The Bluegrass and Beyond

Kentucky’s new “religious freedom” law sure looks like an attempt by conservative Christians to justify discrimination against gay people and get around local “fairness” ordinances.

That is why many people were puzzled when Jim Gray, Lexington’s first openly gay mayor, was the most muted voice in the choir of opponents who urged Gov. Steve Beshear to veto the bill.

Beshear did issue a veto, but the General Assembly overturned it by a wide margin last week.

Beshear’s veto came at the urging of dozens of organizations and individuals — liberal churches, gay rights groups, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Kentucky League of Cities, the Kentucky Association of Counties and Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer, who said the bill would “take us backwards as a city and Commonwealth, hurting our strategic position in an increasingly global economy.”

Gray, however, issued a tepid statement that stopped short of urging a veto. He has declined to elaborate publicly.

“The legislation’s stated goal is to encourage religious freedom. That’s a worthy goal,” his statement said. “However, many citizens are concerned the bill may unintentionally open the door to discrimination. Last Thursday, I talked to the governor, shared these concerns and urged him to consider these issues carefully.”

Gray took a beating in social media from some gay people and their supporters, but gay rights leaders were more circumspect. Lexington Fairness chairman Roy Harrison, in an interview Friday, avoided any criticism of Gray.

“We are really happy that he brought more discussion to the bill,” Harrison said. “Everyone has their own political calculus.”

The General Assembly’s political calculus was clear. Most opponents of the bill were lawmakers from progressive urban districts. Legislators from more conservative rural, small-town and suburban districts voted for it.

In a conservative district, there is nothing more dangerous in the next election than having an opponent claim you voted against “religious freedom.” Rural Democrats, especially, are feeling the heat.

Gray is seeking re-election to a second term as mayor next year, so he may have wanted to avoid alienating conservatives. But few people expect Gray to get serious opposition. Former Police Chief Anthany Beatty floated a trial balloon about running, but it hasn’t gotten much lift.

Gray seems to be widely popular in Lexington, even among former critics. As mayor, he has had significant accomplishments and has made few missteps.

Besides, voters knew Gray was gay when they elected him to council in 2006 with enough votes to make him vice mayor. His sexual orientation wasn’t really an issue when he unseated incumbent Mayor Jim Newberry in 2010. Since then, Gray hasn’t tried to be “the gay mayor” — just “the mayor.”

Gray’s political calculation may have been that everyone, including the governor, knew where he stood on this subject, so he had little to gain by being vocal on a statewide controversy where he had no real influence.

Gray did come out strong a year ago on a Lexington controversy, when Hands on Originals cited religious objections in refusing to print T-shirts for a gay pride festival, sparking an ongoing investigation by the city’s Human Rights Commission.

A more important political calculation may have been that Gray didn’t want to anger the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Bob Damon, D-Nicholasville, an influential member of the Central Kentucky delegation. Rep. Sannie Overly of Paris may have unseated Damron as chair of the House Democratic caucus this year, but the way this bill sailed through the General Assembly showed Damron still has plenty of clout.

For all the huffing and puffing on both sides, nobody seems to really know what this legislation will do. The stated intent is to make it easier for Kentuckians to ignore state laws or regulations that conflict with their “sincerely held” religious beliefs unless there is a “compelling governmental interest.”

Bill supporters such as The Family Foundation, which could be more accurately called the Foundation for Families Just Like Ours, insists it is not a vehicle for discriminating against gay people. But a spokesman also has argued that the Hands on Originals case wasn’t really discrimination.

The law’s uncertainties and unintended consequences were a big reason Beshear said he vetoed it. “As written, the bill will undoubtedly lead to costly litigation,” he said.

Don’t forget the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars that have been wasted on defending clearly unconstitutional attempts by some local governments to post the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

Harrison, the Lexington Fairness chairman, said gay rights and civil liberties groups will be watching to see if this new law is used to try to justify discrimination. If so, they will aggressively challenge it.

Rep. Kelly Flood, D-Lexington, a Unitarian Universalist minister and opponent of the new law, mused that one unintended consequence of it could be to advance gay rights.

Unitarians support gay marriage. Could not they use this law to challenge Kentucky’s 2004 constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions as an infringement of their “sincerely held” religious beliefs? Might the state then be forced to show a “compelling governmental interest” for banning gay marriage?

One thing is for sure: this bad law will keep the culture warriors battling for years to come.

America zigged and Kentucky zagged. The majority of the nation’s voters rejected right-wing politics in last Tuesday’s election, but Kentuckians outside of Lexington and Louisville embraced them all the more.

Big swings have become the norm in national elections, because neither party has succeeded in solving America’s problems on its own. But deeper forces may have been at work this time.

Much of the post-election analysis has focused on demographic shifts that go against the hard conservative turn the Republican Party has taken in recent years.

Young people, women and minorities voted overwhelmingly for President Barack Obama’s economic policies over those of challenger Mitt Romney, and they rejected socially conservative candidates for the U.S. Senate.

Republicans’ run to the right has been marked by increasingly rigid ideology on both economic and social issues. But analysts of all stripes warn that without more tolerance of diversity — including intellectual diversity — the GOP could become the incredible shrinking party of old, white men.

Demographics are destiny, and it will be interesting to see how Republicans cope with these demographic trends. As it does, Kentucky will be in the spotlight, because the state’s two high-profile U.S. senators now seem to be caught between Barack and a hard place.

Voters in many states signaled that they have grown tired of Tea Party radicals. Paul won election in Kentucky two years ago as a Tea Party idol and immediately started preening like a future presidential candidate. Are his 15 minutes of fame about up?

By re-electing Obama and giving Democrats more seats in the Senate, voters rejected Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s relentless obstructionism. He went to great lengths over the past four years to oppose the president on just about everything.

While other Republican leaders were making conciliatory statements after the election, McConnell, the anti-Henry Clay, struck his usual pose against compromise. He indicated he will continue to fight against raising historically low income taxes on America’s richest people to lower the nation’s budget deficit, even though opinion polls show overwhelming public support for it.

In an especially cynical comment, McConnell called on Obama to “move to the political center.” McConnell is nowhere near the political center himself, and the Tea Party wing of his party would need a telescope to even see it.

Kentucky and other Southern states have played a big role in supporting the Republican party’s anti-tax, anti-government ideology. But that is deeply ironic when you look at the statistics, said Ron Crouch, director of research and statistics for Kentucky’s Education and Workforce Development Cabinet and the guru of Kentucky demographic trends.

Kentucky and other Republican-leaning “red” states tend to receive much more federal assistance than they contribute in taxes, while the reverse is true of Democrat-leaning “blue” states.

In Kentucky, Crouch noted, the largest per-capita federal transfer payments go to poor, rural counties that vote Republican.

Kentucky and other states whose populations are largely white, aging, rural and traditionally male-dominated will increasingly be overshadowed, both politically and economically, unless and until they catch up to these broader demographic trends, Crouch said.

“We need to be more supportive of immigration and open to diversity,” he said of Kentuckians. “When I drive around Kentucky, I see a lot of Confederate flags.”

Immigrants and minorities could play an important role in keeping the state’s small towns and rural areas vibrant as the white population ages and shrinks from declining birth rates.

But Kentucky already is becoming more diverse than many people realize, Crouch said. The majority of Kentucky’s population growth since 2000 — and all of it under the age of 18 — has been among minorities, especially Hispanics.

As immigrant, minority and urban populations grow in Kentucky, voting patterns are likely to become less Republican, unless that party moves more to the political center. The same is true as women gain more economic and political clout in the state.

“Blue-collar men are an endangered species,” Crouch said. “We’re seeing an economy more and more that is favoring female employment.”

Kentucky’s future, both economically and politically, will depend not only on the availability of jobs, but whether those jobs pay enough to support middle-class families, Crouch thinks. And those families are bound to become more diverse, like it or not.

No matter which presidential candidate you voted for, you should take a few minutes today to watch the classy speeches both men gave to their supporters in the wee hours of this morning.

There are some common themes in these speeches that conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans, must embrace if America is to remain a great and prosperous nation.

Election campaigns necessarily focus on our differences and competing ideas. But governing an almost evenly divided nation requires building consensus around shared goals and values. If there is one lesson we can draw from the past four years, this is it: When governing becomes nothing more than a constant political campaign, the result is gridlock.

This is the question Americans face the morning after this election: Do we want to keep fighting, or work together to solve our problems?

The Georgetown & Scott County Museum has on display through Nov. 30 perhaps the largest collection ever assembled of Kentucky campaign memorabilia. Many items are one-of-a-kind. Photos by Tom Eblen

GEORGETOWN — Before there were TV attack ads, political campaigns were waged with posters, buttons and bumper stickers — and even thimbles, string ties and china water pitchers.

This election season, the Georgetown & Scott County Museum has assembled what organizers say is the largest-ever display of Kentucky campaign memorabilia. More than 1,200 items cover the century from 1883 to 1983.

The exhibit combines three large collections — assembled by Jerome Redfearn, Robert Westerman and Julius Rather — with artifacts held by the University of Kentucky, Western Kentucky University and several individuals.

“Many of these items, especially the early stuff, are one-of-a-kind, unless you get lucky and find the right attic,” said Redfearn, a Georgetown antiques dealer who has been collecting Kentucky campaign items for 35 years.

The museum also has published a full-color, $30 catalog of the exhibit.

The exhibit begins with a cigar box, postcard and button promoting the 1883 gubernatorial campaign of J. Proctor Knott, the namesake of Knott County. It concludes with material promoting the 1983 election of Kentucky’s first and only female governor, Martha Layne Collins.

In between, there is paraphernalia from just about every Kentuckian of that century who ran for governor, U.S. senator, vice president or president. Famous names include Alben Barkley, A.B. “Happy” Chandler, Louie Nunn, Bert Combs, Edward “Ned” Breathitt, Wendell Ford, John Sherman Cooper and three men named John Young Brown. Their names, images and slogans are reproduced on everything from buttons and hats to thimbles and “Kentucky colonel” string ties.

Among the many never-before- displayed items is a ribbon promoting the candidacy of Simon Boliver Buckner, the former Confederate general who was elected governor in 1887. His term coincided with the Hatfield-McCoy feud and the scandal over state treasurer James “Honest Dick” Tate, who disappeared with $250,000 of state money.

“That’s the only one known to exist,” Redfearn said of the Buckner ribbon. “It’s mine. Bob Westerman would love to have it, but he’s not going to get it.”

Campaign buttons and trinkets first became popular in the late 1800s, when machines enabled cheap mass production. Early buttons were covered with clear celluloid before lithography allowed color printing on tin in the 1920s. The popularity of automobiles led to campaign license plates and, later, bumper stickers.

This exhibit has many items from the notorious 1899 campaign for governor. That race pitted Republican William S. Taylor against Democrat William Goebel and the first John Young Brown, who ran on the “Honest Election Democrats” ticket in reaction to Goebel’s hardball tactics.

Taylor narrowly won, but opponents alleged vote fraud and a Democrat-controlled General Assembly gave the election to Goebel. Before he could take office, Goebel was shot in the back on the Capitol lawn, becoming the only American governor to be assassinated. Campaign items include a one-of-a-kind china water pitcher with Goebel’s portrait and a postcard bearing the slogan “Down with Goebelism!”

Lindsey Apple, a retired history professor at Georgetown College who helped organize the exhibit, said this collection also speaks to more positive aspects of Kentucky politics. Many of the names and faces displayed here became good leaders — or could have been.

“One of the things that emerges from this was how many men were well qualified to be public servants, but for whatever reason the timing just wasn’t right,” Apple said.

While the 1899 election set a standard for violence and bitterness, other races were waged by opponents who could remain friends despite their political differences.

State historian James Klotter recalled the 1915 race for governor between Democrat A.O. Stanley and Republican Edwin Morrow. They traveled the state, lambasting each other from the stump but often drinking together in the same hotel room at night.

At one joint appearance, Klotter said, the hot sun became too much for Stanley as Morrow spoke, perhaps because of their previous night’s revelry. He threw up in front of everyone.

“This goes to show you what I’ve been saying all over Kentucky,” Stanley said when it was his turn to speak. “Ed Morrow plain makes me sick to my stomach.”

Stanley won, but Morrow got his turn as governor four years later.

Click on each thumbnail to see larger photo and read caption:

Who could have guessed that President Barack Obama would suddenly be depending on Vice President Joe Biden’s communications skills to get his re-election campaign back on track? That’s right, the same Joe Biden who has an uncanny ability to say the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But that’s the way it is as Centre College in Danville plays host Thursday to Campaign 2012′s next big event: the only vice presidential debate between Biden and his Republican challenger, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Centre was already feeling good about having been chosen to host the veep debate for the second time in a dozen years. Now, thanks to Obama’s feeble performance last Wednesday in his first debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, even more attention will be focused on Danville.

“The interest and the contacts have really picked up in the past few days,” said Centre spokesman Michael Strysick.

More than 3,200 media credentials have been issued for the debate, including 600 to international journalists and broadcast technicians from 40 countries.

Credentialing closed a couple of weeks ago, but interest was already strong because of Ryan’s selection for the GOP ticket. It raised hopes that this would be more than the usual vice presidential debate — a sparring match between two people whose election is of no real consequence unless something happens to the president.

When Biden faced off four years ago in St. Louis against Sarah Palin, much of the anticipation focused on whether she would be able to convey a coherent thought.

But Ryan is the anti-Palin: smart and articulate, with a strong command of policy and data. He is one of conservatism’s rising intellectuals. Among many GOP faithful, especially Tea Party types, Ryan is more popular and respected than Romney.

During 14 years in the House, Ryan has become a leader in developing and proposing conservative fiscal policies. He is most famous for his draconian budget plan that would cut $5 trillion in government spending over a decade.

While Biden is an experienced legislator who campaigns with a man-of-the-people folksiness, he has never been considered a thought leader. House Speaker John Boehner predicted this summer that the Ryan-Biden debate could be “the greatest show on the planet.”

“With these two on the same stage,” Village Voice political blogger John Surico wrote last week, “we have a situation that is akin to a Thanksgiving Dinner where the dorky cousin is trying to outsmart the drunken uncle.”

But if Biden can avoid his gift of gaffe, he has a chance do well on Centre’s stage. That is because televised debates are more about performance than policy. They favor showmen over wonks, which is a big reason that Romney came off looking so much better than Obama did last Wednesday night.

Obama didn’t make mistakes; he just missed opportunities. He rambled while Romney was crisp. He was passive while Romney was assertive. Romney’s sudden shift from right-wing rhetoric to moderate reason seemed to throw Obama off balance. Romney looked straight into the camera when he spoke; Obama’s eyes were too often focused elsewhere.

The single vice presidential debate is particularly well-suited for sharp elbows. The debaters often can get away with saying meaner things than the top guys on the ticket. Both Ryan and Biden are likely to spend more time going after the presidential candidate who isn’t there than the guy across the stage.

Debates tend to favor challengers, because incumbents have a record to defend. But, in this case, Biden has an opportunity to make hay by attacking Ryan’s radical proposals for reshaping the federal budget and Medicare.

Ryan is coming to Danville to attack the Obama administration’s record, but also to try to sell his and Romney’s ideas.

Biden’s challenge will be to defend the administration’s record and explain why Romney and Ryan are wrong. He must show more passion and energy than Obama did last week. But here’s the question: Can Biden go on the offensive without being offensive?

Kentucky’s moment in the campaign spotlight should be a good show.

Centre College students David Miller, left, president of Centre Young Democrats; Patrick Cho, president of the Student Government Association; Ben Boone, president of the student Senate; and Luke Wetton, president of Centre Young Republicans, showed off a “civility pledge” that classmates have signed. Photo by Tom Eblen

DANVILLE — David Miller is president of Centre College Young Democrats. Luke Wetton is president of Centre Young Republicans. They have different political philosophies, and they have debated each in the campus theater.

But they also are good friends. They eat lunch with the same group of students almost every day, and they hang out together most Friday and Saturday nights.

“We talk politics all the time, but with the understanding that disagreeing with the other’s political viewpoints is not a personal attack,” said Miller, 21, a senior from Orlando, Fla.

“The reason David and I have a good relationship is that we’re in an environment where we can relate to each other and realize we’re not that different,” said Wetton, 20, a junior from Russellville.

One thing they do agree on is the “civility pledge” that Centre’s Student Government Association created last year. It is a simple statement that covers a lot of ground: “I promise to do my best, be my best, and respect the members and property of our Centre community.”

Virtually all of Centre College’s 1,300 students have signed the pledge voluntarily, said Patrick Cho, the student government president. When Democratic Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee, come to Centre’s campus Oct. 11 for their only face-to-face debate before the election, students will ask them to sign it, too.

“If there are two people who are really going to get into it a battle of words and wits onstage, I think Paul Ryan and Joe Biden are the people to do it, and to do it well,” Miller said. “But I don’t think either of them are going to have a problem remaining civil and not insulting one another. They know what’s expected of them.”

Cho said the pledge grew out of conversations among Student Government Association members about the kind of campus culture they wanted to encourage.

The wording was borrowed from an admonition students often hear from Centre President John Roush: “Do your best, be your best, no regrets.”

Students have rallied around the pledge because, unlike most college honor codes, the idea came from students rather than administrators or faculty, said Ben Boone, 22, a senior from Nicholasville and president of the student Senate.

“There’s something very real and tangible about one student saying to another, ‘We can have political disagreements, but there’s no reason why you have to call me an idiot and I have to call you a liar,’” Miller said.

Cho said he wasn’t aware of any students who have declined to sign the pledge. In fact, he said, a popular fashion accessory on campus is a yellow wrist band that says, “Be Your Best. No Regrets.”

The debate — Centre’s second, after hosting the 2000 vice presidential debate between Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney — has increased students’ interest in politics. Both the Democrat and Republican student organizations have seen membership soar. Cho said student government is leading a voter-registration drive.

“One of the things our generation gets accused of is being politically apathetic, but I don’t think that’s true,” Cho said.

But the young people said they are turned off by the hyper-partisan, money-influenced demagoguery and no-compromise attitudes prevalent in politics today. “People are yearning for something different,” Cho said.

Miller and Wetton said they think the biggest problem with the baby boomers who run the country is that, unlike their predecessors, they don’t have personal relationships with their political opponents.

“Previously, there seemed to be more understanding that politicians were elected to work together,” Miller said. “Not to stand on opposite sides of the chamber and shout each other down. That’s not a way to get anything done.”

What advice would these Centre students give their elders?

“Calm down, share a meal together,” Miller said. “Because we’re in Kentucky, have some bourbon together. Having a good relationship outside of work helps.”

Wetton encouraged political leaders to think about their legacy.

“If these people thought about that very carefully, they would realize that there is more value in being able to say we came together and sometimes agreed to disagree, but we made progress,” he said. “That’s better than always sticking to your guns and putting the country at risk.”

Woody Guthrie would have been 100 years old on July 14. Because the folksinger died of a neurological disease in 1967, at age 55, many people now know little about him besides his most famous song, This Land is Your Land.

It is a wonderful song that would make a good National Anthem. It is less bombastic than the unsingable Star Spangled Banner, more aspirational than America The Beautiful and less presumptuous than God Bless America.

In fact, Guthrie wrote This Land is Your Land in 1940 because he got sick of hearing Irving Berlin’s God Bless America on the radio. He disliked the song because he thought God had already blessed America with beauty and abundance, and it was every citizen’s responsibility to care for and share it.

Guthrie originally called his song God Blessed America, and the chorus ended with the words, “God blessed America for me.” After writing the song, though, Guthrie set it aside for five years. When it was finally performed, Guthrie had changed the title and had rewritten the chorus to end, “This land was made for you and me.”

As referenced in the song, Woodrow Wilson Guthrie was a rambler who roamed America — from California to the New York Island, from the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters — collecting folk tunes and writing more than 3,000 songs.

Guthrie had three wives and eight children, including folksinger Arlo Guthrie. He was mentor to other folksingers, including a young Bob Dylan, who said of Guthrie’s songs: “They had the infinite sweep of humanity in them.”

The Oklahoman became a well-known troubadour during the Great Depression, spending a lot of time with people who had been thrown into poverty by the Dust Bowl and economic collapse.

A 1939 song romanticized the gangster Charles “Pretty Boy” Floyd as a modern Robin Hood. It includes these lyrics, which still ring true:

Yes, as through this world I’ve wandered

I’ve seen lots of funny men;

Some will rob you with a six-gun,

And some with a fountain pen.

Alarmed by how unrestrained capitalism had failed so many Americans, Guthrie also feared the right-wing power then rising in fascist Spain and Nazi Germany. His guitar displayed the slogan, “This machine kills fascists.”

Like many people during the Great Depression, Guthrie held strong leftist sympathies. He wrote a folksy column, called Woody Sez, for communist labor newspapers, but lacked the interest or discipline for ideological politics.

When attacked by conservatives, Guthrie replied with a joke: “I ain’t a communist necessarily, but I been in the red all my life.” In reality, he was more of a populist troublemaker who wrote what he saw and enjoyed tweaking the rich and powerful.

Guthrie also was something of a patriot, capitalist and person of faith. He served in World War II. He wrote some of his most memorable songs — Pastures of Plenty, Roll on Columbia, Grand Coulee Dam — during a month-long government job promoting the construction of hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest. He said Jesus Christ was one of the two men he most admired. (The other was humorist Will Rogers.)

It is always easier to dismiss someone because of who or what he is than to listen to what he has to say, especially when his message is uncomfortable.

Guthrie got a close-up view of how the American dream became a nightmare for many people during the Great Depression. That view shaped his vision of this nation and its promise for true greatness. His lyrics seem appropriate again today, as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class shrinks.

While extolling America’s natural beauty, This Land is Your Land is really about how inclusiveness and the promise of shared prosperity are what make the United States special. This land is not just for the rich, but for everyone. It wasn’t just made for me, but for you, too.

The little-sung last verse — the one we were not taught in elementary school — is especially poignant as we mark the 100th anniversary of Woody Guthrie’s birth:

In the squares of the city / In the shadow of the steeple

Near the relief office / I see my people

And some are grumblin’ and some are wonderin’

If this land’s still made for you and me.

THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND 
words and music by Woody Guthrie 
Chorus:
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me

As I was walking a ribbon of highway
I saw above me an endless skyway
I saw below me a golden valley
This land was made for you and me

Chorus

I've roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me

Chorus

The sun comes shining as I was strolling
The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The fog was lifting a voice come chanting
This land was made for you and me

Chorus

As I was walkin'  -  I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side  .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!

Chorus

In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.

Chorus (2x)

©1956 (renewed 1984), 1958 (renewed 1986) and 1970 TRO-Ludlow Music, Inc. 
(BMI) Source: Arlo.net, The Official Arlo Guthrie Website.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this week on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the 2010 law that is often called “Obamacare” but just as easily could be called “Romneycare.”

America’s health care system — if you can even call it a system — is a convoluted mess. Studies show that Americans pay more for health care and get less overall quality than citizens of most other industrialized nations.

Nobody understands our current health care system, and just thinking about it makes a head hurt. Year after year, you pay more for insurance that covers less. You spend more time fighting insurance companies, and you pay more money out of pocket.

We hate the system we have, but we are afraid of change.

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court decides, especially if the verdict splits 5-4 along ideological lines. The court’s public approval ratings have been falling amid a series of rulings by the court’s activist conservative majority. A New York Times/CBS poll this month found that 75 percent of Americans think Supreme Court justices’ personal politics influence their legal decisions.

It will be more important to watch how elected leaders of both parties respond to whatever the court decides. Health care, more than any other issue, illustrates today’s poisonous politics. Special-interest money, political ideology and unwillingness to compromise seem to have left that concept we used to call “the public good” in the dust.

The main issue before the Supreme Court is the law’s “individual mandate.” It requires people to buy health insurance from a private company if they can afford to, or pay a penalty to the government to help cover the costs of uninsured people.

Without an individual mandate, almost everyone agrees, a for-profit universal health insurance system won’t work. But few people like the mandate, for various reasons. President Barack Obama was against it before he was for it. His Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, was for it before he was against it.

The conservative Heritage Foundation first proposed the individual mandate in 1989 as a way to create a free- market alternative to government health insurance. An individual mandate was part of the state insurance law Romney signed as governor of Massachusetts.

Now, though, conservatives call the individual mandate “socialism.” Liberals don’t like it, either, because they think it simply props up a fundamentally flawed private insurance system. Many of them would prefer a government-run “single-payer” system, which they say would provide universal coverage with much lower overhead costs and less paperwork.

One way to create a single-payer system would be to open Medicare to everyone. That federal health insurance program, created in 1965, now covers 48 million Americans, most of whom are elderly.

The corporations at the heart of our current health care industrial complex hate the idea of a single-payer system because its efficiencies would cut into their profits — or put them out of business. Republicans and even many Democrats don’t like it, either, because they get huge amounts of campaign cash from those corporations.

Thanks largely to health care industry lobbying, single-payer proposals have gone nowhere in recent years. Instead, congressional Democrats passed the controversial law now before the Supreme Court over the solid Republican objections.

The Affordable Care Act will greatly expand affordable coverage and curb some of the insurance industry’s worst abuses, such as canceling coverage when people get sick or denying it for pre-existing conditions. But nobody is completely satisfied with the reform law.

In addition to hating the individual mandate, conservatives complain that the law is too complex and won’t do enough to contain rising costs. But they have offered no credible alternatives that would provide universal coverage.

Liberals complain that Obama and congressional Democrats made too many concessions to the drug and insurance companies. They say the law amounts to a huge taxpayer subsidy for industry.

But after years of political posturing, Americans need solutions. More than 750,000 Kentuckians have no health insurance, and the coverage most of the rest of us have loses value every year.

Whatever the Supreme Court decides, this is the question each Kentuckian should ask his or her representative and senators: How will you work with members of the other party to create a system that gives all Americans access to good, affordable health care? How will you provide us with access to insurance coverage as good as what the government provides for you?

Businessman Richard Knittel joined pickets Wednesday evening as part of Lexington's Occupy Wall Street on Main Street. Photo by Tom Eblen

The casually dressed Occupy Wall Street protesters in downtown Lexington last Wednesday evening looked curiously at one another when Richard Knittel approached wearing a suit and tie.

He didn’t want to argue with them. He wanted to join them.

Knittel, 69, of Versailles, explained that he isn’t against capitalism — among other things, he is chairman of a Canadian company that uses environmentally friendly technology to mine metals. But he agreed with the protesters that big money has too much influence in America, especially when it comes to profit-driven disregard for the environment.

“I want people to see that even people with suits on are joining this,” Knittel said before picking up a spare protest sign and waving to passing motorists on Main Street.

Since Occupy Wall Street protests began Sept. 17 in New York’s financial district, similar demonstrations have sprung up in more than 1,300 American cities.

The Lexington protest began Sept. 29 on the sidewalk outside Chase Bank Plaza. Protesters — whose numbers have ranged from two to two dozen — said they have tried to be polite and not make a mess. They have appreciated Lexington police for keeping drunks and troublemakers away. Supporters bring them food, and Gene and Natasha Williams let them use restrooms in their restaurant across the street.

Some people have cast Occupy Wall Street as liberals’ answer to the conservative Tea Party. Both movements include average, passionate people waving protest signs and American flags. Both also have their share of crackpots, are fuzzy about their goals and solutions and are easy for critics to lampoon.

Still, both movements have struck chords with the public because, for so many people, the American dream seems to be slipping away. People on the left, right and in the middle think the system has been rigged against them.

I visited Lexington’s Occupy Wall Street protesters several times last week. Most were 20-something students and low-wage workers, although the group included teachers, retirees, a veteran, a local food activist, an unemployed computer programmer and a man who said he is homeless. Some talked idealistically, but most just seemed worried about the future.

The protesters said they are concerned about economic injustice and political corruption. They aren’t against capitalism, just the crony capitalism and greed that they blame for the financial crisis and widening economic disparity.

Among common themes: The rich have gotten exponentially richer while middle-class workers have lost economic ground for three decades. Financial speculators, who largely caused the 2008 crash and were bailed out by taxpayers, haven’t been brought to justice. Politicians of both parties receive so much corporate cash that they are only looking out for business interests.

“This is about shaping the national discourse so it is more people-based than profit-based,” said Robert Wilhelm, 24, a University of Kentucky student. “People who were part of the Tea Party before it got corporate sponsorship have even come by and said they agree the system is broken.”

Janet Tucker, 64, a retired nurse, said she thought it was important to come out and protest. “But I don’t spend the night here; I leave that to the younger folks,” she said.

“We’re spending trillions on wars overseas, and we can’t afford to deal with all the problems we have here,” Tucker said. “It’s not that there isn’t money; it’s where it is. We need to look at our priorities as a nation.”

Protesters said they have been encouraged because, for every obscene gesture or shout of “get a job” they receive from a passerby, they get 10 thumbs-up or honks of support.

“A lot of folks are struggling, and I think they’re making these connections,” said Greg Capillo, 23, a college graduate who works in a coffee shop. “The ultimate issue is corporate involvement in democracy, because it speaks to the structural elements of democracy itself.”

It is hard to predict the future of Occupy Wall Street. The demonstrations will surely wane as winter comes. Protesters say they don’t want to be co-opted by the Democratic Party the way the Tea Party movement has been by the Republican Party.

The significance of protest movements is never the movements themselves, but how they shape public opinion over time. A national poll last week by Time magazine found that 54 percent of respondents viewed Occupy Wall Street favorably. That compared to 27 percent who viewed the Tea Party favorably, down from 41 percent in December 2009.

Comparing Occupy Wall Street to the Tea Party might not be the best analogy. Better ones might be the Bonus Army veterans who occupied Washington during the worst of the Depression, or even the civil rights movement of a generation ago.

Throughout history, this nation has been forced to address obvious injustice and inequity when enough people objected. The protesters on Wall Street — and on Main Streets across America — seem to be hoping that this time will be no different.

Happy Labor Day.

Chances are, if you are one of the majority of Americans who labor rather than own for a living, you aren’t feeling very happy.

This hasn’t been a good year for middle-class workers, much less for the poor. In fact, it hasn’t been a good three-plus decades.

Economic and political forces have hammered working people. Real income for the bottom 80 percent of Americans has been stagnant or falling since the late 1970s. Few paid much attention until the 2008 financial crisis, because the trends were masked by rising personal and government debt.

During these years of middle-class decline, it has been fashionable to bash labor unions. Perhaps that is because people take for granted the things unions fought to make part of the American workplace — the eight-hour work day, overtime pay, the minimum wage, unemployment insurance and safe working conditions. Unions led the fight to end child labor and discrimination against minorities and women. They played a big role in creating Social Security and other government safety-net programs.

After World War II, as much as 25 percent of the work force belonged to unions, and their contracts set standards by which many non-union workers benefited. Last year’s census showed union membership at 11.9 percent, down from 20.1 percent in 1983. America now has 14.7 million union members — roughly the same number of people now unemployed.

Unions have plenty of flaws; all institutions do. But they serve an important role in balancing the power of business. Power without balance becomes abusive. We have seen that with business, labor, government and even churches. It is no coincidence that the decline of middle-class income and security over the past three decades has followed the declining influence of organized labor.

Statistics show that all real income growth since 1979 has gone to the wealthiest 10 percent to 20 percent of Americans, with the wealthiest 1 percent gaining the most, by far. Wealth inequality is the highest it has been since the 1920s.

The deep economic hole that politicians are debating how to fill was caused mostly by financial speculation, unfunded wars of choice and irresponsible tax cuts. But you hear little talk in Washington about a crackdown on Wall Street, real tax reform or scaling back military adventurism.

That is because wealthy interests have largely taken over both political parties. Democrats still give lip service to the middle class and poor, but the GOP has become a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America.

President Barack Obama speaks Thursday to a joint session of Congress. He will propose a plan aimed at creating jobs, reviving the economy and improving his chances for re-election. Republicans will be against whatever he proposes, because they don’t want the economy to improve anytime soon. If the economy improves, they have less chance of taking back the White House.

The Republican prescription for economic recovery is to do more of the things that wrecked the economy in the first place: less business regulation and more tax cuts. The problem with trickle-down economics is that it only makes wealth trickle up, as the past three decades have shown.

Republican leaders also want aggressive debt-cutting austerity, but only for those who can least afford it. As history has repeatedly shown, this strategy only makes a weak economy weaker.

But it all depends on your perspective. The Main Street economy where most of us live and work is stuck in neutral. But Wall Street profits, corporate cash reserves and executive compensation have never been better. Times are good for the people whose campaign contributions and lobbying have all but shut average Americans out of the political debate.

The public is angry, and Tea Party activists are the most visible reflection of that. But their misguided philosophy plays right into the hands of big business. Why else do you think billionaires are funding those Tea Party organizations?

I am usually not a pessimist, but I see little hope for recovery as long as the interests of corporate America are so divergent from those of working Americans. The economy won’t improve until average people have more money to spend. Until the middle class finds political voice to demand that things change — as organized labor did a century ago — things won’t change.

Summertime, and the public is grumpy. Who can blame us?

Much of the country is suffering through blast- furnace temperatures, alternating between drought and deluge. No climate change here! Let’s blow up more mountains!

Gov. Steve Beshear and most other Kentucky politicians of both parties are too much in love with coal industry money and power to notice anything is wrong.

Things are worse in Washington, D.C., where Republicans have turned a long-term debt problem into an immediate economic crisis.

Federal commissions and most economists have said repeatedly that the way to solve the nation’s debt problem is to trim entitlement spending gradually, raise taxes back to 20th-century norms and stop waging wars of choice on credit. Creating jobs is a far more important and immediate issue than eliminating debt. But Republicans don’t seem to want the economy to improve until after they have beaten President Barack Obama in next year’s election.

Democrats are little better; they are doing almost nothing to keep the Wall Street sharpies who created most of this economic mess from doing it again. Federal regulators are doing almost nothing to stop speculators who have pushed oil prices to ridiculous levels that have nothing to do with supply and demand.

Both major parties have become captives to special interests, corporate money and short-term political scheming. Is it any wonder so many Americans are looking for alternatives?

Everyone I know seems to be fed up, from the Tea Party right to the Green Party left. And then there are those of us in the middle, who want less political posturing and more compromise, less ideology and more practical problem-solving. Lou Zickar, a Republican columnist for CNN.com, described us Sunday as the new “silent majority.”

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman sounded a similar tone the same day: “If this kind of idiocy by elected officials sends you into a hair-pulling rage and leaves you wishing that we had more options today … help may be on the way.”

Friedman’s column, headlined “Make way for the radical center,” was about a group of frustrated Democrats, Republicans and independents called Americans Elect. The well-financed organization claims to have gathered 1.6 million petition signatures in an attempt to get on all 50 states’ ballots next year. It aspires to run a balanced, technology-driven presidential ticket that won’t be beholden to special interests or major-party ideology. We’ll see about that.

Kentuckians’ discontent seems to be reflected in enthusiasm for perennial candidate Gatewood Galbraith, who is waging an independent campaign for governor against Beshear and his Republican challenger, state Senate President David Williams.

Galbraith, who has preached the limited-government gospel for years, seems to have a lot of support from Tea Party conservatives. He and his running mate, Dea Riley, also attended last weekend’s organizational meeting of the Kentucky Green Party. They might get a fair number of votes from its members and other liberals because they are the only candidates to speak out against environmentally destructive coal-mining practices.

“An independent candidate, an independent governor stands the only chance of being able to get the best intentions of both parties to actually join together and solve these problems,” Galbraith told reporters Thursday when he and Riley filed their candidacy papers.

“The first thing we need to do is establish integrity and trust in the political process itself,” Galbraith added. “There are so many well-intentioned and intelligent people out there who refuse to take part in the political process because it’s so demeaning and corrupt.”

Few people give Galbraith and Riley any chance of winning. But in this climate — with so many voters disgusted with partisan politics — it will be interesting to see which side they take the most votes from. We could get our first indication on Aug. 6, when all of Kentucky’s candidates for statewide office speak before the rowdy crowd of political activists at the Fancy Farm Picnic in Graves County.

Besides, the barbecue, fresh vegetables and homemade pies make it worth the long drive to Fancy Farm. There are some things that even politics can’t ruin.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that corporations are people, why can’t computers be politicians?

Watson for president! Better yet, let’s make clones of Watson – the computer IBM engineers built to clobber two human Jeopardy! champions last week – and put them to work in Congress and state legislatures.

Machines programmed to make decisions based on facts and logic would be an improvement over many of the human robots controlled by special interests who now run our government.

Big-money influence has always been a problem in politics. But the floodgates were opened last year when an activist Supreme Court majority expanded the legal idea that corporations are people. They overturned decades of campaign finance law and allowed corporations and unions to spend huge amounts of often-anonymous money to influence elections.

Computer politicians could help solve this problem, because they lack human greed. All computers really need is a cool room for their servers and a little maintenance. As long as they have a steady supply of electricity, they aren’t hungry for power.

Engineers could design computer politicians much the way they did Watson. They could fill their electronic brains with rich databases of facts and experience. Then they could write decision-making algorithms based on human logic and American ideals. You know, ideals that human politicians laud in speeches but often ignore in practice – fairness, justice, public good.

Consider how a computer politician could help with deficit-reduction. IBM named its Jeopardy! computer after the company’s founder, Thomas Watson. Let’s call our computer politician Webster, after that great 19th century statesman, Daniel Webster.

Webster could begin by analyzing how we got into this mess. His database would tell him that federal surpluses turned to huge deficits between 2000 and 2008 primarily because of massive tax cuts and more than $1 trillion borrowed to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Public debt was compounded by a deep recession caused largely by a housing bubble and irresponsible Wall Street speculation. With Wall Street now back to record profits, Watson might suggest a transactions tax on financial speculation to bring in billions to help balance the budget.

Many members of Congress act as if budgets can be balanced and debt eliminated by simply cutting discretionary, non-military spending. Free from human ideology, Webster would use facts and logic to conclude that any serious attempt to solve our financial problems will require ending the wars, curbing health care costs and raising taxes.

Webster’s database would show him that today’s income tax rates are the lowest in decades – lower than during the boom years of the 1990s, and far lower than during the economic boom that followed World War II. His electronic brain would dismiss the “taxed enough already” crowd, because facts show they are taxed less than in the past.

That is especially true of the wealthiest Americans. Because data show that assets held by the richest 5 percent of Americans have grown from $8 trillion to $40 trillion since 1985, Webster would logically conclude that they can afford to pay more in taxes. And that it would be in the best interest of the nation that created the environment that allowed them to prosper.

Webster’s database would show plenty of wasteful government spending to trim – much of it in the huge military budgets that some human members of Congress don’t want to touch.

I suspect Webster’s electronic brain would recognize the folly of slashing low-cost, high-value government programs such as public broadcasting, Teach for America and AmeriCorps.  He would conclude that cutting education is no way to build a more competitive economy. The logic of maintaining oil and coal subsidies while cutting investment in developing the energy technologies that must eventually replace fossil fuels just wouldn’t compute.

Decision-making algorithms based on American ideals would never allow essential aid to the poor, sick and elderly to be slashed, while preserving billions in wasteful military spending and subsidies for industries that don’t need them.

I’m sure some people will argue that machines can never replace human politicians, because even the best computers lack essential human traits, such as empathy. They have no heart.

I don’t see that as a big problem. Many of our current politicians don’t seem to have hearts, either.

As I was watching President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech on TV Tuesday night, I got a text message on my cell phone from Mayor Jim Gray: “Geez I think the prez is gonna start talking abt Henry Clay next!”

Obama had just been saying that, while huge deficits require some cuts in federal spending, the nation must renew its commitment to investing in the research and infrastructure needed to ensure long-term economic prosperity.

The president did not mention Clay, the U.S. senator, House Speaker and four-time presidential candidate from Lexington who lived from 1777 to 1852. But Gray had referred to him repeatedly a few hours earlier when he delivered a similar message in his first State of the Merged Government speech.

Gray said that while Lexington government must stop spending more than it takes in, the city still must find ways to make smart investments for the future.

“In order to make our city a center of economic innovation, we must keep growing our quality-of-life infrastructure,” Gray said, noting the city’s recent investments in downtown streets and sidewalks, rural land preservation, the arts and recreational trails.

He also called for a privately financed study to assess the costs and benefits of renovating and expanding Rupp Arena and the adjacent downtown convention center. Those facilities are important drivers of Lexington’s economy, and they must remain competitive, he said.

“Business men and women recognize there are times when we have to spend money to make money by investing in the brand,” Gray said.

Nobody embodied that economic truth more than Henry Clay.

Clay is best remembered as “the great compromiser” for his ability to cut deals with opposing political factions. But perhaps his greatest legacy was what he called the “American System.” That involved federal investment in roads, canals and other infrastructure to promote both economic development and national security.

Clay argued that public infrastructure was essential for American industry to compete with foreign imports, which then came from Britain rather than China. Then, as now, free-market extremists objected. Clay’s nemesis was Andrew Jackson, who if he were alive today would probably be trying to lead the Tea Party.

Their big showdown came when President Jackson vetoed federal funding for the road between Lexington and the Ohio River at Maysville — essentially what we now know as U.S. Highway 68. Clay said the road was important for interstate commerce in the growing West, but Jackson thought federal funding for it was unconstitutional. Over time, Clay’s beliefs prevailed. Had they not, the union would not likely have survived the Civil War.

In their zeal to slash most “government spending,” Tea Partiers also want to stop decades of public investment in infrastructure, education, social welfare, health care, the arts and quality of life. But where would American free enterprise be today without that investment?

How could businesses have prospered without roads, bridges, airports and public education — not to mention all of the federally funded basic medical research and that government project now known as the Internet?

Free markets are good. But if everything were left up to the ebb and flow of the marketplace, Americans would be less healthy, less educated and have far less economic opportunity.

The strong cities and nations of the future won’t get that way by private investment and individual effort alone. That is why, for example, China and other nations are investing billions in clean energy research and technology while many American companies prefer to fund political and public relations campaigns to deny both climate change and inevitable change.

Government taxing and spending is a delicate balance that must constantly be debated and adjusted. But just as excessive public debt and wasteful spending are bad for the economy, so is a failure to make sufficient public investments in the future.

People who call for simplistic solutions to complex problems put America’s economic future and national security at risk, as Clay recognized nearly two centuries ago.

History may not repeat itself, as the saying goes, but it sure does echo.

Last week’s newspapers were filled with vows from leaders of the new Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives to eliminate “job-killing” government regulation.

But there also were several reports showing why regulation is needed — in Kentucky and elsewhere — and how a lack of effective regulation helped create many of our nation’s problems.

A favorite target of the anti-regulation crowd is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has become more interested in doing its job since Barack Obama became president.

A news story last week reported the formal end of a four-year legal case in which the EPA forced Lexington to fix problems with its sanitary and storm sewers. For years, those problems caused streams to be polluted and sewage to flow from manholes during heavy rains.

Because Lexington’s sewer problems were ignored for so long, the fix will be expensive: as much as $300 million over 10 years, plus a $425,000 fine for the city’s persistent violation of the Clean Water Act.

City officials had long ignored the problems. Then, in 2006, a group of local citizens threatened to sue the city unless the EPA stepped in. That prompted the EPA to file a lawsuit that forced the Urban County Council and Mayor Jim Newberry to act.

Were it not for the EPA, would Lexington be fixing its sewers now? “The answer is no,” said Scott White, an attorney for the citizens group. “The EPA had the juice and the resources to make it happen.”

Other news stories told of renewed battles between the EPA and the coal industry, whose frequent violations of the Clean Water Act are part of a long history of environmental damage that coal mining has inflicted on Appalachia.

Mine safety regulators also are getting tough following accidents last year that killed 48 miners, including six in Kentucky. That was the highest number of mine deaths in any year since 1992, and it included 26 miners killed at a West Virginia mine owned by Massey Energy.

Other news reports chronicled an out-of-court settlement that gives the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration new power to crack down on safety violations at a Massey mine in Pike County. The case is likely to give regulators more clout in dealing with other mine operators who persistently violate safety rules.

Beyond Kentucky, headlines last week told of the initial findings of a presidential commission investigating BP’s Deepwater Horizon well disaster, which killed 11 men and spilled nearly five million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

The commission said BP and contractors Transocean and Halliburton exercised poor management and cut corners to save time and money. Commission co-chairman Bob Graham also faulted regulators, saying they “lacked the authority, the necessary resources and the technical expertise to prevent” the disaster.

Critics can always find examples of government over-regulation that make good anecdotes. But the consequences of under-regulation are often more severe. And don’t forget that Wall Street deregulation was a major cause of the economic crisis from which we are still trying to recover.

Expect to hear more calls for less government regulation, especially from politicians who fill their pockets with corporate campaign contributions. Some will cleverly say they are not against sensible regulation, they just think it should be handled at the state or local level, where they know it can easily be neutered by economic and political pressures.

If you want to see what happens when industry is free from regulation, look at China’s coal industry, where mine fatalities occur at an average rate of 200 a month, or the oil industry’s wells in Nigeria, where decades of frequent spills have turned vast sections of the country into wasteland.

Balancing economic interests with human safety and the environment is never easy. But ask yourself what kind of country you want to live in and pass down to future generations. Regulation actually may “kill” a job now and then, but the lack of it can be much more deadly.

Welcome to the mayor’s office, Jim Gray. You are inheriting a Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government short on money and beset by challenges.

Despite the shortcomings that got him voted out of office, Mayor Jim Newberry did a lot to move Lexington forward. He tackled some tough issues so you won’t have to.

Many difficult issues remain, though, and the stagnant economy is sure to make many of them worse. Consider last week’s news about a $7.2 million shortfall for city employee health care as a sign of things to come.

Still, this is a time of great promise for Lexington. There are encouraging grass-roots efforts all over town. The Alltech FEI World Equestrian Games brought Lexington global attention, and the air seems filled with energy and possibility.

I’m sure you are getting plenty of advice, but I have some, too. Much of it comes from smart people I have talked with who know Lexington and city government quite well. Some of them didn’t vote for you, but they still want you to succeed — because they want Lexington to succeed.

First, don’t surround yourself with “yes” men and women. Too many politicians make that mistake and become insular, defensive and thin-skinned — and they fail. Be open with the media and the public. Don’t hold grudges. Your ability to engage the community is what got you elected. Don’t stop.

Mayor-elect Jim Gray

Many people, especially your friends and allies, will have ideas for you and requests of you. Give them honest, tactful and prompt answers. A non-answer angers most people more than a “no”. You can’t make everybody happy, and remember that your allies can be harsher critics than your opponents.

Seek out diverse opinions from both experts and average folks. Encourage opposing viewpoints and constructive criticism, especially when it comes from people who seem to be motivated by Lexington’s best interests rather than their own. Don’t fall into the trap of analysis paralysis. Be prepared to deal with unpleasant surprises.

Don’t pretend to have all of the answers, or feel like you must. Often, the best thing you can do is offer encouragement to other people’s ideas and efforts. Sometimes they need city government’s help; other times, they just need city government out of their way.

Look for public-private partnerships and smart ways to leverage city resources. Do more to engage the non-profit and philanthropic communities, not to mention the bright minds at the University of Kentucky, Transylvania University and Bluegrass Community and Technical College. A successful mayor is about coordination and collaboration, not control.

Reach out to Newberry’s supporters. Work to build credibility with your critics. It is especially important to have a good working relationship with the Urban County Council, which should have an excellent leader in Linda Gorton, your successor as vice mayor.

You must build better relationships with council members to whom you are not close — and be prepared to distance yourself occasionally from some to whom you are close. Be a good listener. Compromise when you can, but don’t be afraid to take unpopular stands when you think you must.

Everyone, including you, knows you are a better big-picture leader than a detail-oriented manager. That’s not necessarily bad — and certainly better than the other way around.

Some big-picture leaders make the mistake of getting too bogged down in details, which causes them to neglect the big-picture issues where they could do the most good. Play to your strengths.

Assemble a strong leadership team. You have chosen Richard Maloney, a former council member, as chief administrative officer and Jamie Emmons, your campaign manager, as chief of staff. Both are smart and well-liked. Do they have the management skills and toughness they will need? Time will tell. Be sure they have good mentors.

You must hire (or retain) strong leaders in key jobs, because inertia is the natural tendency of any bureaucracy. Elected officials come and go, and bureaucrats know they are likely to outlast you. Change takes time and persistence. Choose resourceful leaders who will motivate city employees to do their best — and hold them accountable when they don’t.

Avoid rewarding supporters with city jobs or contracts, because it will reflect badly on your biggest campaign contributor: you. Nothing will sour a “fresh start” honeymoon quicker than patronage and favoritism.

Good luck. Nobody said this would be easy.

A bit of election humor, courtesy of the High Street YMCA in Lexington.

Jim Gray is sitting at a conference table in his family-owned construction company’s headquarters, talking me through a 36-page document that explains why he thinks Lexington voters should promote him from vice mayor to mayor.

On the wall behind him, attached to big sheets of brown paper, is a collection of documents connected by fat-marker writing and arrows. He says that is Gray Construction Co.’s strategic plan, which the company has been refining and revising since 1984 as its road map for success.

After his father’s death, Gray, his mother and brothers and their employees built the company from near collapse into a national construction giant. Gray, the chief executive officer, said creative vision, strategic planning and careful financial management have been essential to succeeding in the cyclical construction industry, where profit margins are usually less than 3 percent.

Jim Gray

Gray’s pitch is that he has the skills and experience to achieve the same results for Lexington. He said city government needs more visionary leadership, more strategic planning and better and more transparent management of taxpayer money.

The “Fresh Start Plan” Gray is talking me through is his outline for doing that. “It is a road map, but not etched in stone,” he said. “Plans are made to be intelligently changed, but they must be made and monitored.”

Since Gray challenged Mayor Jim Newberry for re-election, both candidates have spent more time criticizing each other than telling voters what they would do as mayor over the next four years. Gray’s plan gives voters something more to consider. Newberry plans to issue his own detailed plan, but campaign spokesman Lance Blanford said he did not know when.

Gray said his top priority as mayor would be creating jobs in Lexington. He says he has led Gray Construction in working with companies to create 21,989 jobs in 37 states through 831 construction and 74 site-selection projects.

“I come with a set of skills that are directly related to creating jobs,” he said. “I know what makes a community attractive for economic development; that has been my business for over 30 years.”

Gray’s plan includes creating a one-stop shop to help people starting or expanding businesses, and he would encourage entrepreneurship by creating incentives and cutting city taxes and fees for small businesses.

He also said he would recruit three new corporate headquarters to Lexington; have the city purchase from local businesses whenever possible; align the city’s economic development plan with the University of Kentucky’s Top 20 initiative; and recruit former Lexington residents and students who have been successful elsewhere to come back and launch or expand businesses here.

Gray’s plan also includes specific proposals in a dozen other areas, from open government and “running government like a business” to engaging diversity, protecting neighborhoods and the environment, promoting public safety and easing traffic congestion.

Among Gray’s ideas for making the city bureaucracy more business-like is creating an “office of project management” to improve efficiency and accountability. He would create a commissioner for “preservation, planning and economic innovation” to oversee the city’s land-use planning and development functions. “When everybody’s responsible, nobody’s responsible,” he said. “That’s the way it is now.”

The only significant new city building the construction executive proposes anytime soon is a senior citizens center to replace the small, aging facility at Nicholasville Road and Alumni Drive.

“I want to make Lexington as inviting to seniors as it is to young professionals,” Gray said, citing census figures that show the number of people 65 and older in Lexington will double in the next 20 years. He said better addressing the needs of older citizens, from services to the way neighborhoods are designed and developed, is an example of how city leaders should get ahead of the curve.

Jim Newberry

Gray’s plan — available to read or download on Jimgray.org — offers a thoughtful and realistic vision for Lexington’s future. I look forward to seeing what Newberry has to say about his specific plans for the next four years beyond the outline now on Mayornewberry2010.com.

Lexington is fortunate to have two solid, talented mayoral candidates. The more information citizens have about their visions, goals and strategies, the better job they will be able to do of deciding which one should lead Lexington for the next four years.