If there was ever a predictable pattern in Kansas—and possibly even national politics—it is that Republican candidates for nearly every slot on the ballot tend to spend the primary election cycle pandering to the most diehard conservative members of their party to win the general election nomination.

Now, Democrats tend to do the same thing (with the move toward the more liberal Democrats), but in Kansas, it’s to smaller numbers of primary election voters. But it works with Democrats, too.

But after that primary in both parties, it’s been traditional that the party’s standard bearers move their campaign to the middle of their party, and in some measure to the middle of the general voting age population.

Well, this will be a year that will make it worth watching whether that generally Republican move to the middle of the party after the primary election occurs.

Chances are good that Sen. Laura Kelly, D-Topeka, the Democratic nominee for governor, will not have to move very far. She’s a practical Democrat who probably dreams about budgets and line-item vetoes and cutting a deal with moderates in the Kansas Legislature to keep government moving.

And chances are good that isn’t what Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who is the Republican nominee for governor, does. We’re figuring he dreams about a border wall with Mexico—or possibly Oklahoma—or that new Trump necktie that he wants…

Oh, and best-known independent candidate Greg Orman is probably dreaming about how to snag votes from both.

This year things are going to be different. Don’t expect Kobach to move toward the political middle in his campaign. Now, short-term Gov. Jeff Colyer might have, but he conceded, remember.

So, we come to a campaign where the narrow conservative side of the GOP—which includes Kobach, of course, and unsuccessful gubernatorial nomination candidate Insurance Commissioner Ken Selzer—isn’t looking for any move to the center. Nope, and had Kobach lost the GOP nomination, we’re betting he wouldn’t have let Colyer move to the center, either.

So…where does this gubernatorial race go? Who gets elected governor and has the authority to take that preposterous stuffed buffalo head off the wall of the governor’s office and, of course, run the rest of the state?

Does Kobach come up with something new that will appeal to moderate Republicans, most of whom voted for someone else in the primary? Does Kelly come up with something that will see the moderate Republicans, who are probably most of the GOP voters, furrow their brows and vote for her as long as nobody’s watching?

Or, does Independent Orman turn out to be the safety valve for Republicans who are to the left of Kobach but just can’t bring themselves to vote for a Democrat, under the suspicion that their Republican friends will find out?

And you gotta figure that moderate Republican former Sen. Jim Barnett, of Emporia when in office and Topeka now, who drew the more liberal Republican primary voters, though not enough of them, isn’t going to be touting Kobach or even letting him put a sign in his yard.

Surprising that this election might come down to the conservative Republicans of the state and the Democrats, with Orman as a possible off-ramp for those who at least talk about the general conservative values and have never read the Kansas Republican Party platform.

Oh, and whoever wins the governor’s office must remember that in just two short years, whatever the governor pushes for or against splashes back on members of both parties in the Kansas House and Senate.

We’ll see, won’t we…

Syndicated by Hawver News Company LLC of Topeka; Martin Hawver is publisher of Hawver’s Capitol Report—to learn more about this nonpartisan statewide political news service, visit the website at www.hawvernews.com

The conversations are endless. Consumers want and some demand to know the origin, safety and nutrition contained in the food they eat or feed their families.

Little more than a decade ago, seemed like most people could give a hoot about their food. Heck, 20 years ago the only time the media paid any attention to food was to tell consumers when prices went up.

It’s obvious farmers, ranchers and other people who want to sell food want to tell the public about their product. But are they being heard? Does their message resonate with today’s savvy consumer?

Or is it being sidelined by well-funded, well-managed and strategically placed ads and social media?

During the last several years, agendas championed by some environmental groups have been less than kind to agriculture. Some have flooded the public with figures on soil losses, pesticide-related mishaps and alleged failed attempts at using pesticides to reduce infestation.

Technology has often been labeled the No. 1 environmental enemy. But here’s the flip side of that coin and one agriculture must tell repeatedly – technology is our key to success.

For food producers, technology is viewed as the application of knowledge. As humans, we survive by adapting the environment to our needs.

Someone much wiser than me once said, minus technology, we would be just like other primates – confined to tropical regions and subject to extinction due to environmental changes. To survive, we must disturb the environment, conserve resources and continually create them.

Resources are made not born. Land, ores, petroleum, etc. – the raw materials of this planet – are not inherently resources. They do not inherently further human purposes.

We as humans must determine what is useful and how to use it. Topsoil becomes a resource when a farmer tills the soil and plants wheat seed for example. Ores become resources when metals are extracted from them.

During the past two centuries, technology has been creating resources more rapidly than humans have been consuming them. By every measure of price and availability, resources have become more abundant.

Without science and technology, today’s farmers and ranchers would be unable to feed the masses outside the agricultural industry. Farmers use technology responsibly. They constantly use new farming methods and practices. Their minds are like the fertile soil they farm – always ready to embrace new ideas

But new ideas and new farm technology is costly. It is in the best interest of farmers to use it carefully and sparingly. Misuse would add to production costs, which would result in an even lower return on investment.

Farmers use agricultural herbicides and pesticides only when necessary. When they use these plant protectants, farmers follow label directions designed to safeguard the public.

When new advances in biotechnology are discovered, farmers must abide by stringent testing and monitoring practices that ensure only safe products in the marketplace.

Food produced in the United States is safe. More than 40 years of Food and Drug Administration testing has shown most of our fruits and vegetables have no detectable pesticide residues. This underscores that American farmers use pesticides properly.

Every year billions of dollars are spent to support food and agricultural safety and quality inspection, according to the General Accounting Office. The private sector combined with state and local governments spend an estimated $7 billion on similar activities.

Farmers and ranchers support efforts to evaluate and enhance the current regulatory and food monitoring system. Agricultural producers are willing to work with others to maintain safe food, but this industry must avoid policy changes that are based on fear, emotion and public manipulation.

Decisions affecting the course of agricultural production are critically important and will have far reaching implications on our quality of life. We must be careful when determining long-term policies.

Farmers and ranchers must continue to maximize their production capacity with an ever-watchful eye on food safety, quality and the environment.

John Schlageck, a Hoxie native, is a leading commentator on agriculture and rural Kansas.