Bitterroot Politics

On Monday, Humanities Montana and the UM Center for Ethics hosted a discussion at Hamilton’s Bitter Root Brewery entitled: ‘The Montana Constitution: Conflicting Values.’ The discussion was part of an ongoing local series that presents topics of local importance and explores the varying perspectives people take on them. Here is organizer Zack Rogala’s summary of Monday’s discussion:

First off, some numbers on our current constitution. It was adopted after the 1972 Constitutional Convention and was only the second time the State has met to create a new constitution, the first being the ratification of our state (there were numerous territorial constitutions and at least one constitution that was lost on the way to the print, which never made it to the public). The 1972 constitution was created by 81 men, 19 women, ranging in ages from mid-20’s to mid 70’s. There were 58 democrats, 36 republicans, and 6 independents (even an independent republican). In order to foster bi-partisanship, all delegates sat alphabetically. In addition, no one could be a delegate if they were presently holding office. The political climate at the time called for a convention due to the ineffectiveness of the old constitution. In 1889 when the previous constitution was written, delegates essentially ‘cut and pasted’ from other states constitution. This created, by some estimates, a constitution where only 48% of provisions where actually practical in 1970 Montana.
Yet one clause that was effective was one that stated every 20 years Montanan’s had the opportunity to call for a constitutional convention or not. Being 2010 we are on that 20 year mark and now have the opportunity to call for a convention. The question is, under what qualifications should one be called?
There are many reasons why a constitutional convention should be called. To begin, is the current constitution equitably treating all individuals regardless of creed, race, sex? Is the current constitution distributing justice by the same metric? Is the constitution overly vague or explicit, resulting in judicial controversies?
The first trap to avoid when discussing a new constitution is the appeal to cultural relativism. The Montana Constitution should be of the people, for the people. Yet it must also transcend time and place to a certain degree. I could see myself voting for a ‘Montanan’s have the right to an open and untracked powder field’ provision but that doesn’t mean it should be in the constitution. By way of a more poignant example, this years’ ‘Double Tax’ constitutional amendment could be seen as such a culturally relative provision. Regardless of your stance on the issue, is the constitution an appropriate place for such an issue?
One the other side of the coin, when creating a constitution you have the possibility of transcending place and time to a large enough degree that you distance yourself entirely from the populace. Such distance is a harbinger to civic apathy, I would argue. As new generations come up the ranks and encounter a transcendental document that doesn’t mesh with any of their cultural values, why bother?
So, one must weigh the issues of today with those of yesterday and tomorrow to create a document that allows for agreed upon rights and responsibilities. We in Montana have an incredible opportunity to do this ‘weighing’ every 20 years and it gives us more liberties and fosters more engagement than others. When looking to the US Constitution we sometimes find disenfranchisement due to the inherent inaccessibility of a document representing over 300 million citizens.
So, with this framework I’ll conclude with the preamble to our constitution:
“We the people of Montana, grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.”
And finally, the logical fallacy of the week is that of a loaded question. This is a situation where more than one question is grouped into one question, where an answer to one unfairly responds to the others. Think of this like getting backed into a corner. Examples of loaded questions include:
‘Now listen here, are you trying to take away my guns or are you ramming health care down my throat?’
Or…
‘When did you stop beating your husband?’
That’s it for now. Enjoy the week and see you Monday.
-Zack Rogala

On Monday, Oct. 25, the group will meet again at the brewery from 5-6 p.m. to discuss “Transit Reform in Montana.” The presenter will be Mr. Patrick Rhea of the UM Transportation Board.

On Monday, the weekly discussion group sponsored by Humanities Montana and the UM Center for Ethics met at the Bitter Root Brew Pub in Hamilton to talk about a topic that is near and drear to many in the Bitterroot Valley: Logging. More specifically, participants discussed the history and future of logging in Western Montana, Sen. Tester’s “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act” and the impact of competition from other regions. Here is discussion organizer Zack Rogala’s Summary:

From Father Ravalli’s time in Stevensville till approximately the beginning of 1990’s, logging was in its heyday. Marcus Daly built a spur line down from Missoula which allowed for the valley to export its lumber products to the hungry smelting and mining operations in the Anaconda/Butte area. Yet from the 1990’s on an approximate 90% decline of the valley’s logging industry has taken place, with the recent culmination of the closing of Smurfit-Stone in Missoula and Plum Creek in Bonner. Such decline is due in part to global competition from Alaska, to Canada, to the Amazon.

In light of this decline across the state, Senator Tester has introduced the ‘Forest Jobs and Recreation Act’ in part to try and provide effective management of our wood products. The bill has gone through multiple revisions and is currently under committee. We had discussion on two aspects of this bill.

First, a provision of the bill mandates that a specific quota of lumber will be harvested from a given ecosystem over a time period of 10-15 years. Discussion was had over whether this provision is sustainable from two aspects, first that of what the given forest can handle, and second, what the market could reasonably distribute. With regards to the latter, it seems that the government would have to provide some sort of subsidy to make sure a glut would not result from such mandates.

Second, we discussed a provision that seeks to take advantage of Beetle kill timber and utilize it as fuel for Biomass boilers, much as the Fuels for Schools program currently implemented by Darby and Victor schools. While at first the idea seems to have merit, one point was brought up. First, with a mandated harvest for the production of fuel, communities could run into a situation where beetle kill becomes exhausted and green timber has to be utilized to continue to fuel the burners. In a situation like this, the energy required to harvest, dry and chip the lumber might not pencil out in Biomass’s favor.

From Tester’s bill the discussion bounced around to appropriate reduction of fuels in community areas, the glut in the market resulting in multiple timber sales in the valley currently without any open bids, to discussion on appropriate mechanisms to ensure all parties have a seat at the table when it comes to creating policies that take into account all interests.

And finally, the logical fallacy of the week is the appeal to authority. This fallacy holds that when an individual in a position of power makes a claim, that in fact the claim is true regardless of the merits of the claim. By way of example…

“Logging is the only way Bitterroot’ers can sustain our economy.”
“Why?”
“Because I worked as a logger for the past 30 years.”

Or…

“Logging is a crime to nature.”
“Why?”
“Because I have a PhD in forest ecology.”

Thanks again. Enjoy the day and see you at 5 this Monday at the Brewery. Grab a drink and a seat early so we can begin promptly at 5.

-Zack Rogala

The group will meet again on Monday, Oct. 11, at 5 p.m. to discuss “The Extents of International Aid?” with a presentation from first year Philosophy graduate student and Zimbabwean native Mr. Alexander Aston.