#197 – Dick Bernard: Taking Responsibility

/in , , , , /by

In an hour or so President Obama will deliver an address that will be closely watched world-wide. Afterwards, as he and his advisors know, every word (or lack of same), expression, inflection, will be analyzed and isolated to suit the purposes of endless numbers of observers, who will then cast judgment, positive or negative, on what he says or doesn’t say. This is how the game is played.
I’ll watch the address. That’s about it.
I choose to focus, rather, on some random events, starting with an e-mail from a friend about 9 this morning. This friend is in international business, an exporter of USA and Canadian food and feed grains and seeds. He said: “To be honest business is just terrible. I do not see how the world can avoid a double dip recession as consumption is down in all areas with inventories not moving as anticipated.”
My friend is an astute veteran international business man. What he observes is not some abstract thing. It’s where he lives, literally.
What he said this morning ties in, I think, with what the President faces tonight when the camera rolls at the White House.
From May 31 through June 7 we were on the road to a family wedding in Colorado. By the time we left on our trip, the President had accepted responsibility for taking care of the oil spill. When we got back, one of the first film clips we saw on evening news was of Elizabeth Cheney asserting on one of the Sunday newsmaker programs that since this thing happened on Obama’s watch, it was his responsibility. There was not any acknowledgment that her Daddy, the former vice-president who’s been silent as stone on this issue, might share some responsibility. Their behavior reminds me of something I once heard from an ordinary person: “Mom taught me never to apologize“.
President Obama did what we expect of him: take on our responsibility. The Cheney’s, on the other hand, did what we too often expect of ourselves: nothing.
Every now and then on our trip out west (we were two couples in a Prius) we talked about whether or not this 2500 miles was a frivolous trip. Even at a pretty amazing 40mpg, we wondered, should we be doing this.
Occasionally we’d ask business people about their business, and in each instance, business was down: fewer people travelling; those people spending less.
During the past week, we’ve now begun to hear the expected refrain from the British, whose pensions are in many ways depending on the economic health of the mega-corporation, BP. “Make the corporation responsible and it’s going to damage all of us“, so goes the refrain. I think it was yesterday that Haley Barbour, the political genius who’s Governor of Mississippi, seemed to begin to make the case that drilling ought to resume, regardless of what had just happened. After all, the saw goes, people need jobs. “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead”.
And so it goes. Personally, I’m inclined to be moved by my friends comment earlier in this post. If we can afford to do so – and most of us can – I think now is a time to put money into the economy so as to help allay a darker and deeper recession. Sure, make choices of where you spend that money, but best to put some of the treasure in the money bin into circulation. I won’t buy a bushel of my friends soybean seed, but the money multiplier does work. And we’re the base for this.
I’m glad we made our trip. So is my son and granddaughter and daughter-in-law. So are the motels we stayed in. So is the girl from Russia who waited on us at a restaurant in Wall SD.
President Obama will be on stage tonight. But everyone of us, in the wings, has our own important and constructive part to play.
For those interested, here’s a link to the White House, related to the Presidents address.

#194 – Dick Bernard: Thoughts on "illegals", "Mexicans" et al.

/in , , , , /by

Four of us hit the road from the Twin Cities to Denver early tomorrow morning.
We will look like pretty typical older people, and unless we do something crazy, will probably make the trip out and back without attracting any attention whatsoever, even on Memorial Day when the police are thick as flies in a farmyard.
Not so routine today or other times is the travel of somebody who looks different than me, and I’m guessing that there’s considerable nervousness these days for people with a browner complexion down in Arizona, especially.
A couple of days ago I was in the local post office in our suburb. At a counter were a couple of young brown-skinned guys speaking Spanish, talking about some form or other that one was filling out. They seemed pretty normal to me. Did they have papers?!
A week or so earlier I had been in North Dakota visiting relatives (see the May 28 post). In the Fargo Forum was a front page article about a carload of illegals who had been arrested at a neighboring town. They, in fact, did not have papers. They were reporting to work for some farmer who was planting a very labor intensive crop. He couldn’t find locals who would do the work and he contracted with someone in Oregon to provide workers who were supposed to be legals. Not so, it turned out. Ironically, he was, as one would say legally, “aiding and abetting”, as was the contractor in Oregon, but neither of them were culpable. Only the workers without papers were in trouble. Somehow the farmer had to find some kind of labor to put in his crop. That was his penalty. I wonder if he’s succeeded.
This mornings e-mails brought a commentary which helped to explain the insanity we seem to be living under in this country. It came from a Rhode Island newspaper, reprinted in an Arizona paper, and it is very interesting, about the contrast between Canada (much tougher on immigration, it turns out) and the U.S. (much less effective and less humane in dealing with the problem.)
Succinctly, if I read the column correctly, there were active attempts as far back as the mid-1980s to change U.S. immigration law to deal with some very real problems. A law was passed, but a crucial part was pulled from the bill by someone, probably in the U.S. Senate. The portion pulled apparently was a provision that held employers responsible for making sure their hires were legals. Employer responsibility was a bit too difficult to swallow. Rather they take their chances with occasionally losing cheap labor, than to share responsibility with that same cheap labor for their sins.
I’ve seen lots of “Mexicans” working at various occupations here in the Twin Cities. By and large they do very good work. Since I only see their work, I don’t know if they’re legal or not. They are contributors to this society, rather than drags on us.
They, and others, like the Haitians in the Rhode Island column, for the most part come to our country to make a menial living – but more than in their own country – and send lots of money home to their families. Their crime is only wanting a tiny share of our great wealth, and then share it with their families back home – much like our immigrant ancestors of older days.
We don’t much like to share, except on our own terms.
I’ll end up in Denver on Wednesday.
It was in Denver a number of years ago that I had a conversation with my son, then manager of a local restaurant near a university.
Tom’s crew was by and large Spanish-speaking, with only minimal English. He thought they had the proper papers, but one never knows for sure.
He mentioned that what they sometimes lacked in promptness they more than made up in quality of work, including finding somebody to fill in for them when they were gone. They were, it was clear, his most reliable employees.
Were they “Legals”? I’m not so sure.
Immigration Law plays much better as a political issue than as an object of true reform.
Until politicians cannot play politics with the issue, the issue will remain….

#190 – Dick Bernard: Four Films

/in , , , , , , /by

Someone looking for me would not start at movie theaters: movies are an infrequent destination.
Still, in the past seven days I viewed four films in four very different venues. Each of the films had (and have) diverse messages…beyond the films themselves.
Last Sunday, the destination was The Minneapolis Film Festival showing of a documentary, “The Unreturned” by a couple of young filmmakers. Nathan Fisher, one of the two who made the film, was in attendance. The film covers a topic essentially untalked about: the fact that 4.7 million Iraqis, largely of the middle class, and representing perhaps a sixth of Iraq’s population, were displaced by the Iraq War, mostly to neighboring Syria and Jordan. (Iraq, before the war, was roughly the population and geographical size of California.)
The Unreturned views the world through the lens of several of these refugees, who didn’t want to leave Iraq, and would have wanted to go home to Iraq, but cannot for circumstances beyond their control. At the end of the film, one person in the audience noted that 4.7 million refugees was essentially equal to the population of Minnesota (5 million). This is a huge number, with equivalent impact: like the entire population of Minnesota uprooted and ending up in Wisconsin….
I think the 200 or so of us in the theater last Sunday would agree with the later assessment of this film, ranked among the best in the entire festival.
Monday night, a friend and I hosted a meeting at a south Minneapolis church for 30 representatives from 22 twin cities groups which have an active interest/involvement in Haiti. We showed the film “Road to Fondwa“, which can be watched on-line for free. Road to Fondwa was filmed a couple of years ago by university students. Its theme is rural life in Haiti. Since it was filmed before the earthquake of January, 2010, it shows how life was before Fondwa was devastated (Fondwa is near the epicenter of the quake). I was particularly taken by the notion of “konbit”, a Kreyol work meaning gathering, cooperation, working together. We could use a lot more of that!
Friday afternoon I attended a showing of another Minneapolis Film Fest entry, Poto Mitan, yet another young film makers entry. The Director of this film, a young professor at New York University, concentrates on five Haitian peasant women struggling to survive Haiti’s harsh economic realities. Each of the five women tell their own stories in their own language. Filming began in 2006, and the film was released in 2009. Like all of the other films, this one is subtitled. At this showing, the Director, Dr. Mark Schuller, was with us, and led a discussion afterwards. He’s a very impressive young man.
Then there is the fourth film, actually a 12 hour documentary over a period of weeks on the History Channel. It is called “America: the story of us“, and I was really looking forward to it when the first episode played a week ago Sunday night. My anticipation turned rapidly to disappointment (though I intend to watch the whole thing) because it became obvious that the intent of the film was to portray America’s history in the image of some old conservative politicians and big business and entertainers. The politicians have, so far, been regular on-screen “experts”, and the production apparently is underwritten by a major U.S. bank. It is too early to judge the entire production, but my guess is that this America will be portrayed as a heroic place with few warts, won by free enterprise, guns and military prowess. So be it. I’m waiting to see how the Iraq War will be spun, and the Obama era. Google America the Story of us and find lots of reviews of this epic….
The first three films do one thing that the fourth film does not: they allow the real people to do the speaking about the reality. In the last one, so far, it is only the experts that have the say.
If the youth of this country are represented by the first three filmmakers, we stand a chance.

#189 – Dick Bernard: Goldman-Sachs et al, Gaming the System

/in , /by

Tuesday, April 27, Goldman-Sachs testified at the U.S. Senate about their part in the mortgage meltdown. The media is awash with details about this. The long and short is that Goldman-Sachs defense appears to be that they did nothing wrong, they were simply following the rules of the game. They probably have a strong case. On the other hand, I suppose the defendants at Nuremburg, My Lai, Abu Ghraib also thought they had a strong case…just following orders. For Goldman-Sachs and the others, they were simply loyal and productive soldiers in the financial marketplace.
It’s odd how this issue gets “spun”: This morning at coffee four old guys (my age) took the table next to me. One of them I know reasonably well, the others I see occasionally. Their first topic was yesterday’s hearing where one Senator or another swore several times, using the “s–tty” word, and wasn’t that terrible? Of course, this profanity is among the most common and inoffensive of the swear words, known and used by almost everyone over the age of 10 these days, certainly by the guys at that table, so there isn’t much of a moral dimension to it.
Not mentioned was that all the Senators were doing was repeating the precise language of a Goldman-Sachs internal memo commenting on the quality (“s–tty”) of the mortgage investments they were selling, and simultaneously betting on the failure of those same investments. They couldn’t lose.
And, of course, the rules they had followed were the very same rules that they had lobbied successfully to pass through Congress in the high-flying days of rampant deregulation in the 1990s and early 2000s. Not mentioned was that these catastrophic rules legalized financial instruments that virtually nobody, including company executives, understood EXCEPT to the extent that their use could possibly make the company (and others) a ton of money.
If you can make assault with a deadly weapon legal, and resulting death a misdemeanor, so be it. That’s how the game is played. Those with the Money and the Power use their money and power to enhance their own status; in the competition of American life, the junior high school football B-squad (“we the people”) are up against the current Super Bowl champions. The outcome is never in doubt. The Rubes lose.
The table conversation went on: the illegals in Arizona – Obamas fault; how about some environmentalists swimming out to that horrible oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico and protesting there? It was all light banter, from some otherwise upstanding citizens of an upscale suburb in a prosperous metropolitan area. There was not a single clue, at that table, of any responsibility. Everything was about rights.
“We, the people” vastly outnumber those slick Goldman-Sachs zillionaires who sat at the Hearing Table in Washington, and that is something of a problem for the Powerful.
There are antidotes to this, liberally used, and used very effectively: make Money the mother’s milk of getting elected; make sure the rules level the playing field to the extent that corporations are people, citizens, just like the rest of us. Get the victims, like those four guys at the table next to me this morning, lobbying in behalf of Big Business and Free Enterprise and the goodness of obscene Individual Wealth. Most importantly, convince those who feel they are powerless that they truly have no power. “That’s just how it is.” This happens in countries with dictators, and it happens in the Third World, and it as assuredly happens here.
Back when the mortgage meltdown was becoming obvious – 2007 – I remember getting an e-mail from someone of my general station in life, living in a modest house, etc.
The thrust of the e-mail, probably from some talking points somewhere, was that the mortgage meltdown was the fault of the irresponsible poor people who bought houses they couldn’t afford. Nowhere was there mention of the alternate reality: that these same poor people were part of the engine making Wall Street richer and richer and richer, they were the “rubes”…and then everything collapsed. It was the rubes fault.
On and on we go. Where we stop, we all should now know…but denial is alive and very, very well.

#189 – Dick Bernard: Navigating the Mean Streets of Activism, or Passivism….

/in , /by

Thursday I had the opportunity to drive author Paul Loeb from place to place in Minneapolis. Paul had spoken the previous evening on the new revision of his best-selling book “Soul of a Citizen”, and as authors do when their new works are published, he was making the rounds, and we had a few minutes to chat. It was an interesting and stimulating afternoon. (The book is inspiring and stimulating. Check it out.)
I was a little late picking Paul up, and had an excuse. Right before I left home, the phone rang and a friend of my wife was on the other end. Cathy wasn’t home, so I was about to simply take a message, but the friend – let’s call her Joan – needed to give somebody a piece of her mind. Usually it would have been Cathy, who’s stuck with this friendship for years. Today it was me.
Joan, who I don’t know very well, works for a medical products corporation in a major city and is by all accounts pretty successful. I gather her salary is somewhere in the lower six figures; she has a couple of million in her investment portfolio, and it would be more except for some financial manager who made very bad decisions with her money some years ago. She’s never been married, and somebody has advised her that she needs a nest egg of $5 million to have a decent retirement…. She’ll probably make that goal, but she will not be satisfied with reaching it. So it goes. It’s Joan against the world; nothing will ever be enough.
But that wasn’t her litany on Thursday noon.
She had been at a meeting at Corporate that morning, and it was said that because of higher taxes as a result of the Obama Health Care Reform they were probably going to have to lay off people, and furthermore, new people she needed for her own department could not be hired. It’s Obama’s fault….
I told her I couldn’t agree with her, but I didn’t have time to get into an argument, since I was already running late.
I have no idea if she was telling me “facts”, or just her interpretation of what was said in the meeting. Similarly, I don’t know if the company spokespeople were telling facts, or just their interpretation of facts, for their own reasons. You never know.
Had she continued, I know she would have gotten into her favorite topics: teachers get paid too much and besides have three months paid vacation; welfare is disgusting – she works hard, and they don’t work at all; taxes are too high, and on and on and on. She is relentless.
Meanwhile, Paul Loeb was talking to another type of audience that could easily be said to be polar opposites of Joan. He was puzzled that progressives seemed to write off Obama as a failure after only a few months on the job; and worse, it seems that many feel that their only duty was to vote in a new President, and then leave the work up to he and the other politicians to accomplish, essentially, with little or no support.
In this unholy mess that is the United States of America, there are lots of people who are befuddled, some intentionally, and plenty of fools, oftentimes fooling themselves. Some of these folks we know pretty well: some are us.
We seem to expect that are simple solutions to complex problems, so Joan, who probably doesn’t even vote, is content to complain about her circumstances which are extremely good compared to most of her fellow citizens. That doesn’t make any difference to her.
And the beat goes on.

Paul Loeb at U of Minnesota April 22, 2010

#188 – Dick Bernard: Meeting the Mayor

/in /by

Last evening I was invited to one of the frequent “meet the candidate” events that represent a common and important part of the American political process.
I parked on the street at the home where the event was to take place, and as it happened, at the same time I was walking up the driveway, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak joined me: he had arrived at the same time I had, just another citizen, but with a different role, that of “candidate”. He is one of many candidates for Minnesota Governor in 2010.
I’d never met the Mayor before. There was the usual small talk on the driveway, and soon we were among 20 or so citizens who were there, like I was, to meet the candidate.
I have been to many of these events over the years and they are all basically the same. Someone hosts the gathering, the candidate comes and gives his or her pitch, there are questions and answers, and we all go home.
Rybak devoted most of his time to questions and answers and was very impressive. I’m not a delegate to the state DFL (Democratic Party) Convention this weekend, so I won’t have an opportunity to get in on the formal process of deciding who the Democrats finally endorse. (I had an opportunity to run for delegate, but I declined.)
Rybak is a strong possibility as DFL endorsee, but exactly who gets the nod on Saturday is still uncertain…and following that is a Primary Election in August. There are many candidates still in the running, and all of them bring energy and commitment to their quest. It is at meetings like this that bolster my faith in the American political process. Ordinary citizens showing up, committed to make a difference.
There is plenty of time between now and the election to get to know the candidates beyond the often ridiculous rhetoric involved in attempting to destroy the competition.
Every potential candidate these days has a website, and as soon a the candidate field is decided by the political conventions, it will be a good time to visit those websites, and become an active and engaged citizen, neither blindly supporting nor rejecting one candidate or the other.
The meeting over, I walked down the same driveway, got in my car and went home. So did Mayor Rybak. Today, doubtless, he was doing the same after-hours work as he was yesterday.
Mayor Rybak knows, as do all of his fellow candidates, that politics is a tough and demanding job.
I for one respect those who care enough to want to represent me. And I hope to do what I can for the person I ultimately support, including financially.

#183 – Dick Bernard: The Politics of Energy, and Everything else

/in , /by

“The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
Voltaire
Earlier today, my spouse asked me what I thought of President Obamas just-announced approach to energy policy. His administration is apparently open to new, but limited, off-shore drilling for oil, including it in a package of other (in my reading) more important initiatives. This is a strategy I’ve already heard being vigorously criticized: his proposal, it is said, will only represent a drop in the bucket solution for the huge energy problem our society faces; it’s the wrong approach; etc. Once again, it is suggested, he is deserting his base.
I see his strategy, coupled with other far more important proposals for things like increasing energy efficiency, etc., to be a very wise one. Rather than exposing weakness, he is, I feel, demonstrating strength. Rather than looking only at the short term, he is looking much further down the road. His position is the opposite of what many perceive it to be. He is pursuing a goal along the route of the possible, rather than the ideal.
He knows he is facing an opposition in the Congress which voted unanimously in opposition to a health care reform which included many elements they supported. Their unified “no” vote had only one principle behind it: to defeat (and hopefully weaken) the President. Now with passage of the initiative the truth is coming out, including the need of the opposition to re-calibrate its strategy, including trying to figure out how to refashion their unanimous opposition to the health care reform initiative into, somehow, making health care reform, including the bill which passed, seem like their own idea.
This is how the extremely hard ball game of national politics is played.
A while back I was commenting to someone about the reality I see in todays Washington, and Obama’s approach to it. President Obama comes from an organizing background, I observed. “People don’t understand Organizers; Organizers understand people.”
Changing the rules of engagement in the rough and tumble and very nasty game of contemporary politics in this country is a very tall order. Most everybody who cares is accustomed to a certain way of doing the business of politics, and has difficulty understanding that there might be another way to approach solving problems that threaten our very societies long term existence.
Perhaps it would be nice to just throw out what has been in place for years, and take a totally principled position for a truly alternative national policy. Politically, that just won’t work. Too many of us really do crave a “drill, baby, drill” approach to energy (and most everything else). We want rights without responsibilities or consequences. The present is all that matters; the future is somebody elses problem. About the only strategy that will work with a majority of our citizenry is an incremental approach, and that is, I believe, what the Obama administration is about.
I’m among those who think that our U.S. society is like a present day Titanic, racing full speed ahead into an iceberg and disaster, intentionally oblivious of the danger ahead.
Most of us don’t want to see that iceberg coming. At least there’s now someone in the pilot house working to change our course.
I’m glad for that.

#181 – Bob Barkley: The Role of Our Elected Leaders

/in /by

Much of the problem we face today in the US is the lack of understanding of a necessary and proper role for government, and, in particular, of our Congress. They appear incompetent in almost every area they tackle. Put succinctly, they appear incompetent because they are! And no one should expect otherwise.
All successful enterprises – including governments – understand the difference between a strategic function and an operational function. Leadership’s function (in this case, our executive and representational branches) is strategic. In that role our nation’s leadership must first of all determine the aspirations, expectations, and requirements of the people. In other words, when someone in that position states, “I don’t listen to the polls,” they have just admitted to NOT doing their job.
The fact is that polling is essential for them to do their jobs, albeit non-partisan and objective polling. We should have a “Congressional Polling Office” not unlike the “Congressional Budget Office.”
After determining the needs, feelings, and opinions of the people, our elected leaders next strategic function is to translate what they gather into a statement of purpose for each office of government. For example, in education they should develop an overall purpose statement accompanied by not more than five general corollary objectives.
They must then determine how they will measure progress towards that purpose and those objectives. Failing to do this makes the purpose and objectives somewhat undefined since if they cannot be measured they simply add to the confusion rather than guide the institution towards greater focus.
And all of this must be done before anyone begins to lay out the operational methods of achieving said purpose and objectives. Any leadership person or group that fails to do this is incompetent from the start.
And when those in leadership begin to dicker with the operational functions, incompetence and general failure, or at least gross mediocrity is inevitable. The operational functions should be left to the professionals. For example, in education it should be left to the educators to design and implement the best approaches to be applied to achieving the adopted purpose/objectives. It is interesting that those schools getting recognized for success have almost always operated that way, and yet leaders seem unwilling or unable to accept their own proper role or perform it.
Were we to apply this to the current health care/insurance fiasco, I believe it would be surprising to see how much agreement there is across the traditional political spectrum. Now we have politicians and pundits saying, ad infinitum, “The American people think….” without citing any credible and unbiased information gathering mechanism. It is the height of incompetence and arrogance, and it serves our nation poorly.
All that said, it assumes that Congress is a purposeful institution. Is it? I doubt it. Members of Congress serve different constituencies. Consequently, the only chance that Congress will operate purposefully – and competently – is the presence of strong and capable leadership. That might come from both within Congressional ranks and/or from the White House – most likely the latter. It might also be provided by an independent sector, although this would rely extremely heavily on a responsible journalistic entity which we are also sorely lacking.
Nevertheless, such leadership must arise or we will continue to muddle along randomly and ineffectively. Perhaps it is time to redesign and re-establish our national elected leadership so it is more attuned to the nation as a whole rather than to its disparate parts.
Bob Barkley, counselor in systemic education reform, author, and retired Executive Director of the Ohio Education Association. Worthington, Ohio.
Email: rbarkle@columbus.rr.com

#180 – Dick Bernard: Visiting a Convention of Democrats

/in , /by

State Senator Tarryl Clark received the endorsement of the Minnesota 6th Congressional District Delegates today, besting Dr. Maureen Reed for DFL Party support to compete against incumbent Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in November. Normally, this would be end of story. It is only the end of Chapter One.
I attended todays DFL (Democratic Party) Convention in suburban Blaine. I live in CD 6, and am a relatively active Democrat here, but I had not run for delegate, nor alternate, and attended largely to publicize the DFL Senior Caucus of which I am an active member.
The Teamster Union Hall was literally packed like sardines: several hundred in attendance. I signed in as a media representative, a blogger, right below the local affiliate of Fox News, and no questions were asked. Blogging is becoming accepted as a form of media.
U.S. Senators Klobuchar and Franken showed up, and both talked at some length about issues in Washington. The entry area to the hall was filled with candidates vying for the upcoming endorsement for Governor, and other offices. Other media signed in after me. What actually happened today will be well publicized.
This was no “yawner” of a Convention.
Two Democrats, both women, State Senator Tarryll Clark, and Dr. Maureen Reed, both very highly qualified, and worthy opponents for Bachmann, vied for the DFL party endorsement. (A campaign issue was whether or not the unsuccessful candidate would abide by the Convention endorsement, and not go to primary in August.)

Maureen Reed signs in the CD6 Convention Hall


State Senator Tarryll Clark with U.S. Senator Al Franken


Two-term incumbent Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is an occasional visitor to this district which elected her, and seems to represent only a small “tea party” base; and is usually busy elsewhere in her highly visible world. She is vulnerable in this district, but nonetheless formidable. She seems to have lost sight of her real base – the majority of people who will have to return her to office. But she’ll have plenty of money and star-power support this election.
Politics and, particularly, Politicians, are easy to kick around, but attending events such as this Convention can be pretty inspiring for me. Today’s was such a case.
Politics is, more than anything else, about relationships. Sen. Franken said he was wearing a Tarryll Clark button because she had stood by him at a particularly low point in his campaign for the 2008 U.S. Senate endorsement. My own state representative, Marsha Swails, moved the nomination of Sen. Clark. She recalled her days in junior high school in Independence MO when her school bus passed by Harry Truman’s home, and he could always be seen sitting at the kitchen table reading his newspaper or writing. I have heard her share that vignette a number of times since she first ran for the state legislature here four years ago. President Truman inspired her.
Maureen Reed, an outsider in the DFL political party sense whose previous run for office was as an Independent, is nonetheless a formidable potential candidate in this essentially conservative and “populist” district. She had her own very strong supporters, including the young woman who nominated her, still in high school, who will vote for the first time in November, and was impressive in her nominating speech.
There are many months and lots of rhetoric (and work) ahead for the candidates. Tarryl Clark won Round One today: the DFL endorsement. Maureen Reed will go to Primary election. I can truly say I wish both Reed and Clark well.
But there are more than candidates and their supporters in Politics. Politics is, first and foremost, about issues. And I simply want to recognize the “special interests” I saw who took time to come out today, and lobby their causes to the delegates: The Campaign for the Minnesota Health Plan was there today; so was FairVoteMN, an advocate for instant runoff voting, and Take Action MN. Also there was the Minnesota C.A.F.E. Coalition whose representative is pictured below. They and many others make politics.
Whatever your cause or your party, get involved.
An advocate at the CD 6 Convention March 26, 2010

#178 – Dick Bernard: America, the civilized?

/in , , /by

Today, in the wake of the Health Care Reform legislation, came reports of rocks through windows, telephoned death threats. The most vicious seemed directed towards Cong. Bart Stupak of Michigan. And we call ourselves a civilized society?
Unfortunately, out of this encouraged incitement of the anger in the body politic may well come some deranged individual(s) somewhere who will do very serious damage, like Tim McVeigh in Oklahoma City in 1995. It is only a matter of time when domestic terror strikes. All we don’t know is where or when or specifically who will be perpetrator(s) and victim(s). Most likely it will be one of we Americans….
For the rest of us, we’re well advised to learn as much as we can about what we’re for, or against; and to dialogue with others about it. For many, this won’t be easy, but it’s essential.
I don’t pretend to be very smart on politics, but I do listen, and I have observed political behavior over the years.
To begin, it is generally presumed, that perhaps a quarter of the electorate is a fairly reliable ‘base’, whether left or right. These folks are the believers, not much inclined to change their mind, reliable. Neither is a monolith – they range from radical to fairly moderate, but their mind is basically made up. The quiet center – most of the population – is more “in play”. (Me? I’d call myself basically moderate left.)
A good example of misleading opinion: in recent days, polling showed that over half of the American people had issues with the bill which was passed and signed on Health Care Reform. It was not emphasized, generally, that this so-called majority was split into two totally diametrically opposed camps: those who thought Reform went too far, and those who thought it didn’t go far enough. By no means were these groups allies, but they were clumped together nonetheless, and used by some to create an illusion that Americans were against Health Care Reform.
Even by this flawed poll, a majority of Americans think that the Health Care Reform bill is a positive step in the right direction. That’ll be my spin, and I think it is more honest than claiming the American people don’t want Health Care Reform as enacted.
For the people who are looking for simple answers; those who make their judgements based on belief, or on the pronouncements of somebody they trust, or on a narrow interpretation of a specific single issue, there is little mileage in attempting to change their mind. About all that one can do, if the opportunity arises, is to offer to help explain another side of the issue.
Two good sources for assessing accuracy of pronouncements of the Health Care Reform bill (which is a very complicated piece of legislation) are politifact.com and factcheck.org. There are others as well. A simple google or similar search can be very helpful.
A useful primer on whether or not the bill is constitutional appeared in this article by a career, now retired, political correspondent for a major newspaper.
Not a good source of data is someone who has a vested interest in the debate: a congressman, a trade group, someone who can afford the expensive advertising. Their responses will be polished and smooth, but they are carefully crafted to advance only their point of view. There are more reliable sources than the partisans. It is certain that the bill is neither perfect, nor is it horrible.
Several years ago I did a very rough sketch of how I viewed the American body politic. Here is the illustration.

American Political Spectrum: A Personal View

Right or wrong, this general illustration more or less helps direct my own thinking of the “body politic”.
The schematic is very simple: the vertical axis represents intensity of feeling (bias) of people in a segment of the population; the horizontal axis divides 100% of the population into general groups.
In my view, the people with the most intense feelings, left and right, tend to dominate the public media conversation. Their interest is in out-shouting the other point of view.
In between are people of all sorts of varying levels of interest, engagement and bias. Many, if not most, are not much into arguing politics.
There is not much gained by trying to convince (or revile) the far left or the far right. It is the massive middle where progress can and will be made….
I think the Health Care Reform bill passed on Sunday was a great step forward for all of us in America.
Away we go.