Almanac: At the Capitol

Saturday is supposed to be one of those cherished spring days that's warm and sunny. Lawmakers and the reporters who cover them will be stuck inside the Capitol. At least legislators get to live above ground and occasionally see sunlight. Reporters' already weary eyes are growing larger as we begin the spend weekends in the dark Capitol basement. It's not that we don't like to work hard, we expect to work many weekends throughout the session. Those weekends just don't usually come in March. We are off to an unusually fast start, these weekend marathon sessions usually happen in May, not March. Leaders say all the planned Saturday sessions are better than in June or July in special sessions. And lawmakers know something about wasting their summers away in special session, they don't want to do that again, neither do voters. So we'll see in about a month if this new approach seems to be working.

The Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern (DM&E) railroad expansion and loan issue has been brought up in these pages time and time again. Many Minnesota Monitor readers may say, "Who cares about some railroad that runs mainly in South Dakota, southern Minnesota and northern Iowa, if you include its subsidiary, the Iowa, Chicago & Eastern railroad? How does it affect me?"

First of all, railroads are very important to this country in shipping large quantities of goods and materials great distances. For such hauling they are far more efficient that trucks. Railroads helped this country grow, and today they are an indispensable part of this country's economic engine.

The DM&E plays not just an important, but a vital, role in shipping agricultural-based products through the region it serves. Without it and other railroads in this area, commodity prices would soar, and with them the prices of many agricultural products we use, particularly those based on corn and soybeans. These include not just food but oils, livestock feed and plastics, among many others.

In supporting railroads or any other transportation system — highways, air travel, maritime shipping — the question becomes: How much should government be involved? And if government becomes involved, should it do so at a cost to such other competing interests as cities, counties, states, other businesses, the environment, cultural and religious groups like Native Americans and churches and, finally, just plain folks?

These are questions that lawmakers in Washington and state legislatures have to face every day. Such questions also arise at the county, city and, in Minnesota, township level.

"I want to expand my hog operation," a farmer says. "I just built a home two miles away," says another member of the community. How does government weigh these competing interests?

An Analogy

When health care professionals enter their fields, they are charged with numerous responsibilities. But ultimately, all the complexities of their jobs are boiled down to one simple phrase: the Hippocratic oath. For well more than 2,000 years, it has been a common denominator of the medical profession.

It is "First, do no harm."

Think about it. What if we applied this same very simple phrase to the workings of government? What would the consequences be?

For one thing, we'd not have a war in Iraq. For another, income taxes would be simpler. (Oh, how appropriate at this time of year!) For a third, the environment would be better safeguarded. For a fourth, all our children would have preventive health care. For a fifth, government would not take a position of picking winners and losers.

And that brings us back to the DM&E.

I have been critical of the railroad in these pages. It is not because I don't like the DM&E or see its benefit. It is because it has tried to use government's laws, for better or for worse, to improve its position at the expense of others.

If the railroad were a physician answerable to the Hippocratic oath, its request for special considerations to expand would fail miserably.

This is why that it is perhaps poetic justice that one of its chief opponents — perhaps the chief opponent — was the world famous Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. The Mayo Clinic saw that the government's approval of the DM&E's plan to ship coal through Rochester would do harm to its patients and operations.

First, do no harm

Inevitably, when government makes policy, it must often decide between the interests of one side and another. There, it crosses the line of "First, do no harm." The question then becomes "Do the results far outweigh the costs?"

Doctors and society have decided that cutting open someone to remove an inflamed appendix, for example, is a case where benefits (survival) far outweigh the costs (the incision). With cancer patients, the question can be much more difficult. Is the harm caused by an experimental chemotherapy procedure worth the possibility of a cure?

When government takes sides, the questions may be posed in simple terms for the electorate, but the answers and options are far from it. As much as we would like, we cannot quantify the "First, do no harm" rule. There is no such thing as 100 percent compliance. But what is appropriate? 90 percent? 75 percent? 51 percent?

We are a nation of laws based upon a constitution. When there is disagreement we rely upon a system of courts to decide right and wrong. Ultimately, we — and the courts — have found that this country must rely on concepts far older and more fundamental than that constitution.

One is "First, do no harm."

One of my heroes, John Milton (the poet and titan of English literature — not the former State Senator) loved a good fight. Not the kind of "fight" that now gets canned into 3-D, high graffic, testosterone fests for bored teenagers with high-speed internet access. No, real — and passionate — fights over ideas at a time in history when sticking your neck out could literally get your head lopped off.

"I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue," he wrote, "unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and seeks her adversary, but slinks out of the race where that immortal garland (the truth) is to be run for, not without dust and heat."

If you really believe something to be true, Milton showed by example, as well as word, you owe it to that truth to "put it out there" and defend it against all comers. Only by way of this kind of trial, he believed, could real truth ever be discovered.

Milton would certainly have shared my contempt for the current spinelessness being shown by DFLers in Minnesota on the question of taxes.

My DFL friends would have me believe that theirs is the compassionate party, the party that knows how to use government not only to give us the services we need and want, but to help up those who cannot help themselves. They've been complaining — quietly and ineffectively — for years that we Republicans have choked off the good that government should be doing by leaving so much tax money in the hands of the citizens. DFLers have timidly suggested that we have hurt ourselves in Minnesota by not taxing ourselves more.

This is an odd, but interesting, idea that is not being robustly advocated or defended. Just where is the DFL leadership who, you would think, would be "out there" passionately advancing the argument for why we need significant tax and spending increases?
As far as anyone can tell, they're sitting in offices blowing up more trial balloons to test public sentiment before they can figure out whether they're supposed to be believing anything.

What they need to be doing is passionately making their case. You don't do that by coming to the table with spending bills lower than the Governor's. Tim Pawlenty may appreciate being made to look like a moderate a year before he's a possible VP candidate, but you've lost the argument before it's begun by suggesting such a budget is even possible for a Democrat.

If John Milton were a consultant for my DFL friends today, I think the advice he would give is this: If you really believe a $5 billion dollar tax increase is what you need, don't hesitate. Demand it, do it and defend it. With passion.

Or, expect that Republicans and the voting public won't believe you're interested in anything other than the perks of getting reelected. And the truth? We all know that still belongs to the Republicans.

In a speech a few weeks ago to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Ann Coulter jokingly referred to presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot." Her reckless and mean-spirited comment was rightfully condemned by both Republicans and Democrats. Numerous individuals have contacted the organizers of CPAC to request that Coulter not be invited to speak at next year's conference.

Now imagine the outrage if a candidate for statewide office in Minnesota had made similarly hateful comments. The thought of Coulter being a political candidate for any office sends shivers up my partisan back.

But a Coulteresque political candidate with a similar history of mean-spirited and divisive attacks is running for office right here in Minnesota. That candidate is Al Franken.

Aside from frequent appearances on TV, both Franken and Coulter have written numerous books on politics and current affairs. In fact, in December 2003, TIME magazine wrote that Franken and Coulter were part of the "American anger industry":

I'm afraid scientists have not invented a machine capable of desensitizing Mr. Franken. Nor Bill O'Reilly, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Molly Ivins, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the authors and TV and radio hosts divided by beliefs but united by a common employer: the burgeoning American anger industry.

But while Coulter's use of a homosexual slur to describe John Edwards is universally condemned by the right and the left, Franken's use of equally offensive language has yet to be condemned or even challenged by the vast majority of left-leaning bloggers and liberal activists in Minnesota.

In an interview with the Harvard Crimson 1976, Franken joked about the murder of a gay man who had been a part of Harvard's theatrical group, The Hasty Pudding. Franken told the Crimson: "I just don't like homosexuals … I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia." In an interview in October 2006, Franken called U.S. Senator Norm Coleman a "butt boy," a term some view as a slur for a homosexual. When Franken was a writer for "Saturday Night Live," he co-wrote a skit about the murder of a gay woman that according to the book "Saturday Night: A Backstage History of Saturday Night Live," "provoked dozens of outraged letters from gay groups and others who wanted to know what was so funny about killing homosexuals."

A small number of Franken's allies have scrambled to his defense by claiming that most of the statements Republicans have highlighted were jokes and that Franken is a satirist. The problem with the "It Was A Joke Defense" is that Franken and his allies will need to explain the humor in the brutal murder of a gay man or woman. Franken will also have to explain what is funny about Anne Frank hiding from the Nazis in a cramped attic with her family.

I'm confident that Democrats would hold Coulter accountable for her hateful comments and jokes if she ever decided to run for office. It would be fair if they did. Likewise, a Coulteresque candidate like Franken should be held accountable for his past hateful comments and jokes.

Minnesotans have a sense of humor, but I think most voters won't find Franken's Coulteresque jokes funny at all.

Wholesale Buyer's Remorse for MN DFL House Officeholders Doubtful

My Monday entry for the Brain Trust (Republicans Unlikely to Take Back House in '08) prompted a quick reply by the GOP leadership. House Minority Leader Marty Seifert offered a thoughtful rejoinder (Democrats Unlikely to Retain House in '08) to my historical analysis demonstrating the rarity of turnover in party control in consecutive elections for the Minnesota House.

Seifert offered several arguments indicating why 2008 will be different — that the DFL will be in big trouble — including echoing the point I made in my piece that the DFL had won several close elections in 2006 and, therefore, will likely lose some of these seats back in 2008. To refresh, I wrote:

 

This is not to suggest the DFL won't lose seats in 2008; in fact, it is at a much greater risk to do just that. In 2006 the DFL picked up 13 seats by 5 points or less and an additional 6 seats by between 5 and 10 points. As a result, the DFL will have to defend 28 competitive districts: 19 pickups plus 9 held seats. The Republicans will only have to defend 18 competitive districts in 2008 — all seats held by the party in 2006.

The Minority Leader also stated Republicans will have stronger candidates at the top of the ticket (e.g. Norm Coleman) in 2008 than in 2006, benefiting the GOP state House candidates. I certainly do not disagree that Senator Coleman is a strong candidate. In fact, in my February 16th Brain Trust entry (Speaking Frankly: Al is No Jesse and 2008 Isn't 1998) I acknowledged the difficulties Mr. Franken will face in his Senate campaign.

However, citing early poll numbers (as the Minority Leader does) for the primary evidence of Franken's likely demise is a dangerous route to take. Perhaps Rep. Seifert has forgotten that in 2000 incumbent Republican Senator Rod Grams held a 17-point lead over Mark Dayton in a July 2000 Pioneer Press / MPR poll — just 4 months before the election. We are currently 19 months out now from the hypothetical Coleman-Franken matchup.

The Minority Leader is also a bit quick on the draw in discounting the relevance historical trends might have on projecting the 2008 election. He writes:

Giving statistics about House races from 1962 might show interesting historical facts, but the reality is that the 21st century in Minnesota shows a lot of independents and soft voters who gravitate back and forth.

While no one can predict the future with certainty, we can certainly study and learn from the past to establish baseline patterns in voting behavior. To further bolster my point that voters tend to stick with a new majority party for more than one legislative session, and that voting patterns over the past 50 years for the Minnesota House are not an anomaly, consider the following trends of voting behavior in the Upper Midwestern region.

• In the Wisconsin Assembly and Iowa House, turnover in party control in consecutive elections has happened just one time in each state since 1960: from Democrat (1964) back to Republican (1966) control in both cases.
  
  
• In the Iowa Senate, Minnesota Senate, and Wisconsin Senate such turnover in back-to-back elections has not happened once since at least 1960.

In other words, modern Upper Midwestern electoral history tells us the kind of "buyer's remorse" that would be required in the Minnesota electorate to prompt an immediate flip-flop back to the GOP in 2008 is a rarity: about once per 50 years for the House and even more rare for the Senate. The challenge for the GOP in 2008 is that, to take back control and win back a net 18 seats, they need to hope Minnesotans experience wholesale buyer's remorse for all the new DFL House officeholders they voted into office in purple, bluish-purple, and reddish-purple districts.