The woes of an election year continue.
Not only do we have to choose between Hillary and "The Donald," but we will have to select a few members of the winner's supporting cast. If we accept that one of the two primary party candidates will win in November, do we re-elect a United States senator who has become a part of the Washington elite or risk supporting a new face? Would a new senator follow party lines or be the voice of their constituents? Can we learn from an incumbent's past voting record what to expect, or has their previous term proven them to be part of the problem? And, the same question exists in the House of Representatives where we have an incumbent with a history which we must judge in the possibility of either of the two presidential candidates filling the White House with their positive or negative performances.
It is unlikely that we have followed the voting records of our incumbent senator or representative unless we had a specific issue in question. Should we vote to continue the inept elected bodies' activities or vote for change and pray their activities will "do no harm" as quoted by the medical code of ethics? It is at times like these I wish I had more faith in the political parties to offer meaningful choices -- such as a candidate who would really push for term-limits, promise a balanced budget, and oppose self-serving legislation. Who, and when, those candidates will appear, we can only pray we will live to see.
We also get to come to grips with our own convictions about casino gambling (they call it entertainment) and the use of a familiar drug called marijuana. The confusion of the two items covering the marijuana is not only that one is seeking a Constitutional Amendment and the other an Arkansas Law, but that both came through voter initiatives. Less than 100,000 signatures were offered to put each of these proposals on the November ballot. It is easy to just vote "no" on issues such as these and particularly when many of the names opposing the marijuana issue -- the governor and state's surgeon general to name two -- are people I respect. However, it seems we keep voting down the same issues every election cycle. If 100,000 people can be persuaded to put their names on a piece of paper to get an issue on a specific topic on the ballot and it is defeated at the polls shouldn't there be a higher requirement to get it on the ballot for the next several elections? It isn't difficult to see where this effort is intended to lead. When they show the price of marijuana in the legalized states, you know it is not intended to be for the control of pain.
When it comes to the establishment of casinos in Arkansas, as seen in the television commercials promoting the idea, I can't help laughing. How many opportunities to provide entertainment do we need for our young adults? Or, how many senior citizens does it take to keep a casino in business? Is the casino intended to compete with the lottery? Can casino gambling help our student population at Fayetteville better understand the statistical probability of losing their money? Will the promised taxes dollars be used to aid the losers make their house payments?
The more prosperous northwest Arkansas becomes, the greater the effort to offer entertainment options "like other states." I like to think of our state's motto "Land of Opportunity" as meaning an opportunity to enjoy a less complicated, non-Las Vegas, Southern-type, life style if one chooses. I'm sure many investor-types see it as a "land of opportunity" to exploit for personal gain while promising jobs, life-style changes and pleasure. I believe in Arkansas' opportunities as a place for a less sophisticated, more wholesome way of life.
What does it mean to you? How will it affect your vote?
•••
Editor's note: Leo Lynch is an award-winning columnist. A native of Benton County, he is a retired industrial engineer and former Justice of the Peace. He can be contacted at [email protected].
Editorial on 09/28/2016