Pensacola Political Logic

Pensacola Beach people can have no more than the idle curiosity of friendly neighbors about today's referendum inside the limits of the City of Pensacola itself. We don't even get to vote for a majority to govern us on the beach, much less do we have a voice on the mainland.

Nevertheless, if you want to know more about the proposed switcheroo from a Council-City Manager form of government to a "strong mayor" system, Progressive Pensacola has the low-down. Or, you could bone up on the city's history, which shows the "strong mayor" system has been tried several times before, and never lasted.

The Pensacola Newsletter last Sunday came out in mealy-mouth fashion for trying something -- anything -- to shake up the city. Its editorial argument for a new charter essentially comes down to this: Pensacola voters can do better than the city manager and council we have now:

It's a profoundly pessimistic view that essentially argues that Pensacola dare not dream bigger, because the city and its people are not capable of it. * * * What we like most about the new charter is that creates a true leadership position accountable to voters."

Not to be pessimistic or anything, but who was it who elected the council they have now? And, what kind of 'accountability to voters' is it when you embed term limits for city officials in a proposed organic city charter?

Pensacola logic apparently goes something like this:

• Pensacola city voters are perfectly capable of electing intelligent, dedicated, honest leaders.
• Pensacola city voters are not capable of voting stupid, crooked, or ineffectual officials out of office, so we have to make sure they can't run for reelection too many times.

It seems to us the root problem in Pensacola, if there is one, is not the form of government. It's the abundance of stupid voters. Apparently, the writers of the proposed new city charter agree, or they wouldn't have provided for term limits in language that amounts to, 'Stop us before we reelect you again.'