Ridenour's View of Liberty Isn't for All

William Ridenour, the WV Delegate for District 100 in Jefferson County, is an angry man. He believes that Democrats are out to get the Republican candidate for president and that they will do anything to make sure that candidate is not elected. He even suspects,  as he writes in House Concurrent Resolution 203, that these Democrats have been somehow responsible for the two recent attempted assassinations on the candidate. His resolution, co-sponsored by eight other Republican delegates, says: “the current Democrat-led regime has utterly failed, and continues to fail, in a suspicious manner, in its absolute duty to adequately protect the Republican nominee for president.” 

As a precautionary measure, the resolution proposes that if a Democrat does win the election and there are any suspicions of foul play or election tampering in any state, not just West Virginia, that the Legislature of West Virginia can be “called into session by the Governor to preserve the Freedom of our People.” It would be up to the Republican legislature, the Republican Attorney General, the Republican Governor, and the Republican Secretary of State to make the determination of election malfeasance. Democrats and the Courts would have no say in the matter. 

In addition to being Constitutional suspect, it is one-sided, not taking account of all the threats and political shenanigans directed at the Democratic candidate. It is Republicans, including their candidate for President, making claims that the Democrat is a “Communist”, “stupid” and “ineligible” for office. Does Ridenour not believe that these kinds of claims can incite violence and election interference against the Democrat? Does he care?

We are so clearly at this time in American history in a period of intense political polarization. In such times, tempers are short and conspiracy theories become a whole cottage industry. It’s against this picture that our candidates and voters should evaluate the claims in Concurrent Resolution 203. These claims are close to formalizing conspiracy theories, if in fact, they haven’t actually crossed the line. Sitting legislators who hope to combat polarization and bring people together should know better.

Every legislator is elected to represent all the people in their district, not just the often slim majority of voters who gave them their vote. Ridenour represents District 100 in Jefferson County, which includes the towns of Shepherdstown, Harpers Ferry, and Bolivar.These towns are fairly evenly balanced politically, but include non-discrimination ordinances in their by-laws, meaning they are respectful and protective of citizens with divergent views. Liberty for all underlies such ordinances.

At a recent candidate forum sponsored by the Shepherd University Student Government Association and the Stubblefield Institute, most of the candidates claimed allegiance to the principle that they would work across the aisle and fairly hear out and be informed by all of their constituents. Ridenour, however, is an exception. His position: “I believe my role as a Delegate is to represent the will of the people who elect me.” Ridenour believes in liberty as the defining force behind limited and effective government. But it certainly appears that the kind of liberty he advocates for he reserves for those who believe as he does. And I for one do not. I would rather trust my vote to someone who I know will try to break down the barriers between us. I’m voting for his Democratic opponent, Maria Russo.

Note: The week following my LoE to the Spirit, Ridenour posted a response in which he took exception to my claims without actually addressing the main points. So. I wrote a rebuttal to his response, but the Spirit chose not to print it, feeling that I had already made my arguments. So, okay. But just to emphasize my arguments, I'm including my rebuttal below. For posterity, should posterity care.

Rebuttal to William Ridenour

William Ridenour in his response to my letter to the editor criticizing his sponsorship of House Concurrent Resolution 203 tries to psychoanalyze me for pointing out the conspiracy I read into the resolution. He insinuates that I have no regard for the life of the Republican presidential candidate, that I’m so partisan that I can’t grasp the real message in the resolution or acknowledge the danger. He does this by ignoring his actual words in the resolution and in his own campaign literature, some of which I quoted verbatim.  

Ridenour is so wrapped up in the idea that I’m against him and the Republican presidential candidate that my support for his own opponent, Maria Russo, is simply a knee-jerk Democratic response. He fails to understand that it is exactly by his statements that I find him unfit to be my delegate.

The major points of my negative reaction to HCR 203 have to do with the positions he takes, asserting without cause, that if the Republican candidate loses the election, it’s highly likely that the Democrats have cheated their way to a victory. We heard this before in the 2020 election. With nothing more than this supposition, he argues that West Virginia should not immediately certify the election, even if the supposed misdeeds were committed in some other state.

Ridenour is so convinced of his experience, authority, and concern for liberty that he neglects to believe two points. The first is that in our overly gun-slinging society the Democratic candidate faces the same violent prospects as the Republican – actually maybe moreso, since the Republican candidate is not shy about bad-mouthing any one who disagrees with him, threatening them with prosecution and punishment. 

The second point is that all of Ridenour’s defense of HCR 203 indicates that he is running for the wrong job. He should be applying to the Secret Service. But instead, he is running to represent District 100, in which as best I recall, neither of the presidential candidates has visited or is likely to. So any speculative danger the candidates face won’t happen here. 

But all his attention to the safety of the presidential candidates reflects the likelihood, as I wrote in my original letter, that he would be a poor representative for all the people in this district. His unfounded suspicions about Democrats suggest strongly that he doesn’t even like them. It’s true I  am voting for his opponent, but it’s for good reasons, not for the reasons he attributes to me. 

I’m voting for someone who will represent me, not someone who would go to Charleston to willfully  not represent me. I do believe that there are Republicans who would at the least hear me out and try to earn my vote. But in my judgment, Bill Ridenour does not generate that level of trust.