Even though I should have known better, some of the responses to the Chronicle‘s “vote no” endorsement on Prop. 2 blindsided me. This had nothing to do with how many of our readers disagreed with us, or even how violently they did; disagreement is not only expected but welcome, and is in actuality a part of the story. Even when a comment is extreme and charged, if it relates to ideas and issues, it contributes to the dialogue. Nor can I feign any shock at the sheer hostility of some of the responses, both personal and mean: Though these are perhaps not as welcome, they are part of the much-desired, ongoing dialogue.
What did surprise me, however, was that so many respondents completely ignored the thoughts, concerns, and reasoning clearly expressed in the endorsement. The Chronicle‘s objections had little to do with the intention and philosophy behind Proposition 2, but rather concerned its logistics, implementation, and potential consequences. Instead of acknowledging, must less addressing, these concerns, most respondents almost completely ignored them. When the content was acknowledged, it was for the most part quickly dismissed.
The gist of a lot of comments seemed to be that we had clearly decided to suggest a “no” vote on Prop. 2 because (pick one or more or all of the following): we cater to the very rich; we are under the sway of money; just to spit in the face of the neighborhood groups; we caved in to pressure from our advertisers; just to spite most of our advertisers; because we are really hard-right Republicans; because we always oppose the people. The arguments we presented in support of a “no” vote, they speculated, were just to back up an already decided position.
Most of the attacks were head-on, taking us to task for our philosophical alignment against the proposition, as though our concerns had to do with our belief in incentives and our disregard for local businesses. This is not the case, nor is it the reasoning offered. (For the record, I was not involved in the endorsement process this time for a number of reasons.)
There were some commenters who were just vicious; they accused us of being corrupt and of actually selling the endorsement. There was a clear indication from some that, by making an endorsement they did not agree with, we had rendered the Chronicle – past, present, and future – worthless. A lot of the charges were contradictory, none was true, and many accusers sounded very pleased with their own viciousness.
There is no other reason for the editorial board to support voting “no” on Prop. 2 than those that were stated in our endorsements. There is no hidden agenda; corrupt, manipulative puppet master; or payoff of any kind involved.
Certainly, we can handle the hostility. We are not exactly novices in that area. My concern is that this demonizing is the most common and predictable motif in current political arguments.
It is built on a number of assumptions. The first is that most social and political issues are fairly simple and for the most part could be resolved by using common sense. In this view, there are not at least two legitimate sides to most issues. If, this logic goes, these problems are mostly so simple, why is the legislative process so slow and contentious? The answer has to be the political opposition.
This position takes the view that negotiating over government is as a drive down the highway, the top down, on a perfect day: sunny, but not too sunny. Therefore, the ugly storms rife with bolts of lightning and vicious hail raining down that typify most of the legislative process have been deliberately created and exist only inside the Legislature.
The contentious, ugly, difficult process finds you simply trying to offer a position based on the truth and vetted by principles. The opposition comes to its position either because it is corrupt, it is evil, and it operates with only malevolent intentions or out of purposefully naive stupidity.
This almost always insisted-upon dichotomy is really the problem, far more than differing ideas and/or ideologies. By denying those you oppose humanity, a sense of decency, and a commitment to principles, you are demonizing them into a consciously evil force. Therefore, just about anything you do to them is justified. This lack of respect, disinterest in compromise, and firm conviction that anyone with opposite ideas is one-dimensional and holds dishonest beliefs and bad intentions – this stance allows all sides to trivialize other ideas while granting a benediction to those they support. The beginnings of genocide and the end of constitutional law is dehumanization.
The intensity of the response has led me to a lot of soul-searching of late. What is our relationship with our readers? One person wrote, “It is almost a given that the local alt-weekly will support something that the citizens and city will benefit from alike.” Therein lies the rub.
No one, regardless of his or her position, in any way “knows” what the consequences will be if Prop. 2 passes. There are many claims being offered as absolute certainties by some on all sides of this issue.
The law and litigation obviously are very complicated.
A well-crafted argument based solidly on the law is a strong position. Keep in mind, however, that in most court cases, the opposing side possesses what it thinks is an equally well-crafted argument, based on the law. The decisions finally reached are often not satisfying and are almost never completely predictable.
Another writer offered, “There are so many good reasons to vote for Prop. 2 and absolutely no good reasons to vote against it. The counterarguments don’t hold water, so obviously they’re getting some incentive to rally with the city-side on this issue.”
If the starting premise is that you are right and anyone with a different position is wrong, that really doesn’t leave room for much discussion. Given my predilection for films, at this point I usually suggest watching The Caine Mutiny. There are few films that so beautifully build a case that seems inarguably rock-solid at one point, only to depict the players in the courtroom later, when the rock-solid case seems more a paranoid, fever-dream quilt.
What is our relationship with our readers? Is it our job to reaffirm their beliefs and rubber-stamp their opinions? When many, if not most of them are emotionally committed to an issue, should we acquiesce to their position? Even if we have concerns, is it wrong to challenge it?
One writer suggested that we let our readers think for themselves. How could we stop them, even if we had the slightest desire to do so? Why would we work so hard on the Chronicle – in fact why do this at all, if we didn’t respect our readers, knowing that they think for themselves? People become writers and/or get involved with publications like this for the widest range and variety of reasons. Their only shared constant is likely some kind of desire to communicate with others, to engage in dialogue, to present arguments.
There are many different ideas, ambitions, ideals, and emotions that drive the paper. Serving our readers is one of the most important. But how to do that? Certainly it is not to pander to them, is it?
There are a few rules relating to how we do what we do – though they’re not really rules: Ed Lowry, one of the Chronicle‘s founders, always said to never write down to your reader but that it was okay to occasionally make it necessary for readers to do some work and work up to you.
In politics, we stay away from gotcha journalism, and we try to stay out of the private lives of public figures. We are not interested in scandal.
Now there is a proposition that many of our readers and advertisers are emotionally invested in but that the editorial board had serious concerns over. In this case, what should we have done?
The position we offer is just that: ideas structured in an argument offered to our readers to consider. A Chronicle endorsement is not a mandate or an order.
Chronicle Publisher Nick Barbaro is voting for Prop. 2, giving his reason as: “I see this amendment as sort of like grabbing City Hall by the lapels and screaming incoherently into its face for a long time. And I think things are so bad down there that may just be our best course of action. But I’m also perfectly comfortable not endorsing it as sound public policy.” (For more on Barbaro’s position, see “The Small-Business Amendment.”)
Although I was not engaged in the endorsement process, my concern is that the unintended consequences will be much worse than the subsidies. Some of my fears include the following: The city will be taken to court and will lose. This will not only cost more than just the subsidies but potentially will impact the city’s restrictive options. There will be a negative impact on other projects. Businesses will not come to Austin. The Legislature will use this as an excuse to beat up on Austin.
Now, I’m close to certain that all of this won’t happen, but the chances of none of this, or similar things, happening are equally unlikely.
When I vote for Barack Obama, it will be the first time in my life that I vote for a candidate who I believe is the best possible person for that job at the time. Oddly, I don’t vote for him because he is black, though in different circumstances that reason carries weight. I vote for him because, with my jaded, cynical heart – and filled with not just the expectation but the knowledge that he is only a man and not a saint or pure knight – I believe in what he says: that the divisions in this country are a disease and that when we put them aside and come together, this country can do anything – and has.
This article appears in John McCain.