Why Red States?
Since 2007, I have been involved in anti-hunger policy advocacy efforts in all kinds of political environments at the national, state and local levels. My team and I know how to play both offense and defense in the fight against hunger. And we fully embrace the national rallying cry to “protect and strengthen SNAP” in every policy debate, large and small.
Even so, since launching Rachel Cahill Consulting, LLC in early 2017, my team and I have focused the majority of our attention on supporting anti-hunger advocates in so-called “red states” — meaning states with Republican majorities in the Legislature and/or Republican control of the Governor’s Office. We are often asked why we focus on red states, when we could be doing more “progressive” things in states that are politically friendlier to safety net programs, including SNAP.
Our answer is simple — red states face the highest rates of hunger.
Just like bank robber Willie Sutton’s famous quip in response to the question of why he robbed banks — “Because that’s where the money is” — if we are serious about tackling food insecurity by strengthening SNAP, we must concentrate on where SNAP access is most often threatened.
We are not alone in our commitment to a “red state strategy” to fighting hunger. Leading national anti-hunger organizations and funders have made public commitments to funding advocacy capacity in politically conservative states where the highest rates of hunger and the largest racial disparities exist. For example:
Mazon: A Jewish Response to Hunger created the Emerging Advocacy Fund in 2018, providing multi-year funding to backbone advocacy organizations in 20 mostly conservative states.
The Center for Law and Social Policy led the Advancing Strategies to Align Programs initiative, funding 22 state-level advocacy organizations, including a Southern Learning Community for advocates operating in the most politically challenging environments in the country.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Food Research and Action Center both have long histories of supporting anti-hunger advocacy efforts across the country, including in deeply conservative states.
More recently, Feeding America began investing in state-level SNAP advocacy capacity for its Network Members to engage — either more deeply or for the first time — in state-level SNAP advocacy, starting with investments in states with the highest rates of food insecurity and the biggest policy barriers to SNAP access. The RCC team is proud to support this critical work!
After working in conservative political environments for 14 of my 17+ years as an anti-hunger advocate, I know which arguments are most compelling in these environments and which strategies to employ. I’ve also come to learn that, to succeed in red states, there are two core principles to keep in mind:
We must take seriously the amount of time, resources, and expertise required to beat back attacks on SNAP that are rooted in racism, classism, and misogyny. Advocates must be able to coordinate and sustain high-quality policymaker education, community and media engagement, and strategic coalition-building. It’s not enough to hand one local advocate a generic set of talking points and hope they will succeed.
Defeat is not inevitable. No matter how big of a veto-proof majority a legislature may have or how many favors the bill sponsor can cash in, attacks on SNAP built upon misinformation and stereotypes about low-income people can be beaten. Just ask the savvy advocates in states like Alabama, Kentucky, Montana, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Ohio – all of whom have recently successfully stopped harmful SNAP legislation from becoming law.
If you are an anti-hunger organization in a politically conservative environment and need support creating a long-term plan to protect and strengthen SNAP at the state or local level, please reach out! We are here to help.