‘Teammates’ Walter Mondale and Arne Carlson find common ground on causes
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:
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
39 comments
-
24 comments
-
22 comments
-
19 comments
-
14 comments

Comments (74)
The dialogue is good government ahead of poitical ideology
As with many articles in the press there are several ways to interpret the purpose and message of the article. The Mn Post article regarding Carlson and Mondale was not focused on compromise alone but was pointing out that good government and governing comes from placing government ahead of poltics and to make that work compromise is the center of the dialogue. Compromise does not mean giving up the views of either side --it is however work accomdations that work for both those favoring the legislation and for those against but having a vailed purpose. To achieve this approach there must be flexibility in the ideology of both sides--this has been missing from both sides--thus little or no real good government improvement legislation. As I said in the earlier response if both sides will move to recognize the focus must be on good government first and politics will follow and flexibility in ideology is central some meaningful progress can be made. Carlson and Mondale are suggesting this approach --I hope all readers will seek the benefit of this poltical party shift in emphasis from power to value of good government first. I am ready to continue the dialogue in any way to continue this discussion. Please join this thoughtful approach vs. continualy conflict with those who oppose your approach and ideals based on a no compromise ideology.
Dave Broden
Excellent point!
"Compromise does not mean giving up the views of either side --it is however work accommodations that work for both those favoring the legislation and for those against but having a veiled purpose. To achieve this approach there must be flexibility in the ideology of both sides--this has been missing from both sides--thus little or no real good government improvement legislation."
That's a critical distinction. Unfortunately, when one side thinks "good government" is an oxymoron, nobody is going to get "good government." This is where I think we need to be more forthright in pointing out that "both sides don't do it." I think today, whether you are considered "left" by anyone who considers themselves on the "right" is determined by thinking that there can be such a thing as "good government." The right has come to be defined by those who believe in minimalist government, whose only powers are to send shock troops to parts of the globe which threaten U.S. business interests and then to monitor birth control and abortion by women. Anything else, including "good government" (which means in their eyes a government which is responsive to the problems and needs of its citizens) is a "threat to freedom." When we are surrounded by people who relate to a crowd of people cheering in favor of letting an uninsured person die because they lack health insurance, aren't we dealing with a serious dysfunction? Does one have to make the obvious comparison between such behavior and the attitudes of guards in a concentration camp? The problem in US politics and government today is "the right", which can be defined as a mass movement based on delusion and hysteria which is rooted in fear and ignorance.
I see a few problems here.
You got that right.
Confusion is one and a lack of standards is another.
Former Governor Carlson has a
Former Governor Carlson has a long record of good governance and strong convictions. I voted for him back in the day and I continue to support him today.
By the way...
Lest we forget how the tolerent left treats those that stray from it's shining path, I refer to the white-hot hatred that Saint Paul Mayor Randy Kelly was subjected to.
Uncomfortable truths are sometimes the most instructive.
Randy
I don't suppose Randy Kelly's his backing W for president had anything to do with it?
Why would DFL'ers be tolerant of that?
Do you know who Arne endorsed for Governor, Ginny?
Think about it.
Ancient history, presented as comedy
Randy Kelly claimed to be a DFLer, but publicly endorsed George W. Bush for re-election. What on earth did he expect--universal adulation? He spoke publicly, and he was held to account for it. The man had been in politics long enough that he should have known that endorsing an unpopular President in a state he was likely to lose wasn't going to get him a testimonial dinner. And what "hatred?" I know that Republicans regard any disagreement with them as "hatred (disagreement with Democrats is "patriotism")," but that just isn't how the thinking part of the world sees it.
Kelly claimed at the time it was because he was offended by all the mean things people said about President Bush. Apparently, all the vitriol hurled at President Clinton didn't bother him any. Even so, you don't suppose his real motive was to curry favor with Bush-Cheney state chair Tim Pawlenty, who was deciding where to put a new Twins stadium, do you? THAT certainly worked out well.
He [Kelly] spoke publicly, and he was held to account for it.
That's putting it mildly.
And where has Arne been speaking, in his basement?
I don't get your point
Are you saying it was wrong for the DFL to be so mean to poor Randy Kelly? If so, you cannot defend or condone the treatment of Arne Carlson by the Republican Party.
Or are you just resorting to the tiresome playground taunt of "neener, neener, look what your guys did?" That seems more likely, which means the greatest voter fraud in Minnesota has been committed by the Republicans who claim to be adults in order to vote.
Did someone say...
"tiresome playground taunt"? Yow.
I get your point
Holbrook stated:
"...the greatest voter fraud in Minnesota has been committed by the Republicans who claim to be adults in order to vote."
You call that "civil"?
Minnpost moderators in action.
My point
You got the point, but you missed the context.
"I get your point
"I get your point new
Submitted by Neal Krasnoff on July 8, 2012 - 3:44pm.
Holbrook stated:
"...the greatest voter fraud in Minnesota has been committed by the Republicans who claim to be adults in order to vote."
You call that "civil"?
Minnpost moderators in action.}
When one sets up straw man arguments based on twisted perceptions such Krasnoff did, then he has no right to expect respect for those statements. There is nothing to compromise on when initial statements are so invalid as those were. That was pointed out several times in the replies with no rebuttal resulting.
Centrists
The original assertion was that somehow Republicans (read: conservatives) are incapable of "compromise". I noted that DFLers (read: leftists) would not be able to compromise on specific issues - proven by the argumentative responses by, presumably, DFLers and leftists, and the decidedly uncivil responses that prove my point concerning the inability of my opponents to seek "compromise".
Somehow, you take offense to that.
Definitions
It's kind of hard to have this discussion when no one knows what is included in your definition of "compromise".
Specific issues
The definition of marriage and the right to vote are not "specific issues," they are matters of principle. Who is allowed to define marriage--the state? Is that definition to be permanently cast in stone (miscegenation laws were regarded as normal until teh mid-1960s)? What about voting rights? The ubniversal franchise is essential to democracy--are we to limit that, based on overblown claims of fraud?
What about conservative compromise? As has been pointed out too often, Obamacare is Romneycare, and it is the health care plan originally put forth by the Heritage Foundation. Adopting that plan, rather than a more effective and more efficient single-payer system, was itself a compromise. Is it compromise to put forth a plan, see it adopted, and wail loudly about how evil it is? I call that a lot of things, but certainly not "compromise." The Republicans have stated that their priority is is making President Obama a one-term President. Not making the economy grow, not putting people back to work, not even making health care accessible to all. Their only interest is scoring partisan political points. There is no incentive for them to compromise, because they don't care about anything else. If they were responsible, if they truly were interested in making things better, they might show some interest in governing. Unfortunately for all of us, their priorities are elsewhere.
Compromise
I'm not going to pick on anyone in particular, just want to point out that the comments here illustrate the theme of the article. I have my own views on which side is more to blame but expressing them here won't accomplish anything. Democracy has become very messy, but I think if you study history you'll discover that it has been since the beginning in the US as well as in other countries where it has been practiced. The periods of compromise ebb and flow and it seems like a low tide for the time being. I have my own view that giants walked the earth at one time and hopefully some will again.
The problem is . . . . .
that these days there's a pretty good chunk of the population who think that compromise=capitulation. Which of course it does not. But that doesn't seem to stop them from thinking it does.
This is why it is important to get something as simple as "What do you understand the definition of compromise to be?" clarified at the outset. If people are not using the same definition, then the discussion is doomed to be at cross-purposes and the participants may or may not even be aware of it. That's a big problem.
When "giants walked the earth", they all properly understood what "compromise" meant, were using it productively, and things got done.
Sure - everyone didn't get everything just the way they wanted it. But hey - that's what "compromise" is about, after all!
May I offer a compromise
On the marriage issue.
Marriage, throughout most of human history has been a religious institution. Therefore the issuing of "marriage licenses" should not be a government function. If the government deems that two people living together, making a home and family together, is beneficial, so be it. They can issue "domestic partnership" licenses or whatever "Orwellian" name they can come up with. Church's would then be the only institution to issue marriage licenses, and they could issue them to whomever they wished, according to their beliefs.
Marriage v.s. Domestic partnership
I have also been intrigued by the idea of "get religion out of it" as a solution. And I think that idea may well hold promise, but only under certain conditions.
As I understand it, "marriage" offers many universal legal rights and protections that "civil unions", "domestic partnerships", etc. do not:
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
So until and unless this inequity is addressed, your proposal remains an imperfect solution.
However, if those gaps were closed, I would think the idea of "keep government out of the marriage business" might be a very good idea indeed. I am not aware of any additional reasons this would not work, and if anyone reading this would like to post about it, I'd be interested in learning what they might be.
rejected duplicate Pat,The idea is not to "get
Pat,
The idea is not to "get religion out of it." The idea is to get government out of it. The domestic partnership / civil union would be renamed the societal protection license or, as I said what ever they want to come up with. It would have all the protections and "legal kinship" of any "marriage".
Pat,The idea is not to "get
Pat,
The idea is not to "get religion out of it." The idea is to get government out of it. The domestic partnership / civil union would be renamed the societal protection license or, as I said what ever they want to come up with. It would have all the protections and "legal kinship" of any "marriage".
Same idea, different angle
I think we're talking about essentially the same concept - just coming at it from different angles. You said "Get government out of it", I said "Get religion out of it". The common thread is separation.
Separation, as in, let there be two similar, but separate, institutions.
Let churches bless the sacrament of "marriage", whatever any one belief system defines it to be, and let "marriage" be a religious recognition, and ONLY a religious recognition - with no automatically-conferred legal rights and privileges, but only whatever is conferred by the laws/rules/teachings/customs of the church which conferred it. (A parallel might - I believe - be baptism. Although not being a religious scholar, that may or not be the best example. Hopefully it will serve as a good enough example.)
Then let government be the one to confer civil unions/domestic partnerships which have NO religious component but which DO carry universal legal rights and protections and responsibilities once conferred. Churches would be under no obligation to recognize these unions, and presumably a couple which is united legally in this way would also have to have a church ceremony if they wished to obtain the title of "married" within any given church.
But whether or not they sought a church to put the title of "married" on their union, they would still be legally bonded in the eyes of the law, and would not lose these protections by something as simple as moving to another state.
The problem, of course, is that making this change would require the writing/editing of a huge new body of law. Which is not an insignificant thing.
But I still think it is an idea with merit and worth exploring.