The Obligation of Civility in our Political Discourse

Some years ago, our then Congressman, Amo Houghton, was honored in Washington, D.C. for being the epitome of civility in politics. It came not long after Congress had descended into acrimony following the ascension of Newt Gingrich to the Speaker’s chair after a brutal “take no prisoners” campaign he had waged to attain that office.

Amo knew that Democrats were no more evil than Republicans, and that once you started defining your political opponents as bad people — there could be no possibility for civil public discourse. You can have political differences without demonizing your opponent.

Recently, I read an article of how the polarization and “demonizing” process has split the community of Enid, Oklahoma. The issue this time was vaccination. Anti-vaxxers in that community, attacked the public health system and argued that those urging vaccination were hostile, despicable people associated with “metropolitan elites” who were trying to enforce their way of life on small-town, rural America. It is hard to bridge differences when public health concerns descend into political controversy and name-calling.

One form of incivility in public discourse in our own community that I have observed are signs on lawns using a four-letter word to describe our current President. To me, such words should have no place in principled discourse. They are not just gross, but are obviously also being read by our children who are riding buses on their way to school. What conclusions do our kids draw from this? Is public profanity now acceptable in the community? Do we want this kind of profanity to be taught in our schools? Maybe it is time to act as a community to remove these signs.

Though some of our local governments have ordinances limiting political signs to a certain number of days before an election, I have no problem with people who have already put up a sign or are flying a flag for those they want to see elected in 2024. If you want to fly a flag for your favorite politician or the Buffalo Bills — it is all right with me. Just don’t get sucked into the mud of using four letter words in so doing to describe those you hate. That is not the American way or, in my view, the Christian way.

"We don’t teach our kids to write hate signs using four-letter words in school. Why should we allow such signs in our community?"

Let’s go back to the schools for a minute. I have been pleased to see some of my grandchildren getting involved in student government at school. It is a wonderful process of introducing them to civic engagement and the need to work together on common problems. We don’t teach them to write hate signs using four-letter words at school. Why should we allow such signs in our community?

We have always had political differences in America — that is part of our political DNA. But, that has not meant that we need to demonize or down-grade those on the other side of the political aisle. You are not a bad person because you have differing political views from mine — we just disagree on some things. We take those differences to the ballot box on election day and once the results are announced, we move on and accept the results until the next election. That is the American way.

Civility in our public discourse is not an option, it is an obligation. We need to do a better job as adults in setting an example for our kids.


Rolland Kidder

Remembering the Simpler Times of Fourth Grade

I think that the older you get, the more you remember old times. For some reason, maybe because I see my grandkids going off to school every day–I started thinking of good memories from when I was in fourth grade in a one-room school house.

The school was called “Busti #7,” and it was located on Garfield Road. We had a wonderful teacher, Mrs. Kronmiller, and she taught all four grades.

As a fourth-grader, I was actually in the “senior” class–since, the following year, I would be transferring into the big City of Jamestown school system for fifth grade and beyond.

Every morning and afternoon in that small school house, we would have a 15 or 20 minute recess and, on good weather days, Mrs. Kronmiller would let us play outside.

Boys being boys, we often played a game called “Cowboys and Indians.” This was back in the days of Roy Rogers and Gene Autry in the movies. On Saturdays, before television, we would go downtown to watch westerns at the matinee at Shea’s or the Palace theater.

What we would do in the game was divide a group of boys into two opposing camps, hide in the bushes, then on a signal attack each other. It wasn’t a physical attack. (Mrs. Kronmiller wouldn’t permit that.) But, we would point our fingers as guns, or draw our arms like we had a bow, and then run around making a lot of noise–finally pretending to be hit–we would fall to the ground.

When that happened, what came next was the best part of the game. We each had a favorite “nurse” who would come to our aid, wipe our brow, console us–and then the game would end.

I have never forgotten my favorite nurse. Her name was Elaine. She was in second grade and she was beautiful. The girls were a part of the game and were always there at the end. After the recess was over, we would go back inside for more instruction–but on those days, the highlight I remember most was being nursed back to health by Elaine in a make-believe game of “Cowboys and Indians.”

I would imagine that such games wouldn’t be allowed today. The name itself seems out-of-place and would probably be deemed to be politically incorrect.

"To all the girls I’ve Ioved before, who traveled in and out my door. I’m glad they came along..."   - Willie Nelson

 

But, it was my first awakening to the significance of girls. It felt good liking and being liked by them.

Which brings me to one of the all-time great songs by Willie Nelson. What started in fourth grade is still true today. Though I have been happily married for nearly 50 years, I still sometimes hum that melody: “To all the girls I’ve Ioved before, who traveled in and out my door. I’m glad they came along, I dedicate this song…to all the girls I’ve loved before.” Elaine was probably my first love.

Some things in life never change. That memory from the fourth grade is still with me.

Rolly Kidder

Jamestown Post-Journal

Political Differences As American As Apple Pie

LOCAL COMMENTARIES

JAN 1, 2022

ROLLAND KIDDER

 

Back in 1964, when the Republicans ran Barry Goldwater for President, the Chad Mitchell Trio came out with a song describing (somewhat cryptically) the Republican Party. Here are a few of the lyrics:

[Let’s go] back to the silver standard and solid Goldwater…

Let’s go back to the days when men were men

and start the First World War all over again

[Let’s go] back to when the poor were poor, and rich were rich

and you felt so damn secure just knowin’ which were which!

Okay, it was a bit “over-the-top” but, nevertheless, it highlighted the fact that, at the national level, the Republican Party was not the Party of change. The themes of: “Let’s keep things the way they are, or, even better, ‘go back’ to who we used to be”–were as Republican then as they are now. It is the Democratic Party, at least since FDR and the Great Depression, that has been the party of change in Washington.

Case in point, the recent one-house passage, with no Republican support, of the Biden “Build Back Better” legislation. Though not given a large mandate in the last election and, though in control of Congress by only the “skin of their teeth,” Democrats pushed this through the House of Representatives. It should have been no surprise that a fellow Democrat, Joe Manchin, Senator from a conservative state like West Virginia, would have problems with the bill–but they passed it anyway in the House.

The politics going on here should not surprise anyone. ” Radical ideas” like Social Security and Medicare (financial assistance and health care for the elderly) were Democratic initiatives. There were outcries at the time that such programs would bankrupt the country and drive us into socialism. Though, in those days, there were some Republican votes for these programs–it was the Democratic Party that proposed and largely provided the bulk of “yes” votes to make them law.

Yet, Republicans have correctly assessed the reality that the electorate in our country is generally conservative in its thinking, and when people want change, it takes place incrementally and very slowly. Harry Truman in the 1950’s and Ted Kennedy in the 1980’s couldn’t make headway with healthcare legislation. It wasn’t until 30 years later, under Barack Obama, that the matter really got addressed in any meaningful way. Today, as “Obamacare” has become more accepted in the country, you see (as with Social Security and Medicare) fewer Republicans attacking it.

Another reality is that every time the Democrats push for social change, they usually suffer for it in the next election…and so this doesn’t portend well for them in the 2022 elections. I would expect that the coming year will be a good one for Republicans.

I will say this though for Democrats, when they try to create new programs, they at least are honest enough to include revenue and tax measures to help pay for it, as reflected in this most recent bill where they proposed raising taxes on billionaires and corporations. Republican reaction to all of this has been to again “bang the drum” that Democrats are the “tax and spend” Party. Democrats counter that Republicans have become the “borrow and spend” Party.

Though they still maintain the political “high ground” of being resistant to change, when it comes to spending money–Republicans have shown that they are as good at that as Democrats. And, who was the last President to have a balanced budget? That was Bill Clinton. His political affiliation? Let’s not get into that.

Differing views on politics remain as American as apple pie. To everyone, no matter what your political persuasion–thanks for reading these articles and have a Happy New Year!

 Jamestown Post-Journal

Our Most Hated Word – ‘Mandate’

December 18, 2021

ROLLAND KIDDER

 There has been a lot in the press these days about how people don’t want to have a vaccine “mandate,” that whether or not one gets vaccinated against COVID is an individual choice and that the government should not require it.

It made me think of government “mandates” in general. Should, for example, the government mandate speed limits on highways? Why shouldn’t everyone be able to drive at whatever speed they want to? I would imagine that right after the automobile was invented, many people felt that way.

A similar argument was made when I was in the state legislature that the government should not force people to wear helmets when riding a motorcycle. “Let those who ride decide” was the slogan of the opposition. If people want to take on the risk of getting killed or maimed by not wearing a helmet, let them decide that.

The government response on both occasions was to “mandate” speed limits and helmet-wearing on motorcycles. The nub of the government’s argument was, of course, “public safety” which has been a part of what governments have done since ad infinitum. In the case of the helmet law, there was also a strong case made that unhelmeted motorcycle riders who had accidents, substantially drove up the cost of health and hospital care–much of which ends up in the government’s lap.

When you think about it, there are a lot of “mandates” out there. What about the requirement that kids attend school? What about the requirement that when they do, they must be vaccinated for diseases like small pox, measles and polio?

There is another mandate that we don’t hear about any more–the draft. Yet, last I knew all young men reaching the age of 18 are still required to register for the draft. If our country ever did get into a major war again, should we continue the draft mandate or let people opt out of it? Opting out is another way of avoiding a mandate.

Perhaps the greatest government mandate of all, is the requirement that we pay our taxes. Should people be allowed to say “No” when their tax bill comes in the mail?

It is true that sometimes mandates are hard to enforce. Not so many years ago, the County passed a law limiting smoking in indoor spaces. Initially, it was hard to enforce, but today most people have accepted it as a way to improve health outcomes by limiting exposure to second-hand smoke.

Maybe it would be best to get away altogether from the word “mandate” and find another word. What about the words “common enterprise?” When society finds itself with a real problem that needs to be addressed, maybe we should have a discussion on whether or not a “common enterprise” which applies to all citizens is an appropriate response.

However you approach it, the issue revolves around government being a vehicle to provide common, civic engagement on matters that need to be resolved. “Mandate” is a very negative word. Maybe we need to rethink things in a more positive way.

The Matter of Race in American History

There is a new buzz-word being foisted upon us by the far right called “Critical Race Theory.”  The underlying assumption is that there is some kind of conspiracy to brain-wash our kids as to how race is taught in the schools.

In that regard, I found helpful a recent article written by Michael Gerson.  Gerson is someone I would call an “old-school” Republican.  He served in the White House (pre-Trump) during the Presidency of George W. Bush.   What also links me to Gerson a bit, is that we both went to small, Christian liberal arts colleges.  He graduated from Wheaton College in Illinois, and I went to Houghton College here in western New York.

I am not sure what Gerson studied in college, but I majored in history.   The school I attended was founded by the Wesleyan Methodist Church, an off-shoot of Methodism which had advocated the abolishment of slavery in the United States.   The matter of race being part of our federal Constitution, I don’t believe, has ever been questioned.  The 3/5ths compromise where black slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person for apportioning representation in the House of Representatives, was in the original Constitution.  It was a “compromise” which legitimized slavery and without which a consensus would probably never have been reached between North and South to form a United States in the first place.  Ultimately, it would take a Civil War to settle the question, emancipate the slaves and eliminate the 3/5ths policy of counting citizens.

Gerson’s recent article focused on the debate and thinking of two men very involved in the abolitionist cause back then:  William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass.  Both men started out believing that the 3/5ths clause legitimizing slavery in the country made the Constitution an evil instrument “dripping in blood.”

“Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted,” he said, “the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.”

However, as the Civil War went on, Douglass changed his mind.  “Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted,” he said, “the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.”

Gerson ended his article with these words:  “Douglass remains the model for dealing with racism—in his righteous anger at systematic corruption in the American experiment, and in his belief in the redeeming power of American ideals and institutions.  A sound education will cultivate both.”

The only thing I might add to Gerson’s analysis is to remember again a methodology I was taught in college—study history and listen to the facts and lessons it teaches.   The inequities which were written into the original Constitution brought the country ultimately into Civil War—an estimated 600,000 Americans died in the fighting, the forces in the North prevailed, the Union was saved, and President Lincoln got the 13^th Amendment passed abolishing slavery.

The residue and legacy of slavery lingers on, and Americans continue to struggle with it.  “Racism” is a word that is harsh and divides, so is a term I don’t like using.  Nevertheless, a discussion of race, how it defined slavery, and the history of how all of this has played out in the American experience is part of who we are.  It is not a “theory” to be taught but a history to be studied and understood.

Rolland Kidder

 

Remembering Thanksgiving

 Probably the Thanksgiving I remember most was also the most miserable.  We were fighting on the Vinh Te Canal in Vietnam along the Cambodian border.  Friends had been killed or wounded, yet that didn’t stop the war from going on.  Every night, it was our mission to continue to go out on patrol setting up ambush positions along the border to try to stop the enemy from entering the country.  It was Thanksgiving 1969.   There didn’t seem to be much to be thankful for.   

 Still, in the midst of that night-after-night fighting, the U.S. Navy decided that we should have a Thanksgiving dinner.  At noon that day, we gathered in our fatigues and sweaty T-shirts along a dike-line of the canal as a helicopter flew in from Saigon with hot turkey, mashed potatoes, gravy, cranberry sauce and accompanied by Admiral Zumwalt, Commander Naval Forces Vietnam.

 Some of the guys grumbled: “Why doesn’t he come down here at midnight and see what this place is really like, etc.?”  But, bringing Thanksgiving dinner was a good, symbolic gesture by the Navy that day.  It reminded us that, as Americans, we still had a lot to be thankful for.

 When you think about it, one of the earliest proclamations for Thanksgiving came in midst of probably the greatest conflict in our nation’s history, the Civil War.  In 1863, with a country divided and bitter fighting raging, President Lincoln made his Thanksgiving Proclamation invoking the help of Almighty God: “With humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience… [we] fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty to heal the wounds of the nation….”

 Sometimes you need to be most thankful when adversity seems to be at its worst.

 We are in a war, of sorts, right now with the resurgence of COVID.  Some of our fellow Americans have decided not to be vaccinated.  Hospital beds and ICU’s are filling up again, this time with the overwhelming numbers being the unvaccinated.

 It is a time when we must maintain vigilance and urge vaccination.  We have to rally the troops and keep up the fight.  There was an article in the paper this week from a retired doctor urging us to again thank those in the healthcare field who are in the forefront of this fight at the doors of our hospitals and emergency rooms.  We should be thanking them.

 There are others, including people we know, with a recent, crushing sadness of having lost a spouse or family member.  Thanksgiving, this year, has been tough for them.  But, with support from family and friends, hopefully they were able to dig deep and find those nuggets of life and memory for which they can still be grateful.

 A great old friend, now deceased, gave me some good advice which also might apply.  “Rol,” he said in his usual drawl and drawn-out voice, “Thank the Lord for the ships you got on, not the ones you missed.”  At the time, I think he was referring to a business deal that didn’t turn out quite as I had expected.  But, his advice was also solid as a way of looking at life itself.  

 Our family, this year, had its own special challenges; but things have worked out for the good—so we have had much to be grateful for.  Thanksgiving remains my favorite holiday of the year!

 

Bring Back the Old Republican Party

In the old days, one could pretty much predict and describe the national Republican Party as that political force in America which opposed deficit spending, promoted smaller government and was pro-business.

Today, describing the Grand Old Party (GOP) it is not that easy. The party has coalesced around a new person and a new philosophy–Donald Trump and “Trumpism.”

I say that because I think that something more than Donald Trump is involved. “Trumpism” is a new form of grievance politics. It describes the angst of people being left behind, feeling left out of American society and afraid of the changes that lie ahead. As we now know, a lot of people feel that way.

Though I don’t like the divisiveness of  “Trumpism,”  what concerns me more is the hero worship associated with Trump himself. 

Though I don’t like the divisiveness of “Trumpism,” what concerns me more is the hero worship associated with Trump himself. America has been down the road of fear and division politics before–namely, the nativist and fear politics of the old Whig Party of the 1850s which became known as the “Know Nothing” Party. But, that time around, there was no hero worship. There were experienced politicians involved, like Millard Fillmore who became President — but nothing like a charismatic leader demanding absolute loyalty and obedience.

This time we have a culture warrior from Queens, New York, with no governmental experience who ran for and won the Presidency, was subsequently defeated yet still demands absolute loyalty and fealty from his followers. It is this aspect of “Trumpism” which should concern the country.

We have had such politics before — not only in the 1850s but in the 1950s when, under then Senator Joseph McCarthy, people got scared that communists were secretly taking over the government from within. A lot of innocent people got hurt during those McCarthy hearings and witch-hunts. But, “adults in the room,” like President Eisenhower, finally stepped in and the fear and false charges of McCarthy were revealed for what they were — mostly lies.

I remember then as a kid trying to comprehend what was going on. A lot people believed McCarthy. Many “worshipped” him the way they now do Trump. I have often pondered on what would have happened if McCarthy had not been stopped.

I have similar feelings about Trump. His name is counter-intuitive because much of what he says has been “trumped-up,” made-up, untrue. Yet, out of fear, worry and angst–many follow him. Like most authoritarians, he cannot accept political defeat. He still alleges the election was stolen, though Biden won states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania which Trump himself narrowly won in 2016. Trump liked the results in 2016, but not so much in 2020. In politics there are winners and losers, and in 2020 Donald Trump was a loser. Swing voters in swing states had seen (and heard) enough and decided to send Joe Biden to the White House.

A sore loser is one thing. A truculent, bellicose, paranoid loser is another — and that is what we now have in Donald Trump.

A sore loser is one thing. A truculent, bellicose, paranoid loser is another — and that is what we now have in Donald Trump. I hope that the Republican Party can find another candidate in 2024. We have seen the threats to our democracy that come when total focus on a personality supplants the common ideals and purposes which should motivate those running for high political office. It is a dangerous road which I hope we do not go down again.

Let’s bring back the old (or former) GOP.  The country needs you now!

Rolland Kidder

photo credit: Johnny Silvercloud

                                     Biden’s Upcoming “Waterloo” with Democrats

 There is an old adage, sometimes attributed to former House Speaker, Sam Rayburn, which goes:  “When you’ve got the votes, call the roll.”  The opposite of that is also true:  “If you don’t have the votes, don’t call the roll.”

 Why put members of your own party at risk in voting for or against a bill which will never become law?  That is a good and legitimate question.  It is also where we now find ourselves in Washington.

 The “progressives” in the Democratic Party want to vote on a $3.5 trillion bill to expand all kinds of social services. The problem is that there are not the votes to pass it.  So, why put marginal, moderate Democrats at risk in voting on such a bill?

 We already know that Senators Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema (both Democrats) will vote “No” in the U.S. Senate.  Even if Nancy Pelosi can corral enough votes in the House to pass it, it would only be a “one-house” bill, since there are not enough votes for passage in the Senate.  With a 50-50 tie vote between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, you can’t pass a bill there if even one Democrat deserts the ship.

 So why bring it to a vote?  Because apparently, that is what the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is demanding.

 What ideologically progressive Democrats don’t seem to understand is that bringing such a one-house bill to a vote in Congress, will probably mean that they are doomed into sliding back into a minority status in the mid-term elections.

 In my view, the only person who can head off this almost certain political “Waterloo” is President Joe Biden.  If nothing else during decades of service in the U.S. Senate, he learned the arithmetic of voting.  It takes a majority in both the Senate and House to pass a bill so that it can become law.

 Somehow Joe Biden is going to have to convince the strident, progressives in his party to back off.   The Senate has already passed (with some Republican support) a traditional infrastructure bill of about $1 trillion.  That same or a similar measure can pass easily in the House, as long as progressives don’t hold it hostage to their hoped-for larger spending proposal.

 “Common Joe” Biden has been known over-the-years for his ability to compromise and get things done.  After the debacle in winding down the war in Afghanistan and the continuing battle to get people vaccinated, he needs a congressional victory on the slimmed-down, yet important, infrastructure bill that has already passed the Senate. 

 It is time for what old-timers like me might call a “come-to-your senses” meeting at the White House.  Biden should bring in those progressive Democrats who might torpedo his traditional infrastructure bill.  Promise Bernie Sanders and others like him continuing support in their quest for a broader expansion of social programs.  But, remind them of the current political reality they face--the bigger bill can’t pass.

 If they don’t take “half-a-loaf” with the trimmed down infrastructure bill, they may likely get nothing.  Getting nothing won’t sell well on the campaign trail in 2022.  Compromising now could well mean the difference as to whether Democrats retain congressional majorities in the upcoming mid-term elections.

 

Relearning the Lessons of History

 As a Vietnam veteran, I have been especially troubled by recent events in Afghanistan.  We don’t seem to learn from the lessons of history.

 We thought, relative to Vietnam, that military might along with American know-how could turn around a civil war between North and South Vietnam.  We discounted the long history of Vietnam, including the fact that before French colonization, the country had been an independent nation.  No amount of American intervention was going to overcome the drive to reunify that country.

 In Afghanistan, almost the reverse has happened—no amount of American intervention was going to unify a country which has had  little to no history of being a unified nation state.  When we went to war in Afghanistan, it was a country run by tribal war lords.  It is still that way.

 There will be a lot of negative fall-out from this capitulation, particularly for President Biden and his administration.  A departure date had been set by President Trump and it was extended a bit by Mr. Biden.  Yet, both men, it seems, were misled by “rosy” intelligence reports put out by the Pentagon that the Afghan Army, trained by us for 20 years, would stand and fight for its own country.

 If there is one lesson we should have learned from the Vietnam War, it is that one should not always rely on press releases and unrealistic, hopeful intelligence reports coming from the defense establishment…especially when it comes to “nation-building,” which is not its forte. 

 Before going to Vietnam as a Navy Patrol Officer, I had read a lot of history about Vietnam including several books written by Bernard Fall who had lived in and visited Vietnam many times.  The culture he described and the politics associated with it, were much different than what official Washington was putting out.

 I discussed this a bit with a U.S. Army Afghanistan veteran recently who had spent a year in that country.  He described it as a place where the combatants were primarily motivated by who would pay them the most—not as to who loved their country more.  It was a story of people looking more for American money than for a more democratic society.  Many were mercenaries who would shift sides depending on who would give them better combat pay.

 The British and Russians tried and failed to subdue and administer this cobbled-together group of mountain tribesmen that someone drew a boundary around and called “Afghanistan.”  Now, so-to-speak, America is “going down the tubes of history” in the same place.

 It is sad.  It is sad especially for the young women and girls of Afghanistan who will likely be sent back to limbo and isolation with the probability that they will receive little or no education.  It is sad for the families of American service men and women who died there.  It is sad for our NATO allies who also sent troops and tried to help the country.

 Post-Afghanistan, our national challenge will be in exercising leadership in a fractured world at a time when it is desperately needed, especially with a communist, authoritarian China on the rise. 

 Somehow, in the midst of this debacle, we will need to dig down deep into our American roots, recommit ourselves to the rule of law, and strive to continue our engagement in international affairs.

Turning Over a New Leaf

With Kathy Hochul becoming Governor, New York State is “turning over a new leaf” in its halls of governance.

The first difference I believe we will notice is one of style and tone—there will be no threats or defiant statements.  We got used to that with Andrew Cuomo and, in my view, it was that arrogant side of him that finally brought him down.  Kathy Hochul, Governor, will be the kind of down-to-earth, empathetic and articulate person that made her a good Congresswoman and a respected local elected official here in western New York.

The other aspect of governing that I hope she brings to Albany is a return to allowing the departments and agencies of state government do their work without continual interference from the Governor’s office.  In Andrew Cuomo’s world, virtually all announcements whether they dealt with transportation, health care or the weather, had to first be politically cleared by the Governor’s office.

When you are Governor, the public expects you to name good, qualified people to head up major departments and agencies of the government.   Then they expect that you will give these individuals the ability to implement government policy in the fields to which they are assigned.

Why should nearly every press release dealing with state government action have to be cleared by the Governor’s office?  Why do we need to wait for political vetting when it comes to letting state contracts or fighting a snow storm along the Thruway?  Hopefully, the Hochul Administration will restore some autonomy to state departments and agencies.

I would also hope that her administration will try and return to some sense of sharing governmental initiatives with the legislature.  The Cuomo administration used to “cram-in” all kinds of policy decisions into the state budget so that the legislature would have no time to hold hearings or conduct serious deliberations on them.  It is time to get back to a more deliberative type of government where the legislative representatives of the people can interact with the state’s chief executive.

The new Governor Hochul fortunately has a lot of political experience, and she will also have time to put together a campaign for Governor in 2022.  It won’t be easy because she is from western New York and the politics of the state is always tilted toward downstate.  (The presumptive Republican candidate running for Governor, who has already announced, is from downstate and lives on Long Island.)  However, Kathy Hochul in the past won a statewide primary election for Lieutenant Governor—and I would guess that she is ready to engage New York City Democrats in a race for Governor if she wants to.

I think the next few months will be "fun," if you can call watching state government fun.

I think the next few months will be “fun,” if you can call watching state government fun.   At least it will be interesting—the first western New Yorker as Governor since Grover Cleveland, the first woman Governor of New York ever.  The politics of it all and how it plays out will at least be “captivating.”  Maybe that is a better word. 

Finally, I think we need to give her a chance at stepping up to the job of being Chief Executive of this very diverse and often divisive state.   There is nothing wrong, no matter what your politics, of wishing this fellow western New Yorker  “good luck” as she starts her new duties!

Rolland Kidder

Requiring Accountability

Holding people accountable for their actions is important, especially in politics.

Holding people accountable for their actions is important, especially in politics.  Today there are two “inquiries” going on which are focused on accountability—one in Washington and the other in Albany.

The Washington inquiry relates to what happened on January 6, 2021.  The leadership of the Republican Party has, more-or-less, trashed this effort.  They still fear the power of Donald Trump and are afraid to endorse anything that might lead to his door.  They seem to have forgotten his speech at the Ellipse on the Mall that day firing up the crowd and encouraging them to assault the Capitol.

I know that some look upon Nancy Pelosi as some kind of “ogre” who has only partisan interests at heart.  However, I give her credit for “sticking to her guns” and convening an official inquiry into what happened on that infamous day which occurred last January in our nation’s capital.  In normal times, like after the Watergate break-in, there would have been full bi-partisan support for a special investigative committee.  This time, the Senate Republican leadership said “No” and only two Republican members of the House apparently had the courage to serve on such a panel.

It is too early to tell, but I am hopeful that this Committee can still get to the bottom of what happened that day so that it is forever remembered as a blight on the democratic foundations of our government.  Perhaps the former President will be found to be only one of many responsible for what happened.  But, anyone listening to his speech that day would be hard-pressed to conclude that it had no effect on the mob.

The other inquiry we need to keep our eye on is the one in Albany investigating the Governor’s actions in allegedly withholding information related to how the pandemic affected nursing homes and the recent conclusions of a formal investigation by the Attorney General that he sexually harassed several women.  This kind of thing cannot just be “swept under the rug.”  

At the state level, most of the Republicans (unlike in Washington) are more than ready to investigate and impeach Governor Cuomo.   However, since they are now out of power with a diminished minority in the legislature, it will be up to Democrats to deal with and make a judgment on these serious accusations of misconduct.  Early reactions by the Majority Leader of the Senate and Speaker of the Assembly indicate that the Attorney General’s Report is being taken seriously.  It is also possible that the Governor could resign rather than face impeachment.

Whether at the national or state level, the public will not look kindly on inaction on these matters.  The people are demanding an honest and impartial assessment of what happened.  It so happens that leadership on these issues at both the state and federal level is now in the hands of Democrats.  If they run an unbiased and thorough investigation into what has happened, the public will support the outcome.  If they conduct something else, they will pay for it politically.

The Republicans also face the “Scylla and Charybdis” of public opinion.  If they strive only to investigate a Democrat in Albany, and not one of their own in Washington—public opinion will turn against them.  The public does not want a “white-wash” in either case—just the truth.

Requiring accountability from our elected officials is one of the “checks and balances” of our constitutional form of government.

Rolland Kidder

Driving Long Distance in an Electric Car

Friends of ours have children and grandchildren who live in the New York City area and they often drive there.  They can make it in about 7 hours in their SUV.

Now that everyone is talking about electric cars, I was wondering how long it would take them to make that drive in an electric-driven vehicle (EV)?

Though EV batteries are getting bigger and better, it is currently best to only count on them for 250-300 miles between recharges.  New York City is 360 miles away.  So, it is probably best to think about driving to New York in an EV over two days and not trying to make it a one-day trip.  You wouldn’t want to run out of juice in the Lincoln Tunnel right at the end of your trip.

Currently it takes 8-10 hours using conventional sources of power to “fill-up” an EV.  So that would mean driving east to Binghamton, staying over-night, recharging the car and then heading on into New York the next day.  Who wants to do that?

I bring this up because sometimes people want you to think that the conversion away from gasoline- driven cars will be an easy thing.  It may be easy around a big city where you never drive more than 100 miles per day.  But, around here, things get more complicated.

There are a lot of differences between electrically driven cars and those with internal combustion engines.  An electric car has no big engine or transmission.  It has no exhaust system.  Yet, it does have a battery that weighs 1200 pounds that needs to be constantly refilled, and you could be left stranded.

Someday they might make a battery that will go 1,000 miles between “fill-ups,” or perhaps they will develop a technology to fill a battery in a matter of minutes instead of hours.  But, for the foreseeable future, it looks like long distance trips by electrically-driven cars may be problematic.

Another option might be to have electric cars rented instead of owned.  You could then drive a car to Binghamton, trade it in for a fully charged car and then head on into New York.  It would sort of be like a modern day “Pony Express” where every so many miles you get on a fresh horse in order to keep the mail moving.  But, would people actually adapt to that?  We are used to having our own car.

When you think about it, our gasoline driven cars are really quite efficient.  Where else can you put 90 lbs. of fuel into a 14-gallon tank and have the energy to propel you down a road for about 300 miles?

I don’t know about you, but I think that it is going to be awhile before people start driving electric cars from here to New York City or beyond.  I wouldn’t give up your gasoline car quite yet.

Rolland Kidder 

The other day, early in the morning, as I drove east on I-86, a spectacular vista appeared as I neared Exit 12. The clouds were low, in the distance fog had settled over the Conewango Valley, and yet I could still see the foothills of the Allegheny Mountains off in the distance down past Clarks Corners.

It made me realize again just how beautiful the drive is along I-86, the Southern Tier Expressway.

When it comes to this road, I go way back to the days when it was still a “pipe-dream.” There was a Route 17 Association which for years had been lobbying Albany for a four-lane highway. The old Route 17 was primarily a two-lane road that meandered all the way from Westfield to Harriman, New York down close to the Hudson River. At Binghamton it turned into a four-lane artery but, even here, it was restricted by cross roads and occasional traffic lights. It was a long, slow way to get downstate and to New York City.

What finally changed things was the passage (in large part through the efforts of Senator Robert Kennedy) of the Appalachian Regional Commission Act that brought federal dollars into the area which could be used for infrastructure projects, including highway construction. It took many years but, gradually, the expressway that we now call I-86 began to creep west from Binghamton to Corning, eventually to the shores of Chautauqua Lake and then finally, the last section, to I-90 near Erie.

There were a lot of people who deserve credit for the road but I will mention just one, Bill Hennessy. Bill had grown up in Wellsville and finally became Commissioner of Transportation for the State of New York. It was Bill who saw the “big picture” and wanted the road to be a scenic and spectacular highway as it wound its way through the Southern Tier.

Think of the vistas we now have. There are close-up views of the Allegheny River near Salamanca. There is the incredible view on either side of the Alfred-Almond Pass as you come off the high point of the highway in Allegany County. Then, there is the winding descent eastbound as you come down from the pass over the hill at Howard, just west of Bath—special, “awesome” might be the over-used word.

Then there is probably one of the most spectacular highway views in the East, the Visitor’s Center off the eastbound lane overlooking Chautauqua Lake near Bemus Point. When you drive in, you don’t at first see the Lake but the view of it emerges as you park your car and then it fills the whole horizon. The view is incredible with nearly the whole south basin of the Lake stretched out in front of you.

There is another whole story of how the road got to this particular place—at first planned for being closer to the lake, local opposition pushed the right-of-way further up the hill. (It also gobbled up a lot of John Cheney’s farm, which he wasn’t pleased with.) But, when it got here, you have to give the State DOT engineers (and likely, Bill Hennessy) credit—they saw the view and planned the overlook that we now have.

As visitors and truckers pull into this stop, I can envision that a few of them have said: “Someday, I am going to come back and live in this beautiful place!” The premier vista on Vista Highway, right here in Chautauqua County. It is one of those places that makes you realize that you are lucky to live here.

Rolland Kidder

Two Peas in a Pod?

This is an old saying which defines two people being, in some ways, very much the same.  “Peas in the same pod” were the words recently written by Albany newspaper columnist, Chris Churchill, in an article alleging that the words very much describe similarities between Andrew Cuomo and Donald Trump.

Back in 2016, Churchill opined in a prior article that Donald Trump’s election as President was not good news for Andrew Cuomo who had aspirations for the White House.  “Weary voters in 2020…would be looking for a different personality type.”

“Trump is a bully from Queens,” Churchill wrote at the time.  “New York City through and through. Hotheaded, he tends to yell.  We’re told he’s vindictive.  Cuomo is a bully from Queens.  He’s New York City through and through.  Hotheaded, he tends to yell.  We know he’s vindictive.”

Trump is a bully from Queens, Cuomo is a bully from Queens.  New York City through and through.

Fast-forward to today.  2020 has come and gone and so has Donald Trump’s Presidency.  The gubernatorial election of 2022 in New York is in the offing and Andrew Cuomo is facing allegations of sexual harassment and of hiding facts about nursing home deaths from COVID while he was writing a book lauding his leadership in fighting the pandemic.  Things look grim for Andrew Cuomo right now.

Churchill also makes a comparison of Trump’s accusation of a “witch hunt” being orchestrated by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller over his connections to Russia to Cuomo’s criticism of “politics at its worst” in describing the investigations being coordinated by Attorney General Tish James and Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, since both of these public officials could be potential candidates for Governor.

The political approach of Cuomo, according to Susan Lerner of the good-government group Common Cause, is to undermine “faith in governmental checks and balances, just as Trump often did.”

“Two peas in a pod” is, of course, an over-simplification.  Cuomo had a lot of experience in government before becoming Governor, and Trump had none before he became President.  Trump is rich and Cuomo isn’t.  Cuomo articulated an understandable explanation of what was happening at the beginning of the COVID crisis, and Trump didn’t.

But, I think Churchill still has a point to make.  When you come from the “rough and tumble” of an outer borough like Queens, and then you make it to the big time either in Manhattan, the State of New York or the United States itself—you carry a certain chip on your shoulder as being a guy who made it despite all of the obstacles put in your way by old money, old politicians and the enemies you have made along the way.

When in trouble you go on the offensive and attack the veracity of the attackers.  Divert the attention of the public.  Change the spin.  Stall and time will be on your side.  Ultimately, you might still win.  “Two peas in a pod?”  What do you think?

Rolland Kidder