Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Train cars of Montana coal headed for markets.
(Mark Trahant photo)

What if the United States bought all of the coal reserves owned by American Indian tribes, Alaska Native village corporations, and individuals?

This is Trahant Reports.

What if? Two words that ought to be the every day language in politics. What if we imagined?
I have been thinking a lot of “what ifs?” when it comes to coal. Coal is a paradox for several Native American communities. The United Nations says that nearly 90 percent of proven coal reserves are “unburnable” and should be left in the ground. 
But historically the industry has created good paying jobs and now it’s in sharp decline (Mostly because of market forces, the availability of inexpensive natural gas).

Yet stakeholders — workers and even a few tribes — blame the government for too many regulations. And, on the flip side, many of those working to change the energy paradigm demand that coal be left in the ground without thinking through the consequences to families who earn their living digging or shipping coal or even to the governments who rely on the revenue.

That’s where we begin the “what if?” thinking.

What if we could leave coal in the ground? What if we could still pay tribes for that resource and workers could benefit from the inevitable transition?
Turns out there is a solution that does both. Stephen Kass, a New York attorney who works on climate issues, suggested in the Washington Post last week that the United States buy the entire coal industry and shut it down. He said that solution would be cheaper than continued fights over coal regulation and the eventual costs associated with climate change.

This is the perfect time to buy the entire coal industry. Many coal companies are in bankruptcy; and across the board, prices are low.

Some thirty tribes have coal resources, totaling  at least one third of Western coal, on lands from Arizona to Alaska. So the United States should pay the tribes with coal assets a significant sum to not mine their resource.
Montana’s Crow Tribe has a reserve of at least 9 billion tons of coal. And, in making the case for coal, Crow Tribal Chairman Darrin Old Coyote told InsideEnergy: “I don’t want to be dependent on the U.S. government. We have the resources … There’s no reason why we should be this poor.”

What if that resources were purchased? True, the cost of any buy-out would be enormous. Unless the accounting included the even more massive costs associated with climate change. Then the purchase of coal to not mine should be considered as an investment not a cost.
There is precedent for paying to take coal out of production. Farmers and ranchers are paid to not farm and ranch in order for the land to recover. This would be the same. Tribes (and individual landowners) would be compensated for their resource and the coal would stay in the ground.
The international goal of reducing greenhouse gasses requires significant changes in energy policy. We need to rethink the energy paradigm across the board from oil and gas production to what it will take to jump start more green energy sources. And all of the changes ahead will be tough politically. So what if we start that effort with a win-win-win? A win for coal owners, including tribes. A win for workers. And, a win for the environment. This is how we leave coal in the ground.
I am Mark Trahant reporting.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Bernie Sanders and Native American policy advisor, Nicole Willis, to the right of Sanders, pose with the Great Plains Dance Company in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. At far right is Sanders’s wife, Jane Sanders. Courtesy Bernie Sanders campaign.

This election is already one for the books. Why? Because Bernie Sanders spent more time campaigning on Native American issues than any candidate before him.

This is Trahant Reports.

I have been writing about political campaigns for forty-plus years. I’ve seen an evolution in how presidential candidates reach out to American Indian and Alaska Native voters.

Early on the connection with Native people was mostly seen as a constituent service. Candidates visited. Showed their face. Even said, “vote for me.” Many published nifty policy papers written by folks who work every day on Native issues. But there was no real connection.

**My first experience with that was in 1976 at a press conference with the new President-elect Jimmy Carter asked him how reserved tribal water rights would fit into a Carter water policy? He looked at me and then said that was a question for the Interior Secretary. Next.

**That started to change when Jesse Jackson ran for president. I remember him walking into the Navajo Nation Council and he wasn’t just there. He was present. The response from the tribal delegates was just as real and emotional. There was a connection.

Barack Obama did Jackson one better when he campaigned on the Crow Nation in May of 2008. That connection paid off: Obama has had one of the most successful presidencies in history and that’s especially true when you measure what has occurred in the area of Native American policy.

Has it been a perfect eight years? Of course not. But compared to other administrations — even good ones — this has been a remarkable ride. Obama delivered on his promises. Period.

So with that history fresh in my mind, I think, Bernie Sanders raised the level of expectation to an even higher standard.

What made the Sanders’ campaign so remarkable is that it took what had been a special event — a visit to Crow, for example — and it made it routine. When a Sanders event was near Indian Country (or better within a tribal nation) everyone from the candidate to his staff knew what to do.

This is how campaigns should be run. It conveys a level of respect to the first people of this continent in a way that defies history.

How would this have translated into policy? That we will never know. Unless. Unless Secretary Clinton picks up the best elements of the Sanders campaign and then adds something more. This is entirely possible. She has history in Indian Country that goes back a long time, at least as far back as her legal services work. So with the right people to help her, she could reach that next level.

And on the Republican side, Donald Trump has expressed the beginning of his Native American policy, essentially aligning that policy with more development for oil, gas and coal. His campaign reached out to to the Navajo Nation Council asking for a meeting to explain.

So while this week marks the end of the presidential primary season — and a focus toward general election voters — perhaps there will also be continued conversation about issues important to Native Americans.

I am Mark Trahant reporting.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Can one family build a Navajo, Republican Party?

This is Trahant Reports.

I remember John McCain speaking at a Window Rock veterans’ event. It must have been about twenty years ago. One of the speakers told McCain that he had recently joined the Republican Party. McCain smiled. Then He talked about why other Navajos should do that, and what it would mean to have representation in both parties.

But not many Navajos made the switch. Apache County, which is mostly Navajos, has some 26,784 active Democrats and only 7,893 Republicans. The numbers are similar in other Arizona counties with large Native American populations.

Now one family is trying to change that.

State Sen. Carlyle Begay switched his affiliation from Democrat to Republican in November.  And in March he announced that he was running for Congress in Arizona’s 1st Congressional District.

As I have noted this district has a higher percentage of Native American voters than any other district in the country. Two other Navajo candidates are running for that seat, Republican Shawn Redd and Democrat Kayto Sullivan.

Begay told The Navajo Times “in an exclusive interview” that he wanted to be “a voice for the nation’s ‘overlooked and forgotten’ communities” and liked the idea of more local control over services and resources.

Then, last week, Candace Begody-Begay announced she would run for the Arizona Senate seat that her husband will give up to run for Congress.

What’s interesting about that: She was the editor of the Navajo Times. She had to resign that job because of its conflict with journalistic principles.
Begody-Begay told the Arizona Republic earlier this week that she wanted to run because she has had enough of “mediocre leadership.” She said it’s the Republican Party that fits her upbringing and traditional teachings from her elders.

Can one family build a Republican Party on the Navajo Nation? And will it give tribal communities more clout? An interesting dilemma. And daunting math.

Arizona used to be a reliable Republican state and that’s still true in terms of elective office. But the makeup of voters is changing rapidly. The percentages in Apache County haven’t moved much in a decade, but statewide, well, back then Republicans were about 44 percent of the electorate and Democrats were 41 percent. Independent voters were about 14 percent.

The numbers are reversed today: Independents are the largest voter bloc in the state at about 35 percent; there are slightly fewer Republicans, also at about 35 percent, followed by Democrats at 29 percent.

As a Republican, Begody-Begay will likely face an experienced politician in the fall, veteran and former state Rep. Jamescita Peshlakai, who was defeated by Carlyle Begay in 2014. But in that race Begay ran as a Democrat. However this time around Peshlakai will own that ballot line.

I am Mark Trahant reporting.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

What’s in a word? When it comes to a Washington, D.C., NFL team … It’s a loaded debate. But when it comes to federal law, well, there’s a consensus in Congress that it’s time to modernize the language.

This is Trahant Reports.

Last week The Washington Post published a poll that said 9 out of 10 Native Americans were ok with the name of DC’s professional football team.

Whoa! That’s really one-sided — and it’s a so-called scientific poll that does not pass the small test. Why? First it’s a base idea to ask Native people for permission to use a dictionary-defined slur. Wrong is wrong. But getting past that, there is the problem of polling Native Americans. The Post said it surveyed 504 Native Americans nationally with a sampling error of 5.5 percent.

Sorry. That’s not possible. I won’t go into details, but at  one newspaper where I worked we talked about surveying tribal members nationally and to make it demographically sound the sample size would have had to be ginormous in order to work. My publisher’s answer: “Too expensive.”

I know the Post poll is stunningly wrong because I have 40 years of reporting in all parts of the country. Are there Native Americans who don’t care which name the football team uses? Of course. But 9 out of 10? Not even remotely possible.

Speaking of words, President Barack Obama signed into law last week a bill to clean up the language in federal statutes. The measure was introduced by Rep. Grace Meng, a New York Democrat, and passed by Congress, get this, unanimously. Gone are the dated words for Asian Americans, African Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Americans.

As the United States becomes more diverse it’s time for the language to evolve, too. As Rep. Meng says it’s time for insulting words to be a thing of the past.

It’s interesting that The Washington Post and the NFL team owner Dan Snyder are digging in on an opposite course. And that has sparked a newspaper civil war, of sorts. Sunday The New York Times asked its readers — especially Native Americans — to weigh in on the debate. The newspaper said it was time to explore the question, “who decides?” about the use of the R word.

Then again when it comes to that word that question still may be decided by the federal judiciary. The Courts have ruled that the team should lose its trademark because the name is a patently offensive. The team is actually hoping the Supreme Court will weigh in sooner rather than later. I have always thought the strategy in this case to be genius because it says, “Go ahead. Keep the name,” you just can’t trademark (and make money from it).

Take away that federal trademark protection — and you can be sure the team will change the name rather quickly.

What’s in a word? I hope the answer is not just more money.

I am Mark Trahant reporting.