Running for the Halibut

When I approached her table, the Newbury poll worker looked up and instructed me, “Just your address.  We know your name.”

Even with a mask, I remain un-anonymous!

“Then why do you ask which ballot I want for the primaries?”

“That’s required by law.”

“You know it’s a rhetorical question, right?”

“Just take your ballot and go vote.”

My attention to Newbury town politics has been minimal, maxxed out as it is on the federal scene, especially since January 6 when the 21st Century equivalent of Fort Sumter heralded the start of Civil War Two.

Democrats call it “Jim Crow 2.0.” They love understatement. And euphemism.  Or do they really not know that today’s “bipartisanship” is the 1930s’ “appeasement”?

All is calm locally.  No Democrat vs. Republican.  No candidates vying for a say in tinkle-down economics.  No one yakking about election fraud, bamboo ballots, or Jewish space lazars from Planet Mazel Tough.

Just selectmen and school committee folk who keep our small town and fickle island humming along.

Problem is that it’s too calm.  In any community, certainly one that suffers the threat of erosion during a time of rising seas, environmental planning should be continually aired and debated.

Of 14 seats on Newbury’s ballot, only one was contested.  All others listed a single name.  All incumbents.

The lone challenger, endorsed by my Plum Island neighbors of like-environmental mind, gained my one purposeful vote.

Dutifully, I gave all unchallenged incumbents a vote of appreciation.  Like it or not, with no one else wanting to serve, why shouldn’t they turn the Pink House into Mar-a-Lago North?

Must admit disappointment that none of the 14 spots were entirely void of any name.  In past elections, there was always one to write myself in.

In my mind, I was volunteering for a job no one else wanted.  Over the years I’ve volunteered to tend an ancestral cemetery, take care of trees, and assume the office of Fish Commissioner.

No matter that I don’t know where the cemetery is, how one cares for a tree, or speak fish.

All I know about fish is how to melt butter, squeeze lemon, drop Worcestershire Sauce, sift Old Bay seasoning, shake salt, and sprinkle bread crumbs on them before throwing them in the broiler.

Just as well.  I never got the call.  Perhaps someone noticed and campaigned for Fish Commish.  Would need only a second vote.

Next time, I’ll keep my eye out.  Already got my campaign slogan: “Garvey, For the Halibut!”

Maybe I’m living in the wrong town.  In Groveland there were, according to a letter to the Daily News editor, the town’s branch of the League of Women Voters, “11 open positions with no candidates, and four current officers are not seeking re-election.”

When LWV—one of several national citizens groups condemned as “communist” by Republicans for increasing access to the polls in 2020—cancelled “candidates’ night” last month, I recalled similar stories all over the American map.

And decades.  As far back as the Sixties, apathy was as much a subject of complaint as the draft, and far more than pollution.

Apathy is America’s gangrene.  Inattention, its rigor mortis.  Cynicism, its grave. Conspiracy theories seem plausible.  Democracy fails.  Authoritarianism offers answers that are simple, fixes that are quick—served up by a cult of personality with contempt for the very idea of public service.

Make America Great Again!  Deutschland Uber Alles!

That’s why Republicans make excuses for Jan. 6 as demented as calling it just another tourist day.  They don’t want to get to the bottom of it because they are at the bottom of it.

We can joke about fish commissioners and cemetery caretakers, but town and city councils are the foundation of state and federal governance—ideally, the source of public servants who attain our highest offices.

LWV’s letter expressed hope to continue candidates’ nights “when voters are more engaged.”

Understatement there is profound.  Democracy itself cannot continue until we are more engaged.

Until then, blank ballots wave white flags in Civil War Two.

-30-

https://eatsmarter.com/recipes/halibut-fillet-with-herbs

7 thoughts on “Running for the Halibut

  1. I enjoyed this post! Especially, “Like it or not, with no one else wanting to serve, why shouldn’t they turn the Pink House into Mar-a-Lago North?” It is a “Spite House” and I would love to show Agent Orange some “spite”. Perhaps the view would serve as “Spite” since he clearly has no appreciation for The Great Salt Marsh. Although, he would want to paint the house orange and maybe surrounded with a 15 foot transparent orange colored wall to keep out illegals.

    Unfortunately, “Supreme Court upholds restrictive Arizona voting laws”, https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/07/01/nation/supreme-court-upholds-arizona-voting-restrictions-major-voting-rights-case/?s_campaign=breakingnews:newsletter.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for the comment, Andy. For those who don’t know, it may be hard to believe that “Spite House” (or “Spite Architecture”) is an architectural term for places built usually to spite neighbors, often by blocking a view, and for other reasons. In the case of Plum Island’s now-cherished Pink House, it was the result of a bitter divorce settlement. In this link, click on “discusses her dream” in the opening line for the sordid details–as well as for a picture of the house on the not-so-little house on the marsh:

      https://archive.curbed.com/2015/12/14/10621590/spite-house-pink-house-plum-house

      Like

      1. I did get interviewed by Kate Bolick for one hour. I got one sentence in the article. It consisted of my name and the URL savethenewburypinkhouse.org. The beginning of a Website went wild between the Online Edition of the Sunday NYT and Sunday Print Edition. A webmaster’s dream!

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Love your columns, thought provoking and educational. Please consider a debate with Warren Russo. Proceeds go to a non partisan charity.
    AC

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If anyone set up a debate, I’d be there. In the past, I’ve answered a few items in his columns and letters without naming him. Once when I did name him, the editor asked that I take the name out, though what I had to say–contradicting his praise of the Electoral College–stayed in. Editors are loath to have writers wh9 are associated with the paper attack each other. And just yesterday, I sent a brief letter regarding his claim that the two parties are the same thhat they were 1860. Should run soon. Thanks for the encouragement!

      Like

Leave a comment