Santa Cruz Observer

Robert Mueller wasn't made for the video-clip era

The absence of an electrifying Washington moment in Wednesday’s two-stage testimony by (Robert) Mueller not only deprived Democrats of the crystallizing episode they needed to drive public opinion on impeachment, but it also meant Republicans had no reason to budge from their anti-impeachment stance.

-- Carl Hulse, The New York Times

 

By TOM HONIG

Is that what it takes to get anything done in politics these days? Do we really govern only by electrifying Washington?

Count me as one who found Robert Mueller's testimony before the Senate and the House refreshing. He might just as well have walked into the hearing rooms and said, "Read the damn report."

Social media and cable news rely, more and more, on the zinger. Get the best three or four words you can and get them ready for video clips. If they're the perfect combination of wit, alliteration and nastiness, the video will spread across the media, maybe even making it to the apex -- the late-night comedy shows.

Admittedly I can appreciate a good one-liner. After all, I wrote headlines for years, always in search of a grabber. But that doesn't mean that the lack of electricity should doom public discussion and ultimately government actions.

There's a good deal of evidence that the electrifying moment is setting the agenda these days. The president is a master of the form. So is presidential hopeful Kamala Harris, who knew that  by  informing Joe Biden that she didn't think he was a racist actually was just another way of saying that he might be a racist. When she said it, she zoomed up the polls.

Maybe there is something positive about the quick hits. They move people at the time, but tomorrow will bring a new outrage, another zinger and another issue to think about. Maybe in this fast-paced environment a short attention span is a good thing.

But let's all take a moment to appreciate Robert Mueller. He wasn't on Team Red or on Team Blue. He sat there, unashamedly a man of another era in Washington, answering some pretty obnoxious questions with unsullied dignity.

For Weiner, Sanford and Spitzer, is the goal public service or the lure of political power?

By TOM HONIG

Public service is an honorable calling, but for some, it's more about their own ego and the ambitious pursuit of power.

How else can you explain Anthony Weiner, Elliot Spitzer and Mark Sanford?

Sanford fell into disgrace with his infamous romantic journey to Argentina. Spitzer -- Mr. Law Enforcement -- decided that prostitution laws didn't apply to him. And Weiner ... the less said, the better.

Yet all three think that the world can't do without their presence in public life. In fact, Congress has not been improved by having Sanford back. The people of South Carolina could easily find someone else to serve in his place. Spitzer is hardly the only qualified person for the job of New York City comptroller. (If his service there was so damn important, why did he instead run for governor back in 2006?) Or, as a spokesman for his chief opponent said:  “It’s clearer and clearer that for Eliot Spitzer, this campaign is not about the needs and struggles of New York’s middle class – it’s all about Eliot Spitzer.”

And Weiner doesn't even have the modicum of taste to drop out of the race for mayor of New York. The city has done fine without him over the past couple of centuries, but he's arrogant enough to think that the city is in need of his services. It's not. He actually said this: "I want to bring my vision to the people of the city of New York. I hope they're willing to still continue to give me a second chance."

Why should they? Just so Weiner can add to his resume?

What's the lesson here? For voters, it's this: is someone running for office because they want to serve? Or is it because it satisfies their self interest? Those are questions worth asking.

Good for business AND for the environment?

Second in a series

By TOM HONIG

One of the most frustrating aspects of life in Santa Cruz is how strident public discussions can become. I've always wondering why -- in a small and relatively homogenous community -- differing opinions can get some people so damn mad.

Maybe it's actually because it's a small community. Past political allies can show up in current debates on opposite sides -- and there's nothing like the scorn that  that engenders.

But beyond that, it's unclear to me why some of our political debate -- the desalination plan is a good example -- elicit accusations of cronyism and even corruption.

Nowhere is this conflict felt more strongly than in debates over environmental policy. The basic one pits business interests versus environmental protection. The age-old accusation in Santa Cruz holds that what's good for business is probably bad for the environment.

On the recent trip to San Luis Obispo by 69 local community leaders (see the earlier article), that issue stood out front and center. Or, as a representative of the San Luis Obispo Board of Economic Vitality put it, "We decided that we needed economic vitality, but we also need environmental protection." SLO County Supervisor Adam Hill said it this way: "There is a link. I ask people, 'Do you like the beautiful green hills and our greenbelt?' Well, they don't come free."

Most of the visiting Santa Cruzans -- across the spectrum of business, non-profits and government -- seemed to agree. Now the question becomes whether there's community agreement -- and political action --when specific issues come up.

Cabrillo College President Brian King, the prime motivator of the trip, says he's optimistic. "I think it was very powerful to get a key group of leaders together for an extended period of time. A bit removed from home, everyone had an opportunity for extended conversations that can be so difficult to have with our busy lives. Hearing about successes in a similar community with challenges we serve was very encouraging. It's easy to think the hard problems are impossible to solve, and hearing solutions that have worked can be very empowering." 

Coming up: More reactions on business and environmental protection.

How about some independent thinking?

By TOM HONIG

Maybe it's always been this way, but the American dialogue has been now completely taken over by a sports fan mentality.

The Supreme Court decision. Are you pro-Obama or anti-Obama? That seems to dictate what you think the Supremes ought to do. The guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman? It depends how you feel about race in America. Oil prices? If you're a lefty, blame the oil companies. If you're a rightwinger, blame the EPA.

The realities of these issues are different. T'he legality of the health-care law really shouldn't hinge on whether you're pro-Obama or not. The guilt or innocence of  George Zimmerman needs to be decided according to the law -- and not whether we live in a racist society. (It is possible, for example, that we live in a racist society AND that Zimmerman is not guilty of first degree murder.)

Leave it to a foreign magazine to put this shooting into context. Check out The Economist, which weighs in by saying "A shooting becomes an excuse for political point-scoring."

I spent years covering trials, and one thing you learn is that the exhaustive process of a trial is an important guarantee that justice will be served. No, it's not perfect, but the process is important in ensuring that a defendant is truly shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite hours of opinionating on television and many column-yards in the newspaper, no one -- except for maybe Zimmerman himself -- knows totally what happened. All the opinionating is mere speculation, often based on where one stands politically.

Our civil rights are way more important than reducing them to a political debate. Same goes with the Supreme Court dividing themselves up between "liberal" and "conservative" justices. We the people deserve better.