Via Negativa endorsement: kiss of death?

The editor of Via Negativa would like to announce his official endorsements of candidates in the 2006 U.S. general election — which, in case you’ve been living under a rock, is tomorrow.

True, Via Negativa is not a political blog. We have few readers in Central Pennsylvania, and quite likely none of them are going to be influenced by what we have to say about politics. At least, we sincerely hope not! But who can resist the temptation to speak of himself in the first person plural and wax self-important on the burning issues of the day? Political endorsements by the editors of small-town newspapers are an endearing and enduring form of all-American entertainment, a chance for the editors to show that despite their paper’s general focus on high school football scores and drunk driving accidents, they are high-minded public citizens with a deep commitment to, you know, voting and stuff. We would like to pay homage to that tradition in our own, small way.

  • U.S. Senate – None of the Above
  • Unlike the main-party candidates, None is not an anti-choice candidate who supports capital punishment and the invasion of Iraq and opposes an Iraq withdrawal policy. While we acknowledge that Bob Casey, Junior (D) would make a more tolerable — or at least less embarrassing — senator than Rick Santorum (R), and while we admit to being somewhat influenced by the endorsement of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club, of which we are a member, we are annoyed and offended by the cynicism of Democratic Party operatives and their allies in putting forward such an anti-progressive candidate solely because he is likely to kick Santorum’s weasely little ass win.

    Please note that None of the Above is a write-in candidate. Voters in Blair County might want to familiarize themselves with the proper procedure for write-ins on the new ESlate voting machines — check out the nifty online demonstration. Alternatively, you could vote for one of the third party whack-jobs whose names will undoubtedly be on the ballot, but we can’t be bothered to research any of them, because let’s face it, none of them stands a chance.

    Alert readers may observe at this point that None of the Above doesn’t stand much of a chance, either. However, a vote for None is not a vote for a candidate or a party, but a vote for a principle. Hell, more than a principle: a value. We’re strictly “values voters” here, you know, and we believe in freedom! In particular, we believe that people who want to vote against a given candidate or slate of candidates should have the freedom to do so, without the obnoxious necessity of expressing a positive choice. We support a nationwide re-jiggering of the electoral process to make None of the Above a valid option in every race at every level, from President to Dogcatcher. If None should win over half of the votes cast in a given race, a new election would have to be held with all new candidates. We believe that such a re-jiggering would inspire more people to register and vote, especially in the elusive, toxically cynical 35-and-under demographic. Even better, it would inspire a healthy fear among candidates, who would suddenly be faced with the prospect of losing to Nobody.

  • U.S. House of Representatives, Pennsylvania 9th District – Tony Barr
  • We like Tony Barr (D), and not just because he is other-than-Shuster. (We have written about the corruption of the Shuster political dynasty here in the past.) Barr — unlike Casey, for example — has more things going for him as an environmental candidate than simply a pledge not to support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and a vague set of promises to advocate for renewable energy. Barr has specific proposals that would actually result in a large and fairly immediate reduction in fossil fuel use if implemented, such as bringing back the goddamned railroads.

    Well, that’s not quite how the Barr campaign phrases it:

    To protect our environment, our economy, and our national security, we have to change our priorities. We are a petroleum dependent society facing a rapid reduction in petroleum availability. The result will be fuel scarcity and escalating prices, not just for travel, but for goods and services. Petroleum dependence has the potential to destabilize our economy. We can’t continue to depend on cars to get us everywhere.

    A critical piece of the solution to our problems is public transportation, and in particular, rebuilding our derelict rail and light rail systems. It currently takes 7½ hours to travel by train between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. A modern bullet train could make the journey in about two. Absence of rail transport forces us to use cars, which burn far too much fuel, or fly, with flights becoming costlier and less frequent every day. Trains are cleaner and more fuel efficient than auto-mobiles and airplanes. They emit fewer volatile organic compounds and carbon dioxide than cars and planes, and fewer nitrous oxides than cars. Per ton-mile, studies show that a freight train uses between one-third and one-ninth as much fuel as trucks. Trains can move a ton of freight (or passengers) 410 miles on a gallon of diesel. While trucks will always be needed for local delivery, for transport across long distances, we must start moving to rail.

    In addition to its other benefits, rebuilding our rail system will provide work for years to come, help to revive Pennsylvania’s steel industry, alleviate city and highway traffic congestion, reduce accidents, and increase the speed of freight delivery. And if we reduce the need to import fuel from other countries, we can increase our national security by disengaging ourselves from regimes with poor human rights practices that give rise to terrorism.

    Barr has also staked out shockingly non-vague positions in a number of other areas. He supports: public financing of all campaigns for Federal office; higher taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals; better funding for Head Start and other public education programs; a single-payer, universal health care system; a living wage; better funding for veterans’ hospitals; reproductive rights for women; and the return of paper ballots in every election. You may not agree with all these proposals, but you have to admire the guy for sticking his neck out, especially in such a conservative district. We like the fact that he’s a special education teacher, which suggests that, if elected, he may have a pretty good idea how to get along with his colleagues across the aisle. And finally, Barr is a hunter and gun owner, so we don’t think he’ll try to take our guns away. We like guns.

  • Pennsylvania Senate District 30 – John Eichelberger
  • Having just endorsed a progressive Democrat, we feel compelled to endorse a conservative Republican to demonstrate that fairness and balance for which we are legendary. We like Eichelberger in part because he beat the incumbent, Robert C. Jubelirer — the most powerful member of the State Assembly — in last spring’s primary, capitalizing on voter anger at the notorious Pennsylvania pay raise scandal. We find most of Eichelberger’s positions on social issues odious, but as you may have gathered, the environment is our number-one issue. We like the fact that Eichelberger cared enough about the environmental vote to show up at our local Audubon chapter’s annual banquet last spring and bore us nearly to tears with a rambling, poorly delivered, semi-coherent speech. We feel that his lack of charisma and Pillsbury DoughBoy appearance are positive attributes for any candidate for higher office. He does not strike us as a child molester or sociopath.

    Eichelberger’s support for the environment as a Blair County Commissioner went beyond rhetoric. I asked an environmental activist friend who is intimately involved with local politics for his assessment of how Eichelberger measures up against his Democratic Party opponent, Greg Morris. He wrote,

    I am voting for Eichelberger (R) because he has a great record of
    supporting land acquisition at Fort Roberdeau County Park ($800,000 for the purchase of an additional ~150 acres) and he’s been a faithful backer of the Blair County Conservation District. He’s also a critic of the financial incentives given to industrial windplant developers.

    Morris (D) specializes in purchasing land that is subject to regulatory hurdles (e.g.: wetlands and steep slopes) cheaply and then developing them. At his fundraising dinner a month ago he boasted that he’s restored more wetlands than any other developer in PA. That’s because he’s destroyed more original wetlands than any other developer in PA.

    Morris is personally responsible for devastating hundreds of acres of prime, interior forest habitat along the very ridge we live on (Brush Mountain), as the lead developer of the Logan Town Center, an unneeded shopping center. Further, he brags about his conservative views and says, quite correctly, that he is a Republican in all but name. So it’s not as if he presents liberal voters with much of a choice.

    We thought about endorsing None of the Above for this seat, but remembered how pivotal Senator Jubelirer’s support for the Logan Town Center was in over-riding the state Department of Environmental Protection functionaries who wanted to deny Morris the permit to destroy wetlands in that instance. State senators don’t have much influence on the war in Iraq, but they can have a lot of influence on the war against nature. If Eichelberger’s record is any guide, he may be able to stand up against the “property rights” fanatics and work for open space protection and comprehensive land use planning at the state level.

    In general, we believe strongly that the Republican Party needs to recover its once-strong support for conservation. It’s extremely unhealthy — literally as well as figuratively — for one party to have a virtual lock on the environment. Democratic politicians have little incentive to do more than make vague promises on most environmental issues as long as they think tree-huggers like us will vote for a Democrat over a Republican no matter what. So that’s why we are going to hold our nose and vote for the Pillsbury DoughBoy tomorrow. We’re sure his campaign will be happy to collect this ringing endorsement, which could well provide that extra little nudge to put him over the top. Then, power and influence will be ours!

    That’s all the endorsements we have time or stomach for today. We do, however, have one additional suggestion for voters all across this great, freedom-loving land: take off work tomorrow to vote. In many parts of the country, polling places close long before working people can get to them, so if you want to cast a ballot, you may have little choice but to take the morning off. A general strike might convince the next Congress to make Election Day a national holiday, as it is in virtually every other so-called democracy in the world. Only when that happens will we at Via Negativa feel compelled to take all this voting stuff seriously.

    Now, about that last football game

    UPDATE: We have just been informed that the Pennsylvania governorship is also in play this election. Oops, right! We knew that. A football star vs. a sports commentator. Wow. That’s a toughie.

    UPDATE #2: We have just been chided in the comments for not endorsing Richard Pombo’s challenger, Jerry McNerney, for the 11th District in California. Richard Pombo is an environmental disaster, a veritable walking Superfund site. If you happen to live in Pombo’s district, and you need help deciding whom to vote for, lord help you — we certainly can’t.

    8 Replies to “Via Negativa endorsement: kiss of death?”

    1. Well, well, well. It is indeed endorsement time. Except here at the portly Standard-Speaker where editorials from places such as Des Moines are used routinely in order to fill up the so-called editorial page. Local rags ought to be taking the lead in stirring debate. And that starts with hard-hitting local editorials. Well not today, anyway.
      I’ll be posting my endorsements this evening (too late, I realize, to have a major impact on voters’ decisions) from home.
      But let me say this about your picks:
      Tony Barr. From your description, he sounds like Carl Hiaasen’s “Skink.” And we know what happened to that guy.
      Bill Shuster Jr. I’ve editorialized about Shyster senior, as you know. But not his son. I guess I would only mention that at least with Junior we know what make and model of cars not to buy.
      Bob Casey Jr. Wishy, washy Casey. I understand your endorsement of None of the Above. But as you note, None has no chance in hell of emerging victorious. So once again we’re stuck with voting for a guy who’s chief claim to fame is he AIN’T Santorum.
      Lynn Swann or Fast Eddie. It’s too bad Fast Eddie isn’t a former actor. I’d vote for him without hestitation. I dislike Rendell immensely. 1. His Department of Environmental Protection has demonstrated itself to be nothing more than an extension of industry boosters — a sort of statewide chamber of commerce. 2. He could’ve stopped that damn I-99 with one phone call. He didn’t. 3. Where is the truly visionary conservation platform in the world of Rendell?
      But he ain’t a Republican whore. So he again gits my vote.
      On the national side, where’s your analysis of the Pombo-McNerney race? Meester Pombo is the arch enemy of real people everywhere. I hope you reconsider and issue a last-minute endorsement of McNerney. It could help put him over the top, after all.

    2. Thanks, Alan. It’s good to get a newspaper reporter’s thoughts on this. I guess I agree about you on Rendell – Swann actively refused to take positions on most environmental issues, which struck me as ominous. I’ll look forward to seeing your own slate of endorsements.

    3. hahaha… well, yes … I HAVE been living under a rock and just this evening peered out … to talk to a friend in Chicago about honesty and integrity in the men of office and how hard I find to vote because of my concerns regarding the above two characteristics.

    4. Well, as I see it, there are basic problems with a system like ours that doesn’t automatically disqualify for higher office anyone who badly wants the job. The system selects for shallow egomaniacs.

    5. Jose Saramago’s newest novel, Seeing, begins with the citizens of a city nearly all casting blank ballots in their election. They don’t abstain from voting. They simply submit empty ballots. They choose the None of the Above option. The story doesn’t end well.

    6. I wonder how one would submit a blank ballot on an electronic voting machine?

      Speaking of electronic voting machines and the associated paranoia, my dad mentioned he heard that the state of Florida was trying to restrict exit pollers’ access to voters. Wonder why they’d want to do that?

    Leave a Reply

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.