To be sure, the dog is loyal. But why, on that account, should we take him as an example? He is loyal to man, not to other dogs. -Karl Kraus, writer (1874-1936)
Our Tea Party friends are asked to sign a "pledge," in exchange for support, when they run. They must pledge not, under any circumstances, to approve a tax increase. No matter what the fiscal realities, nor forseen or unforseen developments, they must not approve a tax increase, of any kind, in any guise, or for any reason. And the evil genius of this crime against the government and the people is Grover Norquist. As fiscal discussions play out, and the occasional Tea Party member begins to show signs of straying, Norquist is right there to call him or her to task, and threaten defeat, if not practically assassination. Norquist will do this publicly. You might hear him on someone's radio show. Even NPR. And if he doesn't deliver the ultimatum in person, Bill O'Reilly or someone else will. This is all, frankly, above board. It may be ridiculous, it may be sabotaging, it may represent a fundamental threat to the concept of devotion to one's voting constituents, but it's in the open. As some of us in BP like to say, it's in the Sunshine. Tea Party politicians have a constituent, and it isn't the people who voted for them, or the citizenry of the country. It is Grover Norquist.
And Norquist has a theory, which he will articulate. Ask him, and he'll be happy to tell you. He doesn't like or trust government, and he would like it shrunken to a size small enough that it can be drowned in the bathtub. I'm quoting him here. That's his theory, and if you want his help, you'll adhere to it. And if you do adhere to it, like people who accept favors from the Mafia, you will quickly learn that your loyalties are to him, not to the people who live in your district.
It's mind-numbingly common for politicians to claim to represent "the people" and to claim to have solicited, cared about, and acted on the will of the people. They might be lying, but that's what they ALWAYS say. This declaration is a feature of political pronouncements here in BP as well. In last night's Commission meeting, Jacobs invoked "public input" once or twice, depending on how you count it, and Cooper invoked it four times. Ross mentioned it once. Anderson is usually good for a reference like that, but it didn't happen to happen last night.
What did happen last night was a vote to place a matter on the general ballot in November, for the purpose of soliciting the voice of the people through a referendum. Yup, the voice of the people, in regards to the possibility of a specific Charter change. Pretty garden variety voice-of-the-people stuff. An obvious 5-0, right? Ask Grover Norquist if there's anything bigger than the voice of the people.
So no, the voice of the people was not sought unanimously. The vote was 3-2. Two Commissioners did not want or need to know what the residents of BP thought. One of those two Commissioners had paid ephemeral, if repeated, lip service to the idea of public input four times last night, and the other invoked it once or twice. This is the lip service, the blah, blah, blah. But when push comes to shove, these two Commissioners apparently answer to a "higher authority." The problem is, we aren't told who or what that higher authority is. No one is as honest and self-respecting as Grover Norquist, to come forward and say "In this town, Commissioners don't do what you think is best for you. They do what I think is best for you. Or what I think is best for me."
If I had a choice, I'd rather deal with Grover Norquist. At least I'd know who the enemy of the people is. It's easier to deal with an enemy who wears a different uniform. When they infiltrate, and camouflage themselves to look like us, it's harder for some people to know they're the enemy.
No comments:
Post a Comment