Spending the past few days recovering from debate camp, dealing with the vagaries of international travel, and participating in the annual family gathering with Mrs. Plainsman's family didn't provide an opportunity to keep up with normal blog reading or write a post.
The reading I did provided two narratives about the practices of those who govern South Dakota. The first, if I may be allowed some poetic license, reads as follows:
In the beginning was the Janklow and he came and went as it pleased him and only him. And we said that it was good. Then came Rounds who begat Daugaard. It matters not who Daugaard will beget because the Dusty and the Marty are of the same cloth, the Gant having been shown to be unworthy.
The other narrative is a little less optimistic. South Dakota lacks transparency. It has ceased to be a government of, by, and for the citizens. Rather it is a government that exists to serve those who govern.
Given that non-Republicans outnumber Republicans and the Republicans right flank is dissatisfied, it should be possible to change a few of the players and create a new narrative. There is, however, one major problem: the political left and the disaffected right do not seem to speak the same language.
I think this is what those on the political right hear whenever liberals speak.
On the other hand, progressives hear this every time conservatives open their mouths.
Until those dissatisfied with the status quo learn to hear what is actually said instead of what they believe is being said, the South Dakota mainstream Republican narrative will likely always end with the following sentence:
And yea verily, it shall be this way forever and ever and it shall always be good for us and those like us. Amen.