Posts
Monday Morning. 7:45am. 2/25/19.
I just walked into my office after starting a pot of coffee. The smell of fresh ground coffee beans fills the air as the sound of the hot, brown water starts to fill the coffee pot.
As I often do, I bring up the News & Tribune website to browse the latest local headlines. Today's have me tilting my head and wondering how these two articles land on the front page. The only thing I can think of is the N&T sowing the seeds of liberalism by misrepresenting the facts with one sided opinions.
With that, I will offer a different set of opinions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Moss wrote this piece about how Dan Canon thinks local politics is busted. He can't seem to figure out why he lost. In the article he is quoted saying:
"I went into it, from day one, to represent people against power..."
Let's think on that for a moment; people against power. What does that even mean? As I read through the entire piece, the only thing that jumps out at me is that this guys just doesn't get it. We don't live in a dictatorship. We live in a republic where we democratically elect our representatives. If you are working against the people in power, you are working against the majority of your neighbors who took part in a fair election.
What Dan Canon stands for is everything wrong with our system, not the other way around. He simply wants to oppose the majority with "HIS" vision, not support "OUR" vision.
Dan lost because he is only interested in the few, not the all. Dan lost because he ran a campaign of attacking his opponent. He lost because he just doesn't understand the simple life lesson that you will catch more bees with sugar.
So here we are, almost as year after he lost in the primary. He is still complaining about things being "busted". It's not busted. It is working exactly how it was meant to work. Change is slow. If he wants to change things, then maybe he needs to go about doing it a different way, be an educator. Honestly, the way he is currently going about getting people to support him is "busted".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next head scratcher is talking about how there is low racial diversity in local government. Oookkkaaayyyyy……..
On a date in early February, there is a filing deadline. People show up at an office and fill out a piece of paper to run for an office. They check box to show which political party they are with, where they live and such. Then in May, those who identify with the beliefs of that political party elect which from the group of candidates they want to run against the other political parties in November. In November, everyone comes out to vote for the ones they think will represent them the best. Some vote for a party while other for the person in each race.
Here's the key to all of this; there is low diversity in local government because very few people who may be from a (insert diversity) diverse background sign up to run for the office.
The even bigger thing to consider is not just who is running, but is that person running actually capable of being that elected representative? Just because they come from a specific type of labeled minority does not mean that diversity is an automatic license to know all things or be all things.
Here is why I say that... Shawn Carruthers was elected in a community that arguably has the highest concentration of affluent, white people in this part of Southern Indiana. Do you know why they elected him? It's because of what he stood for. It's because he's a good man. It's because his message resonated with more people than his opponent. He didn't win the race because of race. He won the race because the people who elected him believed he was the best man for the job.
Some will say the people elected a black man over a white man. I WOULD ISSUE THIS CORRECTION: They elected one man over another man.
Here comes a truth bomb and I WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE THIS.... Most people do not see color anymore. Those who do, seem to be the ones to make sure to call you racist for not seeing color or call you homophobic for not supporting a gay man/woman for office.
(DISCLAIMER: Yes, there are people to judge based on race, sexual preference, etc. I contend THOSE people are the real minority, the ones who judge based on race, religion, etc...)
People vote for who they know. They vote for who will do the best job. They vote for who speaks to their topics. The people who lose are the ones who are talking about things that don't matter to the ones they are asking for votes from. The fact there is low "racial" diversity is the same reason there is low "sexual preference" diversity, low "religious" diversity, low "gender" diversity, low "educational" diversity, low "insert diversity" diversity.
In reality, those diverse people who could be a great candidate are not filing to run for office. If they are, and they don't win, I contest it's not because of (insert) diversity, it's because they weren't the best person for the job. If they were, then they did a poor job of getting people behind them which coincidentally is a key part of being an effective office holder.
And again, this is all another reason our system is not "busted".
What do you think?
Do you have the scoop?
Let us know in the comments below.