The Malibu City Council will spend $10,000 for an Ethics Watchdog, but even if this dog hunts, is that a good thing? The Malibu Times and the Surfside News perform this very task weekly, year in, year out. The vision of hired guns, tutoring Malibu voters (and candidates for council) on campaign ethics, in their own election campaigns, strikes me as patronizing, at the least.
The ultimate moral center of gravity, in any town, must reside somewhere. Let it rest where it belongs, with the majority of the voters. Who better to judge “community values” and “proper conduct in elections” than the voters? The newspapers will do their job. Let the voters then do theirs, and punish the misbehaving rascals among us at the polls.
Research makes it clear: once in power, the “representative of the people” forgets his benefactor, save for returning her phone call, or making a few minutes time available to hear his views. Legendary for their perceived benefits, the truth is that endorsements, and money return next to nothing, once the candidate morphs into an office holder. The political appointment, an early President wisely observed, creates 100 enemies, and one ingrate.
An “ethics watchdog” offends, in Malibu, because the mere specter of such an official guarantees that the campaign will not be the slugfest that it needs to be in order for the voters to make informed decisions. Such an office, such an officer, comes trailing clouds of intimidation. Let our elections be energized, ruckus-like affairs, and voters might actually turn out in numbers to vote. Over-regulate the candidates and the voters, and the blood drains from politics. If it’s not a body-contact sport, it cannot fulfill its proper function in a democracy. We’d be wise to let the process be rude, direct, and aggressive, for only then can the voter discern character, integrity and honor. We need to observe them in battle, naked, unprepared, and under pressure. Prettify the process, and we conceal the characters of our candidates.
James Platler