Meet Ajwang

Given my age, I think it is fair for me to write that I found Ajwang to be a pleasant and personable “young man.” Of course, the minimum age for one to run for a House seat is 25. He has that beat but not by much. Regardless, he is well spoken, intelligent and comes across with an air of maturity. I imagine growing up under the circumstances which he did, had something to do with the latter being forged.

During our conversation, Ajwang told me about his experience in Northern Ireland working for the Clinton Peace Centre. I told him I had considered asking him one of the same questions I’d asked another of the Democrat candidates in the race: Why was he a Democrat? But then I said jokingly to him, “With you having worked for the Clintons, I guess that question is irrelevant.” He agreed.

One question I did have for Ajwang was to quell my own curiosity: Why was he jumping into politics by running for Congress instead of starting out at a lower office? As I told him, usually a candidate runs for school board or city council, then board of supervisors, then state Assembly and on up the ladder. Again, fitting with his personal story, he said it was natural for him to be “punching up in the fight.” He also said he was more interested in the issues he thought he would deal with as a congressman.

I understood Ajwang’s sentiment regarding the issues but he and I disagreed, to a degree, about his reasoning. We talked about the U.S. Constitution and what we saw as being the responsibilities of local and state government versus federal. In my view, the powers of the federal government are far more limited than how Ajwang views them. We did, however, agree on the important role the states can play as independent laboratories to test government action (The recent example of COVID response is a prime example).

A few times while we were discussing the Constitution, Ajwang mentioned how he saw it as a flawed document. Occasionally, I interrupted him to ask for clarification on a point he was making. Unfortunately, to this declaration, I did not and reflecting back, I wish I had. It could have been an interesting topic for discussion because from my perspective, our Constitution is inspired and as near perfect a document as one could expect. As of Sept. 17, 2022, our Constitution will be 235 years old. In that time, I know of no other nation on Earth that has created a better constitution or form of government, and especially not from whole cloth as was ours.

One of the times I did interrupt Ajwang was when he made reference to the Republican Party being a threat to our democracy. Of course, my first point to him was, we are not a democracy, something I must have said at least a dozen times while on the City Council. We are a republic and, in fact, nowhere in our Constitution is the word “democracy” used even a single time. The word, “republic,” however, you will find. (See for example, Article IV; section 4).

But setting that aside, I asked him if he saw anything his party was doing that was a threat to our democracy? He paused a moment and then answered, “yes.” One is the practice of lawmakers profiting in the stock market based on legislation they pass. A second is the flux of PAC money. As he put it, “you can track the money coming in and the legislation coming out.” On that we heartily agreed.

By the way, there’s a rumor Anna Eshoo will not finish her term if reelected. She will resign to give her seat to a person of her own choosing. I hope we don’t see that happen. It’s undemocratic. There is, of course, one way to be sure it doesn’t happen.

A former member of the San Carlos City Council and mayor, Matt Grocott has been involved in political policy on the Peninsula for 17 years. He can be reached by email at mattgrocott@comcast.net.