Readers Write: Rural politics, Sauk Centre, grant-making, Pete Hegseth

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

•••

In her April 13 column, “Rural politics are not a monolith,” Karen Tolkkinen correctly points out that rural Minnesota is not a solidly red as most metro area liberals like to believe, but at the same time, rural Minnesota is largely to blame for the frequent Republican control of the state Legislature and close statewide elections.

She is also correct in the list of reasons she gives for rural voters supporting Trump, but she left out one very important reason: The Democratic-Farmer-Labor party has abandoned rural Minnesota.

I was heavily involved in rural politics between 2008 and 2016, serving as a county delegate and then county DFL chair in southwestern Minnesota. What I and my fellow rural DFLers experienced was a tone-deaf approach to the concerns of greater Minnesota from the state party and a nearly complete lack of support.

We struggled to find quality candidates to run for state House and Senate seats because they knew that they would be on their own, with little to no support from St. Paul. Time and again we begged for resources, only to be told that those needed to be concentrated in “winnable” districts.

It is little wonder that farmers and other rural residents supported Trump and other GOP candidates in greater numbers, because those are the candidates whose message was amplified by their state party.

Jon Chalmers, Bloomington

•••

I am writing in response to Tolkkinen’s commentary regarding rural politics. I grew up in a rural part of this state and currently work in three different rural areas. She complains about those of us in the metro saying, “Too bad, you voted for him,” in regard to how Trump’s policies are affecting rural Minnesota. She’s right that 35% of outstate Minnesota voted for someone other than Trump, but did those 35% voice their opinion in small-town cafes or only at the ballot box? Too many times, the vitriol of Trump supporters suppresses the opinions of those who think differently. As I drive to rural job sites, I often pass flags with words that denigrate Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Those same flags with ill will to Trump are not seen in the metro.

Tolkkinen says that rural folks want mining (and the unions that got them the livable wages), gun protection and fewer taxes. But just like blue states subsidize poorer red states, more taxes from metro areas of Minnesota flow to rural parts of our state. And when a large “cabin” is built on a lake in rural Minnesota, the county benefits from the property taxes. Biden’s policies that helped farmers combat climate change (cover crops, no-till methods, paying farmers for wind turbines and solar on their land) were quickly abandoned for a vote for Trump, despite his promise to re-enact tariffs that hurt them the first time. While I am willing to bring farmers into the Democratic fold (because we need to win control in 2026), I’m confident they will scatter once their issues have been fixed. They will still believe immigrants/people of color are getting a better deal than they are and that climate change is a hoax.

Leslee Jaeger, Plymouth

Tolkkinen provides a great perspective on the “city person’s” impulse to dismiss rural folks as getting what they deserve for voting for Trump. And while Tolkkinen’s beat is greater Minnesota, I feel like half the conversation is missing in her column. “City folks” have had to deal with the “screw your feelings” mentality from Trump voters, constantly have to provide proof that Minneapolis did not burn down and politely explain that schools are not putting cat litter in classrooms. Politicians love talking about how “real America” is anywhere outside of the big, scary cities.

I know not all Trump voters are like this, but we Minnesotans need to make a renewed commitment to exploring our shared values, connecting offline and living with a sense of curiosity, not judgment — no matter where you live.

Nick Hansen, Lakeville

I’m a Twin Cities resident who cares about housing availability and affordability. But these are not just big-city concerns, so I appreciated your recent perspectives on housing availability in Sauk Centre and elsewhere in Minnesota (“Small city becomes its own developer,” April 13). And there are a few lessons here. One is that sometimes a small prod is all that is needed to unlock development. Sauk Centre purchased and divided some land, added a few improvements and suddenly it has a growing neighborhood popping up.

A second lesson is that government can be proactive in understanding its housing challenges and in discovering creative solutions: Here the city found a financing partner in a local employer. It could be that not enough housing of the right type exists: Young families might want starter homes but only larger homes are being built. Maybe developers can’t afford to go through lengthy approvals processes only to be denied a needed variance. Leaders should understand these concerns and preemptively clear roadblocks where appropriate.

Chris Lynch, Minneapolis

I am writing in regard to the column last Sunday on “named grants” from the Legislature (“Overhaul the grant-making process now,” April 13). While I appreciate the arguments made, I don’t think it is accurate to give readers the impression that named grants just involved handing over money to the recipient without any accountability process during the grant period, as the author seems to suggest.

As someone who has worked on both named and competitive grants over the years, my observation is that the state government accountability/monitoring process for named grants is either comparable or actually more stringent than that of many competitive state grants. For most named grants to nonprofits there is a formal state application, review of organizational financials and formal monitoring process with a required financial reconciliation of grant spending. For future articles on state grant-making, it likely would be helpful for the Star Tribune to contact the Office of Grants Management and/or other grant-administering state agencies to share with readers more information on the oversight and accountability processes used for both named and competitive grants.

Mark Pfeifer, St. Paul

In attempting to defend the ridiculous U.S. Naval Academy book ban, the one where Adolf Hitler was deemed acceptable but not Maya Angelou, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures” that “Of course, they don’t like the fact that we’re ripping DEI out of the military and making it colorblind and merit-based.”

Jennie Brandt, Minneapolis

•••

I write to express my deep concern over the recent removal of books from the U.S. Naval Academy’s library (“What’s in, what’s out at Naval Academy library?” April 13). A strong, principled military relies not only on strategy and discipline, but also on a broad and deep understanding of history, culture and the human condition. Purging books — especially those that challenge, provoke, or illuminate complex issues — undermines the very intellectual rigor we expect from our future leaders.

Suppressing diverse perspectives does not strengthen national security — it weakens it. The role of a military academy is not only to train warriors but to educate thinkers. Let us not diminish the minds of those we entrust with our nation’s future.