The Power of We

How do we get to that point?

We have always operated on a pendulum. We now have leadership focused on the politics of politics, not on the substance of politics. Do you think Karl Rove gave any thought to the substance of politics? No, this is a whole generation bred on the art of spin.

That’s why we need to start thinking about people who are centrist, reasonable, and committed to the future of Minnesota to run the state. We, the people, should be seeking the highest level of competence to lead us, and not allow a small left-wing or right-wing minority to choose our leaders for us.

How might that leadership be cultivated?

I would argue that the U of M can and should be a lead player in our revival. Over the last five years, the U has created over 220 patents and spun off multiple companies. For every million dollars of public money we spend on the U, we get 38 jobs—it’s an incredible investment. The U is about a $2 billion enterprise, with 65,000 students and about 20,000 staff people. As an institution, it is automatically a player for developing public policy.

The second big player is the business community, which has changed radically over the last 30 years. You go back 30 or 40 years ago and virtually every CEO was a Minnesotan. Today, there’s more pressure for profitability, stockholder return. Somehow, we have to get back to the balance we had between profits for the company and service to the community.

One catalyst for that is the governor, the other is the president of the U. These are two of the most important positions in the state. That also means that the board of regents can and should play a major role.

But to do that, the board should reflect the natural leadership in our state. Right now, it doesn’t. Every time the U of M has a problem, who do they call? Win Wallin, Stanley Hubbard, Walter Mondale. But are they are on the board of regents? No. We have allowed political correctness to rule our choices, so that we now have more diversity than excellence on the board of regents. You can have diversity, but you should not compromise excellence to it.

Do you have specific proposals for achieving this goal?

Yes. It’s for the legislature to recognize its own limitations, which is that it will ultimately drive the regent appointment process to its lowest common denominator. The governor, whether Republican or Democrat, will make much better appointments.

Likewise, the selection of the university president should not be hampered by media demands for openness. Let’s say, for example, when Bob Bruininks retires, the university says we would like to have the current president of the University of Pennsylvania be president here. Whoever that individual is will not publicly throw his or her hat in the ring and put the University of Pennsylvania on notice that he or she is leaving. That’s absurd. I can’t think of any other major organization that hires top officials with an open process. Churches don’t, corporations don’t, and the university doesn’t even hire coaches and professors that way.

Lately, you’ve been speaking out on health care and the connection between personal health and business performance.

Toward the end of the 19th century, Bismarck created a universal health care system for Germany. Now more than a century later, we’re still arguing about whether we need one here in the U.S.

I am very fearful of the federal government taking over health care—look at its track record on Katrina, Iraq, the Medicare pharmacy program. I want the employer-based system to work. But in order for it to work, there have to be some tradeoffs. I would argue that if the employer is to be responsible for providing health care, he or she is entitled to certain things, one of which is an additional tax benefit. And those benefits should be the equalizer between our businesses and global competition. Which is fair. Bear in mind we will get any tax break back in trade. So this is very pragmatic.

Second, we have to make sure that everybody can offer the same basic package: The political system will always want to come in and add additional required coverage, and we have to avoid that happening.

Third is the responsibility of employees. So far, we have focused almost endlessly on the rights of individuals to smoke, to drink excessively, to be obese. But when cost rises, those same employees turn to the general public and say, ‘You have to pay.’ No, with those rights come responsibilities, so if you choose unhealthy habits, you should also have to pay significantly higher premiums. That’s one option.