Readers Write: Pushback against state GOP chair, looking inward for unity, flags in schools

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In his July 21 commentary “What Republicans ask you to consider this election season,” David Hann, chairman of the Minnesota Republican Party, asserts that a “nation is a people who share commonalities. Fundamental commonalities — a shared language, a shared culture, a shared history.”

The history of our nation does not align with this notion. Indeed, the U.S. was founded by diverse groups: English, Dutch, Scottish, German and Swedish peoples, along with enslaved Africans and Indigenous peoples who most certainly did not share a common language, culture and history. Rather, the U.S. was founded on shared principles such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law. These ideals united the diverse groups. As the benefits of diversity are many, embracing our diversity now can lead to a more innovative, adaptable and prosperous society. Along with those guiding principles that unite us, our differences are to be acknowledged and celebrated.

Hann draws a false equivalence (“then, as now”) between pro-slavery Southern Democrats of the 1800s and today’s Democratic Party, which has transformed into one that champions policies aimed at civil rights, racial and economic disparities and social justice. Today’s Democratic Party functions in a vastly different political, social and historical context. Further, his recounting of the Biden administration’s “open borders … punish(ing) political opponents … accept[ing] criminal behavior” is, at best, oversimplified and, at worst, misleading or outright untrue.

It is my hope in this fraught political season that readers of such pieces take the time to think critically about the content of the writing and the motivations of the writer before they are persuaded by what they have read.

Mary Fahey, White Bear Lake

•••

Hann’s fallacious version of U.S. political history, from the Civil War to the present, pretends that the Republicans of then are the Republicans of today. Nothing could be further from the truth: Ideologies between the two parties were reversed, particularly after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law. This fact is worth researching in detail.

More aptly, Hann could have titled his piece, “What Republicans want you to believe this election season.”

Steve Watson, Minneapolis

•••

What a disingenuous pitch for “unity” from Hann.

He harks back to the Civil War to show Republicans’ position on America. Recent events are a better gauge of Republican attitudes and actions, spurred by party leaders. A few:

• The 2017 neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville.

• The 2021 attack on the Capitol to overthrow the election.

• The 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade.

• The “Project 2025″ plan to dismantle democracy.

Hann says “unity” comes from Americans’ “shared commonalities”: language, culture, history. The Republican Party may indeed “believe in a nation of people who share [these] commonalities.” But America is actually broader than that. We’re a nation of many languages, many cultures, layered history. If Republicans want unity only among those who share a language (English), culture (Christian?) and history (an idealized Civil War) … that leaves a lot of Americans out.

Then Hann says Democrats “tell us the effort to preserve these commonalities is racist, bigoted, harmful.” The Republican effort to restrict America to these narrow “commonalities” is what’s bigoted and harmful.

And look who Hann proposes to represent us all: men, “believers,” of one race (presumably white). Mr. Hann, ponder the notion that men can be represented by women, that believers can be represented by atheists (especially since religion is separate from government in America), that your race can be represented by others.

Want unity? Let’s start with what all Americans actually do have in common: Our country. Our planet. Our place, living side by side with people like — and not like — us.

Best of all: We each have a voice. Americans, use yours to vote.

Betsy Spethmann, Dundas, Minn.

There have been many calls for unity as our political climate becomes even more divisive in this election year. I agree with Star Tribune CEO and Publisher Steve Grove’s commentary about looking for hope in our local communities and media (”Looking for hope in America? Go local,” Opinion Exchange, July 21). Minnesota is a great place to live, and we have many strong communities. Change is best achieved at the local level where people know one another and can find common ground.

I recently stumbled upon the organization RepresentUs that states just this. The majority of Democrats and Republicans want to end corruption in politics and have our congressional representatives start working for the people they serve and not corporations and special interest groups. RepresentUs states that the best way to achieve this is by people working together at the city and state level. Its key reforms include ending corruption by strengthening campaign finance, ethics and lobbying laws, making elections more representative by enacting ranked-choice voting, and ending partisan gerrymandering. It has had success passing such laws and initiatives in Minnesota and across the country.

I think most Americans can agree that these reforms are needed. It will take many more people coming together to further this agenda, as well as the support of local journalists to expose corruption and report on progress toward a more just political system and strong communities.

Unfortunately, I read David Hann’s “What Republicans ask you to consider this election season” after I read Grove’s commentary, which essentially lays all blame on the Democrats for the division in our country. This is ridiculous and just adds to the polarization. We must end the finger-pointing and blame game and start working toward solutions to our problems.

Patricia McCabe, Mahtomedi

The writer of a July 21 letter attempts to apply a legal principle to the issue of displaying rainbow flags in classrooms. That principle essentially says the inclusion of one results in the exclusion of others. While I’m far from a legal scholar, I am a scholar of human services, ethical principles and social work, and the letter caught my interest.

The first thing that seems pertinent is this is a principle, not a rule. As a principle, it merely suggests that one thing could lead to another, not that it will. And a quick search of the legal literature shows that legal scholars see it is a guide but note it often does not apply. One legal scholar, John Mark Keyes, wrote in 1989, “Far from being a rule, it is not even lexicographically accurate, because it is simply not true, generally, that the mere express conferral of a right or privilege in one kind of situation implies the denial of the equivalent right or privilege in other kinds.”

Finally, the display of a flag such as a rainbow flag or a Black Lives Matter flag seems so far from exclusive that it is, on the face of it, ridiculous to assert otherwise. The message of these kinds of flags is that members of such groups are part of our grand community of human beings, that we have as much value as any other member and that it is safe for us to be who we are.

Paula M. Childers, Bloomington