Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Keizertimes. (Salem, Or.) 1979-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 5, 2021)
NOVEMBER 5, 2021, KEIZERTIMES, PAGE A7 PUBLIC SQUARE welcomes all points of view. Published submissions do not necessarily reflect the views of the Keizertimes Ideologues exist on the left side and the right Diversity committee appointments The City of Keizer adopted a Statement of Values in December, touch- ing on aspects of justice, equity, diversity and inclusion. The statement includes, among other elements, a definition of white suprem- acy as well as a condemnation of it; rec- ognition of historical laws and policies that maintained discrimination and dis- parity; recognition of all gender iden- tities and sexual orientations; a nod to the Tribal Nations that once inhabited the land; and a “commitment to ensure that all members of the community are free from acts that are rooted in racism, discrimination, intolerance, bigotry and hostility.” Now the city council is forming a Community Diversity Engagement Committee to advise it on putting actions behind that statement that was unanimously approved by councilors. Writing and approving the Statement of Values should have been the hard part, forming an advisory committee com- prised of a diverse membership should be easy. Yet, in today's political climate, the hardest part of assuring equity and inclusion may be ahead of us. There were different thoughts expressed at this week's city council meeting on how to appoint members. As originally conceived, the mayor would appoint the nine members—including two councilors, a youth member and six at-large members chosen from the com- munity. Some want each city councilor to appoint one member, much like the way members of the Volunteer Coordinating Committee (VCC) are chosen. Some have concerns about this way of appointing members to a committee Editorial advising on diversity. Would politics play too much of a role in appointments? Without input from the VCC or a vote of approval on each appointee from the entire council, would we achieve the diversity we seek? An issue with each councilor appoint- ing a member to the committee is some potential members might not be aware of the committee. Issuing a communi- ty-wide call for applications for appoint- ment will cast a much wider net than individual councilor appointments. The work of this committee will garner much interest and attention, especially those who represent traditionally under-repre- sented groups. Keizer is made up of a tapestry of races and backgrounds. If Keizer truly wants to live up to its Statement of Values, it owes it to its citizens to assure that the mem- bership of the Community Diversity Engagement Committee is culled from those we rarely see in such roles. If we want engagement from the many different people that call Keizer home, it is an absolute that these groups are welcomed and embraced. Committee members should apply, just as with any other city commmittee or board, inter- view with the Volunteer Coordinating Committee and face a final vote from the city council. That is the fairest and most transparent process. —LAZ WHEATLAND PUBLISHING CORP. 142 Chemawa Road N, Keizer, Oregon 97303 Phone: 503.390.1051 • www.keizertimes.com PUBLISHER & EDITOR Lyndon Zaitz publisher@keizertimes.com FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Facebook Instagram Twitter NEW DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION PRICING: $5 per month, $60 per year PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY Publication No: USPS 679-430 YEARLY PRINT SUBSCRIPTION PRICING: $35 inside Marion County $43 outside Marion County $55 outside Oregon POSTMASTER Send address changes to: Keizertimes Circulation 142 Chemawa Road N. Keizer, OR 97303 Periodical postage paid at Salem, Oregon By MICHAEL GERSON If the American experiment dies, the cause will be terminal bothsidesism. This is not to deny that our politics is ideologically bipolar. There is a party of the left that advocates ambitious gov- ernment and progressive social values. There is a party of the right that defends limited government and conservative social virtues. The differences between the sides concern the largest matters of penury or prosperity, sickness or health, death or life. But the genius of American govern- ment has been to contain fundamen- tal policy disagreements within a legal structure where political victory is never total and political loss is never final. And Americans have generally viewed this liberal democratic framework not only as an efficient form of self-government but as a noble one. People may be rivals in a balance of power, but they are also partners in a great enterprise. America coheres due to shared pride in a brilliant set of dem- ocratic procedures crafted in the 18th century. And the successful operation of that system presupposes citizens with certain democratic ideals: a respect for truth, the rejection of politically moti- vated violence, a commitment to social and political equality, and reverence for the rule of law. Is it possible to locate ideological hotheads on both left and right who care nothing for democratic procedures and values? Of course. In a country of 330 mil- lion people, one can find plenty of anar- chist rioters, Marxist college professors and administrators who use tolerance as a club to beat those they deem intolerant. But judging their threat as equivalent to that of the populist right is itself a threat to the country. At some point, a lack of moral proportion becomes a type of moral failure. My main concern here is with previ- ously rational and respectable conserva- tives who are providing ideological cover for the triumph of Trumpism on the right. Often some scruple prevents them from joining fully in former president Donald Trump’s gleeful assault on democratic legitimacy. So their main strategy is to assert that leftist depredations against democracy are equivalent. If both sides have their rioters and petty autocrats, why not favor the rioters and petty auto- crats whose success will result in better judges? But here’s the rub: By any rational standard, both sides are not equivalent in their public effect. Only one party has based the main part of its appeal on a transparent lie. To be a loyal Republican in 2021 is to believe that a national conspiracy of big-city mayors, Republican state officials, com- panies that produce voting machines other VOICES and perhaps China, or maybe Venezuela, stole the 2020 presidential election. The total absence of evidence indicates to conspiracy theorists (as usual) that the plot was particularly fiendish. Previous iterations of the GOP tried to unite on the basis of ideology and public purpose. The current GOP is united by a common willingness to believe whatever antidem- ocratic rot comes from the mouth of an ambitious, reckless liar. Only one side of our divide employs violent intimidation as a political tool. Since leaving the presidency, Trump has endorsed the view that the events of Jan. 6 were an expression of rowdy patriotism and embraced the cruel slander that the Capitol Police were engaged in oppres- sion. Turn to Fox News and hear hosts and guests referring to a coming “purge” of patriots, alleging that the left is “hunt- ing” the right with the goal of putting conservatives in Guantánamo Bay, and speaking of “insurgency” as a justified response. Only one political movement has made a point of denying the existence and legacy of racism, assuring White peo- ple that they are equally subject to preju- dice, and defending the Confederacy and its monuments as “our heritage.” This is perhaps the ultimate in absurd both- sidesism. My side suffers from economic stagnation and the unfair application of affirmative action. Your side was shipped like coal and sold like cattle; suffered cen- turies of brutality, rape, family separation and stolen wages; and was then subjected to humiliating segregation and the sys- tematic denial of lending, housing and justice. Who can say which is worse? Only one president—as released doc- uments show—attempted to overturn the results of a fair election, tried to block the certification of his successor and discussed in the Oval Office the possi- bility of imposing martial law. Only one president had minions prepare the step- by-step instructions for a constitutional coup. I could go on. Yet it gives me no plea- sure. I would prefer to witness the return of a principled party of the right because I hold many conservative views on poli- cies that I’d like to see enacted. But when fellow conservatives claim that the GOP remains the best of bad options, they become contributors to the ruin of our democracy. Only one party in the United States is committed to liberal democracy. And in the absence of that commitment, influence is merely the will to power. (Washington Post)
