Given this morning's unsurprising affirmation of censorship on the part of a leading spokesperson for New Albany's regressives, a repeat of the following, first published on February 24, 2005, seems appropriate.
------------
One might say that a strong sense of disappointment motivated the birth of NA Confidential.
The accumulated experiences of a lifetime spent living and working in and around New Albany gradually coalesced, unexpectedly presenting me with a bouncing baby epiphany.
It flared while riding a bicycle or walking through the streets of New Albany, when considering the way it is here and the way I’ve observed it to be in other places, as I wetted a finger to lift into the breeze … after looking into the mirror and seeing the now middle-aged face smirking back at me … as a quarter-century of often reluctant adulthood finally made the persuasive case that neither I nor anyone else close to me stood to succeed in changing the world.
But helping to change my own little patch of turf might be another story entirely.
In turn, this simple observation both begs an important question and frames the subsequent political implications.
In short, why change?
Why prepare for the inevitability of tomorrow when the reality of today is itself such a challenge?
The answer is simple. We do it for the children.
From the beginnings of recorded history, thinking men and women have known that the only constant in life is change. We may honestly disagree as to the specific merits of this change or that one, but we cannot ignore that the world is in a continual state of flux.
We cannot, but for various reasons many among us do, and this is the element of the equation that is so very difficult to reconcile.
As one example of many, for a disturbingly large proportion of the world’s population, sewage disposal remains the open ditch running down the middle of a village street.
Yet, as beneficiaries of education and the wealth it creates – as the beneficiaries of progress – not one of us reading these words can avoid recoiling at the thought of living in such a place.
Assuming, of course, that we think at all.
And that's the problem.
It follows that at every juncture in human history, as a skilled researcher or incisive thinker provides incontrovertible evidence that open sewers cause suffering and disease, and that the quality of human life itself stands to be improved immeasurably by channeling and treating the effluent, someone in a position of power has looked on and said, “no – that’s not the way we do it here.”
Which is to say, the way we do it “here” is broken … and it needs fixing.
To understand what needs fixing in a place like New Albany does not imply the necessity of reading the complete works of Proust, earning an advanced degree in business administration or acquiring basic computer skills, although each is useful in its own way.
Rather, a short stroll though the downtrodden downtown area should be quite enough to convince the most casual of observers that there is much work to be done to improve economic opportunities, to upgrade sub-standard housing, and to provide an enhanced quality of life for the residents of the city.
It should be equally obvious that political “leadership” founded on the notion that the fulfillment of minimum standards and the maintenance of the lowest common denominator provide “success” in solving these problems has proven to be discredited, exhausted and bereft of the vitality necessary to move New Albany into the 21st century.
Political “leadership” of this ilk fails most spectacularly when it cynically surveys the certainties of what is to come, and in essence, takes the unfathomable position that it really isn’t necessary to act now so as to provide children of today with the possibility of better lives tomorrow.
Instead, it’s more important to hoard short-term political power today, to be the big fish in the little pond, to lubricate the ward heeler’s machine, and to insure that unexpected climatic change doesn’t disrupt the way things should remain.
To keep the lid on the dynamism that the small-time political power broker fears most because it can’t be controlled, our local Neanderthal populists must create and deploy a bogeyman.
Sadly, in New Albany, that bogeyman is the all-purpose notion of progress.
All too often our political luminaries inform us that progress is bad, and stagnation is good – it’s preserving our way of life, we’re told – except that in the absence of movement forward, there is no standing still because the only constant is change, so instead, there is regress, and regress is the lifeblood of the populist political cadre that has dominated New Albany for decades, content to obfuscate progressive attitudes and impede the efforts of progressives because the atmosphere engendered by progress is incompatible with the retention of control by the traditional system.
After all, nothing scares the big fish in the little pond more than the pond becoming bigger.
NA Confidential came about as a primal scream and a visceral response to these pathetic champions of regress, to these venal community pillars, and to those who continue to profit from keeping other people down.
To be disappointed in the foot-dragging, narrow-minded, small-time, dirty river town mentality of people who style themselves as political “elites” is one thing, but to see it worn almost as a badge of honor is to be profoundly embarrassed ... and to become angry.
Emotions aside, it all comes down to a simple comparison, one that I intend to continue using as the best means of examining the New Albany scene and the participants therein.
The comparison is far from absolute, and there is room for honest disagreement over its components. There will be trade-offs and compromises, but that’s always the case when there’s more than one person in the room.
Progressive or regressive?
Yesterday we considered the forthcoming Democratic Party leadership contest. A slate was provided. On one side are names like Randy Stumler, Marcey Wisman and Tony Toran.
On the other, one name stands out: Dan Coffey.
Progressive or regressive?
In point of fact, the countywide leadership contest is a referendum on the general theme of progress.
Progressive or regressive?
Here in the city, Mayor James Garner stumbled badly during his first year in office. Much of it was his own fault, and from its inception NA Confidential whipped him mercilessly … until it became clear that those “leaders” who are allied with the most virulent strains of regressive populism were using our “anti-Mayor” motif to attack the very notion of progressivism.
Progressive or regressive?
Thank you for asking, because that’s where I draw the line. Individuals come and go, but ideas and worldviews remain.
Progressive or regressive?
These are the stakes as New Albany contemplates its future, and as the Democratic Party prepares to select its leaders.
Na Confidential espouses progressivism and the implementation of a visionary and dynamic plan of action to move New Albany forward.
If our current Mayor’s instincts are in fact progressive (and there is evidence to suggest that in spite of his gaffes and missteps, this is the case), and if his opponents continue to espouse the politics of regressive populism, there should be absolutely no confusion as to which camp this Blog and its author propose to inhabit.
The progressive one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment