Ben Westlund cannot save us
By Jesse Bufton of Portland, Oregon. Jesse is a co-chair of the Portland State College Democrats.
I am young. 2004 was the first election in which I was able to vote in. In fact, I wasn't all that politically conscious before 2004. Like so many of my generation, my political consciousness began on or around September 11, 2001. Never before did I care if my father had stopped at the end of our long gravel driveway on his way home from work to get the Oregonian. At first it was just the front page, all the international stuff.
But then I began to dig deeper. I discovered that there was more than just the rest of the front page story on A14. I discovered the Metro section. I discovered State politics. I also discovered that anyone who knows anything about State politics knows that absolutely nothing gets done in Salem between January and mid-summer of every other year. The reason for this, as the Oregonian told me almost every day, is because all of those lawmakers in Salem just argue with each other. If lawmakers weren't prone to such partisan bickering, maybe our schools would have more money, everyone would be happy with land-use laws, and my teachers would stop talking about that acronym that seemed so important to them.
This very notion is the cornerstone of Ben Westlund's campaign strategy. To cement the idea that the problems we are experiencing in our great state cannot be fixed by a (D) or an (R). The only person that can fix the partisan deadlock in Salem, is someone with an (I) next to their name, someone who has no party loyalty, just loyalty to the people. Someone who can reach across both aisles and make the kind of “real progress” that is written about almost everyday in the Oregonian a reality in the State Legislature.
Now all of this would be well and good if party politics were the source of Oregon's political problems. I'm not so convinced that's the case. I think a brief look at Oregon's history shows us that we are a state that constantly contradicts ourselves when it comes to politics.
These contradictions date back to statehood, when in 1857 Oregon voted not to permit slavery in the State but also voted not to permit “free negroes” who were not already residents of the State.
This strange sort of undercut progressivism can be seen in the kinds of policies that are enacted today as well. Solutions to wide-ranging problems, like the Oregon Health Plan, are held up as creative and innovative solutions from an independent and proud Oregon, only to be gutted and reduced to shells of their former selves under the guise of populism.
Time and time again, Oregonians have voted for progressive public services and solutions, only to turn around and reduce the taxes that fund them. It would seem that Oregon's real problem is that we want to have our political cake and eat it too. Our stalemates lie less in partisan politics and more in differing opinions on solutions to the difficulties that face our State. Just because Ben Westlund has an (I) next to his name doesn't mean there is going to be less arguing in the Oregon Legislature. Erasing the (D)s and (R)s does not erase ideology and differing ideology is the root problem here, just as it is around the nation.
Even if we give merit to the Westlund campaign cornerstone of partisan loyalty and bickering, how is he to save us from the partisan deadlock? Where is Westlund's record of crossing party lines to get things done on the hard issues? Westlund was there for SB1000 with a majority of Democrats in the Senate, yet Karen Minnis of his own party brought the legislation to its knees in an instant. If Westlund had no influence in his own party, how is he going to influence two different parties in a divided legislature?
I don't know what the solution to this ideological divide is, but Ben Westlund seemingly does nothing to address it. Ben Westlund cannot save us.
|
June 13, 2006
Posted in guest column. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jun 13, '06
While I agree with young Jesse's final line, his basis for making the claim is shallow. His thinking has been stunted if he truly believes that "anyone who knows anything about State politics knows that absolutely nothing gets done in Salem between January and mid-summer of every other year." I applaud his enthusiasm for his political awakening, but his lack of experience and insight are clearly evident. I would encourage him to actually spend some time at the capitol during the next legislative session. Yes, it can be frustrating, and you don't always get everything you want, and some people can be real butt-heads. But I challenge him to re-visit the above quote a year from now after walking the halls of the capitol, sitting in on some committee hearings and visiting with legislators. He may not be any happier with the state of the State, but I think his perspective on the process would change dramatically.
Jun 13, '06
I agree. Having worked in the Legislature, I think enough does not get done certainly but things do get done. I found the process itself disheartening and heartening and at the same time. It was disheartening becuase we'd get really close to what I felt were breakthroughs and have them yanked by lobbyists but a lot of good did get done, one way or another.
9:10 a.m.
Jun 13, '06
Jesse, you're right. But it's not just Oregonians who want their cake and eat it too, it's Americans - and even the world.
Recent political research has shown that true conservatives (who prefer low taxes and few services) and liberals (who prefer quality services even if we have to pay for them), are a vanishingly small percentage of humanity. Over 80% of people simply do not understand the concept of social consequences at all. They want services they don't have to pay for, and will vote for initiatives that promise this impossibility.
The quintisential statement of this belief was spoken to me by a little old lady when I was canvassing - "Why can't the GOVERNMENT pay my taxes?"
So don't worry. Westlund's campaign is dead in the water. Not because politicians refuse to pay attention to reality, but because the people do.
Jun 13, '06
Westlund was there for SB1000 with a majority of Democrats in the Senate, yet Karen Minnis of his own party brought the legislation to its knees in an instant. If Westlund had no influence in his own party, how is he going to influence two different parties in a divided legislature?
So Jesse, your premise is that all Republicans listen to Minnis and all Democrats listen to the Democratic leadership and there is no way around that? No room for legislators to think for themselves because they weren't elected to represent a district but to be members of a closed caucus? What about Republicans who are upset with their current incumbent? Do you want them to vote straight party ticket rather than taking a look at the Dem. legislative candidate even if they are voting GOP for other offices?
Could this be why some people support a nonpartisan legislature? (Legislative Comm. has discussed allowing either chamber to declare itself nonpartisan; nonpartisan bill passed St. Sen. last session.)
You need more experience--take David's advice and go to the legislature during session.
Could it be that Westlund was W & M chair one session and not the next because he was too much of a budget expert and stood up to Minnis and she wouldn't stand for it? Perhaps some haven't been paying attention long enough to know about that?
My Republican state senator got bashed for being a state senator who wouldn't do what Minnis wanted done. I wrote an email in support of that action saying I knew the Speaker had no power over Senators and hoped my Senator felt the same---and got an email back saying something along the lines of "Darned right I know the Senate is independent of the House".
If you will read SB 382, you will discover it had bipartisan sponsorship. If you read the legislative history, you will find it was never discussed. Why is that--because Minnis killed SB 1000? Or because there needs to be an old fashioned attitude of debating actual legislation in public rather than the attitude of "my party right or wrong" and this nonsense from the last session that budgets were to be debated in a "negotiation room" where a small group of legislators shut out anyone else?
11:32 a.m.
Jun 13, '06
As someone who is also much greener than most on here (I note my political awareness beginning in the '92 presidential election and coming into its own in the crazy '94 midterms in California where I was in school), I can relate to this oversimplification. It's certainly true that many see partisanship as the biggest roadblock to progress in Salem and Westlund is appealing to that. But, while partisanship certainly doesn't help, I think Steven hits the nail right on the head when he says the fundamental problem is that the public doesn't seem to understand that they can't have their cake and eat it too.
This can appear as a partisan divide as the Republicans promise to cut taxes without addressing the popular services they'd have to gut and Democrats promise a restoration or creation of popular services without addressing how they'll pay for it. Neither side is willing to talk holistically about the issues, as they try to turn out their partisan bases while appealing to the mushy middle. And this is where Westlund is making a difference to people who are more engaged than the average voter; to people who realize the partisanship is only a symptom of voter disengagement. He's willing to talk about the revenue costs of properly funding services that people want. Westlund may not be the solution (I'm withholding judgment until we get a little closer to November), but by actually talking realistically about the relationship between revenue (taxes) and services, he's at least no longer part of the problem. While I may not vote for Westlund in November, I can at least appreciate that he's trying to raise the level of discourse and hope that his opponents will follow...
Jun 13, '06
Thank you Nate.
And I would add one other thing. For those who believe in Dean's "show up everywhere, contest everything", it seems to me I heard Westlund is the only candidate so far to visit Klamath Falls in recent months.
If that is true, are the major candidates writing off a major SE Oregon community because all that matters is W. of the Cascades? If so, that isn't about partisanship, but geography. It is about people who've spent their lives living in Multnomah, Marion and Lane counties ignoring the citizens of the other counties.
1:32 p.m.
Jun 13, '06
Nate, LT, you've both got some good points, but I think I really need to drive something home - politicians, far from being worse than average voters - are actually much much better.
The charge that politicians lack political courage is simply untrue. Plenty of Democratic office holders have taken extreme political heat by cutting spending - Kulongoski, for example. Plenty of Republican legislators have lost office because they agreed to raise taxes in a dire emergency - many members of the the GOP Legislature that voted for Measure 30, for example. The fundamental problem is not them. It is the free lunch voters, who positively punish any political leader for daring to tell them the truth.
In this kind of environment, is it any wonder we get the behavior we see? Karen Minnis holds the House by the throat, not because she wears some magical ring of power, but because her own caucus lives in terror of their own rabid base. Eliminating any they consider to be "RINOs" in Republican primaries, GOP voters are willfully ignorant of the State's finances. They are literally hocking their own children's futures to the Chinese in exchange for a cash advance on their taxes (which is what these tax cuts in the face of massive budget deficits amount to), and simply don't care.
Yet as much as I despise them for their willful destruction of American greatness, I'm forced to admit, that they're much more in tune with average "free lunch" voters than we are. A Borrow And Spend Government always wins at the ballot box because Americans are a Borrow and Spend people.
And no, Westlund is not going to be able to change that.
1:45 p.m.
Jun 13, '06
Does that mean you agree with Dubya, Jesse--he famously has praised the efficiency of tyranny: " "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." (Source: Businessweek) Democracy is tough work, and as you note, has always been frought with turmoil and ultimately, compromise.
Jun 13, '06
Steven, you may be right and you may be wrong: Yet as much as I despise them for their willful destruction of American greatness, I'm forced to admit, that they're much more in tune with average "free lunch" voters than we are. A Borrow And Spend Government always wins at the ballot box because Americans are a Borrow and Spend people.
But the election of 2006 hasn't been held yet. Friends who go door to door in districts currently represented by Republicans find there are those at the door saying "Thank heavens someone is running against the incumbent!".
If Brading and Caudle win, that would knock out Minnis and Scott. More importantly, the majority is currently 33. All things being equal, if 3 Marion/Polk County Dems. beat GOP incumbents, it becomes a split House. After all, there were 7 House races last time decided by less than 1000 votes, incl. Jean Cowan's district where the GOP had to plead with Alan Brown not to retire because no one else could beat Jean.
Don't go making assumptions about "voters" you haven't talked with personally. I hear intelligent comments about how the kicker is really a dumb idea in my neighborhood even though we have been represented by a Republican for years. We have some high quality candidates down here, not the least of which is Chuck Lee who could very possibly defeat Kim Thatcher (CSE-25) who rode into office as a Measure 30 person. If Republicans aren't worried, why the lawn sign theft? (Go to http://www.charleslee2006.com/ and click on NEWS if the story is not on the home page.)
I just don't think this will be a status quo election.
No matter what happens with Westlund, if the excesses of Minnis and Scott mobilize voters, the House could turn Dem.
8:10 p.m.
Jun 13, '06
I think some people on here underestimate the amount of control Minnis has over her own caucus. To some extent, Minnis CAN control her party because she is the majority leader. Certainly, my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that anyone who wants to send a bill for consideration has to go through Minnis.
People can say Westlund stood up against Minnis all they want, but in the end she alone can kill any bill.
Everytime anything is said about Westlund it seems one of his resident apologists comes on the scene to do spin control.
Jun 13, '06
Steve,
You seem to be rather cynical in this discussion. But I think you may have something there. It's all about "bread and circuses".
Jun 14, '06
Rest assured, I am not so naive anymore. I know things get done down in the capitol, I had the opportunity to see it first hand a few times last year.
Those words weren't to grind some sort of "the legislature doesn't do jack" axe, but rather to show that that's what the common misconception is. It's what is in the Oregonian everyday. Like I said, I know better now. But that's the way average Oregonians feel, and that's why Westlund has appeal to average Oregonians.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Jun 14, '06
LT, that's not the premise at all. I'm simply saying that staking your campaign on the fact that you're different than everyone else and then claiming that will help you get things done in a divided legislature is a false notion. You pointed out yourself what happened when Westlund went against the grain, he lost his position of power. His independence doesn't necessarily translate to his getting things done. And that doesn't mean I like the fact or agree with it.
I in no way agree with the close-room decision making that was so prominent last session, but Westlund's burning bridges to win votes isn't going to make that stop.
I also think you're right about the Dean comment you made. Oregon politicians are forgeting areas outside the I-5 corridor much likes Dems forget the South and Republicans forget the Northeast, which, I believe, is to play a large part in the deep political divisions that afflict our nation (and our state) right now. If Westlund plays any part in changing that trend, the man certainly has my respect for that.
Jeff, how did you get me being sponsor of tyranny from any of that?
Jun 15, '06
Jesse- Your post was original, articulate and intelligent. And your premise was right on the money, as it were.
My Oregon experience is limited, but I'm startled by how many people in this state believe that there's a free lunch out there. A couple of months ago the Oregroanian's architecture critic wrote a column on the costs of the Tram, quoting a Portland historian from the first third of the 20th Century. In effect he said, "Portlanders have always wanted to sail First Cabin but to pay Steerage fares." It certainly applies to a majority of Oregon voters today.
<h2>I look forward to seeing more from you on these pages, and perhaps less from some of the chronic responders who want to parse every paragraph in search of a point of rebuttal.</h2>