Discover Politics

Pat Anderson launched her campaign for governor on Monday, November 2nd, 2009, the day before Election Day. The backdrop for her campaign was undoubtedly defined by several close elections around the country, and the results were mixed. On the bright side of the red tent, Republican victories in the Virginia and New Jersey governor’s races had to be a boost for GOP morale; they were a sign that the past four years of DFL dominance may be running dry. On the cloudy side was a race that in many ways should have no bearing on the battle to be Minnesota’s next Governor.

After all, the congressional competition in question, between Doug Hoffman and Bill Owens was not a state-wide race. Beyond that, it was in New York, a state that is demographically and politically unlike Minnesota. That race, however, which pitted a moderate Republican against an ultra-Conservative against a Democratic candidate will certainly resonate in Anderson’s campaign, and in the campaigns of all Republican candidates. After all, the endorsed Republican for NY-23 backed out of the race when her Conservative opponent received strong support from national Republican leaders, (including Minnesota’s current Governor).

It appears that the question for Minnesota’s Republican candidates may be: how conservative is conservative enough? Anderson does not think the traditional labels fit anymore. She supports Hoffman, the Conservative Party Candidate, but does not agree that he is on the “far right.” This difference is part of the rift she sees growing in the Republican party:

“I think you are seeing a new alignment of politics in this country. In the past we thought of far-right candidates as candidates who were very maybe socially and religiously conservative, but also believed in using Government to dictate values to people. And I don’t believe that the constitution candidate or the tea party movement comes from that philosophy at all. I think it comes from the philosophy of limiting the scope of government in our lives, period.”

This is a theme that you can expect to hear often in coming months. Amid threats of stimulus bills, rising taxes and public options, Republicans are pining for fresh air. The cries for limiting the government’s reach are coming not only from the tea-partying mobs, but from the candidates as well. Democrats opine that Republicans are quick to forget the years of Bush 43’s domestic surveillance programs and Medicare part D program when they talk about “limited government.”

Anderson, however, should prove to be immune to such criticism. She boasts a record of limiting government to the extreme, even laying herself off as State Commissioner of Employee Relations in 2007. It was a feat that should certainly help her if she is ever questioned on her ability to lead by example. She also takes pride in not having ever been a legislator. It is a fact, along with her gender, that separates her from the GOP crowd. Unlike her closest competitors, she has held an executive office, as Mayor of Eagan, and has won a state-wide race for State Auditor in 2002. She argues that these distinctions will help her govern.

When asked about vetoes and unallotment, Anderson is confident that we will not see unallotment used to resolve budget disputes ever again:

“(F)irst of all the Democrats are not gonna screw up again like they did last session. So the Governor is not going to be able to simply unallot if we don’t pass a budget, which is what happened last time. That is the last time that will occur, unless you’re mid-budget-cycle obviously. The veto pen is a tool, but it is not the end game, because the Governor can and should veto bad legislations, whether tax or other things, but in the end we have to come up with a budget. And so it’s simply a tool to say “no,” but it is not coming up with an end game solution.”

She also expressed hope that the veto will not be necessary as she intends to form consensus on tax reform – even if the legislature remains in DFL control. Anderson is not the only Republican candidate who hopes to bridge the partisan divide by creating a conservative consensus on issues, David Hann said something similar to DP earlier this month. However, there are some insiders who have derided this plan, saying that given the state’s recent electoral history, planning on anything but a DFL dominated legislature is dangerously wishful thinking. It is not hard to believe that this thinking aligns with that of Republican delegates, who may not want to be confronted with the possibility of their candidate compromising after election day.

If Anderson, or a similarly staunch conservative candidate emerges victorious in 12 months, insiders think that it is highly unlikely a majority consensus will be easily formed. Anderson’s ideas run perpendicular with many solutions proposed by her Democratic counterparts. When confronted with the proposition of raising taxes on the wealthiest ten percent, she did not hesitate, and was quick to oppose increased income taxes:

“Absolutely not, in fact, I am not a supporter of income taxes or any sort of taxes on productivity. I believe that we should be focused more on taxing consumption, which generally means a broader sales tax, rather than taxing productivity. Now someone like Mark Dayton has never been productive in his life, so he doesn’t, you know, get it, he inherited all of his money. But the states that are successful right now are states that […] don’t have high income taxes, or in some case don’t have income taxes at all, don’t have corporate taxes. They are states that focus more on consumption-based taxes. And I think we need to make that shift and we need to make it immediately so we are positioned well as this country comes out of the recession to be able to grow jobs and grow the private sector.”

This response, even in terms of vitriol, is almost verbatim the answer given by David Hann on the subject of increased income taxes. It is a difference in opinion so stark, that forming consensus on the government’s role in life seems like recklessly wishful thinking. As for healthcare, Anderson rejects the notion that Minnesota needs to work on expanding healthcare coverage:

“Well we have the lowest rate of uninsured in the country, so we do not have an uninsured problem in Minnesota. The few people who go without insurance go without it because they don’t want or they aren’t bothering to do it, even though they would qualify for the public program. Or they are illegal immigrants and they can’t qualify for the public program. So Minnesota does not have an uninsured problem.”

She does, however, see areas for common ground in the reduction of healthcare costs, specifically in allowing competition among healthcare insurance providers:

“Your issues here are the significant number of mandates that the state government from a bipartisan standpoint, both Republicans and Democrats, have placed upon insurance companies. Insurance companies can only exist here if they are non-profit. They have 65 mandates on coverage issues, so you essentially have only three or four companies in the state that even sell healthcare insurance anymore. And it’s because of the regulatory environment that the state has created.

Minnesota has almost moved toward a single payer market. It’s been a gradual move, and it’s been bipartisan.”

This is a concern spoken like a true free-market conservative. It makes sense, then, that Anderson has chaired the Minnesota Free Market Institute. The MFMI is a non-profit organization that advocates limited government and free-market solutions. On its website, the MFMI claims to be non-partisan, but it is no wonder that it is a favorite of conservatives. Anderson has been courting free-market conservatives in her campaign for governor, and she says she expects to see a resurgence of limited-government Republicans. After all, she says, this is the philosophy of Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Both Goldwater and Reagan are no less than patriarchal heroes in the Republican Party, and for any candidate vying for the endorsement, evoking their memory is standard practice. Lines start to blur when it comes to supporting modern-day small government advocates, most notably, Ron Paul. Paul, who was shunned by the state party in 2008 for his refusal to endorse John McCain, represents a force to be reckoned with when it comes to Republican delegates and activists. His supporters are famously ardent, and they can be a boon or hindrance, depending on how they receive a candidate.

She thinks the Republican Party is growing, and she respects Paul for his philosophy of limited government. In his supporters, she sees opportunity. Paul supporters, as she sees it have been drawn from a myriad of parties, including the DFL, in support of limited government. She thinks that this wave of activists are signaling the future of the Republican Party:

“(I) think that this has moved way beyond Ron Paul, and it’s becoming as I see it the dominant philosophy in the Republican Party. […] I have support from both sides. I have support from the Campaign for Liberty, and I have support from very traditional Republicans.”

When asked about her endorsement opponents, Anderson asserts that current frontrunner Marty Seifert has no appeal for limited government supporters, but she acknowledges that David Hann and Tom Emmer do share her passion for limiting government. It is conceivable that the three trailing candidates may be sharing the same base of support right now, and Anderson’s battle is a battle of attrition. However, if no one blinks in this three-way contest for the reddest Republicans, they could in fact, split this vote perfectly. That appears to be what happened at the Republican straw poll in October.
In the meantime, Anderson refuses to be out-Republicaned; when asked what she disagrees with in her party’s platform, she could not think of any issue, although she assumes there are some. Regardless of the Republican endorsement, Anderson believes that her passion for limited government will come through in the next election. There is no doubt which side she thinks will emerge victorious:

“(F)rankly, this next year, we in Minnesota are going to have a very public debate about the future of this state. It’s gonna be a very serious debate because people are looking for answers. They are not looking for one-liners, they aren’t looking for, you know, candidates who say “we’re gonna do this,” but never say what they’re going to cut.”