I think about that a lot these days.
Tomorrow the Republican party here locally is holding a candidate debate and meet-and-greet for the candidates for sheriff. They have decided, the GOP, to rent a private room so they can close the event except to registered Republicans, who are supposed to present their voter registration card at the door. A local GOP party official has been posting on Facebook about having Democrats who show up arrested for trespassing, and has alluded to the possibility of pepper spray being employed against them.
Now I should mention that, although this is a primary election, there are only the two Republican candidates; whoever wins the Republican primary will be the sheriff. That is partly a failure by Democrats to field a candidate, but it does have the effect of eliminating both Democrats and unaffiliated voters from the chance to see the candidates debate for the quite important public office. The decision to privatize a public good is coherent with a lot of Republican ideas -- some of which I agree with, such as privatizing public education given the collapse of the effectiveness of the public education system in much of the country -- but here many citizens will be excluded from even listening to the discussion.
It seems to me that upholding the common peace, which allows us to debate and discuss our problems together even when we disagree, is a matter very much germane to the question of who would make a better sheriff. It's certainly something we should be thinking about; that common peace seems somewhat frayed of late.
3 comments:
Surely it is foolish to allow the serfs into the back room?
this is only partly snark- in WA state, because we have the usual situation where a couple urbanized counties rule the rest of the state (may the Warren court burn in hell) , some of the rural sheriffs have stated they will not enforce unconstitutional edicts emanating form Olympia. These sheriffs are elected.
So of course the communists (dem-socialists)in the capital are pushing a law to allow the state to establish a commission to vet the elected sheriffs to make sure every T is crossed with regard to the sheriffs eligibility to hold office, with removal of said sheriff if some set of criteria is not met. AKA-"show me the man and I will show you the crime".
Threatening people who have a differing political philosophy does seem excessive. If threats had been made against the event, checking ID or asking people to register in advance might make sense, but what you describe sounds off-putting, to phrase it very, very mildly. People should be free to discuss and debate in a grown-up fashion, and only if violence is threatened should that debate and opportunity be restricted.
LittleRed1
"Trust but verify." Set the rules for discourse and enforce them calmly.
Post a Comment