A campaign is too valuable to waste solely on politics.

Minnesota once elected senators who treated campaigns as opportunities to teach, listen and lead. Flanagan and Tafoya have a chance to revive that tradition.

Millions of dollars will be spent by U.S. Senate candidates Peggy Flanagan and Michele Tafoya and outside groups between now and Nov. 3. And for what purpose?  Mostly, to promote political division and seek an electoral edge by separating blue from red, rural from urban, men from women and young from old. And always to make voters angry and keep them outraged.

Political campaigns certainly have room for candidates to draw distinctions or tout aspirational goals. Of course, Tafoya should call out the rampant fraud in Minnesota safety net programs and question Flanagan’s ability to manage taxpayer dollars. And by all means, Flanagan’s support for Medicare for All is a legitimate response to a health system that is too expensive and delivers too little. But let’s move on. Having staked out those issues, candidates should do better than devote most of their time and attention to an issue not especially germane to the work of the U.S. Senate (Tafoya) or not likely to become law anytime soon (Flanagan).

A case in point is Social Security. Before her term ends, the 2026 winner will have to confront the program’s insolvency. By 2032 if not before, Social Security will be forced to reduce benefits by up to 24%. If Flanagan and Tafoya think voters are angry today, imagine their mood in 2032 when this year’s winner faces her first re-election at the same time Minnesotans are being hit with a reduction in their retirement benefits of one-fifth or more.

Changes won’t be easy and any reform will draw intense opposition. That is exactly why campaigns should engage voters today in the solutions that will be needed tomorrow.

There is a bipartisan model for reform. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed a Social Security reform package that put the program on solid economic footing. Importantly, the legislation made no changes to the projected benefits of older workers close to retirement. It did raise the age for workers to receive their full benefits from 65 to 67, but implemented the change over a 17-year period giving younger workers a long lead time to adjust. The reform package also infused the trust fund with more money, increasing the ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes.

Tafoya and Flanagan should have candid conversations with voters about the fixes needed to shore up Social Security and the reforms they might support. Would Flanagan support eliminating the cap on income subject to Social Security’s 12.4% tax or even raise estate taxes to bolster the trust fund as some on the left have urged? And where does Tafoya stand on the frequent calls from Republicans to privatize Social Security, allowing workers to invest their own accounts as they see fit?

There are few public programs more important to working families than Social Security. Voters deserve transparency on the changes Tafoya and Flanagan might support. The day of reckoning is coming soon for Social Security. Time isn’t an ally of reform-minded senators elected in 2026, but neither is it fatal if education and engagement start now.

Immigration reform is another conversation that needs to transition from the here and now to the when and what. Flanagan is right that we should be angry over the abusive ICE surge and the attacks on U.S. citizens and those with a legal right to be in the country. But Tafoya also is justified in her indignation over those who seek the benefits of U.S. residency and then commit serious crimes.

Anger alone, though, doesn’t secure the border, maintain a critical workforce or keep families together. Americans have turned on the Trump Administration’s immigration policies and for good reason. They are ineffective and often abhorrent. The call for better and broader strategies will only grow louder.

Once again, there are models for Tafoya and Flanagan to use as catalysts for thoughtful discussions. In 1986, the Immigration Control and Reform Act became law. It is the last time Congress created a pathway to legal residency in the U.S. for undocumented immigrants who have obeyed the law since their crossing. Like Social Security reform, the immigration law was signed into law by Reagan.

More recently, in 2013, current Secretary of State Marco Rubio was a U.S. senator from Florida and a key member of the bipartisan congressional “Gang of Eight” that crafted immigration legislation. The bill addressed most of the hot buttons of today’s debate, including border security. It passed the Senate 68-32, but fell short in the Republican House.

Tafoya rightly can argue that border security was a failure under President Biden. Flanagan can make the case that today’s enforcement policies are too expensive and too arbitrary to be realistic long-term solutions. Both are right, but neither provides a long-term fix. Minnesota – a state that has been especially favored by immigrants – deserves a senator who leads by investing in the future, not demonizing the past.

The Minnesota Senate contest has become unexpectedly more consequential in deciding which party will control the Senate. Democrat Flanagan begins the general election campaign for Minnesota’s open U.S. Senate seat as the polling leader, but certainly not the prohibitive favorite. A KSTP-TV survey gives her a 5-point lead with 11% undecided. Small wonder that Republicans are more optimistic about the prospects of their candidate, Tafoya, than they have felt about a race in years.

The deciding voters may well be those in the middle. Many moderates are  concerned that if elected, Tafoya will become little more than another Republican rubber stamp for Trump. Others question whether Flanagan with her embrace of Sen. Bernie Sanders becomes another senator finding more value in making a statement than in making a difference.

Flanagan and Tafoya can spend the next 11 weeks trying to convince voters each is the lesser of two evils. Or, they can rise above politics-as-usual and lead. They can use their millions of dollars and the national spotlight that may shine on Minnesota to build momentum for solutions to two of the biggest challenges that will face the Senate during their first term.

Tafoya and Flanagan are competing for the Senate seat to which Republican Dave Durenberger was elected in 1978 and, before him, Democrat Hubert H. Humphrey. As candidates, they were both students and teachers. Politicians like Humphrey and Durenberger spent much of their election campaigns listening to voters and engaging them in the complexities and trade-offs of public policy.

Minnesota and the country would be well-served were Flanagan and Tafoya to emulate their predecessors.