Where Will Bachmann Build Her Next Bridge?

Michelle Bachmann squeaked by Jim Graves Tuesday night to win her fourth term in the United States House of Representatives.  So now what?

I believe a strategy that turns Bachmann into an asset for progressives is the smartest approach.  She’s won, she’ll be in the public spotlight, and she’s a disgraceful joke.  Any remnants of the regressive Tea Party that remain after yesterday’s election should be made to go down with her.  And in that way, it can be useful, even if it is painful, to have Bachmann as a standing reminder of how inept poorly chosen leaders can be.

A couple things work in favor of ensuring this victory is Bachmann’s last.

First, she won this election based on the broad support of fellow travelers pumping millions of dollars from across the country.  The radical American right elected Bachmann as much as our misguided neighbors in Minnesota Congressional District Six did.

Bachmann won’t have a presidential election to use as a stage in two years.  Her short-lived success as a GOP presidential candidate gave her an appearance of credibility on the national stage.  That is gone.

Michele Bachmann

Instead, unless Bachmann changes her stripes (maybe someone can pray away her crazy), she has two years to reinforce her true character and that character is not good.  Even her own party prefers to stay at a distance from her making her an amazingly ineffective multiple-term representative.

In the last election Bachmann had the bridge over the St. Croix River south of Stillwater to sell as an accomplishment.  She doesn’t have another boondoggle to promote, nothing that will be accomplishment before the next election cycle.  Moreover, Bachmann would not have that bridge without the work and cooperation of others, especially Amy Klobuchar (more about this in a future post).

It would be nice to think that perhaps Bachmann’s experience has mellowed her some; maybe should would be willing to build a bridge of a different kind, one that would bridge the political aisle.  But don’t count on it.

First of all — and I saw this with sincerity — I don’t think Bachmann has the moral character or the intelligence to either want to do this or be able to do this.  Bachmann is among the worst of the worst when it comes to ranking the bottom of our political leaders…and today that takes some doing.

Secondly, only hours after Tuesday’s historic election, the GOP sounds like it is positioning itself for more of the same.  I have been listening to interviews and reading commentary all morning.  Conservatives, with few exceptions, have not changed their rhetoric.

(Mitch McConnell, it is important to note, has softened his anti-American rhetoric.  He hasn’t said his priority is making Barack Obama a one term president this year, although I think it would be funny if he did and it would be maybe the most realistic comment he has made in years.)

Thank you, Jim Graves.

With more credible colleagues circling the wagons and a base — albeit shrinking — of narrow minded misguided voters of the Tea Party ilk, Bachmann has cover and she has an audience.  That’s all she wants and needs.  Minnesota?  Just a means to an end.

For that reason it isn’t too early to start pushing Bachmann now.  We know who she is, we know what she is about.  I see little sense in trying to work with her.  She has to go and the effort to unseat her started in this election.  It didn’t end last night.

An approach that focuses more on positive differences from Bachmann is an overdue approach.  The people who are voting for Bachmann are voting for her at least in part — if not for the most part — because they agree with her outrageous positions and ideas.  Running negative campaigns, therefore, become in a twisted way a positive reinforcement of Bachmann’s base.

Clearly we cannot give Michele a pass on the overly-abundant negative side of her career.  I simply think we need to focus on what makes her opponent different and better.  Don’t overlook promoting the positive.  Differentiate and divide.

And, finally, for that, better Minnesotans and Americans need to thank Jim Graves, his team, and all the people who worked on his behalf and gave him the support he needed to put Michele Bachmann on her heels.

Keep pushing!

Related articles

• Michelle Bachmann squeaks by in Minnesota (washingtonpost.com)
• Bachmann wins re-election in tight race (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
• Michele Bachmann Almost Lost Her House Seat (nymag.com)
• Audience Roars In Laughter During Michelle Bachmann’s Debate (kaystreet.wordpress.com)

A Call for Reasonable GOPers

Reasonable Republicans, when people start talking about God’s will to justify constitutional amendments, doesn’t that make you nervous?  Even if we knew “God’s will”, should we codify it in secular law?

I understand that some Democrats believe and follow the will of god — their god, whatever their religious beliefs might be –but it is the Republican Party that promotes candidates who regularly campaign on issues citing God’s will.  In fact, GOPers fear for their political life if they stray too far afield of a growing conservative Christian slant in the party.

It strikes me that something like the amendments restricting marriage is the place to draw the line.  Where, after all, is this definition of marriage conservatives keep talking about?  And if such a definition exists, should it be universal?  Who says so…God?

Did God get off his easy chair one day and tell someone this?

The argument that we have a “traditional definition” of marriage doesn’t hold water either.  If marriage is such a strong, traditional institution, it is hard to see how two women choosing to marry threatens Sally and Jim’s happy marriage across town.

These anti-marriage efforts are cowardly.  We are all better than this, aren’t we?

And the use of religion is dangerous to a secular democracy.  In this case, a very petty, insecure, and bigoted abuse of religion is being used to defend a limited view of a social contract.  Unless you want to change this country into a theocracy, I suggest we keep religion out of our national and state constitutions.

Sadly, it seems that something like a Christian Taliban is on the rise here, where people are judged and promoted based on their adherence to some Christian law.  Is that what we want?  (Is it…dare I ask…constitutional?)

For a party that is so-hell bent on undoing government, it strikes me as an odd effort to put another layer of government control on the lives of free citizens.  But then, who really thinks Republicans care about freedom for all?

Prove us wrong and vote down these absurd and dangerous anti-rights Amendments.

Related articles

• Minnesotans United for All Families (mnunited.org)
• Marriage Amendment:  Vote No (startribune.com)
• New York GOPer who backed gay marriage loses seat (salon.com)
• Anti-abortion GOPer pressured mistress to terminate pregnancy (salon.com)
• GOPers now trying to destroy small business owner who bear-hugged Obama (americablog.com)
• If American is Really Going to Become Another Greece it’s Thanks to the GOP (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)
• GOPer Calls Paul Krugman a ‘Liar’ For Telling The Truth (alternet.org)

Republican or Democrat…What is Difficult About This Question?

We had things going pretty well here in the United States.  It wasn’t a long run — forty years, fifty? — but it was a good run.  The world changed though and we zigged when we should have zagged.

The rise of populist conservativism infected us all, even liberals, to greater or lesser degrees.  Times were good, after all, why not reward our success and heat it up?

Alas the idea that tax and regulation cuts — especially for the so-called “job creators” — would trickle down and bless us all proved to be a failed argument.   If populist conservativism would benefit everyone, why is such an elite few reaping the benefits?

Billions of dollars of tax cuts didn’t go into job creation, those dollars went into bank accounts.  Conservatives ran with it anyway and fostered a general distrust of government.  The era of doing more with more met its match.  We would spend decades chasing the lie that we can do more with less.

That’s fine if you have already reached the top.  Forget the ethics of taking yours and abandoning those who helped you get there.  Say we are all best served when we purse our self interests, then why would the masses — that populist conservativism — support programs that have given us the growing disparities we have today?   If only the people who benefited from the GOP platform voted Republican, not only would we not have much to worry about, but we would have a fringe party wallowing in the shadows of success.

The fact is most people are not in the top one percent.  They’re not even in the top 10 percent.  Or top forty.  Math has never been our strong suit, has it?  And it is true that we will never all be the top ten percent, that’s true by definition.  That’s ok.  No one should argue that everyone should be exactly the same, whether that is a bounty of plenty or the misfortune of need.

But it isn’t only the “job creators” who need gains.  Aren’t we all better when the middle substantively improves?  When the least fortunate of us improves his lot, we are all better.   America’s tremendous economic growth and opportunity rose on the shoulders of a growing and strengthening middle class, not an increasingly exclusive economic and political elite.   We didn’t become what we were by looking up to beneficent job creators to “build it” for us.  And conservatives know that…

How many of today’s conservatives come from middle class families that got a start from veteran higher education grants?  Or look at rural America, what would that part of our society look like if we did not protect our environment and support rural communities?  And everyone, fortunate and poor alike, benefit from clean water, safe streets, food safety, functioning infrastructure, and so on and so on.

We shouldn’t be surprised that we have less and have gone broke getting less.  This has been part of conservative strategy since the 1980s.  Starve the beast.  Underfund programs and use the financial crisis that it creates just justify cuts.  Very simple and the results have been disastrous.  

You don’t have to be a genius to understand this — although it seems you have to be a shade brighter than a typical modern conservative — blaming government has given us less, not more.  It has made us weaker, not stronger.  And it has depressed the outlook for our future.

 

 

Related articles

• Is The GOP Suckering Fiscal Conservatives All Over Again? (outsidethebeltway.com)
• How Conservatism Lost Its Mind (theamericanconservative.com)
• Your Kid Has Autism? Start a Business! (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)
• Moment of Truth for GOP’s Conservative Wing (susanbarsy.com)

Politics at the Minnesota State Fair

Now some people might say my opinions are a bit biased, but I don’t know why anyone would say that.  They might also suggest that I do generalize a bit too easily.  Really?  No, no no.  Pish posh.  That’s just silly.  And I am going to prove it.

Yesterday I went to the Minnesota State Fair and lingered at the GOP booth.  I like to do this, especially with a few anti-Marriage Amendment and pro-Democratic buttons pinned to my shirt.  I also like to see how long I can hold my breath.  (I don’t know, but those people must have caught something and I don’t want it.)  So picture me there, holding my breath turning shades of red and holding a half-full cup of pale ale, too, while I eagerly look  for action.

I am an observant guy and I seek out the truth.  So I linger and watch and wait and so on.  I want something to happen, after all I always look for facts that I can share with you.  And year after year I keep giving these people a second chance and each year I am disappointed.  Certainly their politics are wrong — bad thinking leads to bad politics — but why the hell can’t these people get fashion right?

Come on folks!  Have some style.  Who dresses you, Nurse Ratched?

I exhale and leave.

Here is an indisputable fact…if you see a stylish, well-dressed (maybe even sexy…definitely if sexy) person at the Minnesota State Fair, they’re a liberal.  I’ll take that fact one step farther, if you see a stylish, well-dressed (and most definitely if they’re sexy) person anywhere, they are a liberal.   And I can prove it with one visit at the fair.

Certainly there are some liberals with closets best suited for the 80s, I don’t deny that — I might even be one of them — but I challenge you to find a conservative with any fashion sense.  I only speak the truth, so prove me wrong.

Let’s start with the basics.

Your typical conservative congressman, as an example, matches his belt and shoes only because someone told him to do so.  Whereas a liberal finds fashionable ways to mix it up.  And pulls it off.  Look back at any of the Republican debates earlier this year.  If there are people who can make a standard blue suit look bad, that’s your gang.  Clearly they watch episodes of Dragnet for tips on style and poise.  Dare them to mix patterns or try a European cut.

I do have to give George W. Bush some credit, though.  He appeared to have a tailor.  And a good one.  Of course he wore his suits like a coat hanger — Jack Webb would have been proud — but then a suit of clothes doesn’t make the man.  Often the other way around.  And we know other issues swirl around and through George W that a suit cannot fix.

But this is simple stuff, clothes are clothes, so let’s go back again to the fair where I can prove my point.

The GOP booth was a raging bore.  A few folks with bad hair (once again, check out the people conservatives elect, cf. Kurt Zellers?)  and even worse t-shirts stood around catching flies or awaiting the Rapture, I couldn’t tell which.  It was disappointing.  These people were lost in their own little cloudy cocoons, being extra careful not to make eye contact.  I couldn’t find anyone to talk with me.  Instead they wandered to and fro as if they had been at the Kool-Aid just a bit too long.  An absolute disaster over there at the GOP, but that should surprise no one.

Have I ever been wrong about Kurt Zellers?

The DFL booth on the other hand was busy with happy, energetic good people.  Most of them were hot as hell, too.  Even I felt a little sexy over there with the Democrats.  And of course there was no arguing with my Black Fleece gingham shirt, pressed linen pants, polished shoes, and jaunty hat.  Clearly not a conservative, because even if it didn’t quite work, I at least tried.  (When was the last time a conservative tried ANYTHING…other than taking away your public services and limiting your rights, that is?)

Now let’s go up the street where the anti-marriage rights people have a booth and…you know what…I’m not even going to pick on these people, not their sense of style or anything else.  I genuinely felt a little sorry for them.  Their politics, however, are fair game.

(By the way, if I remember correctly, they are sporting a bad shade of aqua at that booth.  Aqua?  Maybe it was Gatorade green.)

The anti-marriage rights booth was dead, just as that amendment surely is dead.  For the record here, the amendment is commonly called the “Marriage Amendment,” which is an example of conservative talent with Owellian Doublespeak.

The pro-rights people — the people correctly opposing this soi disant Marriage Amendment — attract quite a crowd.  It is a large, busy, and — even at the Minnesota State Fair — socially diverse crowd.  People actually wait in line to sign a petition, and none of them were wearing grey air-brushed t-shirts showing F-15 fighter jets flying through a bad collage of American flags, eagles, and Mount Rushmore.  I felt kind of sexy here, too.

In fact, I think I can close the circle on this discussion right now.  Is it simply the fact that liberals have a better sense of style that makes them more attractive or is it something else?  Likewise, does bad art silk-screened on a cheap shirt or a DIY haircut really make one unattractive or is it something else?  Sarah Palin spent $70,000 at Neiman Marcus here in Minneapolis and it didn’t seem to help her.  Maybe it is her glasses or her screeching, whining voice…I don’t know.  But I think I do know…

Using Sarah Palin as an example — a woman whose sense of style cannot be saved by the fashion forward efforts of Neiman Marcus’s talented sales people — we see that style isn’t so much about what you wear but who you are.  In the current  epoch of American Conservativism, I can go to the GOP pound year after year and not find a winner in that show.   Look at Sarah.  Even  a stylish Armani suit cannot overcome her wooden, Team America persona.  She might impress a knuckle-dragger, but she does nothing for me.

The progressive thinking people at the anti-Marriage Amendment booth, on the other hand, possess something entirely different.  There’s nothing wooden about them.  They possess a degree of thoughtfulness and intelligence.  And intelligence is attractive.  Therefore the good liberal people lining up and crowding around the booth are attractive.  They have style!  They have panache!  Sadly it seems it will be a long time — in a galaxy far, far away? — before you will be able to say that about conservatives again.

So there you have it.  You can go see it for yourself.  Why are liberals sexy and attractive?  Because they have style.  And why do they have style?  Because it is all about smarts and good thinking.  Go out there and be sexy today!

Related articles

• Gay Marriage Campaign Comes to Minn. State Fair (kstp.com)
• How to survive (and still enjoy) the Minnesota State Fair (thesweethealthylife.wordpress.com)
• The Fascinating Differences Between The Conservative and Liberal Personality | Alternet (mbcalyn.com)
• How Conservatism Lost Its Mind (theamericanconservative.com)

Minnesota Marriage Amendment and Advice

This protester was on his own and letting Minnesota state Senators know his position on gay marriage. This is freedom of speech in action. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I believe a key reason why “mainstream” conservatives — a disappearing breed, indeed — support crazy proposals like a so-called Marriage Protection Amendment is to rally conservatives to the voting booth.

I have a hard time believing that more informed and socially sophisticated conservative leaders really sees something like gay marriage as a threat to our country.  Gay marriage, a threat to America?  Really?  What about jobs, the environment, education?  Or gay marriage as a threat to the sanctity of marriage?  How about divorce?  That seems like it is doing more damage to the virtues of marriage than people choosing openly and freely to join together.  (Perhaps John Edwards or Newt Gingrich have some pointers I am missing.)

These hot button social issues simply play a key role in keeping otherwise aloof voters active.  So I have always thought, don’t freak out.  Most of America is relatively sane and sanity will prevail.

But then I read Baird Helgesen’s assessment of how the vote in Minnesota might hinge on a general rural versus urban divide among voters in last Sunday’s Star Tribune.  That got me thinking more about this.  First of all, social issues increasingly straddle political lines and there really is no objective identity with an issue one way or the other anyway.

Which political party, for example, really has the corner on “family values.”  I would argue, however, that one party has done a much better job co-opting the language of social issues and the discourse of topics like family values.  That is the Republican Party.

This is an important consideration if your goal is defeating something like an anti-gay marriage amendment.   Strategically, defining your “base” is difficult and depending on that base to vote consistently with your ideology might add another layer of uncertainty.  In the anti-marriage amendment example, the state might run blue, but how deep is that shade of blue?

Baird brought up a good example.  In Minnesota the Iron Range tends to be socially conservative.  And if politically active voters on the Iron Range turn out whether you bait the ballot with a social issue or not you still put a social conservative in the polling booth.  They might vote pro-labor and anti-marriage, for example.  These socially conservative democrats mark a troubling tipping point in politics when progressives stay home, making once progressive states like Minnesota more a robin’s egg blue than deep navy.

So, since legislators are increasingly eager to let the public legislate by putting issues up majority vote — which flies in the face of what the Bill of Rights is intended to protect, i.e., the rights of the minority against the wishes of the majority — why not put progressive hot issues on the ballot?  We could have a Clean Air Amendment, a Right to Education Amendment, and a Chicken in Every Pot Amendment!  Who doesn’t like chicken?

Ok, I am joking…kind of.  What progressives need and don’t seem to have is the ability to stir up its aloof base.  The left doesn’t seem to have a solid and consistent policy discourse.  The left doesn’t have simple ideas people can grasp.  ”Change We Can Believe In” is much more abstract than the simple — and simple-minded — “one man, one woman,” for example.  In short, progressives need a better message, need more guts.

Today when you listen to the debate about our economic malaise, for example, you hear Democrats speaking the so-called moderate language of compromise and pragmatism.  Democrats are in a double-lose situation.  The right has hijacked the discourse of freedom while the left struggles to co-opt the language of failed conservative policy.  The result is a somewhat poorly defined Democratic Party and disengaged political support.

To quote my man Paul Krugman, “Compromise, if you must, on the policy — but never on the truth.”

So two-fold advice.  First, progressives cannot take it for granted that the wacky minority will be defeated by a more sophisticated and calm majority.  You have to rally to vote.  Every election is important, whether local or national.

Second, while I believe progressives need to put teeth into their political messages, I also think they simply need more fight.  Find stronger policy positions and promote them consistently and aggressively.  Engage and re-engage the voter.  Most Americans are not going to sift through the marginalia of political discourse anyway.  Right now I don’t see a lot from the left-of-center that seems all that definitive.  Instead I see too much compromising on the truth.

And if that is going on, then these divisive social issues do indeed matter, and could present potentially regressive results.  It is bad enough that we live in a society suffering from failed conservative fiscal and economic policy.  It isn’t going to get any better if we start making laws that strip citizens of their basic rights.

A lot divides this country politically.  It is hard to see how divisive issues set up as fodder for political discourse and as tests for political identity are going to reunite the country.  These are distractions that have to be dealt with, but the bigger issue is the bigger message.  In politics it is all about “What have you done for me lately?”  In that regard I believe the left needs a better PR wing.

Related articles

• General Mills Officially Against Minnesota’s Gay Marriage Ban (queerty.com)
• PPP Poll: Minnesota Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment in Serious Trouble After Major Shift in Attitudes (towleroad.com)

Shame Ethics, Nietzsche, and James Gilligan

I am reading Why Some Politicians are More Dangerous Than Others by James Gilligan.  The book presents an interesting thesis.  He shows data that correlates a rise in violent crime with periods when a Republican occupies the White House.  The analysis of why this is the case is the interesting part of the book.  I recommend reading this book.

I have reached an argument in his book that I think needs to be checked, however.  It really will not affect his thesis one way or the other, but I don’t think his conclusions are correct.  I am looking for help with this one if anyone reading this blog has ideas.

Specifically Gilligan draws a comparison between what he calls Shame Ethics with Nietzsche’s Master Morality.  He says people who identify with the Shame Ethic also identify with Nietzsche’s Ubermensch, or Superman.  (Pages 104-110)  I don’t think this is quite right as Gilligan is trying to frame his argument.

(You want to reference Human, All Too Human and Thus Spoke Zarathustra…or good notes!)

Gilligan, in his book, argues that people identifying with a Shame Ethic are more likely to resort to violence to deal with shame.  “Shame Ethics is a moral value system in which the greatest evil is shame and humiliation, i.e., dishonor and disrespect, and the highest good is the opposite of shame, namely, pride and honor (respect).  (105)  He identifies Republicans with this ethic identification.  “Guilt ethics is a moral value system in which the greatest evil is guild (also called sin), and the highest good is the opposite of guilt, namely, innocence.”  He identifies Democrats with this ethic identification.

Gilligan then makes the generalization that conflates his Shame Ethic with Nietzche’s Master Morality where he says Nietzsche’s Master Morality would justify “being a slave-owner (as in the Old South, in the US), and violence in general (e.g., warfare, revenge, sadism).”  (108)

I don’t think this is correct.  In fact I think Gilligan is resurrecting old stereotypes that haunt Nietzsche scholarship and don’t accurately explain Nietzsche’s criticism of morality and society.  To put it simply, the Übermensch isn’t a sort of ethical free-for-all.  Rather it is living a life that accepts life for what it is and is able to choose based on that alone, not on some arbitrary moral code.  The Übermensch is a sort of ideal of control and self-realization, not a bully.

Inflicting one’s will upon others, which is what Gilligan seems to be saying, is not rising above “Good and Evil”, for example, but participating in it and participating within the social structure that Nietzsche critiques.

In the context that Gilligan is talking about ethics and morality, the slave or Christian morality can be faulted because it is an identity founded on an idea of ressentiment – roughly resentment or spite, there is no perfect word for the idea in English — where the nature of power is misunderstood and therefore becomes evil.  I think Gilligan interjecting Nietszche in his argument as he has muddles the distinction between Shame and Guilt ethics that he is trying to make.  In short, I don’t think he has it right as he applies Nietzsche as an example.

So that’s my aside as I read James Gilligan’s book.  Maybe someone with more expertise — and a more lucid writer — can add some thoughts about this.

By the way, I should add that I find Gilligan’s assessment of political identity and moral identity very convincing.  It isn’t an entirely new idea, but overlaying this correlation with United States presidential administrations reveals the importance of politics in quality of life.  I think there is a bit more of a chicken or egg question that should be kept in mind while considering these things, but Gilligan is on a path with others in his assessment of moral identity and politics.  George Lakoff comes to mind.

Back to the book.

Related articles

• Why Some Politicians Are More Dangerous Than Others (politicalwire.com)

Trending in the Right Direction

At least something appears to be trending in the right direction.  Think glass half full.

While President Barak Obama’s numbers remain low, this isn’t necessarily unusual for presidents in recent decades.  Even the beatified Ronald Reagan struggled in the polls in his first term.

There is, however, a number that polls even lower.  Congressional job approval is miserably low, a record low, in fact.  This, of course, includes Congressional Democrats struggling against obstinate GOP cynicism, but when we look generally at the regressive Republicans, they continue to lose favor with Americans.

Ironically, perhaps, I’ll call this good news.

According to the most recent CNN poll, more Americans continue to trust Obama and his policies over GOP policies.  Forty-three percent of Americans favor Obama’s job plan while only 35% oppose it.  Forty-six percent of Americans trust Obama more to handle our economy over Republicans by 46% over 37%.  This is a sign of hope, especially in a country largely disengaged from facts and history.

Many reasons for concern remain, however.  First off these number reflect opinions in a system that most Americans think is broken.  Republicans running for office now are campaigning against this system and it isn’t clear that some voters want more, not less, of the GOP’s anti-government, anti-American policies as a solution.

The challenge for Democrats, especially the current Democratic leadership, remains the single problem of gaining control of the nation’s political narrative.  Democrats lost control of our political discourse and have been playing defense ever since.  This needs to change.

There is hope, however.  People are not happy and with this there is opportunity.

A Room of His Own

It has occurred to me that perhaps President Obama should take a tip from Virginia Woolf.  Woolf promoted the idea that women could achieve literary success if they had the same opportunities as men, especially in terms of financial security and privacy.  Woolf talked specifically of literature, but her arguments are generally taken as a feminist text that also promotes the value of equal opportunity for women.

Instead of literature, let’s think of Virginia Woolf’s argument in a political context.  Can one make the argument that perhaps Barak Obama is smothered by the discourse of the political right?

Even with ill-advised leaks of Obama’s Thursday night speech — a poor strategic movement, in my opinion — all the talk this week has been about the GOP presidential candidate wannabe debate.  More importantly, Obama always appears to be reacting, rather than leading, when addressing economic and jobs issues.  He isn’t laying out a plan that is his own and aggressively selling it.  Instead he is making fruitless efforts to appear deliberate and bipartisan in a reckless and partisan world.  He doesn’t have his space…a space of his own.

Just as Woolf argues that women are capable of producing meaningful literature, ideas, and success of their own, I believe Obama — and Democrats generally — are able to do the same.  The problem is simple, however; Democrats follow more than they lead.  Too often Democrats work in a political environment framed by the Republicans.   Rather than propose bold ideas, they try to fit Democratic goals into a Republican agenda.  More than ever, that’s like trying to push a square peg into a round hole.

Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson certainly had rooms of their own.  They had the luxury of ideological space.  Granted, a lot of that space came from the people who chose them as leaders, but they also fought a bitter opposition, especially in the case of FDR, and still managed to succeed.  It is about more than just appealing to your base, it is about putting yourself on equal footing with your opposition and overcoming your opposition.  Obama hasn’t been at that level…he’s too much of what a Democrat is today.

Let’s see how things go tonight.

Why Arden Hills is a Bad Idea for a Vikings Stadium

It is interesting to see any support — both outright and tacit support — for a new Minnesota Vikings stadium built with tax payer dollars in Arden Hills, MN.  After the disastrous year in both Minnesota state politics and the mood nationally where anti-tax, anti-government conservatives have all but destroyed the economic foundation and the security of the working and middle class…well, of course it makes absolute sense to subsidized the profitable business of the National Football League.

Billionaire owners need millions of our dollars to build a stadium that will let them and their employees make many, many more millions while the average American struggles to maintain a relatively modest lifestyle, one with less certainty about quality of life issues like health, education, and retirement?  This all says a lot about the values of our society and its priorities.  There are many economic lessons here too about leveraging scarcity, demand, and economies of scale.

The people of the NFL enjoy such  disproportionately advantageous wealth because they are lucky, they sit in an economic gold mine opened by our fanaticism for their unique niche in the market.  If you want to say that is something special worthy of their enormous entitlement, so be it…but why then do we have to pile on additional gifts — literally economic sacrifice as if we need to pay tribute to maintain their favors — to support this “free market” success?

But I’m babbling about stuff that isn’t even part of the debate.  The Vikings will get their stadium even as more and more Minnesotans lose health care, pay more for education, lose retirement benefits, etc., etc., etc…

(And remember who votes for this stuff.  At least Democrats are consistent in seeing a place for government investment and are not opposed to taxes.  Building a stadium will create jobs, for example.  The lion’s share of the long term economic benefit, however, will go to people who are not suffering in the current economic and political environment.  Building better roads would be a more socially responsible investment — a modern-era New Deal – but the value of that doesn’t register with our ignorant political class today.  So pay attention…where do your Amy Kochs and Kurt Zellerses stand on this issue?)

S

Arden Hills

o we’re going to help build a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings.  Yippee.  Let’s be smart about it.  First and foremost, why would you build a stadium in a location that needs new infrastructure to support it?

Look at the Minnesota Twins ball park as an example of what works.  The stadium is centrally located in the metropolitan area and it is located where the people are.  Offices, homes, and business surround the location.  Large investments in public transportation already exists in Minneapolis including light rail and the North Star commuter line.   Parking exists.  And further development in the downtown area will help support the economy and business in that area, especially hotels, restaurants, and retail.

Developers argue that building in Arden Hills will spur growth there.  Two questions:  First, why do we want growth in Arden Hills?   Second, where is that growth going to come from?

Sorry, Arden Hills, but what advantage would there be for the region if another Bloomington emerged just north of Minneapolis and St. Paul?  Moreover, where would this growth come from?  We have a glut of office and retail space in the Twin Cities already.  Expecting an expansion in that sort of space just because there’s a sleek new stadium to “support” it is a pipe dream.  Some people think you could pull business from the cities with lower rents, but will the economics support development costs of new office space carried by lower rents?  You have to pay the bills!  Unless you go to the taxpayers for financing subsidies for periphery development as well.

It is more likely that Zygi Wilf wants a nice development that he can cash in before moving out.  He’s supposed to be a developer, after all, I’m sure he knows a thing or two about profiting from the enthusiastic ignorance of local governments.

Let’s also look at some other simple issues, common sense you-know-it-when-you-see-it issues.  If you ever drive on I-694 any time other than the overnight hours, you know it is a mess now.  Drive that way during rush hour and it can easily take an hour to get across the north metro.  I-35W is not much better.  This isn’t a problem just where these freeways meet at the Arden Hills site, but miles down the road.

Imagine a Thursday night football game, or any event, scheduled at an Arden Hills stadium on a day other than Sunday.  The majority of Minnesotans would need to drive through a major metro area to get to the site versus driving in to the metro area if a stadium were built in Minneapolis.  (Or even St. Paul.)

Arden Hills doesn’t make sense for a couple reasons.  The first is the obvious economic and political hypocrisy of providing unnecessary support to multi-billion dollar industry when we can’t keep our basic public services open.  (But we’re Americans and sadly don’t seem to care about this stuff anymore.)  The second is the inefficient and inconvenient location of a entirely new development in an undeveloped area when more practical locations are available that have necessary supporting infrastructure.

If we are going to do this — which we almost certainly will do — let’s do it as intelligently and as efficiently as we can.  In the end, the Vikings and the Wilfs will still love you.  Don’t worry.

Waiting for President Obama

That is not the reaction we are looking for...

Well he did it again…or perhaps it is more accurate to say he didn’t do it again.  President Obama spoke and offered little that we haven’t heard before.

We need President Obama to stand up and spell it out, he needs to explain to Americans the facts and rationale supporting an anti-Republican plan to save our economy rather than playing defense against the conservative attacks.  He isn’t doing it.

Today in Cannon Falls, MN, we heard a lot of the same generalities about shared sacrifice and billionaires and so and so on…but no real reason why his spin on things should be preferred to the other guys’ ideas.

The right whined and complained — that’s what they’re good at — about Obama’s “tax payer expense” trip to Minnesota, but taking trips like this is exactly what our leader should do and do often.  He is not finding cooperation or ideas in the intellectually-challenged halls of Congress, it only follows that he work with the public.

I’m not expecting a Braveheart moment, but this is what leaders do.  We need Obama to create a narrative of his own and use it.  He has to explain to people the economic advantages of working idea.  Hell, if he can’t articulate it himself, he should plagiarize his speech from the common sense expressed time and time again in the respectable press!

He doesn’t need to get highfalutin and wonkish about this … hell, Republicans haven’t even a hint of credibility and yet they have hordes of blind followers.  Why?  Because they have a story, they keep telling it, and then they tell it again.  Plus the President feeds is opponents opportunities to do things like make ridiculous claims about “socialism” and “class warfare.”  He’s become an easy foil in a high-stakes rhetorical game when we need him to be clear and convincing leader.

Here's the problem. Poorly informed Americans. And they vote!

Sure, perhaps I am overly simplifying things and sound like I think it should be easy to change the narrative of political debate in this country, but just about anything has to be easier than what we are suffering through now.  To make it simple, let’s just say we need a message, we need a narrative…I’ll even say we need our own sound bites!

President Obama needs to tell Americans why short-term stimulus now is necessary, explain the immediate and necessary benefit to the economy.  Deal with this short term crisis now.

Then explain who the longer term problem of debt and deficit will be resolved, offering a credible solution that forces the opposition to respond.  He should explain how costly wrong decisions now are for the future, how they add to our economic woes rather than resolve them.

Facts and history support solutions Republicans simply cannot understand.  Trying to work with their ideas is abolutely fruitless and only interfers with better ideas.  So let’s get on it!