Auchtoon!

I like the idea of electing leaders who see the value of good governance, but I’m more afraid of those willing (even enthused) about burning the whole house down.

I like the idea of passing laws that ensure all people (especially women) have access to affordable, high-quality health care, but I’m more afraid of the zealots and ideologues intent on doing or saying anything to prevent that.

I like the idea of making voting as accessible as possible, but I’m more afraid of how dedicated supporters of the Big Lie are continuously attempting to undermine that.

I like the idea of candidates capable of being open-minded and admitting mistakes, but I’m more afraid of those who will always put party and self-interest first.

I like the idea of supporting democracy, but I’m more afraid of how it can be whittled away and replaced by authoritarianism.

As we head into the final stretch of this election season, it can feel overwhelming. We’ve been deluged with deviously crafted ads, catchy slogans, and endless appeals for our vote (and our money). We’ve been bludgeoned with reports, speeches, commentary, and analysis. Things can feel like they’re really messed up.

So now I think it is a good time to pause for a moment, take some deep breaths, and clear your mind… so you can realize that, yes, in fact, things are messed up.

Well, not all things. But some. For instance, the fact that there are so many candidates who are straight up election deniers, including the Republican candidates for state attorney general and secretary of state. You’d think that accepting the truth or at least not promulgating lies would be a qualifier for running for those offices. Apparently not. That is objectively messed up (under any circumstance).

Almost six years ago, I drew a cartoon about Betsy DeVos being nominated as the Secretary of Education for the Trump administration. This cartoon is very different from that cartoon, but as far as my comments go, I pretty much have the same thing to say — like DeVos, many of the folks running for school boards this fall are cranks:

A crank (for lack of a better term, let me know if there is one) is a person caught up in her own thoughts, plans, and ideology — dogmatically indifferent to the consequences. It’s been my experience that nearly every organization has one — work group, school board, sports team, professional society, whatever.

And for the most part, it’s good to have a crank.

They provide a vital service: They keep everybody else honest.

Nobody wants to set the crank off, so we tend to plan more carefully.

For example, say you’re the chair of a church committee to raise funds for a mission trip. There is consensus for a pancake breakfast, but there is a crank on the finance team who believes with all her heart that using food for fundraising is a grave sin. If indeed you want to move forward, you will make sure to organize a solid and defensible plan.

But the last thing you want is for the crank to be in charge.

Cranks by their nature are “my way or the highway” types, and likely with a chip on the shoulder from having been handled and circumvented so much in the past.

So, please, do your homework and vote accordingly.

I have for some time been trying to figure out a way to illustrate the unique circumstances of this year’s race for attorney general in Michigan between the current office holder, Democrat Dana Nessel, and Republican candidate, Matt DePerno.

A quick summary from Bridge Michigan:

“DePerno is one of nine people who were investigated by Nessel’s office for an alleged Michigan vote tabulator tampering scheme. Nessel’s office began its investigation in February, before DePerno was her opponent. Because of the conflict of interest of investigating him, Nessel sought the appointment of a special prosecutor to decide if charges are warranted.”

You don’t see that kind of thing every election year. But who could have predicted that the Republican Party would nominate somebody actively breaking well-established laws to be the top enforcer of laws for our state? Oh, yeah, right… Unprecedented has sort of become the new precedented, huh?

Anyway, I believe this week’s cartoon stands on its own. But for those of you old enough to remember the annual advertising blitz by Network TV to promote new fall lineups, it may resonate a little more. Also, am I the only one who gets a Dr. Strangelove vibe from Matt DePerno?

Abortion is, of course, a sensitive issue. And even though I may at times relish provoking thoughts and (let’s be honest) pushing buttons, I decidedly do not when it comes to this topic. People have developed deeply held views that are very personal.

But just because something is sensitive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be discussed. As always, you readers can decide for yourselves, but this is my take: Opponents of Proposal 3 have labeled it as radical and extreme. That’s subjective (and somewhat disingenuous when significant elements of the pro-life movement have used those very words as rallying cries).

What I will say is that deciding the legal status of abortion in Michigan via ballot proposal is not great. In a similar way in which Roe v. Wade was not great, we should be deciding these things through the legislative process. But the reality is, we haven’t done that. And the chances of us ever doing that are slim to none.

I mean, if we as a country couldn’t get the Equal Rights Amendment passed into law, what are the chances that any legislature (state or federal) is going to be able to handle the abortion issue?

So wherever you stand on Proposal 3, don’t be surprised if the “other side” doesn’t seem to understand you. They probably don’t.

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.