By Douglas Home
Pursuant to Tuesday’s election results and recent articles and blogs regarding the dislike of negative campaign signs around Moraga, I would just like to raise a concept for everyone to consider.
Posting signs that read “Defeat Mendonca” is really no different than posting ones that read “No on Prop. 50.” As a candidate for political office, one must realize that they are making themselves the political commodity. As an incumbent, one must be prepared to run on his or her record and be willing to accept the fact that some people will not agree with the decisions they’ve made in their position. Stating “No to X ” or “Defeat X ” on a 18” x 24” yard sign is done to simply grab your attention and hopefully get you to look into the issue or candidate further – and then make up your own mind. Apparently, this worked.
For those who insist on deeming this a personal attack issue, that idea is of your own making – and I couldn’t disagree more. You might consider that without some kind of negative campaigning, incumbents would be essentially unbeatable. Only those few who show up to Town Council meeting would ever see firsthand what their shortcomings are. And, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” … let’s not forget.
And so, congratulations are in order to Mr. Arth, Wykle and Metcalf – two of three who will be much-needed fresh faces on the Moraga Town Council. Govern well, gentlemen, in the interest of the majority of your citizenry, and with careful cost/benefit analyses. Pursue not personal agendas to the contrary. Moragans are paying attention.
Douglas Home
Moraga
You probably concede that point but believe that negative campaigning is always bad. I contend that it's often a very good thing. Negative campaigning is valuable, perhaps even essential. Government leaders, like business leaders, have many ways to create disasters and few ways to create success. Incompetence or dishonesty are very real dangers. It's entirely possible that a caretaker candidate would be preferable to a candidate whose ambitions are not accompanied by competence and honesty. In such a case negative campaigning would be the only effective tool available to the caretaker candidate.
And, if you want credibility, don't make the mistake of applying individual Patch comments to perceived "groups" of people, and then generalizing based on your assumptions. That would be greatly appreciated.
"Equity does not aid the volunteer."
To the question at hand (negative campaigning): In a small town such as Moraga, why would anyone would need to run AGAINST a specific candidate, rather than running for the candidate of their choice? Again, nobody questions the "right" to do this, just the values and judgements of those who do it.
I agree 100% that civilized dialog is much better than partisan rancor, however it seems that the extremist are the loudest and most often voices heard. They need to be answered, or they begin to believe the echo chamber they live inside, and they bully those that oppose them into silence. I was not a Mendonca supporter, as much as I opposed the extremists who decided to wage war against her.
I am asking you politely to take a deep breadth and let it go. You want folks to act like grown ups? Then lead by example. The Town's new Council can ill afford to start its new term with a mantle of antipathy weighing it down. I am with you on the 'as-is' solution. How do you stand on "Open Space"?
The signs "Dump X." were not very nice and were replaced early on with "Defeat X" signs which are reasonable. Obviously they weren't meant to say defeat her as a person. They meant defeat her bid for re-election. In countries without free speech one is not permitted to oppose a "candidate". I did not want that candidate re-electied for very good and specific reasons. Without considering any of this, and without knowing me personally, you have told your children that I, because I agree with the sign's message, lack compassion and should be ashamed. So, sadly, you are teaching your children to be reactive and judgemental.
I cannot seem to imagine her children (no age mentioned) asking about the 'meaning' of a political sign. Are these high school kids? Middle school? I'm having trouble believing the scenario here, seems fabricated, using a child to make a very peculiar point about an adult in a highly contested political race. The irony here is fascinating and tremendously revealing about "K". Ms 'pot' meet councilwoman 'kettle'. Politics have become so cynical and aggressively negative that major news sources regularly have 'veracity assessments' about advertising and debate statements during campaigns. This assumes that the campaigns/candidates are all going to lie as they trash their opponents, they just want to measure 'how much' they trampled the truth while slandering their opponents. Yikes! You may want to hold off attempting to explain politically based motives to children, particularly in the context of how 'compassionate' they are.