By Susan McBain
Yesterday afternoon I attended the Eagle Forum’s candidate forum to hear all six County Council candidates answer questions on a variety of subjects. I thought all gave good answers and showed impressive knowledge of different aspects of the issues. But my main impression was, these are all good, smart, concerned people who would do their best for the county as a whole. At one point I thought, I wish we could have all six of them, as together they represent almost all the constituencies in San Juan County.
I’m concerned and saddened at the over-the-top negative feelings being expressed in this election. Yes, the candidates have different perspectives, but there wasn’t a wild-eyed radical of any stripe at that table. They’ve all got common sense and experience in how our society works, and they respect how it works. I had the sense they all respected each other too. I fear we’ve let the current ugly national temper of all-or-nothing intolerance infect our island culture. It’s not right, it’s not useful, and it’s not the way to reach good outcomes for the whole community. Civility isn’t just pleasant, it’s necessary for a wholesome society. It’s easy really: we all just need to follow the Golden Rule.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Susan, I too attended the forum and agree that all 6 candidates are smart and concerned people who will do what is “their best” in reference to our County if elected. I respectfully disagree that all gave good answers and showed impressive knowledge of different aspects of the issues.
I too am concerned and saddened concerning the dialogue in this election. Therefore I must take issue with your comments on feelings, intolerance and civility. Any candidates past and current beliefs will affect how they will govern and it is our responsibility as citizens and voters to question those beliefs. Those queries are not “over-the-top feelings” or “all-or-nothing intolerance”, but the questions of concerned citizens seeking truth and information in a civil dialogue.
For example, in response to presenting facts concerning Lisa Byers stated beliefs past and current, I and others have been referred to as “smear-tactic”, “Joe McCarthy Era”, “inaccurate and inflammatory” and “mud-slinging and innuendo.” The last 2 come from Byers herself. Jamie Stevens considers questioning facts about the CAO as “fear mongering.” At the forum last Saturday both Pratt and Stevens outwardly attacked those who publicly question their beliefs or openly support other candidates. Pratt believes the First Amendment only applies to her and her supporters. While all 3 of these candidates have attacked others in an uncivil way, I find no record where Rick Hughes, Brian McClerren or Bob Jarman has done so. In ORCAS ISSUES February 27, 2013 at 9:50 am. “Susan McBain says: “Socialism” means so many things that it means nothing, other than a scare word. (I’ll ignore the use of “communism,” which smacks to me of McCarthyism.).” I’ll get you a dictionary. The rest of your comment does not addressed facts and questions raised but divert the conversation.
I too am looking for civility in the questions, answers and responses. If you believe “civility” means suppressing thoughtful dialogue concerning all of any candidate’s beliefs, past and present, and how they might apply those beliefs in governing our County, then I must challenge your understanding of civil dialogue.
Civilly and respectfully
Hmm, I didn’t mention Lisa at all in this post. And no one in Lisa’s campaign mentioned communism or socialism; others mentioned those labels in referring to her. If it’s issues and beliefs that are under discussion, yes, let’s have open dialog, but on the issues. For example, “What is your position on regulations that affect property rights?” Not “Are you a socialist?”