Christopher Lucero | Hey Mike! Vote for Us!

Letters to the Editor
Share on facebook
Share
Share on twitter
Tweet
Share on email
Email

There have been many supporters of Mike Garcia who understand cheerleading. They understand the value of taking results that have been observed and making them an integral part of a belief system.

I recently appealed to Garcia to do the same, and to boost California, rather than prey upon the fears of people. I asked him to evaluate his own and his uncle’s comfort and wealth, generated over the past 30 years and within the California locale/policy. I pointed out some of his personal sources, such as his employ at a defense contractor, within a state (California) that receives the most money of any state from Pentagon budgets. I am hoping the letter gave him pause to consider that – maybe – he really didn’t have it so bad here in “Commmiefornia” after all.

A point Mike made was that he does not “want my country to turn into what my state has become.” And that he “can’t afford it.” That sort of self-centered language ALMOST sounds like leadership, but only to those who want to be led.

Mike: Try being a little more inclusive. You might sway people on the fence like me if you tone down the conservative Republican rhetoric. It seems distinctive to you, but it’s not. It is typical.

To everyone else: We should ponder that our congressional representative is a servant, not a self-serving agent, especially not one who would favor the policies of a far-off bureaucracy (the federation of states, or Washington policy) against the needs of his own constituents. It is apparently Mike’s intent to favor the federal bureaucracy against those that state and local politicians, voters and citizens have already demonstrated to be their chosen ways.

To Mike: Ponder your motives.

Our elected representative is someone who is supposed to represent OUR interests in the most direct way possible.

I now ask Mike and his supporters and everyone reading to consider: What sort of candidate would purposefully choose to deride the locale where he is hoping to be elected in favor of the federation? If anything could be defined as a no-compromise approach guaranteeing gridlock through personal policy, that has to be it. Isn’t that what conservatives bemoan as the charade that the House of Representatives has become? Isn’t it a charade because the political philosophies and ideologies now assure that the steadfast will be preferred over compromise, ensuring gridlock? 

Each state is allowed to tinker with policies and methods and forms not already seized by the federal authority. That is the beauty of our republic. It would be tragic if the U.S. were to gravitate toward a union where the states lost their experimental nature. Experimental democracy would diminish. The U.S. would become less of what the founders had intended. Centralized power would again dominate in a way that our founding fathers disdained about King George and the throne.

To favor the federal over the local is to move in the direction of central power, and would disturb the founders of our nation, were they here to witness it. If such policy was to begin to dominate, the U.S. would lose its quality of experimental democracy and become a union of satellite republics, similar to the ex-Soviet Union. We know that is a failed approach.

I ask for these things because I really do want to vote for you, Mike. I want a young person with new ideas and a fresh attitude to advocate for the mighty 25th, and to shake things up a bit. Please be for “us,” though, not “them.”

The 25th was bold enough to elect a young person last time around, though Katie Hill did not anticipate the drama that precipitated her resignation. We had fresh new hope embodied in her willingness and her idealism. I was disappointed when she tendered her resignation and sad for her crumbing personal life. (I wanted her to tough it out.) The U.S. has allowed a couple of chief executives and hundreds of (male) politicians who are philanderers, but not a woman who has similar habits. All of them share apparently very common, modern sexual attitudes. It is patently unfair to treat them differently. Their bedroom lives are really none of our business anyway.

I again appeal to anyone running to consider their role independent of their party’s talking points, and to consider that, to maximize popularity, candidates need to assure voters that they might reasonably represent this district, not a distant federal bureaucracy or partisan ideology. It is the most elemental activity in their job as our representative.

Christopher Lucero

Saugus

Advertisement

Related To This Story

Latest NEWS