Hill and Gibson espouse their political virginity

January 18, 2017
Mike Brown

Mike Brown

OPINION by Michael F. Brown

During the recent debate over selection of the chairman of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, District 3 Supervisor Adam Hill’s supporters, including some current and former local elected officials, repeatedly cited values of civility, collegiality, and the need for non-partisanship as reasons justifying Hill’s election. This is certainly an ironic twist given the demonstrated proclivities and arrogance of these two elected officials over nearly a decade.

Hill and his somewhat more house broken partner, Supervisor Bruce Gibson, asserted that failure to elect Hill would annihilate collegiality on the board for the next two to four years.

When it became apparent that the issue was in question, Gibson stated that he was “oscillating between sadness and outrage.” He went on to state that he was deeply disturbed that Supervisor John Peschong would choose to allow himself to be elected chairman.

Actually, Gibson gets outraged and impatient fairly often when someone disagrees with him.

One thing, which has become absolutely and abundantly clear over the past 50 years, is that civility and collegiality are generally a one-way street when dealing with the activist left. As Berkeley Free Speech founder Mario Savio said in the fall of 1964, “We will always be one demand ahead of you.” This was after Savio led a mob that sacked Sproul Hall and shut down the campus for weeks.

The Chancellor granted many concessions in an attempt to placate Savio, Bettina Aptheker (her father was a prominent Communist), and their collaborators (largely out of state agitators from New York City).

It didn’t work.

As Saul Alinsky advised the left in Rules for Radicals, “Keep the pressure on. Never let up. Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.”

A few years later the same gang and their understudies provoked the Peoples’ Park riots, initiated an intermittently violent guerilla warfare which has festered in Berkeley ever since, and launched Berkeley Citizens Action, a radical branch of the local Democratic Party which has controlled the city since 1974 and has sent Assembly members and State Senators to Sacramento to spread the gospel statewide.

Other fruits of the “movement” include a disastrous rent control ordinance, filthy conditions in the downtown and Telegraph Avenue commercial areas, and uncontrollable proliferation of homeless encampments.

If you go along with the activist left’s latest initiative, politically correct fad, or tax you are considered collegial and civil. If you object somewhat, but not vigorously enough to affect the scheme at hand, you are merely misguided and may get some crumbs in return. If you are strongly opposed, you are horribly partisan, out of touch, anti-science, and mean-spirited. Worse and depending on the sacredness of the issue in question (such as opposing sanctuary city or county status for your jurisdiction or supporting fossil fuels), you could be deplorable, fascist, a denier, and/or a racist.

In San Luis Obispo County, did collegiality and civility beget any reciprocity or melioration on issues such as the original local plastic bag ban, the proposed Paso Basin AB 2453 water district, Las Pilitas Quarry, or the entire array of so-called “smart growth”global warming measures designed to forestall any meaningful economic opportunity or home development?

Another excuse proffered for electing Hill was that the board should operate in a non-partisan manner.

Under this somewhat mythical and revisionist theory, the SLO County Board of Supervisors is supposedly a non-partisan body, since candidates for supervisor don’t run for election under party labels.

Therefore the new board majority, which happens to be made up of three Republicans, is castigated as violating some sort of sacrosanct unwritten rule by not picking Hill, who happens to be a Democrat. But if we really desire nonpartisan county and city governments, shouldn’t we prohibit registered and avowed members of political parties from running at all? Of course adopting such a prohibition would be illegal.

Actually and notwithstanding the non-partisan ballot structure, candidates for public office are often selected based on their prior partisan political participation and party loyalty.

They are often bolstered by endorsements from other partisan politicians. In 2015 Hill received campaign contributions totaling $2,299.20 from the San Luis Obispo County Democratic Central Committee.

When Gibson was running for re-election back in 2014 the County Democratic Party openly backed him and endorsed him, promoting events on his behalf under its logo.  SLO Democratic Party

T.G.I.B! Thank Goodness It’s Bruce! (Gibson for Supervisor)

The referenced event was a partisan cocktail hour fundraiser.

Is it possible that Hill and Gibson are only partisan on weekends and then somehow undergo a metamorphosis into some sort of politically innocent virgins each Tuesday?

Mike Brown is the Government Affairs Director of the Coalition of Labor Agriculture and Business (COLAB) of San Luis Obispo County. He had a 42-year career as a city manager and county executive officer in four states including California. He can be reached at mike@colabslo.org.


Loading...
jw1000

Teabaggers can be identified by observing that they call others socialists.


jw1000

Let me guess. Brown is a member of the Tea Party?


LMAO!


ODX

Then I can we assume you are a member of the Socialist Party?


rukidding

Enough is enough. The elections are over let’s move on and address the real issues that affect all of the people and not just a few that have a special agenda whether it’s COLAB, Republican, Democrat or Independent.


jimmy_me

Best reply ever!


Otis

Michael F. Brown rings the bell for me. His statements are far nearer the truth than the exaggerations suggested by respected RonHolt. Here is the rub, the difference: There is a large following that believe both Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly are right in their assessments as now confirmed by Trump’s election with a popular majority when discounting California’s vote heavily supporting Clinton.


California now wrestles with a political deviancy influenced by the larger city areas of LA, SF and the liberal Hollywood drum beat. The contested revulsion of Trump’s election, as emphatically stressed by the SLO Tribune and the general media in California, is a signal that may result in the transfer of thousands of Federal jobs out of California to areas back East where such employment could be welcome and fulfilling of Trump’s objectives.


The hope is a silent majority of conservatives, led by Republicans, will awake and save California from the liberals that harken its demise. Remember, in one example, Prop 8 was factually supported by the majority of citizens in California and was politically and legally emasculated by the liberal minority in Sacramento which influenced the adjudication of the matter of same-sex marriage by the Supreme Court – led by the California Justice Anthony Kennedy. No wonder the LGBT crowd are worried about Trump’s election and the long term implications on the make-up of the Supreme Court. Other implications of the transfer of major Federal programs out of California is without question a possibility given the Democrat’s hostility towards Trump.


The Democrats in this state will soon face the dire results of their mismanagement. Michael Brown’s perspective on the narrow issues of the SLO County Board presages a bigger picture that may appear in 2017. Go get ‘em, Michael.


RonHolt

Ah yes, Mr. Brown continues to use one of the most annoying tactics of conservative pundits — quote examples of extremists and bad behavior and then extend the characterization to all with similar political leanings.


His characterizations of Hill and Gibson are accurate enough that I won’t criticize him for them. The same applies to revolutionary leftists like Alinsky. But to insinuate that all (or even most) who lean to the left suffer from the same character defects is both disingenuous and dishonest. Is it any wonder that our politics is so polarized when this kind of rhetoric is acceptable?


Now there are those on the liberal side who are also guilty of the same sort of polarizing punditry — although it usually takes a slightly different form. But that doesn’t make Mr. Brown’s version right — or even better.


In following the lead of people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and the like, he has earned a measure of distrust from me. When people can’t make their points without exaggeration, half-truths and subtle smears, how can you know that they haven’t taken similar liberties with the “facts” supporting their views?


Slosum

It’s either/or. And no… it’s NOT possible in either of these cases.


fhill123

Even though I am not a fan of either Gibson nor Hill, I resent the broad brush that you are using. Is it not possible that their tactics are their own and not leftist or rightist either? Being childish has been demonstrated repeatedly by many office holders and future office holders as well and is not limited to either political leaning.