Thursday, August 28, 2014

A Minor Musing On Anger, Scandal, and Political Dominance

PNR wonders if and when people will respond to the IRS the way the residents of Ferguson, Missouri responded to that city's police force. I'd like to broaden the question a bit. What does it take to prompt voters to actually decide to limit the power of South Dakota's dominant party?

Cory succinctly sums up the Rounds/Daugaard record of governance and economic development:
. . . the bankrupt beef plant, the bankrupt dairy, the lost jobs, the lost tax dollars, the lost investments, the bank franchise tax evasion, the profit-seeking privatization of a state function, the lack of oversight and the abuses of power.
Moving beyond the EB-5 fiasco, Darrell Solberg's letter to the editor points to other Republican failures.
. . . South Dakota [has] the dubious honor of being one of the top 10 most corrupt states.
Lack of government openness and transparency led to questionable practices, pay to play, tax rebates for oil pipelines and no-bid contracts.
Increasing the number of state employees, many of whom were relatives or friends, increased the state’s expenses and dependency on federal dollars.
Failure to properly fund education left our teachers last in the nation in pay, — $8,000 lower than North Dakota, the next lowest state — and kept the state near the bottom in state funding of education.
Their lack of attention and commitment to education funding has caused a severe teacher shortage in the state.
College tuitions are on an upward spiral; South Dakota college graduates have one of the highest educational debts upon graduation, forcing many to leave for better paying jobs.
In a sane political universe, that record should be enough to motivate voters to give the other party the keys to the executive offices for at least one term. South Dakota is not Richard J. Daley's Chicago  or the Long's Louisiana yet, but a single party dynasty is the quickest way to approach those levels of malfeasance.

Going a step further, Republicans themselves admitted that Secretary of State's office needed to experience a return of integrity and their nomination of Shantel Krebs to replace Jason Gant was seen as rebuke to Gant. Once again, a sane political universe would contain enough voters who would believe that it would take both a different person and a different party to avoid the same problems.

I don't disagree that people should take to the streets more than they do, although my best pitchfork and pike days are behind me. Before folks get angry enough to duplicate Ferguson, I'd prefer they'd get angry enough to show and vote for different people from different parties.


P&R said...

I'd say the fecklessness of the SD Democrats is the prime reason for the retention of SD Republicans in office.

Much as I appreciate conservativism and tend to vote Republican, a competent competitor would be greatly appreciated.

Kal Lis said...

In the recent US House races, one would be on weak ground arguing that Noem had a better resume than either Varalik or Herseth Sandlin.

I will grant that Democrats have been negligent in AG races.

Scott Heidepriem seemed to want to get to Daugaard's right when it came to spending. That didn't work very well.

This year, Schultz doesn't seem to want to campaign. Robinson, whom I had I hopes for, doesn't seem to have the campaign thing figured out either. The Dems left lots of spots vacant. Invisible candidates are worse choices than feckless candidates.

Wismer is doing better than I expected. That race should be closer but voters don't seem motivated to replace Daugaard.

I know I need to move on to up other themes, but the only Dynasty I have every liked was the 1980s night time soap opera. The Republican dominance angers me and Democratic dominance would as well.