As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "The faith that stands on authority is not faith."
I am writing today to commemorate someone rare in the profession of politics: a hero. On November 18, 1978, this month, twenty-nine years ago, Democratic Party Congressman Leo Ryan, representing the 11th District of California, was shot and killed in the line of duty, while serving his San Francisco area constituents. He remains the only congressional representative in history to have done so. This by no means makes him the only office-holding hero in the US Congress' long history, or a figure that warrants political nostalgia (There are decent human beings in congress today, from both parties, despite the bad rap it frequently gets...). No, instead honoring his death requires taking a serious look at the evil that killed him and applying the lessons of its existence and Ryan's struggle against it to our own contemporary lives.
The 20th anniversary San Francisco Chronicle article on the events that murdered Ryan states:
The facts are well known.
Jim Jones, a self-styled messiah, ingratiated himself with the political powers in San Francisco and gained a large following. Then, abruptly he left, taking his mostly poor, mostly black flock to a remote forest outpost in Guyana. There, Jones' paranoia escalated, especially when a delegation led by U.S. Rep. Leo J. Ryan visited in November 1978. As Ryan's group prepared to leave, trouble broke out. Ultimately, five people -- including Examiner photographer Greg Robinson [and Congressman Ryan] -- would be shot to death at an airstrip nearby, and 913 others would perish at Jonestown in a mass suicide presided over by Jones.
One unforgettable image is of clumps of bodies, face down and poisoned with potassium cyanide, bloating in the tropical sun. Another is the portrait of a madman -- the famous picture of Jones glaring behind his aviator sunglasses. A third is the crude wooden sign that hung in the pavilion at Jonestown. "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it," it said.
That is usually taken as a warning against other evil Jim Joneses who may be lurking out there. It is a fair warning, and should be heeded.
But it is not a latter-day Jones that we need to fear so much as our own gullibility, rooted in our very human desires to trust other people, to have faith in them, to create heroes, to want more from life than seems to exist and to find an exit from the pain of suffering.
Jones offered those expediencies, but he could not have succeeded had his pupils -- and his mentors -- exercised another important human quality: skepticism.
Yes skepticism. I am not talking about becoming a nihilist and rejecting all truths. What I am talking about is treating all arguments equally, no matter their source. An argument is an argument, beholden to both logical and emotional (gut instinct) proof – the human wielder of it should never matter if the substance of an argument is still BS. Whether it is your favorite politician, your best friend, or your parent making an argumentative claim, give them a similar burden of proof to those you are less inclined to agree with, even after accounting for the trust you might share with them. The gains from doing so are enormous. Sincerity: you only agree with what you actually agree with. Prudence: you only care to act on what you actually agree with. Trust: two people doing this at once rely on each other to keep one another's arguments accountable to reality. Life: a charismatic charlatan's lousy arguments do not get you hurt or killed.
In short, never put a person or an institution in a position of knowledge absolutism, assuming without question that its opinions are always true by default, ignoring completely the logical and emotional argumentative warrants involved. There is always the chance that anyone, even the most impressive of humans and organizations, is wrong, perhaps even malevolently so. Jim Jones and the other evil humans of history teach us this repeatedly. Others, like Congressman Ryan, offer us a more hopeful lesson.
Ryan was not only skeptical of Jones' cult when others were indifferent. When no one else would, he acted on his skepticism to serve his San Francisco constituents – many of which were in Jones' movement or were relatives of its members. When the Carter Administration and Bay Area legislators rejected his pleas for help in investigating Jones, he did so anyways with decisive persistence. He had the will to act, the will to take a flawed argument for what it was and call it out in person. It cost him his life. It is essential that at some point we are willing to take such risks, to see wrong triumphed over by logic and gut human instinct.
This post is on the blog of a partisan organization that opposes another partisan organization. The members of which might one day be in positions of power and responsibility, guided by the arguments of their superiors or advisers. Now, I recognize that being involved in a partisan organization means having to do things that are somewhat lock-in-step, regardless of the group being conservative or liberal. I also must note, however, that it is very easy for the game of partisanship to suck a person into viewing their political opponents as demons and their organization's arguments as unquestionable.
This post and the legacy of Congressman Leo Ryan, a man the Democratic Party and our great Republic should be proud to call one of their own, absolutely reject this outcome of the partisan game. A bad argument is a bad argument, it does not matter who makes it. Moreover, anyone can make a bad argument in politics, whether he or she is on your side of the political spectrum or the opposition's. The same is also true for a good argument.
As a fellow partisan, from the other side of the political spectrum, I ask that we heed the lessons of Ryan's healthy skepticism as we venture forth into our political futures, or wrong may doom us all.- David Lapidus
If, after reading David's comments, you're looking for additional reading on the same topic, I recommend Profiles in Courage by John F. Kennedy (trivia: JFK is the only President who has won a Pulitzer Prize). Inspired by the book, a Profile in Courage award is given annually, and Wisconsin's very own Senator Russ Feingold has been a recipient.
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” -- The Buddha
3 Comments:
I think that it's pretty safe to say that David would be a good candidate for the County Board, given his experience and understanding of politics and public policy.
But I'm still very wary on a few things. First, who would he cast a vote for as Board of Supervisors Chair? Would it be Scott McDonald, the current liberal Chair? Or would he be open to electing a conservative to be Chair again?
As someone who was born and raised in Dane County, I'm deeply concerned about the issues he mentions in his interview with the Critical Badger.
He notes that his top issues would be, "Improving public health around Dane County, relaxing drug laws in Dane County, improving the quality of lakes, and most importantly improving safety in Dane County."
David claims to have a "Libertarian streak" and to "lean Conservative." Well, if you're a Libertarian and opposed to larger government, how to you plan on improving public health when the most glaring problem facing us today is inaccessibility to health care for poor people?
Relaxing the drug laws makes sense, not just for a Libertarian, but for many on all wings of the left. Ashok Kumar campaigned in 2006 on "Ending the Drug War." Quite frankly, I'm not sure how much good that did, but I appreciate the principle.
Finally, how does David plan to meld "Improv[ing] the quality of lakes" with his "Libertarian streak."
Maybe I need a refresher course on what it means to be a Libertarian, but in the spirit of skepticism that David so ably describe in his Guest Post (note to Scott: get him an account and let him post more often), I've still got plenty of questions for this potential candidate.
My full respect to David, I think he is a man of integrity and intellect, but my vote comes down to not only who is smartest, but who will best represent the issues I care about on the Board of Supervisors.
The College Democrats thought someone who used "ending war and empire" on literature was good policy last time they run. Literally no one understood the position and nobody dared to question the “progressive candidate”. I'm glad to see they're now asking *tough* questions, but I hope they do this to *every* candidate.
A libertarian streak is the most important way we can address some of the claims you bring up if we have competent and moderate local leaders, without strong ties to extremist agendas. Government regulation is really important to ensure we have things like paid sick leave, clean environmental standards (e.g. mercury run off regulations and other farm run off which really screw up our lakes), and funding for police efforts. But, I think students call for libertarian approaches when it comes to non-binding resolutions, oppressive and draconian drug laws, and government intrusion into our lives (cameras, anyone?). This is surely too simplistic of a response and the questions posed merit specific policy responses, but as a fellow blogger, I’ve seen on my own site that David never one to shy away from highly-technical policy debates. Too bad we don’t have that type of leadership currently in the position…
Hi Oliver, sorry it took me a bit to get back to you. Please ask more questions if you have them afterwards.
“I think that it's pretty safe to say that David would be a good candidate for the County Board, given his experience and understanding of politics and public policy.”
I appreciate the compliment, I do not want to deceive you into supporting me though, and you have every right to be skeptical in light of my more conservative views on federal issues. Just make sure that you are fair and apply the same scrutiny to all other candidates that might enter the race.
“But I'm still very wary on a few things. First, who would he cast a vote for as Board of Supervisors Chair? Would it be Scott McDonald, the current liberal Chair? Or would he be open to electing a conservative to be Chair again?”
You are correct in saying the organizational vote is an extremely important one (especially for a first term supervisor). As long as I get the committees I want, would have a good working relationship with him or her, and he or she is an ethical person, their political ideology should not matter at all. From my understanding, the current liberal leaning Chair McDonnell would likely fit these criteria, and if this seemed true after consulting him further, I would support him if he decided to run again.
"As someone who was born and raised in Dane County, I'm deeply concerned about the issues he mentions in his interview with the Critical Badger.
David claims to have a "Libertarian streak" and to "lean Conservative." Well, if you're a Libertarian and opposed to larger government,"
Here is my clarification on this from my CB posts:
Now, to make sense of the confusing libertarian streak, moderate/centrist, conservative, Republican categories out there about me (it is my fault for defining my politics using seemingly contradicting terms, I apologize for any confusion this has caused) I need to set the record straight.
To do so I must state my basic philosophy of government:
If a government policy does not have the net effect of empowering our lives then it should get out of our lives. If a government policy has the net effect of empowering our lives then it should enter our lives.
I would say that there are many more cases of government being capable of empowering our lives than not at the local and county level than at the federal level. At the federal level, I would consider myself a conservative (conservative leaning, more likely to vote for Republicans, these are all accurate labels of my federal politics), since I see the first sentence of the above statement occurring more than the second one all issues considered.
At the county level, I would consider myself a moderate/centrist, because I see the second sentence of the above statement occurring about as much as the first all issues considered.
The libertarian streak term comes from the fact that I do not think government should expand just to expand. Even though I trust government more at the local and county level, I still think it should require a very good reason to become more influential in our lives. Additionally, it means that I think the county government should not participate in crafting “symbolic” resolutions that accomplish nothing tangible at all.
In short, “moderate/centrist” means I trust county government expansion a lot more than federal government expansion. “Libertarian streak” means, even in light of this trust, I still need a very tangible reason to expand county government. If you want specific policy examples, I am happy to address them.
"He notes that his top issues would be, "Improving public health around Dane County, relaxing drug laws in Dane County, improving the quality of lakes, and most importantly improving safety in Dane County.
how to you plan on improving public health when the most glaring problem facing us today is inaccessibility to health care for poor people?”"
First, to address health care specifically, this is an issue where I am not conservative (eclectic would be the proper term for me on this issue, since I support both sensible liberal/progressive and conservative/libertarian solutions to health care), at the federal, state, and local levels of government. In general, I believe there are many aspects of health care where the government should be doing more to make up for inefficient market failures and a lack of accessibility to insurance and care.
The government (at all levels) should be doing more to make quality health insurance accessible to all US residents and citizens. The government should be doing more to make preventive care more accessible to all US residents and citizens who cannot afford health insurance, as well as providing further incentives for its use by everyone (insured and not). The government should be doing more to make medical treatment more accessible to all US residents and citizens who cannot afford health insurance. The government should be doing more to make patented drugs and generics more affordable when there are drug market failures (and there are many, patents are just part of the reason why). The government should do more to guarantee the quality of private health insurance for those who do have it.
Overall, right now, the private care aspect of our system has markets that operate very wastefully and inefficiently in a variety of different areas. In addition, the private care system has gaping accessibility holes for millions of Americans that Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, or SCHIP, and their equivalents at the state level, cannot cover. I believe the government should and can fix these problems without diluting the benefits of having a largely private care system (and there are benefits).
What specific measures do I support to do this (at the federal, state, and local level)? Same as always…More government when it overall empowers, less when it does not (that is always my basic motto when it comes to politics):
-Targeted SCHIP expansion
- Let health insurance markets go across state borders, so there is greater price and quality competition than there is solely within closed intrastate health insurance markets
- Tax deductions and credits for buying health insurance outside of your entity of employment
- Regulating the health insurance industry in a way that gives insurance companies an incentive to live or die based on whether or not they provide quality service, rather than just making a profit off denying claims to people
- Expanding health savings account options
- Allow imports of drugs from abroad when it is safe
- Giving Medicaid to the states to manage
- Targeted Medicaid expansion
- If it is beneficial to getting a better deal for the government, have the DHHS get negotiated drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, do the same with the DHHS equivalent in each state
- Look at regulating some patented and generic drug prices in a similar manner to how state and federal utility commissions regulate electricity and natural gas prices
I realize this is not really a direct county board topic, but I just wanted to clarify my views on health care for you.
I need to address all the other issues you mentioned as well (pot, environment, safety).
“Relaxing the drug laws makes sense, not just for a Libertarian, but for many on all wings of the left. Ashok Kumar campaigned in 2006 on "Ending the Drug War." Quite frankly, I'm not sure how much good that did, but I appreciate the principle.”
This is becoming more common sense for everyone ya. Not only is more focus by local law enforcement on pot related crimes not really protecting us from much, it makes our corrections system cost a hell of a lot more, and adds significant opportunity costs to the budget and duties of local law enforcement.
“Finally, how does David plan to meld "Improv[ing] the quality of lakes" with his "Libertarian streak.”
If a policy protecting the county’s natural environment empowers our lives overall, I am for it, and plenty of the Dane County lake quality regulations do. Ask me about specific policies and I will answer bluntly.
Safety (same as my CB response):
I largely agree with Sheriff Mahoney and Kathleen Falk's original proposal based on the ILPP audit (what passed and what did not from it is another issue entirely).
What I support:
- Three-fold expansion of the electronic monitoring program for eligible inmates (this and a few other programs in the Falk-Mahoney agreement would give the county huge cost savings in transferring inmates, without creating further safety risks, this is big since such transfers are likely to continue in significant numbers), including adding 5.5 new deputy positions for this program
- Doubling the size of the county's traffic safety team and adding three full-time deputies attached to this division (in light of Dane County's comparably high traffic casualty rates, this makes sense)
- More money for youth gang prevention, a portion of which will go towards assisting targeted youths in getting jobs
- Creating a work program for inmates
- Limiting the number of probation and parole inmate holds from the state.
Where I am skeptical and need more information:
- $700,000 in new equipment (haven't been able to line item this all exactly yet, so until then I am skeptical)
- Creating a revolving fund of roughly $5,000 to assist the indigent inmates facing small jail bonds of $200 or so. (need to look into this more as well)
- Creation of a new Minority Recruitment Deputy position. (same deal, need to learn more about it)
- Establishing a policy with local municipalities to not sentence offenders of local ordinances such as noise violations to county jail. (makes sense at face value, but want to look more into it to be sure there aren’t any unintended consequences)
- Seeking judicial approval to authorize the Sheriff to use signature bonds for eligible offenders. (need to learn more about this)
For this stuff, I will need to talk more with the constituents of the 5th District and Dane County, as well as Mahoney, Falk, and the Supervisors …Plus, doing my own individual research. If I run, I can guarantee you I will have a set position on these issues by the time I declare.
“Maybe I need a refresher course on what it means to be a Libertarian, but in the spirit of skepticism that David so ably describe in his Guest Post (note to Scott: get him an account and let him post more often), I've still got plenty of questions for this potential candidate.”
Please keep asking good questions like these. I only want your support if you sincerely offer it, because you believe I am a good candidate, who, in your mind, will do an overall solid job serving on the board. I do not want to win your support with cheap political tricks, pandering, or gimmicks. As for posting, I would be happy to contribute occasionally.
“My full respect to David, I think he is a man of integrity and intellect, but my vote comes down to not only who is smartest, but who will best represent the issues I care about on the Board of Supervisors.”
I appreciate the compliment. The person who made this blog post would certainly disqualify me from the “smartest” and “intellect” competition if she ran though hehe. She would also give me a run for my money on “integrity” as well I am afraid. Anyways, of course we frequently cannot just vote for someone on character issues alone. You have every right to see where you line up with me on the issues and I will be as accessible and straight forward as I can in this endeavor. I must say though, that I really appreciate you giving me a serious look for the county board race despite our partisan differences at the federal level of politics. A fair hearing from you would mean a lot to me. I hope that is what I am receiving here hehe.
Post a Comment
<< Home