Those who are so disillusioned by their political options that they may not vote might take a sober look at the very real differences in the major parties and their presidential candidates.
Take public lands as an important example. The Republican platform reads, “Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states.” Because the states cannot afford to manage those lands, many believe this transfer would just be a stepping stone to widespread sale of lands to the highest bidder, be they billionaires or foreign governments, locking people out of lands that currently belong to all of us.
But, Americans love their public lands; one estimate is that 72 percent of Western hunters depend on them. Could this really happen? It is actually very likely to happen, if Trump is elected. Those who hate federal lands, while not a majority, would have the power. Four years under the current Republican mindset is plenty of time to “convey” many, possibly most, of the lands that define and distinguish the West.
What a tragedy it would be, after 100 years of painstaking protection of lands for the greater good, to see them lost in a single presidential term. All because people who did not want that to happen stayed home or cast their vote for a third party.
Instead of despondency over the short-comings of the political system take a little time to study the likely consequences of this election on almost anything you care about. Neither option may thrill you, but one of them is truly frightening.
Deb Paulson
Durango
