Republicans are Hard to Define - But I Think This Helps Define Who Democrats Are

I chose to write a new Letter to the Editor for the ABC Newspapers in May.  Calvin Bahr of Oak Grove wrote a complaining letter in April that suggested he couldn't recognize his Republican Party.  As I write below, it is tough to figure out which Republican represents his or her party, but I think it's much easier to find the basic, consensus Democrat/DFL principles...

Calvin Bahr of East Bethel recently lamented where his Republican Party has gone.  I can understand Calvin’s confusion.  Are Republicans a libertarian party (Paul), a traditional pro-business, Chamber-of-Commerce party (Bush), a Christian fundamentalist party (Huckabee, Dr. Carson), a big-money, hate-anything-liberal party (Cruz), an elitist-corporatist party (Fiorino), an anti-union, budget-busting party (Walker), an American exceptionalist, anti-federal government party (Rubio), or a plain old Tea-Party organization (Bachmann, King, et-al)?

 

I am a Democrat from SD 35.  We’re not all peas-in-a-pod either, but many of us hold the same basic Democratic principles.

 

Most Democrats believe in international approaches to solving world problems – we tend not to be isolationists or America First types. 

 

Most Democrats believe in working persons’ rights – the right to unionize and the right to collectively bargain for wages, benefits and terms and conditions of employment. 

 

Most Democrats fear the power of an unchecked corporate America, and I have yet to meet a Democrat who doesn’t want to see the Citizens United decision overturned.

 

Many Democrats love to hunt and fish and own guns.  Fewer of us own guns than Republicans, probably.  However, many Democrats see the dangers in uncontrolled firearm ownership and usage – military-level guns don’t belong in regular citizens’ hands.

 

Some Democrats are pro-life – we’ve had pro-life candidates like Peterson in the 7^th and Perske in the 6^th.  A majority of Democrats are likely pro-choice; abortion is legal in this nation, and when necessary, we support a woman’s right to choose abortion.  Many Democrats do not ground these societal concerns in religious terms like Republicans do.

 

Democrats are very inclusive – far more so than our Republican counterparts.  Democrats have been champions of civil rights, women’s rights, and gender rights for the past 50+ years.

 

Democrats believe government works.  Democrats are derided by some as the “tax and spend” party.  Taxes are the government’s source of revenue.  We spend to protect our communities, protect our environment, provide an infrastructure, provide for our aged and needy, and to provide an educational system that works.  In my view, Democrats generally put community and others ahead of self-interest and profiteering.

 

Wes Volkenant

Andover

Harold Hamilton 'Gives Us a Plug' (Yeah, Sure) and I Decide to Reply to Union Herald Letter 'on The Record'

The Anoka County Watchdog, Harold Hamilton's website (woof, woof) took a shot at we liberal Democrats in his March 13 update, saving his venom for an old friend of ours, Roger Johnson. 

Roger sent a letter to the Union Herald criticizing the choice of The Record and its publisher's ties to Harold Hamilton. Roger's just one of many such letter writers... I have written, Mel Aanerud wrote, as did Jim Abeler and another good acquaintance, Dee Ann Christensen.   So, if you like to read about one particular right-wing view of the world, The Watchdog is the place for you.

This past week, the Union Herald published a letter from a Scott Cords of Ramsey, who responded to my own letter criticizing the choice of The Record.  I published that in this blog recently.  Here's from Cords' letter:

Different view on county’s public notice decision

To the Editor:
In response to Wes Volkevant’s March 6th letter, I would like to pose a different view of the situation. The public notices, over which there has been so much wailing and gnashing of teeth, are available online through the Anoka County Record’s website (www.anokacountyrecord.com) as well as current paper copies available at government centers and public libraries in Anoka County.

From the information I was able to gather, the cost to publish the information in the Anoka County Record’s publication is 40 percent of the cost bid by the ABC Newspapers.
On the surface, a pure cost basis analysis shows it was a good decision. The bidding process was fair and open. I would suggest that it was not only a good decision, but the County Board’s duty to change publishers in the interest of taxpayers.

On the topic of visibility, Anoka County has somewhere over 123,400 households. With recent circulation of 4,900, the ABC Newspapers covers 3.7 percent of the households in the county. Hardly the significant coverage Mr. Volkevant tries to describe. Anybody with some level of intellectual honesty should be able to admit that a vast percentage of those with significant interest in the public notices in question are likely willing and able to look elsewhere. I would submit that those really interested in such data does not wait for it to be published in paper format and delivered to their door.

I do support the Anoka County Board’s decision to change publishers and would say that it’s a waste of tax money to require paper publication of such data period. Since the law requires printing it, a 60 percent savings gets my support. Unless of course, Mr. Volkevant’s position is to spend more than twice the money for a publication that does not reach a meaningful percentage of the households in Anoka County. More than doubling the spending with no appreciable gain in value is the conflict of interest I see.

Scott Cords
Ramsey


I've written a reply to Mr. Cords, which should run sometime in April....

To the Editor:

 

I appreciate Scott Corbs providing an explanation of why the County Board’s action switching publications to The Record had merit in terms of cost and circulation.  As Mr. Corbs might expect, I disagree, and have reason to believe the County Board shouldn’t have simply chosen the less expensive option.

 

I believe County Board members are elected to spend taxpayer money – wisely, fairly, and appropriately.  I do not believe their focus should be merely to save us money and cut corners.

And, the County Board cut corners in taking an action that “saves taxpayer money” at the expense of tradition.  Print newspapers are traditional, but more importantly, state law says such notices are printed in newspapers.   There is protection in the printed word, which cannot be changed or erased at the press of keystrokes. 

 

Recall that The Record barely exceeds the 400 printed copies (about 0.3% of County households) required to be “legal.”  By comparison, the UnionHerald has a circulation 10 times that number – nearly 5000 households.  On a percentage basis that is like the Pioneer Press’s weekday circulation compared to State households.

 

That The Record could come in so much cheaper, is hardly surprising when considering its tiny staff publishes a free newspaper and mainly an online content, versus a newspaper that incurs considerably greater expense to be published.  Apparently, a main source of funding for this newspaper is Harold Hamilton, the wealthy benefactor from Fridley, where The Record maintains its small office at his company.  Hamilton’s “Watchdog” articles appear regularly in The Record as “paid advertisements,” and he finances key Republicans in Anoka County – County Board members and area legislators.  He has been successful, but his control comes at a cost to others. 

 

Reading those notices in The Record forces one to read Hamilton’s propaganda tabloid.  In addition to the “Watchdog”, the content regularly bashes DFLers and reprints elected Republicans’ press releases.  For us Democrats to go to this partisan Republican ‘newsletter’ to read notices would be like asking Mr. Hamilton to have to watch MSNBC every night for his daily news.  Unimaginable.

 

Wes Volkenant

Andover

One of my favorite bloggers also lives in Ramsey, like Mr. Cords.  But Developers are Crabgrass by Eric Zaetsch is from a very different end of the political spectrum - up where I hang out.  Eric wrote a very strong piece this weekend: 

Commercial reasonableness has a place in analysis of when competition might cross over to commercial predation. Pricing below cost to injure a competitior.


Here was one of my favorite sections....

"Wrongly so, the man implies. He defines one instance of something he alleges Murray was saying with an outright definitive "It's false" published factual assertion - by Kysylyczyn. Related to purported mention of possible investigations during discussion/negotiations which may have involved a possible "due diligence" aspect of public officials meeeting due diligence enquiry norms (instances outside of Nowthen in contexts apart from decision by Nowthen's council and/or administration in designating its official newspaper).

___________FURTHER UPDATE____________
To my knowledge, there is no definitive Kysylyczyn public statement on record of whether he's ever bought any printing ink or newsprint. And if so, how much, when?

Somewhere that ought to have been asked and answered of record, in the course of Record solicitation of official notice publication business within Anoka County and its municipalities. Ever. Newsprint. Ink. Delivery services. It is what one ordinarily thinks of in thinking of the commonly used term "newspaper," in commonly used contexts - including being honestly headquartered in county and "publishing" in-county a "newspaper" (as the term is commonly understood in ordinary usage)."


Thank you for your good work, Eric.

Separation of Church and State: Challenging Conservatives at Their Base Misconceptions

I support an organization known as Americans United: For Separation of Church and State.  Their stated mission is:  'Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a nonpartisan educational organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans.'

They publish a magazine entitled Church and State.  In February 2015, author Rob Boston published an article, titled, "Myths Debunked"...... 

Myths Debunked

Religious Right Activists Love To Spread False Information About The Separation Of Church And State. Here Are Ten Rebuttals:

I appreciate the premise for writing this article, laid out by Boston in these introductory paragraphs:



"The United States was founded to be a Christian nation. Kids can’t pray in public schools. The Founding Fathers did not support separation of church and state.

These statements are articles of faith to the Religious Right. There is one problem with them, however: They’re all false.


"Myths about separation of church and state and its role in American history abound. Over the years, Religious Right groups have constructed an entire false narrative to compete with the real story of religious freedom in America.


"Under this faux-history, church-state separation was never the intention of the Founders, who yearned for an officially Christian America. The separation principle, the Religious Right argues, was imposed on the nation some years later by either the Supreme Court, “radical secularists” or communists – take your pick.


"Many scholars have debunked this line of thinking over the years, yet it persists. Why?  For people involved with Religious Right groups, the phony “Christian nation” version of history fills a psychological need. It lets them know that they were right all along. It provides a comforting myth of religious supremacism to combat the multi-faith, multi-philosophy America that so many of them find troubling.


"Followers of the Religious Right are probably a lost cause on this issue. Like creationists who find a way to ignore every piece of evidence for evolution, the “Christian nation” crowd will never be persuaded by facts.


"Many more Americans probably haven’t given the matter much thought. They may have dim memories of history class where Pilgrims and Puritans were discussed, and they may know that the theocratic systems favored by those groups didn’t prevail.  What they don’t know is how we got from there to where we are now – a nation with a secular constitution and complete religious freedom for all.


"Some of these people are, unfortunately, susceptible to Religious Right propaganda. Not knowing the whole story of how church-state separation evolved and how it has been applied by the courts, they might fall for Religious Right distortions.  In a sound bite age, it’s important to make arguments as succinct as possible."



Here are the ten myths:

Myth One: Separation of church and state isn’t found in the U.S. Constitution. Rather, it is a modern invention of the Supreme Court, a communist idea, something Nazis concocted, etc.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison worked together to disestablish the Anglican Church and pass legislation that extended true religious freedom to all. Some years later, it was Jefferson who penned the metaphor of the First Amendment erecting a “wall of separation between church and state.”
Jefferson’s metaphor resonated with the public and the courts. Thus, the phrase “separation of church and state” came into being as a short-hand way of describing the First Amendment’s religion clauses.


Myth Two: The United States was founded to be a Christian nation.

This claim is easily debunked by referring to the text of the U.S. Constitution. If an officially Christian nation had been the Founders’ intent, the Constitution would say that explicitly. It doesn’t. In fact, it says the opposite.


Myth Three: Separation of church and state was originally intended to merely bar the creation of a national church.

The text of the First Amendment goes way beyond simply banning a national church. The amendment prohibits all laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” James Madison, one of the chief drafters of the amendment, interpreted it broadly. Madison believed that tax funding of churches was unconstitutional and even concluded, later in his life, that official White House proclamations calling for days of prayer were a violation.



Myth Four: Most of the Founders were evangelical Christians and supported government promulgation of that mode of faith.

Many Founders are identified as Deists, a theological school of thought that is less popular today. Deists believed in God but didn’t interpret the Bible in a literal fashion. They were skeptical of miraculous claims and sought to find a way to bring religion into alignment with the emerging scientific view of the world.   Some of the signers of the Constitution did undoubtedly hold traditional Christian beliefs. But this does not mean they supported merging church and state.


Myth Five: Mottos like “In God We Trust” on currency and “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are evidence that separation of church and state was never intended.

“In God We Trust” didn’t appear on coins until the Civil War, when it was authorized for use on some coins minted in the North.  The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a minister and a socialist. Bellamy wrote the Pledge to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the voyage of Christopher Columbus. Bellamy’s Pledge, which did not include the phrase “under God,” appeared in a magazine called Youth’s Companion.  In short, the Founders had nothing to do with these religious mottos or their adoption.


Myth Six: Thanks to separation of church and state, kids can’t pray in public schools.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1962 and 1963 banned programs of government-sponsored, compulsory prayer and Bible reading in public schools. The high court did not invalidate truly voluntary prayer and hasn’t done so since then.


Myth Seven: Separation of church and state fosters secularism, which drains religion of its vitality.

Official government secularism is not the enemy of faith; it is the defender of it. A secular state is one that is neutral on matters of theology. An official policy of government neutrality toward religion is a positive thing for faith communities.  The United States is a perfect example of how an official doctrine of secularism helps religion. In this country, the government long ago adopted a hands-off attitude toward religion. As a result, hundreds (if not thousands) of specific faith groups have sprung up on our shores. Religious groups remain vital, and most Americans claim a religious affiliation.


Myth Eight: Separation of church and state means that government must be hostile to religion.

The separation principle contains two key parts: The government is to refrain from promoting, sponsoring or advocating for any faith. Yet at the same time, the government is required not to meddle in the internal affairs of religious groups or impose undue regulations and oversight on them. Church-state separation protects religion by placing it beyond the reach of government.


Myth Nine: Most religious leaders don’t support separation of church and state.

In the modern era, many members of the clergy continue this proud tradition of support for church-state separation. Many religious denominations are on record as officially sup­porting the concept.

A minority of religious leaders disagree. Most of them belong to fundamentalist denominations that seek to use the power of government to control other people and impose their regressive dogma.


Myth Ten: Separation of church and state stifles the public voice and presence of religion.

Anyone who believes this hasn’t been paying attention. The United States operates under separation of church and state, yet religious groups have a loud and robust public voice. They speak out – from the left, right and center – on any number of political issues. As tax-exempt entities, houses of worship are not permitted under federal law to endorse or oppose candidates for public office, but there is nothing to stop them from addressing issues. Many do.

Consider just one issue that has been prominent lately: marriage equality. Houses of worship have been vocal on both sides of the debate. Many people have strong opinions about this issue, and religious denominations that oppose same-sex marriage have certainly encountered spirited opposition – but no one has tried to sanction or punish them for their views.

Nor does separation of church and state result in what one foe of the principle called a “naked public square.” It’s true that government may not post or erect religious symbols, but private religious groups are often able to use public space to display them with their own money and on their own time.

All that is required is that the government must treat all religious and secular groups equally; if access to public space is extended to one group, it must be extended to all. This is a simple matter of fair play, and it usually results in a vibrant public square full of many symbols, not a naked one.




Americans United is a non-partisan non-profit organization.  But I'm not.  The people who take advantage of the uninformed believers of these myths are the elected Republicans and their powerful supporters from the sidelines.  I'm a proud Democrat.  I would be surprised to find active, voting Democrats ever espousing these myths, let alone believing them.  Sadly, there are many who believe the non-truths passionately and with great fervor. 

Herein lies one continued wedge or dividing point between our parties.  So be it. But, if this divide continues, it is incumbent upon my party to frame the truths about separation of church and state and both rationally and passionately dispel these myths, and make it to our advantage politically to do so - to find, attract and keep the votes of Americans who understand the reasons for this separation, and who vote to uphold this American liberty, and to keep us from sliding further into becoming some type of Christian theocracy, as so many seem wont to do.