For the Republicans, the Trump freight train has at least been slowed. But the anti-establishment wing of Cruz, Trump, and Carson, together, still dominate. Huckabee is out and I assume Santorum will follow. New Hampshire, historically, has been hard to predict. We'll see how the polls shift after last night. As a side note of probably little value, I would rank the speeches of the top three candidates in reverse order of the caucus results. Rubio was smart to go on early, catching the largest national audience and with a speech that was well-prepared and very well delivered. Trump had the challenge of speaking having lost when all the polls had him winning, but he wisely came on quickly, was for him short, calm, polite, and didn’t hurt himself anymore. Then the weakest, for me, was the winner Cruz, who spoke slowly, without passion, and with little crowd excitement, especially given that he won. I don’t know if that means anything, but just keep that in mind as we go forward.

For the Democrats, it is certainly accurate to say it was close and not surprising that both Clinton and Sanders were claiming victory. Bernie turned out a lot of new young voters, which may be valuable for the Democratic Party in general going forward this year and beyond, regardless how this race finishes. For Clinton, she did much better than eight years ago (which bodes well for her, especially given the high turnout at the caucus), and she was tested and seriously challenged, which certainly won’t hurt her going forward. Having eked out a victory, she avoids the historical fact that losing both Iowa and New Hampshire has usually been difficult to overcome.

So where are we? For the Republicans, it comes down to which lane, the anti or the remaining establishment, can sort more quickly to having just one candidate in the race. Either side continuing to split amongst as many as three candidates, when the other consolidates around one, will probably determine the outcome. For the Democrats, with O’Malley out, it is now one-on-one and a choice between the very well-known, experienced, battle scarred Hillary and the acknowledged socialist Bernie, who has never been a Democrat but who has certainly built a following that will be valuable for the Democratic nominee winning in November. The Democratic base in the first two states are liberal and white. Going south and west will bring a much more diverse electorate and likely different results.

In 1922, journalist and famous Kansan William Allen White said, “When anything is going to happen in this country, it happens first in Kansas.” The examples he used were abolition, prohibition, and populism.

A contemporary example of something that’s happened first in Kansas would be the full implementation of the Arthur Laffer Trickle Down economic theory that many believe has never worked and never will.

So what would William Allen White say today?
​
Well, for the benefit of the entire country, Kansas is clearly demonstrating it doesn’t work and it is to the point that other states have already taken notice and are taking steps to avoid the financial mess we’re experiencing.

Despite Kansas having a long, bipartisan history of properly supporting public schools and building and taking care of our infrastructure, we got sucked into the Laffer theory. Turning this ship around will not be easy and the longer we wait, the harder it will be and the more damage will have been inflicted. Key will be how long it will take for voters to be willing to vote incumbents—​not all, just those who supported this change—​out of office. And that will depend upon voters feeling the pain and turning it into action by speaking up and turning out the vote for candidates willing to help lead us back to sanity.

But let’s be perfectly clear, electing candidates for a return to sanity will not be easy. There are powerful forces with lots of money in support of those who have gotten us into this mess. In addition, a very aggressive State Chamber of Commerce will have no reluctance to use any tactics that will bring their desired results. That is why our candidates for sanity will need all of our help.

I will have more to say on how we can build and strengthen this coalition in future blog posts, but perhaps the next thing to “happen first in Kansas” will be the birth of a better politics focused on compromise and unity among a broad, sane middle who stand together to support what’s in the best interest of the state.

Kansas Day 2017 Update:
In 2016, I shared this blog post about the next story to "happen first in Kansas." I wrote about the birth of a new politics based on sanity, civility, and the ability to compromise for the best interests of the people. As a result of the 2016 elections and the engagement of citizens statewide, Kansas may indeed be writing that new story as we speak. This time, we have the opportunity to build a model for the rest of the country, as we work to raise critical thinking and engagement around the recent actions coming from the White House. According to the designers of the "Kansas experiment," they're looking forward to the implementation of this playbook in Washington, D.C. So, as we celebrate our founding as the 34th state, let us continue to build on this "Kansas model" of both activism and civility, which can help lead change for the benefit of all 50 states. Then we can truly say, "it happened first in Kansas."

I know this is an election year, and politics will dominate. But hearing the opposition from Republican leaders to the President’s announced plans on restricting terrorists, felons, and mentally ill persons access to guns is outrageous. What put it over the top was the fact that their responses were prepared in advance and released instantly upon the announcement, making it clear that it made no difference whatsoever what the specifics were. This documents, once again, the failure of our political leaders to listen to one another or to the majority of the American people who are supportive of common sense action on guns.

It is also an example where politics has been so radicalized that not even public opinion on the other side of the issue can keep far right politicians from total loyalty to the National Rifle Association. There are current national polls showing 90% support for restricting the purchase of guns by terrorists and felons, for example—​including even significant support from NRA members—​yet no support from any Republican candidate for President, not even for listening and considering possible interest. Add to this that both Republican Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush supported very strongly much more aggressive gun legislation.

If you are as outraged as I, then what are you doing to make that point, to challenge others to think, to hold candidates and elected officials accountable to the public interest? During President Obama’s speech, he made a strong call for civic engagement:

“So, all of us need to demand that Congress be brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby's lies. All of us need to stand up and protect our citizens. All of us need to demand governors, and legislators, and businesses do their part to make our communities safer.

We need the wide majority of responsible gun owners, who grieve with us every time this happens and feel like your views are not being properly represented, to join with us to demand something better. And we need voters who want safer gun laws, and who are disappointed in leaders who stand in their way, to remember come election time.

I mean, some of this is just simple math. Yes, the gun lobby is loud and it is organized in defense of making it effortless for guns to be available for anybody, anytime. Well, you know what? The rest of us, we all have to be just as passionate. We have to be just as organized in the defense of our kids. This is not that complicated. The reason Congress blocks laws is because they want to win elections. If you make it hard for them to win an election if they block those laws, they'll change course, I promise.”

Now is the right time to speak up and be heard.

If you are wondering why I follow the Republican debates when you might assume my focus would only be with the Democrats, here is why. One, I can always learn something of value both from a tactical point of view as well as an idea that just makes good sense. But most important, I do want the Republican nominee to be someone who would possibly do a good job. I am first an American, and my candidate might lose, so I want as much as possible for that eventual nominee  to be positive for the country. Taking the self-serving position of wanting the Republican nominee to be the easiest to defeat runs too much risk of not being the way it works out in the end.

Now as to last night, here is the way I saw it. Going into the debate, Trump’s outrageous comments on Muslims—​totally void of any understanding of how much he was further complicating the fight against ISIL—​seemed to only bolster his support. The assumption was that more reasonable candidates would take him on. But, in the end, only Governor Jeb Bush made it his focus and maybe helping his own cause but I doubt, for now, hurting the Donald. Senator Cruz backed away from any fight with Trump and instead took on Senator Rubio. What will be interesting is whether the comments from the candidates with executive experience, making it clear that Senate experience is often more about talk and banter, will have an impact going forward. 
​
And consistent with earlier debates, there were no direct questions pushing the candidates to explain how they were going to actually get something done, like who would be their foreign policy advisers for example. This allowed most of the candidates to focus on shots at the current administration and pushing their rhetoric with the hope that their lack of executive experience would be passed over. Fortunately, Governors Kasich and Christie took the initiative to not just push their experience but linked it to getting the job actually done. I was particularly impressed with Kasich for making it clear that working across the aisle and being willing to compromise would be essential to getting anything actually done.

The tragedy this past Friday in France, along with the recent Russian plane blown up, brought back memories for Lynn and myself. We were both in Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001. Lynn was in the Madison Building right next to the Capitol which was thought to be a potential target for the plane that didn’t make it. Along with the Kennedy assassination, this will always remain one those experiences that one not only remembers but recalls exactly where they were at that moment. For many in France and around the world, I’m sure a similar memory will be etched for all time.
​
With the French retaliation yesterday, one message the terrorist groups should be getting is that there will be appropriate responses without hesitation. The sequencing of events just might turn out to be, despite the pain, a blessing in some ways. It appears with the already-scheduled meeting of the leaders of all the major (G20) nations in Turkey for environmental objectives, it gave an opportunity for a clear united message of both outrage and unity. Whether this would have happened without the Russian tragedy and the already-scheduled summit, we’ll never know.

I don’t pretend to in any way be an expert on foreign affairs. But I do know a little history and can clearly recall a time when partisan politics stopped at the water's edge. I know that much time has passed since then, but given the complex and tumultuous events of recent days, it would be certainly a good time to revert back to that practice. However, given we are in the middle of a presidential campaign, that is probably very unrealistic. Hopefully at least a few candidates will be willing to put our country’s interest first and share opinions without taking cheap shots that certainly don’t help. On his return, I’d like to see the President reach out to leaders of Congress to at least take a step towards unity.

As many of you know, the French have always been on our side going back to the Revolutionary War. It was good to see the French flag being carried by the Army football team Saturday and all the pro games on Sunday pausing in respect and showing U.S. support for our friends and allies. As the world grieves and begins to come to grips with the attacks, it is important that the United States be as united as possible in not only our concern for our friends but our resolve to effectively deal with this continuing crisis that has reached new and tragic levels.

Whether in individual interviews or future debates, are enough of the right questions being asked to the candidates? I fear there is too little attention paid to the “doing” aspects of the presidency. Okay, you’re for this and opposed to that, but to be successful, how are you going to get the job done? What is your executive style? What will be your approach in working with Congress and, in particular, the opposing party? What experience have you had that makes you qualified and, if there is a gap, what are you going to do about addressing it?

What we don’t have is any discussion of how up to this point they have dealt with executive leadership, as in putting a team together, dealing with conflict, and making tough decisions. For those who have limited executive experience, how would they plan to deal with such challenges? Are they comfortable and experienced surrounding themselves with talent and diversity? Do they have to be the smartest person in the room?

I don’t recall many of these questions being asked in previous presidential campaigns either. For example, candidates like then-Senator Obama—who came in with little or no executive experience—were rarely pressed to share their approaches to running the country. I’m not suggesting this to disqualify anyone from the presidency, but I’d like to hear how they intend to compensate for this gap. Do they know it is a gap? What will they do to address it? What has been their experience in filling high-profile jobs as well as firing and what have they learned? What other experiences have they had that demonstrate their leadership capacity? What values are most important to have for someone wanting to be a part of your team?
 
This will not happen unless citizens start pressing for the questions to be answered directly or through the press who start seeing the value and start asking these questions. The way it is going now, the election result will be tied to raising money, effectively using modern technology to organize and get people out to vote, TV commercials, and finding ways to rip the opponent. Come Election Day, voters will have little or no information on how the candidates would do the job.

Through the comment section below as well as through other blog posts about the debates and media coverage, I plan to follow up on this issue and keep an eye on other forums where these questions could be addressed. It is my hope that each of us, as voters, can learn together through this process to select our next President.

Almost a month ago, I embarked on a series of posts here on my blog that were meant to explore the question of how we arrived at our current circumstances in Kansas. I’ve discussed systemic changes, such as the makeup of the legislature and the role of special interests, as well as cultural and political aspects of our challenges, from an overview of the major political events to the role of the Democratic Party. Although this will be the formal end to this series, I hope to keep this conversation going and continue to engage as many people as possible to take ownership of our challenges and work to move us forward. So what will it take to turn things around?

Well first of all—as I have alluded to in previous posts—with each passing day, the impact of the past two elections on our state is becoming much more real to our citizens. That should make a difference and should alter some voter’s views. Decisions made to eliminate the income tax for many are now being clearly offset by increases in property taxes, local option sales taxes, higher tuition and fees, and now, after the 2015 legislative session, higher sales and tobacco tax. There is no free lunch. Our historically sound tax balance is totally out of whack. Shortage of funds in almost all areas of state responsibility is becoming more and more evident. And the slipping credit rating of the state can only lead to more financial problems. These realities should help candidates of all stripes be more willing to take on the protectors of the status quo and do what is right for the common good of the state.

If what is going on today on the ground is any forecaster of tomorrow, then there should be different results come November 2016 when the entire legislature is up for election. For an off election year, there is much more activity going on than usual. People are talking. Meetings are being held. Working together is more the norm. Learning from 2014 seems to be a high priority. And it’s not funny for many Kansans that we are all too often the butt of jokes nationwide. Worse yet is that some national economic development consultants label Kansas as a place not to invest. Also, there is a growing understanding that we will face even more difficult challenges if we don’t begin to turn this around soon. We can’t totally turn it around in 2016, but we must make a significant start. We must, as soon as possible, send the message that Kansas is once again open for business in a way that is attractive and of value for one to explore. The failure to do so is too scary to contemplate.

In the end it will come down to citizen involvement. It will take citizen-led efforts to educate, to communicate, to volunteer their time in support of candidates and causes aimed at getting the state back on the right track. It will be organized citizen efforts that help quality candidates of either party withstand the onslaught of false information backed by unlimited money and, in the process, turn the page for a new and brighter day for Kansas.