With midterm elections looming, I should be deep into unraveling the language of propositions and ballot measures, most of which are creative funding efforts for schools, parks, transportation and other projects that should be funded by our taxes but aren’t.
First of all, midterm elections are supposed to be local, focusing on individual candidates, their records and ideas. This year, however, it seems more like a referendum on the Bush administration: bungled diplomacy, predictable sectarian violence (civil war) in Iraq, a missed opportunity to bring immigration law in line with reality and, of course, the economy, stupid.
Secondly, it’s the continued subversion of language to define failed policies. And we can thank Karl Rove for much of this. “Stay the Course,” the Bush mantra of the last three years, may never again pass the lips of our president. Aw, shucks, it was almost impossible to mispronounce.
We’re now told that staying the course was never part of the administration’s policy for Iraq. Wait a minute. What about all those sound bites, gleefully rerun on “The Daily Show” with dates superimposed, where Bush says over and over that he’s determined to, you know, “Stay the Course.” To not “Stay the Course” is, naturally, to “Cut and Run.” Like the Flip Flops of 2004, “Cut and Run,” is losing its place as the catch phrase for Democratic opposition to the war. Instead, we may see a “change in tactics” but not in strategy. Strategy may not be called into question lest the onus fall on poor Rummy, who clings to his post by his own peculiar abuse of the language. Answer a question with five questions. Follow-up question at a Rumsfeld press briefing: What did he say? Obfuscation as high art, magically turned to camp on late night TV.
To avoid the appearance of a strategic U-turn, we’re told some “tactics” are changing at the request of The Generals. We’ll stand down when they (the Iraqis) stand up, has morphed into a “Time Line,” which Iraqi President Maliki seems to resist. Can’t we just hear the jargon jockeys saying, “If Time Lines sound too restrictive, we’ll call them Benchmarks.” That should confuse the hell out of everybody. No way is it a timetable for withdrawal, er, redeployment, of troops and definitely not “Cut and Run.”
Last time I looked, benchmark was defined as a surveyor’s mark made on a permanent landmark of known position and altitude, a reference point in determining other altitudes. Or a measure of quality or value, an artisan’s mark, like Paul Revere’s engraving on the bottom of a silver bowl, bench being short for workbench. Oh, well, maybe it’s a distinction without a difference.
While many Republican candidates are distancing themselves from the president, Rove is visiting their districts, smiling, pumping hands and kissing babies while pouring money into tasteless attack ads smearing their opponents. If Bush thought being president was hard work with unstinting support from the House and Senate, he could be truly miserable with even a semblance of balance in the legislative branch.
Even here in California, get-out-the-vote volunteers keep the phones ringing constantly. While I might love to have an actual conversation on the issues with a live body, recorded messages get the silent hang up I once reserved for telemarketers.
But if I’m going to vote in California, I feel I should try to understand all the initiatives. The best way to do that is to hit the mute button. Ads that begin with voice-overs by out-of-work actors dramatizing what will happen if proposition whatever passes are a sick joke with no basis in fact. So why listen.
Instead, I’m turning to the organizations I trust for their recommendations. Since my foremost desire is to save the planet from air and water pollution, I check the Web site of the League of Conservation Voters, which favors a Yes vote on Prop. 1B, 1C, 84 and 87; and a No vote on Prop. 90. The organization doesn’t weigh in on issues unrelated to the environment but if you type in your zip code, it lists the candidates, and their parties, for your district.
While I would normally try to find out everything possible about individual candidates for office, my vote this year would go to any Democrat running for the House, because I feel it’s essential to restore a balance of power in Washington.
The state races are more like musical chairs. If name recognition is the name of the game, we’ll see some major job swapping. New titles on old faces. Maybe Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, Insurance Commissioner Cruz Bustamante, Treasurer Bill Lockyer and Attorney General Jerry Brown. Yes, that Jerry Brown, once dubbed Gov. Moonbeam by Chicago columnist Mike Royko. Hey, I’d vote for him. He’s the least likely candidate to be influenced by special interests, to be corrupted by power (having eschewed the trappings of wealth and power as governor), least likely to be accused of sending explicit e-mails to teen-aged boys.
I just wish I could vote in Tracy to deny Rep. Richard Pombo a return to Capitol Hill, where he would continue his obscene assault on our environment.