Fresh twaddle, no waiting!

Ah, yes.

More leap into the fray, fan the flames even higher, rousing the rabble, inciting the excitable...

...all in the name of faux common sense.

And righteous indignation as fueled by some strange variation on complacency, apathy...and utter bloody-mindedness.

Here's the latest, from CHML's Scott Thompson, entitled The Non-Incumbent Councilor Campaign. (It's also being featured here, at The Hamiltonian.) It includes this gem:

"Simple…Do your research and vote for ANYONE but the incumbent.

A clean sweep of city hall is the only way to see real change."

Mr. Thompson's rant is short, sweet, and to the point.

It's also the most despair-inducing piece of mainstream media offering that I've encountered during this election campaign. That some of the comments in reaction to it surpass it in this regard is even more depressing.

Now, even though the bulk of his 'commentary' focuses on the débacle that is the Pan Am Games stadium site selection, his thrust is precisely what the Stoney Creek News cautioned against in their editorial when they said "It’s easy to 'throw da bums out,' to make a change, but what type of “change” are you getting?"

And honestly, I'm a little confused.

"Do your research and vote for ANYONE but the incumbent."

Um...right.

So we're supposed to do our research...which as I take it, is to examine the overall performance of the incumbent Council members as well as their declared platforms, and compare them with the qualifications and platforms of their challengers...then, once we've done that, once we've followed through in a Sy Syms sort of way ('An educated consumer is our best customer'), we're supposed to chuck all we've come up with and vote for 'ANYONE' but the incumbent.

Further, that "A clean sweep of city hall is the only way to see real change."

Damn.

I think Mr. Thompson might be venturing into Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/Bill O'Reilly territory with this tack.

And in going there, he manages to effect no small amount of disservice to the voting process in general, and specifically the one Hamilton currently finds itself in the middle of.

To me, more than ever Hamilton voters need to accept their responsibilities in local governance. The first of these responsibilities is to do 'due diligence' where their options are concerned. This means (at the very least) spending as much time on choosing a candidate as casting votes for 'Canadian Idol' or where their next holiday will be spent. We're talking about how vital aspects of their future will pan out, but when 60% of the voters in an election (of the 37% of the eligible population that actually takes the time and energy to vote at all) admit that their decision was based on 'name recognition', can we lie to ourselves and say 'qualified opinions' have held sway?

The second of these responsibilities is to actually vote.

Take a look at that number I tossed out regarding turnout. Thirty-seven percent of eligible voters actually cast ballots in the 2006 Municipal Election in Hamilton. Can you imagine receiving employer kudos if you performed at work to that level of 'delivery of performance'? Can you imagine being allowed to remain in a relationship with that level of interaction? Can you imagine parenting with that level of participation with your children?

No? Then why do we feel it's appropriate when choosing our representatives at City Council? (My wish is that we create a society in which a 90% voter turnout rate is a disappointment.)

The final responsibility on the part of our citizenry, our ward residents...you, me, everyone here...is to aspire to have a relationship of engagement with the local governance process, and to live our lives within our neighbourhoods, our communities, our wards according to these aspirations. (Just as we should regarding our intimate relationships and everything extending out from them.) This means being not just as stakeholders in the enterprise, but as active collaborators with our Councillors.

If this was what we had in front of us right now, if our local governance reflected this paradigm, I guarantee that there would be no need for the Scott Thompsons of the world to be obviating as he has in this rant. Vitriol would not be spilling-over in almost every comment I read online, the general level of election rhetoric would be so much more infused with substance, and the time-wasting, combative tenor of broadcasts by all those wishing to be considered for office just wouldn't exist to the extent that it has during Election 2010. Why? Mostly because we'd have rid ourselves of the 'Us vs Them' mentality that has no place in any situation where the quality of Life is being determined, where our welfare is constantly under consideration and construction.

So my message to Mr. Thompson is this: rather than resorting to dull-pated fomenting, use that abundance of brain-cells you possess to consider a better way to help create a better Hamilton. Exhorting people to act like foot-stamping, breath-holding toddlers -or better yet, something akin to getting the villagers to attack the castle and destroy the monster out of fear- is just about the last thing you should be doing, no matter how frustrated you feel at what's unfolded regarding the Pan Am Games stadium site selection and the mess attached to it. You're a broadcaster, you have the ability to inject not only civility but a modicum of dignity into the mix...not to mention having a responsibility to do so. I listened to your interview with mayoral candidate Mahesh Butani; I know you're made of better stuff than what you've presented in your piece.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Margaret Mead