A Minor Musing About South Dakota's Brain Drain

A few weeks back, the Constant Commoner posted about a United States Congress's Joint Economic Committee  study on the "brain drains" in the United States. South Dakota, contrary to popular belief, is not 49th in everything. In 2017, the state had the second highest gross and third highest net departure of highly educated or highly skilled residents.

The problem starts at the top. Former Governor Daugaard routinely mocked those pursuing degrees in philosophy. In her 2012 congressional race, Governor Noem implied winning "the South Dakota Young Leader Award from the South Dakota Soybean Association" was a superior achievement to earning a Masters degree from Cambridge. If one values the life of the mind or a world class education, the message that one should leave is crystal clear.

While there may not be a trickle down effect in economics, there is one in culture. Thirty years in the classroom has taught me that intelligent kids are the ones who stretch the boundaries and the rules to the breaking point. As a rural state South Dakota creates many spaces for functionaries to develop "big fish in a small pond" syndrome. Whether it be overly uptight county commissioners, school administrators, mayors, sheriffs, or Speaker Haugaards, many of these wannabes will decry Nicholas Maduro's socialism but covet his power to squelch dissent. They have one response to everyone who questions their policies or offers suggestions for improvement: "if you don't like, leave."

In his Constant Commoner post, John Tristan made the economic point, so I won't repeat that here. The brain drain hurts South Dakota, but it will continue because the state's leadership want it to.

Intellectual Diversity, Fox News, Aexandria Ocasio-Cortez, And The Pygmalion Myth: A Minor Musing

Governor Kristi Noem has signed a bill that purports to promote intellectual diversity. Being the good conservative intellectual that she is, Noem surely will work hard to include expansion of a classic curriculum in addition to decrying the corrosive effects of Foucault's and Derrida's postmodern sophistry. (Were she writing this post, the Governor would surely take a moment to point out that sophistry, as is used here, is not merely pretty talk with no substance but a reference to the ancient Sophists who believed that truth was unknowable.)

One of the benefits of a classic education would be knowledge of the Pygmalion myth. Pygmalion feared women, so he created an ivory statute shaped as his version of the perfect woman. He then asked the goddess Aphrodite to make the statue a real woman. Aphrodite granted his request.

I was most recently reminded of the Galatea myth this morning when my Twitter feed featured this aclip of Fox News coverage of Aexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). The fearful folk at Fox are not content to brand AOC as a liberal. She immediately became a poster child for socialism. That's an old tactic, but a Democrat who is merely a liberal or a socialist is not a Fox News commentator's or a former Republican presidential candidate's idea of a perfect Democratic woman.

This morning Mike Huckabee and Fox and Friends completed their transformation of a freshman congresswoman who frightens them merely because she knows how to use social media. She is their perfect Democrat, a liberal, socialist Manchurian Candidate. Clearly, AOC is an empty suit who is being fed the questions she asks at hearings.

Just a normal Fox & Friends segment on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Kilmeade: Somebody's writing her questions [at hearings]... there are some forces behind her.

Mike Huckabee: There have been some allegations she was almost like the Manchurian Candidate, recruited, prepared. pic.twitter.com/00S4sasRmj

— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) March 21, 2019

For Noem and her Trumpist ilk this unsubstantiated, fear-based rumor and others like it will pass for intellectual diversity. Explanations that put the rumor in the context of a long trend of trying to create a perfect woman who doesn't cause men to fear her will be called liberal bias.

What's The Difference Between South Dakota's Political Leaders And A Junior High Student Council?

Sadly, the answer appears to be nothing.

Bob Mercer reports that legislators, like the young'uns, are leaving their homework until the last minute.

Then appropriators left a long list of agencies hanging Thursday because of a scheduling quirk that senators needed to be at their desks by mid-morning to start casting votes.
The panel isn't scheduled to official return to work until Tuesday, facing an agenda that has 16 big areas of spending, including state government’s largest departments such as social services, education, corrections, the state universities and the court system.

To make the analogy more cringeworthy, Mercer reports that Governor Noem is using candy as a thank you for votes. The treats apparently also served as a message to let everyone know who is and is not her friend.

14 senators who voted against industrial hemp last week found on their desks Thursday boxes of Dots candy and thank-you notes from Noem for sticking with her. 

The small treats strengthened the feeling among legislators and lobbyists that the governor indeed might veto the hemp bill, especially after two Senate votes went 21-14 in a chamber where a veto override requires at least 24.

Democrats then decided to squander their chance to look like adults by resorting to juvenile behavior of their own. Dakota Free Press reports that Ann Tornberg, the current party chair, and Larry Lucas her running mate as vice-chair candidate offered to buy voting delegates lunch when the South Dakota Democratic Party Executive Board and State Central Committee Members meet later this month. Commenters on the DFP post claim that the email did not go out to all members of the party's Central Committee. They implied that those who were not voting for Tornberg did not get the email invitation. Like the the young'uns, the Democrats' apparently have a tribal lunch room. 

The farm economy is hurting; nursing homes are closing, and schools are not being fully funded. Meanwhile, leaders in government and members of the loyal opposition are passing notes asking "Will you be my friend? Circle yes or no."

I Am Pleasantly Surprised ....

Even if the statement is late, Senator Rounds has demonstrated the ability to point out one of Trump's racist comments when Trump takes aim at something South Dakota specific.

The Wounded Knee Massacre was one of the darkest moments in our history. It should never be used as a punchline.

— Senator Mike Rounds (@SenatorRounds) January 15, 2019

Senator Thune and Representative Johnson have apparently given their social media team the night off.

A Musing About State Senator Stace Nelson's Wall Resolution, Facts, Lies, Truth, And Politics

Daniel Patrick Moynihan allegedly said that one is entitled to one's opinion, but not one's own facts.

I thought of Moynihan this morning when I read this Stace Nelson's comment on Dakota Free Press.

35+ posts of personal attacks and absolute rubbish with not one intelligent comment about the actual bill. Who does that? The Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and well. Ranting and raving and not one of you have read the actual bill.. If you can’t debate the issues? Make things up and lie, lie, lie.

Nelson's outburst was in response to comments about his proposed resolution supporting Trump's border wall. His comment also contains a draft of his own resolution. My comment which contained a link to a Washington Post article and used numbers that come from various media sources was apparently one of those pieces of "rubbish."

Perhaps I am being nostalgic and naive, but the Moynihan assertion was made a time when people agreed what the facts were and political arguments were about the implications of those facts. Granted, I can't remember a time in my life when someone didn't mutter something about lies, damned lies and statistics or utter the phrase "figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure." Even with those caveats, it seems that people used to agreed about what the facts were. The political arguments were about the best way to deal with those facts.

In 2019 no one seems willing to agree what the facts are. I believe that Trump has said 3924 false things as president as of this writing. Based on his comment cited above, Nelson may accuse me of having Trump Derangement Syndrome. Nelson's proposed resolution contains a copious amount of numbers, many of which Nelson claims he found in congressional records. I recognize some of them as numbers originating from sources that I believe to be biased. As I did at Dakota Free Press, I will point out that Trump seems to have made up the number about the cost of illegal immigration. Many supporters of the wall will claim the article is an example of mainstream media bias.

A few years back, Chris Mooney wrote an article "The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science." These conclusions seem relevant to the point at hand.

In other words, people rejected the validity of a scientific source because its conclusion contradicted their deeply held views. . . . The study subjects weren’t “anti-science”—not in their own minds, anyway. It’s just that “science” was whatever they wanted it to be. “We’ve come to a misadventure, a bad situation where diverse citizens, who rely on diverse systems of cultural certification, are in conflict,” says Kahan. 

And that undercuts the standard notion that the way to persuade people is via evidence and argument. In fact, head-on attempts to persuade can sometimes trigger a backfire effect, where people not only fail to change their minds when confronted with the facts—they may hold their wrong views more tenaciously than ever.

Were this post a high schooler's original oratory, I would expect a solution at this point in the composition. I don't have one. I'm going to try to approach issues like I approached judging a debate round and look for the best evidence and the best arguments. Nelson and other supporters of Trump's wall will likely claim they're doing the same thing.

If we can't agree about facts and Mooney is correct that evidence and argument only cause people to hold their views more firmly, the political climate will get more charged and angry. To apply an overused Thomas Hobbes statement, it will be nasty and brutish, a war of everyone against everyone. Welcome to post-truth America.

Some Minor Musings About 2018 Election Season

It's been a bit since I posted. There are a couple of reasons. First, in July I transitioned from full time to retired. I am currently transitioning from retired to part time. I hope to get a regular schedule going again soon. Second, I have been musing a lot about the 2018 election season and have come to a couple of conclusions.

The musings began with this Tom Nichols tweet.

The Republicans are acting like a parliamentary party. So you have to vote as though they are a parliamentary party, by voting against the party to get rid of the leadership.

I have long blamed Newt Gingrich for moving the United States Congress in the direction of a parliament when he introduced his Contract With/On/For America campaign in the 1990s. Treating congress and the president like a parliament and prime minister distorts the American system that was designed to avoid factions and divide powers among the branches. Nichols makes the point in a September 4 Washington Post column:

. . . one of the great virtues of the American system of separated powers is that voters, usually, can ignore party affiliation if they feel a candidate is worth their support. Our model forces the legislative and executive branches to seek separate mandates from the electorate. In our system, voters can separate the party from its leader. They can split their tickets regionally, nationally and by party. They can even vote for divided government, and choose to place the executive and legislative power in opposing hands.

In the Post column, Nichols doubles down on his premise that the only way to cure the distortion that the Republican Cult of Trump has caused is to vote for the opposition as one does in a parliamentary system. As a ticket splitter of long standing, I am generally skeptical of the "break it worse in order to fix it" method, but I see few other avenues to reining in megalomaniac who has more in common with a Mafioso than he does with being a President of the United States. I will likely be voting straight Democrat in November.

The qualification "likely" comes from another series of musings about the changes that digital technology has caused. These widespread changes alter not only the ways in which people work and communicate; they also change how people view their neighborhoods and the wider world. More importantly, if my former students are any indication, the technologies change how people think.

Quite frankly, I am not certain that anyone older than I am can understand how to successfully navigate the world digital has created. Posting pictures on one's grandkids on Facebook or ranting on Twitter does not necessarily indicate the ability to navigate that world. It merely indicates that users have learned how to use an app and fooled themselves into believing they are able to keep up with the younger folk.

The belief that older folk may not be able to deal with results digital technology has produced has led me to conclude that I cannot vote for folks older than I am. In fact, I may not vote for anyone older than 55.

Finally, the United States's political season traditionally begins with the Labor Day weekend. Although Republicans have an edge among South Dakota's humans who vote, bovines seem rather displeased with Republican attorney general candidate Jason Ravnsborg. While travelling home from a visit to my mother, my wife and I witnessed a black bovine of unknown gender destroying one of his campaign signs in a pasture bordering I-90. That beast expressed more political certainty than I feel about the choices I will be forced to make in November

Plains Pops: Potpourri Edition #101*

The following are brief points that don't seem to deserve a full post, but the subject seems worthy of mention.

The Constitution Party of South Dakota: They're doing nearly everything wrong. It's not just the dueling factions that can't seem to decide who's in charge or who should run a state convention. The idea that people who have lost statewide elections or legislative races can somehow come together to challenge the Republican monopoly from the right is ludicrous.

I know some CPSD members, if not all, are Bible believing folks but none look like the Old Testament's Gideon. He routed a few thousand with 300; no one is going to rout 200,000 Republicans with 500, no matter how hard one blows on the party favors or how many flashlights with a strobe function one has. Put some folks on county commissions. Win some legislative races. Pass a popular bill or two. Voters will choose the devil they know over the lesser imps and demons they don't.

Finally, history is replete with colorful politicians; the Longs in Louisiana and Wild Bill Langer of North Dakota spring immediately to mind, but most people find conspiracy theorists something less than colorful.

The New Coke new Lance Russell legislative candidacy:  For those using their summer wisely and waiting until after Labor Day to start thinking about politics, Lance Russell won a legislative primary, and resigned his candidacy to run for attorney general at the Republican Convention. He was then  renominated by the District 30 Republicans even though state law makes the second nomination more than a little questionable.

The Democrats need to get a precedent established. They may well face an identical situation in the near future, and the mere fact that Russell was on the ballot, then off the ballot, and then on the ballot would not have established that precedent.  No matter what happens in this situation, precedent is established unless the courts rule that Heather Boche, the voter bringing the suit, lacks standing. Were one a complete cynic who believes that South Dakota's Republican appointed judiciary is less than impartial on political matters, that might be the outcome one would expect.

The spy who loved someone in South Dakota or who worked hard for her money: South Dakota novelists who specialize in the mystery and political thriller genres are probably still recovering from the bacchanalia they organized after the story broke. While the South Dakota literary world has a whole new direction, the South Dakota political world will remain unchanged.

*I really don't know what number it is but if Marvel and DC comics can renumber issues at will, then I can number blog posts however I desire.

A Post Wherein I Grumble About The South Dakota Democratic Party's Failure To Develop Legislative Candidates

Pat Powers is chortling about Democratic ballot placeholders dropping out and allowing Republicans to run unopposed. Were I in his place, I probably would celebrate every uncontested win too.

I can also empathize with the South Dakota Democratic Party. Recruiting candidates willing to do fundraising, walk in parades, knock on every door in the district, and deal with public scrutiny of every past action must be difficult. The fact that South Dakota is a deeply red state compounds the difficulty exponentially. That said, Democrats have ensured their minority party status for at least 14 years by not developing candidates to run for the legislature since 2012.

Let's go step by step. First, Republicans will likely maintain legislative majorities similar to the ones they currently enjoy following the 2018 elections. Second, even if Democrats develop some great candidates, it's unlikely they will be able to significantly reduce the Republican majority, let alone take control of one house of the legislature during 2020 elections. Third, the census will be conducting in 2020. Fourth, The census report will be delivered during the 2021 session. Fifth, the Republican controlled legislature will deal with redistricting in 2022. Even with the current stipulations about protecting "communities of interest" and respecting "geographical and political boundaries," it will not be that difficult to create a few more Republican strongholds or turn a few currently safe Democratic districts into competitive districts.

There aren't may wave elections that magically sweep a dominant party out of office. It takes a methodical step-by-step effort to chip away at a dominant majority. Maybe the 2020s will see that effort.

What's Governor Daugaard's PARG?

When I was a young'un baseball had three offensive stats that mattered, batting average, home runs, and runs batted in (RBI). As time went on, stats like on-base percentage, on-base plus slugging (OPS), and wins above replacement (WAR) become central metrics. (Baseball nerds feel free to insert sabermetrics joke here.)

Politics has far fewer stats than baseball, popularity and elections won or lost might be the only two that matter. Nate Silver, however, has adapted baseball's WAR to develop PARG (popularity over replacement governor) which is computed "by measuring the distance between their net approval rating and their state’s partisan lean"

A couple of days ago, Dakota War College trumpeted a Morning Consult poll that showed Governor Daugaard was the nation's 5th most popular governor. According to the poll, 61% of the state's residents view Daugaard favorably while 24% view him unfavorably, a net 37 favorability.

Silver takes that +37 and compares it with South Dakota's partisan lean, a number developed by combining  the 2008, 2012, and 2016 Presidential election vote totals in the state along with the Cook PVI which "measures how each district performs at the presidential level compared to the nation as a whole. " According to Silver, South Dakota's partisan lean is +29 toward Republicans.

Taking the difference between Daugaard's +37 popularity and the state's partisan lean of +29 gives Daugaard a modest +8 PARG which ranks him number 20 among the nation's governors, hardly a hall of fame number.

Screenshot of PARG rankings
Original found here.

A Post Wherein I Offer Billie Sutton Some Unsolicited Advice

I used to tell my young policy debaters to be sure they got their opponents' sources and numbers. It was a central part of understanding an opponents case or disadvantage.

Billie Sutton doesn't need my assistance, but I offer him the same advice if he and Kristi Noem debate next fall.

Over the past few days Noem has hailed the  the trade agreement that Trump announced with the EU. Noem calls Trump "best negotiator we have" and asserts "[h]e's doing an incredible job fighting for our farmers." She claims that the Rose Garden announcement was "wonderful" and that the President will "continue to negotiate" to open more markets.

Let's start with a simple question that seems to have not been asked: when it comes to soybeans how much more will the European Union buy than it would have purchased before the tariff silliness began? Has anyone given a number in bushels or tons or a percentage increase? Heralding a trade deal with no numbers seems akin to celebrating the purchase of pig in a poke.

Sutton should also ask about other crops. The American negotiators claim that all agricultural trade is on the table in the future.

“It’s more than soybeans. All agricultural products are something that will be discussed [in the trade talks with the EU],” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told Fox News on late Wednesday. “Soybeans was simply a very timely example of those [agricultural products],” he added. 

Trump’s chief trade enforcer, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, also demanded during a Senate hearing on Thursday that the EU deliver more. “Our view is we are negotiating about agriculture,” he told lawmakers. “That’s part of the project.”

On the other hand, the EU asserts that other agricultural products are not part of the agreement.

Brussels was quick to shoot down such suggestions. “Agriculture is not part of the scope of the talks,” an EU official told reporters on Thursday. 

“It’s clear that the U.S. side would’ve liked [it] but it has not been agreed, and Mr. Ross can say what he wishes but it doesn’t correspond” to the deal agreed, the official added. “There is no ambiguity in this regard.”

Given this conflict one day after the agreement was allegedly reached, Sutton can ask if Noem and Trump sold out wheat, corn, beef and every other ag producer just to get a photo op about an unspecified amount of soybeans.

My Lincoln-Douglas debaters used to work to capture their opponents' value and value criterion. Sutton can use this tactic as well. Republicans, in general, have one overarching value: hate Barack Obama. This trade deal, however, is an extension of Obama's policies.

European Commission boss Jean-Claude Juncker wouldn’t pitch it this way. But on Wednesday, he and U.S. President Donald Trump essentially revived trade goals dating from the Barack Obama era. The European Union will buy more American soybeans and liquefied natural gas, while U.S. tariffs on steel imports from that region may be eliminated if the parties can agree. Other goals featured in negotiations about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, under Trump’s predecessor.

Noem touts this deal which follows Obama's trade policy as wonderful. As a Democrat, Sutton has a better claim to Obama's successful policies that she does. He wins on the value level.

Policy debate rounds often close on impact calculation. What's the time frame, magnitude, and probability? Noem and Trump have not given a time frame, and they have no numbers to show the magnitude of the deal. Further, other ag products may not be subject to the deal. Finally, given Trump's erratic nature, the deal, no matter how good it may be, might be disavowed tomorrow, so even the probability is in question. When it comes to this trade deal, Sutton has the advantage on both the policy and value levels.

An Update On Signing Up For Campaign Newsletters

Last week I bemoaned the fact that I could not sign up for campaign spam for some of the candidates for statewide office in South Dakota. In the past week, Tim Bjorkman has updated his website.  The site now looks professional done and no longer has a mile of empty blue space. It matches the claims in this Bjorkman tweet

We’re please to announce the new website for the campaign is up and running! https://t.co/O8m2DgToxZ There you can sign up for our newsletter and keep up to date with the campaign. #ImwithTim pic.twitter.com/71avFJQmaM

— Tim Bjorkman (@TimBjorkmanSD) July 13, 2018

 On the other hand, Jason Ravnsborg's site still fails to provide a space for newsletter signup and Steve Huff's name is still spelled Steve Hff.

Is Senator Mike Rounds Asserting Donald Trump Tells Bigger Lies Than Putin?

I cut and paste. You decide.

Sen Rounds with what I believe was a defense of the president: pic.twitter.com/NpPUB8dkt9

— Erica Werner (@ericawerner) July 16, 2018

Some people seem confused, so here's the rest of what Rounds had to say: pic.twitter.com/SqTgvAJF2o

— Erica Werner (@ericawerner) July 16, 2018

Is Kristi Noem Running Scared?

Let's begin with the caveat that I expect Noem to be elected governor in November. She has won two statewide Republican primaries and has been elected to Congress four times. That said, some recent events lead to the belief that she's not running a campaign based on confidence.

First, she selected Larry Rhoden to be her running mate. Rhoden's most obvious contribution to the ticket is the fact that he provides a West River geographic balance. This selection seemingly indicates she's worried that Democratic candidate Billie Sutton will cut deeply into her West River advantage, something Republicans in general and Noem, as she showed in her primary victory over Marty Jackley, in particular enjoys.

Second, the South Dakota Republican Party's predictably over-the-top response to a silly tweet mentions Billie Sutton twice as much as it mentions Samuel Parkinson, the tweet's author. It mentions no other Democratic state-wide candidate. The emphasis on Sutton alone seems curious.

Finally, there's a ridiculous press release posing as a fact sheet that claims Sutton is a "Pierre insider" who will be unable to "upset the status quo." Had Democrats been in charge of the legislature or the held the governor's office in recent memory, that charge might have merit. However, Republicans have been in charge. If Noem is truly an outsider to the Pierre political culture, she must be claiming that she has not actively been working with Republican governors and legislative leaders when she was representing South Dakota in Washington, a dubious claim at best. 

Further, if being in Pierre in the minority "for nearly a decade" makes Sutton an insider what does being in Pierre in the majority since 2001 make Rhoden? I doubt the correct answer is "outsider."

The farcical insider/outsider rhetoric pales in comparison to one of the chief proofs of Sutton's status as an insider: Sutton's "grandfather was the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor in 1978." If one is to judge a person's insider status by what a grandfather's did in 1978, I must be a medium or a mortician, a dead person insider if you will, because both of my grandfathers died prior to 1978.

As I said in the first paragraph, I expect Noem to win. I would also expect a confident candidate and party to act as such and campaign on issues not vague slogans juvenile insinuations with no logical backing.

South Dakota Republican Blog Tells South Dakota Democratic Party Executive Director That It's Not Ok To Sound Like Trump

South Dakota War College takes issue with South Dakota Democratic Party Executive Director Sam Parkinson's Fourth of July tweet in which Parkinson writes that July 4th commemorates "the fact that a bunch of slave-owning aristocratic white males did'nt [sic] want to pay their taxes."

The tweet is a reminder to the young'uns that even if one's account is "protected," as Parkinson's is, social media means that nothing is private. It may also be the case that the situation should remind the young'uns that beer and irony rarely mix well.

That said, I thought Republicans were past considering criticisms of the country as signs of unpatriotic activity. Just last year, President Trump had the following exchange with Bill O'Reilly.

O'Reilly pressed Trump on his statement, saying, "But he's a killer though. Putin's a killer." 

"There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?" Trump responded.

I don't know how one wins a debate affirming Resolved: Being a nation with a lot of killers is better than being a nation founded by slave-owners. Heck, I'm not sure one can win on the negative either. Perhaps, the young'uns should be cut some slack when their elders can't control their tongues.

If I Had A Sunday Morning Talk Show: Questions For South Dakota's Gubernatorial Candidates

Given the fact that I have a face best designed for radio and voice best suited for silent film, I am unlikely to get a Sunday morning talk show. My curiosity, however, does prompt the following questions that I hope the candidates will be asked.

First question: The Trump administration has asked a federal court to remove current protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Do you support the administration's effort? If so why? Please explain what protections you believe people should have.

Second question: The Trump administration has held office for 72 weeks. It has tried to roll out several "infrastructure weeks." Given the federal government may not be able to create an infrastructure plan and South Dakota's infrastructure earned a D+ in 2017, what can the South Dakota do to improve it's infrastructure without federal support?

Third question: Recent celebrity suicides have brought the issue to the forefront of the national discussion. "Suicide numbers in South Dakota have increased substantially in recent years. According to a recent report from the Centers For Disease Control, the state's suicide rates have increased 44.5 percent between 1999 and 2016. " What is your plan to help South Dakotans dealing with mental illness?

Fourth question: James Poulos, one of the nation's best young public intellectuals, has opined that the digital age accelerates public passions while predigital institutions have become too weak to react. What would you do to help South Dakota's public institutions be more responsive to the public demands created by the digital age?

Finally, former Indiana governor and current president of Purdue University, Mitch Daniels has said, 

Pollsters have even begun to use the term “hatred” to describe the degree of estrangement. They tell us that members of both tribes [those with a university education and the hopes of a good paying job and those without those advantages] tend to belong mostly because of their animosity to the other side. In almost reciprocal numbers, they describe the other side as “closed-minded,” “dishonest,” “unintelligent,” even “immoral.” As we trust each other less, trust in the institutions of our society has eroded in parallel. Almost no sector—government, business, the media, higher education —has escaped a steep drop in public confidence. Some constant vigilance and skepticism about centers of authority is a healthy, all-American instinct. 

But ultimately, to function effectively as a free and self-governing people, we must maintain some degree of faith that our institutions and those leading them have our best interests at heart, and are performing their duties with sincerity and integrity. And today, we plainly lack such faith.

South Dakotans are not immune the erosion of faith in our fellow citizens, leaders and institutions. What will you do as governor to begin the process of restoring that faith?

A Musing About State Representative Michael Clark's Statements

State Representative Michael Clark brought some unwanted national attention to South Dakota this week when he opined on Facebook that businesses should be able to discriminate based on race.  To the best of my knowledge, I have never met Clark, so I have no basis to judge whether he is a racist or merely a person who refuses to think before he speaks. I know this is late, but a part of Clark's comment that got little attention stuck in my craw and I needed to think it through a bit.

Clark's racially charged comments overshadow a statement that revealed some deep cognitive dissonance inside the populist/Trumpist movement, a movement which mislabels itself as conservative.

Clark asserts, "The vote of the dollar is very strong." 

No one should dispute the dollar's power, but the statement contains many implications. In the context with the rest of his statements, one could take it to mean that businesses should discriminate against anyone they chose so long as the business makes a profit. In short, the public can legitimize racism, sexism or any form of otherization it chooses. This reading re-enforces the idea that Clark's comments reflect a deep racism.

The statement may also imply that good, hard-working decent folk will boycott businesses that unjustly discriminate based on race, creed, gender or sexual orientation. This reading implies that the United States has permanently rejected the hateful ideas that produced Jim Crow laws in a wide swath of the nation. This reading implies that human nature has somehow been altered since George Wallace said, "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny . . . and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever." [ellipsis in original]

While the latter reading may be more generous, the belief that human nature has changed and people will suddenly cease supporting with their dollars and voices those who practice injustice is flawed.

The self-proclaimed social conservatives who make up the backbone of the current populist moment used to hold as an article of faith that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" It's unlikely that the "wicked" will use their dollars to fight injustice. If one wants a secular source, all one has to do is compare the statements made by characters in the Iliad and the entitled pronouncements from professional athletes or other celebrities. If one wants a bit of science, humanity makes up .01% of life on Earth but have destroyed 83% of mammalian life. No amount of dollars seem to change behavior.

In short, trusting the dollar to change human behavior is as foolish and dangerous as advocating legalized discrimination.

Let's Curb Some Enthusiasm

Cory Heidelberger has several qualities I lack, chief among them unflagging optimism. He is also indefatigable. That said, his post analyzing Billie Sutton's ability to blunt Kristi Noem's advantages in the general election is more than a little too sunny. It is my duty, as a curmudgeon with years of training, to rain on the picnic.

Cory writes that he "underestimate[s] how much charisma Congresswoman Kristi Noem projects." As a quick aside, I can't underestimate Noem's charisma because I don't see it. I don't know if there's a noun that sufficiently names how vapid and vacuous I believe her speeches, interviews, and policy pronouncements are. Cory's and my lack of appreciation of Noem's charisma doesn't matter. The fact is Republicans have adopted her as a "favorite daughter." Combine that with the fact that Republicans have 93,632 more South Dakota registrants than Democrats, and Sutton's cowboy hat styling and profiling come up a bit short.

More importantly, Congresswoman Noem has the an intangible that I could never coach my female debaters to develop: mean girl immunity. A few possessed that intangible naturally, but before every tough round, I would tell all of female debaters, "It's not fair, but society at large and most judges are going to view the guy as tough and the woman as a witch, so be nice." The negative ads in the recent primary once again illustrate Noem won't have to "campaign nice" in the fall. When Sutton responds, Republican voters will reflexively defend their "favorite daughter."

Finally, there's logistics. Noem has run numerous statewide races. Republicans have a plethora staffers with statewide experience. Sutton and the Democrats have a thin blue line.

I know that every human has feet of clay; I hope Sutton finds a way to discover and exploit Noem's weaknesses, but Sutton's task takes Sisyphean to a new level.

A Surprising OnLine Poll: Thune Disapproval

Via this morning's Yankton Press & Dakotan, I stumbled upon this online poll: "Do you approve or disapprove of the overall job performance of Sen. John Thune?"

Let's get the caveats out of the way: it's not scientific; it's not accurate; it can change by the time I finish typing this post; Thune won't be a the ballot in November; he will win if he runs again because the Democrats won't field a candidate; children should eat vegetables and not smoke.

That said, it's refreshing that for a brief moment in time, the majority agrees with me that he's not doing a good job for South Dakota. By the way, I voted only once.

From 8:15 am 6/5/18
Click to enlarge

A Prediction, A Hope, And A Fear About Tomorrow's Primary

First, the prediction: Kristi Noem will defeat Marty Jackley to win the Republican nomination for governor.

Second, the hope: Dusty Johnson will win the nomination for the House of Representatives. The fact that Shantel Krebs and Neal Tapio both base their candidacies solely on the fact that they want to go to Washington to help Donald Trump is troubling. I can remember a time when Republicans were conservatives who believed that representatives went to Washington  to represent the people of their state not the leader of their political party.

Finally, the fear: the Marsy's Law "fix" will win. The merits of the amendment are dubious at best. However, having a so-called "victims bill of rights" that prevents victims from using the court system to insure those rights are protected is ludicrous.

A Post Wherein I Make A Modest Proposal Guaranteed To Anger Political Purists

Bob Mercer tweeted the following yesterday.

This is Emily Wanless, Augustana University faculty member, who is chairwoman of Legislature's ballot-measures task force. https://t.co/OY8iTx3s0F

— Bob Mercer (@pierremercer) August 3, 2017

The link will take readers to this quoted tweet.

Wanless: I'm concerned about the polarized 2-party system in SD and the I & R process is a response to a legislature that doesn't listen.

— KSOO Sioux Falls (@KSOOSiouxFalls) August 3, 2017

Without context, it's unclear if Mercer used the appositive "Augustana University faculty member" to show that her statement should be taken as authoritative or if he used it to indicate that her statement causes him to wonder how Wanless maintains her employment with Augustana.

Wanless's statement that South Dakota's two-party system is "polarized" does deserve examination. Polarization is a problem; however, it is not the biggest threat to South Dakota's "2-party system." The lack of a competitive second party is far more concerning.

This series of electoral maps from Nate Silver's site illustrates an obvious point: South Dakota, like the rest of rural America is getting redder.

Original source

Earlier this summer Pat Powers ran posts featuring South Dakota Republican Party Chairperson Dan Lederman, state senator Jim Bolin,  and Mercer contending that Democrats were their own worst enemy. They cited a litany of problems, best summarized by Mercer: "The biggest is turnout. Democrats don’t show up. The second is candidates. Democrats leave more seats open than Republicans do."

I'm going to posit another problem. People lie when they register to vote. According to the South Dakota Secretary of State voter registration numbers, Aurora County should be the most purple county in the state. It has 802 registered Republicans and 799 registered Democrats. In 2016, Donald Trump won 69.2% of the vote. It's difficult to believe recognizable Democrats voted for Trump in those numbers.

To go a step further, fifteen (15) South Dakota Counties have more registered Democrats that Republicans. Trump carried ten (10) of them. Two, Charles Mix and Miner, gave him over 65% of the vote.

Maybe these counties were a hotbed of Bernie Bro activists who voted for Trump's populism to protest what they saw as Clinton's betrayal of their cause, but that's not realistic. I'll take the odds of Franklin Graham converting to Islam in the next year over that possibility. It's more likely that they these registered Democrats don't identify with the Democratic Party and are part of the rural red tidal wave.

Let's get on to the proposal indicated in the post's title. For the purposes of a thought experiment, let's accept three things as true. First, South Dakota Democrats have been woefully inept during the last few election cycles. Second, Republicans have unfairly gerrymandered. Third, as a pair, Trump and Hillary Clinton were the worst major party candidates since Herbert Hoover and Al Smith.

Given those three stipulations, is it rational for anyone to run for the state legislature or any statewide office as a Democrat even if that person is politically moderate, financially well-off, and respected locally or statewide?

The fact is vitriol is often confused with political discourse. Further, a large number of South Dakota's self-identified Democrats voted for Donald Trump.  In fact, flying one's extended family to Disney World for a week seems to make more financial sense than running for a South Dakota political office as a Democrat. It will certainly produce less stress. The odds that such a decision would alter for the worse the number of Democrats in the state legislature are negligible.

The 2016 presidential results and voting trends in rural areas since 1992 indicate a the better option may be for moderate voters to disabuse themselves of the notion that South Dakota has a two-party system and register as Republicans, get active, and attempt to pull that party to the center or, at the very least, prevent it from going over the populist precipice. In areas where Democrats can field quality candidates, moderate voters should swing to Democratic party in the general election.

Currently South Dakota doesn't have a true two party-system. It's unlikely to develop one in the upcoming decade. As it stands, trusting one's neighbors, even those who are registered Democrats, to actually vote for Democrats seems a suckers's bet, so changing the party dynamics seems to be a first step to restoring a small bit of political balance.