innovation and production, but this needs to be leveraged more effectively—​which requires strong leadership making specific directives and implementing smart, strategic policies.

With this pandemic, we were simply not prepared. The Federal government was not ready to deal with the challenge and certainly had no coordinated system worked out with state and local government. The fact that our government and infrastructure at the national level and in many states was so woefully under-prepared to deal with this pandemic is linked to successful right-wing moves at all levels of government and across many areas, like health care, the social safety net, and more. They have been able to cut necessary programs at every opportunity, without thinking about the real results including loss of lives. 

The other clear lesson in this crisis is that choices made in selecting leadership across all levels of government can and does make a huge difference in the capacity of government to respond with clear, accurate information and decisive action. In making appointments, President Trump emphasized family, business, and political connections much more than whether the person had the capacity to deliver. And, perhaps worst of all, those folks are now in positions where they can effectively shut out or, worse yet, actively ignore or deny the advice of the scientists and experts we do have within our government.

And, when it comes to leadership at the very top—​from the President himself—it pains me to see just how far we've fallen from President Truman's "the buck stops here," to President Trump's "I don't take responsibility at all" stance. Deflecting any blame and trying to rewrite the history of his administration's response is a sign of weakness, not strength, in a time of crisis. And it's certainly not the way to actually solve problems or gain trust and credibility with the American people.

Hopefully, out of this crisis, we learn something. Government should be at the size and quality to serve the legitimate needs of the public. Whether that be Federal dominated or heavily led by the states, the response to a crisis like Coronavirus must be well-planned in advance, with the correct systems in place, and the leadership needed to carry out the mission.

I’ll have more “Lessons from Coronavirus” in the coming weeks, including some positive notes on the leadership we’re seeing across our state and country, so I hope you’ll continue to follow along. And keep in mind as we go through these difficult days and weeks: There is always more we can learn. These challenging times will require all the dialogue and lessons we can possibly generate in order to help us all emerge from this crisis stronger. It’s something we can all contribute to and participate in; whether it’s changes to large, complex systems or in our everyday activities, we can always improve, and creativity will be key. Good ideas and leadership can come from anyone, anywhere, at any time. Remember: Challenges simply reveal what we’re made of.

The good news is that college voter participation is growing significantly. In a recent New York Times article, they shared that college voter “turnout in the 2018 midterms—​40.3 percent of 10 million students tracked by Tufts University’s Institute for Democracy & Higher Education—​was more than double the rate in the 2014 midterms, easily exceeding an already robust increase in national turnout.”

The bad news is that many Republican lawmakers all across the country are doing everything possible to not just stop this trend but to turn it around and not with a persuasive argument but through voter suppression. Intentionally making voting more difficult should not be a surprise, as we have long experienced issues like limited voting places in key areas to create long lines and wait time that can discourage voters. These strategies are all designed to help elect Republicans who struggle to appeal to a broad cross section of the electorate. Apparently, for at least some Republican lawmakers, making it more difficult for some voters to practice their right, just makes common sense if it will help them get re-elected or pass special interest legislation that Republicans support.

In general, today’s state action driven by Republicans to reduce student voting focuses on reducing and in some cases eliminating early voting sites, adding various voter ID requirements and restrictions, making use of student ID cards as difficult as possible, and on election day, not having any voting opportunities on campus. Some would say that this behavior is just politics and everyone does it. Aside from this being untrue, it is certainly not the American way to limit voter participation after all the years of work to get the vote for women and eliminate many restrictions designed to limit certain folks from voting.

We’ve been through voter challenges in Kansas with the reign of Secretary of State Kris Kobach and his agenda of voter suppression. Hid under the guise of detecting election fraud, he did everything he could to limit certain populations from voting, voters that he concluded would vote the wrong way. This in particular included students. At the height of his voter ID law, during the 2014 elections, I recall visiting with students here in Manhattan who did not have the required documents with them at college, such as a birth certificate, which was required in order to fully register and participate in Kansas elections. Many of these restrictions have since been paused or struck down in court, which has allowed for the full registration process to be completed online. And, after years of Kobach’s efforts, there was very little if any evidence of election fraud found. Almost all of his examples were new residents of Kansas that were not always aware of our different policies. Now he is running as a candidate for the United States Senate, and given his track record, I would expect him to, if elected, continue his cause and at the same time show no concern about Russian interference or the serious election infrastructure and security issues that need to be addressed in our national elections. 

Kobach’s replacement as Secretary of State, also a Republican I must add, appears so far to want to increase voter participation, which I commend. Riley County, Kansas has a very professional County Clerk, who happens to be a Republican, running elections who is outstanding in his efforts toward encouraging voting. There are good examples at the local level of folks taking access to the vote seriously, and working to promote it among people no matter their background or political stripes. And, with the courts striking down many of Kobach's restrictions, access to the vote has improved in Kansas, and so has youth participation. All of this is cause for optimism, and I sincerely hope these trends can continue.

Surely this should transcend partisanship; more people involved in our electoral process is a very good thing for our system of government, especially at a time when the values and ideals of democracy are being tested at home and around the world.

If we give a damn about the future and the challenges we face like climate change, we will work hard to stop voter suppression policies and open up more access to the vote, not less. We desperately need young people’s participation in elections to bring a more balanced look at what needs to be done and policies to improve society and the environment for the long term. Making it difficult for young people to vote is just crazy and short-sighted.

Career public servants have long been the backbone of state, local, and federal government. For eighteen years (eight as Governor and ten as Archivist of the United States), I had the pleasure of working with some of the brightest public servants one could find. They were dedicated to fulfilling the purpose of the agency’s existence and to the government in general. 

Civil servants are the doers of the People's business. Governor Brownback then and President Trump now have both led to disregarding, making counterproductive changes, and politicizing the civil service system. Not only has this brought very negative results immediately, but even more serious damage is happening as time goes on. Here are several examples: 

Governor Brownback changed Kansas law so that if a civil service position was vacated for whatever reason, the replacement could be a direct political appointment. This law was used to reclassify many state employees away from career civil service positions with employment rights, to essentially politically-appointed positions who could be fired at any time for any reason. Combined with this action is the fact that during the Brownback years, Kansas had the highest exit rate of millennials leaving the state with one exception. Now Governor Kelly is dealing with a workforce where many of the Brownback hires are not the type of public servants needed. Attracting new and bright talent to work in that environment will take time and not be easy. In the meantime, government efficiency and effectiveness has and will continue to suffer.

Under the Brownback Administration, the Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA) was moved from Topeka to Manhattan. Something K-State and Manhattan liked, but makes very little sense in terms of good government. KDA works closely with several other agencies on a regular basis in Topeka, making it now more difficult to coordinate and work together to better serve the public’s interests. The likely motivation for relocation was to shift from civil service jobs to political appointees. Moving over time can lead to significant turnover, allowing positions in the agency to be replaced by whomever the administration wants. This does not mean that everyone hired isn’t very qualified, but it opens the gate for strictly political hires to be made. 

Recently, President Trump, with 30 days notice, ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to move from the Washington D.C. area to Kansas City with many employees declining to relocate. There have been delays to this plan, I suspect because the administration has started to hit roadblocks in the process of making such a massive change so quickly. Now another agency, most of the Bureau of Land Management within the Interior Department, has been forced to move to Colorado. While the results of these moves will be similar to Kansas, I suspect in these federal cases the strategy is more a hasty move to cut government without regard to what is lost. Plus, it is the opportunity to employ some very likely lesser qualified personnel or sycophants who are willing to validate the President’s policy decisions on issues like climate change and others. Our government should employ real scientists, and it should treat them with the respect they deserve and give them the space to follow the science and the facts wherever they lead in order to serve our interests as a state and country. 

President Trump has been totally irresponsible in the way he has staffed up his administration. Vacancies and totally unqualified folks dominate the Trump administration. Turnover is the worst in my memory. Without a doubt this is the worst Presidential cabinet in history. They come and go so fast that keeping track of who is on the Cabinet is almost impossible. He has made some very good appointments, but they either get fired or worn out dealing with the chaos. The quality workforce has been hollowed out in many agencies, and this causes problems for the level of service and (in the case of the Department of State, Defense, and others) our national security. It will be a long path back to the return of a highly qualified federal civil service.

To anyone who says what’s the big deal: I guess whether government does it’s job well, serves the people with efficiency, and carries out their agency’s mission with purpose, makes no difference to you. I am confident that those who read my blog do not fit that mold. But I do suspect you need to be pushed a little to openly defend the value of a quality civil service system. Would anyone want private sector business to operate ineffectively? High turnover, incompetence, and much higher overhead, is not the direction for business success. Same is true with government.

Despite the overwhelming evidence and grave warnings issued in a new US Government report on climate change, President Trump and supporters of the status quo continue to double-down on climate denial. In response to the report—​commissioned by Congress and conducted by departments within his own administration—​President Trump first worked to bury its release among the hoopla of “black Friday” and then flatly dismissed its findings, saying, “I don’t believe it.” As a concerned citizen and grandparent, the simple question I would ask to the President and anyone still denying the facts about climate change is: “What if you’re wrong?”

On December 5, 2015, I posted a blog entitled “Climate Change Skeptics, What If You’re Wrong?” I stand by that, and I'd encourage people on all sides of the issue to ask themselves that common sense question. Because, as a believer in science and a supporter of action on climate change, I would much rather be wrong and have paid some short term costs rather than face the grave consequences of inaction. And the evidence from the past three years has only strengthened my feeling about the issue, from scientific findings to the events unfolding that have already inflicted huge damage, including Hurricane Florence. But the real clincher is for me is what’s going on in California right now with fires causing damage that goes way beyond any historical pattern. I would hope that the significant loss of lives, the fact that a whole town is totally wiped out, and the unfortunate reality of more tragedy looming on the horizon would at some point get our attention.

Recently, Lynn and I were with grandchildren in Estes Park, Colorado. This area has been impacted by warmer weather in pretty dramatic ways. For starters, there are mountain pine beetles that have destroyed many pine trees due to warmer winters increasing the likelihood of damaging wildfires. There are areas where folks have built cabins and second homes in places of beauty without a second thought that they could go up in smoke at any time. The hotter, drier climate has changed all that and, as we watch California burn, you can’t help but think, “will Colorado be next?”

Since posting that first blog in 2015, I think it is fair to say we have made little or no progress on dealing with climate change. To be truthful, we really never recovered from the initial moniker “Global Warming.” It was used and abused by those who defended the status quo for various selfish reasons, including ignorance. There has been very little acceleration in US-based research and now, as a country, we have totally abandoned our international friends in dealing with the issue of climate change. Another report that really grabbed my attention from the United Nations moved up projections for crisis and irreparable damage. If significant progress is not made within the next ten years, it will be too late to save many of Earth's natural wonders such as coral reefs. And if the environmental impact hasn’t motivated you yet, the economic realities soon will. Indeed, the market is already shifting in response to climate change. So when will our government catch up? And, rather than simply reacting to the symptoms—​in terms of our environment, our economy, and our national security—​will we ever begin to be proactive about solutions or strategies to address root causes?

In order for progress to be made, we’ll have to change this pattern of indifference and ignorance about the problem. So how do we begin the process of putting pressure on our elected officials about the seriousness of climate change? One obvious barrier we have is the current state of politics, where an issue such as climate change gets little or no coverage in the press, and therefore, little or no educating of the American people. And compounding the problem is that as you listen to many newly elected or re-elected members of Congress as they list their priorities, climate change doesn’t tend to get mentioned. Although, as the economic impacts begin to hit home for more Americans, there is some hope this could change when the new Congress is gaveled in next year.

So what can we do? There are organized groups who are leading the cause for not just understanding of climate change but also action. What we need is for large numbers of citizens to join, to support, to lend a hand, and to help make climate change a voting issue. As I’ve always told my students, most elected officials will change their positions if their re-election is at risk. That can happen when rank-and-file citizens engage, which is what we need or it will not be just the trees that are burning.

Just when you think nothing more crazy can come from the Trump Administration, you learn of something that is truly dangerous, and this one hits close to home. Through the budget sent to Congress, the Administration is recommending moving operation of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Agriculture. Please don’t think of this as “inside baseball” that does not impact you or the state, or the country for that matter. It does. What makes this move particularly scary is the apparent interest in shaving some money from the operation of NBAF to help fund the Wall. Yes—​the Wall. The one along our southern border. This should be a cause for great local concern, and I know from experience it will take a very united Kansas front to turn this decision around.

As a reminder, NBAF came about as a result of 9/11 and the consensus agreement that the United States had to take Homeland Security much more seriously. This was especially true in areas where much more advanced research would be necessary. For example, the unbelievably dangerous zoonotic diseases—​the viruses that can move from animals to humans—​need much more attention. In 2001, the research being done in this area was happening at Plum Island off the east coast, under the control of the Department of Agriculture, with a focus only on animal disease research. At the time, that structural organization made sense. But, after 9/11, decision makers focused on the new national security threats (particularly bioterrorism and attacks on our food systems) wisely decided to build the new facility under the leadership and management of the newly-formed Department of Homeland Security. In substance and common sense, the location decision has not changed since.

Just think for a moment about the problems that will likely evolve. The current facility construction is handled through private contracts but closely watched by Homeland Security staff. Many of whom, one would assume, will continue to work at the facility to help wisely and safely oversee the many incredibly dangerous research projects that will follow. Now, one can say that is not a real problem. Just move the staff. Yes, but how many will follow and how well will Agriculture manage and fund them? Keep in mind, Ag has crop insurance and food assistance programs that always generate intense interest and questions when it comes to budgeting. Will NABF face operational cuts in order to satisfy those other legitimate needs? And remember, it looks pretty clear that the Administration is moving to get their money for the wall by shifting the dollars from existing current needs within Homeland Security to fund wall construction.

I have yet to talk to anyone who thinks this makes sense. There is very little public awareness or much communication coming from any Kansas elected official. At the very least, we should—​in a united fashion—​push back, ask the tough questions, and insist upon full disclosure of all the facts. I’ve tried to think of a comparison that could help put this into perspective. For me, this would be akin to moving the K-State women's basketball coaching staff to the football program to squeeze money for something totally unrelated and ill-fated—​like building a wall along the Colorado border as a way to keep the drugs from coming our way.
​
This decision merits serious discussion at all levels—​local, state, and federal. The strategy that helped Kansas successfully attract the NBAF facility was based on a strong, united Kansas voice on the matter. Elected officials from both parties and all levels of government agreed that this facility was in the best interest of the state and the region, and their support was backed by strategic investments in things like the Kansas Bioscience Authority (which was dealt its final blow by the Brownback Administration in 2016) to help spur the growth of a new industry around this important area for research and development. All together, this helped prove that Kansas was serious about the prospects of the federal facility and also that we were ready to make the necessary decisions to ensure its future safety and success. That Kansas voice must, once again, be raised on the issue—​this time, in support of a sane way forward for NBAF.

Very late last Friday night, the United States Senate passed their plan to overhaul U.S. tax law. This takes us a step closer to the President’s signature and, in so doing, it becomes very clear that they voted primarily on faith. Neither side of the isle knew for sure what all was in the massive bill. And, most importantly, the American public have no idea what was offered and buried somewhere to get the final votes Majority Leader McConnell needed. Remember there were no real hearings and quality time invested in sorting out what would be best for the American people. Movement was primarily driven by doing whatever to get the votes to pass this monster along so the President can have at least one major victory in his first year.   

The next step is reconciliation and working out the differences with the House version, passed much earlier where Speaker Ryan had much less trouble lining up the troops for the necessary votes. Technically, it is always possible the bill can be improved in this process, but don’t hold your breath. Republicans in Washington are hell bent on helping the very rich with permanent cuts and teasing the middle class with benefits that will go away in a few years.

Despite the image of listening to their constituents and the hard work of many Kansans to get their messages of concern across, the entire Kansas delegation is lined up to vote for the bill—​regardless of solid arguments being made and overwhelming evidence of the failure of a similarly-minded law in their own state. Also, what happened to Republican concerns about the massive increases in the national debt? When you are talking about trillions one would think that would become quite a concern. Now I know there were some saying that was not going to happen, but they seemed to be on the side of wanting the bill to pass. Respected independent analysts were consistent in their major deficit concern. It seems fiscal responsibility is no longer a Republican value.

In reading the follow-up analysis of what this tax bill could end up doing, a couple of changes got my attention. One was taxing the tuition waivers that graduate students receive for participating in various teaching and research assistantships and, in the process, making it much more difficult to advance their education. Another was a proposal that undermined a research and development tax credit many companies use to encourage innovation. I still don’t know all the details and the implications, but it seems to me that reducing the graduate student population and taking away incentives for innovation will only make it even more difficult for us to compete around the world.

But it appears we do want to give the wealthiest of our citizens and companies tax breaks that help their bottom line but will have little or no help for adding jobs and salary increases for workers. This will not change until voters see through this cash grab for the rich and start voting for their own interests. Until then, the moneyed elites will prevail, to the detriment of our country’s future.

This spring wrapped up my six years on the Advisory Board for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs’ Initiative on Global Food and Agriculture. The release of our latest work product, Stability in the 21st Century: Global Food Security for Peace and Prosperity, was shared at a symposium in Washington D.C. on March 29th. From the experience, I learned a lot about the challenges we face in feeding a growing population around the world (estimated to be 10 billion by 2056) and the impacts on national security. I’m sure without the influence of former Congressman and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, I would have never had this opportunity. Dan and former Congressman Doug Bereuter from Nebraska currently chair the committee, following five years of outstanding leadership from Catherine Bertini, Senior Fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

My experience included getting acquainted with Roger Thurow, who has authored several books on food security. His most recent release, “The First 1,000 Days,” emphasizes the impact that the time span from conception to two years of age has on the rest of a child’s life. I also served with Howard Buffett, whose father Howard G. Buffett authored the book “40 Chances: Finding Hope in a Hungry World.” He graphically showed the incredible challenges many parts of the world have in feeding their people as well as showing the challenges we face in helping them address those issues. One of the most interesting contributors was Gordon Conway from the Imperial College of London, who taught me much about the importance of resilience in feeding the world given the reality of climate change. You can read more about this in my blog post from a previous symposium.

A significant focus for this Initiative was USAID and their Feed the Future program, which concentrates heavily on help to developing nations where significant potential for much larger food production exists but not without major help and change. Also working to address these challenges is Kansas State University and the College of Agriculture, with four Feed the Future Innovation Labs funded by USAID. Only the University of California at Davis has as many labs, with both having more than any other Land Grant Institution. This work will advance food security into the future, and I'm proud of the contributions being made by my alma mater to help address this global challenge.

The release of this report, our fourth product, not only pushes the importance of foreign aid but also makes the case for increasing such funding, which couldn’t be more timely. There have always been humanitarian concerns, but now, in addition, our own national security is a major issue. Such acceleration comes at a time in our country when the current administration has raised the possibility of dropping all foreign aid to fund increased military projects. It seems common sense to me that any country with a growing population and not enough food would be a target for internal instability and external exploitation. Contrast that with a country able to feed its population with help from outside while growing its internal capacity to feed themselves. I would oppose the current consideration of dropping foreign aid regardless (especially when you consider its percentage of the overall federal budget and the amount of good that is accomplished by a relatively small line item in the budget), but when you take the national security impacts into consideration, this is not just the usual partisan conversation. The differences of opinion on such an issue, if not dealt with intelligently over time, will put not just our country but all of the developed (and developing) world at serious risk. 

I have been enormously grateful for these experiences, and I plan to continue following and engaging issues related to this area of both personal passion for me and growing importance for our collective future.

​In the 2004 Kansas legislative session, the Republican-controlled legislature—​led by Representative Kenny Wilk and Senator Nick Jordan, working with Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius and her Secretary of Revenue Joan Wagnon—​created the Kansas Bioscience Authority (KBA). For six years, it enjoyed across-the-board support from the Kansas Legislature, the Bioscience community, and communities and research institutions across the state. Funding came from income tax paid by the existing bioscience companies already employing people and doing business in Kansas.

KBA’s success was based on some really sound thinking that made good sense both for the private sector and the State of Kansas. The vision was to build on the already existing bioscience success in the state through strong public-private partnerships. Common sense indicated that much potential remained. In time, our dependence on agriculture, manufacturing, and the oil and gas sectors would have another partner. The genius of the plan was to take the existing revenue stream and put it into an Authority established by law. The Authority would be governed by appointments from the Governor and Legislative leaders to hire the talent to wisely invest and partner with projects in the best interests of the state. They would be able to work with outside investors, making commitments for periods longer than one fiscal year, and not dependent on annual appropriations from the Legislature—​a key for private sector involvement.   

Successes included providing key leadership and timely resources for Kansas to be awarded with the NBAF selection (National Bio and Agro Defense Facility) now being constructed in Manhattan. NBAF will do the highest level research on zoonotic diseases, the ones that can move from animals to humans. Also, the National Cancer Designation for the the KU Medical Center allows area citizens access to new drugs on trial. KBA resources were key for funding nationally-recognized consultants, hiring nationally respected cancer researchers, buying much needed support equipment, and securing key infrastructure improvements necessary to compete. Both projects required strong leadership from Kansas State University and the University of Kansas, as well as full support from our Congressional Delegation and the Kansas Legislature. These two projects alone will have broad positive impacts on the state of Kansas for decades to come, but it's likely that neither would have happened without the KBA's support and engagement.

The progress in that short six year window led to national recognition for Kansas and its growing bioscience sector and jealousy from surrounding states that didn’t have this engine for economic development.

Then came the election in November 2010 and a new Governor. Although nothing about the KBA was raised during the campaign, within 60 days of this new administration, that all changed. Concerns were raised that we were picking winners and losers (we did invest in proposals with the best potential), that we weren’t distributing the money across the state, and that the administration had evidence of criminal activity within the Authority and demanded a forensic audit.

No evidence of criminal activity was ever brought forward and a year later (and well over a million tax dollars wasted), they had found nothing of substance going back to the very beginning of the Authority. Oh yes, there were the drummed up charges against our CEO with the only findings tied to actions after the audit began.
​
The eventual death has been long and painful in coming. A tragedy for the state to be sure but only possible because enough legislators went along with the Governor’s actions and bought into a growing mentality that ignores the value of research and the need to wisely invest in the economic future of Kansas. For years, our state has been reaping the benefits of these important investments, but now I fear the only impacts we’ll feel will be the sighs of relief coming from the east, as economic developers in Missouri now see an opportunity to compete.

In the “good old days,” it was often said that when the legislature finally adjourned, everyone felt safer. Well, they have adjourned, but I know there are good people all across our state who feel anything but safe as a result of the most recent late-night governing session by the Kansas Legislature. I also know there were many who wanted them to try longer and harder to get the budget more acceptable. Some had hoped, for example, that delaying state transfers to KPERS could be avoided, worrying that the delay would lead to the transfer never taking place—​which, frankly, is a legitimate fear. But, from my experience, if they had failed Sunday night (Monday morning) to get the necessary votes in one house or the other on the budget, the follow-up product would very likely have been worse. Why? Because the leadership would have found ways to get the attention of key legislators who didn’t support what they, the majority leadership, had put together and that would have led to taking away, not adding, to the budget.

They are already letting the Governor finish the cutting and running the risk of their negative balance budget being declared unconstitutional. Included now is punishing research universities with a higher percentage cut than the other Regent institutions. Sure, the dollar cut being larger for our larger institutions might seem to make sense for some. But the specific way it was done, penalizing institutions for bringing federal research dollars to Kansas, boggles any sane person's mind. The lack of understanding for the value of the research itself, much less the economic value of such dollars to the state, is hard to comprehend and certainly hard to defend. Now, as always, there were those who fought against all this, but in the end, the majority ruled—​a majority we have a chance to address in this election year.

In the big picture, one key thing to understand is that there will only be one really good chance to get this done right, and for now, the votes are just not there to do what is best for Kansas. Half measures will not get it done. That is why the defeat of restoring some of the LLC tax cuts on Saturday was fine with me. Getting it right starts now—​with the hard work to achieve the positive results we need in the August primary and then in the November general election.  At that point, there can be some real positive expectations. We should be able to at least stop the digging and the passage of additional acts of ignorance, and who knows, there might be some other areas where positive consensus emerges. But not even then will there be the power to begin the real restoration of Kansas Government. For only in 2018 will we have the opportunity to bring back positive leadership to the second floor of the capitol, and then in January 2019, we have the chance to really start moving in a positive direction. That is a long wait and it’s unfortunate that rolling back all the damage done in the past few years will take so long, but it is the only realistic path we have towards restoring Kansas to its proud past.

In 2000, during my tenure as Archivist of the United States, the National Archives and Records Administration was in the midst of slicing (literally) the Nixon Watergate tapes (recorded on cheap tape that is now disintegrating). In order to satisfy a Federal Court settlement between the government and the Nixon Estate, the records were to be separated into categories, including: federal records, presidential records, classified records, political records, and personal records. Further complicating things, several (or all) of these different record types with different ownership could routinely be found within the span of one conversation on the tapes—​as one could imagine during a conversation between President Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, for example.

The procedures and regular deadlines were all under court supervision. In the summer of 2000, in the middle of the Presidential race between Governor George W. Bush of Texas and Vice President Al Gore, we were scheduled for an August public release of the next set of Watergate Tapes. Given the complexity of the task at hand, as August approached, it was clear that we were not going to meet the schedule, and after re-negotiation with the court, the scheduled release was pushed back to early October.

That’s when I got notice that the Bush campaign was not very happy with the schedule. The message was carried by Jim Cicconi who was a top executive with AT&T as well as a member of my Archives Foundation Board and a friend. From a political perspective, it was a logical request, knowing that some of the tapes would include White House visits by George Herbert Walker Bush, who was the Chairman of the Republican National Committee at that time. Not knowing for sure what had been said and not wanting to hand Gore ammunition at the end of the campaign, they pressured me to delay the release.

My refusal to give in and delay the opening was based on two points. First, the Archives was under court order to release the tapes as soon as realistically possible, and that was not a secret from the press or the interested public. Secondly, I argued that regardless of what was on the tapes, delaying would create an even larger problem for them with the press and allow the Gore campaign to speculate on what was being obviously covered up to avoid hurting the Bush effort.
​
I stayed with my position, and the set of Nixon tapes came out on time in early October with no fuss. Aside from the usual foul language, there was nothing on the tapes that would impact the campaign. Although, as close as the race was, it’s hard to know exactly what would have happened if I had caved and delayed the opening.

One week from today, fiscal year 2015 for the federal government comes to a close, and without some action by the Congress to extend funding, the government will close with it. We know from experience that a few very basic services can and will be continued, at least for a short period of time, but the bulk of government will come to a standstill. Politically, in the short term, it is hard to read. What we do know is a small group in the House threatens funding a budget for 2016 over the issue of Planned Parenthood, something I will discuss more in future blog and social media posts. If they succeed, their victory will very likely be short lived. What really needs the public’s attention is the budget itself on key issues like more funding for research and infrastructure.

Again, I raise the issue of infrastructure needs where in Washington they keep kicking the can down the road, delaying further action needed to properly fund transportation. This is an area going back to President Lincoln, where at least some understood that many major infrastructure projects would only happen with federal leadership and money. For Lincoln, it was the transcontinental railroad connecting east and west and significantly enhancing commerce. For President Eisenhower, it was the highway needs which led to the interstate highway system and one of his major achievements. These major initiatives only made good sense when looked at in the bigger picture with Federal support.

But even if you want to look at projects that could be built within one state, coming up with the money—that is, raising the taxes to do so—all too often is politically impossible. In this case, I’m not just talking about the just say ‘no’ crowd. I’m talking about tax policy that can't ignore what surrounding states impose. Get the sales tax above the competition and you know where at least some are going to buy a new car or with the gas tax, if they live close to a border, where one would fill up. It’s another reason why federal leadership and funding is so important when it comes to infrastructure in particular.

Then from the local officials’ point of view, it is not just the issue of under-funding basic programs like infrastructure at both the state and federal level. In Kansas, we have had the Kansas Department of Transportation resources used by the legislature and the Governor to fill holes created by the tax cut of 2012. With winter coming and local potholes not fixed, be careful about attacking your local officials. The fault likely falls on those above, through short-sighted policy from the state and federal levels. With this irresponsible environment, it is truly amazing we have so many wonderful people serving in local government.

It has been ten years since I left the National Archives and Records Administration, after spending ten years as Archivist of the United States. Twenty years ago this month, I arrived in Washington D.C. having been nominated by President Clinton, introduced to the Senate by Senator Bob Dole, and then confirmed less than one month from the day I was nominated. I was honored to serve as the Archivist of the United States. It was quite an experience and, as I have been reflecting on those years, I wanted to share (in no particular order) ten of the top experiences made possible by the many people I worked with at the time. 

• Meeting Julie Nixon Eisenhower my first week on the job, June 1995, which eventually led to settlement of decades-long legal fights on opening the Nixon records, including the Nixon Tapes.

• In September of my first year, making the decision that emails were records, something hard to believe today but, at that time, a matter of considerable controversy.

• Building a Foundation that became a huge partner in sharing the legacy of our nation’s records with the public as a resource and educational vehicle for our history and the importance of records as evidence of that history.

• Renovating the downtown main archives building, and with private money, building the National Archives Experience, the multifaceted public interactive education and exhibit space and the Charles Guggenheim Center for the Documentary Film, bringing the Archives experience in new ways to millions of visitors.

• Making huge progress at that time on the Electronic Records Archives and dealing with the onslaught of electronic records coming to the Archives.

• Working with two former Presidents (Bush 41 and Clinton) to help set up and build their Presidential Libraries as well as working with other Presidents and their families all the way back to Hoover.

• Building what is today called the National Archives Catalog, the Archives’ first online catalog of its holdings across the country with uploaded digital images of records, making our nation’s records for the first time available to anyone with access to the internet.

• Successfully holding off the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in its effort to move the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights - our nation’s founding records - to the Smithsonian. 

• Being an advocate at the national level, including with Congress and the White House, for the critical importance of our nation’s records and archives and their role in protecting the rights of our citizens, ensuring government accountability, and documenting our national experience. 

• Serving as not only a leader but a learner, working with many outstanding career public servants throughout the National Archives, its Presidential Libraries, and its nationwide network of archives and records centers as we built and implemented a 10-year agency wide strategic plan that, at the time, went a long way in modernizing the National Archives and Records Administration. 

This Thursday, at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington D.C., the Chicago Council on Global Affairs will host the Global Food Security Symposium. The topic will be Healthy Food for a Healthy World: Leveraging Agriculture and Food to Improve Global Nutrition. Brilliant and experienced people from all over the world will be contributing, and they’ll be making this gathering another successful step in the challenge to feed the future. My attendance is as an advisory member to the Global Agricultural Development Initiative.

I was first asked to serve on the Advisory Group back in 2010, I’m sure on the recommendation of former Kansas Congressman and Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, who has served as co-chair since its inception in 2008. The focus has been on the United States’ commitment to agricultural development as a way to alleviate global poverty, and last year’s report was titled: Advancing Global Food Security in the Face of a Changing Climate. In addition to the fundamental concerns tied to malnutrition and poverty, I am particularly interested in the potential impacts on national security coming from a growing population and the challenges to feed that growth, with the failure to do so leading to more potential hotspots for terrorism and other human rights issues.

As an alum of Kansas State University (Dairy Husbandry '62), I am particularly proud of the talent within our College of Agriculture and Research and Extension. The role they are playing in helping address the many challenges of more successfully feeding our growing population is quite significant. They are the home of four new Feed the Future Innovation Labs, started in 2013, with funding of $100 million over five years from the U.S. Agency for International Development. In addition, the National Science Foundation named K-State the lead institution for the world’s first NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research Center for Wheat Genetic Resources. For the Kansan or American asking, “What’s in it for us?” I would point to the advancement of knowledge and research that will have mutual benefit, the development of markets for our products, and the progress being made toward a more secure, prosperous world for us all.  

Through the Global Agricultural Development Initiative, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs has released a series of blog posts leading up to the Symposium that I highly recommend, especially to those who are interested in global food systems. The Symposium will be streaming live here, and they will also be sharing updates on their Facebook and Twitter accounts. I am looking forward to this year’s Symposium and encourage others to tune in.

Up until recently, Kansas policies placed a high value on research and public education as key economic drivers for the state. Just think for a moment about some of the wise investments and tremendous progress Kansas has made in the area of research in the fairly recent past. We’ve invested millions of dollars in the University of Kansas Cancer Center to successfully achieve the National Cancer Institute Designation. Likewise, we’ve invested $250 million plus to establish the Bioscience Research Institute at Kansas State University and to successfully bring the National Bio Agro Defense Facility, NBAF, to Manhattan. These are both very important successes that have major research implications and potential huge economic benefit for the state.

Where I’m headed is asking the question, as time goes on, with Kansas showing a lack of appreciation for research and decreasing funding to our two major public research institutions: isn’t it likely that we will pay a major price at some point?

For KU, the Cancer Institute Designation that has brought earlier access for Kansans to the latest cancer treatments, will that continue? The NCI Designation was for five years and will have to be renewed. In the current environment, how good will we look for renewal and/or expansion of that valuable designation? I think of the huge effort to attract the scientists, build the infrastructure, and put together a plan to implement that not only got the designation desired but put us on the path to producing real, tangible results. Will that all be for naught?

For NBAF to reach its full potential as a major federal lab, the talent to go into the building will make a big difference. Attracting that talent to a state disrespecting the value of research and cutting resources for education at all levels will not be easy. The same can be said for the Bioscience Research Institute, built with much Federal help, to be a level three lab and smooth the transition of zoonotic research from Plum Island to Kansas. As an economic aside, the potential to attract future private and Federal investment would surely be impacted.

How, in just a few years, could we go from bipartisan, united political leadership at all levels to an environment that questions the value of research in general and has little appreciation for the linkage to economic success for Kansas and its people? Will we continue on this path?

Also in this blog series on higher education: Focus on Higher Education: An Introduction, Some Personal Background, and It Hasn't Always Been This Way for Higher Education.