Governor LePage’s politics is all stick and no carrot. He’s a man on a mission with no interest in finding accommodation for anything in the way of that ideological imperative. He shows little desire to serve the state of Maine as a whole nor any special interest group per se. If nothing else, he appears every bit his own man, be that a man as an island unto himself come hell, high water, or a sparsely attended tea party. If anyone doesn’t like that my way or the highway take on Maine’s stewardship, boo hoo.

The Fourth Estate, entrusted with protecting the people’s right to know, is the governor’s sworn enemy for reporting words the governor loves to embellish with expletives nondeleted or swears he never said. All those not in lockstep are against him, even if members of his own party. That the people of Maine deserve leadership that might try a bit harder to present itself informed and articulate doesn’t concern LePage, because the people’s voice at the ballot box twice stated that such a basic skillset of governing wasn’t their concern either.

Despite his many detractors, a near majority of Maine voters found LePage’s blatant defiance preferable to returning to a governance of compromise and representative democracy under either a Democrat or an Independent alternative.

Armed with that mandate, LePage has now declared outright war on his political opponents and any Mainer that voted for them. The goal is to bludgeon all opposition to his desire to eliminate the state income tax, by vetoing any legislation originating from the Democrats. Not some, based on individual content, but anything brought forth by those opposed to his block lettered signature issue.

Since he can’t get his way through the normal political process designed to provide a check on one party rule, he will simply negate the represented will of the people. He calls this: “Learning to play the game of the politician” … “until Democrats let the people have a say on the income tax.”

The people’s “say” would come about by legislative deferment to a referendum on a constitutional amendment. The state constitution is LePage’s ultimate nemesis. For LePage, the income tax can’t just be legislated to near nonexistance, like in New Hampshire, but must be killed off completely.

LePage says Democratic non-compliance to such a Hail Mary attempt at getting his way “disenfranchises” the people’s voice on the matter. Yet, the louder he shouts the quieter the people’s water-cooler voice seems to be on the subject.

He admits such saying a “constitutional amendment (meaning instead the process of pursuing such an amendment) is a way to get the people of Maine engaged,” in a debate originating from his office rather than any groundswell.

If the Dems are actually obstructionists, rather than one singularly combative Paul Lepage, a citizens initiative process is always available to put Democratic feet to the fire. There is a great difference between the electorate being “disenfranchised” and the chief executive being petulant to the point of not respecting their represented will.

LePage would do well to govern himself rather than to bully others through desperate political theater. It’s all well and good to express belief that being an income tax free state guarantees growth, but it simply ain’t so. Google truth. Also, LePage’s argument that “Kansas is the fastest growing state in America,” as if somehow a germane example when it actually has an income tax, must come from a source privileged to Governor LePage alone. Google puts Kansas at 31st.

As to LePage’s assertion that 1.3 million Mainers are being disenfranchised, numbers are again not his ally. That is the headcount of Maine’s entire population rather than those paying income taxes, or capable of voting.

Saying things very loudly and without civility doesn’t elevate halftruths, or wishful truths, into reality. That it does get one reelected is an unfortunate reality to those that find LePage a prime example of why term limits should exist. Next time around, LePage won’t be allowed to stay on as governor even if an even larger number of voters want him to do so.

Like LePage’s populist game plan to defeat his adversaries, term limits appeal to those who seek to circumvent the political process when it’s contrary to what one wants as an outcome.

The idea, good or bad, of forced rotation of office was, mostly, considered unnecessary in earlier times when a more participatory democracy governed the dangers of political entrenchment. Belief in its increasing necessity now is not an auspicious sign of democracy’s health.

Expecting it to solve all our problems itself, far too many voters criticize our system of government rather than addressing its disappointing realization. We blame the system, left largely to its own devices, rather than asking ourselves how we can participate to our fullest measure.

Representative democracy means participation by proxy, best controlled by informed vigilance and vocal criticism. Improving government isn’t about waiting for a predetermined channel change, hoping that eventual programming will someday be to your liking when still allowed selection by others.

———

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.