Well, John, you might have a point or two worth discussing, although I think it
is a little too late for a monarchy in this country, especially at the city
level. And Ed, I'm not pulling your leg as there are some differences between
democracy and anarchy; we're all slaves to one thing or another, but our
freedom comes from working together for consensual arrangements that benefit
all of us and that is how an effective democracy works; we both know that this
is not how Minneapolis works. It is true that we can become more and more
democratic than republican as we move from national to local levels of
government, but that should only happen to very small local government entities
and at higher populations must become more of a hybrid. Our present hybrid is
ready to be selected out.
I just don't think Minneapolis has or will ever reach the size that having a
mayor makes any sense and that's why we and other cities across the country
have the corrupt histories we do. But back to John's points.
I first broached the "last mayor" change in another thread with the suggestion
that I might have to run, indicating that I could live the rest of my life on 4
years of mayoral salary (I'd get less as I'd step down with the charter change
and hire of the first city manager), but although I'm no slouch on many fronts,
I don't see myself as mayoral, even for the short period of time necessary to
shepherd in some changes with like minded council members elect. I'm more of an
idea guy and I believe that there are others who could get it done better than
I. Of course if no one does, I might reconsider.
John brings up a good point about the public face of the city and I see that as
the problem, even if many don't or see it as necessary; we must be seen as a
good city by virtue of how well things work. Initially, I saw R.T. Rybak as a
sort of cheerleader, using the bully pulpit for one thing or another, but I
wasn't as steeped in the destructive reaction our present arrangement delivers
in that whatever the mayor or council says, resources are given to the well
connected instead of those who need them to get on an even keel and make this a
great city.
With that in mind, I am prepared to advocate for creating another position that
John's time travels to monarchy suggest: the Council Jester or Council Clown if
you want to alliterate. What we need, what we always need, is a contrary view
of practically everything that is done in our burg so that we have always have
at least one selective force at work to cobble together good public policy. It
seems like once someone gets elected to city government, they lose touch with
any view not their own or succumb to group think with those with whom they keep
company. It could be an elected position, but I'm open to "an unelected
technocratic benevolent" clown, to use Sheldon's words (the clown could
certainly prevent any "unelected technocratic benevolent dictator" from getting
or at least keeping the city manager job, to use Sheldon's words again).
Am I pulling anyone's leg here? Not very hard, Ed. In fact, I hope that I'm
twisting some arms of folks who can band together and run for city office on a
slate to rebuild our city to work for all of its citizens and compete as well
as cooperate with the whole state to reach ecological equilibrium and a degree
of success for everyone, i.e., chicken or tofu in every pot populism where
nobody gets squeezed out or trampled.