Skip to Content

‘Teammates’ Walter Mondale and Arne Carlson find common ground on causes

Former Gov. Arne Carlson and former Vice President Walter Mondale
MinnPost file photo by Terry Gydesen
Former Gov. Arne Carlson and former Vice President Walter Mondale have spoken out on several public policy issues, including last year's budget impasse that led to a shutdown of many Minnesota government functions.

There are some advantages to aging.

“You get over some of the polarization,” says Walter Mondale, who is 84 years old. “You find out you agree on some fundamentals with a lot of different people.”

“When you’re older,” says Arne Carlson, who is 77, “you don’t feel the constraints that you might have when you were younger.”

Both oppose Voter ID amendment

Carlson, the former Republican governor, and Mondale, the former Democratic vice president and U.S. senator, talked with MinnPost in separate interviews about how easy it was for them to team up on a recent Star Tribune op-ed piece they co-wrote opposing the proposed Voter ID amendment.

Actually, Mondale said, Carlson did most of the writing.

“He’s an excellent writer, very fast,” Mondale said, adding that he never was very happy with his own writing style.

The former governor and former vice president were brought together for this project by the League of Women Voters, an organization that also opposes the amendment that is expected to be on the ballot in November, if it passes the current court challenge.

Now, the two of them are among the leaders of the Our Vote Our Future coalition aimed at defeating the amendment.

They never did sit down in the same room for the writing project. Rather, over a 10-day period, they exchanged emails about what they wanted to say. Carlson put together the final version, Mondale approved it and off it went to the Strib.

This project only firmed up the admiration the two have for each other, though they’re not social friends and, at the heights of their political careers, their paths seldom crossed.

“We were both on parallel paths,” said Mondale. “But he was basically dealing with state issues, and I was involved in federal matters.”

Common ground on other issues, too

Now, far removed from elective office, the two have found common ground on other Minnesota-related public policy issues.

Last summer, of course, the two came together with other former office-holders when the state faced its worst political meltdown — the budget impasse between DFL Gov. Mark Dayton and the Republican-controlled Legislature that led to a nearly three-week shutdown of many state government functions. The pair offered suggestions for a compromise, but their plan never got any political traction.

The two — along with former Republican U.S. Senator Dave Durenberger, former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz (who earlier served as a Republican state legislator) and former Republican Gov. Al Quie — have been involved in other joint matters.

All of them, for example, have worked to reform Minnesota’s redistricting process. (Their efforts to move the process out of the Legislature to a more impartial group didn’t succeed.) They also jointly worked to keep politics out of the selection of judges, although that effort, too, has run into political opposition.

Mondale also expects to be working with Blatz soon in opposition to the other constitutional amendment heading to the general election ballot — the so-called marriage amendment.

Different styles

But it is the Mondale-Carlson matchup that is so intriguing, because the two are so different in style.

“He’s always been, umm, a free spirit,” said Mondale of Carlson.

That, of course, has often created problems for Carlson within his own party.

 Despite serving as a hugely popular governor, Carlson was shunned by GOP delegates who refused to endorse him for a second term in 1994. That action, however, only showed how far removed from the mainstream Republican activists had become. Carlson not only defeated the endorsed GOP candidate, Allen Quist, in the primary but went on to win the general election with 63 percent of the vote.

These days, Carlson, Durenberger and Quie are among Republicans exiled from official party functions because of their 2010 support of Independence Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner over the GOP’s endorsed candidate, Tom Emmer.

It doesn’t appear that Carlson will be back in good graces with his old party any time soon. And he doesn’t seem to care. In fact, he’s unimpressed with the work of contemporary politicians in general.

“I long for the days when people got into politics to do true public service,” said Carlson. “When you think of Minnesota senators like Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, Walter Mondale — and I would put Dave Durenberger in that company — you had people who got involved in the big national and international issues. There were many like that. What we have now is the politics of avoidance.  They’re only interested in getting re-elected. They have nothing to say about the big issues, because that might be politically dangerous.’’

Mondale laughs when he talked about Carlson’s “feistiness” in dealing with how the so-called Voter ID amendment came to be.

This is a paragraph from the op-ed piece, but apparently this one was Carlson-inspired:

“The proposed amendment does not have its origins in Minnesota, nor does it come about as a result of legislative studies of recent elections. It is a product of an organization call ALEC, which is the creation of the Koch brothers, who amassed their fortunes in oil and who live in Florida.”

This is a strike right at the heart of the new Republican majority in the Minnesota Legislature.  The GOP legislators claim they weren’t influenced by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

Carlson isn’t buying.

“He doesn’t beat around the bush,” said Mondale of Carlson, laughing heartily.

The great freedom, for old pols, is not being involved in political campaigns.

“You’re fundamentally free to think about the big issues from all perspectives,” said Carlson.

Mondale echoed those thoughts.

“When you’re not on the campaign trail, you have time to sit back and think things over,” Mondale said.

Related Tags:

About the Author:

Comments (74)

See

Swedes and Norwegians can work together.

Every time he's warmly

Every time he's warmly introduced, or described as "Republican former Governor" by an adoring lefty, Arne's credibility is further eroded.

Conservatives and centerist Republicans would give Arne more respect if he respected us enough to admit the blatently obvious fact that he's drifted solidly to the left.

We wouldn't respect his newfound political understandings more than any other leftist, but at least he could make a claim to honesty.

No warmth allowed!

"We don't need to listen to anyone else's opinions--we knwo they're wrong! Even when they adopt our ideas, they must be wrong! We hate liberals!!!"

And that's all we need to know about the Republican Party. It's about hatred and opposition--no ideas need apply.

"Republicans would give Arne

"Republicans would give Arne more respect if he respected us enough to admit the blatently obvious fact that he's drifted solidly to the left. "

Arne hasn't drifted anywhere. The party has.

It's not Arne who has "drifted"

Arne seems much the same as he ever was. It is the Repub party that has been steaming right full rudder for the past 25 years or so. And so out of touch are they, that they accuse everyone else of moving left. Well, I guess that's how it must seem when one is in the midst of a hard right turn and focuses on the subjective viewpoint to the exclusion of the objective.

And just for good measure, let's throw in an ad hominem attack and call those who aren't turning with you "dishonest".

To this I would say "shameful", except one must have a sense of shame for that to have any meaning.

Waiting....waiting...

for the Tea Partiers to post that Arne (along with Durenburger, etc.) are traitors to the Cause. It's really becomes amusing to watch as the Believers look around and see membership in the Cause growing smaller and smaller.

What irks the republicans about these two?

It irks republicans that these two agree on similar ideas and are mature enough to admit it. There is a sense of "compromise". COMPROMISE, a new word for todays republicans, but it is an essential word in a democracy. Get over it!

Not just compromise

They are infuriated at the idea that a Democrat might have an acceptable idea. If they can't demonize everything about the other, the Republicans have nothing. It is essential that they shout that everything a Democrat says is, by definition, wrong.

I believe they imported that principle from North Korea or Iran, flouting all trade embargoes.

Leadership Reflecting Minnesota Quality PoliticalGovernment View

This article in one that should be required reading for anyone in Minnesota with a concern for the direction of politics in Minnesota today. I and both Carlson and Mondale participated in a political era that focused first on "achieving good government" and second on politics. The partiies differred on specifics of how accomplish common objectives and compromise was negotiated for the common good of all Minnesota. Activity and structure across Minnnesota today can thank those of that period for the leadership provided. These same people today offer suggestion that adapt the legislation for "lessons learned and changes in society, business, and education etc." that can offer a a responsive change in government role and operation matched to today. This is todays "good Government First"approach. I we all focus on good government first as Carlson and Mondale as well as Durenburger, Frenzel, Quie and many on both poitical sides of the legislature did and consider politics second Minnesota will have a bright future. Bottom Line is thanks to the leadership that these individuals have shown and continue to express as they continue to set a positive approach and model that all Minnesotans can apply as we enter another election cycle.Building on a the Minnesota leadership vision legacy of government innovation and qualty of life for all is the result that we all we benefit from Lessons of the Past applied to to the future vision.

Dave Broden

"Centrist republicans"

Arne, Fritz, Durenberger, Quie, Tom Horner, ARE centrist republicans. They know a great deal about governing, having done so successfully for years, and that's because they know the word COMPROMISE. Playing well with others.
I'll bet you were a real menace in kindergarten.

"Centrist DFLers"

Miss Martin:

Ask the DFL to compromise on:

1. Tax supported funding for abortions;
2. Race and sex preferences in hiring and education;
3. Non-enforcement of immigration laws and declaring sanctuary cities;
4. Retaining the correct definition of marriage and family;
5. Verifying the identification of voters to prevent fraud.

Go ahead. Ask them.

Well, now . . .

. . . it was a DFL Governor who signed legislation prohibiting tax-supported funding for abortions in Minnesota.

Race and sex preferences in hiring and education are not allowed unless they are court-ordered as a remedy for past discrimination.

There is a big difference between "not enforcing" laws and prohibiting racial profiling.

Who's to say what the correct definition of "marriage and family" is? If it doesn't have to do with your marriage or family, why do you care?

Show me the fraud, and show me how verifying identification would have done anything to stop it. Then, let's get some GOPers to compromise on verifying the identities and qualifications of gun pruchasers.

Thanks

for proving my point.

Compromise

Neal, you seem to be laboring under the misguided belief that compromise means getting your way. It doesn't. Nor does it mean validating your misconceptions.

1. Doesn't exist.
2. Being disappointed that you're male and white doesn't mean that the world is against you. If this happened to a significant degree, the proportions wouldn't add up. But they do.
3. Huh? Being afraid of brown people doesn't mean that the world is conspiring against you.
4. Tell me, what is it? And how can we compromise?
5. You presume that your solution would work, but since fraud is almost non-existent and the fraud that does exist can't be prevented by "verifying identification," "compromising" would only be an act of validating your misconception.

I see no room for compromise. On your part.

Compromise

I was a State Central Committee Delegate and Alternate Delegate in the DFL. I know exactly how compromise works with progs.

Definitions

I know how much you relish providing definitions. Will you tell us the definition of "compromise" as you understand it?

Compromise

Reiterating:

I was a State Central Committee Delegate and Alternate Delegate in the DFL. I know exactly how compromise works with progs.

And that's not what I asked

You're complaining about a lack of "compromise". I'd like to know what YOUR understanding of the definition of "compromise" would be.

Compromise

Miss Martin wrote:

"They know a great deal about governing, having done so successfully for years, and that's because they know the word COMPROMISE."

Why don't you ask Miss Martin? It was her assertion.

As I said below . . . . .

it's pointless attempting to have this discussion with you when no one has any idea what your definition of "compromise" entails.

It's obvious

"Compromise" means "give me everything I want, and quit your whining."

Delegate

Interesting. I was a delegate in the DFL, too. This year. It seems that either time or ideology has clouded your recollection of it. Please, tell us how YOU think it works. Telling us that you held certain positions in the DFL only suggests that you weren't sincere then or you're disgruntled now.

Compromise

To reiterate:

Miss Martin wrote:

"They know a great deal about governing, having done so successfully for years, and that's because they know the word COMPROMISE."

Ask Miss Martin for the definition of "compromise". It was her assertion.

No

Unless you're intentionally trolling, I'd say the ball's in your court. I understand Ms. Martin's definition of "compromise" from the context. It fits with the dictionary definition of "compromise": An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. I'm clearly not the only one who is having trouble figuring out what the heck you think it means. You've provided no context, yet suggested that it means something other than the understood dictionary definition.

Yes

Provide the definition.

I did

It's only a few sentences and the definition is in the third one (in case you're unable to find it yourself). Please read again. It's not like it's buried in an epic story, there.

If you think that irritating those who disagree with you is a good strategy for winning an argument, you need to reconsider. It just makes us wonder whether we're arguing with an unarmed opponent.

Compromise

"An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions."

When I ran for another term as SCC Delegate, I asked the SD60 Convention that perhaps the DFL should take another look at the moral implications of mass abortions.

I didn't even make the cut.

What was that about compromise again?

...

What is a political party going to do about "the moral implications of mass abortions?" Dude...that's a personal issue. No one condones "mass abortions." Why would you suggest anyone "compromise" on looking at the moral implications of such. What would the compromise be, in any case? Think about it? Why don't you bring up a gripe about something relevant to politics and not religion?

compromise?

You first.

Re: Centrist DFLers

@ Neal Krassnoff:

1. Tax money is not used to pay for abortion services. Ever. Thanks for spouting that erroneous GOP talking point one more time for us though.

2. Race and Sex bias is illegal in hiring practices. It's NOT illegal to recruit a diverse employee pool, but since it makes sense for a workforce to reflect the diversity of the population of its community and the customers it serves, we're lucky for that.

3. Immigration laws ARE enforced - by the people who are supposed to enforce them. Immigrations & Customs Enforcement. You are, no doubt, passively-aggressively ranting about local police like Minneapolis PD not asking if victims are legal immigrants or not. That's because local police departments are here to protect and serve, including people who are not US citizens.

4. If YOUR marriage is threatened by two men or two women marrying each other, YOU need help, not the rest of us.

5. Voter identification is verified and re-verified by the County. This is based on where we live, not on whether or not we can afford to purchase a government issued ID. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Minnesota and certainly none significant enough to offset the damage done by disenfranchising those who can't afford or don't have a way to get a state ID.

So, perhaps your question should be:

Ask the GOP to come up with a REAL issue and solve it, instead of creating crises just to polarize voters. Go ahead. Ask them.

Centrist DFLers

Thank you for proving my point.

About point #1

"1. Tax money is not used to pay for abortion services. Ever. Thanks for spouting that erroneous GOP talking point one more time for us though."

Per the latest MN Dept. of Health annual report:
Last year there were 11,071 abortions performed in Minnesota. 3,791 were paid for by public assistance.

Cites needed

Much as I hate speaking on someone else's behalf, I'm going to assume that Mr. Dobbert actually meant to say that FEDERAL tax money is not used to pay for abortion services. I'm also assuming that the "public assistance" mentioned in the statistic you provided (without supporting cite) refers to STATE level Medicaid funding of abortion, which is legal.

However, the conservatives are going after that, too:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/house-gop-abortion-states

And the war on women rages on . . . . . . . .

Per the MN Department of Health

The report can be found at www.startribune.com/al462 per the article in last week's Strib article written by Maura Lerner.

The writer said no tax money. Ever.

Broken link

Your link goes to a "File not found" page at the Strib.

Regardless - it is Mr. Dobbert's choice to come back and say "Ooops - I meant to say no STATE tax money." Or not. But the error was his, and all I can (and did) do was make a guess that he might have meant something a little more specific than what he wrote. Because people do make errors. Really, they do.

And given that the discussion started around a point having to do with the DFL - a uniquely MINNESOTA-based organization - it seemed to me a pretty understandable error for him to have made.

That's the Strib for you.

You can check out the Dept. of Health Annual Report on abortions on their website I suppose. It has interesting figures like of the 11,071 abortions, 7451 of the women weren't using any contraception. This is a war on women? Sounds like a war on children.

Pretty sure that there won't be any admissions of a mistake. I take it that you don't mean that because it involved the DFL it is logical to make errors, but because the topic was about Minnesota the error was understandable.

Since there is a federal law against using federal tax money to pay for abortions, doesn't that mean it would be State tax money used to provide them? The writer probably wouldn't insist that he meant no STATE money, or he'd be wrong again.

Statistics always need context . . . . .

However, considering the obstacles to obtaining contraception that conservatives have been working to enact, it's a questionable tactic to hold the women themselves to blame for being unable to prevent pregnancies. The very fact that these pregnancies were terminated would seem to indicate they were unwanted in the first place. It would seem to be a reasonable supposition that with more ready access to contraception, the overall abortion numbers would have been lower.

If you want fewer abortions, then don't cut off women's access to contraception. And if you cut off women's access to contraception, then don't blame the women when they seek abortions to terminate the resulting unwanted pregnancy.

Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

But

Doesn't every drugstore, Target, Walmart, etc. have contraceptives available for over-the-counter purchase? How much more access to we need? We'll look at the Annual Report again in a year or two when or whenever free contraceptives are guaranteed by the ACA (not that I anticipate that the stores will just let us walk out with the products) and we'll revisit the numbers. I say that the number will drop by no more than half and probably less than a third.

If you don't want to become pregnant, why are you having sexual intercourse without some sort of contraception? Why is THAT such a difficult concept to grasp?

Abstinence is NOT always the answer

To start with your second paragraph, why should men have the right to a sexual life while women do not? Sex is about more than just making babies. There's a lot of science out there establishing the benefits of a good sex life. Here's just one of many articles about it:

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/10-surprising-health-ben...

So why should men's interests in this regard be treated differently from women's?

And as far as over-the-counter methods of contraception are concerned, they are not as effective as those available only through a prescription (http://www.walgreens.com/marketing/library/contents.jsp?doctype=1&docid=...). So a woman who is denied access to prescription-only forms of contraception is automatically limited to less effective birth control methods. Which again equals more pregnancies. Which again equals a higher abortion rate.

I find it more than a little astonishing that you're decrying the fact that with better contraception access, the abortion numbers may drop by "only" a half or a third.

That would constitute a fairly substantial level of change by any measure. And for someone who speaks of being so terribly concerned about these numbers, I'm astonished that you wouldn't be celebrating any measures that can bring about such a significant decrease.

O.K.

Pretty much burned out this thread but I enjoy listening to views different from my own.

Remember, the women were using NO contraception (or their partners for that matter but don't expect free condoms courtesy of the ACA) not less effective contraception. There is no effort at all.

I get it, accessable means FREE.

I like to be right which is why I gave the 1/2 or 1/3 numbers. I'll be right that way. Realistically, a drop in 10% would be astonishing to me. That would be an improvement, but then there will have to be a new excuse for the 10,000 or so abortions.

I look forward to reading your comments on other topics at MinnPost and thanks for the civil discourse.

Which war on women?

The one in South Asia where women and girls are sprayed with acid or murdered when trying to assert basic human rights, or in the United States, where taxpayers refuse to pay for your contraceptives?

And did you know that . . . . .

children in China are starving because you didn't clean off your dinner plate?

Your false equivalency is another insulting example of the trivialization of the issues faced by women in this country due to the theocracy which is trying to insert itself in very private and very critical decisions women must make every day.

Theocracy?

I counter argued using an objective fact about actual theocratic authoritarianism that sprays acid in the faces of females because they are getting an education, are murdered by a barbaric 7th Century culture, and you assert that I am arguing a false dilemma as you concurrently assert we are subject to a theocracy in the United States because taxpayers don't want to pay for contraceptives?

Are you serious?

Totally serious

Ask the Catholic bishops.

No, Miss Berg.

"The DFL is ambivalent about the alleged honor murder of Jessica Mokdad, a Muslim woman from Minnesota. Addressing this subject will result in a sanction of prior restraint by the State Party Secretary, a decision was supported by the State Affirmative Action Officer, Associate State Chair, and the State Party Chairman. This is a subject is one that apparently cannot be discussed with progressive leftists and the hierarchy of a DFL, who, ironically, claim to be the Party of inclusion and the protector of women’s rights. They are not able to address that Miss Mokdad (may she rest in peace) was killed specifically because she was a woman who asserted her independence as a sovereign human being, and that she was killed because of a misogynist, barbaric cultural practice. The failure of the DFL to allow the discussion of the murderous oppression of women is particularly egregious and shameful."

Returning to the subject of article, The two former office holders and the DFL do not want to prevent electoral fraud.

Source for your statement?

Your first paragraph is a verbatim reprint of a paragraph from your letter resigning from the DFL. Then, as now, you gave no source for your assertion. That is hardly what I would call credible.

Yes, honor killings anywhere, committed by anyone, are despicable and worthy of condemnation. Please tell us, however, why that should blind us to the creeping theocracy in our own country.

Incidentally, how is saying that "[t]he two former office holders and the DFL do not want to prevent electoral fraud" different from saying "Mitt Romney and the Republican Party want people to die from a lack of medical treatment?"

re: verbatim

That's right, RB Holbrook, it is verbatim. Where you there when I presented this to the SCC via email? Miss Mokdad is quite dead, the facts of her death are generally known. The DFL didn't want to talk about it, because in the hierarchy of identity politics that rules the DFL, race trumps feminism, especially when the race is black or brown, and Islam is considered by white leftists as a brown people's religion, or perhaps the brave Islamists are fighting against the evil white male heterosexist capitalists - or some thing like that. You'll have to ask them yourself about their motives, but there it is, for all to see.

If someone is against verifying a voter's positive identification at the polls, they do not want to prevent electoral fraud. It's simple logic.

I hope you read the rest of my resignation letter.

centrist DFLers

Liberals would welcome compromise on public funding for abortions since almost none exists, and federal funds for abortions as abolished in the 70s.
Last I checked, immigration law enforcement has been increasing since Obama took office.
On the marriage definition, I'd love to hear what your compromise position is on the definition of marriage and family. I've heard many definitions but since you have the "correct" definition, that sounds like an unwillingness to compromise.
Implementing expensive measures to prevent fraud, where there is no proof of fraud, that also deprive people of a basic constitutional right does sound like a hard thing to compromise on. How would we know what makes better policy since there would be no way to measure the impact on phenomenon that doesn't exist?

It looks to me you are declaring that compromise means I accept your position to replace my own. That is not compromise.

compromise?

Why?

What?

"the correct definition of marriage and family"?

And this correctness is based on what? Who has made this determination?

I think your list is a little short. Possibly you forgot to mention something about:

The one correct religion?

or

The correct definition of a man or a woman?

or possibly

The correct definition of a real American?

I see a few problems here.