Pedaling the new political landscape

One election I followed closely this past November was the gubernatorial race in Colorado. There in August, Tea Party candidate Dan Maes opened his mouth and said perhaps the nuttiest thing ever about bicycling. If he had said he was pedaling to the moon on his bike or he was marrying his bicycle, I wouldn't have been nearly as shocked.

Maes claimed that a bike-share program in Denver, paid for by private and not public money, was a United Nations conspiracy to take over the Mile High City and from there the country. According to The Denver Post, Maes warned voters that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's policies, especially those to boost bike riding, were "converting Denver into a United Nations community."

At a campaign rally Maes said, "This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed. This is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms." In Maes' defense, the bikes were painted red, a color a little too ominous for the Colorado patriot, and a shade reminding him of the still looming threat of Communism.

I'm not quite sure if Maes actually believed the bunk he manufactured or if this rant was just a political move to rile up conservative voters and tickle itchy ears. His statement makes some political sense when we understand that it was directed at Hickenlooper, who was Maes' opponent. (Also in the race for Colorado governor was former Republican turned American Constitutional Party candidate Tom Tancredo.) Maes could simply have been stealing a play out of Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels' playbook: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Fortunately, Maes came in third, receiving only 11 percent of the vote. He was trounced by Hickenlooper, who captured 50 percent of the vote. Still, more than one in ten voters, almost 184,000 people, aligned themselves with the that nut. That's a significantly higher percentage than the number of Colorado residents who see the bicycle as a solution to many of our problems and not a conspiracy to take over the world.

In the Midwest, we weren't so fortunate; then again, no candidate here was up against such an obvious loose cannon as Maes. Minnesota lost long-time Congressman Jim Oberstar, who was ousted by Republican Chip Cravaack by a mere 4,000 votes. Oberstar served 18 terms and was head of the powerful House Transportation Committee. A cyclist who understands the benefits of human-powered transportation, Oberstar will be sadly missed, particularly by cyclists for his influence on transportation policy. Cravaack is a former Navy and Northwest Airlines pilot, who characterized Oberstar as out of touch. I can't help but think he perceived Oberstar's support of bicycle infrastructure in particular as out of touch.

Wisconsin lost Dave Obey, who retired after over 40 years in the U.S. Congress. Obey, a Democrat from Wausau originally, was head of the House Appropriations Committee. Although not as outspokenly supportive of cycling as Oberstar, Obey did fund several bicycle projects around the state through his influence on the Appropriations Committee. Sean Duffy, a Republican from Ashland, will replace Obey.

Fortunately, Oregon did not lose Congressman Earl Blumenauer, the House's most vocal advocate for cycling and author of the Bicycle Commuter Act. In September at the Interbike Show, he gave the keynote presentation, in which he said, "Ask yourself once a day: how many people right now, right this minute, are stuck in traffic on their way to ride a stationary bike in a health club?" Blumenauer promotes cycling advocacy as a bipartisan effort, calling it "bikepartisanship."

I hope he is right, that Republicans and Democrats will come together and support commonsense measures aimed at increasing cycling. Then again, the party that will take charge of Congress in 2011 was chanting "Drill, Baby, Drill" just two years ago in the 2008 election. And the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is no friend to bicycling.

In early 2009 when asked about building infrastructure, Boehner said, "I think there's a place for infrastructure, but what kind of infrastructure? Infrastructure to widen highways? To ease congestion for American families? … But if we're talking about beautification projects, or we're talking about bike paths, Americans are not going to look very kindly on this."

It's too early to tell if we are moving backwards to the days of the Bush Administration when the Oily Boys were in charge. Boehner, according to the Center for Public Integrity, has taken money from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, two shipping firms and the head of a coal company - industries heavily dependent on fossil fuels and vehicular infrastructure. And since the sun-tanned Ohioan likens bicycle infrastructure to beautification projects, I don't expect cash to fund bike lanes and bridges to flow out of D.C. Boehner seems more interested in building bombs than bikes.

The bicycle seems like such as elegant solution to so many of the country's most pressing problems - economic, environmental, health - that both sides of the aisle should embrace its benefits. It can increase our freedom, reduce our dependency on foreign oil, promote our physical and mental health and shore up our ailing budgets. In fact, I don't see any downsides to increasing our use of the bicycle in our country.

But that's not what the people want to hear, which is exactly what Maes was counting on. And it's exactly what Boehner will count on for the next two years.