There’s More To Democracy Than Get Out The Vote

            With the midterm election coming up in a week, local matters. In fact, local IS the democracy that is touted as so valuable by those involved. In Granville there is a school tax on the ballot since all such taxes must be approved by the constituents of the district. Even though the school board is likewise elected to office by self same constituents, it lacks the authority to pass a tax. This year a group, self identified as Granville Common Sense Coalition, has opposed the tax through various street signs, promotions and even paid advertisements in the Advocate (10-9-22) as well as the Sentinel (10-13-22). As pointed out by various Advocate reports covering this matter as well as columnists, and even a letter to the editor by the League of Women Voters, the GCSC’s anti tax advocacy is based on a lot of lies, fabrications and misinformation. Just another case of “both side-ism” in today’s news media coverage of democracy in action? There is a subtle difference at play here. Once discerned, it becomes quite glaring. The rebuttals to the GCSC’s rationale are all authored by identifiable individuals. Even the League lists the members co-signing the letter, the reporters’ inquiry names election officials interviewed, the columnist signs his opinion, etc. As of this writing, no one at the Advocate has identified any member of the Granville Common Sense Coalition. Who are these people? After the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling it is improper to ask such a question as it is money that is speaking. Money is pretty much indistinguishable (a dollar is a dollar, any dollar). In this case it is dark money and purposefully anonymous at that. True, at the time of the founding of the republic, anonymity with regard to politically held views was accepted as part of the exchange of enlightenment era ideas made possible by the secular use of the printing press under the rule of a totalitarian monarchy. Although anonymous publications did much to foster the American revolution, the new constitution addressed the downside of anonymity (lies, misinformation, the stoking of chaos). The First Amendment protected individual speech, worship, etc. Anonymity has no such guarantee. Which brings us to the present day political quandary. How responsible is the Advocate (or any other platform like Fox News, Twitter, Meta, etc.) for the anonymous dissemination of lies, misinformation and the sowing of chaos? The Advocate has a very strict and specific no anonymous letter to the editor policy yet their coverage, and ads, have disseminated the GCSC’s outlook marvelously well (reminding one of our former president’s penchant that “any news coverage is good news”). Yet the Advocate ostensibly is about the facts, and the fact is the lie is out there and spreading its corrosive effects. (Analysis has just now dabbled in both side-ism) Shouldn’t the Advocate’s strict policy of no anonymous letters extend to its advertising or news coverage? (or any other platform at that?) Giving lip service to the First Amendment speech rights and liabilities while promoting the profit to be made off anonymous dark money sources is disingenuous (Gannett’s fearless investigative reporters can’t, or won’t, identify the make up of the GCSC).  There’s more to promoting democracy than get out the vote. There’s the chore of everyday living  in one.

Advertisement

Welcome The Immigrant

            The upcoming midterm elections are deemed significant, or at least as significant as any, by national politicians, pundits and pollsters. Analysis finds it ironic how local politicians choose to remain silent on the matter. A recent AP article on Pa. politics made the astute, and ubiquitous, observation that the midterm elections are “about the high price of everything, about finding workers and good paying jobs, about the culture wars.” Analysis finds the first of that list to be code for inflation, and the last of the list to be a polite way of saying politics after the rise of Donald Trump. Put simply, inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. Analysis finds it obvious that no election, no matter the outcome, will solve the culture wars. The last one didn’t so why should we believe the next one will? Analysis finds the nebulous middle term to be the most incongruous. For all it is worth “finding workers and good paying jobs” could be used during any election for the last 75 years. Funny it is used so much today. The current national unemployment rate is 3.7%. The Ohio rate is 4% while the unemployment rate for Licking County is that of the nation – 3.7%. These are numbers that 50 years ago would have been considered “full employment”, meaning all those able and willing to work would have a job. So why is “finding workers and good paying jobs” an election year, or any other year, issue? It’s obvious that the very nature of capitalism is that it takes money to make money. And if you don’t have any money, you sell your labor. In a capitalist democracy, anyone can open a business. There is nothing to prevent the new business owner from laboring themselves on the job they have created as a self employed business. But capitalism is about using money, to make money. So the new business owner seeks to find individuals who can’t help but sell their labor to work for them, to make the business function. The old saw was that in every successful business there is eventually a spouse or offspring found working in a back room because they are “family” (for no remittance). Americans have no difficulty understanding the “high price of everything” yet they see the lack of workers and good paying jobs as somehow a 1930’s Depression era issue. It is not. It is a case of job inflation – too many employers chasing after too few workers, who have only their labor to sell. In Ohio “Jobs!” has been a political rainbow stew since the author of the Kent State massacre originated it (galloping Governor Jim Rhodes). The Intel plant isn’t being built in Monroe County (which has a 10.6% unemployment rate). Rather, it is appearing in a county that matches the national rate of unemployment. With the spin off industries and support businesses that accompany such growth, there will be a lot of “entrepreneurs” looking for someone else to labor for them so that they might become successful capitalists. Although this same phenomena is taking place all over the US, hence the 3.7% rate, it is assumed that these folks will just magically appear to fill these jobs, trained or not. Job inflation – too many employers chasing after too few workers – is a real issue. But the solution presented by some, mostly the GOP, is not a solution at all, but rather an aggravation of an existing unsustainable condition. Getting baby boomers to fill these jobs by securing the borders is totally unsustainable. At some point, sooner than later, the only sustainable solution is to welcome the immigrant.