As you pop the corks, and happily sing about auld lang syne (days gone by), include in your celebration what you have accomplished politically since, say, May 1, 2003 - when The Silent Majority first appeared in The Free Press. Major changes, all for the better. And all brought on by voters who made informed decisions after thinking about issues that were rarely fully presented before.
This is how it all began... TFP, May 1, 2003, page 7: Holy First Amendment, Printman! Why is he writing a column in The Free Press? Isn't he a businessman in Richland Township? Isn't he the man referred to in a recent letter to the editor as the fourth supervisor? Can we really expect objectivity from him?
The answers - in order - are: Read on. Yes. Yes. Depends on your point of view. The operative words for all of the above questions are "point of view". POV, or opinion, is like certain body parts - everybody has one. Some of us are referred to as that certain body part for expressing those opinions. But the purpose of an editorial column is to make you think, to stir discussion and comment.
For example, our current situation in Iraq has brought freedom of expression into a sharp focus not seen since the Vietnam days. Seems like we postulate, venerate, and tolerate all of our freedoms quite well until they clash with another point of view, "patriotism". Proponents of war claim that critics of the president are unpatriotic. Opponents claim that proponents seek to unconstitutionally silence dissent. Who is right? Depends on your point of view. But the debate makes you think, encourages you to express your opinion, and that is the point of a free society.
So much for Political Science 101. Back to the original question. Why am I writing here? Will I be objective given my business and political opinions? Let's just say that I will be the voice of the majority. And that's rare in the media. The minority, the protesters, the dissidents, the opponents usually get the headlines. Another columnist in this paper delights in being a "social misfit, rebel, and crusader". We seem to love the underdog. The term "silent majority" wasn't just an idle thought. Let's just say that the majority now will be a little less silent. If it's important in this area, it's worth writing about.
December 27, 2007: Sing along with me (and David Bowie) Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes. We've seen plenty in 4 1/2 years, starting with the nation's opinion of Iraq, and President Bush. Questioning the war - and the man - has morphed from unpatriotic to mainstream. Our country's silent majority has given Bush the lowest approval rating of any president. Ever. But, ironically, the headlines have only changed by one single letter. Instead of "Bush lies about Iraq", it is now "Bush lies about Iran" (or CIA tapes, global warming, domestic spying, 911, Guantanamo torture, WMD, or a thousand other things). And Republican presidential candidates who had hoped to ride W's coattails are now tripping over themselves to avoid any connection.
Closer to home, Quakertown, which had rarely seen a contested election, or municipal controversy, officially awakened in 2003 to find ridiculous police restrictions, no-bid contracts, poor management, soaring utility rates, and a downtown decades behind the times. Out went the police chief and borough manager. And when voters - the silent majority - were given actual choices, they bounced five council members, including the last two presidents. There were 11 candidates for council this year, with diverse POV's unheard of four years ago.
Take the borough controversy, multiply it by 100, and you get Quakertown Community School District. A letter to the editor in the November 29 Free Press said it best. The authors were actually intending to vilify a board member: "His ongoing challenges to other school board members and his actions have caused more turmoil than the actions of any other person in the history of Quakertown Schools". But from the standpoint of our community, that is probably the highest compliment that could be paid to a QCSD director. It acknowledges just how hard he has fought the establishment on behalf of all residents, at a time when it is so necessary...
Until two years ago, there was no turmoil. No controversy. No dissent. Just unanimous buddy-buddy board votes that led to 50+ percent tax increases, unchecked spending, Integrated Math, poor test scores, and an expensive midnight teacher contract. Our directors, with their "damn the cost" attitude, totally ignored the concerns of two-thirds of the families in the district - the silent majority - who do not have kids in the schools.
But only since the election of members who challenged the excessive hiring, spending, and questionable programs, and informed the community - the silent majority - about what was really going on, have we seen any positive changes. This year, 11 candidates sought seats that had frequently been uncontested. There are now four "reformers" on the board, and much of the administration has been replaced. Superintendent Andrejko has recognized the entire community with her official goal of "M inimal increase in taxes, cost saving measures implemented. Detailed information and justification provided for all spending increases".
Finally, Richland has prospered despite the mistake of electing Supervisor Mike Zowniriw four years ago. Residents soon saw the real Z: cutting off the water to his elderly, disabled neighbors; more than 20 police calls to his home; two convictions for disorderly conduct. A judge called him "just not credible". Another rebuked him for misusing his position to attempt to influence a case involving his friends. And township voters - the silent majority - weren't fooled again. They made amends for their error by soundly rejecting Zowniriw buddies Vic Stevens in 2005, and Patrick Murphy this year.
Should old acquaintance be forgot, and never brought to mind? Not in politics. We must never forget. Happy New Year! Thanks to you, 2008 will be even better than auld lang syne.