Reaping What You Sow

By Scott R. Cooper, Crook County Judge
This column originally appeared in the Central Oregonian, March 2006

Everyone Benefit When Campaigns Keep It Positive

I don’t know about you, but I am finding it harder and harder of late to watch the news or read the newspaper, and I suspect that it is going to get worse as the biennial Primary season advances.

In this day and age of the 24-hour news cycle, the internet, “blogs” and other forms of media, we seem uncommonly addicted to the idea that the people who serve us are acting with some sort of hidden motive and a high level of incompetence. Cases in point:

“Exactly when did the vice president pull the trigger, AND WHY WEREN’T WE TOLD IMMEDIATELY!” the national press corps thundered in unison a few weeks ago. Hmmm, I wonder: Why wasn’t the first thought of the vice president who had just shot his friend, “What should I tell the press?”

“Exactly when did the director of FEMA know the levies would likely fail and when did he tell the Secretary of Homeland Security and when did he call the President, AND WHY WEREN’T WE TOLD IMMEDIATELY!, the fluffy- haired correspondents for cable news hollered loudly while the President tried to promote his international agenda in India and Pakistan two weeks ago. Let’s see. What’s more important: putting a major U.S. city back together, finding permanent lodging and jobs for a hundred thousand displaced citizens and trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons or figuring out who said what to whom when?

“Exactly when did the State of Oregon economist know that state tax revenue was going to exceed initial projections and trigger a giant tax refund, AND WHY WASN’T THE LEGISLATURE TOLD!” some state politicians want to know, in the wake of a $650 million underestimate of biennial revenue. I can’t help but think that the fact that the projection by its nature was a best-guess based on the information available 12 months ago, and the fact that state economists don’t have supernatural knowledge of things to come might have something to do with it.

“You didn’t agree with me on a particular decision, and I’M GOING TO RUN AGAINST YOU!” is the slogan I’ve heard touted by several local candidates and future candidates. While that is exactly the vision the founders envisioned for dealing with disagreement in our democratic sciety, I shudder to think how society would function if elected officials voted strictly based on popular opinion instead of making decisions based on combined respect for public opinion AND a thorough knowledge of relevant law and facts. If we are going to go that route, why not save the money we spend on elected officials and institutions and simply hire a few more pollsters?

There is, and there ought to be in government room for disagreement. Our system works best when options are laid on the table and debated in a healthy environment by worthy advocates. It is not only acceptable but also desirable for the national and local press corps, major political parties, elected bodies, elected officials and candidates and voters to question both the decisions made and the process for arriving at them. The issue is HOW to question decisions and processes, and in my view this is best accomplished when civility and rational thought characterize the discussion. This is the democracy other nations envy.

What I believe is unhealthy is the present environment where all disagreements about policy choices devolve into attacks upon character and the presumption of wrong-doing on someone’s part. If one thinks for just a moment, one only wonders how leaders in the past would have fared in our current times.

Could Franklin D. Roosevelt, coming off the Great Depression and faced with a military aggression unparalleled in history, have effectively led the Free World to victory in World War II faced with partisan sniping and a Congress and people which demonstrated a lack of national resolve and questioned the strategic, political and tactical decisions of his administration 24 hours a day?

Could Republican Governor Vic Atiyeh, faced with the worst recessionary conditions in Oregon history in the mid-1980s, have preserved services and government, if he had been reflexively labeled a “heartless politician” by one party and a “tax-and-spend liberal” by the other, bogging the system down and preventing achievement of the ultimate solution of simultaneously cutting budgets and implementing a temporary tax surcharge?

I don’t know what the current crop of candidates is going to do this season. The effort to “label” the opponent has already begun at the state level in the Governor’s race. It hasn’t filtered down to the local level yet, and I hope it doesn’t.

Somewhat naively, I continue to hope that we can figure out some way to “take the politics out of politics.” Oregonians as a whole have a reputation as a polite and friendly bunch, who shy away from controversy. It is one of the stereotypes and truths about this state that I most cherish and appreciate about living here.

As the primary season unfolds in months ahead, I hope that candidates, media and voters will consider that each one of us contributes to the environment in which we ultimately have to live. We can engage in the process and pursue the serious questions of the day in a civil, respectful and principled way, or we can continue to perpetuate the cynicism, mistrust and general culture of discontent. The result of that path will be to keep good candidates off the ballot, drive voters from the polls and cause the public to lose confidence in government at all levels.

Whichever direction we choose, of this I am certain: Ultimately, we reap what we sow. I for one hope for a successful and productive political season with a good harvest at the end.