Have you had the pleasure in recent times of a “cousins’ reunion” – a getting together of the “cousin” part of the clan that may or may not be close; that may or may not live nearby; that may or may not be more than a distant memory?
It was easier in the old days, when the cousins tended to be clustered in one neighborhood, sharing values and close family ties and the inclination to simply drop on over for lunch.
It’s different today. Cousins, like so much of the human capital we cherish, have scattered hither and yon, where opportunity beckons. The instinct to get together in reunion is more compelling, in part because pieces of the clan may be nearly forgotten; and in part because the family story has become lost in the hustle and bustle of soccer games and corporate seminars and vacations abroad.
The need for a reunion often seems clear enough, but the logistics can be nightmarish. It is no longer one big, happy family, but a diverse crew with different ideas about where to meet and where to stay and what to eat and when, exactly, is the ideal time of year to get together.
Who shall make the decisions? The bossy one? The oldest one? The one that Mom liked best? The reunion planning may soon begin to look like divorce court.
The answer, of course, should be a referendum. Referendums are the preferred solution to so many decision-making problems that can best be described as “icky.” Blame or credit for the solution is murky, lost in the democratic wisdom of the crowd.
Is the solution that emerges from referendum “perfect?” No. Perfection lies only with Cohen the Columnist; the rest is simply good enough.
The very lack of predictability that a referendum offers up is often sufficient to bring the warring factions together for a compromise, in advance of the fateful vote – much like a civil trial, wouldn’t you say?
And so it was with the Massachusetts “Right to Repair” legislation, which drove many legislators from the chambers screaming in terror – and eventually ended up as a referendum question to be decided by us all, in November.
Compelled By God
This messy piece of business was designed to clarify if and when and who and how repair shops can access the computer codes and other assorted diagnostics necessary to repair the modern automobile, adorned as they are with all matter of electronic magic. Can the manufacturers limit the availability of God’s electronic word to dealers – or must it share the wisdom with all manner of car mechanic?
That is sort of the question that will be on the ballot for referendum consideration in November. Does it seem to you to lack the clarity, the compelling importance of previous referendum questions about doing away with the income tax?
The various warring factions in the auto repair war (there were more than two, it seems) were unclear whether referendum was the appropriate tool to solve the dispute. Or whether in fact, Massachusetts voters would wonder what in the world they were being asked to decide. Or why such things were not to be decided in the business world, as God intended.
And so, the legislature held its collective nose and hastily met in a smoke-filled room, and arrived at a compromise that will make the referendum question irrelevant. All sides were pleased, knowing that the unpredictable, collective will of the people on referendum day had been trumped by a compromise that sort of gave the independent repair shops more access, but pushed the whole funny business off until 2018.
Fear not. The question will still be on the ballot. Make your voice heard. The presidential choice is fluff; send a message – any message – to the car manufacturers or to the repair shops or to…well, anyone you please.
By the way, a wonderful columnist for Banker & Tradesman wrote in June that the “Right to Repair” bill was a sorry mess that would best be settled by the commercial parties involved. What a smart fellow. Maybe he can fix your car.
