The Fruit of A Poisoned Tree
Tonight, the Democratic Municipal Committee held its interviews of mayoral and council candidates, commonly known as screening, for endorsement in the June Democratic primary. As usual, there was no actual contest. No one bothered to come out and express interest in the positions--except the incumbents.
The party leadership will tell you that the dearth of candidates is due to public satisfaction with the incumbents. That is a convenient excuse, and more accurately, a pile of gunk.
Screenings are supposed to be an open process in which interested residents, the more the better, come to seek the party's formal support for elected office. Unfortunately, in the local Democratic Committee, they have become a farce, a mockery and poor excuse for the real democratic process.
Think of it this way. Why would anyone take the time to screen when the Committee has already mailed out invitations to a fundraiser for the re-election of Mayor Frank and the incumbent council members, complete with a campaign fund bearing their name? Would you enter a contest where the victor was already chosen and honored before the actual event? How could the Committee have presumed in advance of the process what the results would be? If the Committee had already determined in advance who would get their support, why hold a screening at all? Do they really think anyone in town is being fooled by a dog and pony show that is being passed off as a fair and democratic process?
In past years, because I genuinely believe in the ideals of the Democratic Party on a national and philosophical level, I attended Committee screenings for Borough Council. Each time, I attempted to recruit several other people to screen as well even though that meant they would be competing with me for the party's support. In a real open, democratic process, the more interested candidates the better. That is because what is sacred is the process, not the outcome. Unfortunately, my efforts at getting other people to screen were abysmal failures. Even people genuinely interested in the positions understood the interviews were a show and were hardly willing to give up their precious time just for the sake of making the screening a "real" contest.
Frank's supporters and municipal party leaders will likely gleefully jump all over this entry shouting "sour grapes," claiming I am just bitter because I screened for several years and never received the party's support. But that is a cheap shot, a hollow ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks are a form of logical fallacy--if someone cannot respond to an issue, in this case the phony appearance of a democratic screening process, he or she instead attacks the messenger who raised the issue in the first place. I am in no way bitter about not being chosen. In fact, I take great pride in having performed far better percentage wise in going to the public by running on my own, receiving 42 percent of the vote as compared with single digit percentages in Committee screenings. So much for the Committee being an accurate representation of Democrats in town.
However, as the child of parents who spent their early years living under dictatorships, as someone who still believes in the sanctity of people's right to choose their leaders and government that operates by the consent of the governed, I am outraged over the fact that party leaders treat the democratic process with such utter contempt.
There is absolutely no dishonor in losing a fair contest knowing one has done one's best. However, when the contest is a sham, when the process is subverted and substituted with a mockery of the genuine article, then endorsing that mockery by taking part in it at all is dishonorable and disingenuous. The results of such a phony contest are tantamount to the fruit of a poisoned tree.
I and other like-minded citizens who want an alternative to Frank will instead go to the real decision makers, the people of this town, make the case for change and let you--the ultimate custodians of democracy--decide. The election process, governed by state and federal laws and by Constitutional protections, is the only place where a real contest, a real referendum, real democracy, can take place. No candidate needs to go before a committee selected by a small group in power that has already made up its mind in a closed, backroom process. That is not what this country is about.
Whatever decision the people of this town make in both June and November deserves to be respected. But first, the voters need to decide. Don't let a small group with its own agenda decide for our whole town. If you're not registered to vote, register now. Then get out and vote. The real power, the real decision, the real "screening" is in our hands.
The party leadership will tell you that the dearth of candidates is due to public satisfaction with the incumbents. That is a convenient excuse, and more accurately, a pile of gunk.
Screenings are supposed to be an open process in which interested residents, the more the better, come to seek the party's formal support for elected office. Unfortunately, in the local Democratic Committee, they have become a farce, a mockery and poor excuse for the real democratic process.
Think of it this way. Why would anyone take the time to screen when the Committee has already mailed out invitations to a fundraiser for the re-election of Mayor Frank and the incumbent council members, complete with a campaign fund bearing their name? Would you enter a contest where the victor was already chosen and honored before the actual event? How could the Committee have presumed in advance of the process what the results would be? If the Committee had already determined in advance who would get their support, why hold a screening at all? Do they really think anyone in town is being fooled by a dog and pony show that is being passed off as a fair and democratic process?
In past years, because I genuinely believe in the ideals of the Democratic Party on a national and philosophical level, I attended Committee screenings for Borough Council. Each time, I attempted to recruit several other people to screen as well even though that meant they would be competing with me for the party's support. In a real open, democratic process, the more interested candidates the better. That is because what is sacred is the process, not the outcome. Unfortunately, my efforts at getting other people to screen were abysmal failures. Even people genuinely interested in the positions understood the interviews were a show and were hardly willing to give up their precious time just for the sake of making the screening a "real" contest.
Frank's supporters and municipal party leaders will likely gleefully jump all over this entry shouting "sour grapes," claiming I am just bitter because I screened for several years and never received the party's support. But that is a cheap shot, a hollow ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks are a form of logical fallacy--if someone cannot respond to an issue, in this case the phony appearance of a democratic screening process, he or she instead attacks the messenger who raised the issue in the first place. I am in no way bitter about not being chosen. In fact, I take great pride in having performed far better percentage wise in going to the public by running on my own, receiving 42 percent of the vote as compared with single digit percentages in Committee screenings. So much for the Committee being an accurate representation of Democrats in town.
However, as the child of parents who spent their early years living under dictatorships, as someone who still believes in the sanctity of people's right to choose their leaders and government that operates by the consent of the governed, I am outraged over the fact that party leaders treat the democratic process with such utter contempt.
There is absolutely no dishonor in losing a fair contest knowing one has done one's best. However, when the contest is a sham, when the process is subverted and substituted with a mockery of the genuine article, then endorsing that mockery by taking part in it at all is dishonorable and disingenuous. The results of such a phony contest are tantamount to the fruit of a poisoned tree.
I and other like-minded citizens who want an alternative to Frank will instead go to the real decision makers, the people of this town, make the case for change and let you--the ultimate custodians of democracy--decide. The election process, governed by state and federal laws and by Constitutional protections, is the only place where a real contest, a real referendum, real democracy, can take place. No candidate needs to go before a committee selected by a small group in power that has already made up its mind in a closed, backroom process. That is not what this country is about.
Whatever decision the people of this town make in both June and November deserves to be respected. But first, the voters need to decide. Don't let a small group with its own agenda decide for our whole town. If you're not registered to vote, register now. Then get out and vote. The real power, the real decision, the real "screening" is in our hands.
posted by Laurel Kornfeld | 12:42 AM
