Auchtoon!

It’s only a few weeks till election day, and voters who pledge allegiance to a political party are now well fortified in their trenches. No amount of TV ads, emails, or mailers are liable to move those folks out of their positions. So at this point, it’s all about winning over the fabled independent voter.

Winning independent votes with positive messaging is, of course, one possible strategy. But as campaigns hit the homestretch, we are more likely to experience the absurdity of how objectively bad news is enthusiastically celebrated as good news. Because it makes one party look worse than the other.

Okay, fine. But I do have a simple request to the candidates and strategists: If you feel that issues like cratered reproductive rights or galloping inflation will rally voters to your cause, go ahead and use them — but could you maybe not be so happy about it?

Please don’t think that I am in any way condoning those who embrace conspiracy theories in order to explain to themselves how the world works. Especially in the past decade, this has become a chronic problem with increasingly dangerous results: human rights abuses, denied elections, insurrections. Enough said.

However, in certain instances, I can understand the impulse. For any Michigander of a certain age, a recent story in The Detroit Free Press must have been really tough to reconcile. An excerpt:

GM and the Environmental Defense Fund issued a joint statement Tuesday pushing for an accelerated timetable from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. GM and the nonprofit environmental advocacy group say they want the EPA to set standards requiring at least half of new vehicle sales to involve those without tailpipe emissions by 2030 and cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 60% for the 2030 model year compared with model year 2021 for light-duty vehicles.

What? GM working together with an environmental group to encourage tougher, more aggressive regulation of their industry? This is definitely not the GM I knew growing up in Flint! Quite the opposite. But then how do you explain it? Well, of course, conspiracy theories are an option. Perhaps a radical cabal of socialist industrialists plotting with deep state environmentalist wind farm unions in cahoots with immigrant drug and pizza cartels that … well, you get the idea.

Upon closer inspection, however, the likely reason aligns perfectly with good ol’ corporate profit goals and returns on investment: GM (like other carmakers) is hoping to ensure there will be a market for all the electric vehicles it is committing itself to build. Not as fun as the conspiracy theories, but much more plausible.

In a tweet last Sunday, Meshawn Maddock, the co-chair of the Michigan Republican Party, labeled Pete Buttigieg, the U.S. transportation secretary, former officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve, and a gay man, a “weak little girl.” Some people were offended. Some even called for her immediate removal. All that is understandable but not likely productive. It certainly was not outside the typical bounds of Maddock or the Michigan Republican Party, so it wasn’t surprising. Frankly, offending somebody is often exactly what they are aiming for.

Me? I’m not offended at all. I’m baffled. Absolutely baffled. I mean, did Meshawn “Shecky” Maddock really think that she was being clever or funny by channeling Mr. Roper from Three’s Company? Does she honestly consider promoting the adoption of electric vehicles to be “gay,” and therefore, a bad thing? Why in the world would she imagine calling anybody “a little girl” to be a zinger insult? In freakin’ 2022?

And, of course, the topper: How does any of this reconcile with being a good Christian?

Baffled.

Back in 2004, there was that ballot proposal in Michigan to define marriage as between one man and one woman. It passed handily and forever forbade gay marriage per the Michigan constitution. Until it was overturned (overruled? superseded? made null and void? I’m not sure the right terminology) a decade later when same-sex marriage was legalized for the United States as a whole.

The arguments for the ban tended along the lines of “the majority of people don’t approve of gay marriage, and the majority rules, bub. That’s how democracies work!” My smartypants, “well, actually” response: “But we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.” Technically correct, sure. But underneath that, the actual point — popularity doesn’t automatically make something right.

These days I’m seeing the “constitutional republic” argument being used more and more. Not just in cases of gay rights, but issues surrounding abortion access, gun violence, healthcare access, and so on. Curiously, the argument seems especially popular with those who not too long ago were vehement proponents of “majority rules.” Again, technically they are not wrong. I am just questioning their apparent flexibility. It was fine to impose their values on others when in the majority, but awfully convenient that they see those same values as constitutionally protected now that they are in the minority.

It is, of course, natural to want to bend the rule of law to meet a desired outcome. (Making “states’ rights” mean what we want them to mean is something of a national pastime.) But it shouldn’t be a convenient default.

Yes, I know. The editorial cartoon this week isn’t exactly biting commentary. What can I say? I felt the need to make a contemporary joke. And there is nothing more contemporary these days than pickleball.

Have you played yet? No? You will. It’s inevitable — that’s seemingly just how popular it is becoming. And that’s a good thing because it is a lot of fun. Ideal for the times, really. Easy to learn, low cost, very social (but with accommodating social distances), a good workout, and a nice break from streaming devices.

I would like, however, to point out that the genesis of the cartoon did come from a legitimate concern: After Labor Day, we roll in earnest into campaign season for the November election. And it looks very much like us voters will be getting mostly well-crafted talking points for making our decisions. Political message makers (whether the parties, the handlers, or the candidates themselves) are all highly trained to stay strictly to their scripts. And if not their scripts, then definitely their ideology.

This makes any sort of substantive debate or thoughtful interview very difficult. A real conversation (like one you might have after playing a few games pickleball) will be a rare treat.