THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: New Town Witness

The most recent American “new town” movement took place
in the 1970s and 1980s, but it is almost forgotten now as urban
centers are growing even faster today --- and with little of the
innovative planning and design impulses that were at the heart
of that episode of social demographic problem-solving.

Known as Title IV new communities, there were about twenty
of them, each a public/private collaboration whose private
developers’ loan financing was guaranteed by the federal
government under the stewardship of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. They were located near large
metropolitan areas across the nation.

They didn’t last long -- as most critics of federal bureaucratic
projects might have predicted. An unexpected economic
downturn in 1974, only five years after the first new town was
opened in Minnesota, upended the movement when the fragile
economies of these communities could not make their  loan
repayments, and the Nixon administration threw in the
towel precipitating bankruptcies and stalled development.

The idealism of the new town movement was also. on occasion,
opposed locally for imposing certain design and planning
standards that faced some disagreements on political and
environmental grounds. The first “new town-in town” (called
Cedar-Riverside near downtown Minneapolis) was such a case,
with serious grass roots protests about high-rise, high density
housing. The existing new town complex today serves primarily
as home to a significant number of Somali refugees who have
recently settled in the Twin Cities. Other Title IV new towns
have been assimilated into the suburban communities near
where they were located.

The first Title IV new town, Jonathan, has been integrated into
the city of Chaska, Minnesota --- Jonathan had been, prior to
1967, farmland within Chaska’s boundaries. Today, Jonathan
retains much of it new own planning design and a certain
amount of its original identity, but the earlier innovative
spirit has been mostly replaced with more traditional
suburban growth patterns and standards.

The new town movement is a global phenomenon, however,
and centuries old. All cities, it must be remembered, were
once “new” --- although in practice, modern new towns
have been planned and designed. Notable examples of this
include Brazil’s new capital Brasilia and Australia’s capital
Canberra. The U.S. capital of Washington, DC was a
planned new town in 1800. Prior to the Title IV program,
there were several U.S.new town experiments in the 19th and
20th centuries. Columbia, Maryland and Reston Virginia
are perhaps the most well-known, and still exist. Many new
towns were created in Europe, and the new towns are springing
up worldwide,

I moved to Jonathan when it was very new, and ended up
publishing Appleseeds, the first independent Title IV
new town newspaper. Later, I published and edited the
Cedar-Riverside newspaper Many Corners, a pioneer Twin
Cities community publication. (Many of the neighborhood
newspapers begun then survive to this day, covering local
news ignored by the daily establishment media.)

I was a witness to the growing pains, controversies,
innovative spirit, excitement and disappointments of these
early Title IV new towns. Its basic purpose of bringing
rational planning to urban and suburban growth has been
largely set aside.

Another attempt to accomplish this locally was the creation
of a “metropolitan council” that would oversee the
seven-county Twin City growth through coordination of
transportation and sewers, and later, zoning and housing.
But this, too, after initial successes, has become mired in
controversies and citizen protests against high-handed
regulation and planning.

In the 1970s, growth saw the continuation of the post-war
flight from the cities to the suburbs, and even to entirely
new communities in the exurbs. In 2018, that trend seems to
be reversing, with substantial new condo and apartment
construction in the cities bringing back suburbanites to
city centers.

But the dull architecture, randomness and high prices of 
new housing has little of the excitement and innovation that
was intended and begun by new towns. Combined with
increasing downtown traffic congestion, disappearing
on-street parking, heavy urban taxes of all kinds, and a
plethora of rules and regulations penalizing local stores,
restaurants and other businesses, this trend intended to
revitalize inner cities might be more short-sighted than
now imagined.

Perhaps another, and more creative, new town movement
is in order.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Paul Ryan Takes A Leave

Wisconsin Congressman and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan
will deserve the indelible thanks of the nation when he departs
from Congress next January.

Democrats, of course, often opposed him, as did some of his
Republican colleagues, but he was the indispensable figure at
a very critical moment. His subsequent leadership during a
volatile time revealed that he was often one of the few adult
persons in the political room. His frequent selflessness and
constant integrity took the U.S. house through turbulent times.
It should not go unnoticed that, under his guidance, his body
has passed much legislation that remains unacted on by the
U.S. senate.

A former Republican vice presidential nominee, Mr. Ryan had
to have his arm twisted to take the speakership. He did take
the job which proved problematic and often thankless.

Some are interpreting his retirement as a concession that his
party will lose control of the U.S. house next November. There
is no dispositive indication yet that this will happen. It could
happen, but so far it remains wishful thinking by Democrats.

Kevin McCarthy is the likely successor to Mr. Ryan as speaker,
and Steve Scalise will likely take Mr. McCarthy's post as
majority leader. With a new majority whip  (Mr. Scalise's
current postition), this leadership team will faee daunting
challenges in the months ahead.

It seems entirely reasonable that Paul Ryan, a truly devoted
family man, would leave public life --- at least for a while ---
to spend much more time with his wife and children.

I don’t think we have heard the end of the political life of
this still relatively young man who has accomplished so
much with distinction in such a brief time.

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

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: 2018 U.S. Senate Campaign Update

With 26 Democratic incumbent senate seats up for election in the 2018
mid-term cycle, and less than 10 Republican seats, these contests will
be a major political battle ground in November.

With some retirements and resignations, and several challenger 
nominations unsettled --- as well as the volatile voter mood and the
uncertain prospects for the economy, this battleground landscape is
changing with some frequency. Here’s an update:

MONTANA: Incumbent Democrat Jon Tester is vulnerable, but his
GOP challenger is unknown. Trump carried this state easily in 2016,
but Tester could be formidable. NET CHANGE: Slightly better for
Tester.

ARIZONA: This is an open GOP seat (Jeff Flake retiring). This looked
like a sure Democratic pick-up, and could still go that way, but two
off-the-wall GOP contenders now face Congresswoman Martha
McSally, a more electable conservative. NET CHANGE: If McSally
wins the primary, much better chance for the GOP.

NEVADA: Another likely previous Democratic pick-up, but GOP
incumbent Dean Heller has moved away from earlier anti-Trump
rhetoric, and his major potential primary opponent has withdrawn.
His strong role in the tax reform legislation is in stark contrast to
his likely Democratic opponent’s opposition to it in the U.S. house.
NET CHANGE: This race will be close, but clear improvement for
GOP incumbent.

MISSOURI: State Attorney General Josh Hawley is one of the
brightest new figures in the national Republican Party, and his
opponent, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill is one of the
most vulnerable incumbent this cycle. A scandal involving the
GOP governor might cloud this race, and McCaskill always plays
hardball. NET CHANGE: Hawley remains a slight favorite.

NORTH DAKOTA: Republicans finally recruited their strongest
challenger, Congressman Kevin Cramer (the state’s sole U.S. house
member, he also runs statewide). President Trump carried the
state in a landslide, and incumbent Democratic Senator Heidi
Heitkamp is very vulnerable. She is also popular in the state and a
strong campaigner. NET CHANGE: Still a toss-up, but slightly better
prospects for Cramer,

MINNESOTA: Unexpectedly, this state has two senate races in
November. Incumbent Democrat Amy Klobuchar is a shoo-in for
re-election, but recently appointed Democratic Senator Tina Smith
(she was picked to replace Al Franken who resigned) has a contest on
her hands from GOP State Senator Karon Housely. Mrs. Smith has
seemed uncertain in her first few months, and Mrs. Housely is
beginning to impress earlier skeptics. NET CHANGE: Senator Smith
is still favored, but better prospects for her challenger.

WISCONSIN: Incumbent Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin is
vulnerable, but recent developments seem to improve her chances.
First, she still has no clear GOP opponent, and it is not yet clear if
either of her two likely opponents can mount an effective campaign,
Second, Democrats have done well in recent off-year or special
state elections. NET CHANGE: A possible GOP pick-up, but now
looking better for the Democratic incumbent.

INDIANA: Incumbent Democrat Joe Donnelly was a surprise winner
six years ago, and is quite vulnerable in this usually GOP state. But
the Republicans don’t yet have a certain challenger to him, and it is
not yet clear that the GOP primary will produce a strong opponent.
NET CHANGE:  Donnelly still very vulnerable, but his prospects have
recently improved.

OHIO: Incumbent Democrat Sherrod Brown was rated as very
vulnerable at the outset of the cycle, and  State Treasurer Josh
Mandel (who ran against him last cycle) was a strong challenger,
A family health crisis prompted Mandel to withdraw, NET CHANGE:
Brown will still have a major challenger, but a formidable campaigner,
he is now the clear favorite for re-election.

TENNESSEE: After the GOP incumbent unexpectedly resigned, this
was expected to remain a conservative seat, but the Democrats have
recruited a popular former governor, Phil Bredeson, to run against
GOP Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn. In a recent poll, Bredeson
is ahead. NET CHANGE: A possible Democratic pick-up.

WEST VIRGINIA: Perhaps the most conservative Democrat in the U.S.
senate, Joe Manchin is highly vulnerable in this state that went
overwhelmingly for President Trump. The only statewide Dtemocrat
left, Manchin is a former governor and personally popular. The GOP
primary outcome is not clear. NET CHANGE: Manchin is vulnerable,
but don’t count him out.

FLORIDA:  Aging Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson is very vulnerable,
and Republican Rick Scott will be a strong challenger. NET CHANGE:
A close race, but Scott has now some momentum.

Other states were initially thought to be competitive, including
Michigan and Pennsylvania, have not yet materialized. A retirement
in Mississippi was unexpected, but there is no indication yet of any
pick-up in this conservative state.

All of the above is only an update. As we have already seen this year,
dramatic changes can occur. Republicans clearly have the
mathematical advantage, but it is far from clear how many seats
they will be able to gain in November.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Extremes At Work

An unsettling factor in this year’s mid-term elections
is the presence of extreme candidates in both parties
for competitive U.S. house and senate seats.

It is by no means unprecedented. These kind of
candidates appear with some regularity at all levels
of local, state and national campaigns. Some are
perennial candidates, and others run as third party
or independent office seekers.

In recent cycles, some of these candidates actually
won their party nomination --- and inevitably went
down to defeat in November even though their party
usually won their races.

Republicans particularly have paid a political price
for these candidacies. Most recently, a safe GOP
senate seat was lost in Alabama to a Democrat
because the Republican nominee was not acceptable
even to many conservative voters. But in the past decade,
conservatives have also lost likely wins in Nevada,
Missouri, Delaware, Indiana and elsewhere because
they did not nominate their strongest candidates.

This cycle, some Democrats with apparently more
extreme views, following the populist outburst of
2016, are seeking their party’s nominations in
house and senate races. On the other hand, as
happened in a recent special congressional
election, Democrats nominated a moderate and
atypical candidate --- and picked up a seat.
This is being repeated in other congressional
races where Democrats are running left-center
candidates in districts where more radical
candidates would fail.

In the senate races, Democrats are defending
about a dozen seats with vulnerable incumbents.
In many cases, Republicans are  putting up
attractive challengers, as they did so effectively
in 2010 and 2014, but in a few contests, their
potential success is muddled by more extreme
candidates. Two examples of this are Arizona
and Mississippi. Two extreme candidates are in
the Arizona race, and this might enable a third,
and excellent candidate, to win the nomination.
Otherwise, the Democrats will pick up a seat.

It’s a free country, and we hold free elections.
Anyone qualified to run can run, no matter
what views they hold. That is as it should be.
It is the responsibility of the political parties
to make sure that they put their best candidates
on the ballot. When they do not, as has been
demonstrated so often, they do pay a dear price.

Within liberalism and conservatism, there is a wide
range of views that have the potential of succeeding
with voters. Outside that range on both the left and the
right, it is far more difficult to assemble a winning
majority.

One of the reasons it is premature to assess
what will happen in November is that the names
of the candidates in so many competitive races are
still unknown.

The two major parties should be paying special
attention to their nominees this cycle.

Candidates matter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Playing To Win

Like so many 2016 Trump campaign themes, the notion that
“America should win again” was largely ignored, or treated
as jingoism by most Democratic strategists, activists and
those in the liberal media.

Among many middle class elites and their establishment
educational/psychological values, the natural social impulse
to win at games, sports, business, and war had increasingly
been played down. “It’s not whether you win or lose, but how
you play the game’ was now a standard cliche expressed ---
at least verbally --- in certain circles. “Winning isn’t
everything” was another.

Since it’s genesis in the 1780’s, the United States was a nation
that usually won, and except for the grim tragedy of 1861-65,
the nation grew, prospered and increasingly played a winning
role in hemispheric and global affairs.

In the second half of the 19th century, there began to appear
a number of mostly indigenous competitive athletic events
that were played at all levels, but became what we today call
“professional sports.” Baseball soon became the national
pastime, and championship boxing was widely popular, but
American football, basketball, tennis and ice hockey also
drew large and passionate audiences. With television and
cable, even more sports drew more fans. In every sport,
teams that won aroused pride and celebration in their home
cities or in their schools and universities.

Individuals who won in their sports became national figures,
usually exceedingly well-paid.

The passion for local sports teams and star athletes remains
a staple of U.S. public culture --- as does popular fascination
for entertainment stars, colorful successful entrepreneurs, 
charismatic elected officials and assorted celebrities who ply
their trades through various public relations.

All of them have something in common -- they are winners in
what they do. Losers need not apply for public adulation.

Until the Korean War of the 1950s, and Viet Nam a few years
later, the U.S. was accustomed to winning as well.

A mood of anticipating disappointment and loss soon
developed thereafter, as America’s post World War II
global economic and military dominance began to deteriorate
into stalemate or apparent defeat --- first challenged by Soviet
Russia in a Cold War, later by terrorists, and now by a surging
aggressive China.

In 2008, recoiling from a mortgage banking crisis, and weary of
seemingly endless military excursions in the Middle East and
Middle Asia, U.S. voters elected Barack Obama president. It
was Mr. Obama’s intention, formed by his personal
background, to reverse U.S. foreign policies of previous
administrations, both Republican and Democrat, to play a
visibly active role  in much of the world.

The global community was so pleased by the prospect, Mr.
Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize even before he took
office. He did not disappoint them. The U.S. gradually, but
unmistakably, withdrew from many points of global conflict,
altered relationships with allies and competitors,  and turned
from acknowledging deteriorating trade relationships. U.S.
military readiness and capacity was, at the same time,
reduced --- although there was a clear build-up of military
force and activity by numerous potential adversaries.

Meanwhile, those who esteemed these policies were not
playing politically to lose. Forces allied with Mr. Obama,
seemingly indifferent to winning on the world stage, were
quite aggressive about winning politically on the domestic
stage. Their biggest legislative victory, healthcare reform
or Obamacare, proved not to be a winner, however, for
many Americans. This issue led to conservative victories
in the 2010 and 2014 national mid-term elections, and set
the scene for the 2016 presidential election.

That election seemed set to be a classic contest between
the liberal and conservative establishments, and their
well-known figures. What happened, however was that
insurgent figures in both parties stole the show. One was
socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders --- who very
nearly won the Democratic nomination from the early
presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton by speaking to the
populist base of the liberal party. The other was a real
estate developer turned celebrity TV show host who kept
shattering “political correctness” and talking about the
forbidden subject of America winning again.

Today, more than a year after his taking office, Donald
Trump is actively seeking a winning streak in U.S.
foreign policies. He has set in motion a military
build-up, as Ronald Reagan did after 1981 (which led to
the end of the Cold War), and more controversially, in
U.S. trade policy, he threatens tariffs to bring what he
considers unfair trade policies by our trade partners to
an end.

Recently, in the wake of President Trump’s controversial
trade policies and statements, his popularity suddenly
rose noticeably --- even to 50% in one major poll. This has
occurred in spite of relentless attacks on him by the major
media on both the left and the right, and of endless
negative stories about investigations into his past.

Yet predictions of his downfall continue to appear daily,
and a political wave is often forecast for his and his party’s
defeat next November.

Anything is possible, of course, especially in mid-term
elections, but Mr. Trump seems to be doing his own thing,
once again against the odds, and playing to win.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: The Silence Of The Center

Over four decades of polemical writing, I have discussed
many subjects. Much of my writing has been about
politics here and abroad, reflecting a lifelong interest in
how my country and other countries conduct their public
life.

A certain fundamental idea has remained with me
throughout this considerable time.

That notion is that the American republic, almost 250
years old, was created to govern itself from a public
“center” that inherently resists extremism of any kind.

In a small city-states such as ancient Athens or Rome
or medieval Venice such a center was understandably
possible, albeit ultimately they were overcome by
monarchies, dictatorships, and other undemocratic
regimes.

From 1776 to 1789, our republic was fashioned with a
relatively small population, and no true contemporary
precedent, by those who held quite different public views
among themselves. Their collective historic genius was
their common revulsion to tyranny and their shared
ambition to establish a lasting and evolutionary federal
state.

Their initial constitution was an extraordinary but
imperfect document that was designed to be revised
and improved over time. In their deliberations, these
founders, individually limited by personal views and
biases, faced a revolutionary circumstance. This was
not the mere overthrow of a king, nor separation from
an occupying power --- that had been done before. Instead
it was a new circumstance, that is, creating a modern free
society. There were founders on the left  and on the right.
Many were slaveowners; some were abolitionists. They
initially gave the right to vote only to some white male
landowners. Some were still monarchists, and wanted
a new king, not a president. They had various religions.

In order to complete their work, these founders had to
achieve an unprecedented agreement, and in order to
agree, they had to find central points of compromise.

From its genesis as a sovereign nation, the United States
has been governed primarily from its contemporary
political center.

What does that mean?

It means that the U.S. electorate and its perceived public
opinion are majoritarian in nature. The political center
is where the majority of voters are. Like the north and
south magnetic poles, the center is always moving. It is
not the”middle.” Centrists are not necessarily moderates,
although centrism is a moderating force, naturally
employing negotiation and compromise.

At various times, the political center is overshadowed by
partisanship on the left and the right. The center is still
there, but it becomes temporarily silent in the din made
by the voices on either side of it.

I have noticed recently some commentary that puts down
the center, and asserts that it does not really meaningfully
exist. I think this kind of analysis misunderstands the
current “silence of the center” to be political laryngitis.

The true venue for the political center is the ballot box.
Those on the far right and the far left rely on the media
and partisan communications.

It is the political center that enables the nation to
move beyond stalemate, to pass needed legislation, to
resolve problems. It was the center, the weight of
majority opinion, that ultimately enabled  the end  of
slavery, the end of child labor,  trust-busting, the  right to
vote for women, desegregation, civil rights, free market
economics, and most recently, beginning to end “political
correctness.” Early voices for each of these came from
individual leaders and thinkers, but the major political
branches of government adopted them because the
political center demanded them..

When the political center becomes silent, as it has been
recently, divisive stalemate grows.  Signs of a
re-emerging political center, including conservatives and
liberals, are beginning to appear in U.S. politics --- both
in the states and in Washington, DC.

Some argue that Donald Trump has had the political
success he has had because he aims to respond to the
political center. Others argue that the Democratic Party
now needs o reclaim the political center if it wants to
govern again.

At the ballot box is where the center will speak. It will
not be voiceless.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.

THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Two New U.S. Senators Named Smith

It’s just a coincidence, but two new senators have recently
been appointed to serve as U.S. senators following
incumbent resignations in their home states --- and their
names are both Smith. More coincidence --- each are
women and each of these choices have upset some of
their own party voters.

Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota is a Democrat (called the
Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party or DFL there), and Senator
Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi is a Republican. Each
were personal favorites of the governors who appointed
them, and that appears to be at the root of their popularity
problems.

Tina Smith was Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton’s
lt. governor, and before that, his chief of staff. She has not
previously run for office on her own. There were several
better-known DFLers who could have been chosen. Tina
Smith is closely identified with Planned Parenthood and
other liberal issues that are not popular in outstate
Minnesota.

Cindy Hyde-Smith was a former Democrat who became
commissioner of agriculture under GOP Governor Phil
Bryant, and became a Republican. As in Minnesota, there
were several better-known conservatives who could have
been chosen. President Trump reportedly opposed the
appointment, and has so far refused to endorse her.

In Senator Tina Smith’s case, her situation is complicated
by the fact that she has replaced Sneator Al Franken who
was widely believed to have been forced to resign by
leaders of his own party following allegations that were
made against him. Democratic sources privately worry
that the Tina Smith appointment makes her an interloper
among some Franken Democrats. Senator Smith will
likely avoid a primary, but will face an energetic GOP
woman state senator. Karin Housely, in November.

This special election will accompany the regular election
of Senator Amy Klobuchar, so there will be two senate
races on the November Minnesota ballot. Senator
Klobuchar is a very heavy favorite to win re-election, but
ticket-splitting Minnesotans could make the special
election very competitive, especially if there is a “red
wave” in this state in 2018.

Mississippi is a strong GOP state. But Senator Hyde-Smith
faces a likely strong primary challenge, and as happened
in a recent neighboring Alabama special senate election,
the result could make the usually weak Democratic Party
candidate a serious contender in November.

Both these unexpected races, for all their coincidences, are
emblematic of the complexity and  unpredictabilty of this
national mid-term election cycle. The mood of the voters
is very volatile just now.

When the roll call of votes is made in January, 2019, it will
be interesting to see not only how many senators named
Smith are listed, but also how many incumbents in both
parties will still be there.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2018 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.