At the scene of the degradation on Thursday, and then a second time on Friday at NA Confidential, I reminded an utterly oblivious city council president Larry Kochert that his barely concealed and apparently uncontrollable bias, reflected in a transparently conniving reluctance as presiding officer to exert reasonable control over his own meetings, has the damaging effect of enabling and perpetuating the council’s chronic pattern of unprofessional dysfunction.
Following a weekend’s reflection, I remain entirely confident that a vast majority of sensible people (whoa -- not so fast, David “non-city-resident” Huckleberry; the axe you’re grinding is bigger than Paul Bunyan’s), would, if queried, look upon Thursday evening’s spectacle with the same disgust, and reach precisely the same conclusion, as I did.
Given my certainty that ordinary and honest citizens of New Albany are likely to concur in this purely objective judgment, I nonetheless find myself slightly perplexed, although perhaps not yet troubled, by the blogger’s role in the politically motivated charade last week.
Specifically: Balancing our obligation as citizens to shine a bright and relentless light on the chronic flaws of the council’s obstructionist element, are we not also assisting in its enablement by rewarding misbehavior with much desired attention?
Let’s consider an example close to home.
For more than three years, I’ve observed the phenomenon of CM Price’s steady, alarming regression into what can only be properly understood as self-caricature. The more NAC explicates in painstaking detail Price’s myriad inadequacies as an office holder, all the more loudly and persistently he publicly flaunts these shortcomings, in the process managing nothing less than his transformation into something far more virulent and closely resembling our satiric renderings than he was before we commenced our efforts to expose these compelling reasons to vote against him.
Obviously, as a ward-heeling politician, Price must mobilize his core constituency of like-(in effect, non-) minded Luddites, but beyond that understandable imperative, and the blatant pandering it implies, it would seem that persistently shining our relentless light on his considerable dysfunction has simply inspired further pride in dysfunction – with self-defeating and corrosive effects for a community that must somehow escape Price’s and his ilk's blinders, brake pads and homilies if it is to succeed in rejuvenating itself.
Readers, what do you think? By giving the dysfunctional the attention they crave and providing them a stage upon which to posture, are we merely enhancing the collateral damage to the city?
If so, what’s the solution?
That is, the solution beyond showing them the door in May?
Following a weekend’s reflection, I remain entirely confident that a vast majority of sensible people (whoa -- not so fast, David “non-city-resident” Huckleberry; the axe you’re grinding is bigger than Paul Bunyan’s), would, if queried, look upon Thursday evening’s spectacle with the same disgust, and reach precisely the same conclusion, as I did.
Given my certainty that ordinary and honest citizens of New Albany are likely to concur in this purely objective judgment, I nonetheless find myself slightly perplexed, although perhaps not yet troubled, by the blogger’s role in the politically motivated charade last week.
Specifically: Balancing our obligation as citizens to shine a bright and relentless light on the chronic flaws of the council’s obstructionist element, are we not also assisting in its enablement by rewarding misbehavior with much desired attention?
Let’s consider an example close to home.
For more than three years, I’ve observed the phenomenon of CM Price’s steady, alarming regression into what can only be properly understood as self-caricature. The more NAC explicates in painstaking detail Price’s myriad inadequacies as an office holder, all the more loudly and persistently he publicly flaunts these shortcomings, in the process managing nothing less than his transformation into something far more virulent and closely resembling our satiric renderings than he was before we commenced our efforts to expose these compelling reasons to vote against him.
Obviously, as a ward-heeling politician, Price must mobilize his core constituency of like-(in effect, non-) minded Luddites, but beyond that understandable imperative, and the blatant pandering it implies, it would seem that persistently shining our relentless light on his considerable dysfunction has simply inspired further pride in dysfunction – with self-defeating and corrosive effects for a community that must somehow escape Price’s and his ilk's blinders, brake pads and homilies if it is to succeed in rejuvenating itself.
Readers, what do you think? By giving the dysfunctional the attention they crave and providing them a stage upon which to posture, are we merely enhancing the collateral damage to the city?
If so, what’s the solution?
That is, the solution beyond showing them the door in May?
Yes and No.
ReplyDeleteYes because it is obvious that there are certain factions with in the council that feed off of attention, whether good or bad, like vampires at a blood bank.
No because, as it has been said time ans time again "It's a dirty job..." There are many blog readers who do not have the time, or possibly the ability to see the circus first hand, and with out such detailed accounts, those persons would have to assume that everything is running smooth and tidy, except for the occassional blurb in the paper outlining some tension.
As Popeye is reputed to have said, "I 'yams whats I ams, and dats all that I 'yams"
ReplyDeleteI consider myself to be a polemicist at heart, and this comes with a significant degree of attachment to the subject matter.
An unwillingness to countenance lunatic ravings isn't to be confused with elitism, at least to me, because I've always tried to reserve my contempt for willful density rather than ignorance. The latter can be addressed through education, while the former can't.
If this seems to imply a certain level of edginess, then it's a risk I'm prepared to run. If you know that Tom Paine and HL Mencken are personal heroes, and aren't too alarmed that someone would dare to offer a writer as a hero, then you know what I'm trying to say.
So what? SO WHAT if a "sympathy" vote arises because of mean ol' Roger?
ReplyDeleteNAC's job is to inform. Democracy isn't the problem - too little democracy is the problem.
We've always maintained that if the people are informed, if they pay attention, the embarassments like Mr. Price will go away. In an informed electorate, there is no danger of seeing Mr. Price returned to office. It's not sympathy, it's pathology that NAC is designed to confront. Or perhaps it is apathology, a recurrent apathy and disgust with a system that is broken.
Granted, the people let it get broken, turning away from city affairs with a resignation that is regrettable. And perhaps a few more voters will turn to Mr. Price, but not those who are informed.
If there is one premise that defines NAC, it is the belief that an informed electorate will not make the wrong choice. Proponents of progressive measures have the right message, if the wrong strategy.
Your question is worth asking, but it is not your "tactics" that might energize those who fear progress. It is the "progressive" strategy that may sacrifice the 3rd District seat once again to the winner of a mere plurality of votes in the Democratic Party primary.
A better question, then, and you've addressed it before, is what is it, in an election year, that defines a progressive, and is there a litmus test during an important election year? Is capturing a city council seat a serious goal for self-described progressives, or do they somehow gain greater legitimacy by losing?
I have my opinions, but I sincerely wonder about some of those who think ol' Roger is just too mean!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteProponents of progressive measures have the right message, if the wrong strategy.
ReplyDeleteYour question is worth asking, but it is not your "tactics" that might energize those who fear progress. It is the "progressive" strategy that may sacrifice the 3rd District seat once again to the winner of a mere plurality of votes in the Democratic Party primary.
It would be proper to include "strategy" in quotations, seeing as there's been little evidence of one -- assuming, of course, that the point of strategy is to win.
Is capturing a city council seat a serious goal for self-described progressives, or do they somehow gain greater legitimacy by losing?
Indeed - that's the critical question, isn't it?
There is the phenonemon of connoting legitimacy via negative attention. Those with small children will recognize the effect. But I've lived up around Boston for so long I've come to view politics as sport and rather enjoy a game of "fast-ball" locally. There's been no 'game" here for generations! No fun! But just so we all don't get too whacked with the fast game - let's keep working out the future vision and how to get there stuff too.
ReplyDeletei say check out pavlov, thorndike or skinner and see what they say on how to deal with behavior issues..
ReplyDelete