Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s mantra of “mind your own damn business” has sparked confusion among constituents, as his actions suggest a contradictory approach to governance. While the phrase implies a laissez-faire attitude towards individual freedoms, Walz’s policies reveal a more intrusive stance.
Walz has demonstrated a willingness to impose his will on various aspects of Minnesotans’ lives, from restricting private firearm ownership to mandating electric car sales. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he implemented sweeping measures, including church and Little League closures, vaccine and mask mandates, and a hotline for reporting neighbors who defied his orders.
Furthermore, Walz has expressed a desire to limit freedom of speech, a notion that undermines the very essence of his “golden rule.” His words and actions suggest that he believes the government should dictate what individuals can and cannot do with their own bodies, as well as what they can and cannot own.
A recent statement by Walz in Arizona shed some light on his interpretation of “mind your own damn business.” He claimed that society functions best when individuals adhere to this principle, citing his own experience with book recommendations. However, it appears that no one is actually telling Walz what to read, leading to questions about the sincerity of his statement.
Walz’s stance on book bans is also revealing. Despite claiming to champion intellectual freedom, his legislation actually strips local schools of the power to control their library collections. Instead, the decision is left to “licensed library media specialists” or experts with a master’s degree in library science. This move effectively removes parents and communities from the decision-making process, rendering the issue of what books are available to children the exclusive domain of the state.
In essence, Walz’s “golden rule” seems to mean that certain issues are off-limits to individual input or scrutiny. His COVID-19 lockdowns, which prohibited activities like children’s birthday parties, are a prime example of this approach. By extension, Walz’s worldview implies that parents should not have a say in their children’s education, as this is the exclusive purview of the state and its designated experts.
As Oren Cass astutely observed, Walz’s rhetoric is marked by a telling distinction between “our business” and “your business.” This dichotomy suggests that the governor and his allies are exempt from the “mind your own damn business” directive, while ordinary citizens are expected to defer to their authority.
