There is an effort afoot headed by congressional Republican leaders in Washington to shed the label increasingly used against them that they are members of the “party of no.” Whether fair, Democrats have effectively used the GOP’s opposition to the stimulus plan, and now the national budget, to paint the party as one devoid of any ideas of its own.
In the last few weeks, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has harped on Montana’s lone Congressman Denny Rehberg, a Republican, for voting against major legislation. “Rehberg ‘Just Says No’ to Middle Class Tax Cuts … Again,” a recent e-mail reads, and another: “Rehberg Again Says ‘No’ to Creating Jobs and Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure.”
This is par for the course in politics, but it appeared that Republicans were doing little to fend off the label. That is, until recently, when the party unveiled its own alternative budget to the one proposed by congressional Democrats, which would repeal the entire $787 billion economic stimulus package and roll back spending by $3.6 trillion. While it has little chance of passing, the proposal at least makes it easier for them to effectively argue their positions. Those on the left and right (or middle for that matter) opposing recent policy decisions in the Flathead Valley could learn a thing or two from the national GOP.
There has been a litany of proposals on the city and county levels that have recently drawn ardent opposition. And, while there are certainly those who have reasoned arguments to why a government entity’s decision is wrong, those voices are too often drowned out by a chorus of “no’s” that does little to persuade anyone of their position.
In Whitefish, for example, the city is taking bids on a street project that would improve the downtown storm drainage and main water system and also – this is the controversial part – use money for “beautification” by adding trees, decorative lights and wider sidewalks to the city’s core.
City officials there say that the upgrades are needed to make the town more pedestrian friendly and have stressed that the project won’t eliminate any parking spaces, but late opposition has mounted. Arguments against the project have varied widely, but the loudest and least effective one is that Whitefish doesn’t need a mild facelift because it just doesn’t. OK, why not? What should the money be spent on? How does sprucing up the downtown hurt the town’s character?
In Evergreen, when county commissioners floated the idea of creating a land use advisory committee to give the largest unincorporated community in the state more influence in decisions that may affect it, they were met with a resounding “no.” The community had reason to gripe if it felt that the proposal was dubious and just a way to add another layer of government regulations. But is there a more effective way to get a line to the county commissioners, even if it’s to tell them to back off any and all planning proposals in the area?
In Kalispell, for all the reasoned arguments against the proposed location of the prerelease center and, even more divisive, the recently passed traffic impact fees, there have been few alternatives that have unified that opposition.
The worst way to persuade someone of your position is to appear that you’re opposing a plan for the sake of opposing it. Congressional Republicans realized that. In our increasingly engaged community, opposition should be coupled with alternative ideas. Better yet, those same ideas could then be used in a campaign to replace an elected official who keeps proposing rotten ones.