Governor Pawlenty takes away renters' right to vote

In case we need another reminder of why we are involved in the Democratic Party, this news item from the March 10 Star Tribune should help. The Governor, with the help of Republican state Rep. Phil Krinkie, has actually proposed legislation that would replace city council authority regarding tax levy changes with a mail-in election in which only property owners can participate.

And it isn't even one vote per property owner. Rather, its one vote per parcel of property! The governor is proposing to replace our municipal elections with corporate proxy voting!

Who am I supporting for Mayor?

I've recieved a fair amount of response off-line to my last post, which was also emailed to the East Side DFL list. Most of it was very positive, but one question was persistant: Is this just a scheme to support Randy Kelly for Mayor?

The answer is no. I am uncommitted in the mayor's race at this time, and as a DFL party officer, my first priority is to build the party. My comments pertain to the need for an endorsement that means something rather than an endorsement that feels good to a few insiders. An uncommitted caucus of delegates would help give some clout to the endorsement process by making things tougher for the candidates. A large block of uncommitted delegates is what is needed for party building in this particular election, and that is why I support that effort.

I did actively support Mayor Kelly in his first campaign for mayor, and I do think that he has been a very good mayor. Ideologically, I am fairly close to the mayor on many issues, including making Saint Paul good for immigrants and for business, as well as opposition to abortion -- an issue which not relevent in a mayoral election.

I am also supportive of his approach toward politics -- what some have referred to as pompous, arrogant, or "being a jerk." If you notice, Mayor Kelly is never anything but gracious and conscientious when speaking with constituents one and one. He just gets mean when talking to other politicians or political players. That's the way is should be. Politics is not a love fest. It's conflict and negotiation -- it's a way to get things done for your constituents. Other players and politicians are there for their constituents and interests too. I don't want a mayor who will be nice to other politicians. I want a mayor who's effective at getting things for us whether nor not people like him at the Capitol or City Hall.

I first got to know Randy Kelly through my own activism in support of returning drivers' license privileges to undocumented immigrants, a campaign that I worked on as a leader with the ISAIAH organization of churches. At that time, it was easy to find support for that issue among the familiar group of left-leaning politicians of the progressive stripe. But we didn't want them to be our standard bearers because those folks sign up for every flaky, progressive-sounding issue that comes around, and they wouldn't carry any credibility with the people we needed to reach -- business and law enforement. For that, we wanted someone like Randy Kelly, who brought a lot of credibility to the issue because of the fact that he is a tough guy who lots of cops respect, and he does not sign up to support issues just because they sound progressive. One Randy Kelly on our side was worth a hundred Matt Entenzas because of the hard-nosed credibility that a person like Randy Kelly brings to table.

Where I differ, radically, from the mayor is his decision to campaign for President Bush in last year's election. Supporting President Bush as a Democratic elected official in such a sharply divided and high-profile election is a legitimate and important reason to question the mayor's capacity to lead city government in the next four years. Had the mayor not campaigned for the president this year, I would be supporting him now, and I believe we would have gotten him the DFL endorsement. But with his support of President Bush, I am now uncommitted in this race, as are many of his his former supporters. In future posts I will explore this further.

Feb 17 Letter to East Side DFLers

City Caucuses are coming up March 1, and it is the duty of each precinct chair, elected at the last SD 67 caucuses -- last March at Harding -- to convene each precinct caucus this year. I have provided a list of precinct chairs to Stu Alger, the new Chair of the Saint Paul DFL, and your ward 6 and 7 coordinators. One or all of them will contact you with info on how to run your caucus.

Also, for this month's SD 67 meeting, our state legislators, Sen. Mee Muoa, Rep. Tim Mahoney, and Sheldon Johnson will be holding a Town Hall Meeting. It will be 7-9pm, Tuesday Feb. 22 at the Minnesota Humanities Center, near the corner of Forest and Ivy, (behind the Phalen Rec Center). Hope to see all of you there.

Since so many of us were new to the DFL caucus system last year, I want to explain a little bit about caucus politics and the role of the Saint Paul DFL. The Saint Paul DFL is a committee of the MN DFL Party for the purpose of endorsing candidates in the non-partisan Saint Paul City and School Board Elections. In the last 15 years, its endorsements have proven critical to electing school board members. The record is a little less successful on electing City Council members, but still pretty good. However, for mayor's races, the Saint Paul DFL has been of no consequence at all. The endorsee has not won a Mayor's race in Saint Paul in years, even though Saint Paul has become an even more Democratic City over that period (over 70% voted for Kerry in the last election).

How is this possible? Easy. The mayoral endorsement has not been reflective of the city's rank and file Democrats for a long time. It has instead reflected the city’s DFL leadership, and that leadership has been more interested in a narrowly defined, progressive ideology than the rank and file voters evidently have been. City DFL leadership has been historically dominated by people from the neighborhoods surrounding Summit Avenue, while the city’s political leadership (elected officials like Mayor Kelly, Council Presidents Kathy Lantry and Dan Bostrom, Ramsey County Chair Jim McDonough) are all East Siders. Both Commissioner McDonough and Mayor Kelly ran and won without DFL endorsement in their first terms, even though they are both Democrats. That’s a problem for the DFL, because it means the Saint Paul City DFL does not have much political power, and a citizen can rightly ask why they should waste their time with it.

How can we make the mayoral endorsement relevant this time? If history is any guide, it will be tough, because the same ideologues are likely to show up and support someone who their neighbors won't vote for. Although many people are angry with Mayor Kelly for his support for the President Bush in the last election, that won’t be enough to translate into victory for a different, endorsed DFL candidate. Why? Because most of us have not taken the time to meet with our neighbors and ask them what they really think about what’s important in a mayor. Most of us have not invited new people to the city caucuses. If new people don't show up, then the endorsement will just reflect the unrepresentative opinions of those who have failed to elect an endorsed mayor for years. That's not leadership; it's soap-boxing, and it loses elections.

How can we change this? First, commit right now to going to the caucus on March 1 and becoming a delegate to the City Endorsing Convention on April 30, especially if you are NOT committed to any of the mayoral candidates. Second, get out and talk to your neighbors about who they want to see as mayor and what city issues are important to them. Ask them to come with you to the caucuses too. Third, remain uncommitted until you have had a chance to meet all of the mayoral candidates (whether they are seeking endorsement or not) and speak to them about what is important to your neighbors. (Remember, you are a leader and you represent your neighbors in this process, not just yourself.) If you can't decide by April 30, then a vote for no endorsement is a good option too.

A DFL that decides against endorsing anyone can be better than a DFL that always endorses a loser, because endorsing a loser does not give us, the citizens, any power, which is the only reason that we are involved in a political party in the first place.

I, myself, am uncommitted in the race, and I will be forming an uncommitted caucus of delegates. I hope to be able to have meetings with other undecided delegates and each of the mayoral candidates individually. If you would like to help out or be a part of this, send me an email at jkielkopf@jhu.edu or give me a call at 651 230-0167.

Remember, if you are on this email list, you've already signed up at one time to be a DFL leader. Leaders are people with followers, so get out and talk to your neighbors about what's important to them in a mayor and bring them and their ideas with you to the caucuses March 1. See you there!

What Democrats stand for

In an earlier post I explained why I was a Democrat. This is what I want the Democratic Party to stand for:

We are the party that builds upon the great liberal traditions of democratic governance, civil rights, non-violence, and economic opportunity for all. These foundations have allowed us to build a great nation, and we seek to expand and strengthen them.

Response to Victor Hanson's pro-war trumpeting

I often read National Review Online to see what conservatives are thinking about and to keep me angry enough to keep working to organize the DFL. I can put up with the pro-choice buttons and complaints about guns when I am reminded about how truly wrong and dangerous the other side really has become. Following is a response I made to a piece by Victor David Hanson, one of the most prominent apologists for the war in Iraq. I was responding to this piece on the importance of imposing democracy on the Middle East, by force if necessary.

Victor,

I am a loyal reader of your online material, mostly on NRO. Although I almost never agree with your conclusions or opinions, I very much enjoy the unique point of view that a classicist and historian brings to questions of politics and military affairs. Your Feb.11 piece in NRO, “Why Democracy?” prompts me to write.

First, here’s where I am coming from: I opposed the invasion of Iraq (but, like most on the Left, supported the invasion of Afghanistan) primarily because I do not want to sign up for the task of democratizing the Middle East by force. I oppose such a task not because it is difficult or that people might get hurt or killed. If it were a good idea, difficulty and sacrifice would not be reasons to object. I, and many other liberals and conservatives alike, opposed the war on Iraq because it was strategically and morally wrong – it was the wrong war at the wrong time using the wrong tools. In addition to committing our two-war army to a second war that was not necessary today, if ever, the policy of imposing democracy by force is so wrought with inconsistency that failure is a very likely outcome of the adventure.

I do agree with your article in one way: democracy is a better form of governance than authoritarianism. But this is primarily because of a moral compass that says, “Violence is bad, and freedom is good, and it’s hard to have freedom with organized violence around,” which comes down to us from a couple of millennia of evolving Judeo-Christian thought and traditions. Democracy is about engaging in politics -- which is to say in fighting, or warfare -- about things that are very important, but without employing violence.

Regimes of governance and the meaning of life are two things that that are, in fact, worth fighting and dying – and sometimes worth killing – for. But since killing is wrong, democracy is a morally superior framework in which to conduct those battles. Our Founders knew this when, after the Revolution, they determined to build a form of government that would allow people to replace their governors without having to take up arms again. They designed a democracy rather than a new monarchy largely because it allows people to change rulers and oppose rules without having to kill anyone, unlike what they had to do to the British. Violent force is reserved only for stopping others from using it against us.

Since I see the establishment of democracy in the Middle East as primarily a human rights issue – a political concern – and not an imminent one of life and death for our country, I could not support using violence to establish it.

Let’s do a reality check on your top 10 reasons to support democracy in the Middle East:

1) Democracies don’t fight other democracies? You rightly highlight some of the violations of that rule. There are others, and as democracies become more common the violations are likely to continue. For example, I was in Ecuador in 1995 when that democratic country was attacked by its neighbor to the south, equally democratic Peru, because of a territorial dispute. (Ecuador quickly won the short but deadly military portion of that conflict before its inept leadership ceded everything that Peru had attacked Ecuador to get.) Would a democratic Iraq behave any better? Why should it? It has long lasting differences and territorial disputes with Iran and Kuwait, and internal political pressures could easily send that country to war again.

2) Democracies usually arise through violence? Maybe, but maybe not. Most of the democracies in Latin America today arose through non-violent protests or political maneuvers between civilian political parties and military-civilian bureaucratic dictatorships. Most of the newly emerged democracies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union came about through non-violent political action. The actions themselves were made possible through the non-violent cold war strategy started by Truman and Eisenhower and brought to decisive head by President Reagan. The credible threat of military force was integral to that strategy, but that does not constitute violence. Not a shot was fired to bring the Soviet Empire down. Instead, the defeat of communism was textbook case of the use of non-violent (but sometimes necessarily ruthless and cold-headed) diplomacy and popular politics to defeat the world’s most dangerous threat. Why couldn’t similar strategies have been applied to the far less dangerous Hussein regime?

3) Democracies are more likely to be internally stable? I agree based on the experience of the industrialized world, but the jury is still out on the Third World experience. Somalia, for example, was once the showcase democracy in Africa, established by the British Army and the UN. And we’ve all seen where Zimbabwe’s gone. Ecuador has seen its elected government overthrown by street mobs two times in the last ten years, and is dangerously close to experiencing it again. Columbia was until recently one of the most prosperous Latin American nations, with a strong history of constitutional democracy and an equally strong and grotesque history of civil violence. It is now home to the FARC, the world’s largest and best-organized terrorist organization. Venezuela, its democratic neighbor to the east appears to be guilty of supporting the FARC and its mission to overthrown the democratic government in Columbia. Democratic Peru was home to what is still the world’s deadliest terrorist organization – the Sendero Luminoso of the 1980’s and 90’s. The list goes on.

4) Democracy is contagious? Agreed; but so is violence.

5) There is nothing incompatible with Islam and democracy. Agreed, although Turkey’s experience is instructive. It took a dictatorial superhero – Ataturk – to purge religious zeal from the military and government, and it’s probably helpful that the secular government must approve the education and sermons of each and every Imam.

6) Democracy brings moral clarity and cures deluded populaces of their false grievances and exaggerated hurt? Tell that to Hugo Chavez and, for that matter, most Latin American political parties of both Left and Right. Political speech in many democratic countries is collage of anti-American invectives against whatever advice the current US Ambassador has given. The US is blamed for debt and poverty, not countries’ own corrupt policies or elected officials.

7) We worry mainly about nukes in the hands of autocracies like China, Iran, or North Korea? I worry a lot about nukes in India, Pakistan, and Russia, or anywhere where they may be used in violent conflict or sold to/stolen by terrorists. Because a single failure would be so catastrophic, everyone should be very worried about nuclear proliferation of any kind.

8) The promotion of democracy abroad by democracy at home is internally consistent and empowers rather than embarrasses a sponsoring consensual society? Agreed.

9) By promoting democracies, Americans can at last come to a reckoning with the Cold War? It is true that many mistakes were made that are coming back to hurt us. As Zbigniew Brezinski says, it was worth it to win the cold war against Communism. We are making many more mistakes now, instead of correcting them, with the idea that we can use our armed forces for democratic nation building. They weren’t meant for that – the Peace Corps and USAID were.

10) Like it or not, a growing consensus has emerged that consumer capitalism and democracy are the only ways to organize society? Agreed. We disagree about the means and methods, not that promoting democracy and human rights should be part of our foreign policy. Converting authoritarian regimes to democracies, however, is an end of its own, and it’s not necessarily the top priority for national security, nor is it something that that we are able to accomplish through military force.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Why I'm a Democrat

As an ambitious Catholic white guy with a corporate salary job, someone could reasonably ask me, "Why are you still fumbling around in the DFL?" After all, the DFL is very good at placing minorities and women ahead of white guys with salary jobs. It’s in our bylaws and constitution. Also, I’m pro-life, and I like guns. I could probably go quite far as a Republican, so why am I still with that circus of flakes and dervishes that is otherwise known as the Democratic Party?

The reason became clear to me in the last election. On November 2, 2004, Baptist and Catholic churchgoers turned out in large enough numbers to vote against someone who refused to restrict abortion while voting for someone who is waging a preemptive war on Iraq, a country that, for all its obvious faults and injustices, apparently had neither the means nor intention of attacking us. Because of the way people responded to surveys after voting, news stories just after the election attributed the Kerry defeat to "moral values" voters – those for whom identification with unspecified moral values were more important than issues of war or the economy. Those stories made me think of the Pharisees of the New Testament – the ones who were quick to judge others by petty laws regarding personal morality and religious observance while missing the big picture about the salvation of mankind. On November 2, the Pharisees won, and the sinners lost. I guess I'd rather be with the sinners - that's why I’m a Democrat.

As usual, the post election analyses missed the real story behind the Bush victory. Many of us who had worked in streets and neighborhoods for months before this election saw warning signs much earlier. It was not really any specific value itself that people were voting on – not even gay marriage. Instead, it is an attitude that people rejected. They rejected the attitude of an urban, educated elite that pretends to know what’s best for working and country folk. And that truth really stings, because working and country folk are what the Democratic Party is really about.

I know a lot of the people who voted with the Pharisees that day, and most are not values voters. Instead they are hunters and beer drinkers and people who like to have fun and enjoy their privacy. There are not just a few swingers and pot smokers among them. What are their jobs? Mostly blue collar, they are a lot of small business owners and building and trades types. Why did they vote with values-centered Republicans? Because they liked the attitude – the swagger – and they didn’t like the good-behavior lectures that come out of Linden Hills and Mac-Groveland. Who does?

And that brings me to why I’m a Democrat: I’m not perfect. I get up late, and I procrastinate too much. I have a beautiful wife and wonderful kids whom I really love, but I fail a lot as both a husband and a father. Lots of times my heart just isn’t in it like it should be. I probably could have done better in school if I had worked harder at it. I probably could have a better job and be happier in my career, if I’d applied myself more at key times in my life. But for whatever reason I didn’t. I go to Church but not as often as I should, and I’m often bored out of my mind when I’m there (especially during Spanish-language Masses that go on for more than an hour). I usually get there a little late and have to sit in the back pews with the rest of the slackers.

I like people who aren’t the best at what they do -- people who have failed, usually through their own inadequacies and unhealthy choices. I like people who could have gone to Annapolis, but they smoked a joint in their junior year in high school, so now they are with a National Guard unit in Mosul. I identify with people who could have been investment bankers instead of managers in a bill collection outfit, but they didn’t want the pressure of getting good GMAT scores, so they went to the second tier state school instead. I have friends like the woman who could have married the perfect supporting spouse and gotten a nice big home in Woodbury and had successful executive career. But for whatever reason she had to fall for the bad boy with tattoos and got pregnant and finally had to leave the loser and start up again. That’s where many of us Americans are, and we need a government that represents us too.

The Democratic Party is not the good behavior party. We’re not the achiever party. We’re not elite anything. We’re the people party, and the American people are an uncouth, undisciplined, but goodhearted bunch. We don’t like others telling us how to behave, and we don’t care too much if someone offends us unintentionally – we do it too. We are decent and opinionated, and we know right from wrong, but God knows that we choose wrong once in a while too often. We're the party for imperfect sinners, and that's why I'm a Democrat.