Trending
What is real motivation of amendments?
To the editor:
Recently, as the direct result of actions taken by a clear-thinking captain, a mutiny, which would have meant permanent damage to the ship and all the lives on board, was averted. The subsequent engagement of enough of the passengers prevented the members of the mutinous crew from regaining control of the ship allowing it to safely reach port.
One would think that headlines of such an event would be something in the effect of "Brave captain and passengers save ship." Upon the ship's safe arrival home however, the local paper chose to run with this "Why wasn't the act of mutiny put to a vote."
Now if this were a work of cheap fiction one might be amused; it is however fact, albeit analogous.
A Nov. 30th editorial described an attempt by the Republican-controlled state house to make a series of amendments to the state constitution. The attempt was however thwarted by the governor. The Republican plot was further complicated as a result of recent election losses suffered by the would-be mutineers.
In short, the governor acted, the voters have spoken and democracy was saved; for the time being anyway.
One would think that such a story would generate headlines, in the Lewistown Sentinel, like "Responsible governing and voting saved democracy" or "Why do Republicans want to subvert the constitution."
Instead, we read "Voters should have a say in how we choose Lt. Governor candidates." Why is that? After all, we do currently have a say in whom we choose as Lt. Governor.
Simple, to understand the editorial writer's choice of headlines one need only look to his motivation, which is abundantly clear, to anyone able to see clearly that is. Which sells more papers? The justified defeat of the Republicans' actions is at best a one-day story. Whereas allowing a vote or something that doesn't merit a vote could be stretched into a years-long run.
I offer as support of my opinion to the writer's motivation, his choice of adjectives. He said in his article that Republicans were trying to muddy the waters. He was trying to claim that the republicans sought to confuse the voters by offering a single referendum with many unrelated ideas.
Well, the writer was wrong. The motivations of Republicans were not as benign as simply muddying the waters. They sought to chum them. Offer voters what the covet most so that the clear sacrifice would seem warranted. They were attempting to help voters rationalize their vote.
In short, don't think of it as cutting off "your" nose, think of it as spiting "their" face.
Clark Wagner
Milroy