Two thoughts...led by a question

And the question is this:

"Do you find it acceptable that generally less than 40% of eligible voters tend to exercise their franchise in municipal elections, that generally 60% of those who vote, cast their ballots according to 'name recognition', and that generally people are either ambivalent or ill-informed about the goings-on in their local governance?"

If you do, then you're reading the wrong blog.

If you don't, then I have something more to say on this subject.

This week I've been fortunate to have been the recipient of some solid input regarding this pet cause of mine, considering an 'increase to the relationship of engagement between residents and their Councillors in local governance'. Some of it was shot my way, some of it resulted from an unexpected reference being dropped in front of me, some of it I had to dig around to find. Hence this editorial. (At the least.) And these two thoughts.

1) We live in a coerced culture. We are consumers, materialism junkies. And this is very much 'informed' (I'm being nice here.) by the manufacturers by way of advertising and marketing. Mainstream Media, or MSM.

We have, to a great extent, become 'sheeple'. I figure this has taken -and I'm being a tad liberal with the time-frame- since the advent of Madison Avenue and the ascendency of television. Here's the result:

-We've been riding a wave of crap food for about a half-century. For convenience, for lower costs, for variety. The bottom-line for me is that it's done us no good; pandemic obesity, Type II Diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. What we eat and how we eat it has, not to put a too 'conspiratorially' fine point on it, been 'informed' by food conglomerates in cahoots with government agencies, with politicians, with MSM. We've always had the ability to go in a different direction, but we've -passively– chosen not to through potentially four generations.

-We've been co-opted by the 'Medical-Pharmaceutical-Government Complex. I don't want to tap into that 'conspiratorial' energy too much, so I'll just leave it at that. Again, we've always had the ability to go in a different direction, but we've -passively– chosen not to through potentially four generations.

-Tied in with this is our abrogation of our personal responsibilities to look after our personal health and fitness. This despite a huge 'fitness' industry...and the strange paradox of a 'thin model' paradigm in MMS, while witnessing the aforementioned obesity pandemic. Once more, we've always had the ability to go in a different direction, but we've -passively– chosen not to through potentially four generations.

There is a strong case to be made for the notion that how we ended up where we are in our local governance is yet another variation on these themes.

I'm not here to argue this case, but rather, to show that we sure haven't had the same forces at play in striving to make for a better paradigm. Lip-service has been paid over the years to engagement, to involvement, to citizen participation, we've had, some shining moments, some nice interludes...but really, is it too far-fetched, too unreasonably cynical to say that we've always had the ability to go in a different direction, but we've -passively– chosen not to through potentially four generations?

2) My cringe-mechanism has been triggered many times this week. Mostly by being brought face-to-face with that attitude supremely prevalent in today's world: 'Us vs Them'. In the Comments sections at Raise the Hammer and The Hamiltonian. In MMS, online in general.

The most striking example was during a thorough examination of some materials dealing with making things better at City Hall. In the suggestions as to how this might be accomplished.

None of it was overt, none of it was as blunt as proposing there even is an 'Us vs Them'. But I had to wonder just how entrenched this mentality is when residents consider their Councillors, City Council, the work being carried out on their behalf, when the tack a civic advocacy group's message has strong intimations of this mindset.

Consider that these are people who genuinely and sincerely want to improve our governance. I would never, ever question that this is their sincere goal, that they have the best of intentions at play.

But I can't help but feel there's something truly wrong when we feel compelled to take a combative approach to creating a better construct. It reminds me of the sign I put up above the time-clock at a store where I worked 'back in the day':

'Staff whippings will cease when morale improves'

I don't see much being accomplished with a solution that has distrust and frustration at the core. I don't see much being accomplished when the solution uses the near-enmity that so many Hamiltonians feel about their elected official. I don't see much being accomplished at all.

At least not much good being accomplished.

My take on things, my 'solution' has as its foundation, not only a groundswell of respect, for self, for neighbourhood, for community, for city, but also collaboration. Genuine collaboration between the citizenry and their elected officials, the Councillors.

I believe that we need to be considering ways to migrate to another way of seeing local governance. A new approach to how the well-being of Hamiltonians is determined. We need to see ourselves as part of the process, not as a party affected by the process.

I believe that we need to begin moving away from the 'Us vs Them' mentality. Where there's a combative undercurrent. A palpable negativity. Because in truth, there is no 'Them'. It's all 'Us'. The accomplishment of arriving at that mindset will show itself in so many different ways.

I can't wait.