Am I responsible for setting a "new low" in Norwich campaigning? One poster to the Norwich listserv certainly thinks so:
This morning as I drove toward Hanover I was extremely distressed to see a large sign in front of the Simpson condos that disparaged Selectboard candidate Alison May. We have had some pretty rough campaigns in the past, but this is a new low. I hope that May's opponent was not aware that this sign was going to be posted and that it is the work of some over-zealous supporters, done without her knowledge or approval. It doesn't matter which candidate you support, this kind of anonymous and ugly campaign tactic is an insult to all of us.
My critic appears to have missed the whole point of the sign. The sign actually urged voters to vote against May regardless of their enthusiasm for her opponent. This does not, on the face of it, suggest that the rascal who put up the sign is an "over-zealous" supporter of Racusin.
I would also take issue with the suggestion that the sign is an example of "negative campaigning". The sign states what I think any sentient being in Norwich ought to have known: that Alison May was not just a candidate in this election, she was also an issue in the election. I could go into detail about why she was an issue in the election, but I hardly see the point since the results of the election indicate that most Norwich voters understand that already. If you are in any doubt, ask your neighbors.
And as far as the "anonymous and ugly" bit goes. I am not sure why it would have been desirable for me put my name on the sign. The suggestion strikes me as sociologically naive. All social systems have "rules of the game" that the socially dominant seek to impose as a condition of participation. Call me paranoid, but it sounds a little bit like "Too bad the person who put up the sign didn't identify himself or herself so we could punish them."
I don't buy it.
ReplyDeleteIf Alison May's tenure on the Selectboard was a campaign issue, why leave it to bumper sticker-level slogans?
What's so difficult about pointing out actual issues and differences? You "hardly see the point" because more voters opted for Sharon Racusin after all?
In the second-to-last paragraph you are part of the vindicating majority that understands what you meant, but in the last paragraph you are part of a persecuted minority?
Whoever you are, I think you made a mistake opting for sloganeering instead of taking the time to write up even a single post or letter to the editor setting out the reasons you opposed Alison May's reelection. You're a capable writer and care enough to set up this blog, but you've sold yourself and your position short by resorting to anonymous slogans.
While these signs are amusing in their sheer brazeness, I wince at the basic anonymous cruelty of reducing any individual to an object of derision. It's singularly unkind in an world which is already sorely lacking.
Watt,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to share your point of view.
I meant that I hardly see the point of going into detail, at this point, about why I opposed Alison May's reelection given that (1) she lost and (2) the fact that she lost is (I believe) due to the fact that quite a number of residents agreed that SHE was an issue. That certainly doesn't vindicate my point of view, but I thought it might obviate the necessity of more fully elaborating it.
I think it rather gallant of you to defend Alison May, who I think has done far more to poison the well of Norwich politics than I have, but I find it difficult to believe that you really don't know why so many people were eager to see the last of her on the selectboard. My point was, if you don't understand why Alison was an unpopular selectboard member, you could ask around off the record and I bet you would find out pretty quickly without my needing to spell out the reasons in public.
But since you seem to need an example, how about the one I gave which you simply ignored: Her claim that she felt compelled to run for the selectboard because no qualified candidates presented themselves. This was a calculated insult to Sharon Racusin, delivered in such a way as to make it virtually unanswerable.
Dante put Bertran de Born in the ninth circle of Hell because he was a stirrer up of strife. I may end up there too, but if I do, I am pretty certain that Alison May will right beside me.
Così s' osserva in me lo contrappasso. (Inf. XXVIII, 142)
I guess I'm not getting my point across.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I agree Alison's tenure was and should have been an issue for voters this election cycle. I'm not asking for a detailed explanation of why Alison shouldn't have been reelected after the fact. I'm asking why you didn't make that detailed argument while her reelection was still in question. You opted for slogans instead of reasoned argument.
Second, I'm not defending Alison and I'm certainly not gallant. I've never voted for Alison in her decade on the scene. If you're looking for poison, look back at the 2000 Selectboard elections where Doug Hoffman and Alison May, challenging two incumbents, introduced an entirely new tone to town politics. Your banners, in my opinion, are simply an extension of that unfortunate turn.
I am challenging your rationale for putting up one-liners which single out an individual for ridicule. That I agree with your criticism of Alison's methods, but disagree with your tone, doesn't make me a defender of Alison May. It makes me a critic of the tone and content of your slogans. You seem to feel her divisiveness justifies further divisiveness and ridicule. Again, I can understand the feeling, but I utterly reject the justification.
I'm sympathetic to Watt's argument, butI'm not so sure I agree. After all, one size does not fit all, variety is the spice of life, etc. Who says that a letter to the editor or an appearance at Candidate Night is the only way to encourage discussion? Just as social movements need some radicals mixed in with the moderate incrementalists, maybe an impolite sign had a place in this election. It was a slogan (two, actually, one quite clever, the other, not so much), yes. But it was also effective in reaching a wide audience and stimulating discussion. It did, in fact, prompt people to ask their neighbors about the selectboard races.
ReplyDeleteI certainly prefer playing nice over the alternative, but tone of discourse was a central issue in this race, and the signs made that point in a rather pithy way.
Which is not to say that I would have put them up, but I do not think censorship is the best response.
Nice blog, btw. Fun.
Really?
ReplyDeleteI can imagine a lot of provocations that could spur discussion, but you have to ask what level of discussion does it provoke?
These signs provoked at least one person to censor them. They provoked a number of people to sympathize with Alison May as a victim. If the issue was really Alison, then discuss Alison and her time on the SB. Instead, we're talking about when signs cross the line.
Maybe that's my point. These signs weren't about Alison May or her suitability for the SB. They were about someone's animosity towards Alison May.
Really?
ReplyDeleteMaybe they were not about personal animosity. Maybe they were about frustration with the style and substance of the selectboard's status quo.
"These signs provoked at least one person to censor them." <- Interesting concept. Lots of possible applications, not all good.
ReplyDeleteBut Watt asks exactly the right question: "If the issue was really Alison, then discuss Alison and her time on the SB".
Watt obviously trusts and believes in the public sphere. Maybe, and don't take this personally Watt, because it works for him.
Those of us who don't like the way the deck is stacked may choose to react in ways that seem "impolite". That isn't always bad.
Watt seems to think that I should have worked within the system, which is a natural perspective for those for whom the system is works, and enjoy working it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not playing the "oppressed minority" card. I'm just not a very patient gal.
Besides, and this I think is my real point, I just don't believe that many people who saw the sign didn't really know exactly what it meant, and already know the back story behind it.
The problem with "rational discourse" is that it is susceptible to being derailed by one party pretending not to understand what the other person says in order to derail the debate. It is the discursive analog to the old union trick of "working to rule." It happens all the time in dysfunctional families - and it happens in small town politics, and it happens at the national level as well. Reasonable discussion depends on good faith. But good faith is not always present.
That's when slogans come in handy. To help cut through the rhetorical fog and deliver a point of view.
This rational discourse seems to be working just fine.
ReplyDeleteI don't think any of us have changed one another's minds, but we've listened and considered one another's points of view, striking little blows against our own debilitating provincialities. That works for me.
I can't "trust and believe in the public sphere" any more than I can trust any individual in that sphere to engage honestly in dialogue, listening and being listened to. I have faith that, if I show respect to those with whom I disagree, they will generally let down their defenses and return that respect.
Without that respect, there's no room to listen. Disrespect may be cathartic at the moment, but it's a beast that feeds on itself.
Watt, I'm sympathetic to your point of view, because I am most comfortable with rational discourse and (usually) choose to dwell there. Over the past 8 years, however, I have seen its limitations, in fact become downright fed up with its inadequacy.
ReplyDeleteThere was nothing anyone could say rationally to stop the invasion of Iraq nor the reelection of Bush. The Administration -- through a multitude of propaganda devices -- controlled what American's heard. The American people became immune to reason. Until the public sphere expanded and diversified, to include a wide range of alternative means of expression -- blogs, social media, marches, the Daily Show, shoe throwing. Through a variety of approaches, from funny and irreverent to desperate and angry, people with divergent opinions could finally be heard. Conventional approaches got them no where. I for one am happy they got an audience. It was all part of a social upheaval that permitted the world to get a crack at much needed change.
Likewise, I think the Select Board has needed an overhaul. Not necessarily any particular member (as of this week's election!), but in terms of its corporate culture, the way it does business. As a high visibility group with a large impact on the culture of our town, the select board ought to model a healthy public forum. It ought out encourage the open expression of divergent opinions. It ought to join the ranks of listening venues in our community.
Venues like Town Eating Day. Hats off to you, Watt, for your part in creating this opportunity for discourse. It's the epitome of a healthy public forum. There are others, too: Norwich Times, NPL, Norwich School Board, MCS P.T.O.
And now this blog, Anemic Volunteer. Anemica Volunteer permits another kind of conversation, one that I appreciate. (It's fun, irreverent and suits my schedule!). As Mary points out, it's also diverse.
I would push Mary's assertion further and say that diversity is the reality of life. We are different in many ways, including the ways in which we like to express ourselves. It would be a mistake to confound our goal as a citizenry is to achieve consensus of action (in terms of decisions about policy, governance and funding of public institutions, etc) and a personal goal to craft the way in which people express their opinion.
It is everyone's business to respect the law and human rights. It is everyone's right to express his or her opinion within the limits of the law and human rights. It is distracting, ineffective and -- perhaps most important to my point here -- at cross purposes with the mission of supporting public discourse, to try to dictate how people express themselves.
I agree with you, Watt, that disrespect out of a need for catharsis can feed on itself. I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that any particular action pointed to that end. In this case, for instance, we can probably assume that AV won't be posting any more campaign signs.