Tuesday is the Minnesota Primary Election.  Lots of interesting information, including candidates, here.

You will note that the DFL (Democrat) ballot includes 15 names; the Republican only one, even though at the time of filing there were at least two other national Republican who expressed an interest in challenging the incumbent.

Today’s Minneapolis Star Tribune, on the front page, announced that the local Catholic Archbishop had sent a letter to diocesan Priests which basically (my opinion) prohibits Priests from voting in the primary as they will have to declare whether they are Republican or Democrat.  I am lifelong Catholic, and I’ll be at Mass on Sunday, as usual, so I know the drill.  The topic won’t come up, I’d guess.  We have one Priest who I respect a lot.  I don’t know where he lives or how he votes.  So be it.

(We tend to know where the current Catholic hierarchy in the United States stands, and while there won’t be partisan signs on their residence or office lawns, we basically know how they collectively lean, and its not in the “D” direction.)

We used to know that, too, during the good old days when Priests and Nuns, while not encouraged to participate were not prohibited from doing so, either, in things like anti-war demonstrations and declarations, or civil rights marches and on and on.  But that was in days of old.

I’ll vote on Tuesday.  This is the first time in a long while that there has been a presidential primary in Minnesota.  I suppose the legislature decided they wanted to be included in Super Tuesday for some reason or other.  (Before, we would do a presidential preference poll at the caucuses.  It wasn’t sexy, but it worked as well as having a special election.)

But, what am I to say?

See you at the polls, I hope.

*

Some additional words on Tuesdays Precinct caucuses.    I wrote very briefly on the caucuses on Wednesday: “Last night was precinct caucus night in Minnesota.  I attended as I always do”, giving the floor, then to my first wife, Barbara’s, excellent high school essay in 1960 on “I Speak for Democracy”.

Personally, I was very favorably impressed with the Tuesday caucus. I always attend these community meetings, and what most impressed me with this meeting, and I told the others such, was that new people were  facilitating and participating this year, including high school students.  Our conveyor said she was originally from India; in other ways we accurately reflected how I perceive our Precinct in our suburb.  There were only 17 of us in the room, which was somewhat lower than last time, but this was the first time that there was no presidential preference poll (see primary election above).

Precinct caucuses are not academy award gatherings: they are town meetings, albeit set up separately for Republicans and Democrats and others.  (The Republican caucus was at another high school in our town, and there were other caucuses held in other areas for what I consider minor parties, like Legalization of Pot, or such.).  Nobody is required to come; and there is no mandated outcome, at least at ours.  We’re at a time of transition in our country, and it is time for the young and under-represented to take over (and, likely, to make their own mistakes, as we did and have).

Of course, there was some grousing – I read a negative letter in the Wednesday Star Tribune from someone who  felt negatively about what I viewed as positive.

The same day, my friend Norm, who is a Democrat like me, and who occasionally “crosses swords” with me (or me with him), wrote his own opinion, which I share below, and with which I generally agree, though if I didn’t agree, that wouldn’t make any differences.  We need more conversations about who and how we elect the people who represent us.

Thanks Norm.

from Norm Hanson:  I [attended] as well, Dick, although I also feel that precinct caucuses may well soon go the way of the dinosaur without the need for the crash of a meteor to speed their demise.

 

 

 

Tomorrow (Tuesday Feb 25) is caucus night in Minnesota.  I will be there, as I have been to many caucuses over the years.  Next week will be Minnesota Primary Election.  I’ll participate in that, too.  That is a much more recent addition to the political menu in Minnesota.  We shall see how it works.  (Complete information for Minnesota can be viewed here, at the Minnesota Secretary of State website.)

Every state has its own system of selecting candidates for state and national office.  (QUICK QUIZ:  jot on a piece of paper the names of all of the elected representatives you know, from the most obscure city and county positions, to the President of the U.S.  Do this strictly from memory.  Do you know where their office is, and how to contact them?  Grade yourself.)

I’ve been to a lot of caucuses.  (They seem a lot like a “town meeting” in the northeast.). In a sense, caucuses  are basically community meetings of people with a similar-political party persuasion.  Mine happens to be Democrat, but there are Republican and other caucuses as well (check the Secretary of State link above).

In Minnesota we are organized by Precinct.  I never remember mine, (it is P-5 in Woodbury).  The State DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor) website is helpful in finding the Caucus location.   In my case, the local Senate District 53 organization has set up a process to register on-line, which I have done.

Caucuses and the resulting Conventions and Candidates are imperfect which, in my opinion, renders them authentic representatives of the reality of our society.

The Minnesota Caucus, in my opinion, is the essential meeting if one wishes to make a difference.  It is participative, open to citizens who live in the district, and are in turn subdivided into gatherings by Precinct, in which the business of the caucus is conducted.

No, they aren’t necessarily interesting.  No, they aren’t always well organized, and messy.  Yes, they can be boring, and frustrating.  The rapid proliferation of ever-more advanced technology can be as much a curse as a blessing.

On the other hand, out of these caucuses come the rank and file delegates to later conventions which ultimately have the responsibility of endorsing candidates for state and national office, and the assorted Resolutions which set the philosophical direction of the political party.  All of this starts with the Caucus, and the first question which might be asked of someone complaining about “politics” or “government” in a democracy, is “how did you participate?” which does not mean voting.  In our system virtually 100% of the time the successful candidates for all offices, have been endorsed by a party structure that began with caucuses.

Of course, I recommend that you attend and participate in your caucus.  You’ll meet some nice people.  Likely you’ll meet candidates for local offices who you may not otherwise would meet, or get the first round of literature for this election season.

See you at the caucus.

As time goes on I will write frequently about politics at this blog.  Check back once in awhile.  Easiest to go to the home page, which will tell how to access all posts for a given month.

POSTNOTE, from Joyce: An excellent political analysis piece on Convention.

 

Related post:  Jesus, here.

Today we stayed after Mass for a talk by a founder of a national group called “Better Angels“, which bills itself as “a working alliance to depolarize America”.  There were about 75 of us in attendance, and it was a very stimulating hour with Bill Doherty.   We’ll join.  I encourage you to check out this organization.

A couple of hours later, ready to take on the tread mill at the fitness center, I saw the presidential motorcade do a lap at the start of Daytona 500.  It was a fast trip from “depolarize” to “win-lose”.   I much prefer “depolarize”.

EVERYONE loses in “win-lose”, as even the ‘big guy’ in the lead car at Daytona will discover, sooner or later.

I have a great deal to say, here, but it will probably come over the next few days.  Check back once in awhile.

For certain, if you’re in Minnesota, participate in your precinct caucus on February 25, and the Presidential Primary on March 3.  Details can be accessed here.

Do check back in a day or two or three….

NOTE about “53-47”, the headline.  This was the vote on virtually all of the motions proposed at the U.S. Senate Impeachment hearing of the President some weeks ago.  At minimum, it symbolizes that the U.S. is basically, now, two countries, at war within ourselves.  Our Civil War was over the notion of two countries in what is now the United States.  Division doesn’t work very well….

*

Presidents Day, Feb. 17, 2020:

Last night we watched part one of the three part mini-series on George Washington (History Channel).  Parts two and three are tonight and tomorrow night.  Judging from part one, the series is worth your time.  Tonight will begin at the time of the Revolutionary War.  Here is an interesting commentary on Washington’s presidency in today’s Washington Post.  Succinctly, conflict has always been part of politics.  But the public, now more than ever, needs to be diligent about the veracity of instant communications.

Right before, Sixty Minutes had a segment on the allegations of the current President about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election – “CrowdStrike”, “the Server” and such.  “Nyet” is the analysis; a ‘gift’ from the Soviets.  You can watch the segment on line.

We are in the bombardment season of politics, and I recommend paying close attention and full participation .

A colleague at the Retreat I attended a week ago was making a complaint about politicians at lunch.  I responded “we – all of us – are “politics“.  That was all that was said on the topic at that table.

All of the defects of “politicians”, whatever office, whatever party, reside at our doorstep – and to our credit, or our blame.  We elect them, or not, by our vote, or by not voting at all, or voting uninformed.

Thus far we have managed to keep a semblance of democracy in the U,S, for over 230 years, and if it survives, or not, is totally in our court.  Mostly I’m optimistic, but not always.  When political discourse is by twitter, or ‘forwards’, or non-engagement on even the most basic ideas, our country is in trouble.  We have a right to be ignorant, at our peril.

A week or two ago came the first ‘forwards’ of the season, both from friends, who got them from some unidentified other friend – stories passed computer to computer.

The first ‘forward’ was the basic assertion of facts, that weren’t facts in any reasonable context.

For just one example, the first ‘forward’ pointed out for some reason (among other things) how youthful five key actors in the forming of America were.  Indeed, Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay and Thomas Jefferson were young in 1776 (born between 1743 and 1756).  But they weren’t the only founders of America, and the United States didn’t officially come into being until the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, thirteen years later.

If you look at our current leaders at all levels, they are relatively youthful as well.  Politics is not an old peoples game.  At the same time, the U.S. is immensely more complex than it was at the time of the Declaration of Independence.

(George Washington was born is 1832.  Ask Google, “what were the ages of the founding fathers” and it answers back:  “As it turns out, many Founding Fathers were younger than 40 years old in 1776, with several qualifying as Founding Teenagers or Twentysomethings. And though the average age of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was 44, more than a dozen of them were 35 or younger.“)

The second ‘forward’, purports to trash Bernie Sanders with an assortment of alleged facts, without any sources to check.  And so it goes.

As a matter of course, I don’t refuse ‘forwards’ – they are a source of perspective, rarely guilty of having been fact-checked.  Their purpose is usually to incite, rather than inform.  They will bloom like noxious weeds in the coming months.

Our friend, Annelee, who grew up in Nazi Germany (born 1926) offers a pertinent comment on today in America:  “Would it shake up some people and make them ask “Do we want Trump back?? or are we at the point Germany was at in 1933?  for the German people [in 1933] , media was very limited.  Most people didn’t buy newspapers nor did they own radios. I think there were five private business phones in [my home town of about 5,000 people] while I grew up.  The general public had finished high school or trade school.  Few ever went to college.”  

Annelee Woodstrom, has given many speeches on her book, War Child: Growing up in Adolf Hitler’s Germany,  and her facts have stood the test of many audiences.  She lived the life.  Her book has recently been translated into German.

Other recent posts on this topic at December 14, 2019, and January 21, 2020.

POSSIBLE ADDITIONS LATER.  Comments welcome.

POSTNOTE FEB. 18, 2020:  Today’s Minneapolis Star Tribune “Opinion Exchange” page has three excellent Op Eds on the general topic of “socialism”.  They are by Eric Dregni and Steven Backus and the third by David Brooks of the NYTimes.