Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in May 2021

An Appetite for Argument

meador

I was horrified this week to discover I hadn’t followed my own advice. It wasn’t the big one, mind you. I spent two decades preaching the unifying power of food and drink because what can spark a shared passion better than a magnificent meal accompanied by a favorite adult beverage? This advice I could never forget — I carry around a permanent reminder in the form of my belly. My job, it seems, sent me to the big-and-tall shop as penance.

No, the advice I forgot was the one about divorcing myself from my own perspective long enough to glimpse the contrasting perspective of someone else. This quiet task is immensely useful in understanding how other people think. More subtly but probably no less importantly, divorcing myself from my own perspective allows me to get an idea how I, myself, am perceived by others. Understanding the perceptions of others — both universal and personal — is crucial for any opinion writer. Of course, that’s exactly the bit I’d forgotten.

People who know me are aware I tend to play well with others — I have friends from one side of the political spectrum to the other. I am a moderate Republican, a political centrist, a person who is about one-third liberal Democrat, one-third conservative Republican and one-third Libertarian, if you parsed me. In person, people tend to like me, although I can sometimes tire people out. Certain rigidly unimaginative people find my humor inappropriate or — gasp! — immature.

Everyone knows I have become everything I ever mocked — I’ve joked about it even though it’s hardly hyperbole. But I believed I was safe writing commentary. I was convinced I was passionately writing about causes close to me and people I love, fighting the good fight, perched on the same latter-day moral high ground everyone else claims to hold, too. In my head anyway, that’s what I was doing. I might be a little grouchy from time to time but my favorite political writers have always cultivated a little curmudgeonliness so why not me?

Then a friend who doesn’t really know me all that well stumbled on some of my political commentary on her way to find a humor piece I’d written. (Yes, I’ve been known to write humor, too. Shut up.)

It took less than two minutes for me to divorce myself from my oblivious perspective and see that my collection of opinion manifestos painted a decidedly unflattering picture for those who do not know me well. As a series of angry essays flashed before my eyes, I was horrified to realize I was one of those ranting cranks I frequently decry. I could almost feel the color drain from my face as I was forced to admit I was a raving lunatic.

It seems the journey from celebrator of the rich food and beverage scene to the wasteland of political controversy reduced me to an overfed complainer who could regurgitate vitriol faster than you could say Pinot Evil. Think Mr. Creosote from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life only without the tuxedo. Or the bucket. Or even the cleaning woman.

It doesn’t help that a pandemic robbed me of material and a platform from which to broadcast it. And to be fair, all of this is not entirely my fault, considering I can’t use my favorite writing tool.

For 20 years, I dutifully described local cuisine, wine and beer in print. I also wrote many dozens of committee testimonies supporting bills before the Oregon Legislature. In addition, I authored hundreds of business profiles for merchants and professionals all over the region. Through it all, I used my lifetime of collected anecdotes to help tell many of these stories, finding that humor could capture an audience far better than dry narrative, even in legislative testimony. In the dining and drink magazines on which I worked, I used a great deal of humor to emphasize the thousands of traits or tastes we have in common, hopefully discouraging us from focusing mostly on the half-dozen issues about which we disagree. Whether you liked what I wrote or not, you could never call it divisive or controversial.

Then COVID came along and took my livelihood along with all the disinfectant spray and toilet paper. Food and wine writer, restaurant reviewer, wine columnist, brew taster, editor-in-chief of a statewide beer magazine, managing editor of an upscale regional dining and spirits magazine: those titles meant nothing when all the restaurants were shut down, many never to open again. If I can’t write about food, I reasoned, I might as well go on a diet and write about political topics. Besides, I didn’t have any toilet paper so it was a practical decision, too.

Just one problem: last time I wrote about politics, we all liked each other so I could use humor liberally as I weighed in on the topics of the day. I knew instinctively that humor would be off the table this time, considering that we all hate each other now and no one finds anything remotely funny. I never considered that passion untempered by levity could sound dangerously close to the timbre of a Goebbels speech. Without humor, all textual communications tend to be interpreted somewhat more gravely than they were intended, anyway. Blithely unaware, I became like one of those perpetual letters-to-the-editor cranks who pepper the newspaper with complaints. Even a few people who agreed with me could see that crazy glint in my eye.

Dang. Now what was I supposed to do?

Trying to temper a political rant with humor won’t work — aside from the aforementioned humor deficit in which everyone seems to be wallowing, some of my current topics simply aren’t anything to joke at or around. For a variety of reasons, my days covering food and drink are gone. This means I’m stuck sharing my opinion on other stuff, like politics. (Trust me, you don’t want to hear my opinion on things like celebrities, mountain climbing or freeway driving in Oregon.)

If I can’t weigh in on the big political topics in a humorous or lighthearted fashion, then I must sprinkle my rants with pieces on lesser subjects — essays that are self-deprecating, humorous, easy-going and maybe even a little insightful, just not mentioning things that make people hit each other or storm government buildings. I am confident I can do this. Well, maybe not the insightful part.

But let’s get serious for a moment, I promise not to rant.

Both sides of the aisle seem to be increasingly committed to self-segregation, a state indescribably unhealthy for a functional democracy. At some point over the last year or ten, we started believing the hyperbolic insults we were hurling at each other. Trash-talk has always been a part of politics yet I am deeply worried by the number of people who fervently believe all conservatives are ignorant racist bigots and all progressives are anti-American baby-killers — I hear both of these terms used earnestly and frequently by people I know and respect. I cannot overstate this: such pejorative terms should be used with great restraint, not as a careless and common part of our political discourse.

Since it has become fashionable by both red and blue Kool-Aid-drinkers to respond to calls for unity by piously stating, “you have no right to ask me to embrace someone who hates my very essence” or some such breathless overstatement, I’m not. I am not suggesting either side embrace, accept, enjoy or otherwise tolerate anyone who actually despises them. But all those folks who aren’t hateful bigots or pinko baby-killers are a different matter. Reasonable people who happen to disagree with you on an issue or two should be respected as fellow Americans who once upon a time didn’t mind that not everyone thought exactly the same way. Once we lose our uniquely American respect for our varied perspectives, we won’t get it back.

As I fumble about trying to regain any reputation but a crazy-angry one, it’s a good time to remember we need to cut each other a little slack in matters of opinion. This is exponentially more important now that we’ve become dependent on social media where the nuance of tone and subtle body language are lacking to temper our messages. Without these cues, I know I often come across more severely than I intended. No amount of emojis, LOLs, LOLOLs or LMAOs can convey whatever affable-but-probably-sarcastic temper lurked behind the words I wrote that wound up causing angst.

For me, food and booze are out while rice cakes and ranting are in. But I promise to be a little more understanding of whoever I’m criticizing and a bit less mocking in my critical tone. If I don’t, you can be sure I’ll remember my own advice to divorce myself from my own perspective long enough to determine you’re beginning to believe I’m a crank.

Oh, who am I kidding? You never stopped thinking that, did you?

Census and the session

hartgen

There’s plenty of not-so-good outcomes in the Idaho Legislative session as it ambles at a turtle’s pace across the highway of public discourse.
But first, some real accomplishments, in a major income tax reduction and rebate which will leave future dollars in many people’s pockets.

If one of the Legislature’s top jobs is to demonstrate fiscal control, the tax and rebate measure meets that standard. The rebate will return almost $220 million directly to taxpayers from their 2019 taxes, 9 percent of whatever was paid. Another $160 million will not be collected going forward by reducing tax rates and brackets. That’s $380 million more in people’s wallets.

You got a problem with that? Only if you’re a “spend it all” Democrat, all of whom voted “nay” on the tax cut measure. Sure, more could have been done on sales tax reduction and property taxes, but these weren’t in the final bill. There simply isn’t consensus on how to spread the cuts, to whom and in what amounts.

Opponents to the income tax cut were faced with voting for what was on the table and couldn’t accept that a big cut in income taxes was better than nothing at all. This goes beyond disagreement to simple, unreasoned opposition. Tax cuts? Nah, we Dems don’t want you to get that. The measure passed anyway.

Another real accomplishment was the Senate’s turn-down of an ill-conceived bill to limit the emergency powers of the governor to deal with a fast-moving COVID-19 pandemic. The Idaho Constitution gives broad power to the executive branch in handling emergencies, but unhappy rightist legislators saw this as “tyranny,” which it wasn’t.

The original bill passed by one vote in the Senate, 18-17, but Gov. Brad Little’s veto was upheld. Perhaps now some cooler heads will now prevail. A proposed constitutional amendment will be on the November, 2022 ballot; we’d guess the voters will reject it.

There was yet another plus in the session in that the debate over executive power showed clearly how a few rightists obstructionists in the House can tie up progress on many issues. The roundheads effectively held important measures hostage, such as agency and education budgets over simple pig-headedness and spite at the governor.

That may be the most important lesson: lack of willingness to work together now seems to be the rightists’ mantra. They dawdle, obstruct, object at every turn. This gets them media attention, but few positive results.

It wasn’t pretty, but it showed clearly what excessive discord and simple mean-spiritedness look like. Little’s measured and nimble, centrist leadership also was clear. He was never bombastic nor imprudent, unlike the House harpies who cackled at every turn. He deserves much credit here, though he’s unlikely to get any from the chicken-squawks. The session ought to wrap up this week, after months of twiddling and false piety by rightists. Not a day too soon.

On the 2020 census, Idaho had a 17.3 percent growth in the past decade, second only to Utah. Detailed numbers won’t be available ‘til the end of summer, but the growth of the state’s population was pretty much expected. Today, there are 1.839 million Idaho residents, up from 1.567 million in 2010 and nearly double the population a generation ago. Put another way, almost every second Idahoan wasn’t here in 1990. (US Census, 2020)

The state population surge wasn’t enough to gain a third congressional seat, but that was a long shot from the first estimates. Still, we got what we got, so there’s nothing to throw a fit over. Like a number of other states in the West and South, Idaho is attracting people who just want “out” of the many urban cesspool cities and high-tax places. So we’re being “discovered.” The empty “quarter” of the nation isn’t empty any longer.

The result is a booming Western economy, and a rapidly-expanding population. Given the alternatives, those are real plusses. People may not know the details of demographics, but they can easily figure out where the best places are to live. Idaho is clearly one such place.

Stephen Hartgen, Twin Falls, is a retired five-term Republican member of the Idaho House of Representatives, where he served as chairman of the Commerce & Human Resources Committee.  Previously, he was editor and publisher of The Times-News (1982-2005). He can be reached at Stephen_Hartgen@hotmail.com.

Whitewashing insurrection

johnson

By one account local and federal law enforcement authorities have arrested at least 444 people and charged them with crimes related to the violent January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the insurrectionist assault that left five dead and dozens, including many police officers, seriously injured.

One of the injured, Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police officer Michael Fanone, who was brutally assaulted by the mob, said this week he has had difficulty watching some Republican elected officials “whitewash” the outrageous episode over the last few weeks.

“I experienced the most brutal, savage hand-to-hand combat of my entire life. Let alone my policing career, which spans almost two decades,” Fanone told CNN. “It was nothing that I had ever thought would be a part of my law enforcement career, nor was I prepared to experience.”

One of the latest Northwesterners arrested was a 62-year-old Hillsboro, Oregon man who, among other things, is charged with striking police officers and breaking through barricades. Nearly a dozen residents of Idaho, Washington and Oregon have been charged in what has been described as the most documented crime in American history. Many of the insurrectionists took time out to snap selfies or willingly commented to journalists on camera.

Yet, even with nearly daily reports of more arrests the unprecedented events of January 6 feel more and more like ancient history rather than a still fresh wound. Part of the reason is our collective short national attention span, but an even more important factor about why this bloody riot is rapidly receding is what Officer Fanone identifies – a conservative whitewashing of events that took place in real time on live television over the space of several hours.

The man with the most to gain from erasing history – other than the guy who incited the riot – is, of course, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy of California. By continuing to downplay the events of January 6, McCarthy is hoping fellow Republicans can use their gerrymandered districts across the country to reclaim control of the House next year. McCarthy, as craven and vacuous a politician as our craven and vacuous age is able to produce, would then almost certainly become Speaker of the House.

“After the House chamber was evacuated on January 5, Mr. McCarthy retreated to his Capitol office with a colleague, Representative Bruce Westerman, Republican of Arkansas,” Mark Leibovich reported recently in the New York Times. “When it became evident the rioters were breaking in, Mr. McCarthy’s security detail insisted he leave.” But Representative Westerman was left behind, as he confirmed in a recent interview.

Fearing for his own life, while rioters shouted “hang Mike Pence” Westerman said he grabbed a Civil War sword from a display in McCarthy’s office and then barricaded himself in the minority leader’s private bathroom, waiting out the siege, crouching on the toilet.

To appreciate the extent of the effort by McCarthy and numerous others to diminish and ultimately dismiss January 6, you have to recall in some detail what transpired in the immediate aftermath of the riot and then analyze that information side by side with what is happening now.

While the riot was underway, McCarthy called the instigator at the White House to implore him to call off his mob. We know this because Washington state congresswoman Jamie Herrera Beutler reported that McCarthy told her the substance of the call and that the then-president dismissed the attack, lying about its origins as the work of antifascists.

After McCarthy told the president he was wrong – and the president knew he was wrong because he had spoken to his supporters that very day and then watched them storm the Capitol on live television – the then-president responded: “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”

A week after the riot McCarthy told the entire House of Representatives, the American people and the world: “The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump.”

Fast forward to last Sunday when McCarthy is sitting across the table from Fox News Sunday questioner Chris Wallace. “I was the first person to contact him when the riot was going on,” McCarthy said in a feeble and fabulist effort to defend the indefensible. “He didn’t see it, but he ended the call . . . telling me he’ll put something out to make sure to stop this. And that’s what he did. He put a video out later.” Hours later.

Recalling this timeline is important not only for what it says about the lengths political figures like McCarthy are willing to go tell us what we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears didn’t really happen, but also because it’s a reminder that the shape shifting McCarthy is no outlier as a Republican whitewasher.

With a very few notable exceptions, Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney, Herrera Beutler, and Congressman Adam Kinzinger of Illinois among them, the vast majority of Republican officeholders have quietly and gladly moved on from January 6. Northwest lawmakers like Idaho’s Mike Simpson and Washington’s Cathy McMorris Rogers immediately decided they wouldn’t hold the highest figure in the government accountable for his actions leading up to and including January 6. They have said nothing of substance about it since.

Idaho Congressman Russ Fulcher remains deeply implicated in the January 6 events due to his very public efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, so his silence about the still unfolding aftermath and efforts to whitewash history makes sense, at least from the standpoint of avoiding having his reprehensible role in encouraging the violence highlighted over and over.

No Northwest Republican has called for the kind of investigation of January 6 that would in more normal, rational times receive bipartisan support. No major Republican figure in Idaho has joined Cheney in saying the riot instigator should have no future in the party. None have acknowledged that the domestic terrorism behind the insurrection has been, as the FBI director said in March, “metastasizing across the country for a long time now, and it’s not going away anytime soon.”

“The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack,” Liz Cheney said back in January. “Everything that followed was his doing.”

Morally deficient Republicans want us to forget the single greatest threat to democracy in our lifetime. They lack courage. And honesty. It’s up to us to hold them to account just like those who stormed the Capitol to kill, maim and destroy democracy must be held to account.