Clean Air and Water Ain't "Special Interests"

Carla Sonntag's recent op-ed alleged that “lawsuits funded by deep-pocketed special interest groups [were] aimed at ending the [oil-and-gas] industry altogether.”

Dictionaries define “special-interest group” as “a body of persons, corporation, or industry that seeks or receives benefits or privileged treatment, especially through legislation.” Like the industry-funded lobbying outfit Ms. Sonntag runs, which has opposed raising the minimum wage and tried to weaken unions.

The phrase doesn't mean what Ms. Sonntag pretends it means. Can even she believe that folks who contribute to environmental groups “seek or receive privileged treatment?” Does she mean clean water to drink or clean air to breathe is special treatment?

I contribute to the ACLU, SWEC, and the Environmental Defense Fund. These groups aren't advocating for “special interests” but our common interests in fair legal proceedings and a healthy environment.

If you wade through Sonntag's snide rhetoric, she's attacking an effort to cut emissions 91% by 2050. With global temperatures rising, trying to do that in 32 years might be prudent. Proponents are not, as Sonntag claims, “trying to destroy the source of many jobs and livelihoods in New Mexico.” Her carping that environmentalists get contributions from rich people is ironic from someone whose source of income is wealthy businesses and corporations who (unlike contributors to environmental groups) are concerned only with personal profit.

If Ms. Sonntag used more logic and less name-calling, she might be more convincing. The people pushing the steep emissions cuts are trying to help save us from imminent danger. Yes, a side-effect of moving away from fossil fuels would be more jobs in other segments of the energy industry and fewer jobs in fossil fuels. (And more modest profits for the people who pay Ms. Sonntag's salary?)

Even fellow Republicans don't consider Ms. Sonntag a truth-teller. Harvey Yates and the New Mexico Republican Party accused her of false and libelous statements in emails attacking a candidate for party chair. The party said the “deceitful” statements showed “a lack of integrity.” Yates said private investigators had traced the emails to accounts set up by Ms. Sonntag and a son. Ms. Sonntag replied that she hadn't been involved in party politics for years. 

Sonntag sued the party for defamation in January 2017, demanding an apology, a court order, and damages. She dismissed her lawsuit in April, issuing a press release that mentions neither any settlement payment or any apology. She also stated that she'd “filed the lawsuit to obtain a report from the RPNM.” (The lawsuit's discovery phase would automatically provide her the report.) She claims that the report “proves . . . the Republican Party had no basis to attack me.” If so, the report would be strong evidence that would encourage a plaintiff to continue the lawsuit. Sonntag waved the white flag. 

Sonntag understands that words matter – when they refer to her.

Folks like Ms. Sonntag give business a bad name. Opposing any and all modest efforts to improve wages, water, or working conditions undermines credibility and strengthens the impression that businesses are bad. They're not. They're part of a healthy economy. Unfortunately, because they involve maximizing profits, they sometimes oppose too aggressively improvements that might cut into profits. Or pay folks like Ms. Sonntag, to try to convince us that fighting climate change will destroy our economy. 

Using our words honestly is a great step we all can take to improve the quality of public and political dialogue.

                                                -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 11 February 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on both KRWG and KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM.]

[Part of our problem is that we cannot just disagree, we feel the need to vilify and insult each other.  Newspaper reporters are never just "mistaken" or "wrong" anymore, they are LYING.  A story this morning about Pence exemplifies that.  A gay Olympic athlete expressed unhappiness that Pence was leading the U.S. delegation to the Winter Olympics.  He mentioned his understanding that Pence had at one time supported "gay conversion therapy."    A veteran reporter then reported that Pence's people had reached out to the athlete, seeking a meeting, and been rebuffed.  Pence could not merely deny that.  He had to tweet that a reporter was dredging up  "an 18-year-old nonstory, to create disunity."  A simple denial would have been more graceful and persuasive.  Why call the reporter a liar?  Why insist that she was trying to create dissension.  Pence protesteth too much.  If he said he hadn't sought a meeting and had no idea where she got the idea that he had, or why the athlete was saying he had, and that the story was an unfortunate blemish on a wonderful moment of national unity, one might wonder whether there'd been some mistake and the story was inaccurate or exaggerated.  (What would have been wrong with seeking such a meeting also isn't clear to me; and regretting the gay athlete's attitude as rigid and based on inaccurate allegations about Pence's views might have made one respect Pence more than his descent into Trump-like name-calling.

Did Pence actually advocate "gay conversion therapy?"  Implicitly, but not explicitly.  While running for Congress he did "advocate funding institutions which provide assistance to people trying to change their sexual behavior."  That was on his website in 2000, so it should express his belief.  The context made it clear that he was no fan of gay sexual behavior, but he didn't explicitly refer to gay conversion therapy, at least there.  (Interestingly, some website in Nevada later alleged, with no apparent factual basis, that Pence had stated that "gay conversion therapy saved my marriage, by helping me resist certain urges."  That may have been meant humorously.  It might even accurately reflect an aspect of Pence's character, but he never made that statement and would have been stupid to make it publicly that the story should hardly have convinced anyone; but it may have fueled Pence's annoyance at the whole issue."]