San Diego Earth Times endorsements
for the November 7, 2000 General Election

Comments on philosophy of endorsements

ÒConservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring the safety and continuance of the nation.Ó - President Theodore Roosevelt

by Carolyn Chase

think I've learned more about politics and the perils of endorsements in the last six months than in the last six years of volunteer observations on the local political scene. Part of this is due to the high turnover in offices in this cycle. Part of this due to my pursuing and receiving, to some degree a higher level of access.

In any case, it's a fine arena for personal growth - shall we say because the political process forces people to confront that the essence of our democracy is rooted in winning and losing. A lot of people don't like to confront that. It means dealing with conflict and risk. It brings out all manner of human behavior from the slime to the sublime. You can learn a lot about who people really are when it comes to taking a stand (or not) and confronting the consequences of that.

Politics is also an arena where people are confronted with demonstrating the content of their character. Conflicts require making choices and determining winners and losers. No one likes to admit this. We like to live in the psychologically safer world that everything can be win, win, win. But this is just a form of denial. I'm not saying there aren't cases where all parties can win, but this is not the norm. And it is never the case in land-use choices, where things are permanently destroyed or saved.

Getting to know you

As part of our attempts to determine what type of person is behind the glossy messages, I serve with committees for the local Sierra Club Chapter and the League of Conservation Voters of San Diego. We ask candidates to submit written answers to questions and we do interviews. There is no substitute to meeting candidates and discussing their views. But when it comes to determining whether any group should grant an endorsement, the battles begin.

There are differences in philosophy among the volunteers who are active in these groups. The experience this "silly season" (as some refer to campaign time) has been extremely humbling - if not humiliating at times. There has been partisan rancor and personal pettiness.

Some believe an endorsement is some kind "award" that should only be bestowed upon the those with the highest ideals and politics to match. Others believe you should never endorse anyone who isn't "viable."

SDET endorsements reflect our best judgement about the people we feel will best promote conservation and quality of life issues. They are non-partisan choices. They are not blanket declarations of green sainthood - or any other form approaching perfection.

If there is one key thing to remember: we only have human beings to choose from, and a limited list at that. And all people have different flaws.

We"ve attempted to understand not just the promises and the pandering, but overall, what kinds of human beings there are behind the campaign facade. What do they really believe about conservation and the environment? Do they connect things together in their thinking? Do they have some understanding or concern for sustainability?

I have also come to believe that we have to include aspects beyond the issues. Do they have the temperament to govern well, to deal with and resolve conflicts? I"ve found there are many reasons people run for office, and the public good is not always among them. Nor does everyone have the personality skills that lend them to be effective in the continual resolution of conflicts.

If you have any questions about these endorsements, please feel free to email us or call. We did not offer endorsements in cities where we were not able to connect with local volunteers in interviews.