MINOT, N.D. — It was a somber week in North Dakota’s political circles as the state mourned the passing of Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem. A man who was not just good at his job, but respected across the state’s various political factions.
There was a beautiful ceremony held at the Capitol for Stenehjem this week, one fitting for such an honorable and dedicated public servant, but also one I think everyone who participated would rather have not been necessary.
Alas, time marches on. Gov. Doug Burgum is tasked by state law with appointing a successor. I can’t claim any specific insight into that process, but
most people I’ve been speaking with feel as though he’ll choose former Lt. Gov. Drew Wrigley
, who at this point is the only announced candidate for the position from either the Democratic or Republican parties.
I’d expect that decision to come very soon. Early next week, at the latest.
Now, let’s get to the mailbag. As always, if you’d like to correspond with me, send your email to rport@forumcomm.com. Any submissions used in the column may be edited for clarity and brevity.
“I read your article today and would like to pick your brain,” Larry writes, referring to the aforementioned column about who Burgum might choose to replace Stenehjem. “Myself, I would like to see new blood in the Attorney General’s office. I am tired of seeing the same people in office repeatedly. Can’t we find a suitable candidate other than Drew Wrigley? Is he qualified for the job? I would say yes, but I also feel there must be others who are just as qualified.”
I think Drew is a very suitable candidate. He has experience in multiple areas of government. He worked as a prosecutor in Pennsylvania. He served two stints as our U.S. Attorney for North Dakota at the federal level. He spent six years in North Dakota’s executive branch and, as a part of his lieutenant governor duties, he presided over the state Senate and built relationships in the Legislature.
Is there a better candidate out there? Maybe! But where is that person? It’s not that early in the process anymore. The endorsing conventions are in less than two months. The local party district conventions are already about halfway done. If there is some other great candidate out there ready to take on this job, where are they?
We can’t vote for them if they don’t file to run.
In a strictly pecuniary sense, competitive campaigns are good for my bottom line. Noncompetitive campaigns are boring and don’t generate a lot of content for political writers. And, beyond the selfish reasons, the competition is also good for the process. But the thing is, there isn’t likely to be another candidate. At least not for Republicans, and while the Democrats will probably get around to pushing some sacrificial lamb into the race like they usually do, that’s unlikely to be the sort of person Gov. Burgum would appoint.
Which isn’t to make it sound like we’re stuck with Wrigley. He’s got a fine resume, and I believe he’d make a great attorney general, though as a philosophical matter I also believe that competition is a good thing.
“I would give you a B+
on your school choice article
,” Mike writes. “One critical part you left out was homeschooling. I could tell you many stories of children abused by homeschooling, but I will just relate a couple. In Hazen where we used to live, one family used their children as young as ten to do roofing for profit when the children were supposedly being homeschooled. Another family of 12 that had a minister for a father were physically abused, and for school, they watched a videotape every morning. Another aspect of choice is the charter schools. The people behind these schools find an abandoned storefront and offer some biased agenda. Then they bilk the state for money. I have a teaching degree, and in no way would I be capable of homeschooling my children. Homeschooling and charter schools rob children of their right to develop thinking skills. School choice is for promoting religion, and specific indoctrination.”
Every time the issue of school choice comes up we get horror stories about religious indoctrination and education industry charlatans bilking the taxpayers. These concerns are not invalid, and they should be present in the debate over any proposed school choice policy. Whatever choice policies we might implement in the future should be sure to maintain competent and adequately-funded public schools as a baseline option.
But the public schools aren’t perfect either. Issues such as administrative bloat, stagnating academic performance, cavalier use of taxpayer resources are not uncommon. We North Dakotans are very lucky to live at a time when our public schools are typically pretty excellent, but that’s not an argument against giving people more choices.
Nor is it persuasive to argue that we should refrain from expanding the number of education choices available to parents because some people might make bad choices.
“Once again, we find ourselves in agreement,” Larry writes. “
Your article about Conway being upset over President Biden’s remark
was spot on. Being a moderate liberal, I find myself agreeing with you more than I disagree.”
I’m glad Larry liked the column, and it’s happy news that my conservative content is proving valuable to someone who is left-of-center, politically, but disparaging hypocrisy from the political class ought not be a partisan exercise.
It often is. We love to stomp all over the hypocrisies of those we don’t align with, politically, while making excuses for those we do. I have a lot of left-of-center readers who like to fawn when I’m criticizing the Trump movement and Republicans, but get their skirts up over their heads when I criticize Democrats.
Which, ironically enough, is hypocritical. And hey, I get it. Debate politics long enough, and all of us will end up a hypocrite at some point, but I think we’d all be better off if we aspired to the sort of humility that allows us to admit it.
Speaking of which, let’s conclude this column with Carol:
“I am a registered Democrat but I am leaning to the idea of registering as an Independent,” Carol writes. “I like your column. I don’t always agree with you, but you present sensible ideas. The
latest column on school choice
is an example of your far-sighted approach. You said that just because people support the idea of school choice doesn’t mean they would support legislation to make that happen. I am so tired of far-right and far-left politicians. Thanks for contributing a great column.”
My argument in that column was that “school choice” is a very broad term that can mean a lot of different policies. Vouchers, which would allow parents to take their student’s share of education tax dollars away from a public school and toward a private education option, is one school choice policy, and a controversial one at that. But open enrollment, which opens up the door to parents choosing which public school their kids attend, as opposed to just the one assigned to them, is also a school choice policy. So if someone says they support school choice, it behooves us to understand just what they mean by that.
This sort of nuance often gets lost in our discussions. Denigrating “school choice” in a way that’s agnostic as to the flavor of “choice” being touted isn’t useful.
Sadly, we do not live in nuanced times. Dumbed-down sloganeering is what often wins political debates, and we’re all the worse off for it.
