This article from the Star Tribune is the latest in the "8th District divide" meme, a narrative thread for years, exacerbated now by the Polymet " debate". I place it in quotes for while the debate is public, it is often uninformed about law and environmental process. Often, the politics of the process are also uninformed, as many reporters/writers take public political statements at face value, rather than also judging them based as part of a political strategy.
The 8th District has changed and is changing, long gone from the days of the "Range Mafia" group of legislators. While the core remains, the reality is it now probably consists of about four legislators and two state senators, some placed into powerful positions by seniority and strategy. It is not as much a dominant force within the DFL, as the recent Mining platform resolution defeat showed; political insiders would tell you the removal wasn't just "making peace", but was also because the resolution would be defeated. Demographics are part of this; the Range and Northeastern Minnesota is shrinking and aging by numbers as the empty generation of the 80's and 90's takes hold sans childbirth. And while the political changes can be blamed on numbers, it must also be remembered that social values change as the population changes, and the world, despite the Range's insularity, has changed.
There are two world views clashing, one of them chained to the colonizer-exploitation economy Northeastern Minnesota was based on, now linked more to corporatization and right wing beliefs, the other, attempting to struggle against the system by fighting for a different social-economic view and the new realities.
The Range DFL dominance derives from decades past, born out of the labor struggles pre-1960. The 1964 Taconite Tax amendment and the IRRRB helped create and enlarge the already developing industry, but also gave the local governments the needed share of the proceeds. What is not spoken of is how it also co-opted the local officials, giving them a means of power and a political stake in maintaining mining at all costs, especially after the economic and social catastrophe of the 1980's, still ongoing. It was, and is, an odd and strained coalition. Representatives who support, hold and drive some of the most progressive positions in the country, at the same time promoting regulation reduction, ignoring pollution, denouncing science showing said pollution and fervently promoting internationally backed projects led by some of the worst polluters on the planet. The co-option model, as outlined above, is the only explanation, as the communities and local elites power and income derives from mining and other exploitative industries. They, and the communities, wet their beaks in the 60's-70's boom era when money was cheap and now no one wants to give up their cabin. A large part of the local population, their income tied to the entire process, is understandably just as fundamentalist in their belief, any evidence to the contrary disappeared much like a Khrushchev party speech in the Brezhnev era.
The articles regarding the divide often quote political candidates and leaders as facts, but should also be viewed as public political strategy. A DFL leader making statements such as " My party has left me" is not just stating his disappointment over how party position has changed, but he is also making a point to party leaders: "Support what I want else I support the other party's candidates who will"; this could also be known as the "give me what I want or else I go home" strategy. It is a fear based strategy, based on the ability to deliver votes. The problem is, can the votes actually be delivered, or,
"Can the Center hold?"
While the new project supporters are fervent, it actually remains a question of how many of them are part of the DFL voting core or coalition. When the public sites are examined, much of it contains very conservative positions and the names are old, often ranging back to the 1970's BWCA "battles". One is just as prone to see an anti-Obama post or sign as they are pro-mining. This, perhaps, is where local political officials have failed to account for the difference between tactics and strategy. They have fed an attack dog they thought they had chained and under control, only to find it will simply eat them when hungry. It also says something about them personally; long since co-opted, despite their personal and political beliefs, they have forgotten that the system is ultimately exploitative of both people and the natural world. Isolated by the ensured employment and relative comfort, they haven't foreseen the demographic and economic changes of the last 30 years. We no longer have the social contract of the post-Roosevelt boomers, instead we now have the Koch Brothers and the WTO. We also have the lunatic followers of the right-wing. There is even a divide between the Steelworker's Union and some project supporters.
As I stated above, the District's demographics have changed, and while some change has come from geography, for example, exurban Chisago county now being part of the district, there is demographic change as well, some from inflow, some from outflow and some merely part in differences between age groups. The Range, and much of the country, is now a three tier economy, with the elite, the lucky and co-opted who benefit, and the rest much fighting it out for the scraps of low wages with no social support. And no longer can the Northeastern DFL count on a coalition of supporters happily supporting whatever they wish. While the real chances for victory may be slim, it does show a divide, and not a small one. It is as much about a different world view as it is a political fight.
The question might best be, "Have the Range elite simply been too co-opted for too long"? Their power, derived from one industry and a questionable political strategy leads to the question: Is their politics finally failing in the new realities?
The 8th District has changed and is changing, long gone from the days of the "Range Mafia" group of legislators. While the core remains, the reality is it now probably consists of about four legislators and two state senators, some placed into powerful positions by seniority and strategy. It is not as much a dominant force within the DFL, as the recent Mining platform resolution defeat showed; political insiders would tell you the removal wasn't just "making peace", but was also because the resolution would be defeated. Demographics are part of this; the Range and Northeastern Minnesota is shrinking and aging by numbers as the empty generation of the 80's and 90's takes hold sans childbirth. And while the political changes can be blamed on numbers, it must also be remembered that social values change as the population changes, and the world, despite the Range's insularity, has changed.
There are two world views clashing, one of them chained to the colonizer-exploitation economy Northeastern Minnesota was based on, now linked more to corporatization and right wing beliefs, the other, attempting to struggle against the system by fighting for a different social-economic view and the new realities.
The Range DFL dominance derives from decades past, born out of the labor struggles pre-1960. The 1964 Taconite Tax amendment and the IRRRB helped create and enlarge the already developing industry, but also gave the local governments the needed share of the proceeds. What is not spoken of is how it also co-opted the local officials, giving them a means of power and a political stake in maintaining mining at all costs, especially after the economic and social catastrophe of the 1980's, still ongoing. It was, and is, an odd and strained coalition. Representatives who support, hold and drive some of the most progressive positions in the country, at the same time promoting regulation reduction, ignoring pollution, denouncing science showing said pollution and fervently promoting internationally backed projects led by some of the worst polluters on the planet. The co-option model, as outlined above, is the only explanation, as the communities and local elites power and income derives from mining and other exploitative industries. They, and the communities, wet their beaks in the 60's-70's boom era when money was cheap and now no one wants to give up their cabin. A large part of the local population, their income tied to the entire process, is understandably just as fundamentalist in their belief, any evidence to the contrary disappeared much like a Khrushchev party speech in the Brezhnev era.
The articles regarding the divide often quote political candidates and leaders as facts, but should also be viewed as public political strategy. A DFL leader making statements such as " My party has left me" is not just stating his disappointment over how party position has changed, but he is also making a point to party leaders: "Support what I want else I support the other party's candidates who will"; this could also be known as the "give me what I want or else I go home" strategy. It is a fear based strategy, based on the ability to deliver votes. The problem is, can the votes actually be delivered, or,
"Can the Center hold?"
While the new project supporters are fervent, it actually remains a question of how many of them are part of the DFL voting core or coalition. When the public sites are examined, much of it contains very conservative positions and the names are old, often ranging back to the 1970's BWCA "battles". One is just as prone to see an anti-Obama post or sign as they are pro-mining. This, perhaps, is where local political officials have failed to account for the difference between tactics and strategy. They have fed an attack dog they thought they had chained and under control, only to find it will simply eat them when hungry. It also says something about them personally; long since co-opted, despite their personal and political beliefs, they have forgotten that the system is ultimately exploitative of both people and the natural world. Isolated by the ensured employment and relative comfort, they haven't foreseen the demographic and economic changes of the last 30 years. We no longer have the social contract of the post-Roosevelt boomers, instead we now have the Koch Brothers and the WTO. We also have the lunatic followers of the right-wing. There is even a divide between the Steelworker's Union and some project supporters.
As I stated above, the District's demographics have changed, and while some change has come from geography, for example, exurban Chisago county now being part of the district, there is demographic change as well, some from inflow, some from outflow and some merely part in differences between age groups. The Range, and much of the country, is now a three tier economy, with the elite, the lucky and co-opted who benefit, and the rest much fighting it out for the scraps of low wages with no social support. And no longer can the Northeastern DFL count on a coalition of supporters happily supporting whatever they wish. While the real chances for victory may be slim, it does show a divide, and not a small one. It is as much about a different world view as it is a political fight.
The question might best be, "Have the Range elite simply been too co-opted for too long"? Their power, derived from one industry and a questionable political strategy leads to the question: Is their politics finally failing in the new realities?
