Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 12
Post-summit blend: Hope and skepticism
The effort showed initiative, but its promise is of a familiar sort.
There is something to be said for occasionally abandoning protocol, turning a deaf ear to naysayers and plowing ahead with a goal in mind. That was the path for President Donald Trump, who on Tuesday concluded a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that had been canceled just weeks earlier.
The two leaders began the process of establishing relations and taking the first small steps toward what the world can only hope will be productive negotiations to disarm the rogue nation of its nuclear warhead trove. Trump deserves credit for vigorously pursuing those talks. It is always easier to hurl invective at an opponent than to sit down, extend a hand and take the criticism that always accompanies such gestures.
But sheer force of will can take one only so far, and the world has been here before, even if Trump has not. North Korea, under various Kims, has agreed to denuclearization several times. Kim Il Sung acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1985 but never complied. The country withdrew in 2003 following U.S. accusations of an illegal uraniumenrichment program. Then came the six-party talks, when the U.S., China, Russia, Japan and South Korea used the promise of energy aid and normalized relations to get Kim Jong Il to give up “all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.” Another agreement, another broken promise.
Now comes Kim Jong Un, who, like his grandfather and father before, appears willing to commit to denuclearization. But it cannot escape notice that in the actual agreement he and Trump signed, Kim gave away nothing. Trump made a notable concession - calling off scheduled military exercises with South Korea and even using North Korea’s favored language, calling the war games “provocative.” He also committed to “provide security guarantees” to North Korea and agreed to work toward “complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”
Notable by its absence from the agreement or talks was any mention of human rights, despite North Korea’s lengthy record of atrocities, not the least of which was the arrest, detention and bizarre death of American college student Otto Warmbier one year ago.
The U.S. cannot be so eager for a quick win that it promises too much or demands too little. At 34, Kim may be one of the world’s youngest leaders, but he has been schooled by the family despots. He has been denigrated by other world leaders, but he and his predecessors have had the patience to build the nuclear arsenal that has gotten him to his goal: recognition on the world stage. He is not to be underestimated.
Trump seems to know that, but his eagerness to curry favor with Kim, praise his talent, declare their “special bond” and proclaim himself “honored” by the visit was unseemly. It stood in stark contrast to the contempt with which he treated longtime and steadfast U.S. allies at last weekend’s G-7 meeting.
It is too soon to declare this venture a success or failure. Trump has set the stage. Now must come the painstaking task of creating a framework, timeline and verification process that will succeed where all others have failed. The prospect of economic revitalization could be the catalyst, but the effort will require a tough-minded diplomacy and persistence that has been in scant evidence the first 500 days of this presidency. Another necessity may be partners, who can help apply pressure and assist in the long-term task of verifying the complete elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons systems.
Trump obviously relishes the prospect of succeeding where others have fallen short. That’s not a bad quality in a leader. But much more is required for the task he has taken on.
___
Post Bulletin, Rochester, June 16
Keep partisan politics out of local elections
Does it matter who a city council candidate voted for in the last presidential election?
No, and it’s none of our business - or yours - who a candidate for local office voted for in the 2016 presidential election, or 2012 or whenever. That’s why voting booths have curtains or dividers. If you’re interested in finding out whether a candidate for city council or the Soil and Water Board is a registered Republican, Democrat or whatever, that’s public information, but we don’t think it’s relevant for a candidate for a nonpartisan local office.
Politics has touched just about everything in America in 2018, from Hollywood awards shows to NFL pre-game festivities, so it’s not surprising that it has come up in a local election as well. But it really shouldn’t - and it’s especially objectionable when candidates for local office make it a big deal themselves.
Paul Myhrom, for example. Myhrom, who owns a bike shop on Fourth Street Southeast, is running for his long-ago Ward 1 seat on the council, and at a recent conservative political meeting, he asked another candidate, Heather Holmes, who she voted for president in 2016.
Holmes chose to answer. Put in that position, with a second to think about it, our answer would have been something like, “That’s not relevant to this city council election, which should be about affordable housing, dealing with DMC growth, property taxes, bike lanes and a thousand other things - not the choice I made about the best possible person for president in 2016.”
Myhrom told Post Bulletin reporter Randy Petersen that he asked the question to gauge Holmes’ stance on the issues. “If you ever want to find out what somebody is all about, all you have to do is ask them one litmus test question: Who’d you vote for last time, in 2016, for president of the United States?”
In our opinion, that’s a grotesque reduction of what one vote in one election means. People voted for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton or whoever else in 2016 for personal and particular reasons that may be entirely different from every other vote they’ve ever cast, or not cast. But it’s a testament to the hyperpolitical times we live in that people can assert a complete understanding of someone - especially political candidates - based on who they voted for in 2016, and can then figure out how that person would vote as a council member on a curb-and-gutter project, or TIF for a bottling plant.
Two other candidates in the Ward 1 race appropriately spoke up in defense of the nonpartisan nature of city elections, and the respected Ward 1 incumbent who’s leaving the council after this year, Ed Hruska, said it exactly right: “The more we can keep partisan politics out of city government, the better off we will be.”
As the campaigns kick into higher gear in advance of the Aug. 14 primary, we encourage you to put local elections off to one side from the political dramas going on in St. Paul and “the Swamp.” We need less partisanship at all levels of government, and we have every right to expect it in choosing who represents us on the city council.
The last thing we should want is for Room 104 at the Government Center to become more like the House and Senate chambers.
___
St. Cloud Times, June 15
Minnesota should take the lead on rebuilding mental health system
“Deaths of despair.”
Overdoses. Alcohol. Suicide. They are causes of death that have been growing steadily for more than a decade, but they only take the spotlight as singular problems - “the opioid epidemic” or “a suicide outbreak.”
That’s a fallacy. The so-called “deaths of despair” are not disparate problems. They are manifestations of a lack of commitment to meaningful access to mental health care across the United States.
A study by The Commonwealth Fund found that 41 to 66 percent of American adults with symptoms of a mental illness from 2013 to 2015 received no treatment. Up to one-third of children in need of mental health treatment did not receive it, according to parents’ reports in 2016.
Here’s a sampling of the situation locally, and it’s one we’ve reported on repeatedly:
- Central Minnesotans with mental health issues could find themselves in a detox facility, even if they’re cold sober, because there’s no place else for them to immediately go.
- If you live in middle Minnesota, access to care and treatment is a problem. It’s not unheard of to have to drive 90 minutes or more each way to see a mental health care provider that is taking new patients or is “in network.” And even when the care is available, paying for it is no sure thing.
- Public safety workers have become our mental health first responders, a role they shouldn’t be asked to fill without significant increases in training and support.
The scary part? Minnesota is relatively good at mental health care.
And that’s why we need to double down, not only to help our own, but to blaze the trail for success elsewhere.
There’s precedent, after all. Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone’s name is on a groundbreaking law that ensured fairness in insurance for mental health and addiction treatment. He worked on the initiative for years.
It passed six years - six years __after his death. How many deaths of despair occurred during those years?
Call on your lawmakers, your health care providers, your insurer and your community to get serious about building a system that provides prompt, effective access to mental health and addiction care in every community.
It will cost money. It will take effort.
But without it, we are losing too many treasures - and we don’t mean fashion designers or celebrity chef/travelers, although they are significant losses.
We are losing our sons and daughters, moms and dads, friends and co-workers.
We can’t afford to stay the course.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.