A Minor Musing About What Happens When South Dakota Liberals And Conservatives Converse

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.

Mega Post About 2014 South Dakota Democratic Convention

I had wanted to break some of this down into two or three posts but WiFi in the meeting area was spotty. I probably should have written a post or two instead of taking notes last night during the banquet. Rookie mistake. Here in condensed form are observations that would have been made into whole posts had the tech gods and my inexperience at blogging live events not prevented it.

First, R.T. Rybak's speech last night indicated that Democrats, at least on the national stage, have developed a way to speak about values naturally without sounding defensive. In fact, R.T. Rybak's speech could easily have been turned into a standard Lincoln-Douglas debate case. (in South Dakota high school debate, Lincoln Douglas debate is about values and principles.) Rybak began by valuing the social compact, offered a criterion of communitarianism, followed by the contention that the fundamental reason one has for becoming a Democrat is the belief that in tough times people come together whereas Republicans believe that one must go it alone during tough times. Arguing that the Democratic belief represents South Dakota's real values, Rybak contended that those values belong in Pierre. It was a simple, clear case that was eloquently delivered

Second, I expected to see more anger or more red meat. Rick Weiland alluded to an anger on the prairie in his speech, but that was the only mention. Instead there seemed to be a bit of self recrimination that the party had strayed too far from the practices of George McGovern and needed to return to first principles. No speaker offered a concrete "how" unless one takes Rybak's injunction to talk to voters in "real English." Perhaps that's just as well. The issues that anger me the most, the national security state or top down education policies that are unproven and untested, have had bipartisan support.

Third, The argument that current economic policies are causing young people to leave the state and not return seems to have a special salience for South Dakota Democrats. Many seem to believe those who leave and permanently reside elsewhere tend to be Democrats or at least sympathetic to Democratic issues.

Fourth, I can see why party leaders believe Angelia Schultz is a rising star. She has energy and charisma. She is able to provide her extensive resume without sounding as if she's bragging.  Further, she's able to deliver powerful lines within a speech, especially parallel constructions, without sounding forced.  Most importantly, the simple message that electing Krebs means the office will be headed by a different person but will have the same problems should gain traction. I retain the concerns I expressed here.

Fifth, I was a little surprised that most speakers had trouble delivering parallel constructions in a way that sounded natural. That sort of rhetoric has been around long before President Kennedy delivered his "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country . . .:  When those phrases are delivered well it's effective. A couple of Weiland staffers did an enthusiastic high-five after Weiland nailed his conclusion.

Sixth, Pat Powers protestations to the contrary, this was not a collection of elitists unless one considers South Dakotans from all walks of life elitists. The convention had a low turnout. I was just an observer, so I don't know why numbers were down.

Seventh, conventions need to do away with the resolution process. The platform needs to be discussed and debated, but  I watched the eyes of every person under 30 glass over as the resolution process continued. Given that the Republican debate on resolutions made their convention run hours late last weekend, I suspect more than a few eyes glassed over there as well. I'm very proud of several former students who were active with Democrats this week. I am equally proud of any who may have participated in the Republican convention last weekend. South Dakota needs smart young leaders. Spending hours on resolutions that have no direct policy impact, or worse, resolutions that make it seem that the state is led by vindictive, small-minded political hacks (yes, I'm talking about the impeachment resolution) need to go the way of the dodo. If the issue is important find a way to work it in the platform. One debate about language and procedure per convention is more than enough.

Eighth, if the Democrats made any unforced errors this weekend, it was leaving the state auditor race and the state attorney general race uncontested. A minority party should always fight for watchdog positions. Uncontested races in general are problematic, but a majority of voters within the state probably don't know there's a commissioner of school and public lands.

Earlier posts about the 2014 Democratic convention can be found here and here

South Dakota Democratic Party 2014 Banquet: A Minor Musing With A Boxing Metaphor Edition

I suspect there will be two stories that will dominate discussions of both Republican and Democratic true believers in the morning. The first is Tim Johnson's $200,000 gift to the South Dakota Democratic party. The second is Rick Weiland's decision to challenge Mike Rounds on EB-5.

Neither event should surprise anyone. Tim Johnson, who tonight reminded the audience that he is South Dakota's longest serving Democrat, likely doesn't want to be the last Democrat South Dakota elects to the United States Senate. The EB-5 imbroglio is a chink in Rounds's armor, and Weiland would be foolish not to attempt to exploit it. Tonight, he did a fairly good job of simplifying the story as well. Weiland took on the program not just alleged mismanagement of the program: "To sell residency to rich foreigners, as my opponent aggressively advocated throughout his tenure as Governor, and in a debate just this Spring, is not economic development, it is government enabled extortion, and it is wrong," Weiland said.

The major question I had this morning as I sat down to begin taking notes during Bernie Hunhoff's address was simple: can any of the Democrats at the top of the ballot give themselves a puncher's chance? In fact, I was wondering if any of them even knew how to throw a punch, let alone one that landed and would be scored.

Tonight Rick Weiland, Susan Wismer, and Corinna Robinson convinced me that each can deliver a solid, effective punch.. 

Weiland, Wismer, and especially Robinson need Ann Tornberg to put on her speech and debate coach hat and work with them on their delivery a bit. (When Tornberg coached at Beresford, she produced some of the best orators I have ever judged in my 20 years on the South Dakota high school debate circuit.) Robinson did, however, convince me that she knows how to tell her story in a way that will prevent Kristi Noem from reprising the sorts of ads and YouTube videos she used to mock Matt Varilek. Robinson was particularly effective in dismissing the  difficulty of unseating Noem when she said "tough is hugging your sons good-bye before going on yet another deployment."

I generally hate politicians' use of a friend or relative to tell an Horatio Alger story or a "win just one more for the Gipper" tale. Susan Wismer, however, delivered that sort of anecdote and I didn't start cursing. In fact, I found the story of a church full of people returning from out of state to honor a man at his funeral rather telling. Further, Wismer was able to simply categorize Governor Daugaard's economic development efforts as "bringing in out-of-state companies with an out-of-state work force."

Weiland seems much more comfortable in his own skin and much better able to deliver the populist rhetoric than he was last summer. Weiland mentioned his appreciation for the late Paul Wellstone and Wellstone's skills as a campaigner. Tonight, however, Wieland reminded me of another United States Senator from Minnesota, Hubert Humphrey who was called "The Happy Warrior." Weiland seems to be thoroughly enjoying the campaign.

Each of these candidates is still an underdog and each will have to hope that their Republican opponent makes an unforced error or two. Before this evening, I was fairly convinced that none of them could take advantage of any error their opponents might make. After their performance tonight, I believe each can.

My favorite political color is purple. I'm certain that some Democrats in Hawaii or California display the same hubris and sense of entitlement that some South Dakota Republicans exhibit. I'm also not an optimist by nature. Every glass I own is half empty and cracked. There will not be a blue tide in November, but Democrats have a puncher's chance of preventing a blood red November.That's a better chance than I thought they had this morning.

South Dakota Democrats Begin Convention With Quiet Determination. . .

And a bit of defiance.

Deb Knecht, South Dakota Democratic Party Chair began the breakfast session challenging the conventional wisdom that South Dakota Democrats face totally unwinnable races in November. Claiming to relish the challenge posed by those who claim something can't be done, Knecht saved a pointed barb for national groups that have written off South Dakota. "They don't know the kind of people we are in South Dakota, Knecht said. They don't know how hard we work."

In the session's main address, Representative Bernie Hunhoff, South Dakota House of Representatives Minority Leader told conventioneers, "South Dakota can do better. We have to do better."

Giving a brief history lesson, Hunhoff reminded delegates of recent party successes such as the effort to repeal HB 1234, Governor Daugaard's effort to alter the state's education system. and the Building South Dakota program. Using those efforts as a predicate, Hunhoff predicted that Medicaid expansion will happen in South Dakota and that Republicans who recently voted en bloc against it will vote en bloc for it.

Hunhoff drew a contrast between the small group of Democrats in the legislature and their Republican counterparts. "Those in power are cautious and timid," Hunhoff said. "It's not power, not the way they use it."

Hunhoff began his speech saying government contained two kinds of people; those who want to make things better and those who keep their hands on the brakes. He returned to that idea to conclude his speech by saying the South Dakota Republican Party's resolution advocating President Obama's impeachment was an example of that party "not trying to improve South Dakota." It was, Hunhoff said, "another example of the party in power keeping their hands on the brakes."

I hope the above paragraphs suffice for those like Joe Friday who want "just the facts." Having never attended a political convention before, I was unsure what to expect. Like most South Dakotans, these Democrats are a friendly and welcoming group. In fact, they take pride in the fact that their legislative caucus meetings are open to the public. In a few brief remarks before sending delegates off to committee meetings, Ann Tornberg, a convention co-chair, made it point to contrast that practice with the Republicans' closed sessions.

Granted these are folks are true believers, but there was a sense of confidence that predictions of a bleak November could be proven wrong. (I suppose I could have titled the post Heidelberger not the only optimistic South Dakota Democrat.)

Five Reasons This Election Cycle Looks Bleak For The Democrats

I hope I'm wrong because Democratic gubernatorial candidate Susan Wismer is correct: politics and government work better when true competition exists. At this moment, however, the elements necessary to provide that competition are woefully lacking.

First, abortion and sex education, arguably the nation's most divisive social issues, became the blogosphere's top talking points less than eight hours after Susan Wismer announced Susy Blake as her running mate for Lieutenant Governor. At Madville, Cory praised the Blake choice, in part, because "Blake pointedly fought South Dakota's offensive, misogynistic abortion restrictions. A short time later,  at DWC, Pat Powers produced a two-year old Aberdeen American News paraphrase that has Blake advocating sex education beginning in kindergarten. South Dakotans voted against an abortion law that was going to waste tax payers money for legal fees, but South Dakota's pro-lifers outnumber South Dakota's pro-choicers, and the former are more motivated on that single issue than the latter. If these issues dominate the debate, Daugaard's over/under approaches 70%.

Second, Democrats seem to have forgotten that everyone needs a foil on her side. This point should be obvious because the Democrats have a solid national example. In 2008, President Obama gave the impression of being young, eloquent, and cerebral. Joe Biden added the appearance of maturity and a bit of working class bluster to the ticket. Cory writes, "Blake looks and talks like the South Dakota mom next door. She's someone with whom any South Dakotan can envision chatting at the grocery store." I had to read that sentence twice to make sure he wasn't talking about Wismer.

On the Republican side Matt Michels produces a genuine smile whereas Governor Daugaard sneers and smirks. That distinction is clear and obvious. I really don't know what distinguishes Wismer from Blake. As a side note, it would not shock me if Daugaard doesn't have a couple of his lower level Mayberry Machiavellis in a basement creating a silly and cruel version of My Two Mommies to mock the Wismer/Blake ticket. It would, of course, be passed along only to the most judicious and discreet.


Third, the future isn't always now. Angelia Schultz may well be a rising star. Democrats believe she's embarking on a "political career that has a lot of potential." She also impressed Libertarian blogger Ken Santema who opines Schultz "may be one to watch out for in SD politics for years to come." Garnering positive reviews from both Democratic insiders and Libertarians is no mean feat. That said, one wonders about the wisdom of putting a political novice, no matter her potential, in the Secretary of State race that, thanks to Jason Gant's frequent missteps, will receive more attention than usual. If Schultz wins that tough race, her political future is secure. On the other hand, nothing crushes potential faster than losing two political contests in less than six months.

Fourth, Democrats seem to have a problem communicating. Schultz may be "logical" and possess "energy," but she apparently doesn't return phone calls. On another side note, Democrats haven't  sent me a return email about my requests to blog the Democrats' convention in Yankton this weekend. Ignoring the writer of a small blog is understandable; failing to return reporters' phone calls is not.

Fifth, Democrats, with the exception of Rick Weiland, apparently haven't read Sun Tzu.

Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought.The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.

Weiland has a recognizable strategy: be the everyman who's gone everywhere in South Dakota. I eagerly await someone explaining to me what the rest of the party is doing.

A Minor Musing About Political Party Purity

Andrew Sullivan points to the following Seth Masket maps based on state legislators' ideology. Based on data compiled by Boris Shaw and Nolan McCarty, the maps show the "location of the most ideologically extreme state parties." Masket writes a state generally has only one ideologically stubborn party; the other is usually moderate:

[T]he typical pattern is for one party to be pretty extreme while the other is pretty moderate. And that pattern shows up more or less where you'd expect it. For example, New York Democrats are very liberal because they can be, while New York Republicans are moderate because they have to be. Flip that around for Mississippi.

The maps use the requisite blue to illustrate Democrats' ideology and standard red for Republicans. The darker shades obviously show a more intensely ideological party membership in a state's legislature.

Granted the shading doesn't provide the most specific detail, but the data show a few surprises and confirm a few stereotypes. Minnesota's Democrats have the greatest ideological purity among the states' Democratic parties; that should surprise no one. I was, however, surprised to discover that Montana's Republican legislators exhibited more ideological fervor than South Dakota's Republican legislators.

The maps confirm another supposition I have had. The Republican and Democratic legislators in the Dakotas have a wider gap between them in terms of their ideological ardor than Republicans and Democrats in neighboring Wyoming, Montana, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska do. Those other states differ by only one shade, but the Dakotas show a two shade difference in ideological zeal.

The maps prompt the following conclusions. First, the charge that the South Dakota legislature is populated with RINOs is specious at best. It may be laughable. Second, the state's Democrats either don't have a left flank, or they have few members willing to run and carry water for the liberal cause. Finally, given the gap in ideological fervor between the parties' members in the legislature, South Dakotans can expect more of the same when the legislature convenes next January.

Elite Republicans And Democrats Want To Be Different From You And Me

Jonathan Sides points out Republicans and Democrats make dramatically different choices about common activities.

Republicans and Democrats don’t seem to agree on very much these days. They’re divided on the kinds of television shows they watch, cars they drive and beers they drink. And now new research by political scientists at the University of Chicago adds one more thing to that list: baby names.

If the surveys are to be believed,  Republicans tend to watch golf or Survivor, drive a pickup, and drink Coors Light. Democrats lean towards watching NBA basketball or Family Guy, driving a hybrid, and drinking Heineken.

When it comes to names, Republicans tend to pick pick popular or traditional names to "signal economic capital" whereas Democrats tend to pick names that "signal cultural tastes and erudition."

Republicans and Democrats also pick names that sound different. Sides reports,

Oliver and colleagues found that, for both boy and girl babies, “softer” sounds were more prominent among educated whites living in more Democratic or liberal neighborhoods. That is, a boy’s name like “Julian” or “Liam” or a girl’s name like “Malia” would be more common in Democratic neighborhoods. A boy’s name like “Trig” or a girl’s name like “Bristol” would be more common in Republican neighborhoods.

In other words, Liam will likely be behind the well of the hybrid, and Trig will likely be behind the wheel of the 4x4.

The most provocative conclusion about baby names seems to apply to beer and vehicles as well. It's all about elites preening and so the rest of us notice the choices being made. Sides notes,

Oliver and colleagues also emphasize that these partisan or ideological differences were largely confined to better-educated whites. As other political science research shows, partisanship and ideology often operate most strongly within this group. Thus, it is a mistake simply to divide America into red and blue. This leads to the paper’s provocative conclusion:

As we see in patterns of baby names, liberal elites use esoteric cultural references to demonstrate their elevated social position just as conservatives invoke traditional signals of wealth and affluence. Instead of divides between “Red and Blue states,” it is more accurate to say that America is divided not just by “Red and Blue elites,” but also in the ways these elites seek to differentiate themselves from the largely “purple” masses.

After reading these article I expect someone  to re-write Romeo and Juliet as a story about a Democrat Julian who falls in love with a Republican Bristol. The two commit suicide by drowning in a vat of Dos Equis because they can't agree which vehicle to drive to the wedding of their non-partisan friend Joshua.