As my friend Randy Johnson points out below, the original post had an error in the third paragraph. It has been corrected to read, “Think about this: the Minnesota GOP has endorsed only two candidates at its state conventions who went on to win the state’s top office since Harold LeVander - nearly six decades ago. SIX DECADES!”
Tom, you and I might disagree on many policy questions, but I think we share a belief that politics is a worthy profession and that compromise is essential for doing things, especially big things. I really do mourn that "compromise" has become a dirty word, particularly among the more extreme elements of both parties (though this left-of-center political observer thinks the problem is more pronounced on your side of the aisle).
The MAGA wing of the party doesn't appear to be interested in policy debates as much as it is in demonizing "the libtards" and purging from its ranks everyone insufficiently loyal to the Mr. Trump. Today, the range of permissible thought on that topic seems to be the space between "greatest president ever" and "greatest president there ever will be." And the "ever will be" crowd is giving serious side-eye to their cousins.
I'm an optimist by nature but it's hard for me to see how we get back to the policy debates until either the MAGA movement burns itself out or there's a political realignment that will break one - or perhaps both - parties into two parties - a nationalist/nativist party on the far right, a more moderate party of what used to be called "business" or "country club" Republicans, a moderate Democratic party and a far left Democratic socialist party. Were that to happen, I think there's a decent chance a centrist coalition of the two moderate parties could be a stable governing model.
Far-fetched? Sure, I'll admit to that, but in the next breath, I'll also note that the current configuration isn't working for anybody except the "let's just blow it up" crowd.
Tom,you write about the state needing a credible political party competitor besides the Democrats to govern effectively. Not convinced the remnants of MN GOP will ever be credible. It will take more than another Chuck Slocum and the label New MN GOP to resuscitate the GOP after their deal with the devil.
I must admit, it is hard to see a path forward for the MN GOP. It has few issues that appeal to the majority of voters, the rules of state conventions promote candidates that are too far right and, on top of all that, it is facing deep divisions within its own ranks. The party will continue to have a representation in the legislature (at least until the next census) because of its strong rural presence. But beyond that, the party is deeply troubled.
Yes, my mistake....meant to say only two endorsed candidates - Quie and Pawlenty - were elected governor since Levander, who was endorsed nearly 60 years ago. Carlson wasn't endorsed bt the GOP at its convention in either of his two successful runs. Thanks
As my friend Randy Johnson points out below, the original post had an error in the third paragraph. It has been corrected to read, “Think about this: the Minnesota GOP has endorsed only two candidates at its state conventions who went on to win the state’s top office since Harold LeVander - nearly six decades ago. SIX DECADES!”
Tom, you and I might disagree on many policy questions, but I think we share a belief that politics is a worthy profession and that compromise is essential for doing things, especially big things. I really do mourn that "compromise" has become a dirty word, particularly among the more extreme elements of both parties (though this left-of-center political observer thinks the problem is more pronounced on your side of the aisle).
The MAGA wing of the party doesn't appear to be interested in policy debates as much as it is in demonizing "the libtards" and purging from its ranks everyone insufficiently loyal to the Mr. Trump. Today, the range of permissible thought on that topic seems to be the space between "greatest president ever" and "greatest president there ever will be." And the "ever will be" crowd is giving serious side-eye to their cousins.
I'm an optimist by nature but it's hard for me to see how we get back to the policy debates until either the MAGA movement burns itself out or there's a political realignment that will break one - or perhaps both - parties into two parties - a nationalist/nativist party on the far right, a more moderate party of what used to be called "business" or "country club" Republicans, a moderate Democratic party and a far left Democratic socialist party. Were that to happen, I think there's a decent chance a centrist coalition of the two moderate parties could be a stable governing model.
Far-fetched? Sure, I'll admit to that, but in the next breath, I'll also note that the current configuration isn't working for anybody except the "let's just blow it up" crowd.
Tom,you write about the state needing a credible political party competitor besides the Democrats to govern effectively. Not convinced the remnants of MN GOP will ever be credible. It will take more than another Chuck Slocum and the label New MN GOP to resuscitate the GOP after their deal with the devil.
I must admit, it is hard to see a path forward for the MN GOP. It has few issues that appeal to the majority of voters, the rules of state conventions promote candidates that are too far right and, on top of all that, it is facing deep divisions within its own ranks. The party will continue to have a representation in the legislature (at least until the next census) because of its strong rural presence. But beyond that, the party is deeply troubled.
Tom,
Thank you for your knowledge, experience and communication skills.
I agree with you take about Walz.
Yet as I recently wrote to my friend a state senator
Nothing is perfect and my cynicism leads me to vote for the lesser of evils.
Harris and Walz are a refreshing alternative and yet some of their more social benefits to me is to much
I hope that can be tempered and citizens move toward earning their keep and not looking out for social support programs..best regards
Agree. Too often, Dems try to guarantee equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity. That's expensive and not very efficient
Thoughtful commentary. But six decades? What about LeVander, Quie, Carlson, Pawlenty?
Yes, my mistake....meant to say only two endorsed candidates - Quie and Pawlenty - were elected governor since Levander, who was endorsed nearly 60 years ago. Carlson wasn't endorsed bt the GOP at its convention in either of his two successful runs. Thanks