Progress and Progressives

Today is Election Day. Yes, today those individuals who either hold or seek to hold state-wide office come before the state’s hiring board- those who compose the electorate- asking for a job for the first time or asking that their employment be continued, based either on their resumes or their on-the-job record.

Oh, incidentally, if you’re reading this and the polls are still open and you haven’t yet voted, then you have time to get out and do the dirty deed. That’s a good chap! Off with you then!

Almost without exception, those who seek to lead the state have differing ideas on how to do the job they’re seeking. Each wants to portray their opposition as a group that has not or cannot contribute to the progress the state needs in order to be competitive.

The key word here is progress. Everyone from those who head their party’s ticket on down are constantly reiterating their message that only they can lead the state in its drive to progress. Of course, everyone is careful not to use the word progressive, because the one deadly sin you can commit in Kentucky is to identify yourself with anything liberal; ergo the constant refrain of conservative values and progress.

And that, of course, leads to an interesting question: Why the reluctance to be identified as a progressive? In order to progress, a leader needs to look at every option in order to be sure nothing is overlooked that could possibly bring about progress and that necessitates that the decision maker show some attributes of a progressive.

One of the attributes of a progressive is the willingness to question anything and everything that could be an obstacle to progress. This means seeing the need to delve into matters sometimes long thought to have been settled. Sadly both major-party candidates for Governor, Steve Beshear and David Williams, have failed this test, miserably.

In a story in the Weekend Edition of the News-Express, entitled “Ky. gubernatorial candidates mull industrial hemp”, only independent Gatewood Galbraith threw caution to the wind and whole-heartedly endorsed allowing the state’s farmers to once again grow a crop that would be beneficial, both to them and to the state overall.

Showing themselves to be ones who fall back on old, tired, outdated ideas and questionable reasoning when presented with new ideas, Beshear and Williams responses showed that in their mind, hemp should remain illegal because the federal government says that hemp and marijuana are the same thing, and marijuana is after all, a schedule one narcotic, and that puts both in the same class of drugs as heroin and makes it worse than even cocaine, a schedule 2 narcotic.

Both suggested further discussion on industrial hemp. Gatewood alone noted it’s already been talked to death.

The difference between schedule one and schedule two narcotics? While both have high potential for abuse, schedule two drugs can have recognized medical benefits.

Beshear and Williams assume that marijuana has no medical value. The California Medical Association says otherwise. Both also assume that a hemp crop can be used to hide a pot plant when hemp would greatly reduce the pot plant’s potency.

Research would show potent marijuana became available only after hemp was outlawed. But that would mark Beshear and Williams as progressives, and God forbid that should happen.