Response to Op-Ed by Michael James Taylor

Dear Editor,

It was with interest that I read Mr. Taylor’s op-ed in the October 16 issue of The Mountain Messenger. One of the really interesting things was how the whole thing was based on a fallacy, as well as the several fallacies throughout the piece.

Mr. Taylor opens up by stating that the entire Prop 50 efforts is really just “…fight[ing] someone else’s political battles…”. This could be (and probably is) taken directly from the Oval Office dictator’s “America First” game plan — which is actually “America Only” — which Mr. Taylor has twisted it to “California Only”. What he proposes is that Californians should ignore what is happening in the rest of the country — especially in those places where Republicans are acting against the wishes of their own voters, in order to rig the midterm elections in their favor. This was the same mistake that Neville Chamberlain made in 1938, in allowing Nazi Germany to annex part of Czechoslavakia. The thinking was, appease Germany’s demands and they’ll leave us alone. Fortunately, Winston Churchill, not Chamberlain, was the prime minister when Germany then began bombing England. Mr. Taylor seems to be taking the same tack as Chamberlain: let the Republicans in other states do whatever they want; it doesn’t affect us; we’ll be okay. He apparently refuses to understand that, like John Muir famously said, “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.”

Mr. Taylor says, “This is not about Republicans versus Democrats”. However, he goes about contradicting himself by insisting that it’s all about California Republicans being underrepresented in Congress. And, he does this while arguing that the current method of districting for Congressional seats is what needs to be protected. I don’t totally disagree. The current system which the voters of California put in place is one of the best in the country. However, as the saying goes, “Desperate times call for desperate measures”. At least the Prop 50 constitutional amendment has an end-date attached to it — a time when we are guaranteed to return to our current way of doing things. And, it is the current method of districting that has resulted in the current California delegation to Congress.

Mr. Taylor implies that, since Republicans make up 25% of California’s registered voters, they are entitled to 25% of California’s Congressional seats. The same argument could be made for California’s other political parties, as well as those voters who register as No Party Preference, who, taken together, make up almost 30% of registered voters. Mr. Taylor seemingly has no thought for them. Fortunately, our democracy does. In a representative democracy, such as we have, voters should be able to feel confident that whoever is elected, even if it’s not their own candidate, will actually represent them. Mr. Taylor would have us believe that office holders should only represent those of their own party.

Mr. Taylor also make the argument that the redistricting proposal of Prop 50 would weaken rural representation in Congress. And, he makes the argument that urban folk just don’t understand, and can’t properly represent, rural folk. This is an interesting argument, since the current Congressperson “representing” (and I use that term very, very loosely) Congressional District 3 (which Mr. Taylor indicates is the district in which he resides) is an urban person, through and through. Add to that the fact that two of the three proclaimed Democratic candidates for District 3 (no matter the outcome of Prop 50) are rural folk.

Mr. Taylor says that “Healthy governments require accountability, transparency, and meaningful opportunity for citizens to have their voices heard…” This is exactly what Prop 50 does. Unlike what is happening in Republican states, where legislators are complying with orders from the White House, California is placing the issue squarely before the voters — and will comply with whatever outcome the voters decide.

Let me go back again to Mr. Taylor’s comment that “[t]his is not about Republicans versus Democrats”. To one extent, he is correct. This is about Republicans versus democracy.

Paul Guffin

Downieville