Some on- and off-list emails have questioned how active candidates can be on
Minneapolis-issues. The complaints range from some candidates as too
"self-promoting," to candidate back-and-forth overwhelming the list. I want
to clarify our philosophy of participation.
I created the list to increase discussion of city civic affairs. My hope was
that different segments of the Minneapolis polity -- elected officials,
staff, media, and citizens - would talk to, and inform, each other. My
fondest hope was that all groups would show up, producing ideas and insights
greater than we do within our sometimes-cliquish camps.
My biggest fear? That Minneapolis-Issues would be little more than a
complaint bulletin board chattering to the wind, ignored by the people with
power to legislate change.
To my great surprise and satisfaction, that has definitely not happened. All
of us "civilians" have done our part, but so have elected officials such as
Lisa McDonald, Linda Higgins, Audrey Johnson, Catherine Shreves, Paul
Ostrow, Joe Biernat, Lisa Goodman, Barret Lane, Phyllis Kahn, Jim Niland,
etc. (I also want to single our Carol Becker, who often takes the brickbats
explaining how City Hall policies were made and justified.) Whatever you
think of their politics, they have shown class and guts being here,
accepting not-infrequent criticism, too-infrequent praise. Whatever else you
think about them, they honor their commitment to public service by actually
engaging the public. As we all know, not every city politician or candidate
chooses to do so.
What does this have to do with the election? Candidate/members such as RT,
Barb Lickness, Ann Berget, Cam Gordon, and others could be the future
leaders of our city. We should praise them (if not necessarily their ideas)
for mucking around with the list. Isn't this what we want candidates to do?
Be available, openly communicate their issues/priorities for the city, and
respond to our feedback?
Frankly, I'm scratching my head about complaints that candidates should be
prohibited from "self-promoting" here. What else is a campaign? If a
candidate chooses to "self-promote" by discussing ideas on this list, well,
I can't think of a more honorable form of "advertising."
Let's remember - to float an argument on Minneapolis-issues is to expose
one's self to some pretty sharp critics. To use RT as the highest-profile: a
mayoral candidate has floated his ideas of campaign finance reform and
airport noise here. Neither was met with universal praise, or hero-worship.
I thought both proposals generated some great counterpoints. I learned from
both discussions. If RT wanted to "spin" the populace, he can find easier
places than here.
One thing that pains me greatly is the suggestion this is an "RT list" or an
"anti-incumbent" list. When Steve Clift and I set up Minneapolis-issues, we
took great pains to invite every city elected official, every party, every
camp. We have reiterated those invitations over time, and projects like the
Candidate Directory are an attempt to connect elected officials to the list.
Minneapolis-issues is truly non-partisan and non-ideological. I judge
success by two factors: the debate's quality (substance), and whether more
than one side is represented. A one-sided debate is as valuable as one side
clapping.
Fundamentally, the list is who shows up. To anyone who feels their "side" is
outnumbered...do what you do in a campaign: recruit more like-minded folks
here. You have the power to make the list whatever you want. And I will be
grateful if you make more debates multi-faceted.
Some of you are sincerely worried that the list will become dominated by
candidate attacks in the coming months. Two thoughts about that:
1. I'm not worried about candidates dominating. They are vastly outnumbered
by non-candidate list members. Last month, more than 100 of our 450 members
posted. A reluctance to dive in or introduce topics is not a weakness of our
membership. Have faith this won't be a problem.
2. Candidate "attacks" are just fine - criticizing someone's record, or lack
thereof, is fair game. BUT...candidates MUST abide by the same rules as
everyone else. That means they must stick to the issues and record, and not
be gratuitously personal. If they don't, no matter how valued their
participation, they will be warned. Have faith in my ability to police this
(and feel free to email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you feel I've missed
something).
Personally, I hope we have a vigorous, frequent, yet respectful discussion
of races and candidates on the list. This is our one change every four
years, so let's not blow it. And candidate participation is ESSENTIAL.
Finally: it's not against the list rules to question someone's
participation, but I believe it goes against the basic karma of the list. We
shouldn't criticize the presence of those who are here...we should question
those who are not.
End of lecture. Thanks for reading and being here.
David Brauer
List manager, Minneapolis issues
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
