Two of my favorite intellectuals - and professional acquaintences (Dick Lewontin and Steve Gould (Stephen Jay Gould, now deceased) - wrote a spendid critical analysis of elements of evolutionary theory in the late 1970's. The article was published in the Journal of the Royal Society (of England) and carried the incredibly delicious title "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm". I've been waiting more than 2o years to use the title of that article in some piece of my own writing. Sometimes the opportunities arise when you least expect them. After reading in yesterday's Oregonian that Friday the Oregon Senate passed on to the Oregon House a bill that would remove partisan labels from all legislative and statewide elected offices, reducing the contests to primary "free for alls," I knew that the opportunity had finally come.
On the surface any effort to remove partisanship from Oregon politics would be seen as a good thing. Nevertheless I keep wondering whether this will be another wreck of the day from the legislature or whether it is a serious attempt to put lipstick on the pig. Call me cynical if you like. I don't have any answers, but I do wonder "Cui Bono?", "trojan horse?", "wolf in sheep's clothing?" and other thoughts. I'm not exactly enamored of the motives of anything coming from this or past legislatures. Exactly how does removing a label from a ballot remove partisanship? How does a candidate run without a platform, yet have a platform to run on? And where does that non-partisan platform come from? How will we know whose water any particular candidate is carrying? Can a candidate list his/her political affiliation (or hints of it) in a voters' pamphlet and, if so, where exactly is the non-partisanship there. And the list of questions goes on. We're left to inquire, as Lewontin and Gould might have done, are labels part of a spandrel that simply have to be there to satisfy political constraint, or do they exist for a purpose separate from their political necessity. Are they necessary at all? Put more simply, are labels a necessary consequence of the political architecture, or do they have some function independent of it? Which leads us back to the question: will removing the labels produce the "wreck of the day" or a "panglossian panacea"?
OK, I know this rumination appears to violate what I said yesterday about being clear and writing with a purpose. I can't help it. When I read the piece about this bill in the Oregonian, I went looking to find the authors of this bill and who voted for/against it. The lists left me in the curious position of thinking of Lewontin and Gould's article and how it perfectly skewered the adaptationist paradigm in evolutionary theory, and how, by analogy, it could extend to this effort to "adapt" to the political structure of Oregon. If you want to read it, here is a good start. Since the link isn't visible for some obscure reason, I have to enter it manually here. You'll need to copy this to your browser bar: http://tinyurl.com/cnyu6. It's heavy, but rewarding, reading.
A demain.
On the surface any effort to remove partisanship from Oregon politics would be seen as a good thing. Nevertheless I keep wondering whether this will be another wreck of the day from the legislature or whether it is a serious attempt to put lipstick on the pig. Call me cynical if you like. I don't have any answers, but I do wonder "Cui Bono?", "trojan horse?", "wolf in sheep's clothing?" and other thoughts. I'm not exactly enamored of the motives of anything coming from this or past legislatures. Exactly how does removing a label from a ballot remove partisanship? How does a candidate run without a platform, yet have a platform to run on? And where does that non-partisan platform come from? How will we know whose water any particular candidate is carrying? Can a candidate list his/her political affiliation (or hints of it) in a voters' pamphlet and, if so, where exactly is the non-partisanship there. And the list of questions goes on. We're left to inquire, as Lewontin and Gould might have done, are labels part of a spandrel that simply have to be there to satisfy political constraint, or do they exist for a purpose separate from their political necessity. Are they necessary at all? Put more simply, are labels a necessary consequence of the political architecture, or do they have some function independent of it? Which leads us back to the question: will removing the labels produce the "wreck of the day" or a "panglossian panacea"?
OK, I know this rumination appears to violate what I said yesterday about being clear and writing with a purpose. I can't help it. When I read the piece about this bill in the Oregonian, I went looking to find the authors of this bill and who voted for/against it. The lists left me in the curious position of thinking of Lewontin and Gould's article and how it perfectly skewered the adaptationist paradigm in evolutionary theory, and how, by analogy, it could extend to this effort to "adapt" to the political structure of Oregon. If you want to read it, here is a good start. Since the link isn't visible for some obscure reason, I have to enter it manually here. You'll need to copy this to your browser bar: http://tinyurl.com/cnyu6. It's heavy, but rewarding, reading.
A demain.
No comments:
Post a Comment