Readers Write (June 12): Tom Horner and Donald Trump, the police and the mentally ill

The June 5 "Sink to swim" commentary by public-relations consultant Tom Horner prompts a mix of thoughts when he counsels "it's time for Republicans to 'tank' Donald Trump." He describes tanking as "not intentionally losing … but not trying to win." And he contends "Trump won't win."

Horner's tanking rationale is that the "smart money will bet on a one-term president, regardless of who wins in November." The implication is that, with the election of Hillary Clinton in 2016, it is more likely that a Republican presidential candidate could win in 2020.

Horner is experienced with the tanking technique. In 2010, he was the Independence Party's gubernatorial candidate and campaigned as the "un-Republican." With his 11 percent of the approximately 1 million votes cast, he enabled DFL candidate Mark Dayton to best Republican candidate Tom Emmer by fewer than 9,000 votes — 43.6 percent to 43.20 percent.

And what was the consequence? We now have a two-term, DFL governor who just vetoed a bipartisan, $260 million tax reduction bill.

Horner's tanking hypothesis is demonstrably dubious — in several senses.

• • •

Horner was right on the mark.

National Review's Jim Geraghty recently tweeted, "Trump supporters, you should be handcuffed to that Titanic you volunteered to crew." I hope the Minnesota Republican congressional delegation takes that to heart and turns off the mute button. It has been conspicuously silent, and for what? Opposing Trump in this state is not exactly a heroic act.

With Trump as the nominee, the very worst outcome for Republicans is victory in November. The GOP brand has already endured months of embarrassment in the form of vulgarities, lies, insults, misogyny, racism and outright stupidity from the big-mouthed purveyor of steaks, vodka and sham degrees. Can you imagine what will happen over four years?

Ironically, Clinton is the more conservative of the two. Need proof? See Donald's stream-of-consciousness-ramblings on Planned Parenthood, single-payer systems, isolationism, entitlement reform, Palestine, Putin, Assad …

The idea that Trump will uphold the Republican platform for four days, let alone four years, is comical. What he said or thought yesterday has no bearing on what he says or thinks today. Republicans who feel otherwise are delusional.

• • •

Trump presents a challenge, which is why the GOP nomination process has been a negotiation and not a coronation. Trump understands the art of the deal and will respect GOP demands intended to protect the down-ballot candidates and appointments like judges once he wins. He has already made a good-faith gesture by releasing an impressive list of judicial candidates. If the Republicans keep their majority in Congress, the leadership will be able to tame the Donald so we can reform immigration/refugee policy and bring a pro-growth agenda that will help all Americans succeed without Clinton-style cronyism or big government.

• • •

Horner fails to grasp the reason for Trump's success. It is the Republican Party's own betrayal that has awakened its conservative base. After years of putting forth conservative platforms, that base has finally realized that it has been scammed by a party with too many progressives hiding behind the "R." The presumptive candidate has defeated 16 other contenders, many of whom were solid conservatives. But Horner fails to realize that having an "R" and an election certificate wasn't enough. The disenchanted conservative wing is willing to roll the dice with this upstart newcomer.

Horner also doesn't realize that many of the Trump supporters believe that the country is hanging by a thread. They see the economy, society and world standing in serious jeopardy if the Democrats are given four or eight more years in the White House. Trumpists view the future of the country as more important than that of the Republican Party.

Going forward, the Republican Party will surely change, even more so if it loses.

The number of calls related to mental health that the Minneapolis Police Department responds to annually is more than twice the number of crisis calls handled by the county's mobile crisis teams, operating as Community Outreach for Psychiatric Emergencies (COPE). That means police contact with mentally ill persons is, in fact, a significant mental health service, provided to people in mental health crisis by officers with only 40 hours of relevant training. It is appropriate to view this as a gap in mental health services to the community.

It is good that the article had some mention of the Embedded Mental Health Co-Responder model. That model fills this gap, providing professional on-scene mental health services plus preventive follow-up work. The co-responder model does not take years to implement and is proven to be cost-effective. Innovations like this, and the details of collaborations between police and the counties, should be a larger, more transparent part of the discussion.

Kudos to the Star Tribune for covering the topic and promoting public interest. Hopefully, this will be followed up by diligent reporting on better policy, procedures and collaborations that hold the promise of reducing and modifying police interactions with those in mental health crisis