A Campaign in the You-Know-Where

#134, January 21, 2004

 

Has there ever been a more interesting time in the world of politics? Perhaps. Can anyone afford to not pay attention? No.

 

Clark Thompson, future Councilman. Now what’s wrong with that? I didn’t vote for him for Mayor, I voted (and campaigned) for David Glass, who won by a narrow margin. But departing Council Member Keith Canevaro wants Clark to replace him. Guess what. I didn’t vote for Keith, either, I voted (and campaigned) for Matt Maguire, who lost to Keith by a wide margin. Lost, perhaps in part, due to the ugliest hit piece of campaign literature in Petaluma history. So, you wouldn’t expect me give up fighting, turn on Fox News, and love Big Brother.

 

No, of course not. But I’m not as disturbed as some by Clark’s potential appointment. First, it’s hard to see this as an act of cronyism. Clark is not an aspiring political newcomer, looking for a short-cut onto the Council, or a washed-up serial politician trying to revive his career. If fact, I’m surprised he’s willing to go back into that swamp. I seriously doubt you’d find anyone nearly as experienced as Clark who is *less* likely to run again after Keith returns (as we pray he does.)

 

True, Clark can be a bit cranky up on the dais, but he’s not the first or the last to do so. Patty Hilligoss (may she rest in peace), Clark, David…all mayors in my political memory have had their bouts of fussiness. I trust Clark and David would work on their cool, and that Pam and the Mikes can help everyone keep it.

 

But if all’s fair in love, war, and municipal politics, where is it written that we must we honor Keith’s wishes. Well, as far as I can see, nowhere. Supporting our troops doesn’t mean we give them license to more votes than one. Yet, whatever you may think of Keith, or his Council campaign or his local political views, he *was* elected by a vote of the people, not selected in some corrupt proceeding. While we do need to revive the City’s Campaign Finance Reform, now is not the time or place to attempt to undo Keith’s election. And since Keith cannot continue in office, who but Keith is better qualified to recommend a replacement? Who is better qualified to judge whose views best reflect his own, whose views best reflect the reasons for which Keith feels he was elected. The Council is not bound by his recommendation, but it needs a good reason to not follow it.

 

I must confess I have a bias. I’ve been working with Keith on the Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee for nearly a year, and was pleasantly surprised at his enthusiasm for challenging developers’ pedestrian-unfriendly plans, for his can-do attitude toward the development of new bike trails, and for his overall professional and forthright approach to problems. He turned out not to be a flag-waving pothole-paving ideologue. I like him, and I’ll miss him.

 

Which brings me to a topic that launched this column 266 weeks ago: when ill-will has you put people in category cages, slap labels on them, and treat them as enemies, you lessen the likelihood that they will stray from the hostile identity you’ve given them. This seems especially true in local politics, where the interactions are so often face-to-face. I don’t contend that all Council Members are the same. But they’re not as far apart as we might make it seem.

 

Once again, it’s an election year, a big one, maybe the biggest. It seems we’ve entered an era when the lie and the smear, amplified to a deafening volume by the concentration of wealth, threaten to destroy our still-fragile experiment in democracy. We are called to action, to speak the truth with strength and good will. Good luck.