Paul Skallas is not entirely wrong here... In fact, there is something very important about his observation: Minnesota's liberalism is an expression of cultural traits that are deep and inherent in the Scandinavian culture of many of the settlers who are an integral part of the rather unique upper Midwest attitude.
I am no expert on Scandinavia, but I am from a Scandinavian-American family based in Minneapolis yet I grew up several hours away from it and got to experience both deep Minnesota liberalism and the highly rational but short-sighted & ineffective conservatism of the voters that do make North Dakota an unquestioningly red state in national elections - all while having an even more distinct & exclusively Scandinavian-American demographic.
The Scandinavian-American is simultaneously communitarian and existential. This sounds like nonsense, but Scandinavia is defined by its high trust in institutions, welfare states, massive sense of social responsibility and reciprocity, and there is also an expectation of everyone to be on the same page and not fall behind. Yet, this has the typical Stoicism found in WASP culture, and the geographic hardships of the harsh winter and rugged terrain bred both a sense of dependence on others and also a sense of self-reliance, independence, and even isolation. You could even say that the communitarianism of Scandinavians enables existentialism because support networks are impersonal and obligated, and thus the individual feels isolated even when he is being "supported."
It is also the case that the Christianity of Scandinavia was deeply influenced by the Pietist movement within Lutheranism which emphasizes the very personal and emotional aspects of religion. This does not have to be inherently liberal as it would be misleading to suggest that these are a people completely devoid of conservatism - North Dakota and rural Minnesota are massively anti-abortion and none of this is rooted in Catholicism. You can also look at previous faith statements from many 20th century churches and see them denounce things like divorce and rock 'n' roll music. My great grandfather was a Pietist minister who didn't let his children watch movies because he equated Hollywood with Babylon, and this was something my grandmother proudly relayed to me. She was a conservative, but also decidedly non-judgmental and "hands-off." She would tell you to your face that rock 'n' roll music is poisoning the minds of the youth and cite the case of some teens killing themselves after being inspired by Kurt Cobain, but ultimately, this is actually irrelevant. The narrow path versus the broad path is timeless, and the particular form of the devil in the culture is irrelevant. The choice of the path you walk is purely that of the individual, so the most devout Scandi conservative even in the reddest part of North Dakota is effectively disarmed as they would respect your right to walk whichever path you chose and would not make any claims as to know which one you are on.
Lutheran Pietism was inherently skeptical of authority, emphasized the individual relationship with God, humble living, "deeds not words" - "function over form," and felt that the person who internalizes true Christianity in a way that is unconventional is superior to the dogmatist. This reminds me of another Scandinavian-American told me that 'Lutheranism is the Buddhism of Christianity.' He's not wrong. One of the right things that Lutherans do is emphasize the personal journey of the Christian and seeing spiritual life as going to a hospital and not a court... Just as such, the Buddha spoke of treating the wound caused by the arrow, not debating the origin of the arrow. But this does contain within it a fatal flaw with the wrong ecclesiology. Without having the ability to reach a consensus on the ultimate truth, you end up with lots of people who do not even subscribe to the truth. Without the truth, you do not know the severity of the injury and end up treating a major affliction like a minor ailment.
The homosexual now presents himself as someone with a minor ailment to the church community, and with a doctrine that does not believe the true Church is embodied anywhere on Earth, that just also believes the religion is ultimately personal, that we are all sinners, that this is all just... our journey.... It gets very difficult even for conservatives to navigate the relationship. The most conservative ones rightfully state that they cannot accept unrepentant homosexuals as normal members of the church nor condone their behavior and take a very rational Protestant approach, but the wedge gets pushed deeper & deeper & deeper, and over the decades more ministers splinter with the culture until ultimately the hyperindividualistic spiritual egalitarianism of Lutheranism leads to a collective spiritual poverty.
The gay becomes no different than a guy who has jerked off to internet pxrn before. Nobody can judge him. He's a full member. Get him a wedding because, ultimately, it would be hypocritical for a church that has no say in anyone's divorces and no sense of ministerial stewardship and interference in the parishioner's personal life to deny them... And the church is just a building. The wedding is just a ceremony. We do not apply litmus tests to other people's marriages. We don't stand in the way of divorce. We don't confess our sins. We don't commune with the actual body & blood of Christ afterwards. We are told to not judge... So let's have a fabulous gay wedding.
Now, if the conservatives come from a religious heritage like this, it becomes effectively impossible for them to stand up to liberalism effectively in the political life. The most they can do is clarify that they are not actually bigots, defending themselves from the accusation before it even comes, and carefully justify themselves to the whole world as the good conservatives who are completely defanged and whose objections are more about fiscal policy and the limitations of government than presenting any sort of challenge to the prevailing cultural norms.
Because there is not clearly set out, timeless standards, and there is no hierarchy that effectively organizes resistance and enforces orthodoxy to those standards, the conservatives are largely adrift. They are not even conventionally part of the 'Moral Majority' and the Evangelical attempts to resist cultural change...
And you see that among the conservatives of Minnesota and North Dakota: exceedingly few of them feel some kinship with the energetic Bible belt conservatives that have fought for invocations of prayer at schools and Ten Commandments, and even fewer are creationists. They are highly secularized while suffering from the same problem of deracination that has infected all of American conservatism.
So while North Dakota is 'red,' it is certainly the case that their culture is also still reflected in the innate, deep liberalism of Minnesotans.
The liberalism goes deeper than anywhere else in the US because of the fact that it is not mixed with revolutionary zeal or electrified by modernity but actually has its roots in communitarianism and existentialism that are paradoxical yet cooperating characteristics with deep roots in the culture.
