“Disagreement does not justify personal abuse”
An OPINION by Jonathan Enzinna, Town of Cuba NY Councilman
As some readers may or may not know, I have been fortunate to serve on our local town council for a few years now. During that time, we have dealt with everything from assessment lawsuits and battery energy storage system (BESS) proposals to the annual challenge of putting together a responsible budget. We have worked through difficult decisions in an effort to move my town forward and, most infamously, found ourselves in the middle of a DHS/ICE debacle.
The other day, while building out a campaign website and going over edits with my self-appointed campaign manager, I found myself reflecting on those experiences. There is a lot to think about: the work accomplished, the lessons learned, and the turmoil we have seen over the past year.
I knew when I ran for office that people would disagree with me. That comes with the job, and it should. “You can’t please everyone,” as my Papa Joe always told me. What has been hardest for me to reconcile is how quickly disagreements can become personal – and how difficult it becomes to have a productive conversation once that happens.
Not long after our February meeting and the now-infamous March town board meeting, a researcher contacted me to ask about political polarization in small-town government. Their timing could not have been more apropos.
I participated in an interview that lasted a little over an hour. We discussed my experiences in local government, with particular attention to the vitriol directed toward me, other town council members, and our police chief – or a young family member of a person involved who was accosted at a local establishment over the matter.
It was an opportunity to step back and talk through what had happened beyond the confines of a meeting, an email exchange, or a social media comment thread. When you are in the middle of a controversy, much of your energy goes toward responding to the next question or addressing the next concern. There is less time to consider what the experience says about the way we engage with one another.
Then, the other day, I received a follow-up email linking to an article about the research: Polarization in America: How Polarized Are We?
Spoiler alert: we are not alone.
The latest CivicPulse survey highlighted in the article found that 41 percent of local officials say polarization is negatively affecting their communities, up from approximately 30 to 31 percent in earlier surveys. The increase extended to smaller communities, too – places that had previously appeared more insulated from the divisions affecting the country.
There is some comfort in knowing that other local officials recognize what we have experienced here. There is considerably less comfort in realizing how widespread it has become.
-You can’t please everyone-
I want to be clear about something: residents have every right to question their government.
They have the right to challenge a vote, ask uncomfortable questions, demand an explanation, organize opposition, and support a different candidate. An elected official should expect scrutiny and be prepared to explain their decisions.
The DHS/ICE controversy involved an issue about which people hold deeply felt convictions. Residents’ concerns deserve to be heard and addressed on their merits. Dismissing everyone who disagrees as misinformed or politically motivated would be both unfair and unproductive.
At the same time, disagreement does not justify personal abuse. We ought to be able to question someone’s judgment without assuming the worst about their character.
That standard applies to elected officials just as much as it applies to the public.
Holding office does not give any of us permission to belittle a resident, respond dismissively to a concern, or treat criticism as an inconvenience. How we respond matters, particularly when a conversation is already tense. We have a responsibility to answer respectfully, explain what we can, and acknowledge when we could have handled something better.
One of the things I value about local government is its proximity to everyday life. The people affected by our decisions are people we see at the grocery store, at community events, and around town. A contentious meeting ends, but we still share the same roads, businesses, public services, and community organizations.
That makes the damage from political hostility especially personal. A disagreement can follow people well beyond the meeting room. It can make someone reluctant to speak, volunteer, attend a meeting, or consider running for office.
I worry about the people who watch these exchanges and decide that public service simply is not worth it. Our town benefits when residents with different experiences and perspectives are willing to get involved. We lose something when the anticipated personal cost keeps them away.
We also make it harder to do the work already in front of us. Budgets still need to be adopted. Infrastructure still needs attention. Difficult proposals still need careful review. Those responsibilities require us to listen, weigh competing concerns, and work with people whose views we may not share.
-So, what can we do about it?-
I cannot resolve the country’s political divisions from a seat on a rural town council, that much is for certain. What I can take responsibility for is how I conduct myself and how I communicate with the people I represent.
For me, that means explaining my decisions, taking questions seriously, and remaining willing to reconsider when new information warrants it. It also means remembering that a resident who disagrees with me may care every bit as much about our community as I do.
I hope we can ask the same of one another: read beyond a headline, check a claim before sharing it, and leave room for an explanation before reaching a conclusion about someone’s motives.
None of this requires anyone to abandon their principles or stop advocating for what they believe. Strong convictions and respectful conduct can exist together. Accountability remains essential, and so does the willingness to hear an answer.
Reflecting on these past few years has reminded me why I wanted to serve in the first place. I care about this town and its future. Even after a difficult year, I believe there is worthwhile work to do and good reason to keep doing it.
We will disagree again. The next difficult issue will arrive, and there will be passionate opinions on every side. My hope is that we can meet that moment with a little more patience, a little more curiosity, and a clearer sense that we will still be neighbors when the meeting is over.
