Governor Christie, revisited

Back in 2012, I thought Chris Christie had shot himself in the political foot. He hadn't, as it turned out, but his aim has improved since then.

Back in 2012, just before the election, I published an article that both condemned New Jersey governor Chris Christie for his campaign-related dishonesty and praised him for setting his pre-election electioneering aside in the wake of the devastation of Hurricane Sandy. (My least favorite Republican. And my favorite. Same guy., November 3, 2012.) I still stand behind both of these opinions about Christie; in his efforts to get Mitt Romney elected, he showed a flagrant disregard for reality and truth, but when Sandy hit he all of a sudden became what he was elected to be, the Governor of New Jersey, and would work with Barack Obama if that was what was in the best interest of the people of New Jersey. Electioneering be damned.

This was admirable behavior from Christie, and he deserved praise for it. (Still does, in fact.) But his recent troubles over the George Washington Bridge fiasco show a return to the disingenuousness of the past. If, indeed, it was ever really gone.

Now, I could write a lengthy history of the GWB lane closures (in fact, I just did, and deleted the lot) but that would only be of value to someone who has been living in a cave without TV or perhaps watching Fox news. (There's a good article on Wikipedia about the scandal, and if you need background I suggest that you read it.) My point here is that the bridge scandal has done nothing to alter my original opinion of Christie, that he was a disingenuous clown, or my opinion that after Hurricane Sandy he acted in a way that could almost redeem him in my eyes. But his behavior since has only reinforced my original views; in fact, said behavior has set them in concrete.

But in going over my previous article, one point needs clarification. I was writing about how Christie had apparently shot himself in the foot with regard to his future ambitions for higher office, and in that I was quite wrong; Christie was the early frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2016, as much as a lead this far in advance of the election means anything (it doesn't mean much). But with regard to what I wrote at the time, my meaning might have been a bit murky. I wrote:

"Christie has shown little desire for either the Presidency or the Vice Presidency. He seems to have no strong ambitions beyond being the governor of New Jersey."

I was referring to the lack of regard he had apparently shown by choosing his elected role as New Jersey Governor rather than his more recent position as Mitt Romney's campaign surrogate, but I don't think I made that clear.

But in truth, that hardly matters now. Regardless of how much of the currently-thrown muck sticks to Chris Christie, I think his chances of securing the Republican nomination in 2016, while never all that good, are now about nill.

The quote from Christie that I used to close that article in 2012 still works, only now it drips with irony:

"I don't give a damn about Election Day. Let the politicians who are on the ballot worry about Election Day. It's not my problem."

No, Governor, it's not. And I don't think it ever will be.

The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don't like them you can get your own damn blog. 

"When I fight Authority..."

The question isn't so much whether I have any respect for authority, but rather to what degree does authority deserve respect.

Sometimes I write things and then forget all about them, and then I either lose them entirely or put them where I happen to run across them at a later date. I found this on my computer this evening, and decided to clean it up a bit and post it. It may be a bit rambling, but I obviously spent most of an evening writing it and I don't feel like simply discarding it. So here it is.

I have recently been accused of a degree of irreverence in my attitude toward authority. I plead guilty.

This accusation has prompted me to examine the concept of authority. First, I should note that the word “authority” refers both to both the people who wield power and the power they wield. In this essay I’m talking about both. I’m talking about the people who have (or think they have) authority as well as the supposed power such people may wield (or think they wield); though more the former, since we live in a world where such power is meaningless without a person to wield it. (If you fear that the machines will one day rise and take this power away from us then stop reading right now and go and watch a Terminator movie marathon.)

Also, I need to distinguish between “authority” (the sort of thing your boss has over you, or your teacher, or a cop, or a judge) and “Authority” (the sort held by an indifferent, impersonal, ill-defined Government that, it theory, derives its powers from the governed but which in actuality claims and enforces powers for itself that no one ever asked us about).

I have heard it argued that the acceptance of authority, to one degree or another, is a necessary evil. Myself, I have never seen it as such, and I don’t find it particularly necessary or necessarily evil. But the fact is that we live in a society that requires each of us to accept some degree of authority over our persons, either in the person of a police officer or in the moral strength of religious leaders or in the content of a constitution or in the grip of the shadowy and poorly restrained State. None of these are necessarily bad or evil, in fact mostly they are far from evil, but they all have a potential to be evil.

The danger in all this acceptance of authority, a danger that always looms over us, is that surrendering authority over ourselves to others so often leads us to deny responsibility for our own actions, or worse to accept the will of Authority as our own. (And I am now speaking of Authority as an entity in and of itself; note the capital-A.)

But to get back to the charge against me: Yes, I have an irreverent attitude toward authority, and I mean either authority or Authority. It can be respected when it merits respect, deferred to when it merits deference, obeyed when it merits obedience, but I cannot see that it ever merits reverence and I have never revered it.

You may argue with my attitude, or with my definitions: You may, for example, think that the authority of a cop or a judge should be spelled with a capital-A, or that the authority of the clergy deserves reverence. Me, I don’t see the law as an agent of distant and impersonal Authority and I have reverence for no religious beliefs, especially not my own, so the agents of religion get no reverence from me. I am speaking about my opinions, and if you want someone else’s opinions go and read a different blog.

Yes, I am irreverent, and I make no apologies for that. Actually, I’m rather proud of it.

The Blues Viking

The thoughts expressed here are mine and if you don't like them you can get your own damn blog.