The Collected Thoughts of Publicola II, The Skaneatelesian

Administrative stuff, and more local politics

2005-01-24T18:10:00.001-08:00

Looking back on some of my earlier posts I've noticed a trend... I write and I write and then post with little to no editing. This is unlikely to change because once I get going, I just write. But then when I'm done I move on. Surprisingly enough I have a life outside of posting here. But I'm very encouraged to hear that people are reading it, and appreciative that some people agree and don't think I'm completely nuts. I do wish people would post comments though so we could maybe get some discussion going, but alas, I take what I can get. Also, I know I promised that I'd post some more of my thoughts on the news media, but not now. Sorry. But I promise it's coming.

No, instead today I'm going to talk a little more about local politics, mostly in general terms, but I may get specific with both CNY and DC. In my American Political Parties class we've been discussing politics on the local level and it got me thinking. I should run for mayor of Skaneateles. No fooling around. When I graduate, why not? I have an abiding love for the village of Skaneateles and am very opinionated when it comes to preserving the integrity and character of the village while at the same time making sure the merchants of the village continue to thrive and business develops. I think it's important that while the village government participates in and helps to foster a good economic environment, there needs to be a line drawn that preserves the integrity of the village. We're a tourist destination and that's not going to change. But there's no need for me, on Academy Street, to wake up, go out on my front porch with a cup of coffee and the paper to be subjected to (and I am not making this up) a trolley driving by while a member of the historical society tell a throng of mostly older folks from Rochester or some such place about the properties of my parents and neighbors. I read recently in the Syracuse Post-Standard that two people, if I remember correctly neither of which live in the community, want a lisence to do horse-drawn carriage tours of the village. As a member of the community I was shocked. The reason Skaneateles is so nice is because we don't have the extraneous touristy things like horse drawn tours of the village. I know we have a new interim mayor, Matt "How the hell did I get here?" Major. It's important that Matty realize that this is a terrible idea. Say no Mr. Major. So anyway... Banuski for Mayor in '06 or '07....

In terms of DC local politics I was appalled to see the bill the Bush Administration and the federal government stuck the City of Washington with for the inauguration. First of all the security was ridiculously superfluous, expensive and distracting. It was a two to three hour wait to go through security check points last Thursday. How dare George Bush spend 20 minutes outlining (poorly I might add. Terrible speech) for the world the benefits of free society when you lock down the capital for an unnecessary and expensive event? If we're in a time of war, the sacrifices shouldn't be your person while you're patted down for two hours to see YOUR OWN ELECTED leaders, they should be the balls, parades and inaugural related events. George Bush should have been sworn-in in a small ceremony. And once he decided he need to stroke his ego with the pomp and circumstance, he should have asked that his principal private donors pay for it. Whatever's left in the campaign coffers. To ask the people of this nation to pay for his exclusive party and the unbelievably outrageous security that goes with it, specifically those in DC who voted overwhelmingly AGAINST him is shameful. How dare he lecture us on fiscal responsibility. The ceremonies themselves place an enormous burden on the people of DC because you close their streets, strain public transportation and run, as George Will put it, 1984-esque security which requires the local police to focus it's manpower away from sections of the city riddled with crime. Damn you George Bush. You and Mr. Cheney made a great deal of money in the private sector. How dare you make the small business owners and single parents of an economically depressed city pay for this. It disgusts me.

Administrative stuff, and more local politics

2005-01-24T18:10:00.000-08:00

A Divided Nation? You bet. But don't blame Bush. (Also I feel the news media is irresponsible.)

2005-01-20T13:48:00.000-08:00

Recently I came across a poll conducted by CNN/USA Today in which the focus was whether or not we are divided as a nation and whether or not George W. Bush is a source of that division. It got me thinking, and when I get to thinking, I usually have a rant building up. Here's the most telling stat from the poll, near as I can tell; When asked "Is George Bush a uniter or divider?" 49% said uniter, 49% said divider and 2% were undecided. Wake up and smell the culture gap. How on God's green earth can he be considered a uniter when half the people surveyed think he's dividing us! EVERY president, senator, congressman, mayor and town councillor are on some level dividers. By virtue of the fact that they take a position on issues implies that there is another group or faction that takes an alternative position, thus dividing the population. Is George W. Bush required to make us all feel good and live in harmony under a united government? Much as it hurts to say this, no, he isn't. He won an election by advocating a certain set of policies, and however misguided I consider those policies to be, he is under no obligation to please me or anyone else who is not part of the majority that elected him. Had Kerry won, I wouldn't expect him to back off of his issues in the vague "interest" of unity. After the World Series, I don't remember the Red Sox saying "In the interest of uniting Major League Baseball, we're going to share this championship trophy with the Cardinals." It's a winner take all system, and it goes both ways.

I've talked in my previous posts about voter choice and the value of qualified candidates for public office, but as of yet I have said nothing on how they should act once elected. So let me say right now, that once in office nobody should be expressing surprise that the office-holder is advocating or implementing that which they openly told the electorate they would do. Gay marriage, social security, tax cuts in a time of war, and indeed the war itself and use of military pre-emption are all important issues that George W. Bush took a public position on during the campaign. To call him a "divider" for it is idiotic. John Kerry advocated (as near as I can tell) alternatives to Bush policies. Was he any less of a divider? Or any more? What I'm saying is that the uniter/divider issue is pointless, because every politician is divisive, thats the nature of politics.

The real issue is the media. How dare CNN and USA Today claim to report the news when they focus attention on meaningless drivel. Is Bush a divider? Yes. Was Clinton? Yes. Was Bush 41? Yes. Was Reagan? Yes. Was Carter? You get the point. First of all, polls are meaningless. The exit polls from this past election should tell you that. Ask Howard Dean about poll numbers. News organizations have a journalistic responsibility to report on real issues. I've seen trumped up charges about what ethics rules Tom DeLay may have broken. Lets see USA Today track the facts of that case down for me. I'm disgusted with the news media. Is the Scott Peterson trial news? Maybe worth a blurb in the local Modesto papers. But it's not national news. Did Michael Jackson molest children? I say leave that one to Pat O'Brien so that Aaron Brown can focus on explaining proposed changes to the social security system. Whether Jackson did it or not, I'm still going to retire someday and deserve to know what kind of planning for that I'll need to do.

I could go on and on about the news media, but now that I think about it... Thats going to require it's own post.

Voter Choice in Central New York and Across the Nation

2005-01-17T20:33:00.000-08:00

In my last post I touched upon the topic of voter choice, specifically regarding the Presidential elections. I'd like to take this opportunity to do two things, and the first is to clarify that I believe (and I hope it was implied) that I am for voter choice regardless of the office for which the candidates seek. Senate, Congressional, state-wide, county and local elections should always put two (or more) well qualified and respected individuals up for the voters choice. The freedom granted to the public by the Constitution to vote is just as important for town sanitation supervisor as it is for President of the United States. Why would you want anyone but a well qualified individual for either office?

My second goal in this post is to address more specifically the issue of incumbents along with voter choice. As I looked over my ballot this year I was seething with anger at the Democrats of my town, county and congressional district. My congressman, my state assemblyman, my state senator and my town justice were all running unopposed. All of them. What sort of democracy is it when they all go unchallenged? What incentive is there for them to represent me well and not simply rest on their laurels if there is no threat to their own job security? Goddamn, and damn it again! (John Adams) What means exist for the electorate to check the power of our leaders if there is no organized resistance to them?

The issue of the unchallenged incumbent is a national problem. In communities across the nation where the population is politically homogeneous, there is NEVER a complete consensus of the electorate. There should still be a voice, even a lone voice calling out against everything to say "I am still here! I am here to represent the unrepresented! To keep you honest and to keep you mindful!" Otherwise the tyranny of the majority will consume and corrupt itself. Even in places such as Washington, DC where you have what comes very close to a complete Democratic community, there is the Republican candidate for mayor. Everytime, it never fails. They know they are going to lose. They know that there is no chance that they can win. But they run, because they have interests that they believe are worthy of voicing. To offer a choice. To say, "this is a Democracy and my name will be on that ballot so that an alternative exists."

In New York, the Republican party fielded Howard Mills as a candidate for one of New York's Senate seats against Charles Schumer. Schumer, after Bush and Kerry, had more money in his campaign coffers than anyone else in the country. Schumer who is popular in New York, both personally and politically. But Howard Mills and the Republicans gave New Yorkers a choice. Schumer won overwhelmingly. 71% of the vote. I like Chuck Schumer, I think he does a good job for New York and he got my vote for his integrity and his record. But I must say, there was a pause before I voted for him. I thought to myself, Howard Mills is running an uphill campaign that Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki and a host of well known Republicans said no to. He did it because he believed in his ideas. He did knowing he was going to lose, but he still ran. There is a part of New York that does not agree with Charles Schumer. There are New Yorkers whose interests he may not represent. So Howard Mills was their candidate. He gave voice to the voiceless. And for that Howard Mills earned my respect. And he earned a quarter of the votes cast in the state. While 25% will not win an election, it is a sizeable minority whose interests are worthy of at least being heard.

And the Onondaga County Democrats failed. They failed me and every other person who feels that maybe State Senator John DeFrancisco is wrong for opposing the mall development project. Who feel that Congressman Jim Walsh absolutely does not deserve our vote for bringing a known terrorist and murderer, Gerry Adams, to Syracuse to head the St. Patricks Day parade. I chose to write in my vote for Walsh's seat. But I was furious that my own party neglected to give me a more effective voice. Someone who held rallies and someone who gave interviews to our local press to tell voters that they had a choice. Someone who sent out mailings that spoke to my values that Jim Walsh ignores everytime that he casts a vote in Congress. Syracuse has a Democrat as mayor. There are numerous other city and county offices held by Democrats. Its not that there isn't organization. There isn't passion.

Every election for every office in this country should give voters a choice. Never should a person be elected to any office without having to defend his/her policies and advocate strongly for their ideals. There is no one solution to the problem, but I believe strongly that there are several things that can be done to perhaps bring some measure of choice to voters.

First of all, local politics MUST be the frontline if any change of the system is to occur. For these local races, the first step ought to be ballot access. By easing the limits on getting a name onto a ballot, you allow for concerned citizens to share the same stage with incumbents in front of every voter. If the Onondaga County Democrats choose not to run a candidate for State Senate against John DeFrancisco, then a group of concerned citizens can at the very least get the name of a willing candidate on the ballot. Perhaps once the party notices that there is a segment of the population calling out for change or demanding an alternative to incumbency, they will begin to field candidates in future elections. Allowing third parties or individuals with enough support onto the ballot allows for the barest minimum. I may not be able to afford radio, newspaper or television advertisements or mass mailings, but my name on the ballot alongside the incumbent gives every constituent of that office a choice they did not have before. This increased ballot access allows other voices to be heard. Even places like Washington, DC and parts of New York City which lean overwhelmingly Democratic and there is little to no Republican or conservative presence, increased ballot access allows other voices such as the Green Party and DC Statehood party to be heard. Choice should not mean Republican or Democrat.

Second, the state legislatures need to immediately halt gerrymandering of congressional districts. The branching off of Congressional district is the worst form of voter disenfranchisement. It is not enough for a congressional district to be contiguous, but they must also be as compact as possible. The problem comes when a contiguous, compact geographic area is politically homogeneous, but is divided up to prevent that homogeneity from manifesting. An example is Monroe County in New York state, which contains the Democratic leaning Rochester. Unfortunately for those voters in Rochester, a slice of Monroe County is divided up, and follows the shoreline of Lake Ontario eastward and then eventually south to the heavily Republican Onondaga County. By dividing up Monroe County into several parts connected to heavily Republican districts, you have effectively disenfranchised an entire geographically compact and politically homogenous community. If the state legislatures fail to do this, it appears then that the courts must become involved to protect the disenfranchised. I speak only of Democrats being disenfranchised as an example, because I am well aware of cases in places like Massachusetts where Republicans and conservatives are also harmed by gerrymandering.

Third, is a public financing for Congressional races. One of the reasons that incumbents won at a rate of 88% in 2002 was due in a large part to the access they get to funds. If it was mandated that the top two parties in every congressional election were to recieve and be limited to the same amount of public money two things would happen: The first is that parties that typically have little incentive to run a candidate would all of a sudden have a great incentive to run a candidate. The second is that if it is public, rather that private money from large donors, being spent the public at large would have more at stake in every election. If they feel it was their money being spent, they would demand a quality campaign be run by both parties, and that both candidates be of such personal caliber to deserve public money.

Obviously it is a large problem that is difficult to solve. Incumbents will always hold distinct advantages over challengers in terms of the public awareness, constituent services and regular media access. But if the playing field can be evened so that voters are at the very least given a choice, because, isn't choice what democracy really is?

Mark Warner and the Politics of the Democratic South

2005-01-15T09:36:00.000-08:00

I recently came upon an article on cnn.com that discussed the possibility of Virginia's Democratic Governor, Mark Warner, being one of several leading contenders for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee. It seems his biggest appeal may be that he is Southern. The argument is "Well, it worked for Bill Clinton." Why did it work for Bill Clinton? Because he was running against an incumbent when the economy was on a downturn, because he was youthful and vibrant whereas his opponent was the second oldest US President in history. Clinton was able to create a contrast from HW. And yet he only won with a plurality of votes. And in 1996 Bill Clinton only won with a plurality of votes, and that was after moving to the right on several issues such as welfare reform. In 2000 and in the most recent elections, the major party candidates have been younger than Reagan, Bush and Dole, people who look more like my own father and less like his father. The candidates these days came of age during Vietnam, and grew up politically in the post-Nixon era of watchdog media.

My point is this: There are numerous factors to consider when selecting a Presidential candidate and it is irresponsible for the Democrats to be looking on a regional basis. They say "but why is it that Arkansas will elect two Democratic Senators and not a Democrat for President?" Well, look at the ideology of these Southern senators and governors. With the exception of John Edwards, they are very centrist and in some cases (Zell Miller and John Breaux come to mind) conservative. Why should the Democrats, the party of social conscience, affordable health care, responsible foreign policy, defenders of the rights of women and minorities, and more equality in education subordinate those interests in the hope of winning a few electoral votes in southern states, that in all likelyhood will vote Republican anyway?

If you are going to win people over in southern and border "swing" states such as Virginia, Arkansas and Missouri, the Democrats need to do it with a qualified candidate who earns those electoral votes through his or her honesty, aggressive nature and who believes strongly in the values that the party is trying to convey. John Kerry was a miserable failure as a candidate because he never convinced those who were listening with an open mind. He failed at aggressively defending his own position. The label of a flip-flopper stuck because Kerry didn't come out and say "It's a complicated issue and you're not going to solve complicated issues by dumbing them down." George Bush is not a stupid man, but he certainly wasn't as smart or as intellectualy adept as John Kerry was. Kerry needed to run on his intellect and his abilities as opposed to running from them.

People say of the 2000 and 2004 elections that they had to choose between the lesser of two evils. It shouldn't be this way and it doesn't have to be this way. Great men and women are out there. We as Americans don't deserve the Al Gores, John Kerrys and George Bushes of the world. We deserve people who are todays equivalents of Washington, Adams, Lincoln and the Roosevelts. When you step into a voting booth you shouldn't ask yourself which is the lesser of two evils, you should ask yourself "How can I possibly choose between these two great minds? These two leaders who both are supremely qualified to run this country? Two intellectual giants?"

Getting back to my starting point on Mark Warner. I'm not discounting him by any means. But he will have to earn my vote for more than his accent. He has an important challenge coming up potentially in 2006 should he run against Sen. George Allen, the Republican incumbent. Warner recently got passed an overhaul of Virginia's tax system that is already being thoroughly lambasted by conservatives. Let's hear Mark Warners defense. Tell me why this idea of yours Governor, was a good idea. Be passionate, be truthful and earn my vote. Because right now it's up for grabs.

Mission Statement

2005-01-13T08:35:00.000-08:00

I've begun this series of online posts to do several things: Reflect upon the current events of both the world and my own life. If something occurs that I feel is of some import or something that I find particularly amusing, you will find my response to it here. The second is to provide a forum for me to post reactions to the readings I do for both personal and academic purposes, the focus of which I imagine will focus largely on readings dealing with the Revolution and Federal period in our nations history. Third, may it also serve as a forum for others to respond to what I've said, either to affirm or dissent. I have no problem with lively debate, and I would encourage you to respond to anything I have posted that moves you.

If you're interested, I am writing as Publicola II, The Skaneatelesian to pay tribute to the tradition of politicians, essayists and philosophers who would publish anonymously, though I'm quite sure my own identidy is an "open secret" much the way the true names of the authors in whose grand tradition I humbly follow were. The essays they published were either serious philosophical pieces, such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay writing the Federalist Papers, but they often times were amusing stories of parody, such as when Benjamin Franklin assumed the now famous mantle of "Poor Richard." I hope to follow both examples, though I think I'm quite safe in saying that it is mere homage, and I'm under no pretense that I write at their esteemed level.

The first Publicola was the name under which John Quincy Adams defended his father, President John Adams, in the late 1790's when the latter came under attack by the Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson had written a piece in which he refered to the President's own political writings as "heresies." John Quincy gave a spirited defense of his father and a well deserved criticism of Jeffersonian tactics. It was partly due to young John Quincy's work as Publicola that he began his own succesful political career.

Publicola spoke of many of the values I hold dear. The first is family. John Quincy wasn't going to allow his father to suffer the critique and torment of the Republicans without a fight. The second is fighting for what is good and just. Jefferson was Adams' Vice-President and as such had a duty to his country which he failed to do by spending his time in office attacking Adams, who was an old friend. John Quincy wouldn't let deceit and betrayal go on unnoticed. Finally, John Quincy did all of this well, in a language and a tone that so impressed those whom read it, that even George Washington saw the bright future of this young man.

So now as I assume the role of Publicola II, I hope to honor the tradition and the values laid before me by the giants of American history.