Metro Pulse/Editor's Corner/Last Call for Vitriol

Comment
on this story

Once more into the windmills

by Jesse Fox Mayshark

Next month will be my last hurrah here at Metro Pulse, and I intend to mark it with a suitably sentimental editor's column paying heartfelt tribute to the paper, the city and the people I've known here. Those of you who are averse to such things, consider yourselves warned.

That being the case, however, I thought I would use this penultimate missive for a rather different purpose: one last round of fish-in-a-barrel shooting, one last jabbing of our local political pincushions, one final venting of the ol' editorial spleen. You know, just for old time's sake. (See, I'm getting teary already.) So, in no particular order:

Why won't candidates for public office debate their opponents? How can anyone have the gall to ask for votes from the general public and yet refuse to meet the opposition on neutral ground for a candid discussion of policy platforms and credentials? In an age when politics is dominated by 30-second TV spots and relentlessly stage-managed "public appearances," debates provide voters with a rare opportunity to see a candidate in a relatively unscripted environment. The most recent offenders are Van Hilleary, who refused to show up for either WBIR's or WATE's Republican gubernatorial panels, and Rep. Jamie Hagood, who backed out of a Knoxville debate with her opponent Craig Kisabeth. But they're hardly alone.

It has become conventional wisdom among the three-card-monte operators who run modern campaigns that a leading candidate—and even sometimes a candidate in a tight race, like Hagood—should avoid debates whenever possible. It's a stupid strategy. Avoiding debates makes a candidate look like a coward, no matter what spin their advisers put on it. It also tends to piss off debate sponsors, who often include media organizations. Not a smart move. And most importantly in the case of televised debates, it concedes valuable air time to the opponents. Debate dodgers end up hurting themselves and the democratic process at the same time.

So the long knives are out for Chamber chief Tom Ingram. On one hand, it's hard to work up much lather. In his years at the Chamber, Ingram has been handsomely recompensed while making his share of missteps and enemies. And his current dalliance with Lamar Alexander, along with his earlier pondering of a run for mayor, suggests he's looking to get out anyway. On the other hand, the "get Ingram" chorus smacks of the same old Knox power-broker mindset. Does it ever occur to these guys that the problem might not be with the people they hire (or, in some cases, elect), but with their own shortsightedness and quick-fix thinking? When something's not "working" around here, there's a tendency to just blame it on whoever's closest, grab someone else (usually someone familiar and well-connected), and never really bother with the intermediate discussion, planning and focus that would help define realistic goals and strategies.

Ingram himself was the product of such a scenario—a muddled and ill-defined merging of economic development bodies—and even as he may be on his way out, a similar tale is unfolding in the creation of the new Tourism and Sports Development Corp. No one really seems to understand what the new body is supposed to do or how it will work; its boosters are mostly relying on the powerful cult of personality built up around the Sports Corp.'s Gloria Ray. Ray has certainly shown herself capable in her old position, but without some clearer focus, direction and accountability, there's a good chance she'll flounder in her new job's murky waters. Meanwhile, the old Convention and Visitors Bureau head, Mike Carrier, has been shuffled off (golden parachute in hand) by the exact same wise men who hoo-rahed him in just a few years ago. What's that cliché about doing the same thing and expecting different results?

How 'bout that City Council? Six months into their tenure, the five freshman Council members have certainly not made anyone happy all the time. But as their recent stances on the Smith/Coughlin house and the election cycle referendum demonstrated, they're certainly not in anyone's pocket. Their votes—and their reasoned, articulate debate—lived up to campaign promises they made about staying independent and making key decisions in public. For a local legislative body to thumb its nose at both Cherokee Country Club and Mayor Victor Ashe in the same night took some guts.

And speaking of the election cycle referendum: Contrary to what you may have read on the op-ed page of the News-Sentinel, the Council's decision to remove the referendum from next week's ballot was entirely in the public interest. The complaint that Council was denying the public's "right to decide" on the issue is a canard fostered by Mayor Ashe, as was the referendum itself. (Ashe and last year's Council majority made the proposal to move city elections to even-numbered years only after they had all been turned into lame ducks by term limits.) City elections have a hard time getting the attention of the media and general public as it is; making them compete with county, state and federal races would lead to greater confusion, and would almost guarantee that only the best-funded candidates with the most TV commercials would have any chance of making themselves known. It's now up to the current Council to find more substantive ways to encourage healthier voter turnouts.

*Headline courtesy of the new album by ace Knoxville rockers Superdrag.