In the recent wake of more mass shootings, we once again are met with the mostly ineffectual “thoughts and prayers” of politicians. The rhetoric is the same we have heard in the past, and we have come to know that the current state of politics in America will yield nothing that will actually help prevent the next such massacre. But is that really all that can be done?
In the Spring 2013 issue of the journal Daedalus, Amy Gutmann (current U.S. Ambassador to Germany) and Dennis F. Thompson published an article entitled “Valuing Compromise for the Common Good.” Therein, Gutmann and Thompson wrote:
“Pursuing the common good in a pluralist democracy is not possible without making compromises. Yet the spirit of compromise is in short supply in contemporary American politics. [. . .] To begin to make compromise more feasible and the common good more attainable, we need to appreciate the distinctive value of compromise [. . .]. A common mistake is to assume that compromise requires finding the common ground on which all can agree. That undermines more realistic efforts to seek classic compromises, in which each party gains by sacrificing something valuable to the other, and together they serve the common good by improving upon the status quo. Institutional reforms are desirable, but they, too, cannot get off the ground without the support of leaders and citizens who learn how and when to adopt a compromising mindset.”
The issues today that keep America in a constant inflamed state will never be resolved by the way politics are currently conducted in America. Both parties are fighting only for all out victory on every issue. Indeed, to talk compromise on the campaign trail ensures defeat in one’s party primary. This is despite the fact that, in a country split roughly evenly Democrat/Republican, such complete victory is an impossible goal. This reality has been acknowledged by non-compromiser Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, (R-Ga.) who several times has said that “Perhaps it is time to think about a national divorce.” If nothing changes in how we resolve issues, she is probably correct that we are heading down that regrettable path. It is not an overstatement to say that our current national disdain for compromise is making it impossible to move forward as a country.
It is time in America for a grand bargain. And as Gutmann and Thompson recognize, the compromise we need is not the “common ground” type. We must achieve a deal that renders each party both a winner and a loser. Such an approach has a much better chance of resolving difficult issues and stabilizing our country than the current ineffectual methods of today’s politicians. A grand bargain will allow the United States to move forward on issues that now seem intractable, and it will provide a blueprint for how to deal with issues in the future that have the possibility of returning us to the paralysis caused by our current hyper-partisanship.
So, what would such a grand bargain look like? I do not pretend to have the precise deal in mind or a list of all the issues that could be included in such a negotiation. But, two issues that currently seem intractable are illustrative of what can potentially be accomplished. Towards that end, I have recently been asking both my Republican and my Democratic friends (yes, I have many of both) to imagine a U.S. Senate race with three choices: a candidate who wants a wall built along our the southern border and will not vote for any gun law reform; a candidate adamantly opposed to a border wall and favors gun control laws; or a candidate willing to build a border wall in exchange for a ban on assault rifles and universal background checks for gun purchasers. In my little non-scientific parlor game, nearly all Republicans and Democrats swallow hard and vote for “candidate three.” And so do I. This is the type of compromise Gutmann and Thompson prescribe and that America needs in order to begin to climb out of the political morass we find ourselves in. If we don’t, we will forever continue to add to the list that reads Louisville, Nashville, Uvalde, Buffalo, Shady Hook, Columbine and on and on and on.
Joe Bollettieri, is an attorney and writer in St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
So the plan is to pair unrelated issues, with varying degrees 0f urgency, and force a decision? Sounds like a GREAT idea. So what happens if I want no border wall under any circumstances, and gun control no matter what? The problem is in assuming policy priorities have a hierarchy. Why would I trade safety from gun violence for immigrants human rights, that’s sick. Conservatives aren’t rational actors, their priorities don’t matter, and the assumption of a 50-50 split in the population is just fallacy. The OTHER way to ensure national harmony (such that it can ever exist in a world where one side refuses to interact with reality) is to remove all power (or at least any meaningful means to act on its agenda) from the faction that is causing the rift, in this case conservatives.
Not to mention the persistent presence of Donald Trump.
“The OTHER way to ensure national harmony (such that it can ever exist in a world where one side refuses to interact with reality) is to remove all power (or at least any meaningful means to act on its agenda) from the faction that is causing the rift, in this case conservatives.”
“Remove all power” is to be accomplished in what way?
Voting them out in a free and fair election. A free election, with maximum participation by qualified voters. A fair election, with non-gerrymandered boundaries and rules that allow as many people to vote as possible.
No guns, no violence, no intimidation. It’s how we’re supposed to do things in this country, in case you were wondering.
Harmony – – Sounds like MPLS.
Democracy. Traditionally, Americans have favored it.
Beat me to the punch, well said RB
We are not a Democracy. We are a representative government.
Um, every democracy on earth is a representative government.
How are those representatives elected again?
How did you like all that “DFL harmony” taking place at the DFL endorsement convention?
Not a Maga with-in miles.
Probably just arguing about how much government trickle down money they should be paid.
Democracy – and I am no longer going to acknowledge the “we ain’t no democracy” codswallop – involves disputation, disagreement, and debate. That debate excludes violence. Absolute “harmony,” in the sense of unanimous agreement with the party’s platform, is a rare thing in areas not governed by Pyongyang.
Why would Republicans show up at a DFL convention? If Republicans have been frozen out of the politics in Minneapolis, they have only themselves to blame.
Are you actually complaining that the Democratic nominating process isn’t authoritarian enough for you? Thanks Captain Obvious, we hadn’t figured that out yet…
Please define “harmony” for me. I can think of another word the DFL types can’t define either.
The ability to overcome differences without resorting to hierarchial dominance, like the GOP. I mean if EVERYONE is a VP is anyone?
This author is proposing something like the solution the GOP proposes for the current debt-limit crisis the GOP created: The GOP leaders say they’ll increase the debt limit–and avoid disastrous international financial chaos–only if Biden and Dems give up all their recent big legislative wins, like the Inflation Reduction Act or the Infrastructure Bill, in their entirety. The debt ceiling is a hostage to help the GOP undo actions by a democratic majority that the GOP doesn’t like. My way or the highway, says the GOP.
He needs to think of those Republicans who have absolutist stances and insist that they compromise on that absolutism. Not on something else: on THAT issue.
I say that as I recall how Peresident Obama was constantly offering compromises to the Congressional Republicans who opposed his every legislative initiative: He gave away the store to them, in the name of compromise, which they refused to consider. Ever.
It’s not Democrats who need to compromise (Biden is expert at it!).
“I recall how Peresident Obama was constantly offering compromises to the Congressional Republicans who opposed his every legislative initiative: He gave away the store to them, in the name of compromise, which they refused to consider.”
This was one of my biggest concerns with Biden. He came in talking bipartisanship, common ground and compromise. Which all sounds good, but relies on someone with whom to compromise. The Republican party doesn’t. In other words, theory doesn’t match reality. We need to deal with reality.
This article reeks of a certain “both-sides” centrism that I think ignores the reality of our current political environment. Are there some things where compromise might be possible? Sure. Even as a progressive, I think we could probably be more thoughtful and careful about government spending, for example. For many issues, though, not only is the divide too large to overcome, but one side is most definitely in the wrong and should not be compromised with. Take the focus on gun control in this article: Democrats wants to do ANYTHING to try and stem the epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings, while Republicans refuse to compromise and actually desire to expand 2nd Amendment absolutism. Not only that, but they have actually built up an incredible amount of political and legal infrastructure to maintain this status quo. These values and infrastructure don’t exist to produce compromise – they exist to attack the other side and defend their power. We can talk about compromise on some issues, but gun control is an example of how “respectability politics” is costing American citizens their lives.
I watched a video recently from a content creator who is a trans woman. There were a lot of points in her video, but one that stood out most to me is that you cannot reason with people who don’t think you should exist – people who want you dead. I even see it in the comment sections of some MinnPost articles where the language used to describe trans people is incredibly dehumanizing. Some folks on the Right are politically motivated by hate and fear, and preaching compromise with these specific individuals only validates and emboldens them, which risks violence to marginalized people. More people need to call this out, not find ways to bargain with people’s lives.
” content creator ”
OK, I admit, what is a content creator? God? A writer? A journalist? A TV producer?
The Google says: A content creator is anyone who shares information, inspiration, humor, experiences, or advice with a larger audience through content, usually digital. Content creators use a variety of mediums to disperse their work.
Which begs the same question…
Yes, God is technically a content creator if you’re into that sort of thing.
“Why does anyone care about two words in a longer comment?”
Quibblers gotta quibble, RB…
A tradeoff is not quite the same thing as a compromise.
The current “debt ceiling negotiation” is an instructive example of the difference between a compromise and a tradeoff.
It’s closer to a bait and switch. The proposed adjustment to the debt ceiling is projected to last 9 months before we hit it again. At which point Republicans resume negotiations. “Nice economy ya got there. Shame if something happened to it.”
When the House GOP passes a balanced budget we can take them seriously. Until then, it’s partisan politicking.
There is no room for a “grand bargain” when one of the two major political parties in the country has embraced authoritarianism in order to “save” the nation from the other party. To take the author’s example, that party does not believe in guns or a border wall as policy matters to be bargained over. They are, for this party, essential to the continued survival or revival of America (not one most of us would recognize, but whatever). That party is willing to resort to anti-democratic means, up to and including violence) to take and retain power.
It is a mistake to pretend that the Republican Party today is just another political party, functioning as parties always have, with just some practical differences in their positions. That is far from true. The Republican Party is operating on a potent fuel of anger, bile, and spite. Violence is increasingly normalized, and any kind of principles or ethics are supplanted by the demands for loyalty to the leader (who is the party). The “other side” is not just a party with whom one happens to disagree. They are the enemy, demonized to the point that there is no debate or engagement, just an effort to defeat them.
Normalizing this behavior is dangerous. Once, we could count on fellow citizens who had some principle beyond blind party loyalty or blind loyalty to one politician. They wanted to do what was right, not what was expedient or merely loyal (remember that President Nixon was persuaded to resign by Republican members of Congress). Would-be authoritarians would first be laughed at, then rejected soundly when it was apparent that laughing wouldn’t be enough.
Who’s laughing now?
What the author seeks is an Arne Carlson without the motheaten sweater, or a Bill Clinton who can keep.his pants on.
Or a lifetime moderate like Joe Biden…
As commonly understood, a “grand bargain” involves a single broad area of public policy, such as immigration reform or gun control, one in which there are a myriad of issues and disagreements. It does not involve combining two utterly unrelated areas of policy (such as immigration reform and gun control). To propose such a thing as a sensible route to stable “solutions” is just haphazard thinking with no logic behind it. How do you decide which two unrelated issues to “join” together? And why?
Grand bargains within a policy area (such as was accomplished in 1850 with slavery) are usually impossible today because the Repub party now eschews compromise on virtually every issue, and demands a total victory for its base on all issues; it also tends to want to keep controversial issues festering, as a driver of partisan turnout. That’s another reason “conservatives” won’t budge on immigration, and will hardly budge on gun control. And now they are drawing lines in the sand on contraception, of all insanity. And we’ll leave aside that their joinder of issues such the manufactured debt ceiling crisis are simply illegitimate and not advanced in good faith.
Parties have issues that they won’t compromise on. Take a look at what those are with the Repub party and the Dem party and make your choice as to what kind of country you want to to live in regarding those issues. But I submit that the Dem party is far more willing to compromise on far more issues than today’s Repub party, and that a Grand Bargain for Repubs on any great area of public policy of the day would be anathema, despite the pious wishes of Both Siders. Sad, but true.
Actually, compromise created this crises by empowering radicals and Fascists. There is no liberal or Democratic version of MGT, or Trump, or Santos. Sure, compromise is a normal part of normal politics, but when Fascist walk into the room you’re no longer dealing with “normal” and the longer you refuse to recognize that fact the more peril we find ourselves in. Compromise with some people… will get you killed.
“This is despite the fact that, in a country split roughly evenly Democrat/Republican, such complete victory is an impossible goal. This reality has been acknowledged by non-compromiser Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, (R-Ga.) who several times has said that “Perhaps it is time to think about a national divorce,” as stated in the article, nuances a continued thought that the two primary political parties are bound to influence our community for over two hundred more years. I find that notion to be hard to stomach, and I’ve been an officer in the DFL and did a little volunteer work for the Democratic National Committee, as inspired by my former neighbor and co-worker U.S. Vice President Walter Mondale. I have found rancid examples of policies and behavior at both the local and national levels, which are hidden from us by a press who will not report on them.
Both of parties have strong advocates within their party which absolutely hate members and principles of the whom they consider their political nemeses. It has already been clear that these peoplee whould not budge an inch if it meant saving their lives. They are ideologues with a sense of supremacy. Look at how the Republican Party has been sold out to the gun lobby, and how the Minnesota DFL, once “in power with a trifecta” by a few percentage points has both legalized recreational marijuana without FDA guidelines on the potency of pot and how much should reasonably be used; as well as the effort to ban weapons without support of any Republicans with a sense of reason.
The Hill, a Washington, D.C. based political journal, stated earlier this year that 70% of U.S. voters, in my words, dislike both parties and wish there were alternatives. The Forward Party, which was brought together by 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate, billionaire Andrew Yang, is composed of moderates who were both moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans. It is uncertani whether this political Party, which is active in roughly twelve states, will amount to anything substantial, but I like their efforts to bring common sense to the foreground and eliminate the extremism which the national yellow jounralists, including CNN and FOX News & Entertainment, favor for ongoing sales and views.
One thing is certain: Unless some politicians are again hit by gunfire, as U.S. President Ronald Reagan was, along with his friend and Press Secretary Jim Brady, their follow-up mantra of “Our thoughts and prayers are with the family,” will only continue.
Please note that I am not a fan of the use of violence for political, financial, psychological or emotional gain, and that Mr. Brady was a friend of one of my friends, Steve Johnson, who was a mentee of my late great Uncle, CBS New Local Vice President Cal Haworth. Steve was a Capitol Hill reporter who started at former KDAL Television when it was in Duluth, MN; and then later when he became a reporter and producer at WCCO Telvision, a CBS Local station in Minneapolis, MN; later moving on to the CBS Local in Dallas-Fort Worth. We knew each other for a few years in the 1970s and 1980s. I find violence reprehensible and a waste of money, ethical and moral fiber and damaging to history and to society.
The notion of a “grand bargain” will not exist until political campaign finance laws take away “dark money” schemes (i.e., immense bribes into the millions of dollars) which includes unlimited purchasing of Members of Congress and U.S. Supreme Court justices. If the ideals and composition of players in the Forward Party expands and are not stricken by Trojan Horse players who are actually unethical and foolhardy political extremists, the United States may be able to heal and regain its status as a great political and economic, political and economic body.
You gonna start claiming in-kind contributions soon?
The author writes from a desire to help the country move forward. But his textbook Bothsiderism only advances the paralysis he decries by, at the very start, placing outside the bounds of discussion any examination of the actual cause of our condition.
The author’s precis is the first sentence he quotes: “Pursuing the common good in a pluralist democracy is not possible without making compromises.” Sensible, even obvious. The problem is that the goal of the Republican party is not “pursuit of the common good,” but rather its opposite: to make pursuit of the common good impossible. Its goal is to break down social norms, and the rule of law, and the ability of the people, together, to make decisions and manage the affairs of our society, so that a very few with great wealth and power may rule over the nation, and indeed the earth, unhindered by the countervailing democratic power of the many. To “bestride the smoking ruins of civilisation,” as it has been put.
Some Republican leaders embrace this globalist authoritarian project with awareness and intent. A great many are simply grifters as, by virtue of the way the party has cultivated its voting base, there’s nowhere that offers better grifting. The authoritarians have no polices, other than to advance this coalescence of power and the dissolution of free and self-governed societies (in the U.S. as well as in Russia, Hungary, India, Brazil, Turkey, Israel and elsewhere). Indeed, the very notion of a “national interest” is antithetical. The grifters have no policies at all, except to advance the theater that feeds their grift.
So how would the banal urging to compromise work here? Do we negotiate with the Republicans for half a democracy? For a society where half the women with pregnancy complications may be permitted to consult with their doctors and save their own lives? It’s much like those who urge that the Ukrainians must end Putin’s aggression by negotiating for half a genocide.
In short, by assuming the purpose of dismantling our democracy, the Republican party has disqualified itself from participating as a voice in democratic governance. The 70 percent of Americans who don’t vote for the Republican party (this includes those who don’t vote at all) span a wide range of views on social policy and governance that are plausible attempts to give meaning to our foundational principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Apart from a few, we are not “hyper-partisan,” or even a little bit partisan. We vote (when we vote) based on substantive views on the issues, not on mindless tribal affiliation. We vote for Democrats because the Democratic party is the only formation of political power that might countervail (however hesitantly or partially) the depredations threatened by the authoritarians.
We, this 70 percent, are able to engage in democratic debate, in order to advance the work of achieving and keeping a decent society for all (even for the other 30 percent!). Unfortunately, there is the small (i.e., existential and unremitting) distraction of the authoritarians, with their massed wealth, control of the political discourse (“Both Sides!”), and foot-soldiers cultivated to nihilism, swinging the ram against our creaking wooden doors and thrusting their torches at the windows. If the fever somehow were to break, and enough of the Republican fold were able to rejoin our shared democratic project, we could all happily compromise our way to a bright future.
Mr. Holtman,
This is a wonderful addition to the Comment Section. It is much better edited than my last comment, written in the middle of the night and not adequately edited for spelling or style.
Thank you for your insight and frank manner.
Thanks to Barry and Charles for their lengthy and thoughtful comment.
I would just add my own worn out observation that this “bothsideism” or whatever you want to call it is a “moderate/centerist” delusion. The claim that we are split 50-50 down the middle is actually the convenient fiction of polarization that “centrists” try to use to regain their own comfort levels.
The truth is that in most cases Americans are actually moving towards liberal consensus on a variety of issues from gun control to health care. Yes, if you confine your analysis to survey’s based on “Party” affiliation, you find Democrats and Republican on opposite sides of the issues. But the demographic fact is Republicans are completely outnumbered by Democrats and independents, and survey after survey shows large popular support for everything from living wages, universal health care, abortion rights, and gun control. These policies are in fact beginning to move forward despite Republican opposition, and to the extent they’re stalled it’s because of Republican opposition, not lack of popular support. The problem isn’t a divided nation, it’s an intransigent political Party that still has just enough power in a two-party system, to block popular policy initiatives.
The dream of bipartisan regimes isn’t just delusional, it was an complete failure that led us into the current crises. The problem is that when you only have two Parties, ONE of those Parties HAS to be a liberal Party. The New Democrats who took control of the Party in the late 70’s and consolidated their power and control in the 80s sought to establish a bipartisan regime by aligning themselves with conservative consensus, hence all this gibberish about “compromise”. The political regime moved to the “right”, but the population never did. Guys like Chomsky have been pointing out for decades that if you ever dug into the surveys you found massive popular skepticism if not outright opposition to the neoliberal agendas of the bipartisan regime. This is one reason the facile attempt to re-establish the bipartisan regime with HRC’s candidacy failed so miserably. HRC’s failure was predictable because her husband failed decades ago… the Democratic attempt to “compromise” ran into the Reagan and then the Gingrich “revolutions”. For all his trouble Clinton found himself impeached rather than embraced by friends on the other side of the isle. Likewise Obama found himself tied up the “colleagues” he expected to find on the other side of the isle. The more Democrats tried to compromise, the more powerful Fascist became… and the more gridlocked government.
So basically, what Mr. Bollettieri is suggesting here isn’t a “change” as much as it is a return to a failed regime that he and other faux centrists found to be more comfortable at the time. Alas… it looks like the majority won’t tolerate that kind of unsustainable gridlock and failure any longer. Perpetual crises just doesn’t work. This is nostalgia pretending to be common sense politics.
Paul,
Thanks for this stout essay! While I’ve been involved in DFL activism ascampaign volunteer and as a senate district committee officer (20109-2019), and as a student of political history, you have the words which I don’t have to tell an astute tale of what has been going on for the past forty-years.
For too long, I was a Party cheerleader and just accepted caucus-approved candidates. This was foolish. It wasn’t until 2019 when I was accused by a DFL colleague of sexual harassment for writing about my history of being molested and raped by several women in my youth that I began to understand just how far out some members of the DFL have become, and then to be ignored by my state representative, with whom I’d dined and worked for on his campaign, and the current senate majority leader in the Minnesota legislature who both accepted an accusation as a guilty finding for a crime which requires severe and pervasive sexual conduct. My attempt was to start a conversation based on a CDC study which took place in 2010 indicating that mwen are raped in nearly similar numbers as women, and that women rape men at over 50% of the time. Someone didn’t want to hear it, and complained. They were misguided and cruel.
People of principle are being drowned out by fanatics and weak-willed moderates who show no loyalty to peoplpe who have worked for the Party from their teenage years to middle age with no problems other than talking about what women have long griped about: Being raped, and molested.
Focus has to go back to topics which create actual hardship, not distate or disbelief. People who can be diplomatic and clever, and work toward a world where businesses can succeed well; and where business owners, as they are in Scandinavia, know when enough money has been earned by them; and more money can go to their workers, should be trained from young ages. The current “leaders” in our commnuity are second rate.
Many people speak highly of Nancy Pelosi. However, I received her emails for about three years and saw just how divisive and violent she was with her metaphors which spoke of what she would like to do to the Republicans. She certainly didn’t help matters any. When her husband was attacked, I called her office and noted that two U.S. vice presidents and their families from the Democratic Party were associated with me and members of my family, told her what I thought of her divisive manner, and demanded that she step down from the Speaker role.
I consider myself to be a political hack and no longer involved with the DFL or the DNC. Schumer, Pelosi and Biden, and others did enough damage when they demanded that New York Governer Andrew Cuomo resign his position based only on a complaint of sexual harassment. Our Bill of Rights require a person to be considered innocent until proven guilty; and the prosecutor in that case ended the nivestigation, stating that there was not enough evidence to convict. Chris Cuomo lost his job at the yellow-journalism agency, CNN, for trying to help his brother. This lack of principle and maturity in our nation’s government has become pathetic and in need of a reset.
For information on a moderate change from both the Republican and Democratic parties, composed of disaffected moderate Republicans and Democrats who want to see the nation move forward and out of the morass it has been in for several years, please check into http://www.forwardparty.com. It is not active in the State of Minnesota, but people may be interested in knowing about it as it expands. It was founded by 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang. It is a consortium of three smaller parties which came together and agreed on a platform. I don’t throw all of my energy or thought into endorsing it, but it can’t be any worse than what we have going for us at this time. It is active in around twelve states.
Barry,
One aspect of Party politics I neglected to mention in my “essay” was the role of: “Power”. Human beings, be they left or right tend to enjoy whatever power they acquire, and once acquired, they seek to hang on to it. I think this is the basis of your complaint. One of the problems with a two party system that is frequently glossed over by “moderate/centrists” and faux liberals is the power relations. The power dynamics were clearly laid bare when Sander’s rose to prominence in 2016 and thereafter. Centrist Democrats were literally willing to lose elections rather than surrender power within their own Party, and had been doing so for decades. “Clinton” Democrats were more worried about Sanders than they were Trump. The problem was they failed to recognize the threat of Fascism, preferring to believe they could still “work” with friends on the other side the Isle. Hence Obama’s attack on “wokeism” rather than than Fascism in the White House during the Trump Administration. This is why one of our political Party’s always needs to be a liberal Party. Contemporary Liberal democracy is organized around the principle of diverse leadership and decentralized power. This is why “moderate/centrist” democrats are so afraid of it, it dictates that they share power with the like of Omar and AOC.
I would take lawmakers just doing the voters business not their own business. When lawmakers become millionaires off of a Government salary, they are doing their business not the voters business. That is both parties!
Now Joe, you wouldn’t be suggesting we have a severe political corruption problem here in the good old USA now would you? Actually I think that was implied in the article.
Did anyone see the chaos at the DFL Minneapolis council meeting? There is a show of unity and doing the public’s bidding alright!
Joe,
Are you talking about the Ward 10 meeting or a Minneapolis City Council meeting? Please clarify and identify.
Thanks!
He was trying to post snark about the brawl at the local convention. Joe seems to have confused a partisan event with an actual governmental function.
Ward 10. Great showing of Democratic Party leadership and party unity.
Joe,
I was an officer in the DFL for 10 years, and a volunteer in campaigns and caucuses for 40-years. In 2014, when Ilhan Omar spoke at the current Ward 6, Pct 3, former Ward 2, Pct 10 venue, she was attacked and sent to the hospital by a number of Somali American women who didn’t like her. Not all of the Somali Americans are on board with peaceful interactions in politics. The politics in current day Somalia is racked with murders, bombings, and dead bodies being eaten by hyenas and lions, as a Somali friend of mine just told me. It may be a generation or two before the younger Somali Americans understand that this is not the way we act in the U.S., for the most part.
As for unity in the DFL, my service abruptly ended in 2019 during the height of the #MeToo Movement when I got tired of all the news about women clamoring about being raped and molested, with no news of the reality that women do the same thing to men. As a youth, I was molested and raped by several women when I was shy but attractive. When I told my colleagues in the DFL about this, they didn’t believe me; so, I told them exactly what happened. Some woman decided that my story about what women have been talking about for generations from women, but what happened to them by men, was sexual harassment. I was then banned from the Party, despite having been very helpful at our caucuses for ten years and being among the four or five who showed up when an incompetent young woman took the lead as district chair.
I see the Party being very fractured, gynocentric, misandrist, and not intent on developing overarching principles for how all people should be treated, but instead how cohorts such as the BIPOC, LGBTQ and women’s community should be treated. This is not good management of a political party. We need to have leadership which goes back to basics and guides one another to be kind to one another, cooperative and interested in one another. If women can talk about being raped and molested, so should men be able to talk and write about this — and it is a national problem for men.
The CDC did a study in 2010 and surveyed over 3 million men and surveyed over 3 million women who were sexually assaulted by domestic partners (I was one in 1986). They found that over 50% of male rape victims were raped by women, and all totalled, men are raped in similar numbers as women. This is a fact which my colleagues in the DFL were not willing to accept. Hence, my sense that the DFL in my district cares more about women than men, and have a toxic level of femniism.
I have supported women’s equality since 1979 when I first became involved in the Democratic Party. I was guided by U.S. Vice President Walter Mondale, a neighbor of our family and one of my coworkers; as well as by Minnesota Governor Wendell Anderson (who also served as a U.S. Senator). Minnesota State Representative Phyllis Kahn, who served for over 40 years, has also been helpful and is a friend. However, the executives at DFL Party Affairs have garnered criticism as being radical, by the manager of a former Hennepin County Attorney campaign. I found the same to be true.
There has been a devolution of professionalism in the DFL over the past 43 years. The youth in our community are eager to serve and get involved, but they haven’t often developed the wisdom and discipline they need to be good executives. As a young man coming up in the Party, I had the sense to sit and learn from men and women who had developed strong managerial and executive skills. My sense now is that we have great idealists in the Party, but that they want immediate transition from the old ways to the new ways — and not all of the old ways are that bad. Moreover, I’ve heard youth denigrating people from my feneration (I’m 61) for not being “progressive” enough, though I’m on board with renewable energy, allowing the LGBTQ commnuity be in peace, and not discriminating against members of the BIPOC community who are not involved with drugs dealing, burglary, car theft and violence.
The fanaticism which we saw at the recent Ward 10 caucus is an example of irrational and bigoted people who want their candidate to serve primarily themselves. My city council member has been in office for a couple of years, but his office is not responsive to me or even people from his home country: Somalia. Our former council member was also a Somali but received low marks from many Somalis and people from other races who his office ignored.
The key may be in getting people who have had exceptional customer service experience as well as managerial and executive experience. This may lead to greater unity in the DFL, but I doubt it. Profressives are not Democrats, they are Progressives. They are farther to the left of center than Democrats, and they have taken over much of the Party. With an element of toxic feminists who don’t like older White men despite our being innocuous but honest about what we see in others, and many Blacks not giving Whites a chance to show that we are not bigotted, as many of them are, it is hard to know who we can talk to as noble leaders among the cohorts I have mentioned to bring common sense to their cohort members. They deal in feelings and distant past discrimination (slave period southern U.S., for example; when the Civil Rights Act has been in place for 59 years and great advances have been made in opportunities for all members of society, though I do know that salaried Blacks are not paid as much as salaried Whites unless they are exceptional at their work).
This said, I would encourage you to avoid snarky comments. They do little to bring about change and can be confusing. I would try to be a little more proactive in your statements to develop a fine leadership persona.
End of the day its a value call and folks hold different values. Problem appears to be that some folks are so entrenched with their values so to speak, they will not listen or look at alternate views, its not one of their values! Thus the closed minded, far right and far left believe they are 100% correct in all facets and in-transience is their best strategy. Per the article, we are therefore going nowhere. The art of understanding i.e. fairness is not one of their values, ruling and winning at any cost is one of their values, and if they can’t, perhaps freezing any progress or destroying our society from doing almost anything is one of their values, my way highway. So the majority of us folks are held captive,t our right wingers have moved into fascism land, all about ruling and not about governing, and our ultra social lefties are stuck on its all societies fault and folks bear no personal responsibility for their own outcomes. Folks can argue all they want, but by definition the majority of folks are typically in the center std deviations, ~ 68%, just 101 statistics on a population distribution curve. But we have to deal with the ultra’s on both sides, people whose values are akin to extremism, otherwise by definition they wouldn’t be there! Getting a grand deal, sorry first we need to get our country to value, free and fair, as well as “all men (women) are created equal” and not look at gerrymandering, or political maneuvering etc. to stack the judicial system as valued legalized tools of the trade for cheating.
If the 68% in the middle would band together, we could shut out the 32% on the fringes. I am all for that.
Problem is Bob, ~1/2 are wearing red hats, and ~1/2 are wearing blue hats, and the red’s and blues dominate, they actually try to herd us into one camp or the other, we would think in America, where we can choose any of what, couple thousand beers, we could choose something other than crazy left or crazy right, but folks are extremely wary of exchanging them for purple hats even though this is Vikings land!
Personally I think the number is close to 80% in the middle, but the media is pushing the 10% on the fringes on either side. The vocal ones.
Repeat
See, this is the thing: It’s always smoke and mirrors and bait and switch with “moderate/centrists”. Yes, you can say 68% are in the “middle” between extremes on either side, but that doesn’t meant they’re in the middle of an actual political spectrum represented by Democrats and Republicans because the two Party’s don’t represent BOTH ends of the spectrum. Democrats don’t represent the liberal end of the spectrum, for the most part they have (until recently) represented the moderate conservative end of the spectrum. This is why the bread and butter liberal agendas currently being enacted LOOK like “extremism” to these “moderates”. Again, in the real world of political spectrums almost all of these policies from gun control to abortion rights and voting rights enjoy a clear popular majority support, and have done for decades.
So the truth is Mr. Weir, what you’re seeing right now IS the middle 68% getting what they want, it just isn’t the stagnation and paralysis that the faux “middle” was happy to live with indefinitely.
Paul – You’re absolutely correct, it’s “smoke and mirrors” to pace half the distance between the median Dem0crat and the median Republican and suggest that the point you’ve reached has any meaning whatsoever. Overton window and all that.
But the other, I’d say more damaging, misframing of the “centrists” is the lazy or bad-faith assumed symmetry. The “fringe” on the Right is the near-entirety of the Republican base that votes for folks who are working to end our experiment in democracy in favor of violent authoritarianism. The “fringe” on the left is – what? Seven Maoists living in a communal house outside Asheville, North Carolina? There is no fringe left – none- that is symmetrical to the nihilists on the Right – neither in numbers, nor in the power and wealth that stands behind them.
Again, 70 percent of the nation forms a bell curve around a reasonable set of democratic positions. That’s your symmetry. Thirty percent – the Republican base – are not even a “fringe,” they’re simply not on the continuum of democratic thought.
Charles, just to circle back to one of my observations, it’s important to recognize the fact that “modrerate/centrism” can be it’s own kind of extremism. When common sense gets classified, marginalized, and effectively blocked for being too “extreme”, you’ve reached a point where status-quo extremism is masquerading as “moderation”. This is how basic and badly need common sense solutions are kept off the table for decades by “centrists” who are simply comfortable with status-quo, while tens of millions of suffer ongoing crises.
This is what the Forward Party is trying to do in several states. While I’m not in favor of their ranked choice voting ideals, they are, again, a consortium of disaffected moderate Republicans and Democrats who want to see our nation move forward. Here is their website: http://www.forwardparty.com. They are not active in Minnesota, yet.
For all the lengthy, snarky, hypocritical, finger pointing comments here….please consider this comment from Gandi….
The only devils in this world are those running around in my own heart……