“Dad, even though we believe different things, it’s ok, we still play soccer together.”
With two young boys, my dinner table offers up plenty of opportunity to introduce and reinforce the values and principles I want my children to demonstrate as they grow into young men. School days, soccer matches, cub scout meetings and neighborhood play dates generate stories that easily allow the insertion of larger life lessons.
“That’s fantastic bud. Remember, beneath the differences there is always some similarities.”
Reflecting upon our local political landscape, a landscape dominated by one political ideology, there is still a strong and pervasive divisiveness. “Are you a NIMBY?!? Oh my!!” It is my belief that this divisiveness has been fueled by politicians that identify differences and then rally the community to ostracize people that represent or express these differences. The real crime is that it’s done under a paradigm of morality – you are a better person if you join my effort to exclude, shame and isolate.
In September, a candidate for Board of Education took to Facebook and X (Twitter) to explain why she refused to attend a forum organized to educate voters ahead of local elections. Her reason – one of the co-sponsors was a danger to the community, attacking diverse communities. Her chief piece of evidence – an article that was published by a co-sponsor, written by someone in the community anonymously, outlining a collection of resources, including how to tuck and bind, that MCPS provides to students. Her claim – that such articles, spread through the community, represent an act of hate and violence. The logic she used is baffling. Is this an act of hate? Does arguing that MCPS shouldn’t provide such resources make you transphobic? The answer is no, this is a difference of opinion.
A difference of opinion, even an opinion that you find offensive, must exist in our community for it to remain diverse. And if our local politicians are not able to be offended and still engage with those that offend them, we are on the path to public policy shaped by the opinions and thoughts of a select few.
Unfortunately, this candidate was modeling the behavior of politicians that have come before her. During the 2022 Board of Education race, one candidate was accused of being a threat to LGTBQ students. Why? Because she belonged to a church that did not conduct gay marriages. Are places of worship such as this not allowed in Montgomery County? Is attending such a church really going to be considered a threatening act of hate in Montgomery County?
Rewind to the 2020 Board of Education race, and another candidate, whose platform largely consisted of being against the bussing of students into different school boundaries, was quickly labeled a racist. Does voting for someone who wants school boundaries to be neighborhood based make you a racist? Should Montgomery County not have an open discussion, free from such absurd generalizations, on school boundaries?
The examples of how a different opinion has been branded and the holders of such ostracized due to their moral shortcomings are numerous:
- Did you want to open schools during COVID? You are a teacher killer.
- Did you attend a rally to remove certain books from school curriculums? You are transphobic.
- Did you suggest that school resource officers be kept in school buildings? You are a racist.
- Are you potentially not voting for someone in the Democrat party in November? You are a threat to democracy.
Ultimately this is our fault. We have largely allowed, encouraged, and participated in behavior that has resulted in this type of divisiveness. It is time for us to have a family conversation, maybe around a dinner table, on the type politicians we are raising. Will we be a family that is going to demand our politicians respect a difference of opinion, even seek it out? Will we be a family that is going to refuse to participate in the latest rallying cries to condemn our neighbors? Will we be a family that does not allow the county’s quasi motto of “No Place for Hate” to be degraded to “No Place for a Different Opinion”?
I hope so.
