Norm Coleman’s advice to GOP: Be more than anti-government

Norm Coleman is stepping up his presence in the Twin Cities. Starting next month, the former U.S. senator and chairman of the Minnesota Action Network, a think tank that advocates for conservative causes, will have an office at the new Minneapolis branch of Hogan Lovells, the law firm he joined in 2011.

Coleman will also take part in the Minnesota Action Network’s grassroots activities in the state, leading up to the 2014 elections. But, in an interview, Coleman, a Republican, made it clear that more visibility is not part of another run for office. Here are edited excerpts from that interview:

MinnPost: Why did you say now you’re not running in 2014?

Norm Coleman: I wanted it to be very clear that the work I’m doing at the Action Network is not for my own political ambitions. I think if you care about center right positions, we have to be out there now, to improve the terrible position the center right is in in the state. We have to be doing grassroots. I didn’t want there to be any question; this is not about personal ambition.

MP: Minnesota Action Network did a poll last month of 1,660 Minnesotans. What were the findings?

NC: It showed that Minnesotans supported limited government but they are not anti-government. People define themselves as economically conservative and socially liberal. They do believe government has gotten too fat, wasteful and inefficient. The quality that most cite as admirable is the ability to compromise and get things done. So, it is not enough for Republicans to be anti-government. 

The top quality that people associate with Republicans is that they are negative about everything, not being in touch with voters. Now, I find that particularly troubling — when Minnesotans define themselves as center right, but what Republicans are talking about is not resonating with them.

That’s the bad news. Ultimately the center right has to do a better job at connecting with Minnesotans.

MP: What can Minnesota Republicans do besides criticize Gov. Mark Dayton’s budget?

NC: One opportunity is the health care exchange. Minnesotans are not looking for bigger government. You’ve got the exchange, but the Democrats are making sure the private side is cut out.

Republicans have tried to amend this to bring in more private-sector perspective.  What you’ve got to say is, “Use the power of the private sector, the power of the market.”  

Health care costs are going to go through the roof. Republicans have a great opportunity here. They are not in the position to have a platform, so it’s challenging, but the bottom line: They’ve got to be articulating “here is what we believe. Here is the way we should be doing it.”

Also, the biggest issue is jobs. Last year so much of the debate got caught up on the referendums. Leaders should be talking about jobs. One of the reasons I’m not running for governor is because I really worry about the impact on this state if the governor and the Legislature go ahead with the plan on raising taxes. We will see businesses making decisions about where they are not going to grow.

The reality is you don’t grow jobs by higher taxes and more government. Minnesotans understand we have a spending problem. Taxes on the top couple percent are politically popular…. Balance, that’s what people are looking for — cutting spending and increasing revenues.

It goes to what we are seeing at the federal level. The president got the taxes, but instead of seeing any effort to cut spending, rein in some of the entitlements, he keeps talking about more revenue. When the president talks about balance, he’s not talking about spending cuts and tax increases. Folks are looking for balance. I look at the national level, and in many ways I worry that we are replaying it at the state level.

MP: You believe President Obama misjudged the politics of sequestration. Why?

NC: First, credibility in this business is really critical. If you’re out there saying the sky is going to fall and it doesn’t, you have a credibility problem. And if you do petty things, like closing the White House. I think [Obama] oversold the impact. He hurt himself in that regard. People still blame Republicans more than the president, but he overplayed the impact and exacerbated it by his own pettiness.

There is a better way to do cuts than 2.5 percent across the board. Sequestration is not a good thing, but we reached a point and it became easy for Republicans to say: If you’re not going to make [the cuts], we will. The only way it’s going to be resolved is if people work together.

MP: If Obama oversold on sequestration, did the GOP gain anything?

NC: I don’t know if there’s a winner here. It’s a question of who’s the biggest loser. One thing has been gained: It’s caused a refocus on spending and debt, a refocus on issues that Republicans talk about. Americans understand there’s a spending problem. It’s given strength to that message. There is some benefit with the focus on spending, debt and deficits.

MP: What can Republicans do in Washington to move the ball?

NC: Are people serious about the grand bargain? I think we are going to get there. This stalemate will not hold forever. We are in position to discuss the changes with Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. I think we are in a better position to make some progress there. The grand bargain may include some revenue, but will include a heavy, heavy dose of spending cuts. 

MP: When do you see the grand bargain happening?

NC: Maybe I’m too much of an optimist. I’m talking months. I think in the short term rather than longer term. But Republicans are not going to yield on spending cuts and  Democrats are not going to address Social Security without some pressure.

I know some folks in the Senate who are having private conversations about solutions: clear and specific cuts in spending; adjusting to entitlements; clarity on what we do on revenue. We’ve got to get beyond the political talking points.

MP: What do you think of Sen. Rob Portman’s statement of support for gay marriage?

NC: He’s a great man, great intellect, I respect his decision, and I just have a different opinion. I have a different opinion on this issue than his. He’s had different life experiences that have led him to a different conclusion.  

If you look at young people on this issue, they see themselves as socially liberal. There’s clearly a huge gap here. [But], I think the Democrats are falling in the same trap the Republicans did. Democrats are going to spend all this time focusing on gay marriage.

I don’t think there’s a crashing tide on this issue. Certainly young people are more socially liberal, but where that goes, I can’t tell. 

People can have different opinions, but still be respectful. I think what people are looking for is a more reasonable debate and less vitriol. Portman is a friend. On this issue I disagree with him, but he’s still a friend.

MP: Do you have a preference for chair of the Minnesota Republican Party?

NC: I know Keith Downey. I supported him. I think he’d make an excellent party chair.