Letters

Arne’s Surgical Response

Your recent article titled “How the DFL Got Its Groove Back” was interesting as far as it goes. First of all, most of the commentators are individuals who never ran nor were elected to public office. Would you do an article on surgery without bothering to get the proper level of input from individuals who actually have surgical experience?

Second, all too many of these political “commentators” are, in reality, lobbyists employed to advance a viewpoint. Worse, that relationship is not being disclosed to the reader.

Third, these “commentators” are given wide latitude so that opinions can simply be presented as facts under a guise of detached intelligence. I remember some decades ago a “political commentator” was permitted to give a particularly harsh television review of Mayor George Latimer, who was contemplating a run against the incumbent governor, Rudy Perpich. Since both were highly visible Democrats, audience interest was high. Unfortunately, what was not disclosed to the public was this “commentator’s” financial ties to the Perpich campaign.

If Law & Politics wants to do a story on the rise and fall of the GOP or DFL, why not do some in-depth interviews with the players who were participants? That is history at its best and would be fascinating, as well as a genuine contribution to history.

For the record, Sarah Janecek’s observation that somehow I failed to exert sufficient energy to elect Republican legislators is just another example of political opinion presented as hallowed wisdom. The reality is that during my time as governor, Republicans gained 19 legislative seats. During Gov. Pawlenty’s terms, Republicans lost 37 legislative seats. So much for her historical accuracy.

The point that Janecek further misses is that our administration and campaigns reflected a more traditional Republican approach based on the Eisenhower national “Big Tent” philosophy, which included a commitment to prudency in governmental finance, allied partnerships in foreign policy, and a deep respect for individual rights over the encroachment of government. More than anything else, there was a healthy respect for dissent and for forging coalitions with Democrats.

Today’s Republican Party has moved from the center to the right and imposes an increasing number of ideological tests that are unacceptable to the traditional Republican middle. To make matters worse, this zealous commitment to the “social agenda” has loosened traditional Republican adherence to prudency in the handling of the public’s money. The ultimate result is that historic traditional conservatives such as Barry Goldwater and Robert Taft would not be welcome in today’s Republican Party and more mainstream Minnesota governors starting with Harold Stassen, Luther Youngdahl and on would be treated as outcasts.

Briefly stated, the dominant right has abandoned traditional Republicanism, which was a successful model both in terms of governance and winning elections in favor of a more rigid ideological approach that sees politics as war with a clearly defined enemy and overtones that suggest a relationship between dissent and a lack of patriotism.

It may sound corny, but democracy is not about the rights of the majority but rather about the celebration of dissent. We cannot have respect for our political parties and governing institutions until we truly appreciate the role of dissent and elect people to public office who are respectful of others, welcome the full participation of all Americans including our new immigrants, and have the ability to build coalitions that will produce policies that reflect the long-term best interests of all the people.

Just some random thoughts.

Arne H. Carlson, Governor of Minnesota 1991-1999

 

What’s Wrong With Free and Open Judicial Elections?

Must we assume that judicial selections made by politicians (governors) and ratified by their handpicked, blue-ribbon committees will necessarily be superior in quality and integrity, to eligible, unanointed judicial candidates running in free and open elections?

“It ain’t necessarily so.” Moreover, the price the public pays for this drastic departure from longstanding judicial elections (since 1858) is not worth the freedom lost.

Speculative alarms are raised by proponents of these draconian measures. It is plausible that their real purpose may be to insulate incumbent judges and the anointed (in the event of vacancies) from inconvenient and meddlesome public participation in open elections.

In any event, the proposed judicial constitutional amendments are not in the public interest.

Daniel B. Gallagher, St. Paul

 

Add This to Your List of Looming Crises

Many thanks to Ms. Hornbacher for the article “Irrational Behavior.” She raises many points that the National Alliance on Mental Illness has raised for decades. Changing M’Naghten is just one of the many actions we need to take to decriminalize mental illness. We also need interventions at every point along the way, beginning with having mental health crisis teams respond instead of police, requiring police to receive Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training, providing for mental health assessments in jails and conducting discharge planning when people leave so that they are connected to mental health treatment, housing and employment. What she failed to mention is that we have a looming crisis on our hands—the loss of funding for the General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) program.

Sue Abderholden, Executive Director, NAMI Minnesota

 

What Is as Ubiquitous as the Common Cold?

Wow—funny issue. It was a little disconcerting to discover that other than the perennial and quotable turkey Joe Biden, only Republicans say stupid things. Who knew?

And imagine the hypocrisy of those who called for Bill Clinton’s impeachment for lying under oath (don’t they have a word for that?) while having affairs! Why did I think perjury by the president of the United States deserved a tad more inspection than whether members of Congress are having affairs. One I care about. The other is as ubiquitous as the common cold.

One would think Minnesota Law & Politics would know the difference as well.

Meg Turner

Editor’s note: Our reader failed to notice that besides Joe Biden, the Democrats pilloried in this year’s Turkeys included Eliot Spitzer, Arlen Specter, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, R.T. Rybak, Tom Daschle and more.

 

Do female lawyers deserve to be singled out?

I’m not a misogynist. I love women. I have a wonderful, beautiful 24-year-old daughter who I always taught to reach for her highest dreams and never allow anyone to dissuade her from doing anything that she wanted—sports, politics or traditionally male-dominated activities. The days of excluding women from them, thankfully, are over. However, it is disturbing that a professional journal about “law” and “politics” publishes a list of the top 100 women Super Lawyers. It’s not a women’s magazine. When are you going to publish the list of the top 100 men Super Lawyers? And the top 100 Jewish, black and gay Super Lawyers?

Michael L. Perlman, Perlman Law Office

 

CLARIFICATION

We’d like to clarify our reporting of the “Twinkie defense.” The Edina-based Hammargren & Meyer, P.A., represented the successful purchaser in an arbitration, after which the arbitration panel ordered the sellers to repurchase the home. The Twinkie defense was raised by the losing party in an appeal of the arbitration award. The district court refused to “bite” on the “Twinkie” and confirmed the arbitrators’ ruling in favor of Hammargren & Meyer’s client, the homeowner.  L&P