The coming end of Tim Walz's political career in Minnesota

 Come this November, whether Kamala Harris wins or loses the presidency, Governor Tim Walz’s political career in Minnesota ends. 

Tim Walz has had an amazing run in Minnesota politics. It includes six terms as a member of Congress, having flipped a Republican conservative district Democratic, even if only temporarily, and by winning the governorship twice and becoming a star among progressives. Nationwide. He was selected as Kamala Harris's vice president both because of his supposed appeal to progressives and his folksy Midwest image that would endear him to swing voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Were Harris to win the presidency, Walz would resign as governor, move off to Washington, and probably never return to Minnesota politics again. This would be like what happened to Walter Mondale after his national career ended. There is a slight chance that Walz might return to Minnesota much like Hubert Humphrey did after serving as vice-president and losing the presidency, but odds are against it.

On the other hand, were Harris to lose Walz will take the blame for her loss. It will be because of his missteps in many of his claims about his resume or because he turned out to be the wrong and risky choice for Vice President. Many said that perhaps Harris should have selected Pennsylvania. Governor Josh Shapiro to be her running mate, a popular political figure in the most critical swing state.

Were Harris to lose, Walz returns to Minnesota as governor. It will be in the remaining two years of his second term. It is hard to imagine that Walz would be successful in seeking a third term if he decided to do so. While Democrats like him, Walz has built up a lot of opposition across the state of Minnesota, receiving in his second election run for governor a smaller percentage of the vote than the first time, against an arguably weak opponent. Winning a third term in modern Minnesota history has only been accomplished once by Rudy Perpich, and that occurred under extraordinary circumstances of which it is unlikely we will see again.

Walz effectively becomes a lame duck after the 2024 elections in Minnesota, one way or another. Moreover, were the Republicans able to flip one or both houses of the legislature that would also significantly diminish or end his influence in this state. But even if the Democrats hold their political trifecta, they faced the consequences of a possible budget deficit according to the most recent fiscal forecast.  This was caused in part by the significant budgetary increases they enacted in the last two years. Walz will not have the budget surplus he did in the past to do the things he wants. He will have to make far more difficult choices politically than he had to do in his previous six years.

But even assume that Walz does stay on as governor and the Democrats hold the trifecta, having tasted the national spotlight, it is unlikely that he will want to continue his focus at the state level. As the adage goes, after you visited the city, it's kind of hard to keep you down on the farm.

 Under any of these scenarios, Tim Walz will become less of a feature in Minnesota politics in less than a month.

The Political Legacy of Hubert Humphrey

    What is Hubert Humphrey’s political legacy?  The dedication of the new monument in his honor has provoked an outpouring of commentary and analysis on his career and legacy.  The simple answer is that from 1948 until his death he was the face of Minnesota politics to the rest of the US and within the state of Minnesota he defined and personified the DFL party with a set of values that ended with Paul Wellstone’s plane crash in 2002.

    Much can be said about Humphrey’s career.  He was mayor of Minneapolis, senator, vice-president, and presidential candidate.  But this resume fails to capture the whole story.  His is a story of the courage of his convictions–both honoring them and not going far enough.  The two most important values–courage and loyalty. In terms of honoring them, Humphrey comes to national prominence at the 1948 Democratic Party National Convention in Philadelphia where he gave what most historians consider to be one of the greatest political speeches of the 20th century.  There he defended a minority report urging the party to support civil rights.  While today a Democrat urging civil rights would seem inordinary, in 1948 it was an act of courage with a party still captured by southern Dixiecrats and state’s rights.  In Humphrey’s words:

    "My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late. To those who say that this civil-rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. People -- human beings -- this is the issue of the 20th century. People of all kinds -- all sorts of people -- and these people are looking to America for leadership, and they’re looking to America for precept and example."

     This speech led to many Democrats walking out of the convention, including Strom Thurmond who ran for president that year.  Humphrey’s speech changed Democrat politics.  The line from this speech connects to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and the transformation of the Democratic Party into the party of civil rights and freedom, stealing than banner away from the Republicans who had held it since the Civil War.  If LBJ in signing the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was prescient in declaring that the Democrats had lost the south for the rest of the century, it was Humphrey’s speech that began that loss.  By his speech, when the Democrats embraced civil rights it set in motion the forces of political alignment that persist to this day across the country with the Republicans a party of the South and the Democrats one of the North and coasts.

    That 1948 speech was an act of courage and demonstrated loyalty to human dignity. Humphrey always cared about the underdog. Humphrey came to embody the classic image of the Post WW II Liberal-Democrat. It was a party of the New Deal, the Great Society, and a respect for civil rights and human dignity. There was passion in the values and a courage to espouse them. Yet twenty years later in 1968 as a presidential candidate a different loyalty did him in–his loyalty to LBJ. Humphrey (as LBJ’s vice-president) remained loyal, perhaps too loyal to the president, failing to break from him and criticize the Vietnam War. By failing to do that Humphrey failed to capture the banner of the anti-war crowd that first cheered for rival Minnesotan Senator Eugene McCarthy and then Bobby Kennedy.  Some say that had he remained true to his values, had he broken sooner and criticized the war, he would have won the presidency. But despite this loss, Humphrey went onto complete a significant career in the Senate, with perhaps the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Bill one of his crowning achievements. The law guaranteed a job to everyone who wanted to work–too bad the law would be watered down to nothing.

    Humphrey was Minnesota’s face to America.  He was part of legacy or lineage of Minnesota politicians that included Orville Freeman, Walter Mondale, Wendell Anderson, Paul Wellstone, and to a lesser degree, mayors Don Frazier, George Latimer, and Representatives Bruce Vento and Martin Sabo. Nationally they embodied the essence of what the Democrat Party used to be, and they were also the definition of what the DFL was once in Minnesota.

    But that era ended. How and why is a stpry for another day. But I remember first coming to Minnesota in 1986, noting how the DFL party was then in the hands of what I described as the sons of former or dead DFLers. The new generation of Democrats sang homage to Humphrey but they were hardly of the same mold. Now a quarter of a century later, the DFL Party is in the hands of the grandsons and daughters of former and dead Democrats.  They still sing homage to Humphrey but this hardly the party of Hubert. It is a party that is insular, having failed to renew its values and broaden its membership beyond the core of party regulars and hacks who have failed to honor values of Humphrey while updating for the 21st century. The last hurrah for the party of Humphrey was Paul Wellstone, but with his plane crash in 2002 an era closed and the DFL that once existed died too.

    Minnesota is no longer the party of Humphrey.  We are a state of Jesse Ventura, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, government shutdowns, budget impasses, voter ID, and attempts to ban same-sex marriage.  We are a state where bridges fall down, more children are without health care coverage, racial disparities in education and incarceration, and political polarization.  This is not the Minnesota of Humphrey. The DFL in the legislature and the state seem incapable of producing leaders and passion that capture what he stood for.  Finally, the national Democratic party too is a faint shadow  of the Party of Hubert Humphrey.  Clinton was no Humphrey, as is the same with Obama.  Neither  have ever demonstrated the courage, compassion, and commitment to fairness and the underdog that the Happy Warrior did. Were Hubert Humphrey alive today he would not recognize his party, his state, or his country.

As Minnesota Goes, So Goes the Nation? Not in 2010

The phrase used to be “As Maine goes, so goes the nation.” The origin and irony of the phrase was in the state’s reputation as a political bellwether for national presidential politics, culminating in 1936 when it supported Alf Landon over FDR for president.

Yet just the opposite seems to be true for Minnesota. It was the only state to go for Mondale in 1984 when the rest of the country boarded the Reagan landslide train. Minnesota has a reputation for third party politics–think of Floyd Olson and Jesse Ventura. It also has a progressive streak that included socialists in the 1920s and 30s, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Eugene McCarthy, and Paul Wellstone. Minnesota seems to march to its own drummer. In 2010 that exceptionalism may lead to mark Dayton winning the governorship.

Minnesota: The Fargo Factor v. Lake Wobegon?
Minnesota has the Fargo factor (think the movie) with an endearing sense of traditionalism and Nordic rugged individualism. But there is a Lake Wobegon aspect where we do think all the children are above average. The reality of Minnesota is caught somewhere between these two pop culture images.

Explanations for the state’s political idiosyncrasy are varied. Some locate it in Minnesota’s political culture, but stating that tells us nothing. It is like saying there is something in the drinking water. Others contend that the Scandianian culture is an explanation. Perhaps true, but the state is more German than Nordic and the influx of immigrants from other parts of the world should have a bigger impact on politics than it has if this were true.

I describe Minnesota as a very religious state with a tradition of religious activism that expresses a dislike of corruption and a demand for reform and clean government. It is a liberal state with conservative pulls. It has a populist tradition, a commitment to equality, and a generally positive view of an activist government. Historically is has expressed a fear of accumulation of power in business, with government historically viewed to protect people from business. Some of this may be changing, but this is the core of Minnesota politically.


Explaining Minnesota’s Independent Streak
How do we explain Minnesota’s independent streak? The state has numerous groups and regions that compete and none of them are dominant. This means that the key to winning in Minnesota is by building alliances to forge coalitions. The process of coalition building has resulted in tight party competition, occasional third party support, and high voter turnout.

In addition, Minnesota has a long tradition of non-partisan and partisan elections. This combination of two types of elections produces an electorate that is not historically as committed to party voting as one might see in other states. For example, from 1913 to 1974 the Minnesota Legislature was non-partisan. Local races remain non-partisan, as is true with judicial races. Parties have and remain powerful forces in the state, but their allure is waning. No party–DFL, GOP, or GOP–commands 51% of the population. Today I think it is DFL 35%, GOP 30%, Independence 10%, and no party at 25%. The point here is that politics is competitive and the balance of power is in mobilizing the base but more importantly, in moving the swing voters to your side. Win the swings, win the state.

Minnesota v USA in 2010
Winning over the swings is not Einstein politics. This is real simple Politics 101. But it is often forgotten by many. The DFL for years lost control of the center which is why it has not won the governor’s race since 1986 and why in 1998 it lost the House. It was not until 2004 and 2006 that it learned to recapture the center and was rewarded with control of the House again. The same problem has plagued the national Democrats. Yet in 2008 it captured the center and the result was Obama’s victory along with strong congressional majorities.

Now the national Democrats have lost the center again, with the swings moving to the GOP this year. One can debate the reasons for this loss and whether Obama had alternative options with the progressives. Yet it is clear that in 2010 the Democrats have lost the swing voters, that jobs and opposition to taxes are major policy drivers, and that the GOP has the political narrative this year–it is “Change.” Sound familar?

All this should suggest a great year for the GOP in Minnesota and that Emmer is the next governor. But not necessarily so.

Tons of polls and surveys have been done this year. Many are awful. But some truths emerge. First, large majorities of Minnesotans recognize that taxes need to go up to address services. They have seen schools, roads, and bridges decay and now about 60% or so recognize a need for tax increases. Thus unlike nationally, the anti-tax message has limited appeal beyond a GOP base plus some swings.

Second, polls suggest that Dayton is capturing the bulk of the swing voters. Emmer is not getting many swings. Horner is getting them. Emmer is running base politics. By that, from the day he accepted his party nomination he declared he would run from the right and not from the center. Dumb move! He forgot the battle is from and for the center. He ran as and let the DFL paint him as a right-winger and he is paying the price. He is still in the race because Dayton has run a lackluster campaign and his supporters are not as excited or passionate about him as the Emmer voters are for their candidate. This explains Obama’s pep rally for Dayton over the weekend. Dayton needs his base–plus women and swings–to get excited and vote for him. If they do, Dayton bucks the national trend and wins.

Emmer may still win, but it is a battle. He needs his base to vote–and they will–he needs to pickup more swings–hard to see how–and he needs Dayton’s people to stay home on election day.