LETTER: No perfect choices, but one terrible one

I am a 21 year old who will be voting in my first primary election for Governor. Since this is the first open primary for Governor since I was a young kid, I have been excited to watch the race for the nomination develop, and have been watching every candidate and their platforms with a keen interest. I love my state, and I think we’ve had good leadership in quite a few areas, but I also think we face some unique challenges that require a break from the norm that is the establishment GOP leadership of Iowa.

With this in mind, I’ve found quite a bit to excite me in four out of the five candidates for governor. I’ll go ahead and list their pros and cons as I see it below:

Eddie Andrews is my preferred choice if my singular vote could send someone to the governor’s desk. I appreciate his calm demeanor, his uplifting words, and his willingness to tackle issues that seem hard to address for the GOP establishment, such as the cancer crisis and private property rights. However, it is evident at this point in the race that he simply doesn’t have the momentum to win. I wish thousands of Iowans could be convinced of his leadership over the next two days, but it seems that he will have to build momentum and profile for another shot at the race in a few years.

Zach Lahn will probably receive my vote on Tuesday. He has the clear momentum in the primary race, though it is doubtful he has enough margin to clear 35% and avoid convention. I appreciate his strong stances on our water and cancer struggles, and the erosion of small Ag by Big Ag. My main issue with Lahn is that I have no record to trust him on. Lahn has a muddy marriage history and affiliation with powerful interested parties, and seems to be a recent Iowa resident. This immediately raises my suspicion that he’s a grifter who’s great at optics. For the sake of my vote and the great state of Iowa, I hope that small feeling in me is wrong, and I’ll still vote for him on Tuesday.

Adam Steen and Brad Sherman I admire for much of the same reasons. They have each demonstrated in their personal life that they are men of faith and have upstanding character. For this reason alone I would not be upset if either one wins the nomination (although it seems unlikely that this will happen, except for the prospect of Steen winning from convention). Sherman doesn’t raise any large red flags with me, but it seems he has hit his ceiling with support, much like Andrews. Steen lost some of my respect with the way his campaign handled Andrews’s signature challenge, and the subsequent non-apology his campaign issued. In addition, his campaign is focused much on cultural issues, but it seems that in Steen’s professional career, he was not as much of a firebrand when it came to the Satanic Temple’s provocations at our capitol. I also do not appreciate Steen’s deflection of responsibility from the agricultural industry for many of the causes of our cancer crisis. I take great pride in Iowa’s agricultural strength, but it is evident that our core industry needs to adapt in order to be better stewards of creation.

So there you have it- four interesting primary contenders, each with their unique pros and cons. As you may have realized, I have yet to talk about one candidate, Randy Feenstra. Feenstra’s candidacy is the most frustrating part of this entire race to me, for this simple reason:

Feenstra is nobody, and his campaign is nothing. He holds his rallies in Pizza Ranches, with around a half dozen people in attendance. He has communicated absolutely no policy that I find interesting. He has dodged every debate invitation even as his lead has shrunk over the last few months. He is unable to articulate the problems that Iowa faces.

You might think that since Feenstra holds the highest office out of anyone in the race, that he would be running on his legislative accomplishments. Yet as soon as one looks into his legislative record, there are only more reasons to worry. The group Iowa Gun Owners has an excellent breakdown of Feenstra’s betrayal of our Second Amendment rights. Feenstra did not vote for the discharge petition to force a vote on a ban on congressional stock trading. Take a look through the Conservative Review’s Liberty Scorecard (where he earns a C) to browse his other legislative failures.

So why is Feenstra the clear favorite on prediction markets, and some polls, to win the primary? The answer is simple, and painfully, frustratingly evident. Feenstra started out with the highest name recognition in the race, which gave him an advantage while the other candidates fought for name ID that he had by default. Unfortunately, I believe we have a lazy electorate in Iowa, with many people putting little thought into their vote, which is great if you’re an inflatable suit for donors and lobbyists like Feenstra. It is clear that Feenstra used this early position to tout himself as a “Trump Conservative” (his words in his ads I see every day), yet this affiliation proved to be too weak to prevent him from giving up ground to Lahn and Steen.

Two days ago, it looked like Feenstra might be floundering just enough for an outsider to pull off the nomination, until Trump dropped a full-page Truth Social endorsement of Feenstra. I have a bad feeling about how this will affect the primary on Tuesday, but I felt enough hope to try and make this pitch to whoever is reading:

Feenstra labels himself a “Trump Conservative”. Trump fully endorses Feenstra for governor.

What do you think it means to be a Trump Conservative in the eyes of Trump and Feenstra?

What does being a conservative mean to YOU?

Have these two positions been at odds lately?

It is frustrating to see so many people pivot straight into the bony, soulless arms of Feenstra off the heels of this endorsement, solely on their belief that Trump is acting in an impartial, benevolent manner. I remember watching Trump in 2016 get booed for being the only one on stage to criticize the Iraq War, to which he responded, “The special interests and the donors… Every one of those people in there is a donor or a special interest for somebody on this stage. I don’t want their money, I don’t need their money”. I thought that moment was awesome. But ten years later, Trump has largely become the very swamp he ran against. It should be clear from the voters’ malaise about Feenstra that Trump’s reason for his endorsement is simply that Feenstra will do whatever he wants. That makes sense if you’re Trump- but if you’re planning on voting on June 2nd, you may want to consider taking your own side. There will be wins for Iowa from the Trump administration, but voters would be wise not to treat Trump’s every word as gospel. There are far better options for Governor than the man he endorsed.