Joe Bodell

A Contrarian View of the Legislative Session

Joe Bodell — Wed, 23 May 2007 09:24:10 -0500

I'm a Democrat. This means that I should be incensed right now at the results of the recently-concluded legislative session, right?

Not so much.

Don't get me wrong, I think the DFL caucuses got thrashed in the public relations war. While DFL leaders were and remain on the right and just and upstanding side of the issues, they crafted no coherent narrative of why their stands are the right way forward for Minnesota. There are issues at the leadership and communications levels that will need to be addressed if the DFL hopes for more success in 2008, both at the Capitol and at the ballot box.

But let's pull back and put this session in perspective. Raise your hand if you've ever heard the saying "representative democracy is a bad form of government — it's just better than anything else out there..." or something like it. It holds true at times like these. Governmental deadlock is annoying, for sure, and has short-term detrimental effects. But in the longer run, that deadlock and the checks-and-balances system that causes it are gifts to us from the Founding Fathers. Co-equal branches of government, especially those controlled by opposing parties, mean consensus must be reached for anything to get done. Deadlock, committee process, parliamentary procedure, and even arcane traditions like the U.S. Senate's filibuster mean that no one group can shove an agenda into law through sheer force of will and arm-twisting. And those factors leave us where we are today, with a state government that hasn't done much to help where they might have, but hasn't done much to hurt either.

Consider also where the Legislature was a few years ago. Gone are the days of the State Senate stonewalling on things like Michele Bachmann's anti-civil-rights constitutional amendement and voter suppression. Instead, the pressure is on the Republican minorities and Governor Pawlenty to support or defeat DFL priorities.

Lost in the bloviation and crowing from such conservative luminaries as my AATC Brain Trust colleagues, House Minority Leader Marty Seifert and David Strom of the Taxpayers' League, is what marginal DFL-sponsored tax increases would have paid for — a sound fiscal policy that would have fixed disintegrating roads, provided relief from property tax increases by bringing high-earning Minnesotans' tax rates in line with the middle and working classes, and pushed more funding into classrooms across the state.

Many of these initiatives were defeated. But there's still another legislative session coming next year, and the DFL will still control both chambers of the Legislature. I would much rather control the debate, the issues, and the agenda heading into an election than be forced, as former Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson was, to stonewall against a reactionary right-wing fusion of public policy and electoral strategy.

The public demands a progressive, people-powered public policy regime. It's only a matter of time — and a little improvement here and there in the DFL's PR machine. A frustrating session? To be sure. But worth being angry about? As Martin Luther King said and Senator Barack Obama echoed recently, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." Right now, that arc just needs a little bit more organized pressure from DFL leaders and their supporters.

I'm a Democrat. This means that I should be incensed right now at the results of the recently-concluded legislative session, right?

Not so much.

Progressive Organizations Need Some Work

Joe Bodell — Wed, 9 May 2007 09:27:16 -0500

Governor Pawlenty has now vetoed several pieces of legislation sent to him by the DFL-controlled Legislature, much to the dismay of organizations and groups that supported those bills. Press conferences and releases have decried the Governor's action, and rightfully so, given electoral reality in Minnesota.

But what reason did progressive organizations give Pawlenty not to veto those bills? They've held lobby days, and rallies at the Capitol, right? Those are effective, right?

Not so much.

Organizations like OutFront Minnesota, Education Minnesota, health care and immigrant rights advocacy groups, labor unions, and others are generally a part of the DFL coalition, even though they're technically non-partisan. But the old way of doing things — holding lobby days and media-visible rallies at the Capitol, keeping your contact lists safe even from friendly organizations because they're yours — doesn't work anymore. We need only look as far as the DREAM Act for an example. Governor Pawlenty had no reason to approve the measure, and the DFL had no reason to keep it in — there was no groundswell of grassroots support to keep the measure in.

Where were the online advertising blitzes? The volunteer signup drives through the blogs? The massive letter, email, and phone call campaigns coordinated through effective web applications? These things are not difficult, highly effective, and waiting for some enterprising progressive organization to use to their benefit. And yet, silence. Movement-building takes a back seat to single-issue advocacy, to the detriment of the majority of Minnesotans who agree with those organizations' goals.

This isn't an indictment of these organizations. Progressive groups are right on the issues; they simply need some work on how to advocate for themselves and our communities.

Taxes: All Good, All Bad, or Somewhere in Between?

Joe Bodell — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:50:55 -0500

Are taxes completely good, completely bad, or somewhere in between? If you listen to the radio ads and billboards being published around the state attacking DFL state legislators, you might think the first two were being espoused. Reality, however, is a bit different.

I personally had a tax-related crisis of conscience recently. Because I have multiple sources of income using different tax statuses, I met with a tax professional to help me sort things out. He showed me all the little nickel-and-dime deductions an individual like me can take to reduce the amount of tax I pay.

Given where I stood with the IRS and the Minnesota Department of Revenue, I was tempted. Really tempted. After all, who likes paying money if they don't have to? But I'm a Democrat, I believe in paying my fair share for services the entire community needs...

That's right. I'm a Democrat. I believe in paying my fair share for services the entire community needs.

So I took some reasonable deductions: rent paid, for example. A few regular business expenses. But I left out a few things too, including a pretty sizeable charitable donation, and I walked away feeling pretty good about writing two checks.

And then I thought about the only logical conclusion we can possibly come to if we continue with the logic of the Taxpayers' League and Governor Pawlenty's political-campaign-funded radio ads: "DFLers are bad, because taxes are bad. All government services are bad. There is no such thing as 'your fair share.' Poor people are just lazy, and there's no reason for the middle and upper classes to pay for services we don't use."

As much as my colleague in this space, David Strom, and his anti-tax band of merry men want the populace to believe it, DFLers aren't espousing the polar opposite of that brutal and reactionary mindset. Rather, the DFL majorities, put in place by a wide mandate, are correcting four (perhaps eight) years of poor fiscal policy, and putting Minnesota back on the track on which we should have stayed: a course on which everyone can pay their fair share for services that enrich the entire community, and on which we can all agree that while no one enjoys paying taxes, we are all better off for the contributions we make.

Smoking Ban Shenanigans

Joe Bodell — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:35:37 -0500

There are reasonable economic arguments to be made against a statewide smoking ban for public places — not necessarily correct arguments, but reasonable.

And then there's the argument State Sen. Tom Neuville (R-Northfield) tried to make in the Mankato Free Press — lo and behold, second-hand smoke isn't all that bad!

Apparently Sen. Neuville has been studying at the Dick Day School of Tobacco Politics:

One of the largest studies on the effects of second-hand smoke was conducted by James Enstrom and Geoff Kabat, and published in 2003. Their study, conducted from 1960 through 1998, found "no significant associations for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke." They concluded that, "the results did not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco and tobacco-related mortality. The association between exposure to second-hand smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

Unbelievably, the surgeon general did not even consider this large and recent study. Likewise, a study, published in 1998, and commissioned by the World Health Organization in Europe, made similar conclusions, but was not publicized when the results found no relationship between second-hand smoke and cancer or heart disease. Most studies on second-hand smoke find that the relative risk of second-hand smoke is less than the relative risk of taking birth control pills for women. Yet, no one is suggesting that we should declare birth control pills a health hazard.

Truthfully, second-hand smoke is an annoyance and a nuisance. Some people are allergic, and others who have asthma should avoid any kind of smoke. However, second-hand smoke is not a public health risk because people can avoid it.

Why did the Surgeon General not consider that study? Possibly because it was funded by a front for the tobacco companies, or perhaps because Enstrom has accepted funding from Philip Morris, a major cigarette manufacturer. The purpose of Enstrom's study, and the Center for Indoor Air Research? Why, the same purpose as the Discovery Institute's attempt to debunk the theory of Evolution: produce controversy where there was none, and turn generally-accepted fact into theoretical politically-biased mumbo-jumbo, making action on behalf of public safety impossible.

Again, there are economic arguments against a smoking ban — a temporary drop in business from fewer smokers going out to eat or drink can prove costly in the short run, especially to small establishments — but arguing that a statewide smoking ban isn't necessary because second-hand smoke isn't as dangerous as the entire legitimate medical community says? Good luck with that, Sen. Neuville.

Reality Sometimes Defies the Facts

Joe Bodell — Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:40:26 -0500

In a recent column, I discussed Governor Pawlenty's impending veto of a domestic partner benefit bill affecting state employees in same-sex relationships and its effect on Pawlenty's national aspirations. In response, Eric Ostermeier of the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute has imparted some very good, and very debatable, points. Let's have at it.

Ostermeier's argument stands on two principles: One, that Tim Pawlenty is actually in line with a near-majority of Minnesotans on this issue, so should not be worried about a loss of political capital over it; two, that my analysis of Pawlenty's addition to a McCain presidential ticket should not be seen as an effort to pull Minnesota into the red column in 2008, because such analysis has no empirical grounding.

[S]uch a veto would only be a hard-right political move if you buy into the premise that signing this bill is an act of centrism, and not 'hard-left.'

The truth is Minnesotans are nearly split in their attitudes toward this legislation — with support for such partnerships only just edging out opposition to it. A poll conducted by SurveyUSA last month found a bare majority (52%) supported allowing public agencies to grant health benefits to the "domestic partners of their employees." (Note: the polling question did not use the term "same-sex partners" to describe the bill's beneficiaries; had it done so it is likely the level of support would have dipped below the 50 percent mark).

With at least 40 odd percent of Minnesotans in opposition to the state providing these same-sex benefits, it is difficult to sustain the characterization of a bill veto as a "hard right" tactic or that it panders to the "radical conservative fringe" as Bodell writes.

As a somewhat-educated observer of governmental processes, I do buy into the premise that this bill's passage would be an act of centrism.

Unfortunately, a huge part of a poll's results are due to the way the question is asked. Would that theoretical 12% who support heterosexual but not homosexual domestic partner benefits respond the same way if the question were worded thusly: "Would you support domestic partnership benefits for opposite-sex couples who have lived together for a short time and are not married?" This is an extreme example and SurveyUSA is a solid polling outfit, but let's be honest — issue polls are designed to be spun.

Based solely on a measurable change in results from adding "same-sex" into the question, it's tempting to chalk the change up to right-leaning bias on issues of gay rights. This does not make that 12% a bunch of redneck bigots — I support gay rights, but my more liberal colleagues may be shocked to hear that I find some rationales for opposition to gay marriage quite compelling. However, I think it can safely be said that such a bias feeds the reactionary right wing's political agenda better than it does that of the left.

In this sense, Pawlenty's veto will, perhaps indirectly, feed a beast that doesn't need any more attention cast on its reactionary anti-civil-rights crusade. An act of centrism would be to sign the bill, and stand with DFL legislative leaders to declare that all Minnesotans are entitled to equal protection under the law as it is written. Such a statement, if worded properly, would satisfy both the boosters of this bill and those worried about what it means for the institution of marriage — after all, the law as it is written says nothing about gay marriage being allowed. Simply put, there's no slippery slope on which to lose our vaunted cultural balance, regardless of whether the Minnesota Family Council or other violently extremist organizations scream bloody murder about it.

The second issue Ostermeier raises is that of Pawlenty's national profile, specifically his role on John McCain's presidential campaign.

Bodell makes the mistake of suggesting a) the Governor's narrow electoral victories are indicative of his having low political currency statewide and b) that the Governor might be added to a John McCain presidential ticket in part to deliver the state in the General Election.

Bodell confuses Pawlenty's two plurality victories in 2002 and 2006 (44 and 47 percent respectively) with the popularity of the Governor among the electorate. The fact is a majority of Minnesotans have consistently approved of Pawlenty's job performance. In 17 of the last 19 monthly public opinion polls conducted by SurveyUSA dating back to September 2005, Pawlenty's approval rating has been at 50 percent or higher — frequently flirting with 60 percent (these ratings have been replicated in 2006 surveys by the Humphrey Institute and Minnesota Poll). Pawlenty's favorability ratings also outnumbered his unfavorable numbers in two MPR / Pioneer Press polls during Election 2006. The fact that third parties thrive in the Gopher state in gubernatorial elections — making it difficult for a winner to reach 50 percent of the vote — should not lead us to believe that Pawlenty himself is actually unpopular or his views out of touch with his constituency.

I have been known to make mistakes, but I don't think I'm wrong on this one. Job approval ratings are great — they give officials a good general idea of where they stand with their constituents. But they don't win elections. The only number, the only poll that really matters is that which occurs on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. And on election day, Tim Pawlenty has never once managed to unite a majority of Minnesotans around a vision of him as the best leader the state has to offer.

And yet, regardless of the empirical evidence refuting the claim of geographic strategy in Vice Presidential picks, such analyses still hold sway over conventional wisdom. In the summer of 2004, John Edwards rose to the top of the prognosticators' lists because a northerner like Tom Vilsack or Dick Durbin would have represented John Kerry ignoring the South. In 2000, some went so far as to assume Al Gore chose Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman to rally the Boca Raton vote in Florida (it almost worked, too). In 1996, New Yorker Jack Kemp was Kansan Bob Dole's running mate. Indiana native Dan Quayle served as George H.W. Bush's Vice President. Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen accompanied Massachusetts' Governor Michael Dukakis on the 1988 campaign trail. Whether it has a measurable effect on the outcome of an election is unclear; what is clear is that geographic balance still plays a role in VP picks.

So Mr. Ostermeier may be correct that a hypothetical McCain-Pawlenty ticket might not be chosen solely to push Minnesota (and the entire upper midwest) into the Republican column. But with the 2008 Republican National Convention coming to the Twin Cities, is it really safe to think such an analysis hasn't at least crossed the Republicans' minds?

Legislature, Governor at Impasse on Several Issues

Joe Bodell — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:45:06 -0500

But fear not, political watchers — all is not lost!

As the 2007 legislative session moves inexorably onward, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty and his DFL colleagues in the Legislature find themselves at loggerheads on an increase in the gas tax to fund transit projects as well as a bill to allow domestic partnership benefits for state employees in same-sex relationships.

Politically, Governor Pawlenty has no good reason to think twice about vetoing both bills — AFSCME and gay rights organizations have already tried to unseat him, and he has long claimed the mantle of anti-tax crusader. The question is, does Pawlenty have a rational, as opposed to political, reason to sign these bills?

For all the bloviation of the anti-tax-at-all-costs crowd, increasing the state gas tax by ten cents per gallon doesn't hurt Marty Seifert's friend Joe Sixpack too badly at the pump: On a purchase of 15 gallons, this means an extra $1.50 per purchase. When those 15 gallons already cost over $35, it simply isn't that big an increase. Given that the people most likely to be upset by a different frame — that of "increasing the gas tax by 50%" are on the fringe of the Republican Party's right wing, is it reasonable to ask Governor Pawlenty if his national aspirations dictate a move to the middle on this issue? Perhaps to bolster his credentials on transportation issues?

The same goes for domestic partner benefits. In neither of the Governor's two statewide victories did he get especially close to 50% of the vote. Whether he's on the GOP presidential ticket as John McCain's VP candidate or simply seeking to deliver Minnesota to the Arizona Senator's Win column, the Governor simply does not and will not have the pull with Minnesotan voters to deliver the state to any candidate as long as he espouses a hard-right stance on social issues.

Note that these issues don't even touch on the solid, common-sense reasons to support these initiatives on their merits. Is it really so much to ask that a Governor governs for all his constituents, and not just a radical conservative fringe?

Pawlenty the Globetrotter: Onward and Upward?

Joe Bodell — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:48:26 -0500

After Governor Pawlenty's recent photo-op trips to Iraq and Afghanistan, those of us back home in Minnesota are being forced to ask whether he intends to fulfill his commitment, made before the 2006 elections, to serve a full four-year term in St. Paul. Is he burnishing his national and foreign-policy credentials for a shot at Washington as John McCain's running mate?

It's not just a rhetorical question. Governor Pawlenty was one of the few Republican survivors in a national Democratic wave in 2006, leads what could charitably be called a "bluish-purple" state, and would provide geographic balance for the Arizona Senator's ticket. Given that Pawlenty himself has never attained a majority in statewide elections in Minnesota, it's doubtful whether his presence would actually put Minnesota into the "toss-up" category in 2008.

However, there are other practical reasons for McCain to choose him: McCain is old. He will be 72 years old in 2008. Part of choosing a Vice Presidential candidate is finding someone to serve as a political successor, and Pawlenty's relative youth and simplistic speaking style provide a fitting target.

But what about his responsibilities at home? The question is raised every time a sitting official runs for higher office: Should he or she resign from a current position in order to run full-time and make sure their constituents get the attention they deserves? Arizona should be asking this about their senior Senator, who just yesterday missed a vote on implementation of the 9/11 Commission's national security recommendations. Minnesota should be asking the same thing about its Governor.

I don't think it's too much to ask that the Governor keeps his constituents updated on his political plans in a timely fashion. Anything less would be somewhat impractical and more than somewhat disingenuous.

After all, did anyone vote for Governor Molnau in 2006?

An Asymmetry of Outrage

Joe Bodell — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:21:41 -0600

It's not just a cottage industry anymore — being outraged at something, all the time, has become a way of life for many of us political junkies and professionals.

The logic behind it isn't that hard to discern — if you can get a group of people angry at something those people are doing, it will be far easier to get them to write a check, make some phone calls, or knock on some doors for you and your side. But as I discovered in a recent interview with Nate Garvis of the Citizens' League, this "outrage industry" in and around politics is ultimately a destructive one — it will get some people involved for a while, but ultimately it's only going to turn massive numbers of people off to the political process.

Some may think that's a good thing; I disagree.

I also disagree that it's one side that engages in this encouragement of outrage. The DFL and Republican parties both express incredulity on a regular basis as they demand that the other side submits to their political will. Which, of course, will never happen, and the cycle continues.

In 2007, however, there's an important difference between the things over which the two parties are expressing their eternal outrage. While the Republican legislative leadership in Minnesota waxes rhetoric about not being allowed input on DFL-sponsored bills, the DFL is complaining — rightfully so, I think — about the GOP obstructing an agenda that was pretty clearly endorsed by the electorate last year.

In Congress, Republicans have built years of experience expressing outrage on a litany of topics, including the same "Democrats won't let us have input" whine. On the other hand, Democrats have been outraged at President Bush's conduct of a war, predicated on a lie, that has cost us thousands of American lives and billions upon billions of dollars.

And even in the blogosphere, partisans get outraged with one another — shocking, isn't it? Left-leaning bloggers are outraged at the maneuvers Republican lawmakers engage in to thwart the Democratic majorities, and at President Bush for any number of bungles, screw-ups, mishaps, or demonstrations of gross incompetance. On the other side, righty bloggers rev up their spin machine over minor legislation, Congressional websites not being set up immediately, a popularly-elected Secretary of State's every word, and are aghast that left-leaning bloggers might use a naughty word from time to time. And are fat.

I would demonstrate that I am indeed not joking about these things, but for the fact that I am loathe to link to these travesties. I'm not going to say I'm not a little outraged — that is, after all, part of what we in the political game today do. I can honestly say I'm doing my best to take things in stride and save true outrage for when it's deserved. But it does seem like there's an asymmetry today in the things that cause us outrage, doesn't it? One side worried about a waste of lives and American prestige, the other worried about freedom to poop and fat potty-mouthed liberals.

Interesting.

It's not just a cottage industry anymore — being outraged at something, all the time, has become a way of life for many of us political junkies and professionals.

It's Not Difficult: Frame the Issue!

Joe Bodell — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:53:39 -0600

By now, many Democrats and some Republicans have read George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant, in which he outlines the concept of framing — that is, defining the terms of an issue or debate in a way that, no matter what is actually said, listeners are struck at a subconscious level with the power of your position (more or less). Lakoff goes into great detail in explaining how strong framing helped the Republican Party return to Congressional power in the 1990s and thwart Democrats repeatedly until a perfect storm of political hubris, ineptitude, and a revitalized Democratic Party in 2006.

In recent days, Democrats at the national level have successfully reframed arguments, to the point where Republican Congressional leaders are worrying out loud to their colleagues about getting caught in the Democratic frame on President Bush's plan for escalation in Iraq.

At the local level, we still have some work to do. Recently on this site, House Majority Leader Tony Sertich wrote:

So far, we've passed $24 million in tax relief to middle income families, teachers, and military veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq. We have also taken a leadership role in a Great Lakes Compact with our neighboring states, provinces and federal government. With passage of these bills, we had necessary public input about core Minnesota values.

Talking about core Minnesota values and associating those values with the DFL platform: good. Using the term "tax relief": bad. This is a Republican-framed term, and a very carefully assembled one. If taxes are a bane to life, liberty, and happiness, and are thus something from which the people need "relief," it will prove very difficult indeed to sustain the DFL platform which is doing so well in the Legislature. Playing into your opponent's frame will never end well.

Instead, why not talk about "strategic investments in the future"? "Make the tax structure (not burden, mind you) more fair for all Minnesotans"? These frames connect easily to the DFL platform of fair play, economic opportunity, fiscal common sense, and not leaving debt and other problems for future generations to solve. "Tax relief," "tax burden" ... these are the Republican and wrong way to think about tax issues. Taxes are not evil — they're an investment in our community, our state, our roads, our schools, and ultimately, in the future of our families. THAT's a winning frame.

DFL Majorities: Liberal, Conservative, or Other?

Joe Bodell — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:19:54 -0600

In the 2006 elections, DFLers extended their majority in the State Senate, and took back the majority in the House by a decisive margin. After similar successes in 2004, there are now literally dozens of freshman or second-term DFLers in the Legislature. The dramatic changes beg a question: are the new DFLers liberal, conservative, moderate, or something else altogether?

In comparing the post-2002 and post-2006 legislative maps, a theme emerges: the gains made by DFL candidates have not been concentrated in any one region of the state; rather, they have been spread evenly among the northern and southern suburbs, the West Metro, and southern Minnesota. These areas represent a vast swath of not just Minnesotan society, but American society as a whole, in various socio-economic measures. How then is it possible that a party has built a message and platform that appeals to such disparate communities?

The answer lies not in the political beliefs of DFL candidates, but in the execution of their campaigns. Certainly the DFL has plenty of liberal leaders, some moderates, and even a few conservatives. Certainly they share some political ideals — economic opportunity, fair wages and labor standards, freedom from government intrusion in our personal lives. But the strongest parallel between the vast majority of new DFL legislators is a people-powered approach to campaigning: making personal connections with constituents, pounding the pavement, shaking hands, knocking on doors, getting the candidate's face not just into the community but into the homes of voters and their families to talk with voters, not just at voters.

So what does this mean for the Legislature? It may mean a little less party loyalty. It may mean more intrigue as far as bills and amendments and political maneuvering are concerned. But if the DFL's 30-plus new-ish State Representatives acquit themselves intelligently, fairly, and always on behalf of the people who sent them to St. Paul, I think we can count on a solid DFL majority in both houses for quite a long time. What outside observers think of their liberalness, conservativeness, or whateverness simply won't matter.