Today, I will write about the Bad of the current session of the state legislature. Angel Eyes (played by Lee Van Cleef who was also in “A Few Dollars More” in a much different role) was evil incarnate. He had no redeeming qualities, as compared to his compatriots, and was a vicious, sadistic killer. Some actions by the state legislature had really no redeeming qualities at all. These actions or inactions were the seamy underbelly of the term. Many of these items are Bad because, like Angel Eyes, they represent a lack of vision and understanding of future consequences.

Pay increases for state employees and teachers were paltry. Ranging from 2.5 percent to 3 percent, these professions will continue to be underpaid. Not only did the legislature make no progress on this front but there has actually been backsliding. Some believe that teachers or state employees can always take other jobs if they are not happy. That is true but which ones will make such a move? The continuing erosion of the purchasing power of these workers will encourage only the best to leave for other occupations. This will leave our government and children worse off.

It seems like everyone else wants to provide academic-style grades to the state legislature this year. I have to produce grades all of the time so I thought I would take a different route. I will place the actions, or in some cases inactions, of the state legislature into one of three categories based upon the 1960s Sergio Leone film, “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.” This was the third of Leone’s “spaghetti westerns” and a stark examination of human nature.

Today, I will write about the Good. The Good was “Blondie” played by Clint Eastwood. He is considered good but it is all relative. That is appropriate for the issues in this category. They are like Blondie; they are better than the others but still rather crude and less than perfect.

As the legislative session came to a less than productive and harmonious end, some actors and observers have begun to point the finger looking to blame someone or anyone for the lack of success. This activity is always fraught with intrigue and provides little actual productive worth. Many of the questions have dealt with the problem of leadership. Besides leaders, any thoughtful analyst of the system will also be examining the followers since a leader is only as effective as his or her followers allow him or her to be.

Groups like the state legislature need leaders to help them accomplish their goals in an efficient manner. Leaders in any situation cannot do anything for the group that the group could not do for itself. The group merely “hires” the leader to assist the group. The leader may not be elected by the group but is only used by the group to make difficult tasks easier for them. As I noted earlier, the followers have as much or more of a role in whether the leader is successful.

This week’s selection steps away from Idaho and delves into the realm of political theory and philosophy. The author, Robert Dahl, is one of the most renowned political writers of the last half century. Dahl’s classic works include "A Preface to Democratic Theory, Democracy and Its Critics and his first, Who Governs?" This short volume of only 120 pages of text is a fascinating read for anyone who deliberates on democracy and its future in this country.

Though some of this book covers ground sown by Dahl in earlier books, he does bring a new perspective to a number of subjects. There has been an historical advancement of political equality over at least the last few centuries but why has this happened? What is the driving force behind the work of many of the privileged for improvement of the political position of those less powerful? Dahl, as compared to Kant, posits that not reason but widespread and universal human drives such as emotions, passions and feelings impel actions. “Humans are moved to act by more than purely self-interested egotism.” This is the lesson of Adam Smith in "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" and why Smith, along with Dahl, is not an economist but a political economist.

Idaho, like many states, provides for the election of its judges and justices by the people. Members of the court are selected in a manner that is not dissimilar to other officials in the government. These elections are done in a non-partisan fashion as compared to the partisan election of judges in some other states. This is consistent with our elections for local officials. Many states have moved away from electing the judiciary to provide for a more limited input from the voters.

A majority of states choose their judiciary through elections. These elections are seldom competitive and have, like Idaho, turned into de facto appointed positions. Vacancies on the bench are filled by appointments by the governor with the appointee having to run in a subsequent election. With most of these elections uncontested, the system begins to look like an appointment system when most justices step down before the end of their term. Only a small minority of states use a simple appointment system by either the governor or legislature to select justices and judges.

The proposed constitutional amendment concerning local option taxation wishes to leave the decision to the voters. On its face, this seems to be a democratic (small “d” democratic, not the political party) initiative that follows on the ideal of intrinsic equality of individuals within the population.

The problem with this proposal, from a democratic standpoint, is the requirement for a “supermajority” to pass any local option tax. The need for a supermajority for a policy proposal is anti-democratic based upon the assumption of equal intrinsic worth.

Democracy, and variations of pure democracy including representative democracy in large nation states, is premised on the assumption of equal intrinsic worth. This is the principle that no adult, except in a few circumstances, is fundamentally superior to any other adult in determining what is in the best interests of that particular individual. In other words, each of us knows best what is in our own best interests.

Kevin Richert wrote in his blog earlier in this week about the number of state legislative candidates who are unopposed for the upcoming election cycle. He was working off the information provided by Jim Hansen and The United Vision for Idaho. Looking at these numbers in the abstract makes them difficult to comprehend. I hope to provide some context to better understand “The Unopposed.”

Hansen notes there are 35 candidates, of course all incumbents, who will have no competition in the primary or general election. If you only include the major parties, there are actually 37 incumbents who are unopposed as one is challenged by an Independent and the other by a Constitutional Party candidate. As an independent or minor party candidate has not been elected to the state legislature for generations, I consider the 37 number as more reflective of the unopposed.

My former student Matt Ellsworth recommended this book to me and I am very grateful that he did. The title is different on the cover than the title page. That is the reason for the parenthetical reference above. Anyone who wants to understand what the life of hard rock mining in Northern Idaho was like in the early 1970s should read this book. The experience is so heart wrenching that you will never look at any metal product the same again.

This book, by Gregg Olson, is a non-fiction account of the disastrous fire in the Sunshine Mine in the Coeur d’Alene Mining District in May 1972. The mine was located between Kellogg and Wallace and had produced more silver than any other mine in the world up to that time. Ninety-one men died underground in one of the worst mine catastrophes in history. Olson provides not just the details of the fire but the stories behind the men and women whose lives either were ended or dramatically changed in just a week’s time.

Two viable candidates are contending for the Democratic nomination for the First Congressional District this year. Both have a legitimate chance of winning the primary and even taking the seat back for the Democrats for the first time in fourteen years. The next two months will determine who gets that chance.

Walt Minnick is not a newcomer to Idaho politics but some recent immigrants to the state may not know him. Minnick ran as the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in 1996 against Larry Craig, pre-wide stance disclosure days. Though running a very professional campaign with national talent on his staff, Minnick received less than 40% of the vote in the campaign, though that was over six points better than Bill Clinton did in the state. The only county taken by Minnick was Blaine, which is not in the First Congressional District. Larry Grant, or even Bill Sali, cannot be compared to the 1996 version of Larry Craig but Minnick’s electoral experience gives him only a little name recognition from older residents.

For the first time in a generation, a major office in the state of Idaho will have a contested primary on the Democratic side. Two viable candidates are competing to face Bill Sali, if he beats his unknown opponent in the GOP primary. Today, I will write about the First Congressional District and why there is a Democratic race while tomorrow I will concentrate on the two candidates.

The First Congressional District has a storied history for Democrats. The grand woman of the Democratic Party, Gracie Pfost, was the first woman elected to Congress from Idaho when she won her election in 1952 after failing in 1950. Gracie went on to serve in Congress for five terms before running for the U.S. Senate in 1964 and failing. Democrat Larry LaRocco, who is running for the U.S. Senate this year, served the First Congressional District for two terms from 1991-95. Since LaRocco lost to Helen Chenoweth in 1994 mostly due to issues of marital infidelity and the House banking scandal, the Democrats have not been close to winning the seat until 2006. Chenoweth served her self-imposed three-term limit and was followed by Butch Otter, who also served three terms before stepping down to run for governor.