Last week I wrote of the various fantasies—old, such as the belief that the council somehow drove away Lowes, and new, such as the belief that opposition to the city council’s economic development program is a form of communism–which have corrupted our debates over whether to give tax breaks to favored businesses. One can laugh at how strange the arguments in supporting favoritism have become, but one should be concerned not only with the quality of the arguments but with the overall implications for public policy in Stephenville that the use of fantasy to support favoritism may lead to.
The danger of using fantasies—especially those involving charges of political subversion—should be obvious. Fantasies of any sort divert us from reason and facts, which, in my opinion, at least, are sounder than delusions for making decisions, whether on economic development or anything else.
To use fantasies involving political subversion are worse. Such fantasies can not only ignore facts, but they can actually shut down debate through intimidation.
It’s easy to laugh at the person who cried “Commie!” but I’m afraid she’s not alone in spinning fantasies about reds under beds. During my last year on the council there was a member who liked to say that others who voted a certain way on a certain policy were violating their oaths of office to uphold the Constitutions of Texas and the United States. I personally believed—and still do—that rational and civil debate are necessary to help apply reason to the analysis of facts. But civil debate and otherwise reasoning with someone who implied that to disagree with him was treasonous was quite impossible.
As on so many other matters, I may well be in the minority here—this person is much more popular than I am. The fact that he’s still on the council shows widespread public acceptance of his methods. Whether the public will like the results is a different matter.
Same with favoritism. Responses to my opposition to favoritism in granting tax breaks to some businesses but not to their competitors show I’m in a small minority right now. Most who have commented on the issue said they think the benefits of tax breaks for an incoming restaurant are worth the unfairness to existing restaurants not getting tax breaks. In fact, while some restaurant owners have told me they agree with my stand on this issue, others have said they support the tax breaks since a new restaurant will lead to more competition and more business for existing restaurants. We’ll see.
But favoritism in one policy area may lead to favoritism in others. For example, I’m a fanatical teetotaler, but when I was on the council I thought that all restaurants that wanted to sell alcohol should be allowed to do so—provided they did so lawfully. Hence each time an applicant for rezoning came before the council, I voted for the rezoning if it met all the legal requirements for selling alcohol. Other council members picked and chose which restaurants to grant rezoning requests to, and which to deny. Their decisions in one case led to a nasty lawsuit, and, in my opinion, at least, produced bitterness, cynicism, disillusionment, and a rejection at the polls of certain council members as well.
The danger to our political system posed by greater cynicism can be compounded if favoritism involves the selective protection of civil liberties, thereby creating freedom for some and suppression of others. For example, about ten years ago the council was discussing the city park and someone on the council asked whether the Ku Klux Klan would be allowed to rent a pavilion for a picnic. I argued that city facilities must be available to all who use them legally on a first come, first served basis, and that we couldn’t play favorites and ban the Klan from peacefully and legally using our facilities simply because we didn’t like its ideas. Once we got into the habit of suppressing the rights of some for no reason other than dislike for their principles, we created a precedent for the suppression of others as well. As I explained to a critic who thought I was affiliated with the Klan, any rule that deprived the Klan of its rights to peacefully and lawfully assemble could be turned against the NAACP as well (speaking of which, when the Klan did come to town in 2007, my wife and I worked with the head of the local NAACP to organize a counter rally).
So: We must choose fact over fantasy to make better decisions, and we must have policies in which everyone plays by the same set of rules, with fairness to all and favoritism to none. We can enjoy fantasies as long as they’re in books and on the big and small screens, but we may find them less enjoyable if used by decision makers to affect us in reality. We may think favoritism is okay as long as we’re the ones who are favored. But what do we think, say or do if we’re the ones who are not?
Malcolm L. Cross has lived in Stephenville and taught politics and government at Tarleton since 1987. His political and civic activities include service on the Stephenville City Council (2000-2014) and on the Erath County Republican Executive Committee (1990 to the present). He was Mayor Pro Tem of Stephenville from 2008 to 2014. He is a member of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church and the Stephenville Rotary Club, and does volunteer work for the Boy Scouts of America. Views expressed in this column are his and do not reflect those of The Flash as a whole.
Be the first to comment