Frequent visitor Brandon W. Smith insightfully noted:
On a more related note, what's wrong with quoting Republicans? I don't see where either party has cornered the market on political wisdom or folly. At our local level, it doesn't seem that party affiliation makes much difference in policy. In fact, even HAVING a policy would be a major improvement.
As usual, Brandon is quite correct in his analysis.
Indeed, local politicos fall into one of two classifications: They're part of the problem, or part of the solution.
Whether they are Democrats or Republicans seems the very height of irrelevance.
At the same time, confusion has been engendered by NA Confidential's ongoing critique of the Garner administration, with some readers imagining a dimension of partisanship creeping into the proceedings.
In the political sense, this is not the case. When it comes to local politics, NA Confidential espouses a strict meritocracy, with judgements based entirely on achievement and progress for the city of New Albany.
There'll be hits and misses here, but party affiliation won't figure into the equation. Brandon is right: What we need is talent, inspiration, vision, intelligence and leadership that is pro-active, not reactive.
What we have is very, lamentably, embarrassingly different. But as Bluegill pointed out, this is largely a reflection of the low common denominator that characterizes what passes for discourse in New Albany. To be sure, raising that bar is going to be a long, arduous struggle, and political dysfunction is only one of many roadblocks along the way.
I remain committed to making the effort. Thanks as always to Brandon for his input.
It isn't often that I find it appropriate to post here, the concerns aired as such here appear to be vectored away from what I found either applicable to my own affectations or what is more deserving of my own capricious meandering. It isn't a question of least-resistance per commerce; I am all about indie shopping, reading my nerdy literature and drinking beak's best, but I find much of this concern as being suspiciously provisional. A few months ago Sam Sloss (whom I like a great deal) posted about the rictus of dismay which NA had become and why he had elected to live across the river. This past week my wife and I went for a two hour stroll from the stockyards up around brownsboro and around the park - back to the former warehouses along Market. I LOVE this area, I can say such without betraying aspects of my own sedentary self-apology. much like herr Bluefin, or whomever (sorry) I am leery of the pickets and the mantras which trickle from certain tongues. cheers - jon
ReplyDeleteThis is right on the money. So where does one start the process of a candidate that:
ReplyDelete1.) Has the qualities mentioned.
2.) Will be able to snare both parties for the bettering of the community.
3.) Not be looked at as to left of center.
4.) Not draw party lines, but have a real chance to be elected on a platform other than business as usual in this small town.
As we all know, this is a very tight communinty that resist change. So again, how can this be obtained without the masses-saying this will never work or that person is crazy? I would really like to be on some kind of formulating committee if one is established to help locate a candidate.
I read Jon to be saying he's hearing a lot of sloganeering and bloviating, but deems the blogosphere, or even the wider world of public affairs discourse to be ineffectual. Some folks keep their heads down, having "learned" that activisim burns out sooner or later and gets co-opted by means either nefarious or neglectful.
ReplyDeleteFor some, life's too short to get all het up over such things. For me, life's too short not to.
I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, here, but I took the post to be, in essence, dismissive, at least to the extent that Jon does not find such discussions stimulating. I'll be sure to re-read his post to see if there is something I missed on my first and second passes.
Re: Jon's dismissive post
ReplyDeleteOn re-reading, I think the clear implication is that public affairs discussions don't meet Jon's standards for stimulating reading and that furthermore, he sees two things at play.
How else do you read "provisional" other than to mean that the posters are either not committed to sticking with their ideas to fruition, or they have too much commercial self-interest at work to give their comments integrity in Jon's eyes.
My own efforts are aimed toward persuading others that it is in their own self-interest to bring about the renaissance. If my commercial interests make me suspect, so be it.
What Jon really means is that it takes a great deal of effort to conceal his considerable passion beneath a carefully crafted personna of alienation, and consequently, there is no energy left over for public participation in any project that alter this internal dynamic.
ReplyDeleteHey, I've known him longer than the rest of you ...
For clarification, I don't fear the picket line at Starbucks. I'd be walking there to participate in it.
ReplyDeleteMy fear is that the people posting here and others will lay the ground work to make New Albany weird only to have government officals take advantage of that success, offer tax breaks or other incentives to bring in corporate chains to the burgeoning area, and then claim credit for the redevelopment of downtown while simultaneously driving out the pioneering locals that made it possible.
I supported the development of Fourth Street when I thought they were talking about the Kentucky Theater Project. I feel much differently about it now. Ditto lower downtown (LoDo)Denver.
Government agencies tend to focus on developing a tax base. I'm talking about a place where people may actually want to live.