Category Archives: Minnesota

The Divide Between The Left And The Right Is More Than Ideological.

Posted on by

It’s cultural. With the left determined to maintain some degree of decorum along with traditional norms and institutions. And the right determined to exact retribution against its opponents – to own the Libs – and to tear our government apart.

Those differences have never been more apparent than following the recent political assassinations of Minnesota State Legislator, Melissa Hortman, and MAGA activist Charlie Kirk.

After the murder of Hortman and the violent attack on Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman by an apparent white Christian Nationalist, many on the right refused to acknowledge that the attacks were political despite abundant evidence to the contrary. Some falsely attributed the shootings to a “Leftist Marxist.” Others blamed the victims. A few used the attack to make sarcastic remarks aimed at Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. Further, Trump even refused to call Walz, saying it would be a waste of time.

Contrast that to the response following Kirk’s death: Almost every Democratic politician, political commentator and entertainer have decried the shooting and mourned the state of our political discourse. One glaring exception was MSNBC contributor, Matthew Dowd, a Republican, who was fired by the center-left network for stating the uncomfortable truth that Kirk’s hateful rhetoric likely led to his own death.

Meanwhile, those on the right are calling for vengeance by baselessly blaming the left for Kirk’s death though most political shootings have been committed by MAGA supporters. Trump quickly blamed the shooting on “the radical left.” Fox host, Jesse Waters, claims “we are at war.” MAGA ally Laura Loomer calls for “cracking down on the left with the full force of the government.” And, despite the fact that the vast majority of political violence has been committed by MAGA, Trump advisor Stephen Miller vowed to use the full force of the government to shut down leftist groups (aka MAGA’S political opposition).

In truth, the response from the right seems as extreme as its cruel policies.

Let me be clear: All murders, especially political murders, are disgusting and cowardly acts. But these targeted assassinations reveal a new low in the freefall of political discourse in our nation. That said, one must also acknowledge that Kirk was a prominent contributor to that freefall. Kirk not only tested the limits of his right to free speech. He abused that right in his pursuit of power, fortune and fame by promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.

Moreover, Kirk used his freedom of speech to undermine the very government to which he owed that freedom.

As a white Christian Nationalist, he advocated for an end to separation of church and state. He opposed a woman’s freedom of choice to control her own body. He created a Professor Watchlist to threaten the academic freedom and careers of college professors with whom he disagreed. He promoted the Great Replacement Theory and claimed that the white majority are the actual victims of racism. He was integral to the January 6 insurrection in which many of his followers stormed the Capitol with the intent of hanging the Vice-President and others. And ironically, he thought that the thousands of deaths from gun violence are justified by the need for the Second Amendment.

Yet despite his contributions to help elect a dictatorial and autocratic regime, and despite the pain he inflicted on so many others, Kirk is being feted as a martyr and honored with the Medal of Freedom.

These unwarranted honors are further evidence of the asymmetry with which the two political sides are treated.

Now, as a blogger and a journalist, I’ll admit to resorting to hyperbole in some of my writings that contribute to the coarse tone of our political debate. And I will strive to constrain myself in the future. But I challenge you to compare the rhetoric from the right to that of the left. I think you will find that there is no comparison. The cruel and hateful tone from the right begins in the White House.

Only in the MAGA universe is it acceptable for a President of the United States to refer to immigrants as vermin, to Democrats as Demoncrats and traitors, to the legitimate press as enemies of the people, to women as nasty, filthy, crazy, or ugly, and to every problem as a Democrat hoax. He even suggested that the Second Amendment folks could deal with a rival. That rhetoric is repeated and even exaggerated by the MAGA base.

It’s long past time for reasonable Americans to reject such purveyors of hate and fear no matter which side they’re on. It’s one thing to oppose policies and to voice a differing opinion. It’s quite another to incite violence through words or actions. Indeed, no one should be targeted for expressing their thoughts and opinions.

A sharp criticism or a biting commentary may temporarily hurt. But under no circumstances is a bullet an acceptable retort.

The Trump Regime’s Toxic Racism.

Posted on by

The MAGA movement began with racist attacks on Mexican immigrants and attacks on political correctness (aka courtesy and civility). It incorporated the slogan “America First” previously used by the Ku Klux Klan. And it gained momentum with the claim that Critical Race Theory was being taught in K-12 classes. (It was only taught in law schools to help attorneys understand the disadvantages faced by minorities.)

And now that Trump is, once again, in the Oval Office, his blatant racism has permeated the entire federal government as well as both private and public institutions with his assault on DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion), a long overdue initiative to create fairness for all Americans. The regime is even using its distaste for DEI to bludgeon corporations and universities by withholding federal contracts and research grants from those that refuse to accept the regime’s racist policies.

The Trump family’s well-known history of prejudice has led his loyal cabinet members to decapitate our military leadership by firing black and female military leaders and ordering the military to ban transexuals. It has led to the firings of minorities throughout the federal government. It has led to his takeover of the Kennedy Center for the Arts, the Smithsonian, and the Library of Congress. He and his MAGA minions have banned books featuring histories of slavery and any reference to the LGBTQ community.

None of this should come as a surprise. Since the late 1960s, the Republican Party has been built on racism and vicious attacks on minorities following the SCOTUS ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which ended segregation of public schools. It counted on Jim Crow, attacks on gay marriage and voter suppression to win elections.

The Party continued to create new scapegoats and culture wars including the myth of black “Welfare Queens” and the racist belief that poor black women relied on abortion as a method of contraception. It gained power by claiming that all Mexican immigrants were murderers and rapists. And that boys and men were emasculating themselves as transexuals just so they can enter girls’ bathrooms and succeed in sports against girls and women.

Now the Trump regime is rewriting the history of the George Floyd murder suggesting that Floyd was a violent criminal who deserved to be choked to death or that he actually died of drug abuse. The regime’s “Justice” Department is seeking to dismiss police reforms enacted following racist murders in Minneapolis and Louisville. And, in a clear sign of racist immigration policies, the regime has welcomed white Afrikaaners as refugees while pushing to end the Temporary Protected Status of black and brown refugees from Venezuela, Haiti, Cuba, and elsewhere.

Not long ago, the House of Representatives banned the nation’s first transexual congressional representative from using the Capitol’s women’s bathrooms. What’s next? Labeling federal buildings as white only?

Complex Problems: Part 5 – Urban/Rural Divide

Posted on by

Let me begin by stating that I was raised on a farm. For the first 18 years of my life, farming was the only life I knew. Indeed, I fully expected to, one day, take over the family farm. It was only 160 acres in size, but it provided a reasonable living. Then I went to the state university where I was exposed to people from around the world and a vast array of other possible professions, which eventually led me to a degree in journalism and life in the city. After retiring, I returned to rural communities for several years.

All of this is to say that I believe I understand the unique issues facing people in both environments. And though the lifestyles are vastly different, the political views are worlds apart.

Reduced to stereotypes and generalities, people in the cities tend to think of their rural counterparts as uneducated country bumpkins. And people in rural communities tend to think of city dwellers as soft, overeducated, and overpaid elitists.

Of course, neither stereotype is true.

Today, many farms are large corporations with the family farmer operating as a combination farmhand, heavy equipment operator, veterinarian, mechanic, accountant, investment manager and CEO. And those living in small, rural communities are heavily entrepreneurial. Many have college degrees. They may own and operate a store, restaurant, hair salon, bank, car dealership or some other independent business. Many, like some of their big city counterparts, work in a big box store or manufacturing plant. And some drive many miles to the city to work in an office.

As for the city dwellers, many are office workers or work in warehouses and manufacturing plants. Others operate small businesses. Some drive delivery trucks. Indeed, there are a myriad of jobs. Percentage wise, very few are corporate executives. And because the costs are higher, most are hard-working people trying to eke out a comfortable living for their families.

So, as you can see, rural and urban people have more in common than they have differences. But when it comes to politics…

For one thing, in rural farming and ranching areas, guns and hunting are part of life. Many of the residents resent attempts to limit sales of guns and ammunition to solve what they consider big city crime. They falsely believe that they are overtaxed to subsidize big cities. (Actually, the reverse is true.) And, in rural areas, residents are more likely to belong to traditional churches which are central to many of life’s events: Weddings, funerals, fundraisers for neighbors down on their luck, holiday celebrations, etc.

In addition, the socioeconomic problems in rural areas are more extreme than in the city. It begins with consolidation. Today, Midwestern farms are upwards of 10 times larger than when I lived on the farm. That means there are roughly one-tenth of the number of jobs in rural towns. Their Main Streets are being hollowed out by Walmart, which based its growth model on competing with locally owned stores in small towns. Adding to the problem is our increased mobility. Rural consumers are often willing to drive long distances to shop in big cities for lower prices and greater selection.

Far too often, jobs in the few remaining rural manufacturing plants are exported to the cities, or worse…to foreign countries. There’s also the brain drain caused by many high school and college graduates leaving home for what they perceive as greater opportunities in cities.

All of this has led to the ongoing shrinkage of small towns. That is, unless they happen to be located within 30 or 40 miles of a large city. In those cases, they often become exurbs overwhelmed by development. As a result, the lifestyle they chose – the only lifestyle they know – is changing or dying. Their houses are declining in value. They feel trapped.

These problems are amplified by rightwing radio hosts and Fox News Channel. Almost all plumbers, carpenters, tradesmen and laborers take radios to their worksite. And, almost inevitably, those radios are tuned to the Mark Levins and the Alex Jones of the broadcast world who tell listeners their problems are caused by government, undocumented immigrants, DEI, city elites, and “libtards.” You’ll also hear radios in trucks and tractors tuned to the same hate-based “news” and “entertainment.” Likewise, local bars and cafes often have TVs permanently set to Fox News.

In other words, these people have become victims of propaganda. And extremists in the Republican Party (Are there any others?) are right there to take advantage.

So, where are the Democrats? They’re seldom anywhere to be seen…until election season. You see, nearly 20 years ago, the Democratic Party made the decision to invest its money where the most people are…in the cities. They pulled funding from rural counties. And they all but disappeared. The result was all too predictable.

That was evidenced when a couple of years ago, I volunteered to help with a Democratic booth at a couple of county fairs in reliably blue Minnesota. We were scoffed at, yelled at, labeled baby killers, and threatened by what I am sure are otherwise good people.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

We actually agree on most policies when they are not attached to party labels. We can have reasonable, albeit intense conversations with each other without threats and name-calling. All that’s required is respect for one another as fellow human beings. And for Democrats to be visible and available all year and every year. Not just preceding an election.

I believe the Democratic Party – in fact, both parties – would get far greater returns on their investments by operating and maintaining local offices, by holding meetings with constituents, by creating an ongoing dialogue with voters, than by spending billions on TV commercials.

Democratic Branding.

Posted on by

During my many years of working in the advertising industry at a high level (I helped create brands for hundreds of well-known products and services), I learned that, if an organization fails to create a positive brand image for itself, its competitors will create one for it. And the competitors’ version will not be flattering.

That’s exactly what Republicans have done to the Democratic Party.

Upon doing a bit of informal research, I learned that most registered Democrats and independents, cannot, in a few words, describe what the Party stands for. If you ask a hundred people, you’ll likely get a hundred different answers. Indeed, many Democratic leaders take pride in quoting Will Rogers: “I’m not a member of an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”

Yet most can state the GOP’s preferred brand message: “Smaller government and lower taxes.” (Of course, MAGA has turned that into outright hatred of government and ‘The Libs.'”)

Democrats, having failed themselves to clearly articulate a brand message, have permitted Republicans to do it for them. They have labeled Democrats as “tax and spend liberals.”

It should come as no surprise that the label is wholly inaccurate. In recent decades, Republicans have run up far larger deficits. And their tax cuts have mostly benefited large corporations and the wealthy. In fact, Reagan, W, and Trump have all broken our economy leaving their Democratic successors tasked with fixing it.

It should also be no surprise that, given the Republican version of the brand, so many people of low- and middle-income vote Republican against their own self-interest.

In addition, the Democratic Party’s failure to properly brand itself has resulted in a lack of loyalty. Too many of the “Big Tent” Party’s supporters are single issue voters. In the recent election, they consisted of those who are pro-Palestinian, angry at Biden’s unwavering support for Israel and seemingly unaware of Trump’s willingness to abandon Palestinian dreams of freedom. There were others frustrated that Biden had not done more to relieve student debt or frustrated that he had failed to expand the Supreme Court.

There were dozens of issues that lowered Democratic voter turnout. The biggest of which was inflation. Too many voters didn’t understand the true causes of inflation – that it began as a result of Trump’s failure to properly address the pandemic, which disrupted supply chains that have taken years to repair. Why would they? Biden and the Party never explained it to them.

I also think the Democratic Party’s failed messaging has permitted Republicans, conservative pundits, Russian operatives, and QAnon conspiracy theorists to inaccurately portray Democratic initiatives – to mislead and to misinform voters.

For years, I have begged the Party to improve its communications with voters and to create an accurate brand description that clearly states its support for working-class people of all incomes, colors and backgrounds. One of the very few to listen is Ken Martin, Chair of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota. With his help, candidates like Governor Tim Walz, Senators Amy Klobuchar, Tina Smith and the late Paul Wellstone have enjoyed widespread support of voters even in staunchly Republican districts.

Fortunately, at a time when the Democratic National Committee is still licking its wounds following the stunning outcome of the election, Mr. Martin has declared his interest in leading the committee. I know that many in Washington will look unfavorably at a leader from “flyover country”. But it is the Party’s failures in most of the “flyover” counties and states that have led to the recent MAGA success.

The Democratic Party is unnecessarily suffering from a long-standing urban-rural divide. The sentiment that led to the term “City Slicker” largely still exists in rural America. And even though modern-day farming consists of running a huge business, few Democratic leaders in Washington and elsewhere have come to recognize that.

I hope most Democrats ignore the post-election circular firing squad and blame game and address what I believe is at the root of our problems. We need to focus on creating an accurate brand message and combine that with an aggressive and ongoing outreach effort aimed at all Americans.

Ken Martin is the best person to lead that effort.

No One Should Be Surprised By Actions Of The Minneapolis Police Department.

Posted on by

Minneapolis and St. Paul are known as the Twin Cities. One (St. Paul) has enjoyed a competent, public service-focused police department for all of my nearly 40 years of living in the area. The other (Minneapolis) has long been plagued by a police department that is often overly aggressive and racist in its actions.

As I’ve previously written, I personally encountered MPD cops who were corrupt, lazy, incompetent, racist and brutal. Without going into great detail, I’ve seen MPD cops shake down a bar owner. I’ve witnessed a group of six officers acting as a violent gang that needlessly beat, kicked, stomped, and maced a black man who was handcuffed face down in the snow, slush and ice. And I served on a jury for a case in which the police failed to interview even a single witness to a so-called assault.

The list of such incidents is long.

So, when George Floyd was murdered by a MPD Field Training Officer, I was not surprised. But I am surprised that, after Derek Chauvin was found guilty of murder, the MPD would be so quickly back in the headlines for killing an innocent black man, especially after it narrowly dodged an attempt to replace the department with a new department of public safety.

Sure, some things have changed. The previous head of the much too powerful police federation resigned. But I suspect the Federation still has more control over the department than the mayor, city council and police chief combined. And though the previous chief has retired, the interim police chief, Amelia Huffman, was promoted from within. She has been with the MPD for 27 years. That’s 27 years of being influenced by the status quo.

Despite the MPD’s long history of problematic behavior by some of its officers, in the first interview after her appointment, Huffman proudly stated that she “loves” the MPD. She went on to state, “As a department, we must collectively recognize that rebuilding trust and enhancing public safety will require excellence in the line of duty as well as a willingness to embrace bold community safety and reform strategies.”

How has she demonstrated that commitment to excellence and reform?

When asked to cooperate with the St. Paul Police Department in executing a warrant for the arrest of a suspect in a St. Paul murder case, the MPD demanded a “No-Knock” warrant (a practice that the St. Paul police abandoned in 2016). And when a Minneapolis officer shot an innocent young man as a result, the MPD initially issued a press release in which it referred to the victim as a suspect. Only later did it acknowledge that Amir Locke was not named in the warrant and had no criminal history. And, when questioned by reporters, Huffman walked out of a press conference even after promising full transparency. (The MPD still claims the shooting was necessary because the victim pointed a gun at officers.)

If it wasn’t obvious to everyone before the Locke murder, it should now be abundantly clear that the MPD needs drastic change. There are, no doubt, many good officers within the department. But it needs a large influx of new public service-focused officers that are representative of the various neighborhoods within the city. It needs a complete new set of operating standards. It needs better training. It needs to be restructured. And it desperately needs new leadership from outside the department.

It needs its own Chief William K. Finney – the man who made the St. Paul Police Department seem like the polar opposite of the MPD.