For a heart surgeon, being right about everything is more important than having integrity. Even if he or she rips you off on the bill, it’s not as bad as, say, attaching one of your bile ducts to a coronary artery by mistake.
For a politician, integrity is more important than being right about everything.
State Rep. Paul Clymer, R-Bucks, has been flagrantly wrong on some issues, notably motorcycle helmet laws and gun control. (By wrong, I mean that he clashed with the incontrovertible logic surrounding those issues, as articulated by me.)
Even his toughest adversaries in Harrisburg, however, admire Clymer’s integrity.
As reported on Thursday and Friday, Clymer, 72, has decided not to run for re-election in the 145th Legislative District, which he has served since 1981.
”He was at the forefront of the opposition to slot machines in 2004,” observed Thursday’s story, reporting unconfirmed speculation about Clymer’s departure.
Harrisburg sources were quoted as using terms like ”honest and hardworking,” ”personal integrity,” ”decent” and ”gentleman” to describe him.
I went to see Clymer at his Perkasie office after I saw Friday’s story about the confirmation of his plan to retire. This is a guy who exulted over his participation in something he considered sacred.
” William Penn convened the legislative body in 1683,” he said. ”It [the Pennsylvania General Assembly] is the longest serving legislative body in North America. … To be a part of that holy experiment is something special. … I don’t take it for granted that we’ll always have a democracy. We should have a special appreciation for the job we’re elected to do, and not abuse it by serving special interests.”
No one is a harsher critic of state government than I, and no one expresses more contempt for the way most politicians serve special interests and not the public. However, when I hear angry demands for term limits as a way of prying the bums out of their entrenched legislative seats, I think of the rare breeds like Clymer and hold off.
Gambling industry interests poured millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of many politicians, especially those of Gov. Ed Rendell, who then granted their every wish by enacting slot machine casino measures in secretive, dead-of-night ways specifically prohibited by the Pennsylvania Constitution. (The measures received the blessings of the indisputably worst state supreme court in America.)
The state’s foremost foe of those shady measures was Clymer, who also fought similarly illegal pay raises enacted for top state officials, including members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. ( The Supremes went along with a prevailing argument that the pay legislation was illegal, but kept their own pay hikes anyhow.)
I have been writing about Clymer since the early 1990s, not always in a supportive way, but I was flattered in 2005 when he said he was ”inspired” by a column I wrote about plans to put ”a sleazy casino on Gettysburg’s hallowed ground.”
Clymer then led a successful fight to prevent such a joint from being built there.
Many of his efforts have failed, such as a bill to prevent casino operators from plying suckers with free booze to lessen their inhibitions, but you can’t help but admire his quest for some modicum of honesty.
Needless to say, Clymer has not benefited from any part of those millions the gambling industry sent to other politicians. He once returned a $250 check to a lobbying outfit because he feared the outfit might have gambling interests among its clients.
So his election campaigns have had total financing of $24,000 or less, while other legislative candidates have campaign budgets soaring well into six figures.
Clymer and I are on the same page for a number of issues, including tort reform and his attempts to require ignition devices to prevent previously convicted drunken drivers from driving while looped.
We clash on other things, such as a proposal to allow same-sex marriages, whether to let convicted criminals vote, motorcycle helmet laws and gun control. The important thing to consider regarding those disagreements is whether Clymer ever accepted a campaign contribution from some special interest lobbyist to support gun control, helmet laws or anything else.
Not a dime, he said, and — based on what I’ve learned about the man over the decades — I believe him.
”I’m not saying they [other politicians] should not get money from the special interests. I get some myself. But it should not be … ” He then seemed stuck for a term.
”Quid pro quo?” I asked.
”Yeah,” Clymer said.
A politician should not base his or her actions on quid pro quo — ”something given or received for something else.”
Sadly, Harrisburg is infested with politicians who base everything they do on quid pro quo and, come next January, one of their opposite numbers will be gone.
paul.carpenter@mcall.com 610-820-6176
Paul Carpenter’s commentary appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
