Thursday, May 25, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: A Political Houdini?

Harry Houdini (born Erik Weisz in Budapest, Hungary) was
the world’s most famous escape artist. Whether it was
handcuffs, strait jackets, locked chains,water tortures, being
buried alive or numerous other sensational predicaments,
Houdini always escaped -- to the amazement and delight of
his skeptical audiences around the world.

Houdini was also an illusionist, magician, actor, historian,
plane pilot, film producer, a debunker of spiritualism, and
one of history’s great self-promoters. Houdini passed away 
in 1926, but his reputation for amazing escapes remains
strong after almost 100 years.

Donald Trump is probably the most unlikely person ever
elected president of the United States, and remains an
extraordinarily controversial political figure. Since his
announcement that he would run for president in 2015, he
has continually been underestimated as an electoral figure.
Each time his opponents, critics and the establishment media
have pronounced his political demise, he has come back
stronger than before.

The latest example occurred just before his departure for his
first foreign trip as president. Democrats and the media put
themselves into a frenzy over still unsubstantiated charges of
Trump campaign collusion with Russia, and  many were openly
discussing impeachment. Mr. Trump’s poll numbers went
down. Government “leaks” seemed ubiquitous.

Then, as he has done so many times previously in the past year,
his successful performance in the Middle East and Europe (so
far) has quelled (for the time being) the anti-Trump clamor.
His poll numbers have risen notably, and media attacks have
been muted. A Harvard University study (hardly a source of
pro-Trump applause) just confirmed the overwhelming bias
against the president in the establishment media.

President Trump now will return to the domestic political
battlefield. Democrats are pouring cash and other resources
into upcoming special congressional elections for seats now
held by Republicans. DC pundits are speculating that more GOP
U.S. house incumbents seats are now vulnerable in 2018.
Congressional investigations continue. Major, but controversial
legislative goals remain unrealized.

There is, of course, no  guarantee that Mr. Trump will always be
successful in escaping the “handcuffs and chains” that the
derisive public relations war against him is attempting to
impose on him.

Harry Houdini always escaped (although he had some very close
calls), and amazed the world for decades.

Will Donald Trump continue to defy the incessant and
clamorous predictions of his political defeat?

Only the voters, perhaps, can answer this question, but it’s
quite a show.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Challenger In Minnesota Has Unique Geneology

Congressman Erik Paulsen (R-MN) is once again being targeted
by Democrats for his suburban Minneapolis 3rd district seat.

In 2016, the liberal party (called the Democratic-Farmer-Labor
Party or DFL) put up a well-known moderate in its effort to
unseat the popular five-term legislator in this upscale swing
district which voted strongly for Hillary Clinton in the
presidential election. Nevertheless, Mr. Paulsen won by 14 points
while Mrs. Clinton carried the district by 10 points.

For the next election in 2018, DFL businessman Dean Phillips has
announced he will oppose the congressman. Mr. Phillips is the heir
to a third-generation Minnesota liquor fortune, and he himself has
created and sold a gelato business. Although he has no electoral
experience as a candidate, he does have the unique distinction of
having perhaps the nation’s two most famous newspaper advice
columnists, Abigail Van Buren (“Dear Abby”) and “Ann Landers”
as his forebears.  Abigail and Landers were actually twin sisters,
Pauline and Esther Friedman, who became rivals in the newspaper
advice business. Pauline was Phillips’ grandmother, and Esther was
his great-aunt.

The “Dear Abby” column is now being written by her daughter
Jeanne Phillips, Dean’s aunt.

But DNA alone will not get Mr. Phillips past Congressman Paulsen,
a member of the powerful house ways and mean committee, and
the dean of the Minnesota delegation in Congress. Nor, does it
seem that President Trump’s fortunes next year will very likely
affect this contest. Mr. Paulsen did not endorse Mr. Trump in
2016, and has maintained a reputation for being an independent
conservative.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

NOTE TO FIRST-TIME VISITORS:

THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED TO
APPEARS BELOW.

IF YOU HAVE LINKED TO 
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR WEBSITE
FOR THE FIRST TIME, WELCOME!

IF YOU LIKE WHAT YOU READ, 
AND WANT TO READ THE PRAIRIE EDITOR REGULARLY, PLEASE READ ON.

THIS IS A SUBSCRIPTION WEBSITE, 
AND YOU ARE INVITED TO CONSIDER 
SUBSCRIBING.

A SUBSCRIPTION INCLUDES ALERTS AND
REMINDERS WHEN NEW ARTICLES ARE 
POSTED, SPECIAL SUBSCRIBER-ONLY 
BULLETINS AND OP EDS SENT DIRECTLY 
TO YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS,
AND OTHER FEATURES.

TO SUBSCRIBE, PLEASE SCROLL DOWN, AND 
ON THE RIGHT, CLICK ON THE "SUBSCRIBE" BUTTON. YOU CAN THEN USE YOUR CREDIT CARD TO PAY THE ANNUAL FEE ON PAYPAL.

THANK YOU!

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: A Siege Of Words

There is a venerable child’s saying that goes:

“Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but words will never hurt me.”


Today, five months into the new administration of President
Donald Trump, his opponents, especially those in the media,
have laid an ongoing siege to the chief executive who shattered
their predictions and preferences last November by defeating
Hillary Clinton in the biggest upset since Harry Truman won
over Thomas Dewey in 1948.

This siege, unlike those of medieval times, is not being enforced
by “stick and stones” --- or even arrows and mortars --- as were
those fabled, and often successful, military sieges of the past.

Instead, the strategy of those who wish to take down the new
chief executive is mere words, many of them simply not true.

As a serious poet, short story writer, essayist, as well as
political journalist, I have an inherent interest in the power and
utility of language. When I say “mere words,” I am not
deprecating language, literature or journalism. I am, however,
indicting the use of words which have no substance in them or
behind them.

Many Americans did not vote for Donald Trump. Many simply
do not like him or his politics. That’s o.k. It’s a free country, and
the way our system works.

We also have many institutions to balance off the actions of a
president, including two houses of Congress, lower federal
courts and the supreme court, the media, and the ballot box.

It so happens that Mr. Trump won the presidential election at
the ballot box (not a plurality of the popular vote, but in the
constitutionally-mandated electoral college). His political party
also won control of both houses of Congress. Many in the lower
federal judiciary were appointed by Democrats; the supreme
court is divided almost in half. Most of the so-called
establishment print and broadcast media is liberal, but there
is also now a significant conservative media, especially among
radio talks shows, a few major newspapers and magazines,
and among opinion journalists.

Public polling shows Mr. Trump consistently under 50%
favorable, but usually in the mid-40s. (Although former
President Obama had higher poll numbers initially, he was
under 50% for most of his two terms.)

There is a duty of an opposition party to oppose. It is not only
understandable, but necessary, for Democrats to oppose any
policies of Mr Trump and his administration with which they
disagree. That’s the way our system works best. It is the
responsibility of the federal judiciary to block any executive
branch actions which are unconstitutional --- with the U.S.
supreme court as the final arbiter. It is the responsibility of all
in the media to treat the actions of both political parties with
honest and healthy skepticism, especially those opinion
journalists who express a point of view of any kind.

But, as I have been pointing out for months now, the public
expects its “news” organizations to present a fair and honest
account of the news. As I have said again and again: “The
front page is not the editorial page.”

Let me very specific.

An ongoing narrative in the establishment (read: anti-Trump)
media is that there is a political, and even legal, “scandal”
regarding President Trump and his relationship with the
government of Russia. This narrative is continued on the news
pages and new programs in a series of news “facts” --- many of
them from unnamed sources. The latest example of this is the
story originating in The Washington Post that the president
personally gave classified secrets to Russia. Although this
allegation has been strongly refuted by top officials in the
government, including those “in the room with the president”
when the alleged act took place, it is being reported as news
“fact” by the establishment media. One of these top officials
is General H.R. McMasters, a national security advisor to the
president, who has an impeccable reputation for honesty. The
Post will not name its sources. Its news pages (and editorial
pages) are constantly filled with anti-Trump stories.

Is it possible that the allegations are true? Of course it is
possible, and the allegations may fairly be made by opinion
journalists and named sources in an editorial context. But
so far it is not “news” --- and considering the source, the
allegations are “fake news,” something which has been
proliferating since (and before) last January 20th.

Incidentally, as president of the United States, Mr. Trump
has the legal right to release any classified information he
wishes to whomever he wishes. Even if the allegations were
true, the media does not reveal that any wrongdoing has taken
place. Some reports now state that Mr. Trump might have
shared information about an ISIS terrorism plot originating
from a non-U.S. source. If so, that would be the president's
judgment call.

We are seeing tactics, as some have pointed out, used by
Senator Joe McCarthy decades ago, and now used by
Democrats, liberals, and some Republicans --- the very
persons who used to complain about McCarthyism.)

Beyond that, the whole Trump-Russian narrative has no
“facts” at all. Yes, campaign officials met with Russian
officials (as did Clinton campaign officials and Democratic
congressional leaders), but what are the facts of what
happened in those meetings? (In one case, that of General
Flynn, he failed to tell the president and the vice president
of his meetings --- and he was promptly fired.)

There are many policies of the new administration which
are genuinely controversial. The new president has made
some mistakes, as every president in both parties does.
There is plenty for the opposition to bring up, and for the
media, to examine skeptically. That does not, however,
justify a weak opposition’s reliance on “fake news,” innuendo
and spitefulness in their public responsibilities.

Fort White House and Fort Mar Al Lago are under prolonged
sieges, but they are so far only sieges of words. They will no
doubt continue until next year’s mid-term elections. Who will
pay the greater price for this verbal warfare?

The answer will come when the voter cavalry arrives in 2018,
and whom they rescue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.




Friday, May 12, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: "Saudade" --- Should We Adopt It?

Here’s a foreign word most Americans would likely not ever
come across: saudade (sou-DAH-dthay).

It’s a word in the Portuguese language, and is often used not
only in its home country, but also in a land where Portuguese
is spoken the most --- Brazil.

In fact, it might surprise most Americans who speak English
as their native tongue to learn that about 270 million persons,
210 million in Brazil alone. speak this ancient romance language
derived, as most European languages were, from Latin. (The
Roman province where Portugal is located was called Lusitania.)
Portugal, with a population of about 11 million, isn’t even the
second largest nation speaking Portuguese. Two former
colonies, Angola and Mozambique, each with about 26 million
persons, have it as their official language. Portuguese is the
sixth most spoken language in the world.

So much for mere numbers.

Every language has at least a few words which are mostly
untranslatable. Saudade is one of those words in Portuguese.
Of course, there are a number of English words which hint at
its meaning, particularly “melancholy,” “nostalgia,” and
“longing for the past.” But those words don’t quite capture a
certain mood in the Portuguese/Brazilian character for the same
reason why popular American music, and the popular music of
any other ancient national peoples, have so many differences.

It is perhaps especially hard to translate saudade into English
which is so rich in vocabulary and diction, but not in emotion.

Nevertheless, in recent decades there has arisen considerable
popular American interest in the bossa nova and the samba,
those distinctive forms in Lusitanian-Brazilian music and
dance.

It should come as no surprise, that there is often much saudade
in the music of the bossa nova and the samba.

In fact, the rise of modern jazz and blues in American music
might be thought to bring new elements of emotion to our
popular music.

But why am I making so much about this one word?

Occasionally, a word usually limited to one country or one
culture, and not found anywhere else, captures a more universal
meaning and use because global circumstances have a use for it.

As an American whose family emigrated from northern Europe,
and a writer immersed in his own language, the emotional
nuances of more southern or even Mediterranean cultures are an
acquired taste. I do speak Spanish as a second language, but not
Portuguese --- and although derived from the same source, and
simultaneously, on the same ancient Iberian peninsula, Spanish
and Portuguese carry many different senses of feeling and
emotion.

As I’ve grown older, and particularly as I have passed through
probably the most dynamic period of global technological change,
I have found myself often thinking back not only about experiences,
and “things” and “places” which existed in the past, but no longer.
I find then there occurs feelings which are not merely “nostalgia,”
but something more. These are not just memories, as are often
called back to mind, but they produce also an intense emotion, a
powerful sadness ---as one might feel when something is
irretrievably lost.

If the reader is about fifty years old or younger, this might well
not be a something they share or recognize. Even younger folks
who are used to ever-changing devices, dynamic images, and
new and faster forms of transportation, the non-rhetorical and
emotive sense of saudade might seem like gibberish, or (OMG)
too poetic, or worse, an alien notion.

I think, however, that my older readers --- even those from
Nordic, Anglo-Saxon or Teutonic origins --- perhaps might have
on occasion a sense of saudade, and the extra-rational feelings it
invokes.

In another age, saudade might have easily been limited, as it
indeed was, to those who spoke a particular language and shared
some particular national experiences. Even in recent times,
memories of childhood and its objects, old films, old songs,
youthful adventures, persons known long ago and places visited
when young, have provoked conventional nostalgic feelings,
including their accompanying emotions, but I suggest that the
incredible velocities of change in almost every aspect of our lives
is now also producing a special emotion of loss as we recede from
the past so abruptly and so quickly.

In English there is no good word for this. Perhaps our
Portuguese-speaking neighbors have the right word for it.

Saudade.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Alternative Outcomes For 2018

We are now both close enough to, and far enough from, to
suggest three alternative outcomes to the 2018 national
mid-term elections.

The first is primarily a “paper” what-meets-the-eye outcome
that favors mostly the Republicans, but offers also some good
news for Democrats, especially at the state level.

In this scenario, the size of the GOP U.S. house majority is
likely to be diminished, but not by too much; the size of the
small GOP U.S. senate majority is likely to be moderately
expanded. On the other hand, in this “paper” model, the
Democrats would be likely to gain notably in governorships
and state legislatures now mostly led by Republicans. This
model assumes little impact from any Trump administration
success or lack of it, and neither a booming nor a sharply
declining economy.

The second possible outcome would be likely if the record of
President Trump and the Congress that his party now controls
is judged to be failing or unable to keep its campaign promises.
This could lead to sizable liberal gains in the U.S. house and
minimum GOP gains, if any, in the U.S. senate. Even should Mr.
Trump and his colleagues have some successes, if the U.S.
economy goes into another recession, the electoral prospects
for the conservatives would be likely more typical of mid-term
elections in which the party-in-power suffers net losses.

A third possible outcome is one not being much discussed
in the media, especially in the media hostile to Mr. Trump and
his party. In this scenario, the new administration breaks the
usual historical pattern of the first two years of a first term,
and succeeds in both transforming domestic public policy
while reestablishing U.S. military and political prestige in
foreign policy. At the outset of Mr. Trump’s term, this scenario
seemed “impossible” to Democrats, and even unlikely to many
Republicans, but as the new president “learns the ropes” of
Washington, and increasingly asserts himself on the world
stage, this outcome actually must be considered as a possibility.
But even should this transpire, the conservative party would also
need a continued upward motion in the economy, something
over which they more limited control. A program of tax cuts and
tax reform, however, would have notable impact, and this is
something the administration can do --- if it can successfully
negotiate the differences now existing in its own party.

These three general outcomes remain speculative at about 18
months from election day, 2018. On the other hand, this key
electoral moment is quickly approaching. In the contemporary
political environment, announcement of candidacies (previously
made at the end of the year before election day), now in most
cases must be made before the summer of the year before the
election --- well before many economic and issue trends are
apparent, and in this case, before it is clear whether or not the
new president and his administration is a success, a failure, or
something in between.

With so many international “hot spots” and crises, so many
domestic political forces pulling each major political party
apart, and now the clear sense of a global socio-economic
transformation taking place, there can be little doubt that what
lies ahead in U.S. politics will be robust excitement, surprises
and unexpected change.

Stay tuned in. Don’t change the dial.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.




Sunday, May 7, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: No Surprise

The presidential election in France provided no surprise when centrist candidate
Emmanuel Macron won a landslide victory over nationalist Marine Le Pen.

The biggest news from this election is that the trend of the demise of established
political parties in Western democratic nations continues. Neither of the two
traditional French parties had a candidate in the run-off election. M. Macron has
formed a new centrist party in France, and Mme. LePen has now promised to
form a new party, leaving behind the controversial party her father founded years
ago.The French parliamentary elections which will come soon will test the
existence of the four now-major parties, and possibly a fifth one if Mme Le Pen
succeeds in creating her new party in time.

Political party mitosis has now occurred, or is occurring, in most of the major
North American and European countries, including U.S., Canada, Spain,
United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and elsewhere.

President-elect Macron, 39, will take office next Sunday, and represents a belated
Gallic version of the model of left-to-center political figures that came to power
in the 1990s in the U.S. and U.K., Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. While both Mr.
Clinton and Mr. Blair were quite successful with their pro-entrepreneurial,
"third-way" liberal politics, their successors have moved decidedly to the left ---
and to political defeat.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Thursday, May 4, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: The House Does Its Job

The U.S. house of representatives, under its speaker, Paul Ryan,
finally passed the repeal of Obamacare, and replaced it with a
new plan for healthcare insurance. The vote was 217-213, two
votes more than necessary to pass the legislation.

An earlier version failed to gain enough support among the
members of the Republican majority, and was not even
brought to a vote. The reaction to this failure was considerable,
including censure from GOP President Trump who had
promised the repeal in the 2016 campaign.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), or Obamacare as it was known, 
was pushed through Congress in 2010 when the Democrats
held the majority in both the U.S. house and senate. The plan
incurred early and consistent criticism, and was a major
reason for Democratic election defeats in the mid-term votes
of 2010 and 2014.  After it went into full effect, it fiscal viability
quickly came into question, as costs rose and major insurance
companies abandoned the plan.

The revised GOP plan is considered by its advocates as a notable
improvement over the earlier conservative version, although
20 Republicans voted ‘no” on the final measure. All Democrats
voted “no.”

The legislation now goes to the U.S. senate where Republicans
have only a 52-48 majority. Some moderate GOP senators are
known to be unhappy with the legislation, and conventional
wisdom is that it will not pass there.

Even if the plan does pass the U.S. senate, any changes that
body makes must then go to conference (and, possibly,
reconciliation) and passage before it is sent to the president’s
desk for signing.

But immense pressure will now be on Republican senators to
okay the new legislation in advance of the 2018 mid-term
elections when conservatives have a rare opportunity to make
significant gains. Next year, only two GOP incumbent senate
seats are considered vulnerable, while 8-10 Democratic
incumbent seats are thought to be at risk. Should the GOP
senate majority fail to pass an Obamacare repeal bill, that
electoral opportunity could well be lost as national Democrats
would likely campaign against a “do-nothing” Congress
controlled by their opposition. GOP senate failure might also
harm efforts by the Trump administration to gain enough
votes for its next priority, tax reform.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who skillfully
guided the supreme court nomination of Neil Gorsuch to
confirmation, now has perhaps an even greater challenge
with the healthcare legislation just sent to the U.S. senate.

Speaker Paul Ryan, whose star had dimmed significantly after
the first effort to repeal Obamacare failed, has regained much
momentum, and President Donald Trump has achieved a
major short-term victory. Mr. Trump has also had a hard
lesson in the Washington, DC legislative process, and it will
be instructive to observe what he has learned in the months
ahead as he tries to play a key part in transforming his
Republican majority into a cohesive and cooperating
legislative body.

A true victory in healthcare insurance reform only takes place
when final legislation lands on the president’s desk and he
signs it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Sunday, April 30, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: "Resistance" Is Not A Strategy For Progress

As readers know, I have been writing a great deal recently
about international and national politics. I think it’s time to
discuss what’s going on in local politics at the city and
suburban level.

2017 is not a year for national or most statewide political
contests. There are two gubernatorial races and scattered
special congressional elections, but by far the political action
is in mayoral and city council races.

Forty-five years ago, I got into journalism by editing and
publishing two community newspapers, one of them in an
inner city for about 14 years. Although I now write almost
exclusively about national and global politics, I cut my
journalistic teeth on the rough-and-tumble politics in the
city of Minneapolis .

Actually by comparison, “rough-and-tumble” is a gross
overstatement of local political activity in the 1970s and
1980s when compared to what goes on in the nightmarish
urban political arenas in 2017.

When I first arrived in Minneapolis from the East Coast, 12
of the 13 city council members (then called aldermen) were
Republicans. It has been decades now since a member of that
party has been elected in the city. Democrats (here called the
Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party or DFL) and Green Party
members make up the entire city council, and of course, the
mayor is a DFLer. The twin cities of Minneapolis and St.
Paul and their metropolitan areas make up about half the
state’s population and voters, and usually supply the DFL
with considerable net margins on election day. In 2016,
however, Donald Trump almost upset Hillary Clinton statewide,
and Minnesota is now a ”purple” state.

For an independent centrist, as I am, there is not much choice
these days in city elections. For more conservative voters and
Republicans there is even less choice since virtually all
candidates for city offices espouse far left and “politically
correct” views they do not share.

But I try to vote in every election, local state and national; and
this year --- with Republicans at the national and most state
levels the majority party --- I am taking a special interest in the
city elections of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

There are about six major candidates for mayor of Minneapolis,
the state’s largest city, although my guess is that only four of them
have a real chance to win. Complicating any assessment of all the
races in the two cities is the controversial electoral innovation of
“ranked-choice voting” (RCV), This process replaces the party
primary, Everyone who qualifies is on the November ballot, and the
voter can specify their first, second and third choices for each office.
If a candidate receives 50% plus one votes, RCV does not come into
play, but if the top candidate only receives a plurality, the system is
activated, and a formula for calculating the 2nd and 3rd choices is
applied until one candidate receives more than 50%. Although this
system has previously been in effect in the Twin Cities, so far the
highest vote-getter has won.

This year, however, RCV may alter some outcomes in Minneapolis
and St. Paul.

I have attended mayoral forums, meet-and greets, and campaign
events in Minneapolis. Realizing that all the candidates would be
DFLers or Green Party, liberal-to-far-left, I was curious to see if
any of the candidates had the imagination to try to appeal to more
moderate or conservative voters (who make up about 25-30% of the
total city-wide). Initial forays were disappointing, but at a recent
event for one major mayoral candidate, Tom Hoch, I was surprised
and impressed when he opened his remarks with the statement,
“ ‘Resistance’ is not a strategy for progress.” Mr. Hoch has not ever
won elected office before, but he has decades of work in a variety of
civic organizations and programs, and is perhaps the best qualified
candidate, based on experience, to be mayor of Minneapolis. He
also has impeccable liberal credentials. It was refreshing to hear
someone not pander to minimum wage and other ‘entitlement”
proposals, and to suggest that urban leadership is a complex matter
that isn’t merely about rhetoric and slogans. Two of the other
candidates have given hints of this --- perhaps Mr, Hoch’s boldness
will enable them now to follow suit. The fourth candidate, by the way,
is the incumbent mayor (who a national publication recently rated as
one of “America’s worst mayors”). Still in her first term, the fact that
several major candidates in her own party are challenging her would
seem to reinforce that claim. In any event, with six candidates dividing
the DFL vote, it might not be a bad strategy for at least one of them to
make some appeal to a bloc of 25-30% non-DFL voters (and to the
much-ignored urban small businessperson).

Mr. Hoch’s statement goes beyond just strategy, I think. It represents
something more than the hysterical response to the election of Donald
Trump by those who did not vote for him last November. The so-called
“Resistance” movement has perhaps been more counter-productive
than some Democrats thought it would be, It has no doubt rallied some
on the left, but more critically, it has likely gained little support from
centrist and independent voters, many of whom did not vote for Mr.
Trump.  It certainly has not chipped away Mr. Trump’s base --- which
recent polls show remain staunchly loyal to him. Mr. Hoch’s statement
further reveals what many years of civic experience has taught him ---
that mere melodramatic protest is not a real plan for accomplishing the
progressive goals that most city dwellers share.

I have not yet decided who I will vote for this year, but I am watching
the races more closely than usual. I am looking for signs that a
effective Democratic and liberal opposition is emerging from their
trauma of last November, and that workable and thoughtful solutions
for the nation’s cities (where most of the opposition voters live) can be
proposed, discussed, and implemented.

Unlike previous Republican presidential candidates, Mr. Trump
actually went into the inner cities, and among minority voters, during
the campaign --- and asked those voters if years of Democratic Party
political control and programs had actually made their lives better.
He didn’t get a lot of urban votes in 2016, but if Democrats can do no
better than mere “resistance” and more failing programs, they might
not like the response of urban voters in campaigns ahead.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Neo-Nationalism Rising?

A lot of commentators who don’t know better, and a few
who do, are talking about a pan-Atlantic rise in “fascism,”
citing recent popular resistance to the internationalism
and trans-nationlism which has been in vogue among
some elites in Western nations increasingly since the end
of World War II.

It is especially being applied by some to the stated policies
of the new president of the United States, Donald Trump.
This application seems to me outrageously misplaced.

Fascism was an early 20th century movement that arose first
in Italy, then in Germany, and finally in Spain. The leaders of
these countries, including Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler
and Francisco Franco, were self-proclaimed fascists. They
were each dictators who took and kept power under the
rationalization that a corporate state ruled by them should
dominate all aspects of public and private life with no
accountability and no recourse by individual citizens or
democratically elected representative institutions.

Freedom, rule by law, social and religious tolerance did not
exist in the fascist state. Fascist parties also existed at the
same time in other European nations, and when the Axis
Powers overran virtually the entire continent, these fascists
were placed in power. The result was the murder, persecution,
brutal violence and suffering targeting hundreds of millions of
civilians, especially in the period from 1939 to 1945.

There was also a fascist movement in Great Britain,
especially among its aristocratic class, and in the United
States, but they had no sizable following and at the outbreak
of war, they collapsed. They have not reappeared except for
tiny groups that are shunned by almost everyone today.

That was genuine and historical fascism. Any use of the word
that does not fit those descriptions is pure propaganda.

Nationalism, on the other hand, is an historical phenomenon
which has existed in various forms as long as there have been
modern societies and nation states. It is a movement which
prizes national identity and sovereignty. It can be misused if
it distorts democratic principles, but it can be applied in
positive and constructive ways if it enhances national pride
and accomplishment in democratic capitalist states.

Another movement that arose in the early 20th century was
totalitarian communism. Like fascism, it was in practice
intensely centralized, undemocratic and dictatorial. The
Soviet Union was the first example of this movement to
form a viable state. It existed from about 1918 through 1990.
The other major communist nation is China. This state was
created in 1949, following  a revolution, and continues to the
present time. It did, after 50 years of rigid Marxism, adopt
quasi-capitalist economic practices while at the same time
maintaining non-democratic central government political
controls. Between 1945 and the late 1980s, the Soviet Union
imposed communist governments in the European nations
its army had overrun at the end of World War II, including
Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania,
Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the former
Yugoslavia. Each of these nations abandoned communism
when the Soviet Union imploded and collapsed.

Fascist and communist states managed, in only a few decades,
to murder more than a hundred million persons in cold blood,
with the worst acts of this depravity done under the direct
orders of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse Tung.

Nationalism has historically been a widespread and pragmatic
point of view in virtually all democratic states, and was the
compelling norm for virtually all nation states in the
pre-democratic world before the the 18th century. One of the
natural and enduring characteristics of nationalism, in
addition to pride in language, culture and history, is the
notion of national sovereignty.

A nineteenth century movement of a utopian planet arose
with the notion of dissolving all national borders, and the
creation of a universal government on earth. First steps in
this direction were taken in the formation of the League of
Nations (which soon failed) and the United Nations (which is
in the process of failing).  On the other hand, steps to
advance cooperative economic activity, primarily global trade,
have led to the creation of the European Union, various trade
organizations, international treaties, worldwide economic
institutions such as the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund.

These financial and trade entities have been more successful,
albeit controversial, and have endured because they are not
primarily in conflict with the principal of national sovereignty.
But when they do, they begin to fail.

President Donald Trump’s “nationalist” philosophy is in
direct line with that of those who founded this nation. It is
not anti-internationalist, nor is it anti-global trade. It is, on
the other hand, a re-assertion of U.S. national interests in its
military and economic relationships, something that was
clearly weakening in recent years.  (Egregious examples
include proposals to cede U.S. sovereignty to questionable
international tribunals.)

It was the sovereignty issue which provoked the Brexit vote in
the United Kingdom, and which fuels the euroskeptic movement
throughout Europe. Although Charles DeGaulle supported the
European Common Market, he was no less bitterly opposed to
the loss of French sovereignty under the goals of what became
the European Union than are the euroskeptics of today.

In some distant and yet unimaginable world society, national
borders might finally disappear, but in the world we know now,
and the one we might foresee to an horizon of time, the utopian
notion of world government and the abolition of nation states is
nothing less than an open invitation to global totalitarianism and
the return to the depravities of new fascisms, new communisms,
and new terrorisms.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Two Aging Political Parties

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party, the two U.S.
major political parties, are both showing signs of old age.

In Spain and France, both nations with parliamentary systems,
two-major party systems arose in their post-World War II
governments and until very recently, a party of the left and a
party of the right dominated their national political life.

Last year, there was a mitosis of the two parties in Spain, and
now the nation has four parties, two on the left and two on the
right. As of this week in France, there are now also four major
parties, two on the right and two on the left. Neither of the two
traditional parties were able to place a candidate in the
presidential election run-off. The next president of France will
probably be a former Socialist minister who has created a new
party of the center-left. The Socialist candidate came in a very
distant last --- this in spite of his party currently being in power.

After the 2016 U.S. election, the Democratic Party, shocked by the
upset defeat of their presidential candidate, a loss again of both
houses of Congress, and clear minority status in governorships
and state legislatures, was shattered. Democratic nominee
Hillary Clinton, representing the party establishment and its
liberal voters, ran an historically inept campaign, after a bitter
nomination battle in which she bested the insurgent leftist
wing of the party and its candidate Bernie Sanders. In the wake
of her defeat, the radical wing has moved quickly to replace the
liberal wing, but the views and programs of this wing are not
likely to appeal to independent voters, much less more moderate
Democrats. After years of holding their party together, the
Democrats are now aggressively divided.

This should be good news for the conservative Republican
Party, but the GOP has its own profound divisions, and they are
on flagrant display as its populist wing obstructs promised
legislation of the new administration of President Donald Trump
and the congressional leadership on behalf of the traditional
conservative wing of the party.

The incipient formation of four U.S. political parties might be
underway, as it has happened in France and Spain. In Germany
and United Kingdom, similar party tensions and transformations
are also taking place, albeit with different issues. In Germany,
for example, the political pull is to the left, as Chancellor Angela
Merkel, leader of the relatively conservative party, is facing an
unexpectedly challenging re-election from one party on her left.
In the United Kingdom, Conservative Party Prime Minister
Theresa May is flourishing because her Labor Party opposition
on her left  is divided and now led by the radical Jeremy Corbyn
who had taken his party into a nosedive, rejecting the direction
of former prime minister Tony Blair. The third British party,
the Liberals, has also faded, and the separatist Scottish National
Party now controls almost all the seats in Scotland (at the expense
primarily of the Labour Party).

In short, traditional major political parties in leading Western
democratic nations seem to be breaking apart.

Where this might lead in the U.S. is unclear. The new majority
party, the Republicans, faces likely angry voters next year in the
national mid-term elections if they don’t produce more results
and keep their campaign promises. The problem for GOP leaders
in the house and senate is that individual members and small
blocs on both the center right and far right are not compromising
on key legislation.

The problem for Democrats is the heady pull to the left threatens
to disappoint more moderate Democrats not only in the Congress,
but in the liberal electorate. The party of Bernie Sanders, Maxine
Waters and Elizabeth Warren is not the same as the party of
Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp and Jason Kander.

The wild card in the U.S. political equation is Donald Trump. A
former Democrat, with no history as a conservative, he has
adopted most of his new party’s program, but he is no ideologue.
If  ideological disputes thwart his political goals, he could reach
out to moderate Democrats and independent voters to pass
legislation. This is what President Bill Clinton did with
Speaker New Gingrich to conclude his second term successfully.
That was formally divided government, but the bottom line is
that, if the voters sent any message in 2016, it is that they wanted
action on the nation’s problems.

Before you know it, November, 2018 will be here. This is no country
for old political parties.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.


Friday, April 21, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Curious Parallels?

In the 20th century, there were volatile interim decades which
preceded periods of war and global change. In our 21st
century, it would appear we are in the midst of such an
interim decade in its “teen-age” (2012-19) years, although to
where and to what it will lead is far from clear.

The age from 16 to 17 can be particularly unsettling for a
young individual in our society, and so it would seem it is for
our whole planet in the years 2016 and 2017.

The world in the 1930s struggled to put itself together not
only after a violent and seemingly senseless world war, but
also after the initial blows of a global economic depression.
It also was marked by the rise of new and frightening
totalitarian ideologies, the genesis of global decolonization,
and the appearance of rapid new planet-altering technologies
in communications, transportation, consumer goods and
medicine.

Very few persons who were adults in the 1930s are now alive,
so our understanding of it, like all history, is second-hand.

As I write this in April, 2017, we have just seen an historic
upset in the presidential election in the United States, and the
introduction of many about-face polices as a consequence;
the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom and its separation from
the European Union (EU); a populist uprising in post-Cold War
Europe; the political and economic rise of two largest nations
on earth, China and India (both in Asia); new instability
throughout most of the continent of South America; an
intensification of an earlier wave of terrorism emanating
from the Middle East; plus new and greater patterns of
intracontinental and intercontinental migration with
accompanying disruptions; and the continuing and numbing
faster velocity of new technologies.

That, to put it colloquially, is a lot to swallow in just one year,
and doesn’t even mention or detail other perhaps less “cosmic”
circumstances and events which have occurred --- or are about
to occur.

To further confuse or diminish our perception and understanding
of all this turmoil and change, the means by which we receive
this news has been compromised by the very media we depend on
to bring it to us. A hyper-subjectivity now permeates most
communications --- almost everything seems to be transmitted
with over-dressed ideological clothing. In other words, and also
colloquially, there is no “naked truth” --- or. we are told, no truth
at all.

I make two points. First, this kind of interim has happened
before, although the names and places were different. Second, if
history does instruct us, this interim is the “volatile” calm before
an historical storm.

In the interim before World War I (1904-13), and the one before
World War II (1929-38), the civilized world seemed to go like
sleepwalkers into catastrophe.

Are we, as a species, still somnambulists? Or do we, this time,
decide to wake up?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright(c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: The "Meddling" Media Get It Wrong Again

The special congressional election in Georgia, according to
the national “meddling” media, was heading to be a devastating
defeat for the current Republican majority, and particularly
for President Trump. It is difficult to remember an occasion
where so many one-sided resources were thrown into a
congressional race that failed in its objective.

To understand the magnitude of these one-sided resources, it is
necessary to note that the main Democratic candidate, Jon
Ossoff, a 30 year-old first-time candidate, spent between 8 and
9 million dollars on his campaign, while the four main
Republican candidates spent no more than a few hundred
thousand dollars each on their campaigns. In addition, Ossoff
received the support of thousands of out-of-state liberal
volunteers who came into Georgia to help him. Finally,
the neophyte liberal candidate received millions of dollars of
free publicity from the liberal national media as it made him,
in a matter of weeks, into a celebrity and the hoped-for
harbinger of voter rebuke to President Trump.

The Georgia 6th district is made of three counties in the 
Atlanta metro area. Since Newt Gingrich won this seat in the
late 1970s, it has elected Republicans, including the latest
incumbent, Tom Price, who resigned recently to join President
Trump’s cabinet. The district includes some of the most
affluent voters in Georgia, however, and polling across the
nation show clearly that some of the biggest Democratic
majorities come from rich urban voters.  Indeed, the most
affluent parts of the 6th district gave Ossoff about 56% of their
vote in the special election. Only months earlier, Hillary
Clinton had come close to beating Mr. Trump in this district,
and this gave national and local Democrats hope that, if voters
had truly soured on the president, and enough resources were
poured into this race, they could deliver an upsetting blow to
the Republicans in advance of next year’s national mid-term
elections in which the entire U.S. house must face the voters.

With all the votes counted, the Democratic hopeful received
48%.

To be fair to Mr. Ossoff, he had good credentials, was an
able and attractive campaigner, and was unfairly charged by
Republicans as an outsider because his current residence was
just beyond the district’s borders. In fact, Mr. Ossoff had
grown up in the district.

The race now goes to a run-off on June 20 since Georgia law
requires a 50%-plus-one win to take the seat. Mr. Ossoff could
still win, but Republican nominee Karen Handel now will
receive all of the Republican vote, and not have to share it. In
fact, it appears that Republican candidates received slightly
more total votes than Democratic candidates in the special
election. With two months to cool off, and the unlikelihood
that the resources will be so one-sided in the campaign ahead,
Mr. Ossoff now faces increasing negative odds in the
two-person contest.

So what happened in Georgia?

It is clear nationally that Democrats do not like Donald Trump.
In a recent Kansas congressional special election, the GOP
candidate won, but by a notably smaller margin than Trump
had carried the district last November. President Trump has
had a predictably uneven first 100 days in office (although the
recent confirmation of his supreme court nominee, and his
widely-praised airstrike against Assad in Syria, have boosted
his poll numbers).

On the other hand, national Democrats seem poised to move
sharply to the left with a takeover of the party by its Bernie
Sanders/Elizabeth Warren/MaxineWaters wing. Such a move
does not seem likely to enhance Democratic prospects in rural
America, and in rust belt and Southern states (like Georgia)
where Republicans and Mr. Trump have been so strong.

The Democratic message in Georgia was decidedly anti-Trump,
but it is clear that Republicans there were not swayed by it.
In fact, although President Trump stayed out of the race until
the end, he did tweet widely-publicized messages the day before
the special election denouncing Mr. Ossoff and urging Republican
voters to turn out in the special election. Since the Democrat fell
only two points short of the necessary majority, Mr. Trump might
even, rightly or wrongly, take some credit for the result.

What lies ahead?

There are a few more special elections this year, including the
Georgia run-off, but Democratic prospects in them are not
very promising. Mr. Trump’s popularity, according to the polls,
seems to be rising a bit. The stock market remains in an upward
motion, and congressional Republicans seem increasingly aware
of what will happen to them if they don’t fulfill their campaign
promises. Even the recent Obamacare repeal debacle could be
reversed in coming months.

Worst of all, perhaps, for the Democrats is that the “meddling”
media, so eager to help them, might be their unintended worst
enemy. That media, by creating unfulfilled expectations,
ultimately corrode the enthusiasm and energy of Democrats
who understandably want to do well in 2018  and 2020.

There seems to be palpable disappointment for liberals in the
aftermath of he first round of the Georgia special election. If
the media had not meddled so much, that disappointment might
not have been so great, and the result possibly even different.

Media not seen as fair and credible by the public at large, even
if they are on your side, might not actually be your friends.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) by Barry Casselman. All right reserved.

Monday, April 17, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Whither France?

If today continental Europeans consider off-shore Great
Britain (UK) the region’s “bad boy” for its Brexit vote, they
should recall that only 50 years ago the main troublemaker
was not the UK, but France under the leadership of Charles
DeGaulle.

DeGaulle had emerged suddenly in the early days of World
War II when, after France’s humiliating defeat by the Nazi
invaders, he and a small group of French soldiers fled to
London, and set up a government-in-exile. Always a thorn
in the side of President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime
Minister Winston Churchill who together were directing the
Allied war efforts, De Gaulle overcame rivalries with other
French generals not under control of the Nazis or the
notorious collaborationist Vichy regime headed by Marshall
Petain, and by the time in 1944 when Paris was liberated and
the Nazis were routed, he was the biggest Gallic hero of the
war, and the leader of the new provisional government.

There is very little that is admirable about much French
conduct during the war, especially in the Vichy regime
which was not directly under Hitler’s army control, but there
was a notable resistance effort by some courageous French
men and women, and there was the small but noisy (thanks
to DeGaulle) Free French outpost in London. This provided
much salve to the French psyche after the war, despite the
nation’s general cooperation in deporting French Jewry to Nazi
concentration camps and their eventual brutal murders, as well
as its hasty surrender to the advancing Nazi armies in 1940
and later collaboration with the Hitler regime.

DeGaulle, by his escape, had preserved for many of the French
their national honor, and although he soon retired in 1947,
it was he who the nation called on more than a decade
later when the Algerian civil war threatened to destroy the
republic. DeGaulle always had not only a powerful sense of
personal destiny, but also an excessive view of French grandeur
and importance in the world.

Returning to found the Fifth Republic in 1958, DeGaulle
redefined the role of the president, and settled the Algerian war
by allowing the North African territory (not exactly a colony
since it was considered an integral part of France) to become a
sovereign nation. He then embarked on his own desire to make
France apart from the NATO alliance, and establish his country
as a go-between in the Cold War pitting the Soviet Union against
the democratic nations of Europe and North America. This latter
effort failed because the Soviet leaders rightly saw that he had
little real influence. At the same time, France lost most of her
African and Asian colonies, including Viet Nam. In 1969, on a visit
to Canada, De Gaulle stunningly offended his hosts by declaring
his sympathy for Quebec separatists (“Vive Quebc Libre!”). and
was forced to cut his visit short. In spite of the sanctuary provided
to him by Churchill and Great Britain during the war, and its
efforts with the U.S. to liberate France, DeGaulle resented the UK,
and consistently vetoed its entry into the Common Market. By
1969, he had worn out his welcome in his native country, and
following a parliamentary defeat, he resigned, dying a year
later at age 80.

After De Gaulle, the French immediately approved British entry
into the Common Market, and continued the policy of
rapprochement with West Germany. France rejoined NATO,
and its economy soared. Nevertheless, it was West Germany (later
reunited with East Germany) which emerged as the dominant
economy in the EU. In recent times, French leaders have allowed
significant immigration of foreigners from North Africa and the
Middle East (as have the other EU nations), and the French
economy has declined under the current socialist regime. Attacks
against the largest remaining Jewish population in Europe by new
immigrants has raised the specter of the earlier Nazi persecution,
and French Jews are now leaving France in increasing and noticeable
numbers. French euroskeptics are calling for France to leave the EU
(“Frexit”), and many feel their French identity is being threatened
from within.

In this volatile environment, France is about to hold its perhaps
most significant national election since World War II. The
presidential candidates of the two major parties actually trail
the leading candidates. One of those frontrunners is Marine Le Pen,
a populist/nationalist who opposes more immigration and wants to
take France out of the EU. The other frontrunner, Emmanuel Macron,
is a former socialist minister who formed, he claims, a new centrist
party that is pro-immigration and pro-EU.  The socialist candidate,
Benoit Hamon, is in last place, and is not even gaining in he polls at
the end. That is because another leftist candidate, Jean-Luc
Melenchon,  who is pro-immigration but anti EU, has come much
closer to the leaders in the polls, as has the conservative candidate,
Francois Fillon, who had earlier been hurt by allegations of personal
scandal.

With the election only days away,  pollsters allege that the race
is tightening, and that any of four could be in the top two. A run-off
is typical of French presidential elections. It was thought that M.
Macron was a shoo-in to be elected president in that run-off if the
other frontrunner, Mme. Le Pen, were his opponent. But two very
important factors suggest that this conclusion might be premature.
First, it is now much more unclear who the final two candidates
will be, and second, an amazing 30-35% of French voters are
reportedly still undecided about whom they will vote for.

In addition to the many local and regional issues at stake in the
imminent French parliamentary and presidential elections, the two
biggest issues, the EU and immigration, touch on the very identity
of France and its republic. In the political time of Donald Trump
and Brexit (both of those elections also has an extraordinary number
of undecided voters until the end), the French vote has potentially
tremendous implications for Europe, the U.S. and the world.

The suspense about its outcome, once thought to be minimal, is now
growing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Should Republicans Worry?

A special election in Kansas was just held to replace a popular
Republican congressman who took a cabinet post in the new
Trump administration. Many in the media glibly speculated
that the results, especially if the Democrat won or got close, 
might be an early omen for the mid-term elections next year.
As it turned out, The GOP candidate won by a clear but not
overwhelming margin. Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics,
always a smart and cool-headed observer, suggests that no
one should make too much about this election because the
overriding factor in 2018 will be later public perception of the
Trump administration and the Congress’s record of
achievement or lack of it.

There will be about a half dozen special elections over the
next few months, and this caution should be carefully applied
--- although upsets are possible, and Democrats will surely
try hard to make them happen where an incumbent GOP seat
is involved.

While it is obviously too early to assess what the public mood
will be more than a year from now, that does not mean that the
Republican house majority is inviolable. A current media mantra
is the possibility that liberals could win back the U.S. house in
spite of the currently comfortable GOP majority. The recent
split in the majority caucus recently the unresolved debate over
Obamacare repeal and replacement, a key issue that favored
Republicans in the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, could have
a boomerang effect if the GOP majority does not deliver on its
promise by the end of the year. Demographics and redistricting
have given the conservative party a clear advantage in the past
decade, and that advantage remains on paper, but voters are
these days remarkably impatient with gridlock and vacuous
promises.

Inexperienced in the ways of DC legislation, President Trump
has deferred to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell to navigate the conservative legislative
program through the Congress, and to his desk. Mr. Trump,
as he repeatedly points out, likes to win, and he will not defer
forever. Mr. Trump is not up for re-election in 2018, but the
entire U.S. house is, as is one-third of the U.S. senate,

Ahead is important and promised legislation on tax reform and
tax cuts, infrastructure spending, the complex issues of the new
budget, and the overhaul of the government in Washington, DC.
If 25-35 Freedom Caucus members continue to thwart the
Trump-Ryan-McConnell agenda, Republicans would have every
reason to worry about their “impenetrable” majority in the
house, and their rare opportunity to pick up as many as 10 seats
in the senate.

GOP strategists would be well-advised not to be pre-occupied
with occasional special elections which might turn more on local
issues, and better be concerned about getting their political act
together, and soon.

The man in the White House is the most improbable, and perhaps
the most underestimated, political figure in a very long time. His
pedigree suggests action, surprise (some might prefer the word
“shock”) and a thirst for success. He is being respectful, for the
time being, of the ways of Washington, and seemingly prepared
to work in its environment.

But if Donald Trump discovers that the Capitol is just a decorous
and unyielding china shop, it might get a lot noisier than it is now. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Monday, April 10, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: One Minnesota Congressman, and Perhaps Two, To Run For Governor

Minnesota’s first district Congressman Tim Walz has
announced he will not run for re-election for his southeastern
Gopher State seat, but will run for governor in 2018 instead. A
former school teacher, Walz had held the seat for six terms. A
farming region that also includes the booming city of Rochester,
it has traditionally elected centrist Democrats (called the
Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party or DFL here) and conservative
Republicans until Walz. In his first election, Walz promised
voters he would serve in the tradition of popular DFL
Congressman Tim Penny, a nationally-known centrist who
served from 1983 to 1995, but it soon became apparent that Walz
was voting more like an urban liberal than a rural centrist,
and his vote margins declined sharply in his recent re-elections,
narrowly avoiding defeat in 2016 as Donald Trump carried the
district by 15 points.

Jim Hagedorn, son of a former first district GOP congressman,
almost beat Walz with his second try in 2016, and now is the clear
frontrunner for the Republican nomination. But Walz’s retirement
is likely to bring other GOP candidates into the contest. No formal
announcements have yet appeared on the DFL side.

Mr. Penny, now the president of a regional non-profit foundation
in the area, and still a popular figure there, said, “The 1st district
is now in play, but Hagedorn may not be the strongest candidate
for the Republicans --- though he does have a jump start on the
others. Still, given recent trends, this district, in my view, leans
Republican.”

Current DFL Governor Mark Dayton is retiring after two terms,
and the DFL field of candidates to succeed him is large. Walz,
largely unknown outside his home district, will likely have an
uphill contest to win his party’s nomination against at least four
or five other DFL candidates who are more well-known in the
Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul (where most of the DFL
votes are in the state). In fact, another incumbent DFL
congressman, Rick Nolan, who represents the northeastern 8th
district, is also reportedly seriously considering a bid for
governor. Congressman Nolan, much better known throughout
the state, might have a better chance for the DFL nomination
than Walz.

Donald Trump almost upset Hillary Clinton last year in this
previously reliable red state, and local Republicans are optimistic
they can win back the governorship in 2018 after winning control
of both houses of the state legislature in 2016. The GOP problem
so far, however, is that no major candidate has entered the contest
for its party nomination.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Friday, April 7, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: An Historic 24 Hours

A 24-hour period of April 6-7, 2017 has proved to be not
only historic, but perhaps  a turning point in the nascent
administration of President Donald Trump.

Beginning with a punitive raid on a Syrian government air
base from which a chemical warfare attack on Syrian civilians
had been reportedly launched only days earlier, Mr. Trump not
only made the most dramatic assertion of his role as U.S.
commander-in-chief, he decisively assumed his, and revived the
nation’s, command of the free world. His action, a sudden
reversal of his words only days before, was welcomed warmly
by the leaders of virtually all U.S. allies, including those who
had previously been critical of him. It also shattered any
presumption that the new administration would not confront
Russia.

A few hours later, the U.S. senate confirmed Mr, Trump’s first
nomination to the U.S. supreme court by a 54-45 margin. In the
confirmation process, the last remaining filibuster procedure
was eliminated, thus making any future Trump nominations
confirmable by a simple majority.

In the logistics of the successful air raid, it appears that the
president deferred to the experienced military figures he has
appointed to advise him. In the confirmation process, he
deferred to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who now
emerges as a particularly strong figure in the future course of
the administration’s legislative program.

So far, a pattern has appeared in Mr. Trump’s actions of
attempting to fulfill domestic campaign promises and of
maintaining flexibility in foreign affairs. There are risks in the
latter, including disappointing those in his own party who
bitterly oppose foreign interventions, and in changing the
dynamic in our relationships with Russia and China. The
military action in Syria was clearly very limited, but it is likely
to produce consequences, including whether or not the U.S.
military role in the region will be increased. It is  often unclear
what will happen when you alter the chemistry of international
circumstances.

Although the two developments in an unusual 24-hour period
might be counted a short-term victories for the new president,
many major and problematic issues remain ahead in the
domestic and foreign policies of the U.S. government.

If anything lasting might be gleaned from these notable
developments, it is the reinforcement of the advisory repeatedly
expressed on these pages --- it is much more important to pay
attention to what President Donald Trump does than just to 

what he says.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All right reserved.

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: A Poet Departs

Obituaries of poets are usually short, and they are of
interest to very few these days. Poetry is in a prolonged
depression.

But major publications this week feature prominently, often
on their front pages, the just-announced death of Yevgeny
Yevtushenko, 84, the Russian poet known in the non-Soviet
West as a dissident and troublemaker, as well as for his
verse. He was popular in the Soviet Union, too, and after
Nikita Kruschchev came to power, in the 1950s, briefly in
favor in the Kremlin as part of its effort to shatter the myths
about long-time dictator Joseph Stalin.

Perhaps his most famous poem was “Babi Yar” --- a searing
indictment of the Soviet government’s refusal to acknowledge
the site of the Nazi massacre of 33,000 Jews in the outskirts
of Kiev in 1941. Yevtushenko was a poetry rock star in Soviet
Russia, Europe and the U.S. (which he often visited) after that,
and drew huge crowds for his readings in the 1960s, 70s, 80s
and 90s.

It was on one of those occasions, when Yevtushenko came to
Minneapolis for a reading, that I had an interesting and
memorable encounter with him.

Before his reading, he held a press conference in a hotel across
the street from my office. I was publishing a local newspaper
then, so it was especially easy for me to go to this press
conference.

Yevtushenko was a charismatic figure who spoke English quite
well, and appeared before us with a characteristic cigarette
drooping from his lips and a diffident manner. He parried most
of the questions as if he had heard them all before.

Towards the end of this event, I raised my hand and asked him
a question that appeared to shock him. His cigarette fell from his
lips onto the table in front of him, and he suddenly became very
animated.

“What do you know abut the Russian poet Alexander Mezhirov?”
I asked him.

A moment for a backstory:  My family on both sides came from
what is now Ukraine, but which then was part of the Soviet Union.
Many in my mother’s family came here at the turn of the century
in the 1890s. Their name was spelled “Masiroff” at Ellis Island,
but it was really spelled “Mezhirov” in correct transliteration.
My grandparents came from large families in the shtetls (ghetto
villages) in the outskirts of Kiev. Immigrant Mezhirovs settled
in New York, Cleveland, Chicago, Pittsburgh and Erie, PA. It
was a family of folk musicians (“klezmorim”) --- although most
of the emigres went into retail trade after they settled in America.
My grandfather, who was a conductor and composer, went into
the furniture business in Erie. Cousins in Chicago (“Mesirows”)
went into the drug store business. Cousins in other cities went
into sales and real estate development.

My Aunt Sylvia, my mother’s sister, was the only Erie sibling of
that first generation to become a serious musician. She was also
the most cultural figure in my immediate family, and introduced
me to classical literature even before my teens. Like her mother,
she was very aware of her family tradition, and kept me posted
on the exploits of famous relatives such as jazz legend Mezz
Mezzrow (real name Milton Mesirow, the son of the Chicago
cousins), bandleader Eddie Dutchin, and pianist/harpsichordist
Rosylin Tureck. A prodigious reader, one day in the 1980s she
read a biography of the Russian novelist Boris Pasternak, and
discovered that he had befriended a young poet named
Alexander Mezhirov just before World War II. Mezhirov, it
turns out, survived his military service, and returning to
Moscow, became a protege of Pasternak. Surviving the Stalinist
era, Mezhirov wrote and published many books of poetry, and
became a literary household name in Russia. His poems, however,
were not translated into English in the U.S., and he was unknown
here. Aunt Sylvia wrote to me to be on the lookout for our
hitherto unknown cousin. (My grandmother once told me that all
Mezhirovs are related.)

Back in Minneapolis, I realized I might have an opportunity now
to find out more about my cousin, so I asked Yevtushenko if he
knew anything about him.

“ALEXANDER MEZHIROV!” the charismatic poet boomed,
coming suddenly to life. “No one has ever asked me about him
before.” Then he went on, “Alexander Mezhirov was my mentor
when I came to Moscow from Siberia as a young man. He’s a
great poet.”

After the press conference, Yevtushenko came directly up to me
and asked, “How do you know Alexander Mezhirov?” I explained
that I had reason to believe he was my cousin. I told Yevtushenko
about my family and the names of the two shtetl villages
(Bobrovits and Koselets) outside Kiev where the Mezhirovs had
lived in the 18th and 19th centuries. I also gave him a copy of my
own book of poetry which had recently been published. “You’re
in luck,” Yevtushenko told me, “Mezhirov lives in my apartment
building in Moscow, and I am going to tell him about you.”

About two weeks later, I received a telegram, in English, from
Alexander Mezhirov in Moscow. “We are definitely related,” it
said, “My father was born in Kozelets, and my family is from
there.” It turns out that the father had moved to Moscow (where
Alexander was born in 1933) before World War II, but that most
of the Mezhirovs who had not emigrated to the U.S. had remained
there. (Ilya Ehrenberg, another famous Soviet writer, wrote of
how the entire village of Koselets --- men, women and children ---
had been lined up in a field and murdered by the Nazis in 1942.)

Aunt Sylvia was overjoyed when I wrote to her about the
telegram.


[There is a fascinating postscript to this story. Shortly after
hearing from Mezhirov, I learned he was coming to the U.S. to
speak at Columbia University. I hastily arranged for him to
come also to Minnesota where we had a remarkable family
reunion. I then took him by train to Chicago where he met my
niece Tobi (also a writer). But all of that is another story.....)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.


Saturday, April 1, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Weekend News Update 6

DEMOCRATS HEADING TOWARD 
FILIBUSTER
Democrats in the U.S. senate seem to be heading for an historic
confrontation over the confirmation of Neal Gorsuch to the
U.S. supreme court. Although liberal senators are in the
minority (and have only 48 votes to the conservative majority
of 52), current rules enable the minority opposition to block
confirmation if there are 40 votes to prevent cloture (which
stops a filibuster and allows for a final vote). In effect, the GOP
needs 8 Democrats to force a vote on the nomination. However,
under a precedent established by the Democrats when they had
control of the senate, the 60-vote rule to cut off a filibuster
could be abolished by a simple majority, thus guaranteeing Mr.
Gorsuch’s nomination this time, and making it easy for the
GOP majority to confirm any future supreme court
nominations. Making the filibuster-minded Democratic
senate leadership prospects even more problematic is that, if
as appears more likely than not, the GOP increases its
majority in 2018, and maintains it in 2020 and 2024, the
Democrats will not be able to reverse the filibuster abolition
even if they win back the presidency in 2020 or 2024, thus
perhaps thwarting the seating of any liberal justices in the
foreseeable future. Two Democratic senators have said they
will vote for Mr. Gorsuch, and for cloture. Although most other
Democratic senators are expected to reject his nomination, it
is unclear how many  are willing to vote for cloture.

IS INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR A RARE
REMAINING BIPARTISAN ISSUE?

With the failure of Republican leaders in the U.S. house to vote
on the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, and difficulty
likely ahead for passage of tax reform legislation in the house
and senate, the Republican-controlled Congress is increasingly
under pressure for some major victories for their party and the
new Trump administration. One of candidate Donald Trump’s
major campaign promises in 2016 was that he would propose
and implement significant infrastructure repair across the U.S.
Although some some conservative budget hawks might object to
this as a program that could increase the federal deficit, the need
for updating and repair is obvious, and would produce millions of
new jobs that would be popular among voters in the districts
and states. This is one area, at least, that leaders and legislators
from both parties might agree on for quick passage.

HUGE UNDECIDED VOTE IN 
APPROACHING FRENCH ELECTION
Although the election for president of France is quickly
approaching, and polls show the race is tightening slightly
between the major candidates, almost 40% of the voters say
they have not yet made up their minds. Further complicating the
race, which could have enormous consequences for the future
of the European Union (EU), of which France is a major member
state, the official candidates of the two major parties trail
independent and controversial candidates.

CHAOS IN SOUTH AMERICA
Many of the nations of South America are now facing immediate
crises. Brazil, which recently saw its president impeached and
removed from office, faces massive protests from the new
conservative government’s attempts to pass pension reform
legislation. In Venezuela, after prolonged political and economic
unrest, the Marxist government seems unable to reverse financial
and consumer crises. The nation’s supreme court suddenly
abolished the federal legislature last week, but an international
outcry against worsening dictatorship has caused the ruling to be
reversed. In Ecuador, with national elections only days away,
fears of the western South American country becoming another
Venezuela has provoked widespread violence, and made the close
election too close to call. In Paraguay, recently thought to be
establishing some stability, a sudden crisis and protests erupted
when an attempt was made to enable the term-limited, and
outgoing, president to run for another term.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: An Historic Global Moment

Our political cousins in the United Kingdom have once more
demonstrated why this tiny island nation has, for the past
millennium, provided some of our civilization’s most notable
moments in the quest for human freedom and self-governance.

Like all things “human,” the thousand year-old government
made by descendants of Angles, Saxons, Scots, Gaels, Normans,
Vikings and Picts (as well as many others who followed them)
has had its flaws and shortcomings, but at certain moments
this government of men and women has risen to astonishing
and indelible heights.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has just signed the formal
document which sets into motion irrevocably the withdrawal of
her nation from the European Union (EU). Her representative
has now delivered this document to the head of the EU.

There are many issues that were in play, and at stake, in this
separation that began after World War II with the signing of the
Treaty of Rome. That treaty led to the creation of the European
Common Market which, in turn, led to the European Union and
a continental common currency, the euro. The ideals behind
these events were laudatory --- to avoid the seemingly endless
pattern of war, human tragedy and violence on the European
continent. But the ambition of European cooperation and peace
was compromised by the process of its political evolution toward
a single governmental and bureaucratic state. That process was
marred by haste, presumption, and the lack of building a
democratic consensus of agreement in its member states. The
peoples of Europe speak many languages, hold different faiths,
have distinct cultures, contrasting economic conditions, and
varied political traditions. These are circumstances which
cannot be hurriedly eradicated or wished away.

A singular document in modern history was the English Magna
Carta (1215), perhaps the earliest moment of the journey of what
we now think of as political freedom. From that moment, English
history evolved from it feudal origins to popular representative
democracy, albeit it has maintained a symbolic monarchy.

Along the way, it became the world’s largest colonial power by
means of its naval domination of the seas, and inevitably, it
abused its power even as it settled in new territories and
conquered others. Perhaps the most consequential of these darker
moments was its treatment of its colonies in North America
which finally led to a local revolution and their independence as
the United States of America. There were also unfortunate and
indefensible actions of the British Empire in Africa and Asia
during the period when European superpowers controlled and
exploited most of the world. But when that colonial era had
ended, it was the former British colonies, far more than those
once owned by French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, German
and other European regimes, which were able more successfully
to flourish in the world of so many sovereign nations and peoples.
This was the United Kingdom’s great contribution to modern
civilization, its tradition of law and evolving freedom, and more,
as demonstrated by its unforgettable courage and resolve in
resisting Hitlerian totalitarianism in those dark moments at the
outset of World War II.

The United Kingdom has lost its colonial empire, and it is no
longer the dominant naval power on earth. Its component regions,
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland,  still endure
long-brewing political tensions. Immigration, much of it granted
to those born in its former colonies, have introduced new conflicts
and challenges for it leaders and political representatives.

But this small island is apparently not quite finished as a
political identity, nor as an example to the rest of us.

Those who believe in so-called “globalism” are in too much of
a hurry to impose their beliefs on a still young, complicated and
developing humanity. Ultimately, it seems that the idealism of
world cooperation and peace might be, and should be, realized,
but as we learned from the horrific experiments of fascism and
communism in the 20th century, those who employ rhetoric as
a facade to impose the end of freedom and national sovereignty
do not represent the same ideals that are inspired by human
liberty and independence.

One more time, the citizens of Great Britain have expressed not
only their indomitable will for their own identity, but they have
stated again their historic message of what freedom means for
humanity.

We can all be grateful that this British lion still roars.

____________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Sunday, March 26, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Part Of The Deal

The recent failure of the Republican U.S. house majority to
pass legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care
Act (ACA), popularly known as Obamacare, has seen a
predictable public reaction. It was welcomed understandably
by Democrats who enacted and still favor Obamacare, and by
the establishment media who are hostile to President Trump
and heralded the failure as a “political catastrophe” for the
new president and his party (which now controls both the
White House and the two houses of Congress.) The failure was
also criticized by many, including myself, as a missed
opportunity to fulfill a top campaign promise made by most of
the Republican party candidates since 2010 --- responding to
the extraordinary unpopularity of the legislation passed when
the Democrats controlled the presidency and the Congress.

In my own criticism, I acknowledged that the legislation
fashioned by Speaker Paul Ryan and his colleagues was
imperfect, but I suggested that the so-called “Freedom Caucus”
faction in the U.S. house was ultimately being obstructionist.

In the end, the legislation was unacceptable not only to the
Freedom Caucus, but also to the more moderate house members.

Importantly, Speaker Ryan persuaded President Trump not to
demand a vote --- so that the legislation remains alive for further
modification and negotiation, possibly bringing in some
moderate Democrats (if necessary) to vote for it later in the year.
The key here is that Obamacare repeal is far from “dead,” and the
unfolding implosion of the ACA law and program (the true
disaster in this matter) will continue.

The recent effort by Speaker Ryan was a short-term failure, but
by no credible means the “disaster” now being heralded in the
hostile establishment media. In fact, it might have been a
political blessing in disguise for both the speaker and the White
House if they use the occasion to continue their legislative
program efforts more realistically and more effectively.

Major legislation in the U.S. is always complicated and
problematic as it makes its way through Congress to the desk of
a president for signature. There was clearly some overconfidence
by the house leadership in this legislative effort, and hopefully
this will not be repeated as it debates the next priority (and
campaign promise), tax reform. It also does not let the Freedom
Caucus off the political hook. They now see the damage and the
ammunition for the opposition a legislative failure can produce.

The first order of business now is the confirmation of Judge
Gorsuch to the U.S. supreme court. The next order of business
is tax reform legislation that will pass both the U.S. house and
senate. Healthcare insurance repeal and replacement can easily
be revisited (though perhaps not so easily resolved) later in the
year. President Trump, his comments on Twitter notwithstanding,
continues to change the political climate in Washington, DC and
in our foreign policy.

Mistakes and missteps will continue to happen. The exercise of
the people’s business in our republic is always a bit messy
because it is not resolved by measures which every voter agrees
with. It is, if you will, part of the deal. Through the electoral
process, the voters express themselves, and in 2016, they did so.

As always, the voters’ will was divided, but by electing a president,
both houses of Congress, most governors and most state
legislatures of the same party, they expressed general agreement
with that party’s program and promises. This mandate is not
timeless or even open-ended. It has perhaps only a two year limit.

This is where we are now. As I have been suggesting, it’s time
for action and results. More stalemate is not an option.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

Friday, March 24, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Aftermath Of Failed Legislation

We now face two major failures of healthcare insurance
legislation.

First, we have the seven year-old Affordable Care Act
usually known as Obamacare. It was rammed through the
Congress, and was unpopular from day one. It precipitated
major electoral defeats for its sponsoring party, the
Democrats, in 2010, 2014 and 2016. Now in full effect, it has
failed in its purpose of providing healthcare insurance for
everyone (millions still don’t have coverage) and its financial
costs are imploding so fast that it will likely soon be unable to
function adequately for the millions it does cover. It is further
discouraging critical numbers of students from even entering
medical school, and it is driving the quality of medical care
down to unacceptable levels. It is a gross failure.

Second, the political party and its elected representatives
voted into power for the expressed purpose of repealing
Obamacare and replacing it with a better plan, the
Republicans, have tied themselves up into hopeless stalemate
by its own factions.

As much as I have stated my admiration for Paul Ryan in the
past, some of this failure has to be laid to his door. He insisted
on the Obamacare repeal and replacement as a first priority,
but did not write an adequate form of new legislation that would
win the votes of even a necessary number of his own caucus
which holds a large 40-vote majority.

President Trump, unfamiliar with how the Congress works, was
persuaded by the U.S. house leadership to make Obamacare the
first legislative priority, even though his (and their) tax reform
campaign promise had more support, and should have been the
first priority while, behind the scenes, a more acceptable
replacement to Obamacare could have been fashioned and
negotiated. To his credit, Mr. Trump went “all in” with Mr. Ryan
and his house leadership colleagues. The failure of the Ryan
plan was not his, but Mr Ryan’s --- brought about by the so-called
Freedom Caucus.

This is not the end of the world, but it could be the beginning of
the end of the “permanent” Republican majority of the U.S. house.

What happens now? First and foremost, the U.S. house and senate
must promptly tackle another major campaign promise, probably
tax reform, and deliver the legislation to the president’s desk for
signing.

Another failure in Congress, and it would be impossible to avoid
the conclusion that both major political parties are incapable of
doing the people’s, and the voter’s, business.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All right reserved.

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: A "Stalemate" Caucus

There is a so-called “Freedom Caucus” of Republican members
of Congress, but it is obviously misnamed. It is really better
named the “Stalemate” Caucus because political paralysis is
the only result its efforts might produce.

This sub-group of the GOP house majority claims to have about
40 votes to block the repeal and replacement of Obamacare
legislation proposed and fashioned by House Speaker Paul Ryan,
and strongly supported by President Donald Trump. Most of
those who have spoken out against this proposal have claimed it
does not go far enough, and want a “pure” repeal with no viable
replacement. In effect, they want to leave millions of Americans
without any meaningful healthcare insurance. Tax credits in the
Ryan legislation are deemed by them as entitlements, and thus
unacceptable. What Speaker Ryan and his colleagues are saying
is that providing healthcare insurance to those who could not
otherwise purchase it is much cheaper and much more effective
than indigent Americans going to hospital emergency rooms for
care --- emergency rooms that are intended and needed for
emergency medical situations. Public health, they are also saying,
inevitably affects the entire community, not just those who have
healthcare coverage. The Ryan plan also devolves healthcare
decisions from federal bureaucrats back to patients and their
physicians under the aegis of the individual states. It promotes
free market choice over government mandate. The “Stalemate”
Caucus should be welcoming these major conservative reforms,
not standing in their way.

The passage of Obamacare repeal coupled with “Ryancare”
reform is the first major legislative test of the new GOP majority
in Washington, DC, and it is a test it must pass if the
conservative party is to govern successfully. It was the most
high-profile promise that candidate Trump and his congressional
colleagues made in the 2016 campaign, and if they do not keep
their promises, they will not deserve a favorable judgment by the
voters in 2018 and beyond.

The rhetorical rubber has now met the political road.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2017 by Barry Casselman. All right reserved.