The Single-Subject Rule and the 2024 Minnesota Legislative Session

            

The 1400 page plus omnibus bill that the Minnesota Legislature passed in the closing days of the session is likely unconstitutional. The reason is that it violated the single subject rule. of the Minnesota Constitution.

           Article four, section 17 of the Minnesota Constitution declares “that no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” This clause refers to the single subject rule, which is similar across other state constitutions in the United States. The single subject clauses were adopted in the nineteenth century; the purpose of them was to address what some people call it legislative mischief. Specifically, they were meant to address situations where legislation was jammed together in one bill forcing individuals to vote for provisions in the bill that they might not otherwise support because they wanted other provisions.

            The single subject rule is in many ways an anti-logrolling measure. But it is more than that. It is as the Minnesota Supreme Court said in the leading case on this clause, Associated Builders v. Ventura, the purpose of the clause is to address mischief and abuses of legislative power and to make it possible for the public to know what the legislature is doing by forcing legislation to conform to its title and not use trickery to hide or embed legislation under some generic or vague title.. It is all about transparency and openness in government and to prevent corruption.

            If we look at what was contained in this big omnibus tax bill, it perfectly fits the description of what the single subject rule was meant to prevent. It calls for the creation of new State Patrol headquarters; for health plans to cover abortion; and to regulate straw purchases and binary triggers with guns. It addresses traffic light cameras, motorcycles, and a host of other revenue and policy provisions.  These are hardly topics that address a single subject.

            The Democrats in the House by their own admission put all these provisions together out of frustration that the Republicans were slowing down the process.  The Democrats wanted to short circuit Republican debate. They jammed all these provisions together in an effort to get it passed and do so quickly as the clock was running out in the session.

            The DFL justifies this action to overcome or counter Republican dilatory tactics. For some, the argument would be that were the Republicans in the same position they would have done the same thing. Perhaps they would have but it does not make what the Democrats did correct or constitutional.

            It may be about power politics. It may be all about winner-take-all politics but it's certainly not good legislating. It also sets up for the Republicans to do exactly the same thing. If and when they eventually take control again.  It sets bad precedent and does nothing to dampen the inflamed polarization of politics in Minnesota. All of these reasons are the reasons why single subject rules were adapted.

            In Associated Builders versus Ventura, the Minnesota Supreme Court debated what to do when there's a violation of a single subject clause. One argument would be just to excise off a topic that was not related to the title. Justice Paul Anderson argued instead that the Court should invalidate everything that was in the bill. It is not the job of the court to pick and choose what is the main versus ancillary subject.  Moreover, by allowing some of the provisions to become law it still rewarded the legislature for its bad behavior.  Voiding the entire statute would send the appropriate signal to the legislature that it needs to adhere to this constitutional provision.

            Since the Associated Builders case the Minnesota Supreme Court has not vigorously enforced the single subject rule. However, if there was ever a case  or  a situation where the court should do so, this is the one.  Should someone challenge this 1400 page legislation past precedent suggests this law is unconstitutional. However, one wonders if a majority- appointed Minnesota Supreme Court will enforce such a rule against a DFL controlled legislature.

Rout and Route: What Happens to Minnesota Democrats on and After Election day 2022

There is the real possibility that Minnesota politics could be a rout this November.  It would be a rout of

the DFL and a major victory for the Republican party, potentially putting the latter in charge for the first time since 1984-1986 when it was the last time the GOP controlled the state legislature and the governorship.  It might also represent the culmination of the Trump and Republican Party effort that first started in 2016 to flip the Midwest.  Of all that happens, what is the route for the Democrats after election day?

The National Scene
Six months ago it would have been an easy prediction to argue this election cycle nationally and statewide was favorable to Republicans.   Generally the president’s party does badly in midterm elections, losing an average of 26 House seats. Six months ago Biden had approval ratings of about 40%, Voters disapproved of the president’s handling of the economy despite the fact that there was record low unemployment and the strongest labor-wage  market in years. For voters the economy was inflation at the gas pump and grocery store.  Voters were also concerned about crime.

Nationally Democrats had either no narrative or a bad narrative when it came to the economy or crime.  But then the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade and abortion saved the Democrats, temporarily.  For several months abortion was the major Democrat talking point nationally and in Minnesota, and it appeared to save them as it motivated many groups, including college educated suburban women.

Until a month ago or even less it looked like abortion would save Democrats. But national polls suggest that abortion has run its course.  The economy or inflation and crime are the top two issues by far, with abortion third or even lower.  This is even true among suburban women.  Polls now suggest that US Senate races where the Democrats were once favored, such as in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, are tightening and it is possible Republicans could prevail.

Minnesota
Minnesota is an American political microcosm.  MPR and Survey USA (KSTP) polls point to an electorate worried about inflation or the economy and crime.  This includes suburban voters.  Polls suggest a close race for governor’s race, Attorney General, Auditor, and even Secretary of State.  Depending on voter mobilization and how the few undecided voters break, these races could go DFL or GOP.  Many think the GOP will win at least the AG and State Auditor.   The DFL holds a narrow majority in the Minnesota House and the Republicans a small but solid majority in the Senate.  The only real tight Congressional race is in the Second District where DFL incumbent Angie Craig holds (according to internal polls) about a one-point lead over GOP Tyler Kistner.  

While I see no chance for the DFL to flip the Senate I am also doubtful that it will hold the House. It is thus entirely possible for the DFL to get swept out of the four statewide offices and lose the second Congressional District.

Were the above to happen, what went right for the Republicans or wrong for the Democrats?

Messaging and Strategy
One answer is that the results in Minnesota are determined by national trends.  An unpopular president, inflation, and crime are macro forces beyond the control of anyone in Minnesota. Republicans rode the wave and Democrats got buried in it.  But such an explanation ignores too much.

Nationally Democrats had no message or narrative on inflation or crime.  Granted there is little a president can do to address inflation, but the talking points were awful or next to none.  The same is true with crime. Biden and the Democrats could have stolen a page from Bill Clinton  and proposed money to hire 100,000 police but they did not.  Instead, they became painted yet again as soft on crime.
The same problem exists in Minnesota. Walz and the Democrats relied too much on abortion to save them.   They were tagged two years ago as soft on crime with the riots after George Floyd’s death.  They were tagged with the defund the police movement and failed to articulate a narrative of public safety.  In terms of the economy there may be little they can do at the state level to address inflation. But the fact that they failed to craft a narrative is a problem.

Moreover, the strategy was bad.  Walz sat on his lead and cash advantage and avoided debating.  It cost him dearly. Recent KSTP polls point to a weakening of his support in his former First Congressional District.

Effectively, Walz and the Democrats have written off all but the Metro region.  In 2018 Walz won 20 of Minnesota’s counties. In 2016 Clinton won 9 counties, in 2020 Biden won 13 counties and Tina Smith 15 counties.  The base of the DFL is narrow and counts on high mobilization in a few Metro area counties.

I spend a lot of time traveling the state to lecture and give talks.  It is clear the Metro DFL agenda on crime, the environment, and social issues don’t play there.  The Metro area DFL, party activists here, or the convention attendees and activists are out of touch with the rest of the state, and perhaps with many leaning DFL in Greater Minnesota and even in the suburbs.  As noted above, polls suggest erosion of support for the Democrats in most locations across the state, including in the metro suburbs and among college-educated women.

Summary: Rout and Route?
To state clearly–The DFL and Walz may have a message out of touch with most Minnesotans who are nowhere near as progressive as the Metro area or core Twin Cities activists. This in turn  renders their strategy to win difficult because it is one narrowly confined or defined to a narrow base.  Moreover the messaging or narrative fails to understand the depth of concern regarding crime and  the economy and its focuses too much upon an agenda that appeals to the progressive wing of the party.  Couple that with a campaign strategy that aims to mobilize only in a few counties, that fails to counter the GOP narrative, that focuses too much on abortion this year, and which, in the case of Walz, sat on a lead, one then gets the makings for a rout.

If that rout occurs, the question on the day after the election will be to ask what route should the DFL have taken to avoid the rout, and what direction should it take going forward?

Mis-spending the Imaginary Minnesota Budget Surplus: What both the Democrats and Republicans Get Wrong

The Minnesota DFL and Republican parties are about to do it again.  The “it” is engaging in irresponsible spending or tax cuts during an election year.   If either or both get their way the repercussions will be felt as soon as the 2021 legislative session when it makes the next biennial budget for the state. 

Minnesota  Management and Budget (MMB) in its November 2019 forecast projected that the State of Minnesota has a projected budget surplus of $1.332 billion.  As a result of this forecast the Minnesota DFL has proposed spending $500  million to subsidize day care costs.  The Minnesota Republicans want to use the total $1.3 billion to subsidize permanent tax cuts.  Both proposals are irresponsible, revealing a huge misunderstanding of budgeting.

Here are the basics.

The current two-year or biennial budget for the State of Minnesota that was agreed to in May 2019 is $48 billion.  The projected surplus of $1.332 billion is 2.8% of the entire budget.  Hardly anyone fiscally responsible would argue that 2.8% is really a lot of money, especially when the fiscal forecast is merely a projection.  It could vary up or down.  Moreover, many would argue that in budgeting one builds in contingency in case estimates are wrong.  The fiscal forecast assumes current obligations remain constant.  Except they do not.

The budget surplus is not really $1.332 billion. By state law, inflation is counted when calculating inflation while obligations are not.  The 2020 projected rate of inflation for 2020 is 2.5%, almost equal to the projected budget surplus percentage.  Inflation alone eats up the surplus.  There is no surplus for this budget cycle.  Even if there were, it could change if unanticipated expenditures occur; a surplus margin of error of 2.8% is very small.

Additionally, if one looks at the fiscal forecast it is important to remember that this is a surplus for only this budget cycle.  It is a one-time and not structural surplus.  Looking ahead, the MMB forecast notes that while at present the fiscal year 2022-2023  looks balanced,  all that assumes no basic changes in the revenue and expenditure projections  and that the economy will not experience a significant slow down that would impact tax revenues.  If any of this were to change, including adopting significant new state expenditures such as to subsidize childcare, or make some permanent tax cuts, then these projections change, running new risk of a structural deficit.

Both the DFL and GOP ways to spend the surplus are equally flawed.  Consider the idea of a one-time $500 million subsidy for childcare.  This sounds good, but what happens the second year?  The State will have to go subsidize again if the DFL want to make a permanent difference in costs.  This too assumes that a subsidy will address the cost issue—it does not in the long term. The reason in part why childcare is so costly is that there is a shortage both in the Metro and Great Minnesota areas.  Providing subsidies does little to address the shortage.  Moreover, offer subsidies and one may increase demand for childcare without doing anything to increase supply.  The result?  Perhaps even more costly childcare than before.  The subsidy sounds great but fails to address the underlying supply and demand problem.

The Republican tax cut proposal is equally irresponsible.  They seek to make a structural change in the tax code when the imagery surplus is possibly-one time.    They are confusing annual operating income with structural budgetary issues—a classic apples and oranges problem.  The current operating surplus is used to mask permanent tax code changes.  The last time this happened was during the Jessie Ventura administration. 

Back then when Ventura first took office in 1999 the State had a massive surplus.  It used that surplus and tax rebates (the “Jessie Checks”) to mask short term larger structural tax changes that eventually came to hurt the State when in 2002 Minnesota faced a massive shortfall, in part because of a combination of an economic recession and these tax cuts.  The result of that was the 2002 deal between then DFL and GOP gubernatorial candidates Roger Moe and Tim Pawlenty who as legislators agreed to change Minnesota law to count inflation for revenue but not obligation purposes.  It was that deal that has now created the image that Minnesota has a budget surplus now, when in fact it does not.

It was bipartisan irresponsibility a generation ago that yielded a host of problems that Minnesota has only recently and partially solved.  The DFL and GOP proposals for what to do with the $1.3 billion repeat those past mistakes.

Are They High? Why the Minnesota DFL is pushing marijuana legalization

            The Minnesota DFL is making legalization of marijuana a 2020 election issue. Governor Walz has instructed his agencies to prepare for it and Democrats are kicking off a statewide listen tour to tout legalization’s benefits.  Does such a strategy make political sense or are the Democrats high?

            From a public policy perspective, the current criminalization “war on drugs” has failed. I argued that in a Texas Tech Law Review Article 26 years ago, well before it was fashionable to advocate for legalization.  The current criminalization approach has failed to stop drug usage, imposed racially arbitrary sentences, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars in government enforcement and lost personal freedom and productivity due to incarceration.  Maybe for some, usage of marijuana is a matter of personal freedom to use a harmless drug.  However, as we have seen with the opioid crisis and some research on prolonged use of marijuana, use of any drugs ought also to be viewed as a public health issue with the question being what is the best way to regulate a specific drug to address it real or potential health issues.  Criminalization has failed with marijuana and legalization of some sort is the answer.  From a public policy perspective the question is what type of legalization.

            But policy change requires political opportunity.  The DFL sees the time as now to advocate for it., despite the fact that the Republican State Senate Leader Paul Gazelka has said legalization will not happen next year.  So if legalization is dead next year why push it?

There are several reasons.  The first is polling data that suggest 64% of those surveyed by  Gallup favor legalization, including in Midwest states such as Minnesota..  However, what legalization means varies by person.  A Mason-Dixon poll found recreational legalization support only at 37%.  Neither poll indicated that recreational legalization was a top issue for many voters.  Thus, while it appears that there is majority support for legalization, it is less clear that recreational use is a top political or policy priority for a large percentage of the voters. 

For the Minnesota DFL, they may be hoping that supporting marijuana legalization is the 2020 equivalent of the 2012 marriage amendment.  In that year the Republicans placed on the ballot a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.  The theory was that support for the amendment would be so strong that it would help the GOP maintain control of the state legislature and win Minnesota for presidential candidate Mitt Romney by energizing the party base.  It backfired.  Instead, it energized the DFL, especially young voters, and it resulted in flipping the state legislature to Democrats who in 2013 legalized same-sex marriages in the state.

More specifically, though, Democrats may be reading numbers from the 2018 election.  That year two pro-legalization parties in Minnesota qualified for major party status.  In the race for State Auditor, the Legalize Marijuana Now Party received 133,913 votes, whereas in the race for Attorney General,  Grassroots Legalize Cannabis received 145,748, or 5.28% and 5.71% of the statewide vote for those offices respectively.  In running for office, the two pro-legalization parties opted  not to run against one another to prevent splitting of votes.  This is important because one can argue that those who voted for one of the pro-legalization parties are those who view the issue as their top priority. This means not that 10% of the voters supported pro-legalization parties, but something around 5-6% of those casting votes in either the State Auditor or Attorney General races.

The Minnesota Secretary of State indicated that 2,611, 365 individuals cast ballots in 2018.  Assume that the 145,748 Grassroots Legalize Cannabis vote is a fair estimate of those who support legalization as a primary or top issue.  This works out to 5.58% who voted for a pro-legalization party.  In the counties of Hennepin, Ramsey, and St. Louis,  31,976, 14,720, and  5,471 respectively voted for a pro-legalization party or candidate.  In total, these three counties constituted 62,167 or 42.7% of the pro-legalization vote in the state.  The other 56.3% was clumped in urban areas or college-town areas, with thin support in more rural areas.  Even in suburbs, support was  less.  For the Attorney General’s race, in Edina and Eden Prairie, two typical and more affluent suburbs that might be likely to support legalization, 2,462 out of 62,523 voters or 3.94% of the voters went for the Grassroots Legalize Cannabis Party.

What do all these statistics suggest?  Perhaps they underestimate support for recreational legalization as a top priority.  But they do indicate a small percentage of the population cares about the issue and the DFL feels it cannot ignore it.  Failure to support legalization may mean more voters drift away from the party, making it harder to pick up a Senate majority or mobilize voters for statewide races.  Yet, the geographic distribution of support for legalization  is clumped, strongest in areas where the DFL are already strong.  Moreover, if the race for control of the state, especially the legislature, goes through the suburbs, especially with suburban women, it is not clear that a  strong legalization approach makes sense.  In talks I have given, when legalization is raised, many suburban women exclaim “Another thing I  have to protect my children from.”

Perhaps marijuana legalization will do the same in 2020, mobilizing young voters to come out and vote. Or perhaps it will alienate suburban (female) voters, or it leads to a counter-mobilization by the GOP who are already motivated to come out to support Donald Trump.  This is the gamble the DFL is taking going into the 2020 elections in its advocacy for recreational marijuana.

Republicans are Not Wannabe Democrats: What polarization really means

Republicans are not closet Democrats.  Slowly Governor Walz and the Minnesota DFL may or may not be learning this point.  What is the case is that what polarization means is that the two parties disagree not only on policy issues, but perhaps more fundamentally on the goals and purposes of government, with such difference not easy to bridge.
Too often Democrats seem to lament or exasperate to the effect of “When will Republicans come around and recognize the need to spend more on education, health care, or infrastructure?”   Or recently one Democrat opined “I will give Republicans one more chance to go along with spending more on roads and schools.”  Both of these sentiments naively assume that Republicans  share the same basic values, priorities, or view of government and eventually they will come along to the views held by Democrats or else.  Or else what?  What will compel them to agree with Democrats?  This is the problem Governor Walz and the DFL House is facing now.  “We won, we have the majority, you know we are right, you have to or will eventually go along with us at some point.  It’s inevitable.”
Such a belief is like waiting for Godot.  It may never happen.  Such a sentiment is premised on the idea that there is a basic consensus on certain things when in reality what polarization has come to mean is a breakdown on this agreement.
What does polarization mean?  Think of political consensus along five dimensions at least.  When James Madison and our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution they were interested in a first-order question–Why government?  This is a question about the necessity of government and its most fundamental role in our lives.
A second-order question investigates the specific functions of government, asking not “Why government?” but “What should government’s do?”  This question looks to specific functions or tasks to be performed by the government. A third-level question is about ideology, querying “What values or interests should a government promote?” This level  looks to how majority preferences are translated into public policy or how the public interest is defined.  Finally, there are fourth and fifth levels the former investigating “What public administrators should do?” and the latter asking questions such as “How can public organizations or policies perform more efficiently?” 
Perhaps two generations ago there was broad consensus on the first and second-order questions.  In a Cold War era there was basic consensus supporting the welfare state and fighting communism.  There was arguably even significant overlapping consensus on third-order questions regarding what interests government should promote or what constitutes the public interest.  During this time the Republican and Democratic parties were ideologically diverse, with both containing  liberals, moderates and conservatives.  At one point in Minnesota a pro-life Democrat Rudy Perpich  and a pro-choice Republican Arne Carlson could be governors.  Those days are gone.
Where we are now is little consensus on third-order issues and increasing even on second and first-order views on government.  Partisan differences on the validity or legitimacy of the Electoral College attest to the depth of the partisan disagreement in the US, going to the very structures of how our political system is designed.
Republicans and Democrats are exasperated with one another and know the US is polarized.  Look to every major poll on the president, social issues, taxes, and other matters and the partisan split is significant.  Yet both sides seem convinced they are correct, the other side wrong, and if the other party simply came to its senses it would see their folly and the wisdom of the other side.
Slowly, but not quite yet, this is where Walz and the DFL are now in Minnesota.  It was entirely foreseeable after last November’ election Minnesota was headed to the stalemate they are in now.  Republican and Democratic Party priorities are far apart and there is little incentive for either side to compromise.  In fact, the polarization in Minnesota–like so much of the US–is geographic, and there are few regions or voters who swing.  Political attitudes have hardened and so have the constituencies and interest groups that support them.  US and Minnesota political institutions were premised on a belief of shared values across many levels, with legislation only possible with consensus or worse now, one party dominance in a winner-take-all approach to governing.
This is what polarization is really about now.

From One Minnesota to Won Minnesota: Why Walz and the DFL are in Danger of Losing their Agenda this Year

Slightly more than two months into the 2019 Minnesota legislative session it is becoming more clear
that “One Minnesota” has morphed into “Won Minnesota” and that the DFL strategy to move its agenda is premised less on consensus than on the belief that they won the 2018 elections and their agenda deserves to be enacted.  If that is the case then the DFL will get little of what it wants.
Tim Walz ran successfully on a “One Minnesota” slogan and platform.  It was an effort to appeal to unity  both during the DFL primary to bring together various parts of the party to support him, and to overcome polarization that grips the US and the Minnesota. It is unclear how much this message elected him and Democrats to take control of the House or whether it was the trickle-down effect from an unpopular President Trump, a weak GOP gubernatorial candidate, and a significant money advantage the DFL had.  Yes, Walz won 54% of the statewide vote but only 22 of 87 counties.  He won the same places where Tina Smith, Amy Klobuchar, the other state-wide DFL candidates and House candidates won.  The state is geographically polarized.
Based on a majority vote, he claimed a mandate, as all victors do.  He then appointed a cabinet exclusively DFL and mostly Metro-centric.  Since taking office he and the DFL-controlled Minnesota House have pursued a largely urban-liberal agenda, although there are strong elements that appeal to the suburbs.  In many and most cases pursuing a “to a victor belongs the spoils” or arguing that  one is in the majority means you get to move the agenda is perfectly acceptable in a political system premised upon majority rule.  Yet in the case of the Walz administration there are several problems.
First, even if the Walz-DFL agenda has elements that appeal to Republicans and rural Minnesota, it has failed to articulate that.  It has failed to make the case to rural Minnesota how and why the gas tax, legalizing recreational marijuana, or regulating guns are to their advantage.  Narratives and messaging matter, and the Walz administration and the governor have done a bad job here.
Second, there seems to be a belief by Walz and the DFL that their issues are widely popular (and they maybe), fair, and correct, and therefore Republicans should simply do the right thing and go along with the DFL and vote for them.  Maybe in a different era this might happen, but in the polarized “winner take all” or zero sum game politics of today that is not the reality.  Simply have the right issues will not cut it.
Third, even in an era which was much less polarized, having the right issues was not enough.  One had to do the heavy legislative work of building consensus, horse-trading, or developing coalitions to get the votes needed.  Walz and the DFL are either not doing that, or not doing it effectively.  Think about the recent defeat of legalized recreational marijuana in Minnesota.  Walz  seemed indignant that the Senate did not support it.  At some point he and the DFL need to ask what is it the GOP needs to support it beyond just saying they should vote for it because polls indicate  public support.  The same crash of reality will soon hit when it comes to the ERA, guns, the gas tax, and a host of other DFL items. 
One needs to ask what incentive the GOP has to support them and then figure out what deals are possible to be able to move closer to that.  Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka represents 35 GOP senators who have constituencies back home who do not necessarily support the DFL agenda. To get it though the Senate and secure GOP votes he and the other senators have to be able to tell their constituents what is in it for them.  This is the real art of legislating, and so far this work or effort seems to be missing.
There are about two months to go in the 2019 legislative session.  A lot can happen and agreement on much legislation is still possible.  But already we see how the DFL is losing on many issues, and may well get far less than it thought it would this year.  Its strategy of “One Minnesota” may have changed to we “Won Minnesota,” thinking that straight majoritarianism would be enough to move a legislative agenda. However, with divided government and a political system that balances majority rule and minority rights, this approach is a recipe for failure.

When Republicans Were Progressives–A Story of a Different Party and a Different Era

Minnesota is a DFL state.  Republicans are conservatives.  These are assumed to be two political truths.  Yet both are subject to qualification and David Durenberger’s When Republicans  Were Progressive, is  a recent book which tells not just a story about Minnesota politics both also one about the transformation of Republican Party politics both in Minnesota and nationally.  It is story about a party that Durenberger would say he did not leave but which left him and its values.  But in telling this story he also writes a book that, while it should be taken as a warning by Republicans, is instead being criticized by many of them.
I have known David Durenberger since the 1990s when I was with Common Cause Minnesota. I always considered him an ally on campaign finance reform and ethics in government.  We have penned essays together on ranked choice voting, and I place him among the Republicans I grew up with, worked with, or  admired, including Jacob Javits, William Scranton, and Nelson Rockefeller.  I knew a Republican Party that embraced government as a partner with the people to solve problems.  It was a party that built higher education, fought the Cold War, supported the War on poverty, and  cared about the poor and middle class. This is the party that David Durenberger represents, and he wants to tell about this party in Minnesota politics.
A conventional story of modern Minnesota politics would begin on April 15, 1944.  It was then the Farmer-Labor Party merged with Democratic Party to transform it into the dominant party in the state.  Prior to then, the Republican party was the major party, with the Democratic and Farmer-Labor parties splitting votes, often unable to capture state-wide offices in Minnesota.  But the merger, affected by Hubert Humphrey, ushered in a new era of Minnesota politics, often seen as dominated by DFL figures such as Humphrey and son Skip, Orville Freeman and his son Mike, Walter Mondale and his son Ted, and other politicians such as Olaf Martin Sabo, Nick Coleman, Wendell Anderson, Rudy Perpich, Sandy Keith, Roger Moe, and Paul Wellstone, just to name a few.   This is the lineage connected to the 1970s Minnesota Miracle that changed tax, political, and social policies regarding education, transportation, and so much more in Minnesota. It is a Minnesota that defines itself as DFL and progressive.
But there is another side to the story and Durenberger tells it as party of an autobiography for himself, the Minnesota Republican party, and the state.  It is a story of how he as a Republican US senator were part of Minnesota history, and they too were once seen as progressives.  His book begins with Harold Stassen in the 1930s as governor helping to lead Minnesota out of the Depression.  It discusses Governor Luther Youngdahl seeking to address problems of racial discrimination in the later 1940s and 1950s, Elmer Anderson in the state legislature and as governor championing the plight of those with mental illness (or fighting for fair housing) in the 1960s, and others such as Bill Frenzel, Harold LeVander, Al Quie, George Pillsbury, Arnie Carlson, and David Durenberger himself as US Senator.
The story Durenberger wants to tell is that at one time the Republican Party looked very different than it does today.  Today’s Republican party under Donald Trump is one that mostly of older white males, evangelicals, located in rural areas who oppose taxes, immigrants, reproductive rights, and civil rights in general, that was not always true. It was a party, at least in Minnesota, that was a partner in leading many of the major reforms that made the state what it is today in terms of leader.  Durenberger wants this message to come out and it does in this book, but he also laments the changes that have transformed his party statewide and nationally
Reading the book one learns an amazing amount about Minnesota and Republican Party politics.  But the real value in the book is in asking a more fundamental question–What has happened to the Republican Party?  How could a party, once a 150 years ago be the party of Abraham Lincoln and civil rights, or of Teddy Roosevelt and environmentalism, be the party of Trump it is now?  For those of us who believe there is a need for at least two if not more responsible parties, who have many Republican heros, and who think the American politics would benefit from a new political realignment that moves us away from the current partisan polarization, understanding what has happened to the party that David Durenberger yearns for is an important question to ponder.  Clearly the Democratic Party embracing civil rights and identity politics, both parties ignoring the enormous economic consequences of deindustrialization, globalization, geographic sorting, technology, and the exploding  gap between the rich and poor are part of the story. 
But the Republican Party of Trump is one that plays on fear, anger, resentment, and an “us versus them” politics that has managed to tap into the most base of human emotions.  It is a party whose embrace of these issues that, while it may have won in 2016, it lost badly in 2018 (both in Democrats winning the US and Minnesota Houses, picking up many governorships, and getting far more votes for the US Senate than did Republicans despite the latter picking two seats) and is on a long term demographic extinction as the coming generation of voters (young, suburban female, and people of  color) identify as Democrats.  If the Republicans continue on the current trajectory, they will face increasingly difficulty winning statewide Minnesota elections and even victory in the legislature.
This is the message that Durenberger wants to communicate.    In a sense, When Republicans were Progressive is an apologia and a warning.  But in offering both the author talks not of a party he walked away from, but a party that walked away from its values.  Contemporary Republican criticism of the book confirms the very point Durenberger wants to make.

The Coming Republican State of Minnesota?

Minnesota Congressman Rick Nolan’s surprise decision not to seek re-election underscores how his state is at a political tipping point.  This most Democratic of states in 2018 could finally turn
Republican, following the path of Wisconsin and other Midwestern states.  What happens in Minnesota this year could also decide which party controls the US House and Senate, making the state ground zero in this year’s elections.
Minnesota is thought of as the liberal state of Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, Walter Mondale, Paul Wellstone, and Al Franken.  It is the most reliable Democrat state when it comes to the presidency; the last time it voted Republican was for Nixon in1972.  Tim Pawlenty in 2006 was the last Republican to win a statewide election in Minnesota.
Yet there are many signs that the state is turning Republican.  Since 1999, the Minnesota House of Representatives has been controlled by Republicans fourteen out of twenty years.  Since 2010 party control of the State Senate has flipped three times.  Since 1999 a Democrat has controlled the governorship only eight years out of twenty.  When Democrat Mark Dayton won the governorship in 2010 he was the first of his party to win that office in Minnesota since 1986.
In 2016 Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 45,000 votes–the closest presidential race in the state since 1984 favorite son Walter Mondale barely eked out a victory over Ronald Reagan. That year Minnesota was the only state in country to vote Democratic.  Her close victory should not have been a surprise–exit polls put Minnesota at 37% to 35% in terms of Democratic/Republican affiliation, similar to the 36% to 33% split nationally.
From 2008 through the 2012 and then into the 2016 presidential elections, the actual number of votes and the percentage of votes received by the Democratic candidate declined.  In 2008 Barack Obama received 1,573,454 votes compared to John McCain’s 1,275,409–a difference of 298,045.  In 2012 the gap between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney narrowed to 225,942.  Then in 2016 it was 44,765 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump – a steady narrowing of the gap between the Democratic and Republican candidate.   In 2008, of the 87 counties in Minnesota, Obama won 42 of them.  In 2012 Obama won 28, and in 2016 Clinton only won nine counties.  In comparison, in the 2014 gubernatorial election, the Democrat Mark Dayton won 34 counties.
As with nationally, the Democrat’s base appears to be eroding, contracting to simply urban areas.  The reasons are multifaceted. There is the Democratic appeal to educated urban liberals, often more affluent who look down on or disdain as stupid their rural and suburban counterparts, or those who are working class because they do not share their same interests or lifestyle preferences. There is also the failure of both parties to pay attention to the class and economic concerns of white-working class America.  They abandoned  class for identity politics.   Democrats seem also to have a one-size fits all campaign strategy that works well with urban populations but which is not tailored to the suburbs and rural areas.  Democrats have also embraced a “demographics with destiny” argument that often assumes that history in on their side and that eventually voters will return to their senses and vote for them.  Finally, Republicans  have well exploited the economic and cultural fears of rural, suburban, working class America, offering a narrative resonates with those who feel ignored.  All this is true nationally, and is being played out too in Minnesota.
Minnesota may be ground zero for national politics this year.  There is an open race for governor and two US senators up for election.  While Amy Klobuchar is favored to win, Tina Smith–who replaced Al Franken after he resigned–faces a tough election and is no shoo-in.  Nationally there are only about 25 swing House seats in the country, but four of them are in Minnesota.  Two of them–Minnesota’s First and Eighth–are currently held by Democrats Tim Waltz and Rick Nolan and neither are running for re-election.  These are open seats that have flipped party control over the years and are leaning Republican; both went for Trump in 2016.  There are two other House seats, the second and third, respectively held by Jason Lewis and Erik Paulsen, that are rated competitive by the Cook Report as competitive, but still leaning Republican.  The fate of the partisan control of Congress might rest with who wins Senate and House races in Minnesota.
Finally, at the start of the year the Minnesota State Senate were respectively 34-33 and 77-57 Republican.  A court fight over whether a Republican state senator must give up her seat when she became Lieutenant Governor to replace Tina Smith (who held that job) may decide in the next few weeks partisan control of it.  Short of a wave election Republicans will maintain state house control.  If Republicans can win the open gubernatorial seat this November, they would perfect their control of Minnesota much like what happened in Wisconsin when Scott Walker won. Such a prospect would then set up all the conditions for major policy change in Minnesota, along with a real possibility that in 2020 it would finally flip Republican in the presidential election.

The Train Wreck of Politics

Politics is like an attractive nuisance.  There are so many reasons why what politicians do annoy us, but nonetheless political junkies remain attracted to the stories in the news.  Yes politics has turned into entertainment and campaigns and elections often  seem like farces, but that should not distract us from the reality that politics and government are important.
Government does matter in terms of what it does and, while we often forget it, government in the US has accomplished a lot and made powerful positive differences in our lives.  Ranging from landing a man on the Moon, fluoridating water to improve dental health, or producing tap water, roads, bridges, and arresting the bad guys and putting out fires, government matters.  Free markets are fine in their place, but they have proved to be incapable of addressing many problems our society confronts. Having said all that as an important reminder to those who see government as bad or evil, there are several stories in the news this week that highlight what many see as the bad side of politics.

Trump: “Have you no sense of decency?”
The witch hunts of the 1950s McCarthy era crashed to a close on June 9, 1954.  After Senator Joe McCarthy during a public hearing made another allegation about someone’s political affiliations,  Joseph Welsh, chief counsel for the US Army retorted: “You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”  Welch’s comments exposed the reckless and cruel attacks of McCarthy as nothing more than shameful rhetoric made for personal political gain.  Maybe Donald Trump has finally had his Welsh moment.
For months there has been a death watch as Trump insulted one group after another.  It has included military POWS, women, Muslims, non-mainline Christians, and now individuals with handicaps.  This latest was mocking a NY Times reporter’s physical handicap.  Till now the comments seemed not to hurt him.  Instead the controversies only gave him media coverage, giving him attention in ways that bullies get attention when they pick on someone.  It may still be the case that Trump’s latest comments will not hurt him long term and that he remains the favorite in the polls among Republicans.  Yet a recent Reuters poll shows a 12% drop in his support among Republicans in the last week.  Is it possible that he has finally reached a point where he has insulted enough Americans that he has crossed the line?  When do you think he will pick on orphans, kick a dog, or spit at someone?
Clearly something has changed.  Check out John Kasich ad where Trump is compared to Hitler.  This is a hard hitting ad that points out how Trump has gone after one group after another just like Hitler (and McCarthy) did.  Surprising that the ad is by a candidate and not a SuperPac.  But it does appear that other candidates are no longer afraid of Trump.

Trump Part II:   @!*&%# Off!
Trump has had a major impact on the Republican presidential race in many ways, including his use of foul language.  The NY Times reports that other GOP candidates are now also swearing on the campaign circuit.  The road to macho must be through the seven words that George Carlin could not say on television (and which Bono got fined for using) but which candidates for president can now freely deploy.  I a waiting for the next Republican debate where Kasich turns to Trump and says “F— off!”  If that happens we are not far from the classic SNL routine where Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin do a mock debate, ending with the famous line “Jane you ignorant slut.”

Why we hate politicians
Ann Lenczewski was a well respected member of the Minnesota House of Representative.  She was perhaps the leading expert on tax policy.  Yet she recently announced her resignation to join a law firm to become a lobbyist lobbying the state legislature.  In a recent interview in Politics in Minnesota when asked about the fact that this looks really bad she replied:

“That’s understandable.  If the Legislature would pass a law, which has never happened, and a governor would sign it, that would say you can’t lobby for one or two years, I would follow the law. ...Many former House members have gone on to be lobbyists:...there’s dozens and dozens of them...The House has a rule [against lobbying], but it only applies if you’re a member of the House.”

Her answer is akin to the “if everyone else is doing it, it must be ok.”  Her answer simply rang hollow and showed clear deafness for how bad this looks.  It is even worse to know that for years she was one of the major sponsors of legislation to ban this type of behavior.  I guess at the end of the day it is another story of if you can’t beat them, join them.  Ann is a good person whose statement simply captures the reality of how bad even Minnesota politics is.  No wonder the state earned a D- in its most recent ranking on ethics.

The 2016 Minnesota Election Themes 
It is becoming clear what the 2016 elections themes will be in the battle for the Minnesota House and Senate.  Of course it will be the Senate Office Building but so too look to see Polymet and Black Lives Matters as issues.  So too will be whether to help workers on the Iron Range and Lake Mille Lacs as the governor had wanted.  These are issues that divide not just the two major parties but also the Democrats.
Moreover, while the governor is perfectly correct that something needs to be done to address  the racial disparities in Minnesota, it is not clear that the Democrats and he are building the political coalition in greater Minnesota to accomplish this.  Black Lives Matters may be good copy and a salient issue that could help urban Democrats, but it is not an issue that will help them in the suburbs and greater Minnesota.
Why raise all this?  So far the Republicans in Minnesota seem to be defining a better set of themes and campaign narratives than are the Democrats.  While in a presidential election year DFLers normally do better look at 2016 as a year where it will still be difficult for Democrats to retake the House and the battle for the Senate will be challenging.

The Achievement Gap
Finally, take a look at this sobering article on the state of education and race in America since Brown v. The Board of Education.  The gaps between Blacks and Whites show that race still matters and that perhaps we need to show as much anger about the education gap as we do about the shooting of African-Americans by police officers.
No, the solution is not vouchers or to get rid of public schools as conservatives demand.  There is little evidence that these gimmicks along with charter schools have succeeded.  Simply spending more money on schools is not the answer (although the US does spend less on education as a percentage of its GDP compared to other major countries) in the same way that cutting taxes is not  always the answer. The question is how to spend money–existing and new–to improve education.  The answer lies not just in spending on schools but also in support networks that make it possible to support families, parents, and communities.

Why Republicans will Lose the 2016 Minnesota Presidential Race

This blog originally appeared in the August 27, 2015 edition of Politics in Minnesota.

How times have changed.  Barely a month ago Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s presidential campaign was on fire.  He was near the top of national polls for Republican contenders, doing well in New Hampshire, and leading in Iowa.  Then Trump happened and now Walker’s campaign is flickering, ready to flame out.  Even his faulted firewall in Iowa is gone.  So what to do?   If you are a Republican in Wisconsin running for president do what makes the most sense–go to Democratic Minnesota to rekindle your fire.  And so he did that recently, seeking to revive his presidential fortunes, hoping for some national media attention in Minnesota while Trump and the other

contenders dominate the Iowa State Fair.

            Whether making Minnesota his new firewall will revive his presidential hopes or demonstrate how desperate he is, only time will tell.  Yet his visit underscores a broader and more interesting question–Is Minnesota a swing state open to possible Republican pick up in the 2016 election?  The short answer is no.

            Minnesota is perhaps the most reliable Democratic presidential state since 1972.  Back then it went for Nixon over McGovern, and it has been reliably Democrat since then, even voting for Walter Mondale in the 1984 Ronald Reagan blowout where the Democrats only won this state and the District of Columbia.   Yet for years Republicans have hoped the Minnesota would flip presidentially.  They look to state races where Republican governors and US Senators have won.  A state with often an equal number of Republican and Democrat US House members, and a state legislature that has flipped party control several times since 1998.  Additionally, Minnesota is a great source of money for Republican fundraising.  Given all that, of course the state should be prime to go Republican.

            Such thinking prompted the location in 2008 of the Republican National Convention to be held in St Paul.  But the convention did no good.  In 2004, after John Kerry won Minnesota by 3.5% over George Bush in the former’s losing presidential campaign, in 2008 Barack Obama bested John McCain by 10.24%.  Holding the RNC in Minnesota actually led Republicans to do worse.  In addition, 2012 prompted Republicans Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann that their successes in Minnesota could launch a presidential campaign.  That worked well.  And even in 2012 Mitt Romney made Minnesota one of the few states where candidates campaigned during the general elections, again to no avail.  Minnesota does not look flipable, at least for the near future.

            Stacey Hunter Hecht of Bethel University and I will have out in October a new book Presidential Swing States: Why Ten Only Matter.  We examine a real simply question: Why is it that the presidential race is effectively over in 40 states and why is it that only ten swing states really are the site of serious competition in presidential races.  We seek to understand the phenomena of what it means to be a swing state, looking at patterns in presidential voting in elections since 1988.  When such an examination is done, there is no surprise that states such as Ohio and Florida are at the top of the list as strong swingers, with our neighbors Iowa and Wisconsin weaker swingers.  But why?  What makes a state a swinger and does Minnesota share any of those characteristics?

            State states have many factors that are idiosyncratic, such as Iowa’s caucuses, New Hampshire’s first primary–both create energized and highly mobilized and competitive political parties.  But more generally, swing states are those with states that have major party enrollments that are close, with a large and fluid set of independent swing voters.  Swing states also appear to have many diverse regions in the state which allow for the major parties to establish political bases, and these states have parties have been competitive in local and non-statewide races.

            So far all of this does describe Minnesota, yet what excludes Minnesota from the swing state category is ideology.  By that swing states are those where the political ideology of the median voter in the state is close to the ideology of the median voter nationally.  More importantly, swings are states where the presidential candidate of the Republican Party is    to the right of the median state voter, or the Democratic candidate too far to the left.  One also needs to look at how the ideology and candidates produced by the national parties compare to the ideology of the state parties. 

            What has happened since 1972 is that the Minnesota DFL enjoy a small but still significant lead in party registration in the state which benefit them during presidential cycles.  Second, the state is generally more liberal ideologically than the rest of the nation.  Three, the Republican presidential candidates have generally been further to the right than the median in Minnesota.  Put simply, the DFL has a bigger presidential base to mobilize and the national Republican Party nominates candidates further to the right that the average swing voter in Minnesota.  Together, such a strategy is a sure loser.

            Demographics and ideology might change Minnesota in the future, but at least for 2016 the prospects of a Republican flip are slim.  The GOP appears determined to nominate a candidate who will be far more conservative than the average Minnesotan. Yes perhaps the Democrats might pick a bad candidate and change the dynamics, but baring that and several other possibilities, even if Scott Walker is successful in making this state his new firewall to revive his campaign, a Republican saying they won over Minnesota is probably not going to get them far in winning over the party or in winning the general election.

Rebating the Nonexistent Minnesota Surplus: Dumb, Dumber, and Brilliant Politics

So Keith Downey and the Republican Party of Minnesota are running ads saying they want to give back all of the $1.9 billion state surplus to Minnesotans.  Quiz time.
    This idea is:
    a)    Something they actually believe.
    b)    A way to make Kurt Daubt and the House Caucus ideas seem reasonable.
    c)    A smart political move.
    d)    A fiscally dumb idea.
    e)    All of the above.

    The  answer is (e), all of the above.  Why is that the correct answer?  Examining the politics of the budget surplus and how the DFL are just about ready to get out-maneuvered politically by the Republicans on it tells one a lot about state politics and the fortunes of the two parties.
    Let us begin first my declaring that rebating the surplus is actually something that Downey and most Republicans actually believe.  Rebating the surplus is really a continuation of  the party mantra for the last 35 years which has stressed tax cuts as a Republican solution for almost every problem confronted.  Economy in a funk, cut taxes.  Economy doing well, cut taxes.  Need better roads and bridges?  Cut taxes.  Expensive housing?  Cut taxes.  It is a one size fits all answer but it has been a successful one for the GOP fortunes.  Their base loves the idea of tax cuts and many actually do believe that it is the best way to help the economy.  When GOP Keith Downey was a legislator he never met a tax cut he did not like, and no surprise that he along with many other Republican legislators believe that the best thing for the state of Minnesota is simply to rebate all of the money back.
    Yet even if it is an idea that Downey does not actually believe, it is a terrific way to make Speaker Kurt Daubt and the Republican House caucus proposals look good.  Their ideas various call for cutting taxes, spending more on education, and also using the money to repair roads, bridges, and highways.  These are all great ideas that appeal both to their base who want tax cuts, but also to rural constituents who feel that too much spending is going to Twin Cities mass transportation.  Spending on education is a good priority that appeals to swing voters, and it is also a way to help undermine  some of the equalization formulae that try to rectify imbalances in tax bases across Minnesota school districts.  The problem with their proposal of course is that $1.9 will not go very far toward paying for many of these projects.  Additionally, so far the House has not been clear in that the big winners of  their proposals, especially the tax cuts, will not be working or middle class Minnesotans. 
    But nonetheless, the call for rebating all of the surplus is politically brilliant.  The public hears surplus and thinks the government has too much of my money, I should get some back.  The  idea of rebates sounds terrific–mailing checks to voters or giving them rebates at a time when Minnesotans are doing their taxes.  It was a tactic used once by Governor Ventura and the legislature back in 1999-2000 and it was popular.  Everyone loves Santa Claus; everyone loves people who give us gifts.
    Tax cuts have been a staple message of Republicans for decades and there is no reason to think why it should not continue to be a successful message into the future.  It is a great wedge issue against Democrats.  How can they oppose giving the people their money back?  If the DFL does not support it they are just the tax and spend liberals we know they are.  They are the party of big government and extravagant state office buildings, refusing to help working Minnesotans out by sending them a few hundred dollars back.
    But rebating is simply dumb on so many grounds.  One again needs to point out that of the $1.9 billion the first billion does not exist.    If all of the current programs funded by the state are continued at their same spending level into the next biennium it will cost the state another $1 billion to fund them because of inflation.  In order to reap this first billion as a surplus one needs to cut one billion in spending first.  Second, the surplus is only a surplus because of the tax increases. Cut the taxes and the surplus disappears.  There is no structural surplus.  Third, the other $900 million is hardly a surplus either.  With Dayton having proposed a $40 billion biennium, that $900 M is barely 2%.  If we think of the total real obligations that the State has for the next two years which includes both what Minnesota pays for along with the federal government, real spending obligations increase by tens of billions of more dollars.  That $900 M is nothing.  Assume any serous federal budget cuts or another shutdown and the state is still on the hook and it has no money as a cushion.  Or assume that there are other natural disasters that  occurs and a special appropriation is needed.  Or simply assume a slowdown in the economy or even that the surplus forecast is off just a percent or so.  Suddenly that $900 million is gone.
    The margins for error are great here.  Giving away this remaining $900 million is bad accounting.  Generally accepted accounting practices declare that organizations should have contingency funds or accounts set aside.  It should be a certain percentage of a budget.  The exact size of the contingency depends on risk, but a 5% contingency of an entire budget is not out of line.  Thus, smart budgeting suggests that saving this remaining $900 million would be good accounting.
    On top of which, the last time the state gave away it surplus was back when Ventura was governor.  The state of Minnesota went from an approximately $4.5 billion surplus in 1999 to a multi-billion dollar deficit in 2002.  To this day Minnesota has yet to recover from the stupidly of this move along with the changes in budgetary law that have continued to create the fiscal problems  that face the state.
    Thus, the correct answer is all of the above. Those of you who gave this as an answer can go to the head of the class.

Why the DFL will lose the Minnesota House

The DFL are going to lose the Minnesota House.  There are many reasons for this but the main one is arrogance–both a refusal to recognize a bad strategy and an unwillingness to admit mistakes.
    On the face of it, the DFL has much to cheer about come November.  It will sweep the constitutional offices with Dayton especially winning by a wide margin.  Franken too will win, probably big, as there is no sign that the election is tightening, contrary to what reporters any my colleagues rotefully declare.  The coattails of these statewide victories plus the large cash advantage that the DFL enjoy should in theory be enough to keep them in power in the House.  But it won’t be enough.
    Yes, there are obvious reasons why the DFL will lose.  Obama is unpopular and dragging down the party.  It is a mid-year election and DFL voters are less likely to vote.  Both of these factors explain why big-name Democrats such as the Clintons and Michelle Obama have visited the state with the hope of rousing the base and instilling passion into DFL voters.  But still that will not be enough to overcome other major problems of the DFL.
    Consider first that the DFL won many seats in 2012 by close margins in Republican areas.  They did so in part because if was a presidential election year and also because they benefited from Republican legislative overreach in the 2011-2012 session.  This means the DFL are defending many seats that are in Republican areas, or at the least, seriously lean GOP or are at best swing. 
    The second problem is the lack of a Democrat or DFL narrative.  Obama had a great narrative  in 2008 but since then at the national level there has been no narrative for reelection.  That is why Democrats were trounced in 2010.  Obama held on in 2012 because Romney was such a horrible candidate.  Dayton won in 2010 because Emmer was a weak candidate, and in 2012 the DFL won less on their narrative and more on GOP failures.  This year, there is still no national Democrat narrative and at the state level, the narrative too is missing.  Yes Dayton and Democrats can run on  their record of accomplishments and on a good state economy, but neither play well in swing districts.  Moreover, the DFL do not have a good narrative to counter MNSure, Obamacare, the new Senate Office Building, and many of their other legislative acts.  Yes all of these play well to the base, but not to swing voters. There is a nagging yet silent sense of DFL over-reach here, but when you put it all together, what is the narrative?   “Four more years?”  “If you liked the past you will love the future?”  The narrative is cloudy at best, thereby explaining in part the lethargy of the DFL voter.
    But perhaps the main reason why the DFL will lose the House has to do with arrogance.  It is arrogance on several scores.  Over the last few months I have given more talks across the state than I can count.  Repeatedly I hear that th DFL is using a cookie-cutter approach to running a state legislative campaign.  They are using the same messaging, GOTV, and tactics in all of their campaigns.  Such an approach is a recipe for failure, ignoring the special issues and needs of different districts.  While we may live in a era where elections are often nationalized, Tip O’Neill is still correct that all politics is local. 
    Almost 30 years ago I moved to Minnesota and saw a party still fixated on the past. I saw a  DFL bureaucratic and dominated by a small core of activists who in many ways still dominate the state and think the way you win is the way they used to win.  Say what you might about the GOP, but the TEA has brought in a new crop of activists into the Republican Party, willing at times to challenge it with new ideology and tactics.
    But what I have heard about and see this year is that the DFL leadership has refused to acknowledge that their strategy and campaign projections are flawed.   It is a urban-based approach that might work well in cities with lots of Democrats, but it is still not well suited for many suburbs  and especially rural Minnesota. I have heard several DFLers over-confidently say there are only about 8 swing races in the state, self-assured that there are some seats they really do not need to defend. Too many individuals have told me that they have been refused support or volunteers because the DFL thinks their race is unwinnable.  Or that the DFL has not supported a race because of petty jealousies. 
    There is a lot of ego on the line here.  Many in the DFL leadership have a stake in being considered wise gurus–they have decided who can win or lose and how–and they do not want to prove themselves wrong less they lose their stature within the party.  This insularity and making it all about them is a sure downfall for the DFL this November.

What does it mean to be a progressive Democrat today?

What does it mean to be a Democrat let alone a progressive one  these days?  The question was prompted by my recent op-ed in Minnpost where in response to an argument against the State of Minnesota granting the NFL tax exemptions to host the Super Bowl, one reader wrote that he supported public funding for the stadium along with the tax breaks, and that he was a Democrat and a “fairly far to the left one too.”
    Since when does a progressive Democrat support tax subsidies and breaks for billionaires and hugely profitable private companies that generate few jobs for working people and provide entertainment (in person) that only a few can afford?  I thought that was what the Republican Party did?  With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans.
    But the debate over tax breaks for the Vikings stadium and the NFL does prompt a broader debate about what it means to be a Democrat or a progressive these days?   It is certainly not  good old-fashioned economic liberalism.  This is not Bill Clinton liberalism that supported NAFTA and welfare reform and which Mitt Romney once warmly embraced as the kind of Democratic Party politics he liked. 
    Instead, the progressive politics that appears dead is that of Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, and even Teddy Roosevelt. It is about a 21st century version of the Great Society and the New Deal.  It is about redistributive politics that seek to raise those at the economic bottom, narrow the gap between the rich and poor, and wrestle control of political power in the United States from corporations and plutocrats.  It is about the spirit of John Rawls, Michael Harrington, and Dorothy Day and a commitment to believing that the government has an important role in make sure we are a nation that is  not one-third ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill-housed, that kids should not go off to school hungry, and that corporations should not have the same rights as people.  It is the idea that we help out the least advantaged and most vulnerable first and that the rich have an obligation to help the poor.
    What has taken over for Democrat Party politics is warmed over Republicanism–the centrist sort of corporate politics that some GOP once represented but now have  abandoned as it races further and further to the right, embracing xenophobia, homophobia, and a market fundamentalism that Social Darwinists would embrace. Oh, and vaccines cause mental retardation and global warming does not exist, at least this is what many current Republicans believe.  Even the Republican Party of Abe Lincoln supported civil rights, but not this party–instead it is committed to fine vision that a nineteenth century politician would weep over.  But now consider the Democrats.
    Start at the top.  Obama ran promising change.  The reason why so many are disappointed in him is not that he was too far left but that instead he failed to deliver on his lofty promises.  At inauguration Obama had a window to change America but he flinched.  Carpe diem was not his motto.  But in reality, Obama was never a progressive.  He ran for president opposing a single payer health insurance plan and instead embraced the Republican plan that Mitt Romney adopted in Massachusetts.  Obama was not originally in favor of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and he did not embrace same-sex marriage until public opinion and political necessity dictated he do so.  
    Obama has deported more  individuals than any other president, he supports coal and nuclear power, and his big victory in repealing the Bush era tax cuts came with a reinstating of the payroll tax, imposing on Americans a more regressive and costly tax system than before.  Obama also defends the use of drones to kill Americans abroad, and he refuses to make any serious changes in an NSA surveillance program that  runs roughshod on the civil liberties of Americans. And in 2008 he took more money in from Wall Street than any presidential candidate in history.
    Across the board many Democrats seem confused to their identity.  They support public subsidies for downtown ball park stadiums and convention centers ahead of neighborhoods.  They defend NSA spying on Americans except when they are spied on.  They take little action to address the impact of money in politics and instead beg for money from big donors and PACs.  They offer few real substantive ideas regarding how to tackle issues such as the achievement gap and the economic discrimination against women (who still make only 77% of what men make).
    Worst of all Democrats lack the guts to fight.  Why?  Democrats (and one should not confuse the current party with progressivism) believe that they are the caretakers for government.  They believe that they need to be responsible and not run the risk of shutting the government down for fear of how it would ruin the economy or hurt people.  But conservatives know this and take advantage of the Democrats willingness to blink.  But guess what?  By blinking the Democrats are screwing over poor people and the economy slowly by giving ground one inch at a time and they seem unable to recapture it. Until Democrats are willing to fight and show conservatives they are willing to shut the government down and hold conservatives responsible they will never win.
    What passes for progressive  Democratic Party politics seems so bland.  Same-sex marriage?  Supporting it a decade ago was progressive but now that is mainstream.  Opposing NSA spying on Americans?  Even Rand Paul does that.  No one should be against strengthening anti-bully legislation.  This is not progressive politics but just common sense.  Yes, raising the minimum wage to an adequate level is good progressive politics, but few talk of living wages these days.
    Progressive politics is dead so long as it is married to the current Democrat Party.  Progressives need their own TEA Party revolution on the left–one that engineers a new rhetoric and take over of the party.  One that is not willing to play it safe and worry that if a few Democrats lose  that means the Republicans win.    It means a willingness to fight for what you believe in.  It also means believing in something worth fighting for.

The Lessons of the Minneapolis Elections--RCV and Generational Change

This blog originally appeared in an earlier form as a Minnpost Community Voice on November 7, 2013

    The mayoral elections in Minneapolis and St Paul could not have been any different.  One was loud and unscripted the other peaceful and predictable.  Both spoke to the character of the two cities and what they mean for their futures.  Minneapolis’ election was a generation changer preparing the city for the future while in St Paul it was an endorsement of the status quo holding the city in the past.  But in both cases, ranked choice voting (RCV) successfully did its job.   
    Critics were wrong when it came to RCV.   With RCV and 35 mayoral candidates in Minneapolis, skeptics contended that voters would not be smart enough or overwhelmed in their ability to process the information needed to make intelligent choices.  There were worries of spoiled ballots, disenfranchisement of the poor and people of color, or widespread dissatisfaction with RCV.  That did not happen.  Why? 
    Minneapolis learned from experience.  Four years when Minneapolis first used RCV I was asked by the City Elections Department to evaluate implementation of the new voting method.  My report’s biggest concern was evidence of some voter confusion but the recommendation was better voter education.  The City responded with a great voter education program that this election significantly reduced voter error and spoiled ballots.  Moreover, in St Paul, part of why the election ran without a hitch is that they too learned from the 2009 Minneapolis experiences.  For critics of government who say it cannot learn, Minneapolis and St Paul did and the results paid off.
    Voters in Minneapolis learned how to adjust to 35 candidates on the ballot.  The top six candidates received nearly 90% of the total votes cast.  Voters demonstrated a capacity to gather information and select candidates whom they preferred and were deemed viable.  Moreover, worries that voters would select only vanity candidates and not vote for someone who was one of the finalists also seemed largely negligible.  In short, the theoretical and hypothetical worries that the election system would break down did not occur.  As a bonus, the Minneapolis experience confirmed a trend from around the country–RCV discourages attacks on opponents, more civil campaigns, and the potential for more cooperation during and perhaps after elections.
    This is not to say that there were no flaws in Minneapolis’s elections.  For one, ballot access is too easy in that city and it needs to change.  Currently Andrew Jackson ($20) gets you on the ballot.  The Charter Commission is talking of raising that to $500.  That is the wrong direction to go.  The US Supreme Court has ruled that excessive ballot fees unconstitutionally discriminate against the poor.  A better option is a minimum number of signatures to appear on the ballot.  Most races call for either paying of a fee or filing of signatures.  A $500 fee really does not demonstrate a showing of support.  A rich candidate could afford that fee easily or raise it from friends.  Signatures are a better sign of commitment.  A requirement of 500 signatures to appear on the ballot would have  eliminated (based on election night returns) 25 of the candidates from appearing on the ballot.  Thus,  a filing fee of $500 or 500 signatures seems a better way to assure some minimal showing of support to appear on the ballot.
    Additionally, the City needs a better protocol for eliminating and counting candidates who have no mathematical chance of winning.  Changing ballot access rules may solve that, but the two days of counting after Tuesday did some damage to RCV.  Tuesday night it was obvious to me when the final results were in that mathematically the bottom 29 or 30 candidates had no chance of winning.  Had the City simply transferred their votes on Wednesday morning then the race results would have been final by lunch time that day.  Finally, high percentage of “exhausted votes” does lend an appearance that some votes were not counted.  They were counted, at least the first choices were, and perhaps second and third too, but the fact that they were not counted in the final vote lends to impressions that must be addressed in the future.  Again, new ballot access rules may address this or perhaps allowing for more ranking, as they did in St Paul.  For now, RCV haters will latch on to exhausted ballots as a major flaw with the voting system.  Overall, we need to distinguish between ballot access rules, ballot casting rules, and ballot counting rules we evaluating elections.
    Beyond RCV, the elections in the two cities spoke hugely of their futures and characters.  Minneapolis’s election was about a generational change.  It was the older DFL being replaced by a new generation of Democrats.  The old labor-led, white establishment DFL lined up behind Mark Andrew while the new demographics of a racially and politically changing city behind Hodges. Andrew was like Frank Skeffington–Edwin O’Connor’s fictional old line Democrat mayor in The Last Hurrah who loses a reelection bid because he does not realize times have changed and he has not.  Andrew is a solid and noble DFLer, but he is old school at a time when Minneapolis is changing.  With Hodges as mayor and seven new council members Minneapolis is set for the shift to the future with a new agenda for a new constituency.  If Obama in 2008 represented the transition  from Baby Boomer to Gen X and Millennial politics at the national level, this is what happened on Tuesday in Minneapolis.
    Not so in St Paul.  Chris Coleman is perhaps the last mayor of the old St Paul DFL.  He is part of the old Irish Catholic DFL constituency that his father represented.  He represents the past of an insular city DFL party that still controls the city with many council members still playing old school politics. .  It is the coalition of traditional labor unions and party insiders. It is the politics of downtown ballpark stadiums and public subsidies for economic development projects.  Coleman does not really have an agenda for the future.  He is like Robert Redford’s character in The Candidate–elected but asking the question “What do we do now?”  Coleman is the mayor of Baby Boomers seeking to hang on one more time.  Minneapolis's DFL party is more robust and  diverse, St. Paul's is neither.  The St Paul DFL is too monolithic and power, and thereby sloppy in what it believes and who it lets in and what it considers to be Democrat politics.  There needs to be real competition in St Paul politics, either inside or outside the DFL, but it is not there.
    In some ways, the people of both cities got what they wanted, or at least elected mayors suited to their personalities.  Minneapolis is the hip, cool, and forward city looking to the future.  St Paul is more stodgy, less prone to change, and more stuck in tradition than its sister across the Mississippi.  The mayoral elections represent a tale of two cities and a contrast in the way they handled changing generational politics.