The voices of nature need to step up and be heard

The primary election season is upon us, and I've often said that we need to choose our elected officials carefully — that we should support people who care about the things we care about. Obviously, for me, priorities would include things like birds, nature and the environment. Since birds can't vote, they don't have a voice in the decisions that affect them. They rely entirely on us. But over time, I've come to realize that I've missed something very important. It's not just about choosing the right people. It's about whether the right people are running in the first place. Lately, it feels as though Lorain County's elected officials — despite mounting public opposition — are intent on paving, building or industrializing every remaining square inch of the county. While some candidates or parties may claim to care about environmental issues, very few of them actually come from backgrounds rooted in those fields. That has been my mistake over the years — assuming the problem was primarily one of voter choice, when in reality it is also a problem of representation. There is a mythology in American politics that elected officials are ordinary citizens who rise up from among the people and carry the concerns of the public into government. There are certainly notable exceptions, but as a structural description of how power works, that story is badly misleading. Political scientist Nicholas Carnes, author of "White-Collar Government," has shown that American government is overwhelmingly dominated by white-collar professionals and the affluent, while working-class occupations are almost entirely absent from legislative power. That means people who have worked in factories, warehouses, food service, transportation, maintenance, retail, sanitation, caregiving, farming, and manual labor — the very people who often bear the consequences of environmental degradation — are scarcely represented in the institutions that make these decisions. Despite more than half of the workforce being in working-class occupations, research by Carnes found that only about 1.6 percent of state legislators come from those backgrounds. Instead, elected officials are overwhelmingly drawn from careers in law, business and politics. Working and middle-class people are not only the most affected by environmental conditions — they are also the most impacted by economic inequality and public systems like Medicare and Social Security. Yet research suggests that those who hold office often come from more affluent backgrounds — and tend to support policies, such as enormous tax breaks, that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. That imbalance is part of a larger trend. As Tristan Harris, an American technology ethicist, has observed, "we are living in a time of increasing concentration of wealth and power, where a small number of individuals who are not only hoarding wealth, but they also hold extraordinary influence at a time when many people feel increasingly disconnected from decision-making. In addition, technological and economic shifts are reducing opportunities, making it even more difficult for everyday people to engage meaningfully in our society." In other words, at some point, there is not going to be much left for "regular" people. Reconnecting people to the political process — especially those whose lives are most directly shaped by these decisions — may be one of the most important challenges we face. There is a mass disempowerment of regular people. For example, the median net worth of U.S. senators is estimated to be nearly $4.4 million as of early 2026, making the Senate a body largely composed of millionaires, with wealth often exceeding 70 times that of the median U.S. household. A healthier democracy would include far more people with backgrounds in science, public health, teaching, farming, labor, parks, social work and the non-profit sector. It would include more people who understand that not everything valuable can be monetized. Scientists, in particular, are often poorly matched to the incentives of electoral politics. They are trained to hedge claims, acknowledge uncertainty, revise conclusions and speak in probabilities. Politics, by contrast, rewards certainty, simplicity, confidence and clear messaging. A candidate who says, "The data suggest long-term risk," is at a disadvantage against one who says, "This project means jobs!" Local decisions about land use, zoning and development have enormous consequences for birds and wildlife. Yet the people making those decisions are rarely trained to think about ecological systems, cumulative loss or long-term consequences. Instead, the focus is often on the next industrial park or housing development. I've seen this from another perspective as well. There was a time when I seriously considered running for office. I believed — and still believe — that our elected officials should come from diverse backgrounds. I grew up in an auto worker and small business family— quintessential Lorain County and quintessential working class. My work experience included everything from healthcare and manufacturing to schools and government. I already had a degree in environmental science and a master's degree in business administration when I remember reviewing candidates for state legislature and noticing how many of them were attorneys. It made sense to me at the time — laws are written, interpreted and enforced, so legal training is clearly valuable. That realization was one of the reasons I decided to pursue a law degree. After earning my degree, I thought, by any standard, that I would be accepted as a well-qualified candidate. But when I began to explore actually running for office, I was surprised—and honestly, a bit disappointed. My emails to local political leaders at the time were ignored. I had assumed that someone interested in serving, with relevant education and experience, would at least be encouraged to get involved. I thought my background might be welcomed. I was wrong. Political parties, local leaders and informal networks play a major role in recruiting and supporting candidates. In many cases, they act as gatekeepers — deciding (directly and indirectly) who is seen as "viable" and who is not. As Carnes and others have noted, the biggest barrier is often at the candidate entry stage. While it is often about time and money — locally it seemed that attending political spaghetti dinners mattered more than earning a law degree. (I have to be fair and add that new party leadership has been more welcoming). The impact is that people most connected to the natural world — or most aware of what is being lost — are not encouraged to run, or struggle to gain support when they do. And the result is that environmental issues are often viewed by career politicians from a business perspective whether it is resource extraction, industrial complexes or housing developments. Environmental protections are often viewed not as safeguards, but as obstacles. At each level — local, state and federal — it is a bad time for nature and the environment. To further this argument, I just this week received a survey asking about the most important issues in the election for state legislature. Among the choices were healthcare, taxes, gun control, jobs and the economy, inflation and the cost of living. Not a single option addressed nature or the environment — nothing about fracking on public lands, Lake Erie water quality, habitat loss and urban sprawl, plastic pollution or industrial agriculture. And certainly nothing about broader national concerns like climate change, endangered species or the protection of public lands. Writing about birds, as I've often said, is not just about celebrating their beauty or behavior — it's also about protecting them and the ecosystems they depend on. Unfortunately, even among those who care about and enjoy birds and nature, advocacy can be surprisingly difficult to inspire. And if that's the case, influencing decision-makers whose priorities are often centered on economic development is almost overwhelming. To change that, we need more people who care about nature and the environment not just to speak up but to step forward and run, even in a political system that discourages it. Audubon May program Black River Audubon's May program is themed "Choosing Native Plants for Backyard Birds" by Danielle Squire. It will be held Tuesday at 7 p.m. at French Creek Visitor Center. In this program, Danielle will aim to give important pointers on choosing and growing native plants for backyard habitat while demonstrating how even our simplest of choices can make a world of difference for our feathered friends.