'One has to wonder...doesn't one?' The Sequel

(This is a followup post to this one from last year.)


As I'm a little out of the loop these days, I've only just discovered that the Bustamante vs Pearson suit was 'dismissed' last week. 


So I'm kinda wondering why Cal DiFalco over at The Hamiltonian, so full of piss-and-vinegar with his coverage of 'Bustamante's Boondoggle' last summer/autumn, seemingly decided not to cover the end result.


At all. 


Hmm...maybe...'damage control'?

Election 2010: The Big Three and Mainstream Media

Mahesh Butani was a mayoral candidate in the 2010 election.

He's a contemporary, a regular conversation-mate, an 'influencer' on this journey of mine...about as close to a 'mentor' as I may ever have had, regardless of what aspect of Life we're talking about.

He's a friend. (Please check out the 'Solutions' portion of his candidacy website; there's some truly innovative, ingenious, inspirational material there.)

In a recent blog post, I referenced him thusly:

"Was I angry at the way MSM covered 'The Big Three' to the exclusion of others? Not so much*."

This then, is the post to address that asterisk.

The way MSM covered 'The Big Three' candidates (Bratina, Eisenberger and DiIanni), specifically The Spec, was contentious. To some more than others. Mahesh fell into the former camp.

In fact, he experienced some skirmishes with The Spec, specifically over some of Andrew Dreschel's columns. And wasn't timid about launching quite-pointed 'rebuttals'. In standalone articles, in the Comments sections of The Hamiltonian and Raise the Hammer as well as to letters to The Spec and to its publisher Howard Elliott.

I don't have the particulars at my fingertips, and to be frank, I'm not here to pick apart the verité of the situation, to take sides, or to hold forth on whether there was any validity to Mahesh's belief that he in particular was treated shabbily.

And to be honest, I believe that Mahesh and I agreed to disagree about the appropriateness of MSM training their focus on (admittedly often to the utter exclusion of) 'The Big Three'. In fact, I addressed this issue here, last October, three weeks before the election.

What I am here to yammer-on about is how taking MSM to task over their reportage is entirely the wrong way of addressing the issue.

To wit: if someone is overweight (and we're going to play nice and offer up the disclaimer that this situation is not a 'medical' one, nor attributable to 'genetics'...) the 'Reasons Behind the Reasons' approach to this dilemma isn't to examine the person's diet. Nor is it even to examine their activity levels. To me, the proper approach is to examine their life, take an honest look at what it is that's prompting them to be taking in the calories they are. ('Emotional eating' being a much, much more prevalent contributor to obesity than people are prepared to acknowledge...and very much influences the kinds of food people ingest.)

In this situation, regarding MSM's coverage of 'The Big Three', or even pushing out the boundaries of the discussion, local governance in general, to me the solution isn't an examination of MSM's inner workings, taking a look at the editorial mandates as handed down by The Powers That Be, then, if there are questionable practices in play, taking whatever actions seem 'reasonable' to correct this bad choice in course-plotting.

To me, the solution involves addressing a part of the formula that's labeled 'victim' in this apparent transgression of the use of newspapers, radio and television: the public.

I believe the argument about how 'The Big Three' were covered comes down to 'the public were denied opportunities of choice.'

My problem with this is that it paints 'the public' as vulnerable. It paints them as lemmings. As sheeple. And while this may in fact be true to a great extent, especially regarding Hamilton politics, to me the solution isn't to prevent the public from being directed like so many addle-pated simpletons by some kind of watchdog or Promise of Fair Coverage by MSM...

...the solution involves empowering 'the public' to an extent that in fact, it's calling the shots as to what gets covered, not Howard Elliott and his contemporaries.

Think about it: were what I'm proposing actually come to be, a genuine and sustained 'increase in the relationship of engagement between residents and their Councillors in local governance', then the landscape would shift dramatically. It would be a 'sea change'.

An engaged citizenry wouldn't stand for being manhandled by The Spec, CHCH, CHML, whomever. And quite frankly, MSM would know it. They'd know it, and further, they wouldn't throw a snit-fit over it...they'd actually cater to it. After all, MSM doesn't want enemies. It wants a profitable degree of compliance. (Yes, this can be confused with being 'complicit'.) Because it all comes down to ad dollars, and if people aren't buyin'...then Houston, we've got a problem.

An engaged citizenry would already have certain expectations going into an election. It would be pro-active in its assessment of candidates. It would be organizing 'meet-and-greets', town halls, etc...it would be pro-active from start to finish, so really, there wouldn't be any opportunity for MSM to 'manipulate' the election process...because the residents wouldn't have taken on a 'pliant' role, a vulnerable role, the guise of sheeple.

So in this 'sea change' dynamic, Mahesh Butani wouldn't have been subject to anywhere near the 'abandonment' he felt himself subject to last year. He would have had opportunities that our current paradigm simply couldn't have provided, given its current mandate.

In a very real sense, all of this comes down to the people taking back what's theirs: the power to determine their own future.

And to think: all it takes is a little initiative and everything begins to change.

Meanwhile, over at Raise the Hammer...

This article...

...and this response from RenaissanceWatcher, a reader:

The Twelve-Step Approach To Becoming Mayor of Hamilton- 2010 Edition

1. Become a local media personality.

2. Run for political office in a city where low self-esteem, short attention spans and low voter turnout are now the norm.

3. Double dip as a broadcaster and a city councillor whenever possible.

4. Benefit from the radio station you work at regularly playing sound bytes of your views on its newscasts.

5. Pick one major issue.

6. Benefit from one of your radio station cohorts daily attacking the incumbent mayor on that issue for the first several months of 2010.

7. Directly participate in a public fear mongering campaign on that issue for six months. Bring to a boil.

8. Vacillate to and from every possible position on that issue over time and wear a t-shirt for two hours to prove your new “commitment” to the proposal against which you had fear mongered for six months.

9. Say whatever you want to say to the Toronto media about Hamilton because your Hamilton media cohorts will not report it.

10. Wait until the latest possible date to leave your broadcasting job and declare your candidacy for mayor so you don’t have to declare the previous nine months of media “advertising” or the t-shirts as an election expense.

11. Benefit from one of your print media cohorts painting you as an independent thinker and the other two main competitors for mayor as part of the “old boys’ club” even though you are chronologically older and more connected to the “old boys’ club” than they are.

12. Promise everything to everyone.

Clearly, this is a mildly-prickly slagging-off of Mayor Bob Bratina. But I felt it was additionally an intriguing observation piece commenting on something much broader than RW's intent, and so posted thusly:

Addendum:

13. Rely on an under-informed, under-engaged citizenry rife with unqualified opinions (extrapolated from the statistic of 60% of votes cast in the 2006 Election 'based on name recognition')

My point?

My point is that while it saddens me to see how people seem inordinately drawn to play the 'blame game', to castigate, to vilify in so many Life-arenas these days, what truly astounds me is to witness how grand, how expansive the blind-spot is concerning the real root of so many contentious situations we've created: the public at large.

Or, using the phrase I coined to pacify 2010 mayoral candidate Mahesh Butani, after he voiced his concern that I was generalizing far too recklessly, 'Those of The Many'.

So?

So can we redirect that spotlight?

Please...?

Over at The Stoney Creek News...

This week's Stoney Creek News has a solid editorial I highly recommend you read, 'Voters send another mayor off the plank'. Mark deals with several different election-related issues, including a general overview, the endorsement policy of the Hamilton Community News regarding candidates, and finally, voter turnout. I like what he wrote, except for the conclusion he comes to here:

"We have to look at new ways to target voter apathy. Almost every municipality in Ontario has tested alternative voting methods, from mail-in ballots to online voting.

This is the only way we will ever see an increase in turnout for local elections."

Naturally, I disagree.

Alternative voting methods being the answer to poor turnout assumes that people aren't voting because of 'inconvenience'. I think this is a fallacious assumption. This isn't like cutting down on littering by providing more trash cans. But even if it were, I'm not so sure that if we could find the ultimate form of secure, hassle-free voting that we'd have votes being cast as a result of informed, qualified opinions having been created. What would probably result would reflect the ease of execution and nothing more.

In fact, I'll take this one step further, and say that just as Facebook and Twitter and cell phone use have made us erroneously believe that our levels of intimacy have risen (they haven't; the only solid conclusion you can draw from an increase in the instances of communication is...that there's been an increase in the instances of communication), that more profound depths of engagement between people are the norm, easier voting options wouldn't accomplish anything worth being proud of, other than raising the turnout level of casually-fashioned votes.

But I am intrigued by this statement:

"Our job over the next four years will be to continue and educate the public about why the municipal level of government is so important, and why people should vote."

It sounds like Mark is committing Metroland to being proactive about changing the landscape, affecting some change where attitudes regarding local governance is concerned. This is heartening, even before I hear the details.

In the next while, I'll hopefully be presenting a proposal to Ward 9, 10 and 11 Councillors Brad Clark, Maria Pearson and Brenda Johnson as well as the Stoney Creek News, the Stoney Creek Chamber of Commerce, the Stoney Creek Downtown BIA as well as some foundation community groups. My intent will be to get them on board with a multi-faceted initiative, one designed to begin addressing how we can increase the relationship of engagement between Stoney Creek residents and their Councillors. The ultimate goal of this initiative? Nothing less than beginning the creation of a far more functional and resilient environment in which all citizens can contribute towards a greater quality of Life by way of local governance.

So; what do *I* think happened...?

As I've noted, there's a fair amount of discussion/grumbling/kvetching about the results of our recent election. Lots of blame being spread around, tons of incredulity, an abundance of cynicism bordering on nihilistic fatalism being swum in.

Here's my take:

1) I believe that Bob Bratina was put in office primarily by the 55+ demographic. Those who were 'familiar' with him as a broadcaster, felt kinship, got all warm-and-fuzzy with the prospect of him as their choice rather than someone they'd probably wished they could have had faith in one more time but just couldn't make the leap (Fred Eisenberger) or someone they'd probably wished they could have trusted (Larry Di Ianni). People in this age bracket traditionally boast a higher turnout rate, so their numbers carried the day.

2) I believe that those of us who spend time discussing local politics online, on sites like Raise the Hammer and The Hamiltonian and CATCH and even The Spec are, though a sometimes a passionately raucous lot, 'we' are nevertheless a small, very small, indisputably small portion of the voting population. (The proof is in the pudding so many are making poopy-faces at.) The consensus that I observed throughout the campaign was that the overwhelming majority of 'us' wanted most incumbents out...and certainly wouldn't have voted for Bratina for mayor. So as informed and engaged and seemingly pro-active as 'we' are, the truth is that there aren't yet enough of 'us' to make a difference. (I could go to the effort of showing you what the results would have been if, for the sake of argument, 'our' numbers matched 'Those of The Many'...but I'm sure that it's pretty obvious, so I'll save both of us the time.)

3) People are, by-and-large, incredibly apathetic about their local governance. Even when they cast votes, they're not the result of having produced an informed, qualified opinion as to who the best choice is. (Please don't take this as me saying people should be voting how I think they should be voting. Different reference points entirely. I want people to be casting votes based on Sy Sym's motto: 'An educated consumer is our best customer.' Right now? Not even close.) Low turnout -40% when it ought to be closer to 90%- and making decisions based on 'name recognition' and the election equivalent of 'comfort food' does not make for anything to be proud of. Yes, it's democracy in action. But seriously? We need a new playbook. A new paradigm, a shift to a more proactive, more participatory, more 'it takes a village to ensure its Quality of Life' value system.

Though this Living Colour song takes a much broader look at society than I am, the basic premise is the same: substance is ignored in the name of worshiping at the altar of fluff. And the sacrifice being made at that altar? Self-respect, dignity and common sense.

We deserve to have better. We can do better. We must make things better. Us. Not the government, not our elected officials...us.

It boggles the mind, it does...

Over at The Hamiltonian there's an article: 'What the Heck Happened?'. It's...it's...

*sigh*

It's a great testimony to how people often can't see the forest for the trees.

To how people don't seem to really understand how the world in which they live actually works.

To how 'lizard brain' behaviour doesn't just crop up south of the border in right-leaning circles, but also seems to be present in The Great White North.

Mostly, it's testimony to how deeply entrenched 'the blame culture' here is.

In every election, the end result comes down to one simple, salient factor:

How voters cast their votes.

Nothing else matters.

1) Not how media framed the campaign.

2) Not how hard it is to 'dethrone' an incumbent.

3) Not because the Unfairness Faeries have run amok.

Sure; it's easy, it's convenient to find reasons why things turned out the way they did, to ascribe subjectively abhorrent results to elements outside each individual's cognitive processes. In other words, to effectively diminish the voter's role.

Is that really where we want to take this...?

Regarding #1: Claiming that Mainstream Media 'manipulated' an election campaign, that people voted the way they did as a result of how they'd been 'influenced', 'coerced' or otherwise herded in a particular direction...as so many of the commenters at the article –and elsewhere– maintain... Well, are you comfortable with not only making MM into something so powerful as to be able to accomplish this, but also effectively regarding residents as sheeple? Of being incapable of doing investigations of their own? Totally devoid of volition, of independence, of powers-of-discernment? Don't you think the connotation here would be that voters are morons?

Honestly; this way of thinking is, to me, so much worse than voter apathy. Because these commenters, who presumably voted from an informed stance, seem incapable of generating common sense, and clearly are locked into a 'victim' mindset.

But if you do feel that way...that voters are morons, malleable, play-things...don't you think that rather than bitching about how fuckled the system is, that this is where some effort should be applied? You know, to turn this whole débacle around?

Regarding #2: Apparently, to so many of the commenters and their ilk, it's impossible for anyone to be performing at a high level of elected service for more than one term. Therefore, it's assumed that they need to be replaced after four years. The old 'Bring in the fresh blood and ideas, throw out the incumbents!' mentality. Honestly, this was one of the most ridiculous notions I saw broadcast online this year. Worse, it was an alarmingly common one. It bears no relation to how the real world works, where proficiency and performance and experience is rewarded, not penalized. I read some pretty fucking stupid stuff about elections this year...but this is the pretty-fucking-stupidest. Maybe second to the above is the idea that there's something 'unfair' about the battle between the challenger-candidates and the incumbents. That the incumbents are almost impossible to 'usurp', that the advantages they possess are, by-and-large, impossible to overcome, waah-waah-waah. My reaction to this concept? To snicker, to do spit-takes, to truly question the intelligence of online commentators specifically...and the voting public in general.

Regarding #3: I'm saddened that in all the comments I've read post-election, almost nobody wants to point The Finger of Blame at those who are actually the ones accountable for all election results: The Voting Public. Because really: if you've got even half of votes cast being done so on the basis of 'name recognition' (in the 2006 election it was reportedly 60%), do you think that the responsibility for any outcome can be applied anywhere other than to us...?

More on this topic to come. Obviously.

Yeah, this fascinates me.

Over at The Hamiltonian, there's this article 'Target Practice' about Mayor Bob Bratina and his chances to be effective. I encourage you to go read it...especially the comments.

I don't comment there anymore because- Well, I have too much to say on the issues I have something to say on, and my contributions...and the way I would often link to a further, more lengthy examination of what was being discussed here...seemingly rubbed Cal and his staff the wrong way, and I exited, rather than conform.

But what's being said there in the Comments section, even before anything's begun at City Hall under Bratina makes me want there to be some actual discussion amongst these commenters at The Hamiltonian, and its readers in general, discussion about how to move forward in light of their skepticism, their doubts. Otherwise, they've effectively given up, they see the next four years as a complete and utter write-off. (You'll see a similar tone over at Raise the Hammer.)

Is this acceptable to them?

Can they not see a better way?

Do they have no hope, can they not envision what they can do to ensure a better path for the city?

Fascinating.

And on it goes.

CHML's Scott Thompson and I have been in correspondence of late about voter turnout, about his failed 'Turf The Incumbent' campaign, about my interest in increasing the relationship of engagement between residents and Councillors. I'd share some of the exchanges...but to be honest, they're rather embarrassing.

Today he's blogged about how disappointed he is about voter turnout. The blog entry is here. I invite you to go read it.

Here's a bit that sums up how differing our views are on the subject:

"It’s not about politics as much as it is about participation."

I say 'differing' because I don't believe that plain, old 'participation' should be the goal.

I believe that 'informed participation' should be the goal.

That 'a qualified opinion resulting in informed participation' should be what we aspire to.

Unfortunately, it seems that this notion is a little beyond Mr. Thompson's grasp.

So Here’s ‘The Big Questions’...

...and they’re for The Spec, The Metroland Community publications, Raise The Hammer, The Hamiltonian, CHML and CHCH:

Given that we’ve just voted in as leader of our city someone whose reputation and performance as a Councillor had a good dozen and a half candidates declaring in his ward before he chose to run for Mayor, clearly indicating rampant dissatisfaction...

Given that 11 out of 12 incumbents were re-elected...

Given that a pretty meagre increase in voter turnout was accomplished...

1) How do you reconcile the fact that anger and frustration were the dual tenors-of-the-day throughout the campaign, and yet those-who-voted did anything but express them? Did the votes of those who were active in commenting online, interviewed by Media, those who were generally vocal, get diluted by everyone else? (Those who clearly were not so angry and frustrated as to ‘vote the bums out’.)

2) Why do you suppose that almost 60% of eligible voters are still not exercising their rights?

3) How do you envision turning around this number?

4) Do you see the longstanding paradigm of pretty much leaving elected officials in local governance...our Councillors and our Mayor...to their own devices for the next four years as being acceptable?

5) Do you feel any motivation, any urge, any responsibility to explore ways in which we can increase the relationship of engagement between Hamilton residents and their Councillors, their Mayor, to migrate the value system from its current cycle of apathy at the polling stations, general disinterest in local governance and habitual bitching and complaining when the next election comes around to one where people are genuinely involved with the decisions being made at City Hall, feel empowered about participating in the process and casting well-informed votes next time?

6) Connected to #5, how do you see your role in Media where improving the state of affairs in the local governance arena is concerned? Do you feel that Media has any pro-active role at all in effective such positive change, or are you content to be reactive, letting the status quo continue, crossing your fingers, hoping for the best...all the while publishing articles documenting what unfolds?

Through My Glasses, Anyway

For months, since the brunt of our election campaign descended, I felt as if I’d been wearing glasses that had me viewing things entirely differently from other Hamiltonians. I’d the glasses off, and I’d see things the 'conventional' way. I’d squint, I’d strain to focus, I’d blink for context...and then I’d put the glasses back on. Clarity...if only of the personal kind.

Off they’d come, and I’d wince. I’d look around, I’d take in what most everyone else was taking in, seeing things from their perspective, I’d click a mental snapshot...and I’d put the glasses back on.

And I’d shake my head.

I don’t think it’s unfair to say that we’ve just been through an election campaign filled with mud-slinging and a dearth of sound solutions to an abundance of substantive issues. Mostly a whole lot of small-minded, personality-fueled 'debate'. Sorry debate that was latched onto and augmented by a generally uninformed public, yet still wholly justified in their frustration, their anger at what they've perceived to be a dysfunctional City Council, and gloriously accentuated by Mainstream Media. I believe the result is best referred to as a 'non sequitur campaign'.

But despite having all this set against a backdrop some pressing problems, despite the fact that even ignoring the Pan Am Games stadium site selection process having diverted attention and focus, despite the saddening dearth of robust debate, for me what mattered most was this ‘something else entirely’. And in seeing things so differently, I've felt this strange sense of the surreal.

I believe that unless we find a way to change the culture of non-involvement within local governance on the part of our citizenry, everything that was pushed to the front of the stage is hardly more than “...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

During Election 2010, some -including our brightest mayoral candidate- railed against Media, demonizing them, accusing them of transgressions against the democratic process, conducting themselves in a self-serving manner. I would prefer to say that they'd not been particularly responsible in executing their duties as purveyors of information.

Others, myself included, railed against many candidates for lowering the decorum bar, not only in their behaviour, but in the fact that they've declared for the race at all, something I can only see as a form of arrogance, an expression of the rampant 'entitlement' ethos that has come to define so much of modern life.

And then there's the most contentious element of all, the public, which seems to have gotten off scott-free, receiving a pardon issued by itself...even though it can’t be declared a conscious player on either front.

Currently, it appears that our primary hope for good governance is to select the right people for office, provide sufficient rules and regulations to frame their conduct, then hope for the best.

And how do we view the selection process? Pretty casually, apparently. General apathy towards press coverage, poor voter turnout, questionable ways of arriving at our candidate-of-choice... Which means that aside from containing bad behaviour by way of rules and regulations once the Councillors are in office, we’re pretty much crossing our fingers that we get lucky.

Oh, and I shouldn’t forget about the whining and the bitching and complaining that accompanies this default setting when the inevitable happens and things turn out the way that foibles inherent in the human condition pretty much demand: rife with disappointment.

Surely this cannot continue.

Surely we all deserve better.

Surely we can all do better.

At least that’s the way I see it.

(Please read Editor Ryan's post here at Raise the Hammer; this was very much the email he sent to me months ago when we were exchanging thoughts about the election, voting, civic responsibilities, etc.)

Now that the Fat Lady's sung...

Election 2010: Review-ish Thoughts in Bullet-points

-We’ve created a society where cynicism about our local governance...let's leave the term 'politics' out of the discussion, because it's groaning under the burden of experience-proven bias...is displayed from the conversation's first breath. (Ironic dichotomy; so many people feeling unjustified hope in the notion of 'fresh blood')

-'What just happened?' is the 'debriefing' article that I don’t believe we’ll ever see in any aspect of Media, mostly because the mandate seems to be addressing numbers, slotting politicians into 'Winner' and 'Loser' categories, and examining the challenges ahead. Articles will no doubt examine the dissatisfaction the public feels at the campaign, but only in a perfunctory way will they touch on the dearth of substance that had been bandied about during the campaign...enabling the default setting of 'We'll get 'em in another four years', only reinforcing the aforementioned cynicism.

-What is the current role of Media, specifically Mainstream Media (MM) in our local governance? What should it be? Can a shift be managed?

-What purpose do articles about pre-Election Day polls serve, other than to provide a) stories to publish and b) a sense of validation for Media in being part of the equation? Especially if we're dealing with a disengaged voting public? The world we've created is one of where everything is labelled, everything is placed on a Top Ten list, ranked, categorized...quantified. Considered assessment is hardly a priority.

-I suspect that people are not, by-and-large, forming qualified opinions. On top of the wide-spread apathy towards local governance (a sufficiently large problem in itself), they're being spoon-fed Pablum, herded like sheeple...the end result being one that at the very least, raises eyebrows.

-There are three 'players' in local governance: the public, the politicians and MM. The most important by far is the first...and it's never been the major player it should be. Which of course begs the question ‘How can we change this?’

-We have no real vetting process in our local politics. There are no 'minimum requirements' for anyone regarding running for office. This is good, it's democracy at work...only in order for it to actually be effective, it requires something that currently is not in place: due diligence on the part of the public. What's required is an examination on the part of the people who are deciding who gets to represent them in each ward. This does not currently exist. Not when you have voter turnout at 37% and -purportedly- the majority of these voting 'according to name recognition'. I want the best possible people working for the good of the people at City Hall. But this requires the active participation of the residents to determine just who these people are. It also requires Media to facilitate this process, not turn it into some political variation on 'Canadian Idol'/So You Think You Can Dance?' exercise.

I want everyone to have a chance to contribute to their local governance. For some, this means serving as an elected official. But I do not believe that it is either necessary or appropriate for a mayoral campaign to become a circus. 15 candidates presented for consideration to a disengaged, apathetic citizenry quickly becomes a farce. Especially when the Media is complicit. I can't help but see some of the rationalizations for running as being entitlement-run-amok, self-aggrandizement or hubris-on-the-cheap. I was told by one mayoral candidate that his rationale for entering the race was (and I'm paraphrasing here) "to get in Di Ianni's face." We’re talking about the starting point of our governance process, and even a fringe candidate sees it in a way that hardly rises above sandbox shenanigans. Where is the dignity? Where is the respect? Has our governance become a consumable, some ever-recycled commodity, planned obsolescence in the civic arena?

-Considering so little emphasis was placed on addressing issues during this campaign, I’m curious as to what was actually accomplished. Moreover, I’m curious as to how people believe things will be different, why they believe they’ll be different...and what they’re willing to do to effect substantive change. And when I use the term ‘people’, I’m talking to the most powerful element of the local governance equation, us.

More kudos for the Stoney Creek News...

The Stoney Creek News has a timely editorial in this week's issue. Entitled 'Make a difference -VOTE!', I urge you to read it. Though its title is misleading and ill-chosen, it addresses the issue that has been front-and-centre for me during this campaign: increasing the relationship of engagement between residents and their Councillors. (For the record, a more appropriate title for the piece would have been 'Voting is only the beginning'.)

I'm heartened to see that the editorial staff at the Hamilton Metroland publications under Group Managing Editor Mark Cripps has recognized that there's a problem with our current paradigm, the one where we have such low voter-turnout, where more than half will probably cast their ballot according to 'name recognition', where in the main, the public's participation in the process ends there...and isn't further added to but for the whining, the bitching, the complaining when things eventually ('inevitably'?) go south, and in three and a half years time, the hew and cry 'Get rid of the bums!' is repeated. (I need to acknowledge that there is a portion of our citizenry, people for whom the role of 'the governed' does not end on Election Day, residents who by default take a far more active role in this paradigm. But they are not sizable, they are not 'the norm', and I do not believe that celebrating them to the exclusion of the other 95% of the population is how my time and efforts are best applied. I'm far more concerned about the behaviour of 'the average' Hamiltonian, or as I diplomatically put it to mayoral candidate Mahesh Butani, 'Those of The Many'.)

The Stoney Creek News notes some suggestions from various candidates as to how we could address this need to increase the relationship of engagement with our City Council. (This is my term, not theirs, but regardless, this is the goal, no matter how it's labelled.) I won't quote them here, because they take up a good half of the article. Each suggestion has its own merits, and I salute those quoted for having recognized the need for change.

Additionally, Raise The Hammer has published articles this week bringing to the fore how 'social media' can facilitate more participation. One of the references was Calgary's new mayor and how he managed his victory by way of Facebook, Twitter, etc. To say that I was encouraged by this further dialogue would be an understatement.

However...

LOL

Yeah; there's always an 'however' on My Stoney Creek, isn't there? Mostly because of my 'reasons behind the reasons' approach to things, my need to dig a little deeper while taking another step back. (Even I'm a little puzzled by the imagery here, but there ya go.)

The Stoney Creek News does a good job of naming the problem, that of ambivalence, of apathy on the part of the average voter. But I'm not convinced that in simply naming it and listing some suggestions as to its solutions we can effect genuine, systemic change, not even were we to see an increase in town hall meetings, in actual face-to-face contact between City Council members and residents, in the use of social media.

Why? Well, consider someone who's obese and unfit, with all the associated health problems that such a state brings, including depression. They're detached from their physical existence, they're frustrated with their circumstances, they're angry. Rife with apathy and despondency, they've lost hope. (Sound familiar? Hmm...?)

If you were to provide them 'resources', if you were to provide them a gym membership, a personal trainer, a dietician, an opportunity to address the various elements of their situation, do you believe that these would guarantee success?

As someone who's been actively (and ardently) involved in the pursuit of fitness for three and a half decades, and as someone who has both advised and trained people over those years, I can tell you that it doesn't. No amount of resources 'guarantee' anything. Not if the motivation is missing, not if authentic desire to change their default is absent. Gym memberships end up being unused, advice is ignored, eating habits return to their indulgent, comfort-providing ways...and the situation deteriorates all the more. More excess weight, more concomitant health issues such as Type II Diabetes, arthritis, cardio-vascular ailments, lower self-esteem, more frustration, more anger...more depression.

I guess this is where I come across as 'The Great Naysayer'. Fair enough; I believe that while acknowledging where we are with our current default is a wonderful first step, I do not believe that applying some well-meaning solutions without fully examining the ins-and-outs of how we created it really accomplishes much at all. In fact, I can guarantee that we could potentially do more damage in the long run simply because our seemingly innate Hamiltonian cynicism would latch onto things not having changed in any appreciable way, and therefore we'd accept our lot all the more...yadda, yadda, yadda.

I believe if we're going to sincerely address this issue, the issue of more participation, of involvement in our own local governance, then we owe it to ourselves to be 'in for a penny, in for a pound'. We owe it to ourselves to fully acknowledge what needs to be acknowledged, to examine where we are, how we got here, how we'd like things to be different, and most importantly whether or not we want to effect the changes required for things to be different.

Here's my bottom-line:

We've created a world defined by entitlement.

A world where instant-gratification is the norm.

A world informed by an 'Us vs Them' mentality, where reason and logic have to so great an extent been usurped by emotion.

A world in which we have the paradox of wanting to get rid of incumbents while hoping 'fresh blood' will provide us political salvation...and then go through the very same process four years down the line. ('Insanity is repeating the same behaviour while expecting a different outcome.')

Politicians cannot provide us the change we crave. Only we can accomplish that.

Politicians cannot provide us the quality of Life we crave. Only we can accomplish that.

Politicians cannot be the engines of authentic revitalization, of enhanced vibrancy. Only we can accomplish that.

And I believe we can only accomplish these things if we change the paradigm that has us voting at abysmal turnout levels, casting our ballots with an equivalent level of discernment, then saying 'Well, that's it for me for four years!' and going back to our lives, leaving our elected officials to their own devices.

Do I have suggestions as to how to accomplish migrating this paradigm? To achieving the value-system shift, to growing motivation, to inculcating ourselves and our children with a far more evolved level of civic responsibility and enthusiasm? Absolutely; over the past few months on this blog, in posts found under the tag 'Civic Engagement', I've proposed some fundamental suggestions, and will continue to do so. And in doing so, I'll be hoping that others promote additional dialogue, because only when we reach a critical mass of exchange and engagement will our own potential begin to be realized.

So yes, I agree with the Stoney Creek News: get out there and vote. But please, put some time into crafting your decision, no matter what that decision ends up being...and know that in casting your ballot, your responsibilities as resident, as citizen, as partner in local governance should only have just begun.

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