Saturday, June 10, 2017

The "support a candidate when you agree with them 80% of the time" rule.

The 80/20 commandment had a fundamental flaw:  Frequently, the 20% you disagree with is far overarching over the 80% you do agree with.

For example, the GOP senate's betrayal of the people of this state happens around 5% of the time.  But the issues they've betrayed us on... and are about to betray us on... are among the biggest political issues confronting us at the state level today.

We know what those issues are, so I won't repeat them here, but I would point out that if I agree with a politician 99% of the time, if that politician lied their way into office, dishonored us once they assumed office, ignores us while IN office... then I don't care what their claimed party affiliation is, I don't want them in office.

If that official disagrees with me on a fundamental principle, then I am going to oppose them: let's say, for example, that the 1% we disagree on is a constitutional right.  Let's say, for example, that my Senator, who has proven she is not above lying or betraying her district, decides that she's going to support the efforts ongoing today to disarm us... even though, the REST of the time (as if) we were in complete agreement.

Should I just ignore that assault?

Let's say that I fought every day the CRC was alive and ultimately it died.  Suddenly, one of the leaders of that effort has been bought out, Like Rivers has been bought out and so many others have been bought out... and she becomes instrumental in resurrecting that monster.  If successful, her efforts will result in a giant sucking sound where the special interests she now works for are busy vacuuming hundreds of millions of dollars out of this county for the next 4 decades.

Should I just ignore that?

Should we ignore the reality of $700 million getting sucked out of this county because, for example, my Senator, who ran on a platform of opposing the largest gas tax/tab fees increases in this state's history was corrupted enough to ignore her pledge, made in writing, when the time came?

Am I to ignore that kind of corruption?  Am I to continue to vote for someone who will lie to my face when the time comes?  And how many more opportunities does she get to screw us?

I get that the 11th Commandment and 80/20 formula make nifty bumper stickers.  But that we allow those running... or elected... to lie to us without consequence?

I don't think so.

The kicker, you see, is what's IN that 20% you suggest we should disregard.  We're not talking about getting upset over, say, adding a fourth light to traffic signals or passing a state law making the Sasquatch the state animal (A waste of thousands of dollars... taxpayer dollars, I might add.)

We’re talking about major issues that have and will impact our lives negatively forever.  We're talking about caving to the special interests that own too many of these people like the 13th Amendment was the 13th Suggestion on the issues that really, really, genuinely matter.

80/20 is an absolute.  When I was working for the WSRP as executive director, one of the first things I learned was there are no absolutes.  And when an elected official that I sweated for, funded, bled for putting up signs, stayed awake in the wee hours for, spent hundreds of hours to get and keep in office acts like none of those principles matter?

This goes beyond the issue of personal betrayal; after all, what's a decade in the overall scheme of things?

No, this is about the issue of accountability.  When they lie, betray, sell out, ignore us?

Then they've got to go... and should never have been elected in the first place... 20% notwithstanding.

1 comment:

Pete Masterson said...

The problem is that politicians too often "compromise" -- thinking that is the way to solve a problem. However, when you compromise with (something) evil, then evil wins. There are many issues where no compromise is possible. This is especially true when a politician "compromises" on an issue that affects individual rights. If the compromise results in a dilution of that right, then the compromise is evil.