"Casting On" to Knit a NA Tapestry

In all the furor, amid all the “demands” being made by New Albany’s clans, associations, cabals, and terrorist cells, there should be time taken to discuss the “philosophical” underpinnings of what and why “we” expect so much from our city government.

Encouragingly, much of the activity is the result of a belief on the part of many that they can, indeed, have an impact on how we are governed. That’s very idealistic, but until that impact is demonstrated through action, rather than activity, both the visionaries and the obstructionists will look at all of us as pretty much of the same stripe – complainers. The status quo is so entrenched in this town that even those who are inclined to help us will regard us with suspicion. Those for whom we are a potential source of concern rely on the Kochert Maxim to guide them.

Larry Kochert, long ensconced in what was always a “safe” council district, dismisses the progressive movement in this city. He’s “seen it before.” Kochert and his ilk are invested in a rock-solid belief that activity does not equal accomplishment.

In short, Kochert believes “we” will go away. It matters not how. Mr. K is certain we can be divided or neutralized. Right now, the biggest danger is an amateurish zeal that consists of little more than demands. But personalities can conflict, life situations can change, and the entire locomotive of progress can simply run out of steam. Without a guiding philosophy, progressivism in New Albany can stall.

It is not the opponents of progress who are to be feared – it is ourselves and those among our “friends” who lack the courage to risk anything in the fight.

Some sit in world-weary cynicism and like modern-day soothsayers declare idealism to be dead.
Others operate in the belief that anonymity and pious high-mindedness will insulate them from the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,” finding the unpleasant but necessary realities of politics to be distasteful and beneath them.

Naively, they speak of a nebulous form of public service that somehow avoids conflict, that needn’t obey the rules of human nature. Despite all evidence to the contrary that there are walls between as we wander this mortal coil, that people do take sides, that rationality isn’t the guiding principle for all contenders with the right to sit at the public table, these “friends” are more like spectators than participants.

The progressive movement is perfectly willing to be held to account. But hypocritical “judges” holding up scorecards (and holding their noses, too) are not part of the solution.

The “game” is under way. It didn’t start yesterday, nor a year ago. The tree fell in the forest whether we were there to hear it fall. The game has been going on for eons and will continue to be played out long after our hearts stop beating. But sitting on the sidelines is, for many of us, no longer an option.

Let’s see if a weekend thread can unravel and re-knit a philosophy underlying what it is “we” want. Jump right in. Try to avoid platitudes and be willing to take a risk. If this thread breaks, I’ll put in my three cents, but I believe the readers of this blog can brainstorm and define a progressive philosophy.

I’ll make it easy. Why is it anybody else’s business if I dump my garbage at Falling Run Creek on public land? And why should the coercive power of government be called upon to regulate it? Take it a step further. Why is it anybody’s business if I store appliances (or cars) in my own yard? Isn’t this a free country? Don’t I own my own land? Doesn’t the conservative movement (those strict constructionists) tell us that “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” means individual property rights rule supreme? Why should I complain if Jill Commuter decides that lower Spring Street should be a 50-mph speed zone instead of the 25-mph zone that’s posted? Aren’t I overreaching when I protest, when I ask the city to enforce its ordinances?