Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

Problem is bias of nonelected officials

The editorial (Herald, Sept. 11) about Sheriff Duke Schirard’s personal political views is a clear example of the old tenet that all politics are local. The editorial describes recent emails by the sheriff as vitriolic, “intemperate” and “alarming in the level of contempt they express.” It goes on to suggest that citizens with diverse views should be “rightly concerned” about the level of representation they can expect from him.

The Herald believes that the sheriff’s personal statements are relevant to voters. Perhaps they are. But by definition, a sheriff is an elected official. Voters tolerate and even expect a certain level of nonconformity from whom they elect. Vice President Biden, for example, continues to entertain us. No problem. If we don’t like them, we can always vote them out.

The problem comes when it’s the appointed officials and career bureaucrats who allow their personal views to create the kind of concern the Herald suggests we might have with our sheriff. We have no recourse in those cases.

Consider the career bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency and Internal Revenue Service who, outside the legislative process and without third-party oversight, routinely make policy and enforce rules of their own making. They pick and choose the laws they wish to enforce.

Lois Lerner, formerly of the IRS, is but one example. An even better example is Attorney General Eric Holder. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that his personal sentiments have guided his policies and decisions with respect to a wide range of laws, both civil and criminal. One example is the 2008 New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. There are many others.

I don’t know the sheriff. I’ve met him a couple of times, and he was most gracious. Whether I believe he should be re-elected is important only to me. His history as sheriff suggests that voters need not fear his commitment to public service. It seems a stretch that the Herald would think they should. I don’t recall the Herald having a similar view with respect to Holder, however.

Tom Lorenzen

Durango



Reader Comments