I agree. I will go even one step further and say that the government, corporate, and NGO sectors are no longer capable of resolving our complex socio-economic issues. There is really no evidence that those sectors and their governance models are sophisticated enough for the degree of complexity embedded in our issues due to the highly interconnected society we live in.
We have to ask ourselves, if the government, corporate, and NGO sectors cannot solve our issues, what is Plan B?
The Citizens League continues to be a valuable organization, one I support. But it is not an advocacy group. And that was the shortcoming of my earlier effort - it was more think tank than action. Today, Minnesota needs a well-funded (think seven figures) group that can solicit and refine a handful of major reforms AND put the muscle behind political action. The entrenched political system can't get beyond the narrow interests. A new organization is needed to engage and educate Minnesotans at every level on WHY a major reform is needed. That understanding then has to be leveraged into direct support to make good ideas good legislation
Rather than to start a new organization from scratch, why not campaign to move the Citizen's League into an internal mission change to begin advocacy for their policy recommendations.? I recall that it was a Citizen's League study that resulted in Wendy Anderson's stubborn refusal to end a special session of the legislature until the "Minnesota Miracle" was passed.
The Citizens League continues to play a vital role in Minnesota public policy. Its work complements what is needed today, but doesn’t fulfill it. You recall from your days in the Legislature that the CL’s policy recommendations were embraced by business and civic leaders. They engaged with elected officials to make a broad agenda of innovative public policy reality. That doesn’t happen today. Most business leaders are disengaged from day-to-day politics. The incentive to get things done comes now from the narrow interest groups that too often dictate party processes. When 85% of Minnesota’s state representatives are being elected by double-digit margins - landslides by any measure - the need is to change the political system.
I don't disagree with your analysis. So how can we effect change? The Minnesota Business Partnership might be a place to start.
How about putting together a group of like minded folks that support your agenda? Create a speaker's bureau, an ad campaign, a lobbying arm? Perhaps seek a grant from one of the many foundations in Minnesota to fund an effort to organize a new "Next Minnesota"
Check out Steve Young and Todd Lefko's op-ed in the PiPress today (Sunday). Good minds think alike. They're focusing on St. Paul, of course. I noted that you wrote about clinging to the past, but isn't it just as critical that some are building a future far outside reason, common sense, and the core beliefs of our Republic?
I saw their piece and thought if very well done. It is complementary to what I am saying -- we cannot rely on solutions tied to the past to meet the challenges and opportunities of tomorrow. Yes, there are some at both extremes of the political spectrum who seek to push candidates and policymakers in unproductive directions. All too often, those extremes -- again, right and left -- define the politics of the day. As I point out in my piece, it is not just the geographic polarization in Minnesota that is reflected in the 67-67 tie in the House of Representatives. It also is the polarization that comes from a political system that seeks first and foremost to stay in power. Red districts are getting redder and blue districts bluer. As we have seen time and again since 1994, it is almost impossible for a Republican to win a primary toeing the line defined by delegates at the state convention. And, because of party rules and allocation of delegates, the convention-goers tend to be far more conservative than DFL convention delegates are liberal. So, yes, both parties need to cut their ties with past policies. That's not to say they have to reject the core values of the country. They have to look beyond the narrow issues that both parties impose on their candidates.
And term limits.
I agree. I will go even one step further and say that the government, corporate, and NGO sectors are no longer capable of resolving our complex socio-economic issues. There is really no evidence that those sectors and their governance models are sophisticated enough for the degree of complexity embedded in our issues due to the highly interconnected society we live in.
We have to ask ourselves, if the government, corporate, and NGO sectors cannot solve our issues, what is Plan B?
Doesn't the Citizen's League attempt to fill the need you are advocating for? Has it lost its relevance?
And then, after you ran for Governor, you started Next Minnesota, which had similar goals.
What has happened to those organizations?
The Citizens League continues to be a valuable organization, one I support. But it is not an advocacy group. And that was the shortcoming of my earlier effort - it was more think tank than action. Today, Minnesota needs a well-funded (think seven figures) group that can solicit and refine a handful of major reforms AND put the muscle behind political action. The entrenched political system can't get beyond the narrow interests. A new organization is needed to engage and educate Minnesotans at every level on WHY a major reform is needed. That understanding then has to be leveraged into direct support to make good ideas good legislation
Rather than to start a new organization from scratch, why not campaign to move the Citizen's League into an internal mission change to begin advocacy for their policy recommendations.? I recall that it was a Citizen's League study that resulted in Wendy Anderson's stubborn refusal to end a special session of the legislature until the "Minnesota Miracle" was passed.
The Citizens League continues to play a vital role in Minnesota public policy. Its work complements what is needed today, but doesn’t fulfill it. You recall from your days in the Legislature that the CL’s policy recommendations were embraced by business and civic leaders. They engaged with elected officials to make a broad agenda of innovative public policy reality. That doesn’t happen today. Most business leaders are disengaged from day-to-day politics. The incentive to get things done comes now from the narrow interest groups that too often dictate party processes. When 85% of Minnesota’s state representatives are being elected by double-digit margins - landslides by any measure - the need is to change the political system.
I don't disagree with your analysis. So how can we effect change? The Minnesota Business Partnership might be a place to start.
How about putting together a group of like minded folks that support your agenda? Create a speaker's bureau, an ad campaign, a lobbying arm? Perhaps seek a grant from one of the many foundations in Minnesota to fund an effort to organize a new "Next Minnesota"
Check out Steve Young and Todd Lefko's op-ed in the PiPress today (Sunday). Good minds think alike. They're focusing on St. Paul, of course. I noted that you wrote about clinging to the past, but isn't it just as critical that some are building a future far outside reason, common sense, and the core beliefs of our Republic?
I saw their piece and thought if very well done. It is complementary to what I am saying -- we cannot rely on solutions tied to the past to meet the challenges and opportunities of tomorrow. Yes, there are some at both extremes of the political spectrum who seek to push candidates and policymakers in unproductive directions. All too often, those extremes -- again, right and left -- define the politics of the day. As I point out in my piece, it is not just the geographic polarization in Minnesota that is reflected in the 67-67 tie in the House of Representatives. It also is the polarization that comes from a political system that seeks first and foremost to stay in power. Red districts are getting redder and blue districts bluer. As we have seen time and again since 1994, it is almost impossible for a Republican to win a primary toeing the line defined by delegates at the state convention. And, because of party rules and allocation of delegates, the convention-goers tend to be far more conservative than DFL convention delegates are liberal. So, yes, both parties need to cut their ties with past policies. That's not to say they have to reject the core values of the country. They have to look beyond the narrow issues that both parties impose on their candidates.