Post by richardkelsey on Oct 29, 2008 11:49:53 GMT -5
This letter was NOT published by the News Transcript. I assume, given the calendar, it will not be published. I submit it today as I promised I would.
Candidates Should Stand for Public Questioning
In 1986 at the age of 19, I ran for a council seat in the Borough of Freehold. That year, as a challenger, my incumbent opponents both agreed to a candidates’ forum. That forum provided the opportunity for citizens to be heard, and for candidates, for one night, to be accountable for what they have done or what they promised to do.
Freehold Borough has been a town steeped in our democratic traditions since the revolutionary war. Since then, it has been in transition, going through its own new revolution. As a result of that transition, it has often found itself in the local, state, national, and even international news. Yet for years now, there has been not one fair, open, bi-partisan town forum where candidates can be heard and questioned. This year, the local ticket has a full slate of candidates. The issues are real, the subjects important, and the time running short. This is the year to transition back to democracy and accountability.
While incumbents often see no political advantage to debate, debate is not about political advantage. It is about accountability and democracy – or at least the appearance of democracy. Some candidates in towns like Freehold cite their door to door campaigning as proof that they are accountable. Door to door campaigning is valuable, if done correctly. But it is not a substitute for debate – as one side is not represented at that door. In addition, door knocking campaigns are often targeted. That is, campaigns use voter lists to decide on which doors they will knock. They target their own party first, and registered independents second, if at all. Door knocking is a get-out-the-vote political effort, not a function of democratic debate and accountability.
Irrespective of party, the people of Freehold should celebrate that they have a full ticket of candidates in an election where voters will be coming to the polls for national candidates. In celebration of that reality, all local candidates should embrace an evening of fair-minded, civil, respectful, and intelligent debate. The people of Freehold should demand it. Such debate would work most fittingly in a town that rest in the cradle of our democratic independence.
Candidates Should Stand for Public Questioning
In 1986 at the age of 19, I ran for a council seat in the Borough of Freehold. That year, as a challenger, my incumbent opponents both agreed to a candidates’ forum. That forum provided the opportunity for citizens to be heard, and for candidates, for one night, to be accountable for what they have done or what they promised to do.
Freehold Borough has been a town steeped in our democratic traditions since the revolutionary war. Since then, it has been in transition, going through its own new revolution. As a result of that transition, it has often found itself in the local, state, national, and even international news. Yet for years now, there has been not one fair, open, bi-partisan town forum where candidates can be heard and questioned. This year, the local ticket has a full slate of candidates. The issues are real, the subjects important, and the time running short. This is the year to transition back to democracy and accountability.
While incumbents often see no political advantage to debate, debate is not about political advantage. It is about accountability and democracy – or at least the appearance of democracy. Some candidates in towns like Freehold cite their door to door campaigning as proof that they are accountable. Door to door campaigning is valuable, if done correctly. But it is not a substitute for debate – as one side is not represented at that door. In addition, door knocking campaigns are often targeted. That is, campaigns use voter lists to decide on which doors they will knock. They target their own party first, and registered independents second, if at all. Door knocking is a get-out-the-vote political effort, not a function of democratic debate and accountability.
Irrespective of party, the people of Freehold should celebrate that they have a full ticket of candidates in an election where voters will be coming to the polls for national candidates. In celebration of that reality, all local candidates should embrace an evening of fair-minded, civil, respectful, and intelligent debate. The people of Freehold should demand it. Such debate would work most fittingly in a town that rest in the cradle of our democratic independence.
