Too little thought
goes into our elections
Forget reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, standing for the National Anthem, or removing your cap when a flag passes by. Our most important patriotic duty is voting, and it’s even more important when options seem limited to the devil you know vs. the devil you don’t.
Kamala Harris surely would earn more votes Nov. 5 if she changed her name to “Not Donald Trump.” The former president most definitely has devilish tendencies, and they rightfully should frighten any responsible voter. But so much is unknown about the vice president’s agenda that it might be equally wrong to vote for her simply because she’s not him.
We face similar challenges locally, where both candidates on the ballot in the southern county commissioner district might well be advised to change their names to “I Hate Wind Farms.”
Electing someone because he or she is not someone else and choosing a candidate on the basis of a single issue are foolhardy responses that would leave our founding fathers questioning the future of the republic they started.
Figuring out whom to vote for should involve evaluating how that candidate likely will respond to challenges none of us can foresee today. Examining how the candidate has approached current or past issues may be a guide but shouldn’t be the sole determinant.
Whether a candidate is willing to seriously study issues and occasionally admit he or she might have erred in supporting some policy in the past should never be considered evidence of waffling or flipflops but evidence of a person who actually thinks before acting.
Taking credit or assigning blame for things generally beyond a candidate’s control — the economy, for example, or legislation and rulings adopted by some other body — is a classic subterfuge candidate at all levels use to rally voters to false causes.
Most often, problems are solved by taking time to actually understand what the problem is.
Locally, multiple governmental units have begun waiving requirements that appointed — and, in some cases, elected — officials actually live within the areas they serve.
Marion County now has a county clerk who lives outside the county. We soon may have a county attorney who lives elsewhere as well. The City of Marion has a city administrator, a city clerk, a city treasurer, a community enrichment director, a public works director, and a city attorney all of whom live outside Marion. None of Peabody’s police force live in Peabody.
The easy answer most policy-making officials give is that they can’t attract qualified employees if they require that they live within the area they serve. That’s not the problem, however. The real problem is why potential employees don’t want to live here. Are taxes too high? Housing options too limited? Crime too rampant? Quality of life or neighborhoods too low? Those are the problems policy makers should be addressing rather than shoving them under a carpet of relaxed residency rules.
Anyone whose role is to perform for the public knows that it often is a thankless job. That’s true for everyone from quarterbacks, mayors, and journalists to bureaucrats, chefs, and teachers. People rarely care about the challenges those jobs present. They care only about the results they achieve.
How good public servants anywhere along that very broad spectrum perform is a factor of how much thought, research, and effort they put in. People who have a pat answer to everything, pander to whatever currently seems to be in vogue, and wait to react rather than proactively try to solve problems generally are the worst public servants.
Some will be tempted to say politics is all about character, but it’s not about what a candidate’s faith or family might be. It’s about how a candidate thinks.
Here’s a bright idea: Try voting this time for the brightest candidates, not necessarily the most popular ones.
— ERIC MEYER