8/2/2010 7:53

Dan Nowak

Dan Nowak for State Representative: "Believe in Yourself, Not the Politicians". The question, Dan, is why should I make an exception for you?

I'm not sure why farmers, lawyers, and retired truck drivers who have made an effort to serve in political office are less to be trusted than farmers, lawyers, and truck drivers who have never made any such commitment. Perhaps only persons already warped even seek public office. There's some logic to that line of thought, and if it is correct Dan Nowak is surely as warped as anyone. Perhaps it is the attempt to get elected which somehow warps the spirit of these citizens. If that's the case, Dan Nowak is doomed.

Alternatively, it may be possible for good people to run, be elected, and serve effectively in public office. Then the question to be asked is this: Is Dan Nowak a better person, a more skillful legislator, more committed, more idealistic, more wise, or in any other way a better candidate than some other person? In other words, the question to be asked is the same question as should always be asked about any candidate.

Dan Nowak's literature tries to deflect the question to something else. He says, "politicians are running our country/state". Politicians! Imagine! Who else would be running our government, except for citizens who have offered their services as legislators and executives to the voters and have been approved to serve?

I'm a little bit confused about just where Dan Nowak sees the problem to exist. What is a "country/state"? "Country estates" I've heard of, and even seen from a distance although I'm not rich enough to afford one for myself. Apparently there are several of these country/states, none of which meet Dan Nowak's criteria for perfection.

However, the current condition of these entities is not without some positive impact on society, at least according to Dan Nowak. He writes, "Our country/states are so screwed up morally/financially, [that] people want to find an example of what good looks like." (I'm uncomfortable mixing morality and finances so closely, but let that go for now.) If Dan Nowak is right, and I admit that I can't vouch for him on this point, then the imperfections of country/states are inspiring philosophical inquiries after the example of Plato.

But not by Dan Nowak.

Dan Nowak is instead proposing 3 changes, none of them either philosophical or good.

First, of course, Dan Nowak wishes himself to be given political office. I've already noted the incongruity of this aspiration with his stated concern that politicians run the government. If not to run the government, then why would we pay you that salary?

Second and third, Dan Nowak proposes enacting "2 state constitutional amendments". The first of these would prohibit a truck driver or restauranteur with experience in the legislature (or any other elective office) from continuing to serve the public in that capacity. The second would mandate that corporations, unions, political parties, east coast investors, and political action committees (all being other than "individuals that reside in the state") buy their political advertising separately from the candidates whom they support or oppose, thus enforcing of a welter of disparate and uncoordinated voices.

What Dan Nowak does not propose is any reason for Dan Nowak to be elected to office. In this, of course, Dan Nowak is being a true politician.