Wednesday, April 15, 1998 | 10:48 a.m.
There is litmus and there is Litmus.
Many years ago it became unfashionable for voters to create litmus tests for candidates to public office. As our world continued to grow more complicated so did our lives and the thought, therefore, of any one test to prove a candidate's loyalty, honesty or integrity seemed not only unfair but not conducive to good governance.
And, so, we have managed for many years to tell ourselves that there are not one or two disqualifying issues over which a certain candidate for office would not receive our votes while, at the same time, using the sanctity of the voting booth to do just the opposite. What we have really meant, I believe, is that there are issues which are very near and dear to each of us but, in most cases, they don't rise up to the level which would disqualify an otherwise exceptional candidate from our consideration. To the extent that an issue is so compelling that we just can't overlook its impact, then we act accordingly.
There have been a number of such litmus tests that have been taken over the past few decades. So-called women's issues have been very evident amongst a vast majority of our female voters. Whether it be choice in reproductive rights or equality in the workplace, many women believe strongly in the need to advance their voices in the political arena so they look for candidates who think accordingly. Pocket book issues have always been an unwritten litmus test and an often denied source of candidate qualification. It seems we are interested in every other issue in the book until we hit the voting booth. Then, if we are happy with the way things are, we generally vote the status quo.
Not that there is anything wrong with that kind of thinking. First, how can it ever be wrong when the people are deciding it to be right through the exercise of their votes? And, secondly, where is it written that people can't choose their favorite candidates by associating them with their favorite beliefs?
The danger, of course, occurs when people like senators and congressmen create litmus tests for people in the exercise of their constitutional responsibilities. Litmus tests at that level seem to confuse personal likes and dislikes with political needs and constitutional requirements. That results in messy government and often results in the public exercising its prerogatives in the nature of term-limiting those who act like jerks.
Back to the people, though. We are allowed to have our own personal litmus tests, even though we often find the need to compromise them in order to promote the candidacy of an otherwise responsible and thoroughly qualified person. The question, then, is whether, as Nevadans, we should create a litmus test for candidates running for governor regarding the high-level nuclear waste dump.
Gov. Bob Miller suggested as much when he said this weekend that he could not support the candidacy of state Sen. Joe Neal, D-North Las Vegas, for governor to succeed him. Normally, such a statement wouldn't mean much except for the fact that Neal appears to be the front runner for the Democratic nomination for the state's highest office. Miller is a Democrat. If Bob refuses to endorse Neal -- sit this one out, as it were -- that would be a tacit acknowledgment of his approval of Kenny Guinn who is the likely Republican aspirant.
Before the Democrats pitch a fit, there is plenty of precedent in Nevada for an outgoing governor remaining mute on the question of supporting his party's choice to succeed him in Carson City. That is not only a referendum on the quality of candidates each party fields from time to time but also on the independent nature of the Nevada voter, a quality that reaches even the Statehouse.
More importantly, though, there is a message that must not be lost on Nevada's voters, most of whom are exercising their rights as Silver State citizens for only the first or second time. Remember, Nevada has doubled in size since the U.S. Congress passed the "Screw Nevada" bill that singled out our state as the final resting place for all the radioactive refuse in the United States. It is highly likely that what is a burning issue to those of us who have lived here awhile, may only be a question mark to those who have just moved here in the past few years.
Everything we are and all that we do, especially in Southern Nevada, is tied to the concept of tourism. All that we work for and all that we create is designed to better not only our present families but our extended ones, well into the future. If the U.S. Congress, as the proxy for the nuclear waste industry, is allowed to shove this national problem down Nevada's throat and bury it in our own thriving backyard, all that we have created is jeopardized.
There is a reason that no other community in this country wants the radioactive hell that it has created to remain nearby. There is a reason why people across the country, through their representatives and at the insistence of the monied interests in the nuke power business, have voted to bury their problem in our neighborhood. And, for that same reason -- fear of the consequences -- Nevadans must remain united in our opposition to any thought of sending that poison our way.
Obviously, as in all things, the nuclear waste dump issue is not a simple matter. And, for sure, the politics involved in trying to bury us under thousands of tons of the deadliest substances known to man are no less complicated. That's why it has always been of the utmost importance that Nevada's federal delegation -- our senators and congressmen -- and state officials --from the governor on down -- remain steadfast in their opposition.
This issue is not about taxes. It is not about more or less water. And it is not about whether Indian gaming spreads and the right-wing zealots have their way with our primary industry. While each of those issues are important, none of them go to the very quality -- heck, viability -- of life in Nevada as we know it.
Taxes don't cause cancer and neither do gaming regulations. Right-wing politics are not life shortening -- although sometimes we might pray for such a surcease from the constant head banging -- and neither is the higher cost of water that we will need. But radioactivity does cause cancer and that is definitely life-challenging. If not for us and our children then for our children's children and theirs.
If ever there were an issue that should be a litmus test for Nevada's politicians and her voters, the nuclear waste dump is it!
That having been said, the question remains whether Joe Neal should be disqualified from consideration because his views are antithetical to the interests of most Nevadans. I say most because there are some who will make lots of money if the dump ultimately comes here. Those are the few folks you hear cheering for the dump and they are the same folks who will high tail it out of here as soon as they make their millions, long before the radioactivity finds its way into our water and ecosystem and our lives.
The answer to that question must remain in abeyance until the voters know what their options will be come election day. And, if that choice is pro-dump or anti-dump, there is no choice. And if that is a litmus test, so be it.
For that is a test to see what kind of life will continue in Nevada and that is where the line must be drawn.
archive
