Ken Block: Visionary Leader or Just Another RI Political Narcissist?

On July 23, 2013  an article appeared in the Providence Journal by Katherine Gregg, the Journal's State House reporter entitled, "Moderate Party’s Block hires experienced political operative Jeff Britt."

As a Centrist or Liberal Republican, I was impressed by Mr. Ken Block's efforts to create a vision for Rhode Island. He presented that vision through the creation of the Moderate Party. The old Republican party, locally, has been effectively neutralized. It is a failure as much because of the local Democrat lock on the General Assembly as it is due to the right-wing extremism the national Republican Party. As a result those of us who are centrists or independents here in Rhode Island have made divided government (Democrat  General Assembly vs Republican Governor) a standard solution to an otherwise dysfunctional state government.

Mr. Block and the Moderate Party appeared on the scene to offer an alternative for the vast majority of us who feel disenfranchised by the current Rhode Island political jungle.

So it was with great surprise and disappointment when I read yesterday's Projo story that Mr. Block is considering a run for the Governorship under the Republican banner. Mr. Block stated his reason as

“I am not running because I want 5 percent … to keep a party alive on principle,” said Block, who is running a second time for governor. “I am running to win this race.”

I had to ask myself, "Where is the idealism, the vision, and commitment he expressed in his message to the public about the mission of the Moderate Party?" Where is the commitment when he says on the Moderate Party website "Rhode Island does not need career politicians. We need dedicated volunteers who are problem solvers and who are willing to serve the public for a limited time."

For those who have supported the Moderate Party and those of us who have thought to join the Moderate Party now we are left with questions

Is Mr.Ken Block the public spirited idealist, visionary who formed the Moderate Party and volunteer his talents and corporation to help "to root out social service waste and fraud"
 .
Or is Mr. Ken Block just another RI Narcissist who wants to gratify his own ego like other narcissists, e.g. Governor Donald Carcieri, Mayor Buddy Cianci, etc.

Is the Moderate Party Chairman's ego too big that he now feels politically constrained by the grand vision he once professed and sold to the public?

Or maybe, his initial vision and commitment is too weak and tentative to lead challenges that the process of building of a new political structure for Rhode Island would require?

Then too, maybe the Tea Party allure is just too much for his narcissistic ambition?

We are left today with question, "Who is Ken Block?

SANDY HOOK ELEMENTARY AND Rhode Island

On December 14, 11 days before Christmas in the year 2012 one of the most hateful and viscous partisan political years in my personal memory, 

“Adam Lanza, age 20, fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members and wounded two at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the village of Sandy Hook in the town of Newtown, Connecticut. Before driving to the school, Lanza had shot and killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their Newtown home. After killing students and staff members, Lanza committed suicide by shooting himself in the head as first responders arrived.” From Wikipedia 

Since that date a tremendous amount of public outrage has been vented against guns, gun ownership, gun laws, gun rights from both the general public and the radical extremist on both ends of the political spectrum.  

That we should see such an outpouring of concern and emotion is good and healthy, especially after such a painful confrontation with our own failings as a human beings and as a society. It is venting the sick and misguided venom of a partisanship that is blinding us to the common interest we share for the safety of one another and our future, our children. 

Here in Rhode Island there has been concern for our neighbors to the west and reflections that there but for an act of God that could be us. Over the past week (since January 1.) there have appeared Op-Ed pieces in the Providence Journal from the Jewish and Catholic community, a personal observation by Congressman Langivan (a survivor of a gun accident), and today by Allen Hassenfeld  focusing on priorities. Letters and comments also appear in the local letter to the editor and the web-based versions. Many good points are being made, many simplistic solutions proposed, and many self serving offers or promotions served up. All of this, points to complexity of our motives and feelings toward the GUN as physical objects and their use generates.

The central issue, I feel, is how does a civilized society based on the principle of individuality, freedom of choice and self expression survive when the power of life and death is granted to every citizen without any control or constraint from the community in which the individual lives? What happens when the social controls we, as citizens, agree to live under through our system of laws and collective decision making are surrendered to super-rich plutocrats with private armies and the mentally deranged psycho- and sociopathic, isolated, and alienated individual with an assault rifle? What is the proper role of government and the citizenry?

Roger Williams founded Rhode Island based on the principle that the answer to question the rights of diversity and the majority was not civil war of the majority against the minority. The answer he proposed is a civil debate based on the “tolerance” of the other’s views and interests.

Over the years I have heard many complaints about the word “tolerance.” It is too weak, too insincere, too “liberal,” too “conservative.” What I believe I am hearing when people reject or question the word, is a demand for ideological purity of principle, rather than a pragmatic acceptance that there will always be different points of view. Each of these has legitimate perspectives and claims. These are claims that arise as much from experience and they do from any “purity” the adherent might claim. 

Tolerance is a term used in physics and engineering to describe just how much room there is between the ideal stress that can be applied to a material and the amount of actual stress that can be applied to the material before it fails.

Rhode Island’s lively experiment, envisioned by Roger Williams, has been and is a social experiment in the tolerance of something called civil society. Since civil society is made up of imperfect material, humans and their self interests, the question is when it comes to the GUN, what are we willing to tolerate? Sandy Hook is a test of our resolve. 

Can we tolerate the murder of 22 children as price we are willing to pay for the right of some people to own a GUN with minimum supervision and regulation by the community into which they bring their GUN? Or do we insist that to own a GUN, because of its power to kill and maim, carries with it a higher standard responsibility and a lower tolerance than applies to other objects in our society. What is our tolerance for GUN ownership and GUN rights?

Here in Rhode Island we are beginning the debate. Here in Rhode Island we must exercise our rights under the 1st Amendment to determine our own course within the very broad and vague provisions of the 2^nd Amendment.

There are consequences for every action. There will be consequences from whatever we decide. Let us take seriously the potential costs of unintended consequence. Let us learn from Sandy Hook and tighten up our legal standards to the right GUN ownership and lower our personal tolerance for personal misuse of GUNS here in Rhode Island.

Also check out:  Americans for Responsible Solutions  Gabby Gifford initiative