Letters
We’ve been getting a lot of calls and e-mails here at the Columbia Basin Herald about an election-related letter that we printed last Thursday. In the letter, a supporter of Sheriff DeTrolio speculated on opponent Tom Jones’ life expectancy. The writer concluded that Jones, if he were elected, would more likely than not be dead before his term finished.
The letter was callous. It was clinical. It could even be called cruel (although the writer may not have meant it to be). It was printed in a community newspaper where Jones’ family and friends read it and were hurt by it.
Jones and his friends came to us when he was diagnosed with cancer and together we shared his most private issue with the public by reporting on his condition. But it opened the door to his health becoming an issue during the campaign.
He has made no secret of his battle with cancer, which has been quite hard enough on him and his family without this letter rubbing their noses in it. The community was rightly revolted by its tone. To be honest, so were we at the Columbia Basin Herald.
Please understand, we had to print it. It met all the requirements for a letter to the editor: it was under 300 words, contained no profanity and was not libelous. If the Herald only printed letters of which we approved, it would cease to be a paper and become merely a newsletter of our staff’s personal thoughts. Nobody wants news or opinions censored any more than absolutely necessary.
But the fact that someone wrote it to begin with opens up a larger question. Why must elections be vicious?
It’s not just the sheriff’s race. We’ve all seen the slings and arrows flying in the prosecutor’s race. The PUD races have had their share of negativity. At the state and federal levels, attack ads and snide discourse are the norm, rather than the exception.
What does this say about our system, here in America? What are we telling our kids about public office? Do we really want them believing that an election is all about demonizing your opponent?
And what of the office itself? When the dust settles and someone finally takes his or her place in an elected office, the venom doesn’t stop. Immediately they are subjected to the vilest criticisms that can be leveled at them, until the term expires and the whole ugly cycle begins anew. How can we expect officials to get their jobs done if they’re constantly dodging cheap shots?
Political discussion today resembles an invading army salting fields to blight the next year’s crops. It’s not debate; it’s wholesale destruction. Everybody loses.
We can’t do much about the vitriol in, say, the Rossi-Murray race for U.S. Senate. But we can do something about our behavior closer to home.
Folks, these candidates running for public office are our neighbors. Most of us know at least one candidate personally. These are the people we wave to over the back fence, or share a pew with on Sunday. They’re running for office because they want to give something back to the community, to serve us. And all we can do is badmouth them?
Jones has risked his life for our safety for years. Sheriff DeTrolio has done the same thing. Both of these men deserve our respect and our appreciation. You can only vote for one of them, but that doesn’t mean you have to despise the other.
One of the things that make America great is that we can all express our political opinions. But really, must we express it with all guns blazing and no prisoners taken? Is it necessary to destroy an opponent without mercy? We don’t believe it is.
When we make out our ballots, we’ll fill in a little oval indicating which candidate we prefer for the job. Let’s let that oval stand as our final expression of approval or disapproval. In public, let’s speak our minds without getting nasty. It works just as well, and doesn’t inflict hurt on innocent people. After all, when the election is over, all the candidates will still be our neighbors. We owe them a little restraint.
— Editorial board