It was never clear to me whether Richard Coltharp’s column in The Las Cruces Bulletin was the paper’s official position or his personal opinion; both may be the answer. Since his departure a few years ago, this weekly paper has had no editorials expressing its official opinions. The Las Cruces Sun-News had given up such editorials many years before. Something is lost when local papers, weekly or daily, do not address issues important to the community from the perspective of those presumably better informed than most citizens.
What we have instead is an assortment of columnists and commentators, now known as “Guest Columnists.” Regulars are Peter Goodman, who writes for the Sun News and speaks on KRWG and KTAL; Walt Rubel, who writes for the Bulletin and speaks on KTAL; and, more recently, Shawna Pfeiffer, who also writes for the Bulletin. There are others, I am sure, but they are unknown to me. Goodman and Rubel are old-timers with a good deal of information as the basis of their opinions; we know them as left-of-center on most issues. Pfeiffer is a newcomer with more assertions than support; she is less well known as way-right on issues, with a strong commitment to the uniformed police (I do not know if she supports disguised ICE agents).
I want to introduce her by considering her 27 June column, “Changing our political culture,” a brash assertion of unsupported generalities and ill-considered nostrums. Its first sentence sets the standard: “The very best leaders are usually those who never sought out the role.” The word “usually” gives the sentence a look as if it has some factual basis. No examples or facts follow. Instead, two stand-alone phrases suggest her ideals of such leaders: “Service without seeking fame. Action without craving attention.” Again, no examples or facts follow. A reader might imagine that the best leaders just wander in off the street and find themselves elected governors or presidents. The rest of the paragraph digresses about the necessity of new officeholders to compromise themselves to align themselves with their parties, with the result that moderates and the middle ground desired by most Americans are lost. So much for the “very best leaders.”
After more digressive writing about political squabbling and leaders who recognize their constituents comes a paragraph on the kind of people, presumably political leaders, needed in their communities:
We need people in our community who have run businesses, who have raised children, who have worked a 24-hour shift, who have been homeless and worked their way out of it, who have cared for an ailing family member, who have built something with their hands, who have been spanked as a child, who have fired an employee, who have worked in a service industry, who have participated in a neighborhood watch program, who aren’t afraid to ask if the status quo is really the right way to do something. We need people who aren’t consumed by hubris, who want to see change that isn’t currently being realized, who agonize over the decision to run, but who love their community more than the anxiety they feel throwing their name in the hat.
We already have such people in our community. Some run for office; others do not. But Ms. Pheiffer’s list is interesting for the people it includes and those it excludes. It includes people “who have run a business” or “fired an employee.” But such people are not necessarily leaders; they are bosses exercising power over others whose presence on the premises is paid for. It excludes those who have organized other workers of “you’re fired” bosses to get better working conditions and better wages for rank-and-file employees. Such people are leaders.
To define the kind of people whom we need as political leaders in a changed political culture requires a definition of leadership, not a list of types of personnel and activities which do not suggest leadership; and a description of the conditions and circumstances to establish a context for that leadership.
One thing irksome about Ms. Pfeiffer’s notion of these people as leaders is the implied myth of the “rugged individual,” who turns out to be an ordinary person after all (every American is a hero or heroine in waiting). Apparently, Ms. Pfeiffer has been watching reruns of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (or pre-release screenings of “Mr. Trump Goes to Washington”). But I do not want “leaders” who tout their status as outsiders as a qualification for making national policy or who think that their ignorance gives them a fresh perspective on the issues at hand.
Another thing irksome is the anti-intellectualism implied by Ms. Pfeiffer’s list, which includes no one with expertise in anything: doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, among many kinds of knowledgeable people. Some experts might qualify if they “have been spanked as a child,” not because they have expertise. I can see their bumper stickers now: “Vote for [candidate’s name]; I got spanked.”
Ms. Pfeiffer favors shaking things up, challenging the status quo, and pushing change not yet realized as if they are good in themselves, without any reason(s) for doing them. Her shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach is not a change in the political culture; it is part of the culture which she claims to want to change. Take shaking things up: All things, some things, a few things? Which ones? Why? What are the results, and are they an improvement on what was shaken up? Take challenging the status quo: Why? What is wrong with it? With what results? Take “change that isn’t currently being realized.” What change? Why is it not being realized? These questions are obvious ones, but Ms. Pfeiffer is unaware that her discussion prompts them and that she needs to anticipate and answer them.
I have four questions of my own. Has Ms. Pfeiffer changed her mind and now approves of Realize Las Cruces? In the Trump Era, does she want a leader who envisions a country realizing change by cleansing it of immigrants, Muslims, Jews, etc., with a left-in-place hegemony of white, male Christians? What is behind this blank-check approach to change? How does this anti-establishment posture square with her unqualified defense of and dedication to the police?
The questions other than mine indicate the mindlessness of her column, which no one should take seriously. This column among her others indicates that the Bulletin has no consistent standard of editorial merit. At least, it has Rubel, and the Sun-News has Goodman. Both papers need more thoughtful guest columnists.
No comments:
Post a Comment