My "Week in Review" discussion with former State Senator George Petak can be found here. It was a mostly polite discussion, with some very intelligent calls. The only tense banter (and it was quite mild, really), was when Petak advocated more nuclear power as a solution to our energy needs and I asked him if he would be willing to have the nuclear waste put in his neighborhood. He argued that was not a good reason for rejecting nuke power, but on the other hand he never quite came out and said that nuclear waste in his back yard would be okay. On the other hand, at least he doesn't pronounce it as "nuke-you-ler". (I realize that the last "on the other hand" makes three hands in this paragraph--probably a subconscious reflection of my fear that an enhanced nuke powered Wisconsin could lead to the births of the three handed bloggers).
I spent the majority of the program trying to argue that there currently is not a clean government candidate in the governor's race, and that the public will support such a candidate should he or she get into the race.
I am still leaning heavily against running for governor, but I have to say that the business as usual triumvirate of Doyle, Green, and Walker is making it very difficult to rule out a run.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I did not hear the whole show (I have to say that to give my "fans" something to freak over) but I did hear enough to know that you both made repeated reference to the lack of citizen involvment in the political process - running, voting, etc.
While I do agree that more people "should" be involved, I do feel that there are numerous, very complex factors at play that keep the public alienated. I am always uncomfortable with a lot of emphasis being placed on the individual "getting out there". I do recognize we are all responsible for our choices, but I also reconize that we function in a system.
I beleive the system is sick. That fact has an over-bearing effect on individual choices.
It would take me a long time to develop this idea. But I did want to mention it. I felt Petak was faulty in his reasoning that "the people" are ultimately responsible for the current state of affairs (as a result of past their votes) and can rectify things through future votes.
This is wrong in both directions.
Politicians who call for increased citizen involvement will do an about-face when the rabble shows up at a council meeting expecting to be heard. Try to get the least little neighborhood initiative looked at, let alone acted upon.
Mulitply that kind of mixed message, stonewalling double talk exponentially. Add in increased layers of power and corruption as you rise higher up within the government (including voter disenfranchisment problems)and you and have a public that is "trained" to give up. To say "it's not worth the bother".
Another more recent tactic seems to be this manufacturing of psuedo-issues to give the public something to chew on and wear itself out over. THye may feel "involved" but it's involement at a meaningless level.
As proof I give you the recent Decorated Tree Issue.
The media are once again, complicit in this bastardization of the democratic process. How many real issues were NOT dealt with while we all argued over what to call the fucking tree?
There are a lot of headgames out there for the average Joe to deal with, and even though Joe doesn't like me very much I always do feel sorry for Joe. He's in a tough spot.
Perhaps Petak's own political history both refutes AND supports your argument.
In 1995 (I think that was the year), the state senate of which Petak was an elected member voted on whether to place on tax on five southeast Wisconsin counties (including Petak's) in order to pay for the Brewers' stadium. Petak originally voted no, and in fact some state newspapers in "Dewey Defeats Truman" style released "Senate Rejects Brewer Stadium" headlines for their morning editions. But then in the early morning hours Petak allowed his arm to be twisted by Tommy Thompson and he changed his vote. He ended up becoming the first Wisconsin state legislator ever recalled and removed from office.
The fact that Petak was removed from office refutes your argument in the sense that the recall was a powerful example of what people can do when they get angry enough. Removing an elected official from office is no easy accomplishment.
But the Petak situation also supports your argument in the sense that even though Petak was removed, the county tax to support a private business (which is what the voters were really upset about in the first place) remained in place. So just as you suggest, voting Petak out of office did not "rectify" things. --TP
I think Tony accidently makes a good point. The problem is that the system is populated and influenced by people who get involved because they are angry.
In return, politicians expliot that anger to their own means.
It creates the broken system. We need more people involved for the right reasons. Beware angry politicians.
I think it's pretty obvious that the system is populated by people who are drawn to positions of power for personal psychological reasons.
Those people do what is expedient to maintain their own positions and, realizing they can't do it alone, actively enable a pack mentality where very few decisions are made without automatic assessment of whether or not anything will rock the boat.
This is why the Feingolds and Wellstones are so very rare.
Then I agree, you do have a sub-group of people who become angry and that anger leads to involvement. In my own council all but 2 have made statements to me that they first became involved in local politics because they got mad - one because of a zoning issue involving his garage, one because of a street widening, etc.
Once elected, these people speak infinitely less openly and either support the existing structure or are marginalized. You can name those in your community who fit this description - I certainly can.
I always feel prickly when someone says "You must do A or B for the Right Reason". Of course that someone ALWAYS knows what that one true motivation is.
Gosh, why should I be any different?
The Right Reason to be involved in politics is because you are an adult in a democracy. That's it.
Almost to a person, the people involved in politics are in any given position because it was the next logical step in their career and they like feeling important. You know it's true.
The real idealists are the blubbering fools in the corner who are driven to a frenzy because they cannot accept how screwed up things are.
You know - the angry ones.
Uh-oh....
I just referred to The Russ in a positive way, as an example of independent political thought, COMPLETELY forgetting how pissed off Tony is at him.
Somebody better go over and put a blood-pressure cuff on Tony while he reads my comment. I'd be curious to know just how high that baby goes. You know, Tony being an idealist and all...
Pretty eloquent for a wee babe.
Anonymous says, "I think Tony accidently makes a good point. The problem is that the system is populated and influenced by people who get involved because they are angry. In return, politicians expliot that anger to their own means . . . It creates the broken system. We need more people involved for the right reasons. Beware angry politicians."
I think anonymous has something there. Maybe King George III, after receiving the Declaration of Independence, should have written a letter back. It could have went something like this:
Dear Thomas J., John H., et al:
I read your Declaration, but I honestly can't figure out what you are so angry about. Lighten up! Even if you do get your independence, you're going to end up making people think that they should get angry about things like taxation without representation, obstructing the administration of justice, and usurping the rights of the people. C'mon, you guys are some of the smartest in the colonies--work with me and we can administer the governmnet in your neck of the woods in a calm, rational way that keeps the ignorant masses in their place while the smart people like you and I (who are in government for the right reasons and not because we are angry) keep things running smoothly.
You say in your declaration that "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." Okay, but is that really something to be angry about? And do you really think that if you ever create a country with an elected executive at the federal level along with elected governors, state reps, and local officials that you would have gotten written of bad Princes and Princesses? I guarantee you this: if you create your new system, there will be much to be angry about. Yet there will be those who will develop a stake in your system, and they will preach that the problem is not with the corrupt Princes and Princesses but with the angry masses. And your Princes and Princesses and the flacks below them will tell the masses to beware of the angry. And your Princes will wield power and influence that an 18th century King can only dream of.
Have a great day and be sure to have a cup of tea for me in Boston.
Sincerely, George III
I don't really believe that they were involved because of anger - it was a vision for a better society. Without the vision, the anger gets nothing done.
Post a Comment