What would former Gov & US Senator Knute Nelson Think?
A thought on the current Republican & Democrat nominating process
I was quite surprised when I heard the news as posted on Minnesota Democrats Exposed. Then I read Joe Soucheray's article about Ciresi dropping out of the US Senate race. I thought a Ciresi/Coleman battle would have been a difficult race for the Senator Coleman. As a Republican, I am pleased because Franken, in my opinion, has no real chance once Minnesota gets to know him. Franken's biography and politics are not something the Minnesota electorate generally ascribes too.
I think Soucheray's sentiments are being expressed by many around our state (including Todd County) regarding the nominating process that is currently practiced by both parties. I know it has advantages for both parties and certain candidates, but I think the disadvantages have become more distinct now that new generations have started to enter the process.
Being a good Norwegian I am sure Knute would have an opinion on the subject himself. I thought his path (as presented below) to becoming a US Senator posed some good contrasts and similarities on this nominating topic.
The old timers in the Todd County Republican Party talk about the "good old days" when caucuses and party involvement (either Democrat or Republican) was very competitive. The halls were filled with party faithful all involved in the process from the ground up. It was their patriotic duty, and the result was a healthy vetting process which allowed, as a rule, the best candidates and ideas to prevail.
As I have read through the history of Minnesota politics (Knute Nelson in particular) I wish I had the feeling this was currently the case.
Even with the great turnout we saw this year, I know for a fact, many newcomers and some old timers left with a bad taste in their mouth. Some of it had to deal with not being educated on how the process works and why. Some of it because of the limited participation in that past that has empowered a few.
I have started to drift to a point of view that is contrary to standard operating procedure. I ask for you to forgive me for straying temporarily, and will let you make the case why I am wrong to get me back on track.
I have started to become a proponent of a good old fashioned primary race between candidates. What we have built into a system now is that candidates are some how "traitors" for running in a primary election. My opinion is that the party should get the endorsement process down to a few qualified individuals and let them run against each other.
The main argument I have received from my detractors is that BPOUS would then be restricted from supporting a candidate through the summer months.
- BPOU's are so restricted on the money they can give a candidate today it is really a minor point in my estimation. The BPOU leaders could still certainly help out with campaigns (apart from the BPOU) as we saw at the state level with the 2008 Presidential contest. Besides, they would be able to give the money to the winner of the primary in the fall when a majority of the money is spent. Any candidate that cannot survive receiving the $5,000 dollars maximum before September is probably not a great candidate anyways.
The Republican Party Leadership from the ground up in many cases does not have a good track record of "picking" winners. I think if you look at the Kennedy for Senate Campaign you have one recent example, and I can provide a list of others for both parties.
I wish here in Todd County we would encourage numerous Republicans to run in a primary race given the limited participation in BPOU events. I think the candidates after running in a primary would be better organized with a focused message. They would be forced to build alliances to get voter turnout. It gives added media attention and press when a contest is finally won.
Finally it would produce two or three candidates who generally agree on many of the same points spreading a message of limited government, lower taxes, and sane social standards across an area.
What could be better?
Knute Nelson's campaign for election to the United States Senate was reported to have begun early in 1894. It was conducted quietly and behind the scenes, to avoid the appearance that his bid for governorship was less than genuine, and also to avoid an internal Republican feud with the incumbent US senator William D. Washburn.
Before the 17th Amendment went into effect in 1914, U.S. senators were elected by their state legislatures, so Nelson's campaign for Minnesota's second Senate seat was a "still hunt," consisting of building support among incoming legislators while letting Washburn think that he was running unopposed for the Republican nomination.
Sensing Nelson's rising star in the Republican establishment, Washburn tried on the one hand to obtain unequivocal assurance from Nelson that he was not in the race for the Senate; while solidifying his standing as the Minneapolis candidate. On September 21, 1894, the two candidates met at the Freeborn county fair in Albert Lea, where Nelson was asked directly whether he supported Washburn's candidacy or had his own designs for the Senate seat. Accounts vary about his exact wording, but the prevailing view was that, in an impressive demonstration of parisology encouraged the state legislature "...to elect your Republican legislative ticket, so as to send my friend Washburn back the United States senate, or if you do not like him, send some other good Republican."
It became apparent that Nelson's strategy was to first prevent Washburn from gaining a straightforward majority in either the nomination or the election in the Republican caucus, and then appear as a unifying choice for the Republicans. To do this, he had to strike a fine balance between appealing to Scandinavian ethnic pride on the one hand and showing himself a true American on the other; between the appearance of treachery against Washburn and maintaining an honest impression.
The campaign came to a head in the so-called "Three Week War," or "Hotel Campaign" that was in full force by January 5, 1895. The confrontations, lobbying, cajoling, and alleged bribery centered around the Windsor and Merchants hotels in St. Paul. Legislators were unnerved by the campaign, and the outcome remained uncertain, and return visits to their constituencies in mid-January did little to clarify public opinion. Public meetings with "wirepullers" had similarly little effect.
Nelson's strength became apparent but was not yet decisive on January 18 when the Republicans caucused. Washburn fell well short of reaching the necessary 72 votes to nominate, and a number of erstwhile supporters fell to Nelson the second ballot. By the time the election went to the full legislature, it was apparent that Washburn had lost. On January 23 Nelson was elected to the United States Senate, the first Scandinavian-born American to reach this post. Washburn was exhausted from the campaign but called for direct, popular elections of senators. It is remembered as one of the bitterest elections in Minnesota political history.
