Dayton's public discussion of having a medication mediated depression and alcohol addiction was probably a necessary step, to disarm those prone to later innuendo and banal mud slinging. Strib has an online follow-up (this link) mentioning Tom Eagleton and Jim Ramstad, Eagleton having suffered depression while a scion of a prominent Missouri family and a productive attorney and political figure over his lifetime. Ramstad openly has discussed fighting alcohol addiction. IP Sixth District candidate Bob Anderson has also openly discussed a period of depression he went through, in the context of his support of the Ramstad effort to include mental health treatment in medical coverage legislation. With the recent appointment of an openly gay Sheriff's officer to be Minnesota's next U.S. Marshal, yet another shiboleth has been eroded. Job function and capability are independent of personality and other dimensions. The days of "liking the cut of his jib" and "going by his bloodline and club ties" are weakening more and more, and in a global society where Kipling's work is discomforting and where some W.C. Fields lines can cause a cringe, we show societal improvement. Bigotry may be waning, with political correctness to too great a degree being the swing of the pendulum the other way, but whatever your feelings that way, it is best we never forget Ali, "I have no quarrel with any Viet Cong. No Viet Cong ever called me nigger." He declined to let some with great power define who he should have regarded as his enemies, at that time, under his past life experiences.
The Strib item uses the headline word "stigma" where I suggest "societal bigotry" is more appropriate terminology.
Having depression, anxiety disorder, bipolar personality, that was a "stigma" decades ago when McGovern dumped Eagleton from his presidential ticket, but now anyone clucking their tongue over Dayton's disclosure is not stigmatizing Dayton, but counting himself, herself, as yet one more counter-cultural throwback and bigot.
We don't need that. It is counterproductive to people achieving all they are capable of, without impediment over inconsequential things.
And if anyone wants to suggest that Dayton's having suffered depression and gone through past alcoholism troubles is not inconsequential to his present fully functional persona and his largely unselfish desire to help the state and nation as governor of Minnesota; the question is why is it not inconsequential; why should it matter, justify saying it is somehow a disqualification for the job he seeks.
Any person feeling that way, that the issue is not basically inconsequential, how would that person explain the many things Dayton's accomplished and intends to accomplish in his lifetime? Mark Dayton has started with more advantage than I did, but over time he has done more of merit. I neither resent that nor feel any need to diminish him over what basically is at present a managed medical situation.
Why should others in a similar position to me feel any need whatsoever to demonize or attack the man, other than if in seeking the same job he is seeking they see political advantage to appealing to baser things possibly felt by some voters?
I can at least understand that motive, while not condoning it. It is not unthinking bigotry, it is purposeful and conniving, but understandable. Blind biggoted reaction would be something I could not really understand as well, since it is unintelligent.
Now -- I don't intend to break out singing, "We Are Family;" but get real.
Mark Dayton's policy positions resonate with me.
Mark Dayton is running based on issue positions that I agree with. Taxing the rich to have them pay a fairer share, being decent over health care needs of everyone, what's to dispute in such policy goals, in terms of compassion and fairness?
I know there are "trickle down" arguments, but I don't choose to buy into that line.
"Trickle down" is too disingenuous to me, particularly when most arguing it as cause to favor disproportionate distribution of wealth and power hold disproportionately high levels of each.
For Mark Dayton from that position of good fortune to argue the other side against "trickle down" to me shows he has above average intelligence, judgment, fairness, courage and a lack of a selfishness that, unfortunately, is a not that widespread a set of character traits among others.
Selfishness is something people such as Dayton contradict and discredit, and the result is good.
It is not good to be mean, nasty, and greedy; though some think otherwise. And some are the hirelings of those who are mean, nasty, and greedy, and as hirelings they go about making excuses and finding ways and means to disadvantage most of the public in order to favor their benefactors.
Mark Dayton is on the other end of the spectrum from such political toads. Or newts. Pick your amphibian.
