This past week pushed me over the edge with President Trump. With his approval rating increasing, which will continue unless responsible Republicans speak out, time is running out. This last week took us to new levels of craziness. His cheap shots at leaders of countries who have been long time friends and allies, and at the same time cozying up to the brutal dictator of North Korea, will do serious damage to our respect around the world and in the process, hurt us economically as well as from a national security perspective. The same is true for his unlimited pulling out of almost every treaty-agreement we have with nations around the world. At some point, we are going to be isolated and pay a huge price for not addressing the situation now. We need to make it clear to the world that our responsible elected officials and citizens do not support this direction and are taking steps to return to sanity.

But topping it all is his clear position that he is above the law, that he can pardon just anyone including himself and in the process it would make no difference how serious the crime was or the damage to this country. He is being allowed to act as a dictator all too often, taking actions that Congress would have stood up to in the past. He is brilliant at diverting attention with all his craziness, his tweets, and willingness to do about anything that, for previous presidents, would have at least raised the issue of impeachment.

Then we get to the real problems, like how we can make positive changes for the future. Expecting the President to change as his poll numbers go up will not happen. Leaders in Washington must speak up and do so in a dramatic way that gets the attention of the American people. Senators McCain and Corker are not enough. The Constitution that so many Americans have died to protect for future generations is at risk. We need a Women's March or March for Our Lives type movement across the country that a broad set of Americans can get behind and get activated. We need Democrats in Washington going beyond the usual political stands to reach out across party lines and clearly speak up for our American values. We desperately not only need bipartisan conversation and action but also new Democratic leadership that can communicate more successfully and rally support for a better way forward.

We have heard for example from Senators Moran and Roberts at least express concerns about immigration. But their response came across to me as a statement to protect their political interests without taking any chance to offend the President. The question for Kansans is who in our delegation will really stand up for what is truly in the best interests of our state and nation? Are there political risks? Yes. But given what all is at stake, wouldn’t it be wiser to do what is right, knowing from a legacy perspective you stood up for the United States Constitution and our American values?

Like never before, it is essential that citizens speak up and take action now. In that spirit, please share and use the number to the Congressional Switchboard, (202) 225-3121, to connect by phone with our delegation. Communicating can make a difference.

Watching national news on any channel has become too much for me. I rationalize that there is nothing I can do, so why waste my time when there might be something of value I can do right here in Kansas. The only things the media cover that you can count on are negative stories going after someone or something and giving blanket coverage to the current resident of the White House.

The media has for most of our history played their role as an independent viewer, reporting to the people on what was happening at the local, state, national, and international levels. Although somebody was always questioning one aspect or another of their reporting, generally the media, in most cases, provided the available facts so critical for a democracy to succeed. But this seems to have changed. Journalism used to be about getting the story out. Today it is tied much more to selling advertising, getting clicks, making money, and cutting staff—​particularly investigative reporters. The latter is particularly true of our newspapers here in Kansas.

We too often have news dominated by what is sensational and exciting versus what is of real importance for our future. Whatever brings in the most advertising dollars will garner the most coverage. In our current dog-eat-dog environment, I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised, but if you have grandchildren like I do, you kind of wonder what their future might be like.

As one plays with the TV remote on almost any given evening, flying through the channels just to see at a glance what might be happening, the odds are quite high that the subject matter will focus on tweets, outrageous behavior, investigations, self promotion, and the latest sensational revelation. The main question I always have is: What is going on that seldom, if ever, makes the news? Unless one takes in a lot of media—likely spending all day scrolling through the New York Times or Washington Post—​you can be sure you are missing every day critical actions by the federal government where transparency would likely have altered the outcome.

In particular, the television media's fascination with covering the then-candidate and now current President has had a huge impact. They certainly gave him an advantage in the primary over much more qualified candidates and then did likewise in the general election. But now, as blanket coverage continues and his approval ratings seem to rise, we will soon be faced with a second term possibility. Either the press grows a spine and starts reporting more again on substantive issues and not who tweeted what, and the Republican Party comes to their senses, or we have even more real trouble ahead.

With the Legislature done for the moment and heavily-contested primary battles heating up in both parties, I pause to take a look at just how much politics has changed since my first plunge into seeking elective office. When I ran in 1970 for the Kansas House of Representatives against Gary Sherrer (who was later Lt. Governor for Bill Graves), as far as I know, there was no outside involvement. I don’t think either party even knew we were running. Republicans were controlling the legislature and had since 1912 with little or no organized effort. In addition, there were no issues or differences pushed, just two candidates asking for votes and letting the people decide. Contrast that with the current 69th district, which would parallel mine in 1970, and you have both parties heavily focused on the eventual outcome.

When I ran for Governor in 1978, the closest thing to anything negative was the Republican line attacking my plan to address the soaring cost of utilities. They thought it was nothing but misleading politics or maybe something more colorful. For the record, it included taking the sales tax off utility bills at a time when rates were soaring and Wolf Creek was coming on line. Also, at that time, there was no way for the Kansas Corporation Commission to avoid either bankrupting the builders of Wolf Creek or dumping all the cost on the users. Compromise was not possible. But with legislative support that was changed, the sales tax came off utility bills, and the law was changed so a compromise could be found between the Utility and customers.

As Governor, I vetoed the death penalty four times and it was never really used against me. In the 1982 race for re-election with Sam Hartage, the main dispute was over my Severance Tax versus his increase in the gas tax. I think we would all agree that would not happen today. In my 16 years—​eight in the House and eight as Governor—​aside from my two years as Speaker, Republicans dominated, and yet much got done. It wasn’t without politics, and I’m sure some would think of it as a contact sport then as well, but we got things done. My major achievements had to have significant Republican support, especially all the constitutional amendments (parimutuel gambling, the lottery, liquor by the drink, property tax reform, and allowing state support for internal improvements) all of which required a ⅔ vote from both Houses to send them to the public vote (all carried by close to two to one).

​In my opinion, the political change from a Kansas perspective started in the early 1990’s. Former legislator David Miller led successful efforts to install very conservative Republicans into leadership positions at the local level and then, in time, took over the state party leadership. It was the beginning of splitting the Republican Party into the Mods and far-right Conservatives. It also was the beginning of a big use of special interest money and not all of it focused on the truth.

So where are we today? For the second election in a row, Kansas has Democrats and moderate Republicans working under the banner of Save Kansas and backed by four former Governors (Hayden, Graves, Sebelius, and myself). The 2016 results were positive, electing enough new legislators to overturn the Brownback Tax Experiment and start the process of returning Kansas to the respect it has had in the past. In this election year, much of the big money will be with the far-right, playing loose with the facts. It will be up to moderate and sane Kansans to take a stand and help elect legislators willing to lead the state back to success. Oh, how much politics has changed.

Given the number of candidates in both parties, the primary for both Republican and Democratic hopefuls for Governor is not just interesting but, in this election, incredibly important for the future of Kansas. Voters have choices in both parties and, to add interest, there is possibility of a well-funded Independent candidate. This cast of candidates is what makes forums or debates so important in helping both parties pick their best candidate. But each party’s implementation of forum and debate-type events is like night and day. To say the least, party strategies vary.

For the Republicans, the state party has chosen to dictate the number of joint appearances (4), control the agendas, eliminate the questions they do not want asked, and also require candidates to pledge their support to such rules. The candidates’ first appearance was February 17th in Wichita as part of Kansas Republicans’ annual party gathering, and the second was this past week. With only two joint appearances to go, one thing is clear: It will be difficult, if not impossible, for Republicans in many parts of the state to have the chance to size up their candidates and make an informed decision come August 7th.

Here comes the interesting result of these Republican rules. Jim Barnett, one of the Republican candidates, has declined to participate, given his opposition to such a controlled set of events. As a former candidate for Governor, he may have enough carry-over support to be competitive without that exposure. At least he stood up for what obviously would be a more robust and educational format. As well, Ed O’Malley, another Republican candidate, might have stayed in the race if there would have been a plan for many and open debates, allowing him the chance to gain the exposure so essential to win. But the money interests of the party prevail. They have their far-right candidates and want no part of anyone that might look like a moderate.

With the Democrats, the plan is totally different. If they’re invited, the candidates will come. To date, there have been forums put together at the local level in the far west (Colby), the southeast (Pittsburg), centrally in Abilene and Emporia, as well as in Kansas City, Johnson County, and more. On March 3rd in Topeka, clearly gathering the most attention and coverage, was the forum at the Democrats’ annual Washington Days event. As for the Democrats’ rules of engagement, except for Washington Days, they vary because the state party chose to let local organizations have some say. The goal is to have, as much as possible, a variety of questions and represent, as close as possible, the major concerns of Democrats.

So how is all this going to work out? Obviously, we don’t know. The Democrats, assuming they come together after the primary, will have a much stronger candidate having had so much experience honing his/her message. Given that the Democratic candidate will most likely be underfunded, this experience will be very important. On the Republican side, with much more money, the question is: Will their strategy be driven by outside interests using some of the same strategies that successfully put President Trump into office? As to debates in the general election, if history is any indicator, the Republicans will likely fight for as few of those as possible.

One of many lessons I teach students whenever the opportunity arises is the value of showing respect to anyone you seek to influence. This is particularly true in instances where you are trying to have an impact with someone who, you know in advance, vehemently disagrees with you. The reason of course is very simple. By being respectful, the conversation has potential to help get beyond your differences into learning more about your potential agreements and, ultimately, a compromise resolution to the conflict.

That is why the activism by the students of Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (and the millions nationwide who joined them) is so impressive. I hope you had a chance to listen to some of the speakers at the D.C. rally and take note at how respectful they were of those who obviously disagree. They aren’t turning cars over or breaking laws to make their point. They are focused on the right way to truly have an impact and, so far, have put many of their adult counterparts to shame when it comes to engaging civilly without personal attacks or distractions. They are taking their case to the American people and pushing any and all who agree to make their message heard in policy-making and on election day. I hope to see their approach and their tone continue as they work to engage elected officials through town hall events and other advocacy efforts. This will have lasting implications, not only for the gun policy discussion but also for the future engagement of a generation that’s beginning to find its voice and take a more active role in shaping the world around it.

That is also why I took notice of a piece written by David Brooks of the New York Times, entitled “Trust and respect first, then compromise on gun control,” published in a recent edition of the Manhattan Mercury. I have long liked Mr. Brooks, a sound, but sane conservative from the old school, someone who is always respectful of others. In this article, he shared about a process for bringing together a mixture of far right conservatives and clear liberals, with the goal of building respect among each other. Only after that is achieved can you have any chance of working out your differences and coming to some compromise that serves the greater good.

Clearly Washington D.C. could use some help, and this seems to flow down into other levels of government and into our international relations as well. You might have noticed in representing the United States at the winter Olympics, Vice President Pence chose to totally snub the sister of the President of North Korea. Now that might at first blush seem very logical. But when you think about their growing capacity to do us serious harm, maybe a step or two of respect might have been a good investment for future successful diplomacy. But enough from me. I really want you to take time to read the Brooks article. It is most timely on a variety of fronts and if applied could make a difference in resolving, or at least taking mini steps, on some of our major challenges where there are polar differences and little or no respect for each other.

Fortunately, the task of reviving civility has received more attention in recent years (with different organizations and resources coming together), and perhaps it can gain more traction as we continue the task of strengthening our democracy for the 21st century. Each of our daily exchanges will help write the story. But the true test will be our ability to come together and solve problems—​both big and small—​today and into the future.

It turned out to be the year I took the plunge into elective politics, but on March 18th, 1968, I had no plan to run for any office beyond Smolan Township Democratic Committeeman. I remember going alone to the event and worrying on the drive there that the attendance may not be that great. After all, Kansas was not a hotbed of much left-of-center thinking and certainly not at K-State. I was puzzled at Kennedy’s decision to make Kansas a very early stop in his effort to win the Democratic nomination for President. He had only very recently shared this plan following President Johnson’s announcement that he would not seek another four year term. On reflection, it also puzzles me why Kennedy was invited to give a Landon Lecture. I can’t picture a similar event today, and certainly, in more recent times, the well-known and respected Landon Lecture Series does not invite active candidates from either party. ​Despite all of this, Kennedy's site selection made it clear that he planned to reach out and energize a new generation of voters and also that he was determined to compete and at least make his case in all areas of the country.
​
It was a pretty typical March day as I remember and certainly no bad weather to complicate things. Going to the Ahearn Fieldhouse was not new for me. I had been to most of the basketball games played there up to that time, having attended with my parents since it opened in the 1950-51 season. On that day, much to my surprise, Ahearn was jam packed, and he had the crowd with him from the very beginning of the speech. His message focused primarily on the Vietnam War and his differences with the Johnson Administration’s actions there. He admitted that, along with his brother, he had played a role in the very early actions in Vietnam. In a display of great character, he accepted responsibility for the past but also made it clear that he wanted the United States to find an appropriate exit in the future. By the time he ended, his audience would have followed him wherever he wanted to take them. It was truly amazing. After Ahearn, Kennedy went later that day to Allen Fieldhouse in Lawrence and experienced similar results, after of course sharing regards from Manhattan to the crowd at KU.

I remember talking with Dr. Jerry Marion, my dairy judging team coach, as I was leaving and how his reaction was so similar to mine. It isn’t that often that one speech can have that much impact. For me, there was only one other that could compare. At the 1976 Democratic National Convention, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan from Texas had the crowd spellbound with her powerful voice, a cadence that worked, and a message that was incredibly well-received.

Shortly after his appearance in Kansas, Kennedy was campaigning in an African American neighborhood in Indianapolis, Indiana the night Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.—who made a visit to K-State earlier that year—​was assassinated. Kennedy's capacity to communicate was again tested as he had the role of sharing with the crowd the news and was able to do it in a way that did not set off similar violence to what occurred elsewhere during that difficult time.

Then, on June 5th—​after winning the California Primary—​Robert Kennedy was assassinated. I did not stay up to hear the final results in California but woke to the tragic news at 5:00am, as I prepared to go milk. If Bobby had lived, I believe there would have been no Watergate nor President Nixon. Bobby was very different than his older brother, President Kennedy. Bobby had deep-bedded, strong beliefs and he was passionate about getting things done. Though his presidency never came to fruition, his impact and enduring legacy remains in all those who were inspired by his message and his work. And this includes myself, as a result of one unforgettable day 50 years ago.

Just when you think nothing more crazy can come from the Trump Administration, you learn of something that is truly dangerous, and this one hits close to home. Through the budget sent to Congress, the Administration is recommending moving operation of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Agriculture. Please don’t think of this as “inside baseball” that does not impact you or the state, or the country for that matter. It does. What makes this move particularly scary is the apparent interest in shaving some money from the operation of NBAF to help fund the Wall. Yes—​the Wall. The one along our southern border. This should be a cause for great local concern, and I know from experience it will take a very united Kansas front to turn this decision around.

As a reminder, NBAF came about as a result of 9/11 and the consensus agreement that the United States had to take Homeland Security much more seriously. This was especially true in areas where much more advanced research would be necessary. For example, the unbelievably dangerous zoonotic diseases—​the viruses that can move from animals to humans—​need much more attention. In 2001, the research being done in this area was happening at Plum Island off the east coast, under the control of the Department of Agriculture, with a focus only on animal disease research. At the time, that structural organization made sense. But, after 9/11, decision makers focused on the new national security threats (particularly bioterrorism and attacks on our food systems) wisely decided to build the new facility under the leadership and management of the newly-formed Department of Homeland Security. In substance and common sense, the location decision has not changed since.

Just think for a moment about the problems that will likely evolve. The current facility construction is handled through private contracts but closely watched by Homeland Security staff. Many of whom, one would assume, will continue to work at the facility to help wisely and safely oversee the many incredibly dangerous research projects that will follow. Now, one can say that is not a real problem. Just move the staff. Yes, but how many will follow and how well will Agriculture manage and fund them? Keep in mind, Ag has crop insurance and food assistance programs that always generate intense interest and questions when it comes to budgeting. Will NABF face operational cuts in order to satisfy those other legitimate needs? And remember, it looks pretty clear that the Administration is moving to get their money for the wall by shifting the dollars from existing current needs within Homeland Security to fund wall construction.

I have yet to talk to anyone who thinks this makes sense. There is very little public awareness or much communication coming from any Kansas elected official. At the very least, we should—​in a united fashion—​push back, ask the tough questions, and insist upon full disclosure of all the facts. I’ve tried to think of a comparison that could help put this into perspective. For me, this would be akin to moving the K-State women's basketball coaching staff to the football program to squeeze money for something totally unrelated and ill-fated—​like building a wall along the Colorado border as a way to keep the drugs from coming our way.
​
This decision merits serious discussion at all levels—​local, state, and federal. The strategy that helped Kansas successfully attract the NBAF facility was based on a strong, united Kansas voice on the matter. Elected officials from both parties and all levels of government agreed that this facility was in the best interest of the state and the region, and their support was backed by strategic investments in things like the Kansas Bioscience Authority (which was dealt its final blow by the Brownback Administration in 2016) to help spur the growth of a new industry around this important area for research and development. All together, this helped prove that Kansas was serious about the prospects of the federal facility and also that we were ready to make the necessary decisions to ensure its future safety and success. That Kansas voice must, once again, be raised on the issue—​this time, in support of a sane way forward for NBAF.

As I’ve shared in recent blog posts, in many ways, it is looking like this could be a wave year for Democrats. Recent successes with special elections across the country, many for state legislative races, have been really encouraging. Between President Trump’s first year in office and Congressional Republicans being on the wrong side of many issues from the public’s perspective, it looks good for change. Personally, I think it would be great for the country should the Democrats gain control of the Congress and also have significant success in the states on electing governors and legislators. This might send an important message to the Republican party that allowing the far-right to control the agenda has not been good for their party nor for the country. Until moderate and sane conservatives are willing to stand up to the President, the current chaos in Washington will continue.  

In the meantime, the question is: Will the Democrats take advantage of this opportunity for change?

The movement that is forming in opposition to President Trump and the far-right is far-reaching, broad, and diverse. However, in order for that to amount to significant Democratic gains (and hopefully working majorities that can make progress), the leadership of the party must allow local candidates some space to reflect on what constituents want and build coalitions of support that reflect the diversity of the movement that is upon us. This not only improves the quality of representation for the constituents of that particular state or district, it also creates more opportunities for Democrats to compete all across the country. As I’ve written before, the issue of party litmus tests could end up being one of the biggest momentum killers during what should be a good year for Democrats. For example, I personally think Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia represents the people of that state very well and, on a high percentage of the issues, he works well with the Democratic Caucus. Yet, there are Democrats who want him out of the party because he doesn’t toe the line as religiously as some want. Taking this approach going forward only reduces any chance of taking control of Congress and making much-needed political progress in the so-called “red states.”   

The word that President Bill Clinton will not be welcome at any Democratic candidate event out of fear that it might signal that Democrats are not going to be pure on recently emerging issues, I also find to be unnecessary. If some candidates see it that way, then those candidates should not invite him. But a blanket statement of “you’re not welcome,” takes away from many quality candidates a voice that just might be the difference between victory and defeat. Obviously, there are examples of his inappropriate behavior that in no way should be supported. But examples of questionable activity from the far past and charges that have had no real confirmation should not lead to a rush to judgment or a complete disowning, especially in cases where Democratic policies have positively impacted people's lives.

Over my years in politics, one word I’ve heard to describe the far left contingent of the Democratic Party is “kamikaze.” Now, I would say the comparison goes a bit far in literal terms, but the basic point has played out many times, where the left has pushed on positions and attacked more centrist Democrats as traitors to the cause. They would rather lose, it seems, than be seen as making a compromise that could lead to larger caucuses and much better results. I have no problem being pushed and educated from the left on issues, but when we’ve compromised to help bring everyone along, then Democrats should use that position to reach out to significant blocks of voters that can make the difference between victory and defeat. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory leaves a bad taste.

Someone once said that the only two things guaranteed in life are death and taxes. I’d like to add one: words that are short on truth. In campaigns, candidates often say a lot of words and they’re taken at face value. But they need to be scrutinized, evaluated, and the truth shared with the voters. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. The hard working press often try, but especially today the working reporters are too few and far between and often simply do not have the time to do the research. And then there is fake news and social media complicating things further. But, since the campaign season has officially begun, below are some messages that deserve some scrutiny from Kansans during this critical election year.

What got me started down this path were a couple of communications that stood out as examples where pushback is needed to add some truth. The first is what I’m hearing from some outspoken far-right conservative Republican legislators. They were certainly no help in correcting the disastrous Brownback tax experiment in the 2017 Legislative session. Now they are attacking Governor Brownback as if they had never gone along with his plan. Rep. J.R. Claeys, a Salina conservative was quoted in the Topeka Capital calling the budget “short-sighted.” He accused Brownback of throwing all his allies under the bus. They want us to forget how they voted and simply buy the rhetoric that re-elects the incumbent. If you think for a moment these ultra-conservatives criticizing Brownback have had a total conversion, please return to reality. Americans for Prosperity and the Koch Brothers do not change stripes. They just double down.

The second example comes from the message that Independent Greg Orman put out to jump start his effort to be the next Governor of Kansas, a bid which officially launched today. Let me say first, I admire and like Greg. He is a fine man who made a valiant effort to unseat Senator Pat Roberts in 2014. But this is 2018, and at best, all he can do is help elect Kris Kobach or possibly soon-to-be Governor Colyer. This would simply extend the Brownback misery for up to eight more years.

Orman’s a spoiler, but what really gets me is the message he is putting out that both Kansas and Washington D.C. are essentially political cesspools that only an independent can fix. I understand that has some fit with D.C., but to include Kansas with no effort to be fair or tell the whole story, I take serious exception. Democratic and moderate Republican legislators, backed by four former Governors of Kansas, made huge positive changes in the 2017 legislative session. As a word of advice, Greg, this only reinforces those who believe your real goal is a U.S. Senate seat, not serving as Governor. Those invested in Kansas politics know that both our history and our recent success proved Kansas isn’t Washington, and bipartisanship can—​and does—​exist.

Words used do matter, and the truth can make a real difference. I close with a personal experience to end on a softer note. When I was Speaker of the House and home for a weekend, I attended a Chamber legislative lunch. The death penalty was a frequent topic, and although I opposed it, I said little if anything. The Sunday Salina Journal really got my attention. Page two headline was “Carlin says the death penalty will only pass over his dead body.” With a tape of the lunchtime session, I was in the Journal office the next morning to share the record of what took place. In the Tuesday edition, I made the headlines again. “Carlin claims he did not say the death penalty would only pass over his dead body.” Clearly it was my personal lesson on not fighting with someone who buys printer’s ink by the barrel.

As we enter 2018, it is hard not to feel like we’re heading into some of the more consequential months of our history, at the national level as well as right here in Kansas. 2017 was a roller coaster year, and it seems this will continue into the current year, with an extremely influential election approaching us before 2018 ends. I will have more to say on national politics in later blog posts, but I’d like to start out this year with what we’re facing at the state level here in Kansas.

We begin the year with essentially two Governors and no one knowing for sure when and how that will change. Next Tuesday, Governor Brownback will deliver the State of the State Address to the Kansas Legislature and the citizens of Kansas. It had been assumed for months that it would be Governor Colyer giving the Address, but the workings of the U.S. Senate got in the way. It is assumed that this will get corrected when/if Brownback’s nomination is resubmitted. Why is this an issue? Politically, it complicates things for Lt. Governor Colyer. He had hoped to be leading the way, setting his own agenda, and in the process establish himself as an incumbent running for re-election.

In my judgement, the race for Kansas Governor in 2018 is more important for the future of this state than any preceding. Why do I say this? Because this election (in addition to the races for the Kansas House of Representatives) will decide whether, as a state, we once-and-for-all bury the Brownback agenda. We took a serious step in 2016 that led to the 2017 Legislature bringing a real breath of fresh air and progress to the state. The 2018 election will be a referendum on whether the people of Kansas like that direction or prefer to go back to the Americans for Prosperity approach of starving education, ignoring vital health care needs, underfunding basic state services, and neglecting our state's infrastructure.

We also start 2018 with what has to be the largest field of candidates ever for Governor within both parties and, to add to complication, a possible serious independent candidate. We are not used to this much interest and competition, especially Democrats, and from experience I know a little about how this changes things. In 1978, I had two serious, qualified opponents. It made fundraising a particular challenge because too many Democrats didn’t want to commit early or even before the Primary. On the flipside, it is fortunate for Democrats that with a very crowded Republican race that there is serious competition for the Democratic nomination. Without that, there would be no real press coverage or forums to reach the public until after the primary.  

This leads me to a very practical concern, especially for the very large field of Republican candidates. Without a run-off system (where there is a second election if the initial winner has less than 50%), the party’s winner might not really be the strongest candidate. For example, it could very easily be in the Republican race that the second finishing candidate might have much more support from those finishing down the line and would win a runoff vote. This is why most observers of our current Republican field believe clearly the early leader is Secretary of State, Kris Kobach. This is despite his being very unpopular in many Republican circles—​not to mention the scores of Kansans and Americans who are fed up with, among other things, his assault on the right to vote (part of which will face its day in court in March). With Kobach’s solid base of support, a crowded primary is much to his liking.     

This election has so much at stake, as starkly different political agendas will go head-to-head. With so much contrast in possible outcomes, hopefully participation from voters will be driven up, even in an August Primary. Ideally, there will be many public forums where you are able to evaluate the candidates side by side, free of the all-too-often false, misleading mailers and ads that we’ve become accustomed to, especially in this big-money era of politics. And, in the end, a new Governor—​who leads us into the future by bringing us together and not taking us back to the horrors of the last seven years—​must prevail.

Privatizing government functions is a topic that has been around for a long time. But it takes on added interest and concern when one party controls all the power in Washington. In this case, it happens to be the party that is most comfortable with turning basic government functions over to the private sector. Now consider the impact of the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, which opened the floodgates for billionaires to play an unlimited role in politics. These wealthy citizens help recruit and fund the candidates they want. Then these same citizens use their influence to get legislation they need to take over previously government-managed functions.  

This is about the private sector creating opportunities to run government programs for profit. The classic example is private prisons. As far as I know, it is very logical and legal that the private sector would want to manage prisons. But it certainly is not being done as a public service. The private sector wouldn’t be doing it if they didn’t think they could make money. But what really throws fuel on the fire is their lobbying skills and unlimited money to get longer sentences for nonviolent crimes. The result is more population in the prison system and, logically, the need for more prisons all-the-while padding the pockets of the already rich. That is not good government at work for the people. Fortunately, privately run prisons are getting some real scrutiny.  

But the prison example is only the beginning. A frightening one that could gain traction is taking programs like Medicaid totally private. I don’t think it will happen, but the effort will certainly be made in some way at sometime. Our backstop for now is the same few Senators who have stood up to crazy replacements of the Affordable Care Act. Having Senator John McCain speaking truth to power is a solid plus for sanity, but he needs a couple of others to stand up to the pressure as well. To those who say it is easier when one is seriously ill to take a tough stand, I say this is not the first time Senator McCain has spoken up. At a well-covered campaign event in the 2008 election, he defended President Obama as a decent man and an American citizen.   

I know from experience there are appropriate areas of government that can work well with the private sector. The Clinton Administration pushed finding areas that would be win-win. At the National Archives, we put the security force needed out for bids. The key to a win-win is private sector services that are non core functions of the Federal government. For example, we would never have supported putting out for bids the handling and processing of federal records in any way. For that work, we had dedicated, properly trained and motivated professionals handling these valuable assets for the interests of government and the American people.

But the final problem we have with many possible private sector run government functions is that all-too-often the private sector doesn’t even support the core functions of the agency or program being taken over. It isn’t in many cases that they think they can run it better, but that privatization creates an opportunity to shrink government without any real review or assessment of the impacts on citizens. As I’ve said many times, elections do have consequences.

In my last blog, which reviewed the six plus years of the Brownback Administration, the final major point was the damage done to the civil service system. I want to follow up on that because there is more to the story, and understanding this in some depth is very important as we move forward with efforts to restore our state in the wake of these damaging years for Kansas. Without a clear comprehension of what happened with the civil service system and the consequences of those decisions, there will be little opportunity to gain the support necessary for positive action.

This problem was underlined recently when I was helping Lynn’s mother get her handicapped license renewed. We got her a handicapped parking permit when she moved here to Manhattan three years ago. In reality, she has done so well she has almost never used it. But when renewal time came, we decided to re-up, and I was given that responsibility. My first move was to go out east of town to the State Motor Vehicle License facility. I made it no further than just inside the door to learn, with the room packed at mid-afternoon, that there was no way they could take care of me that day. I came back earlier the next day to another jammed room, but lucky for me, I thought when I signed in I should make sure I was in the right place. I wasn’t. I needed to go to the county treasurer’s office at the courthouse, which I did. Now, stick with me, for I’m about to get to the point.

At the state facility, it was obvious that one needed to allow plenty of time, hours not minutes, to get a driver's license new or renewed. This was not because of state employees not doing their job, but because with the budget cuts from the Brownback administration, they were short the staff they needed to serve the public in an efficient way that was respectful of Kansans’ valuable time. At the county courthouse, service was efficient and professional, and I was in and out in no time. It appears that our local officials fund services conservatively but adequate to do the job in an effective manner. And I know this is but a small, personal example of what happens to countless Kansans on a daily basis.

The key message here is that getting the state back to quality service will not be easy, and it will take time. It is not just restoring professionalism by repealing the Brownback spoils system, providing stability to the state employee retirement system, and opening up our state workforce to a wider and more diverse talent pool, but also finding resources to better staff needed functions. Examples include twelve hour shifts at state prisons, way under-staffed Children Services, and just recently, the Kansas Bureau Investigation reports they are 25 staff members below what they need to efficiently work with local officials investigating crimes. Unfortunately, for far-right conservatives, starving the government is a key strategy because the underfunded agency will perform at a lower level of quality, providing the evidence they'll use to make the case for privatization or more tightening of the budget.

Again, a reminder to all the folks who love tax cuts. Yes, it appears you are paying lower taxes because of decisions made, but are they really lower? You still pay taxes (and an increasing amount of fees for government services, which is also a form of taxation), and the declines in service do have an impact—​in many cases, far greater than if the services would have been properly funded from the beginning. Whether that is addressing maintenance needs in a timely fashion or seeing that a vulnerable child is taken care of, not doing these things will ultimately cost much, much more.

With the date set for Governor Brownback’s confirmation hearing (October 4th), we in Kansas have the opportunity to look back on his six plus years as Governor. Below are my reflections on the lasting impacts of his time in office and some thoughts on where we, as a state, go from here.

What we got from Governor Brownback was not quite what we expected. Much changed between the time he was Secretary of Agriculture and Governor. He went from being quite likable and non-controversial to being a very polarizing figure. His leadership approach was certainly not built on bringing people of different persuasions together. Not only did he change religions but, philosophically, he went from reasonably moderate to extreme right.

His policy mistakes were many but none more puzzling than his systematic destruction of the Kansas Bioscience Authority (KBA). What was at one time the darling of legislators across the board (created with bipartisan support in 2004) was now being trashed. Truth was not important and philosophical positions were often quite bizarre. None was more puzzling than his stance against picking winners and losers. He disliked that the KBA worked hard to make the wisest investments for the best interest of Kansas. He preferred that we invest the money without considering the likelihood of success. I think the Bible talks about putting the seeds where they can grow and not on the rocks.

His lack of support for all levels of public education is another example of his move to the far right, which favors private education. This dramatic change of position was totally new for Kansas. Proud of our public school system, most Kansans took for granted that the support from most public officials would be strong. With big money from private donors and other public school opponents, a push to support private education took place—​more often and in new, different ways. This includes an assault on our judicial system to change the way we select judges in Kansas, in order to push the policies that these monied interest groups favored.

In his run for re-election, he loved to promise of his support for very much needed highway improvements. He was comfortable endorsing specific projects but never sharing on how they might be funded. Given he robbed extensively from the highway fund to avoid Kansas going broke, maybe that is understandable. Historically, highway maintenance and improvements had strong support from both sides of the isle, but not under this Governor.

As puzzling as anything was his adamant opposition to Medicaid expansion. Kansans were paying for it but not getting it. Despite many Republican Governors accepting the dollars and significant support from Kansas citizens, he stood his ground. The result was pain inflicted on large numbers of Kansans as well as the financial viability of many, particularly rural, community hospitals and nursing homes.

But maybe the most damaging mistake over time will be his lack of support for, and his meat ax approach to, the civil service system and public service in general. I say that because it may take a generation or more to restore the quality state workforce we once had. With the Governor's recommendation and the Legislature’s support, now when a civil service employee leaves the system the position automatically becomes political, bringing back in essence the spoils system that most of us thought was a thing of the past.

The story of the past six years will be about a Governor who sowed the seeds of political division in Kansas. From his all-out attacks on members of his own party, to his blatant disregard for opposing views of any kind, Governor Brownback leveraged a big money machine to turn our state into a petri dish for far-right policy and an extremist approach to governing. This is a far cry from the Kansas that many of us have known and loved.

What will happen to our state as a result of the Brownback years remains to be seen, and it will largely be up to us to decide. Kansans of all political stripes have certainly been activated. And, so far, there are signs that we may learn our lessons from these divisive and damaging years for our state and begin to put Kansas back on the right track by bringing people together around the solutions to our largely self-created challenges. The path forward will not be easy, and there is certainly a lot of work to do. But perhaps the next chapter can be the most exciting and impressive one yet: a state turning the page on division and building a model for how to come together, engage, and overcome the disastrous results left behind by these difficult years for Kansas.

Looking ahead to the mid-term elections in 2018, from an historical perspective, it should be a good year nationally for Democrats. The party that is out of power (Democratic) at the mid-term elections in the first term of a President (Republican) of the opposite party, usually does very well. Added to this traditional advantage is the divisive and puzzling start of the Trump administration.

But is the National Democratic Party smart enough to take advantage of this opportunity to make gains all across the country? To start, national Democratic leadership has for too long totally ignored many rural states. As a result, they have lost close to all of the Democratic representation that got elected in an earlier time. When I was active, not just Kansas but all our surrounding states had Democratic members in their Congressional delegations. Today there are no Democrats representing Nebraska, Kansas, or Oklahoma. Not since Howard Dean and his Fifty State Strategy have we had much focus outside of the traditionally Democratic states. It will be interesting if this changes for 2018.  

In Kansas, in my opinion, Governor Joan Finney (1991-1995) was the last Democratic candidate for statewide office to actually work the entire state. She didn’t win that many rural counties (just as I didn’t in two elections), but she didn’t get beat too badly, which made it possible to win statewide. In recent statewide elections, the campaign focus has been on the few heavily populated counties while almost totally ignoring the 90 plus counties that are heavily rural. Every vote does count. For Democrats to win in Kansas, they must get back to working the entire state. When they do, I suspect in time they will also elect more Democrats from rural counties to the Legislature.  

Democrats also have trouble finding the right message and knowing their audience. Framing a message and choosing the right words has never been a real strength for Democrats. They spend far too much time talking to themselves and not near enough to the people they need to reach. For example, in the 2016 Presidential election, millions of struggling Americans were ignored because the campaign didn’t think they would get their votes. Well, if you ignore them, you won’t get their vote for sure. Montana’s two-term Democratic Governor wrote a really good piece about this.

And then there is the issue of litmus tests, where disagreement on one single issue leads to no support, despite positive positions on all the other issues that are key to the future. I understand and respect those who feel that strongly about any given issue. But I would add to the conversation, shouldn’t seeing the big picture in the end prevail? Shouldn’t there be room for regional concerns and individual differences of opinion within a “big tent” party? Having a platform with a strong set of core values to serve as the “North Star” for the party makes sense, but a strict litmus test will make it so that only party hard-liners can be candidates—​rather than opening up the field to other sensible, respected community leaders and aspiring public servants, who would work to carry out those values but also enter office with a desire to listen, find common ground, represent their constituents, and solve problems in a way that moves the state and country forward.

A party free of litmus tests would open the door for Democratic representation from all over our state and country. This would increase the reach of the party and create a greater role for Democrats to help shape policy on a wide range of issues. For instance, the issue of abortion illustrates the problem with litmus tests from a policy perspective. In Kansas, without “pro-life” Democrats, there would have been no override of Governor Brownback's tax policy, and—​in Washington—​the Affordable Care Act would have already been repealed in one of the recent votes, which have required just barely enough Democrats and Republicans to cast their votes in favor of preserving health care for millions of Americans. Each of these votes had huge implications in terms of access to a wide spectrum of health care services, and in the case of the veto override, determining the funding that would be available for our schools, roads, and all the other things Kansans care about at the state level. Often, "wedge issues" are used as a distraction from the important policy decisions at hand, and it will be key for Democrats not to fall into this trap.

So how will 2018 go? It will depend on whether the Democratic leadership and their candidates learn from the past. With the right message taken to the right audiences, and standing for something, it could be a good year for Democrats in Kansas and across the country.

Don’t try telling me there would have been a vibrant middle class without unions. When only one side (management) set salaries and benefits, it should not be surprising that workers were frequently not served well. The labor movement over time dramatically changed that result. Now we face declining union membership and a middle class that is struggling. That trend will continue until this issue is better understood and changes are made. We need more corporate leaders who understand what Henry Ford understood decades ago. He stated publicly that he wanted his workers to be able to buy one of the cars that they built.

When I was in office in the 70’s and 80’s, unions were much stronger than they are today. For example, Wichita with the aircraft industry and the Machinist Union had not only good salaries but positive economic benefit to the community. Today, with significantly fewer union families and declining salaries in real terms, the negative impact on retail (etc.) has been significant. You don’t have to be a Ph.D. economist to know when salaries stagnate and the cost of basic needs go up, the results show up and down mainstreet.

So how has this decline happened? I would say it wasn’t just the actions of management. Both sides have contributed. Although union leaders have generally been consistent with their priorities, I believe that the problem over the years has been that far too many of their members have not taken seriously the need to actively participate in the legislative process. I remember going to Union Halls and finding members most concerned about gun issues and abortion, issues that certainly were not on their union leader's agenda. They just assumed their union status would keep right on going whether they worked their leaders’ agenda or not.

The success of unions has been tied to collective bargaining as well as a realization that, in the end, the company or institution needed to be left with a successful path forward. When that was not the case, when unions went too far, everyone got hurt, including the image of the labor movement.   

The effectiveness of the anti-labor movement has also had great impact. For example, choosing the title “Right to Work” for legislation was, in my opinion, a brilliant political maneuver. How could an uninformed person be anything but supportive? But this law is not really the Right to Work at all. It is the right to avoid paying union dues while any benefits that result from the negotiations—​to the employees themselves or the labor market as a whole—​still come your way. How did that become the American way? How did the management side, the owners, pull this off? The right slogan didn’t hurt, and the push for a state-by-state approach to dismantling workers’ rights started us down a path that has been hard to reverse.

Monday will be another Labor Day holiday with big parades like in Hoisington, KS. Established as a Federal Holiday in 1894, Labor Day was meant to be a celebration of the American labor movement and dedicated to the social and economic achievements of all workers. But often, the salute to the working men and women of this country gets lost. It’s another holiday break, a three day weekend, and a continuing decline and struggle for the middle class.

So, in the original spirit of this celebration, here is my salute to the men and women who are our educators, laborers skilled and unskilled, firefighters, law enforcement officers, postal workers, civil servants, and workers of all kinds. You certainly have my thanks and appreciation, but also my hopes for a better future. Until the American people better understand the connection between organized labor and the benefits to all workers and the middle class in general, I fear this path of decline will only continue.

This Saturday evening, the Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders here at K-State’s Staley School of Leadership Studies will be wrapping up a six-week Civic Leadership Institute. The Young African Leaders Initiative is facilitated through the U.S. State Department with the goal of helping develop the next generation of leaders in Africa. In all, there are 1,000 leaders studying at colleges and universities around the U.S. this summer who will bring their learning and newly-established networks back to their countries and continue to make change in their communities upon their return home. For the second straight year, the Staley School has had the pleasure of hosting this Fellowship. Twenty-five young but experienced Sub-Saharan African leaders, representing twenty three countries, make up the group. The time has been filled with class work and training sessions, interactions with local public, private, and nonprofit sector leaders, participation in some local civic engagement efforts, and making the most of a variety of experiences from Kansas City to Wichita. Building off our experience from last year, this year's program has not only been well-received but has proven once again to be of significant value.

As alluded to in my welcoming remarks six weeks ago, I made it clear then that the learning would go both ways, that we—​here at K-State and in Kansas—​would benefit significantly as well. That has certainly played out in real time. I was particularly struck by the candid comments from our visitors at a forum for local elected officials to share and answer questions. Just one example made clear by a young woman, Folasade Bamisaye from Nigeria, who shared during the forum that she was amazed that this country taxed feminine hygiene products. Here in this country there is little or not even discussion about this issue, much less action. So there is much that can be gained from a dialogue and exchange of ideas on the future.

Each of the Mandela Fellows is engaged across a wide array of issues, including: youth development, public health, gender equity, grassroots organizing, agricultural sustainability, and disability rights. The benefit of having six weeks is having the time to work on specific challenges they had in their leadership experiences in Africa. Naturally they all, as we do, want better ideas in general on how to lead effectively and mobilize people to address challenges. But they also focused on a couple specifics. They wanted to learn more about developing partnerships to work towards systemic change. And one piece in particular, that we all need to focus on, is the importance of utilizing volunteers more successfully.  

One of the unique aspects of this program is the one-on-one mentoring that takes place. Last year, my partner was Abdoul Salam Diallo from Guinea (pictured to the left). Our natural link was his family’s tie to milk cows, so as would be expected that put us together, but from there, our relationship grew to include more areas of discussion around his work. My partner this year is Ahmed M. Afi from Somali. Our connection is his direct interest in public service, and he has made some progress in that regard. His ambitions include being a national leader for Somalia, and given his knowledge, passion, and political savvy, I’m not going to be surprised at all if he achieves his goals. I certainly look forward to staying in communication, continuing to share lessons from my experiences, and knowing just how his plans are going.

Now, here is the not so good news. This program, along with many others, falls under the banner of “Foreign Aid” or investments in diplomacy. As you may know, these types of investments are currently under attack by the President, and it will be up to the Congress to—​as our country has historically done—​appreciate the value of investing in programs like this and other aid efforts. Stronger, well-prepared leaders for the future of Africa will help empower and mobilize citizens to address a range of issues that exist throughout the continent. Meanwhile, the ability to address community needs such as food insecurity not only helps these countries build for the future, but it’s also absolutely in our national security interest. Hungry people can easily be the target of self-serving leaders who prey on the needy to the benefit of themselves and, in the process, create an environment that is ripe for terrorist activity.
​​
It has been an absolute joy to spend time with the Mandela Fellows during these past six weeks, and most importantly, I look forward to the impacts that their leadership will make in the effort to build a healthier, happier, and more peaceful world for all.

Learn about each of the Mandela Fellows on the Staley School's blog or see more pictures on Facebook.

Recently, Senator Moran held a townhall meeting in Palco, Kansas. I include the “Kansas” part because I suspect many are not aware there is a Palco. Located in the western part of our state, they certainly represent an area that supported the President as well as the Senator in recent elections. The focus of the townhall was on healthcare, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare, and the Republican Senators and their plan to repeal and replace.

I’m impressed with how Senator Moran basically handled the meeting. One, I compliment him for going there and having the public meeting. Secondly, he obviously handled it well. He listened, said he understood their concerns, and left the impression he would work hard to address their issues. I’m also very impressed with Palco and the large number of citizens from around the area who turned out to question and listen to the Senator. They had their questions ready, were civil, and were respectful of Senator Moran. This is in contrast to many of his colleagues who have faced hostile crowds and for some, consequently, they just don’t have public meetings. But this meeting reflected the Kansas that we know and love: where people’s passion is matched by a level of respect and a willingness to listen and seek understanding.

However, there is still a lot of political pressure on the Senate from not just the President but right wing political interests in general. The assumption is that whatever the Senate can pass, the House would be under unbelievable pressure to just accept it and send it on to the White House for signature, thus carrying out a Republican campaign pledge of repealing Obamacare. The question of whether that is good public policy or not was behind much of the energy in Palco.

Senate Majority Leader McConnell is focused on trying everything to get the 50 votes for passage, knowing the Vice President would break the tie in their favor. From the outside, it looks difficult given that making the key moderate Senators comfortable loses a couple on the far right. This week, he has announced a delay in the vote because of the absence of Senator John McCain, who holds a key vote that McConnell will need in order to pass the bill. You know he is frustrated because he has now threatened to work with the Democrats, which from my point of view is exactly what should be done. And I believe it is very telling of their approach that bipartisanship is viewed as a last-ditch, worst case scenario to be used as a threat, rather than a critical step to passing legislation on behalf of all Americans. Like the ACA or not, it is in place, and as shared in Palco, there is support for many of the specific pieces of the law and it has undoubtedly made a difference in many people’s lives, which creates a lot of opposition to repealing it. Clearly the ACA has flaws, and this is where working together in a bipartisan way for changes could bring about a much better program, serving more Americans, and done more cost effectively.

So, Senator Moran, now is the opportunity for you to really shine. This is the time for you to stand up, speak out, and make a huge difference for the good of the country and as well for the future of the Republican Party. It’s an opportunity to be a beacon for what politics has been in the past and could be again in this state and country. You know what is on the table hurts too many Kansans and communities. Does improving the ACA have political risk? Yes. However, with four years before your next election, the positive changes would have time to have impact and will less likely be the albatross that some will say today. Of course this does not guarantee an electoral victory, but it may guarantee a better life for Kansans and citizens nationwide. And, having lost elections myself, I can tell you that there are far worse things that could happen. In fact, opportunities could open up that you’ve never dreamt of. I guarantee you would be busy sorting through all sorts of possibilities that would add diversity to your life experiences as well as some new leadership opportunities. Who knows, you could even live full time in Manhattan, Kansas.

July 18th Update: 
Just a few hours after I posted this blog, I was pleased to read that Senator Moran released a statement opposing the current version of the Republican health care bill. As several of McConnell's key votes have moved into the "no" column, it seems that—for now—the current version of the bill has no path forward. However, with that being said, the issue has still not been addressed, and the story is far from over. Credit goes to the many citizen activists who have stuck with the issue and persistently raised their voices to influence our elected officials to find a better way forward. And this engagement cannot stop now, especially with the news that Senator Moran now favors a repeal of the Affordable Care Act without a replacement plan in place. I'm glad he had the wisdom to listen to his constituents on the GOP's replacement bill, and I would encourage him to continue listening on this issue and many others.

In the June 12th New York Times, there was an excellent op-ed piece that Kansans should take pride in. The title was “Finally, Something Isn’t the Matter with Kansas,” written by Michael Tomasky. His title, of course, plays off of William Allen White’s famous essay, “What’s the matter with Kansas?” The focus of the article is the Kansas Legislature’s override of the Governor’s veto of the tax package. The piece is well-written and hopefully will be accurate in suggesting this action might just lead to a new and more positive direction in this country, which brings to mind another famous William Allen White quote from one of his later writings—​and one that I have referenced in past blog posts—​”When anything is going to happen in this country, it happens first in Kansas.”

But it’s the rest of the story, left out in this op-ed, that I want to focus on and what I believe will be needed if this kind of action is to spread. Contrary to the usual reporting, and reinforced in this op-ed, the new approach was not so much a change in the Republican direction on taxes as it was the bipartisan approach that made it possible. In the end, every single Democrat and enough rational Republicans cast their votes for a wiser way forward. The effort to override was backed by every former Kansas Governor of both parties. But maybe the most significant aspect is that much of the initial leadership came from a group of female legislators from both parties, working over a period of time, to lay out key elements of a tax package that ultimately passed.
 
Historically, both at the state and national level, it is this bipartisan approach that brings quite often the best of times. I think of Speaker Sam Rayburn and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, both Democrats, working with Republican President Dwight Eisenhower that led to numerous successes, including the creation of the Interstate Highway System. It was Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neil working with Republican President Reagan that brought successful reform to the Social Security System. The successes I had as Governor came from working with the majority Republican leaders in the Legislature. Contrast these examples with Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell publicly stating that his number one priority was to oppose every measure President Obama wanted, including legislation that Republicans had once proposed and supported. And, also counter to positive results on our highway system and social security, is the Affordable Care Act, which did not have bipartisan support. Now, with Republicans in total control of Congress, there is the possibility of a new health care plan, replacing President Obama’s plan but, if passed, it will be done without Democratic votes. Isn't it likely as soon as the Democrats have the power there will be another change? Working together, for instance on the needed adjustments to the Affordable Care Act (which could garner both Democratic and Republican support), would result in a much better plan and the stability to positively impact health care over time.

On a larger scale, what it takes is members of both parties agreeing on the outcomes we want to achieve for the people of our state and country, keeping the future well-being of the people at the center of the process, and checking big money interests and bitter partisan wedge issues at the door while they work to achieve the results that the people want and need. Another key to this will be reestablishing the value of truth (even when it means accepting the hard truths) and agreeing on the facts at hand. For example, the more that Kansans understood our budget challenges, the easier it became to send representatives to Topeka who had looked at the facts and agreed on the problem—​which allowed citizens to more effectively voice their concerns and create a critical mass of support for the Legislature to work towards real solutions to the challenge at hand.
 
So, only time will tell whether what has happened in Kansas will spread across the country. Meanwhile, in Kansas—​in order for this direction to continue—​support for legislators from both parties who made progress possible must continue. And we should be judging future candidates by whether they support a solid, stable financial future for the state or a return to the reckless and failed fiscal and economic direction that landed us in this mess in the first place. The elections in 2018 and 2020 will determine whether this is truly a new direction for the state of Kansas or just a blip in the passage of time.​

With all the advancements and blessings of technology comes some curses as well. As I reflect more on the Politico article, “Trump Inspires Encryption Boom in Leaky D.C.,” the more concerned I become. The difference between having and not having records in today’s world is the difference between an environment for democracy to survive and thrive through public trust and government accountability versus being drug into total chaos. If government workers can use private devices to exchange messages that self-destruct and leave no record of the communications, it won’t be just history that is lost.

Twenty two years ago, I became the eighth Archivist of the United States, appointed by President Clinton. I followed in the footsteps of a series of academic historians who saw records to be of value almost exclusively for the writing of history. With their focus on history, they had their eyes and interests on permanent records, primarily paper, that would be available long after their creation. Worrying about new electronic records would be left for someone else to deal with many years later.

So it shouldn’t have been too shocking that one of my first lessons at that job was that the National Archives Records Administration (NARA) did not even consider email a record. By my third month, we made it official that emails were records and determined that they must be kept for a period of time, but for the President, all emails would be permanent records. Needless to say, this brought challenges not only to NARA but to all Federal agencies creating email records.   

Next, NARA expanded the understanding of reasons why records are kept, preserved, and made available—​to include holding government accountable as well as protecting rights and entitlements. Regarding accountability, without records being kept, how do citizens, elected officials, and government leaders raise issues of concern for action and resolution? An example I recall was a developer in Virginia who was taken to court and on the way to prison for not following Corp of Engineer guidelines. That is, until records were found that it was the Corp’s fault and not the developer. Regarding entitlements, for example, how could veterans successfully apply for their benefits if there was no record to prove he or she were honorably discharged?

Now fast forward to today, with technology being put to use to basically deny future use and access to records after their initial purpose was served. Before I go on, it is important to distinguish encryption (scrambling of sensitive communications for security purposes) from disappearing messages. Encrypted messages can still be archived as long as someone retains the decryption key necessary to unscramble the message. But messages that self-destruct or automatically erase are difficult, if not impossible, to record.

Keep in mind that it is only natural that many in government today would be happy to know that certain records were never going to come back to haunt them. This is not a hypothetical problem. It is real. And it has become part of daily life in a chaotic and leaky White House that already had problems with public trust and is currently the subject of ongoing investigations where records will be needed to uncover the truth. It is also worth noting that, while some of these encryption apps have reportedly been used by officials to communicate with the press or leak illuminating information, this practice becomes a double-edged sword when it either undermines our national security interests or means taking every White House staffer at their word that they are not using these applications to conduct any official business—​knowing the contents of their messages will disappear automatically and there will be no “paper trail” of said communications ever taking place.

So now, perhaps more than ever, it is essential that the records they are creating are kept and made accessible as appropriate. Only then will the legislative and judicial branches of government have access to the records to be able to hold government executive branch officials accountable for any wrongdoing that has taken place or could in the future.

I know for a fact that my friends at NARA are scrambling to do everything they can to address the encryption issue. I fear the problem will be not having the resources to carry out their responsibility under the Federal Records Act. This is much more than a government problem, for it will be all too often citizens who are negatively impacted. I know for now this issue is a long way from the midwest and our current challenges, but destruction of records really needs to be something we take very seriously. If records are being destroyed in Washington D.C. today, how will anyone be held accountable and how will history be accurately written? ​

Well the Legislature is back in Topeka, and surprise, surprise there is much talk about taxes and the budget and how to resolve these two key issues that will impact the state going forward. I made it clear in a previous blog, which assessed this Legislative Session up to the first adjournment, that it was not surprising that the major issues would still be around for the month of May. And here we are now, and the pressure is on.

Yesterday, a message went out from four former Kansas Governors. The message sums up very well the challenge and importance of getting the tax and budget resolutions done in a way that best addresses the real problems we face. As stated, ”half measures and quick fixes won’t get the job done.” There will always be political hurdles to raising taxes, even when done part-way. So why not have something very positive to show for the effort and the risk taken? Not going far enough will, for example, lead to continued robbing of the highway fund to get by and will guarantee even more negative results for the state. Truly solving the budget crisis will require bipartisan cooperation and courage to do what is in the best long-term interest of the state, and I hope that this experienced perspective from our former Governors of both parties can help encourage legislators to govern the state not just for the next election but for the future of all Kansans.

What I want to add is this: A big problem in underfunding key services is that the taxpayer in many ways will, over time, find themselves in an even worse financial situation. You can read more about this in my blog post, “Lower Taxes Aren’t Always Lower.” But the bottom line point is that properly funding schools and taking care of our infrastructure are wise investments for communities and the State of Kansas. When not adequately done, the quality of public school declines and highway maintenance gets far behind—​which only leads to even higher costs to repair and replace that neglected infrastructure down the road. All the while, the tax burden remains (or even increases) while communities and the state decline. You find businesses not wanting to stay or expand in Kansas, and your best talent looks elsewhere to raise a family and serve their economic needs.

What surprises me most is who some of the opponents of properly funding education and infrastructure are. They present themselves as sound conservatives who look at these issues through a business investment perspective. But, for some reason, they don’t make the transfer of sound investment in business to funding our infrastructure and public education. Until recently, the modern state has always played a very important role in funding these two key needs. To fail now will severely harm our future, and the negative impacts will only multiply over time.

Please join us former Governors and many other responsible leaders in both political parties in expressing support for both the repeal of the LLC exemption and amending the tax structure to raise the money that will fund the budget deficit. Write, call, email, visit, post, whatever you can do to engage legislators who may be on the fence and thank those who are working cooperatively and courageously to solve problems in the best long-term interest of the state. Let the legislators know there is strong support for wisely investing in education and infrastructure; your persistence could make the difference.