Letter to Editor: The Political Theater Behind the Paper Bag Fee and Freedom Debate

I would like to address what happened at the Town Council meeting for anyone who missed it. The following (in quotes) is what I myself contributed to the public comments portion of the evening (I have been encouraged to share with the Spy), primarily in response to Rev. Davis’ question from the previous meeting asking why this issue was even being addressed. It will be remembered that Mr Gunsallis claimed to be championing the poor among us who are harmed by the ten cent paper bag fee.

Since Mssrs Gunsallis and Montgomery have chosen the « pennies are powerful/ money is a weapon” metaphor, I will start there.

Raising a 10 cent issue designed to make the individuals responsible for bringing it into question look as if they are doing a ten-dollar protective service for their constituents, all the while concealing or ignoring the real dynamic involved, is a strategy in search of a political kickback intended to create political capital for the next election. This endeavor to disrupt the community is not just penny-wise and pound-foolish; it is transparent; it is disingenuous, and it is dishonest. 

 

In the cognitive imagery of marketing strategy (where selling is winning), this is called “foot-in-the-door.” The idea is that if the strategist can get a foot in, or spend a little energy now, he or she can get a lot more later. If this incursion succeeds, Reactionary Interests will be back to dismantle either the plastic bag ban itself entirely or some other piece of Progressive legislation that has been enacted for the benefit of all members of the community. 

The evening’s comments should convince the council that they have followed the path of due diligence and that they can dismiss this strategic diversion into the perversion of settled public policy as a waste of taxpayers’ time and energy, because, of course, we understand that time and energy are our resources. Time is money. Energy is Money. And if Money is a weapon, the time and energy of the defenders of the ten cent paper bag fee as part and parcel of the plastic bag ban, is something the opponents of the fee hope to waste, if nothing else. »

Many others reiterated earlier citations of data supporting the plastic bag ban as written, including the 10 cents obligatory fee for paper bags. There was data from Easton itself and from around the country showing that the fee for paper bags is integral to the entire plastic bag ban, and it is working. Multiple members of the public, including several people under 50(!), stressed the need to be responsible citizens in our changing world.

Shari Wilcoxon and two of her cohorts reiterated their demand for « freedom » and that the fee be removed, citing their own informal petition effort (which did not describe how the cost of free bags would be added to the cost of the goods themselves if not charged), and Dr Montgomery, in his final comments, allowed as how he would, as I suggested in my comments (see above) like to see the whole plastic bag ban removed, claiming he had data showing it was not working. This, of course, was not supported, and he reiterated his citation of a debunked study in New Jersey about plastic bag bans. 

Turning now to the demand for « freedom,» I want to stress that this is a logical fallacy. Conservatives demanding « freedom » are operating on the following syllogism:

Freedom is good.

The things I want are good.

Therefore the things I want are freedom.

If one of the premises in a syllogism is false, then the conclusion is also false.

« Freedom is good » – 

«freedom » here is not defined – if it is Individual Liberty, that is, freedom from constraints of government, etc, it means « I am never inconvenienced or uncomfortable. »

« The things I want are good » (If I want it, it is good)

Again, the « things I want » are not defined and rely on the assumption that if I want them, they are good, presumably because I think I am good, which cannot be proved.

If I want not to be constrained, inconvenienced or uncomfortable, no matter what, this is, by definition, not « good » because it is, again by definition, at the expense of others.

« Therefore the things I want are freedom » is then false.

Which brings me to several key quotations about  « freedom »  worth looking at and for which we can examine the underlying metaphors: 

« Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. » – George Bernard Shaw

Freedom and responsibility are requirements for community life.

« Freedom of will is the ability to do gladly that which I must do. »  – Eleanor Roosevelt

Freedom is personal power (strength of character) to be good/ to act FOR the good of the community.

« The price of freedom is responsibility, but it is a bargain, because freedom is priceless. » – Carl Jung

Freedom is a commodity of incomparable value / responsibility is the only currency that will buy freedom.

There are no citable quotations about freedom as individual liberty that compel us to think of ourselves as part of a community or to consider how we care for one another. 

I remind readers that the Individual Liberty trope is part of the romantic American folklore of the cowboy who rides into town, saves the poor from the bad guys, has an affair with a pretty woman, and rides off into the sunset, ALONE. We don’t teach our children that freedom is about striking out alone for the sake of getting what we can as fast as we can and everyone else be damned (this is sociopathy). We teach them that freedom is integral to community living because it is the ability and the choice to respond to one another’s needs.

When we look at the underlying cognitive information in the argument made by people who cry « Freedom! What do you have against freedom? » it is not difficult to see the underlying agenda of authoritarianism: « I want what I want, and you will have no say at all if you disagree. »

A vote was called and the ordinance to remove the fee was defeated. For now.

The public must be vigilant because Messrs Gunsallis and Montgomery have three more years on the council.

Margot Miller, PhD
Easton