|
I hear that people want one of the two challengers for the Board of Selectmen’s race to step out and I understand why. However, I see no democratic precedent for such a call on the part of citizens. Is it not our democratic right and perhaps even our democratic responsibility to run for office if we believe we have something to offer?
Rather than devote great amounts of effort to make one of the challengers step down why don’t those who are conflicted about a choice dig into our positions and, as happens in all hotly contested democratic elections, decide which candidate to most wholeheartedly support? Once decided, channel great energy into that candidate’s successful election! Victory is possible even in a 3 way race, but not if the constituents roll over and quit. THAT is what will assure a successful candidacy for the one some people fear will win.
A strong campaign does not need to be a mean, hateful or smearing. Rather each candidate should be burnished so that his or her true colors shine as brightly as possible. I will not smear another candidate for political expediency. I will speak the truth as I see it and call either opponent on inconsistencies or policies that I do not think are in the best interest of Bridgewater. But I will never denigrate a fellow candidate nor treat him disrespectfully.
Can the slogan Hunt for Unity mean anything when I won’t step down “for the good of the community?” Does unity require abandoning the democratic process? Does the democratic, electoral process inherently mean the creation of dis-unity?
If the 3 R’s (Respect, Responsibility and Responsiveness) are incorporated in debates and campaigning, then disagreements can exist within the bounds of basic civil discourse. We are not all expected to think alike. We may vote on different sides. But, when the bottom line is drawn, we respect the process and the people who have entered into it---both candidates and voters. If we have acted respectfully and responsibly, we have strengthened our community by giving voice to our differences and assuring that the majority heard both sides (or several sides) of the argument at hand. That builds the community rather than destroying it. It creates unity.
The same-old-same-old approach often used in Bridgewater is a way of couching disagreement as unforgivable or confusing a disagreement in philosophy or style with disliking a person. I am often quite passionate about my views---and I expect others to be as well. I may not like having to listen to challenging arguments but I am strengthened when I do. I am forced to either admit the wisdom of another’s argument or sharpen my own. If I cannot find the “edge” to sharpen my arguments, then they are probably not well formed and need adjustment. That is not bad, it is accountability.
|
|
SO WHAT DOES A THREE PERSON RACE FOR BOS MEAN TO BRIDGEWATER?
I think it is good for our town to work through this dilemma. We should have to think about who we support and why. If only two people had run, I doubt that anyone would have given much attention to their platforms or style. It would have been merely a pro or anti vote. I would rather be seen and known for my views.
So, I am running. For the good of my town, I am running. Because I passionately believe I have something that this town needs and I want to give it, I am running. Because I do not believe it will destroy our town, I am running.
If you believe as I do, please join me. I will honor and respect your vote on April 26th regardless of whom you choose to support. But I am asking for your vote.
|