The Political Shifting of Mr. Snively
An editorial critique of a legislator known for avoiding tough votes and ducking public responsibility.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Mr. Snively's legislative record was that of a consummate dodger. Throughout the session in which he was a member of the lower house, he did not face squarely any question on which he was liable to differ with any considerable number of his fellow-citizens. Whenever a bill to which nobody could object was up for passage, Mr. Snively was in his seat and voting. Whenever a bill which was liable to meet with opposition in any section of the state was up, Mr. Snively was in the lobby. He never faced a difficulty; he proved himself to be a constitutional shirker. Is such a man a proper man to place in the governor's chair of Washington or of any state? A man who has shown himself while in public office to be fearful of assuming any responsibility and anxious to avoid the duties of his office is certainly not a safe man to place at the head of a state.
“He never faced a difficulty; he proved himself to be a constitutional shirker.”
The practice of 'ducking' controversial issues to avoid alienating voters remains a staple of political discourse. Then as now, the question of whether a politician should lead by conviction or follow the safest path creates a rift in the public's perception of civic duty.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.