OPINION & EDITORIAL
Manning or O’Hagan: Do you want apathy or lies?
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Sam Clegg:
- Nuclear plant ban ridiculous (March 14, 2008)
- No movie plotline: Iraqi plan won't fly (March 6, 2008)
- Grocery store has a profit potential (February 29, 2008)
- Keep on turning in illegal immigrants (February 21, 2008)
Related Stories:
- The Rev. Jesse Jackson: Working for Himself (February 25, 2003)
- A clear choice for District 5 (March 28, 2008)
- Taking the 'super' out of superdelegates (March 27, 2008)
- Madison no longer hotbed of activism (September 1, 2005)
- ASM damaged by apathy (February 3, 2006)
by Sam Clegg
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Indifference. Perhaps the most terrifying form of resistance to the genuinely engaged student of politics is the dark mass of total apathy of one’s surroundings. And its antithesis — inspiring oratory, understanding of the issues, personal integrity — is in such short supply that those rare members of the old guard, those few who play because of passion, are too often left with nothing but contempt. They are left wondering — while staring at the gaping emptiness of all that disengagement — what the hell happened?
Such is the case with yesterday’s debate between Wyndham Manning and Conor O’Hagan, the two candidates vying for the position of Dane County supervisor for District 5.
The debate was the last chance either candidate had to impress the media, campus notables and the thin smattering of interested students present. In both oratory and policy, they blew it.
Mr. O’Hagan’s claims about his commitment to the student body and to governance in general, while grandiose, were quite simply not true. Mr. O’Hagan stated without reservation that he would be available for students two to three hours per day in public areas such as the Rathskeller. He further walked the long plank of ludicrous boasting when he bragged that he would be available at 3 a.m. for anyone who needed him, and that he would structure the next 10 years of his life around being a student and serving on the County Board.
Mr. O’Hagan’s most egregious lie, however, was unleashed upon disbelieving ears when he advocated funding a Regional Transit Authority not by raising taxes, not through deficit spending and certainly not through cutting or consolidating programs. Instead, he argued for funding through better transportation, which he argued would increase county revenues. That’s the entire purpose of the RTA in the first place! Funding an RTA by, well, creating an RTA, is beyond plain dumb — it is a self-advancing lie.
Last but certainly not least, Mr. O’Hagan’s proposal to build a preponderance of 10-12 story buildings in Madison’s downtown and slowly export them outward belies his claims of environmental stewardship, but no matter. Mr. O’Hagan had an answer. In all fairness, he has previously stated that he wanted to start in the downtown area to preserve aquifers in the outlying sections of Madison. Then this young electoral superman claimed with a straight face that the way to solve algal bloom and phosphorous pollution in the city’s lakes was by — this is an actual quote — “Putting on giant boots and getting in there.” Some statements deconstruct themselves.
Mr. Manning, on the other hand, was willing to export his fascination with the arts and the environment to every aspect of a board with responsibility for $450 million. Whether it was the question of economic improvement in Madison or the bottomless chasm of delinquency for low-income youth, Mr. Manning had one response — the arts. An arts festival to spur the downtown economy. An arts initiative to improve prison recidivism and to engage at-risk children. An arts festival to unite the people of the world for one ultimate cause — peace among all. OK, that’s a little much.
But it does raise the question that sticks out like a massive tumor on what would otherwise be a spectacularly mediocre but nonetheless endorsable candidacy: According to his performance in the debate, the only issues Mr. Manning understands are the arts and the environment. Someone with an adequate technical knowledge of Madison’s water problem is never unwelcome, and environmental sustainability is proven to pay for itself. Additionally, Mr. Manning’s statement on the true cause of pollution in our lakes — phosphorous — was a fact-laden breath of fresh air.
Not true with Mr. Manning’s insistence during the debate that art is the answer for economic development and the rescue of troubled youth and prisoners. As Mr. O’Hagan correctly pointed out, most county prisoners spend far too little time in jail to become interested in the arts, and the county already funds programs such as United Way and the YMCA for young people. Furthermore, when asked why he would raise the sales tax to fund the RTA when it is economically proven that such a tax is regressive — read: harmful to the poor — Manning copped out and said the board had recommended it, and he would trust the people in charge.
If anything flashed as a red light during the debate, it was that onerous passing of the buck. It implied above all else that while Mr. Manning is genuinely concerned, more so than Mr. O’Hagan at least, he is only interested in the issues he cares about, which, unfortunately for him, are miniscule slices of a bewildering and terribly expensive pie.
And so Dane County is shafted.
Whatever the cause behind this crumbling mess of a debate, it should serve as the figurative head on the pike for all future contenders: This is the inevitable consequence when one candidate will unabashedly lie about questions of policy to get himself elected, and the other one just doesn’t seem to care about them.
Sam Clegg (sclegg@badgerherald.com) is a freshman majoring in economics and political science.
Anonymous (March 27, 2008 @ 3:57am):
and pwned again.
Anonymous (March 27, 2008 @ 6:24am):
Ashok, where you at? I want you back!
Anonymous (March 27, 2008 @ 7:12am):
It sounds like two typical liberal students debating. I'm glad that I can vote for a moderate candidate in my district.
Anonymous (March 27, 2008 @ 9:44am):
"It implied above all else that while Mr. Manning is genuinely concerned, more so than Mr. O’Hagan at least, he is only interested in the issues he cares about, which, unfortunately for him, are miniscule slices of a bewildering and terribly expensive pie."
Politicians in general are focused on their passions and interests. It doesn't mean that Mr. O'Hagan therefore is more deserving.
I honestly believe that Mr. Manning is a better candidate because he genuinely care about this COUNTY (not just campus), he has been on campus long enough to understand the system, the wants and needs of students, and ways to stay connected with students, and Mr. Manning plain and simple is much brighter.
Mr. O'Hagan proved yesterday that his "breadth of knowledge" is very shallow indeed. Especially when Mr. Manning had to explain to him why the lakes were polluted and sound out PHOS-PHOR-OUS.
Anonymous (March 27, 2008 @ 10:22am):
Sam, why don't you run? Oh yeah, you're too busy being a pompous ass and spouting your dad's rhetoric to contribute positively to Dan County.
Anonymous (March 27, 2008 @ 12:29pm):
student reps haven't carried any weight on the County Board since Ech Vedder left. Whomever is elected won't be taken seriously by the rest of the board so it really doesn't matter whom is elected... at least a vote for O'Hagan will get him off of ASM where he can actually do some damage.
Anonymous (March 28, 2008 @ 9:36am):
You think Ech Vedder carried weight? Ech did nothing. Ashok actually passed lots of things, whether or not you agree with them. Ech passed a resolution in support of Leonard Peltier. That, in eight years. Ashok did his sweeping agenda in two years.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
