Dirty Tricks in the Old Conejo

When asked the difference between a calamity and a misfortune, 19th-century British Prime Minister Disraeli responded of his opponent: “Well, if Gladstone fell into the Thames, that would be a misfortune; and if anybody pulled him out, that, I suppose, would be a calamity.”

The Rich Sybert affair is a misfortune, only in this case he did not so much fall as leap; but we should not lift him into office--that would be calamitous.

His actions say much of Sybert’s fitness for office, but also something about the state of our politics today. When a Harvard-trained lawyer, successful local business executive, former head of the governor’s policy planning and research staff and experienced political candidate (two runs for Congress) believes he can get away with dirty tricks and blatant lying, we have to pause and wonder whether part of the problem lies with us.

Is the political environment in the Conejo Valley perceived as so morally (re)lax(ed) and free for all as to invite such behavior?

Regarding Mr. Sybert, three strikes and you ought to be out. Accused of vandalizing an opponent’s signs (which one might note are so omnipresent any self-respecting slasher had only to cough to hit one), Sybert affected pure outrage and asked rhetorically, if he was out there, who was that man in bed with his wife at 3 a.m.? Indeed. The next day, video tapes revealed Sybert clawing at the signs the night before, a rat frolicking in full frenzy under the street lights.

Strike one: caught in an illegal act. Strike two: caught lying publicly about it. And now comes strike three. Sybert announces he won’t quit and alleges his opponent ripped down signs while working for Sybert two years ago. In short, he claims his opponent is as bad as he is himself! A curious and self-defeating logic.

Even if his opponent had committed the same petty vandalism (and Sybert and his campaign chairman are scarcely disinterested, credible witnesses), two wrongs do not make a right. Moreover, Sybert has inadvertently confessed that he knew of illegalities done on his behalf in his other campaigns. Was he too busy in law school in the 1970s to catch the Watergate Follies, where a minor crime was compounded into a major political scandal through attempts at cover-up? There too, a long-standing pattern of campaign dirty tricks was revealed and, most instructively, a seasoned politician was forced from the highest office in the land.

We deserve the politicians we put into office if we tolerate their dirty tricks. It is no defense to say such activity is commonplace. That is a fact to be determined, not a norm to be respected. If true, then like any crime it should not be an excuse for further crime but an occasion to exemplify the behavior we want to encourage and to denounce the kind we want to discourage.

It is no defense to say it is a trifling matter, either. A pattern of resort to dirty tricks and moral obtuseness in minor affairs reveals a person’s underlying character, which is bound to shape judgment and behavior in the greater affairs of public life as well. If we allow such resort to go on with impunity, our politics may be subject to a sort of Gresham’s law whereby, in economic theory, if left unchecked the use of bad money eventually will drive resort to the good out of circulation.

I fear that toleration for dirty tricks and lying is becoming increasingly common and accepted in Conejo Valley. In recent years we have witnessed some disturbing developments. The recent City Council recall was only the latest symptom of the coarsening and growing incivility of political life in Thousand Oaks, and with it a growing tolerance for political wrongdoing.

Take the example of lying and its public reception. Old-timers may remember the case of Marv Mendelssohn in the late 1960s who, when his blatant lies about his military record and education were exposed, was shamed out of public life and eventually left Thousand Oaks. Compare this to the accusation during the recall attempt that City Councilwoman Elois Zeanah lied about her educational background. Reminiscent of the Sherlock Holmes story in which the clue was that the dog did not bark, most interesting was the absence of public outrage. Certainly Zeanah is not in Mendelssohn’s league for fantasy, and the public’s capacity to react was dulled by an excess of vitriolic charges, counter-charges and name-calling. Nevertheless, what apparently could shock and outrage people 30 years ago evokes barely flicker of resigned irritation today.

Reaction is a function of expectation, and clearly there has been a drastic lowering of expectations. To the extent that we become numb to lying and dirty tricks, a climate of tolerance arises in which candidates for office act on the assumption that minor crimes are not criminal, merely minor, and these can be pursued with impunity, for no one will care after the first sound bytes have faded. All that counts is winning.

Our district attorney’s office has refused to prosecute Sybert. Are we supposed to forget the matter? Go back to political business as usual in Thousand Oaks? What can we do about this?

For starters, we need to make abundantly clear that Sybert’s behavior is not rewarded by election--we do not pull Sybert out of the river. It is said that all evil needs to flourish is for the good to do nothing--and it might be added, “and to say nothing.”

We need to speak out to say political dirty tricks and lying, no matter how petty, minor, trivial or commonplace, are not tolerated in our community. Sybert will have done us a favor if his actions awaken us to the need to rebuild a reputation for political rectitude and toughness--his is a good example of what we will not abide. The excesses of the recall brought forth a Blue Ribbon citizens committee on campaign reform. Whatever their recommendations, their voice will be like whistling an aria to the deaf if the rest of us keep silent. Perhaps we need to go further and impanel a permanent elections and political oversight committee.