Submitted by Richard Wolfram, Old Greenwich
Washington and the world beyond have come to Greenwich as never before, at least in recent times. Local issues and viewpoints echo those around the country. And so, with the impending municipal elections, including particularly for candidates to the 230-member Representative Town Meeting, it is refreshing and informative when local candidates for the RTM candidly express their views; too bad more do not, so that the electorate could know who and what they’re voting for.
But first, why does this matter? The raging debate over school funding, to take just one issue, should sharpen our focus on the power and authority of the RTM – certainly for those of us who hadn’t thought much about it before. For instance, it has the authority to “approve all expenditures by the town over $5,000” and “approve, reduce and eliminate appropriations.”
Thus, if for instance, the Board of Estimate and Taxation were to approve one of the proposed funding amounts for the reconstruction of Central Middle School, the RTM has the authority to vote that proposal up or down – and the RTM would be the last word. The RTM also has the authority, among other powers, to “decide whether the town shall accept federal or state funds for town projects;” and the town is eligible to apply for millions of dollars of state and federal funds, for instance, to address environmental threats, which certain factions deny or choose to ignore. In short, the RTM has tremendous power, and so we should examine as best we can the likely decision-making judgment and analysis of candidates to the RTM.
On this count, then, we owe thanks to the author of a letter-to-the-editor of the GFP on October 3, last week – a candidate for the RTM. (FICHTEL: “Coalition” decrying incivility of Republicans is a case study in smear tactics). The author responded to a letter on October 2 from a self-described ‘coalition’ of seven Republicans, Democrats and Independents about the RTM election [GROUP LETTER: Planned Takeover of The RTM Is a Clear and Present Danger to Greenwich Government Oct 1, 2023). With a little ‘unpacking’, we can glean some insight into his views and, very likely, the views of a number of like-minded fellow residents and candidates. For that reason, the exchange of letters warrants another look.
To review:
The October 2 letter from the coalition of seven named Republicans, Democrats and Independents (the “Coalition Authors” or the “Coalition”) is entitled “Planned Takeover of the RTM Is a Clear and Present Danger to Greenwich Government.” [Link to coalition’s letter] The Coalition Authors noted that over 100 candidate petitions for the RTM have recently been filed with Town Hall, “almost all of them submitted by members of the Republican Town Committee (RTC) and the far-right Greenwich Patriots;” that the “local far right took over the RTC” in January 2022; and that it is now seeking to control the RTM. “With this unprecedented move,” the letter stated, “these groups are looking to inject their extremist agenda into the policy making body of our local government, making it a clear and present danger to the proper functioning of our municipal legislative infrastructure. This should concern residents of all political persuasions.”
The Coalition Authors warn, “What we see happening in the US Congress, where a small number of far-right Republicans have held that body hostage, will happen right here in Greenwich.” In light of signal events in the House of Representatives just days after their letter, the letter may be summarized, to paraphrase a quote from JFK – ‘You ride the tiger, you get eaten by the tiger’, with the helpful coda, ‘see McCarthy, Kevin’.
On October 3, the GFP ran a letter in response headlined “’Coalition’ Decrying Incivility of Republicans is a Case Study in Smear Tactics” from the RTM candidate, a self-described Independent, running to represent District 4. The author-candidate (the “Respondent”) “strongly objected” to the coalition’s letter for “vilifying those trying to maintain the successful, well-run government that has made Greenwich such a wonderful place to live.” He describes the coalition’s letter as a “case study in the smear tactics in which the left engages to silence those with opposing ideas, being full of words describing those with different ideas as ‘extremist’, ‘divisive’ and ‘far-right’.”
He continues, “The authors of that letter further characterize those who differ with them as having a “lack of decorum” and being a “clear and present danger” to our community. Their language convicts them.” Further quoting the Respondent, “Even worse, they accuse those who do not agree with their agenda of uncontrolled spending of being part of a ‘coup’” and in another false innuendo, linking them to January 6’s riot, which they choose, in an effort to be inflammatory, to term an ‘insurrection’.”
Now, it’s reasonable to assume that the respective views of the Coalition Authors and the Respondent reflect those of a number of town residents and RTM candidates, on one side or the other of the apparent divide expressed in their exchange of letters. With all the more reason, then, they bear close examination. The focus here is on the Respondent’s views and what they in turn may illuminate about the Coalition Authors’ statements.
For present purposes, credit the Respondent: Let’s drop the labels. Focus instead on how particular views, stripped of labels and examined at their core, reflect on the skills of perception and understanding that candidates to the RTM should bring to the table, as they seek to advance the interests of the community. And chief among these are discernment, a common, accepted understanding of meaning of important concepts and events, fact and evidence-based decision-making based without distortion from ideology, and a commitment to reason. As for civility – it’s an important glue and mode of conduct, but a hollow objective if not imbued with the commitment to reason as described above.
We start with that last quote from the Respondent: The January 6th attack on the Capitol, we are to understand, was a “riot,” and the coalition authors are being “inflammatory” in calling it an “insurrection.”
A riot is a “violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.” An insurrection is “a violent uprising against an authority or government.” Note the commonalities of these dictionary definitions, and where they diverge. When the mob stormed the Capitol and began battering the doors to the Floor of the House, it was engaging in a riot alright, but a riot with a specific goal and target – to stop the certification of the November vote to elect Joe Biden as President at the very seat of the federal government. (And waiting outside was a symbolic gallows for Vice-President Pence, whose job was to preside over the certification.) The participants were not rioting over wages, the price of bread or any other possibly legitimate target; they were ‘rioting’ to drive a stake in the very heart of our democratic process.
This is not a matter of mere semantics; to call the event a riot is a gross distortion of meaning that has become dangerously normalized and widespread within a not insubstantial percentage of the American public.
Make no mistake: This kind of talk, minimizing and dismissing a bald attack on one of the most fundamental acts of our democracy – the peaceful transition of power – is pernicious. And it’s brought home right here in these pages, from a candidate for the RTM whose views no doubt reflect those of a number of like-minded candidates.
Discernment? A clear grasp of fact and meaning not colored by ideology and politicization? You decide.
Next, and notably, one of the Coalition Authors is the most recent former head of the RTC. Which evidently did not prevent the Respondent from accusing him, along with his co-authors, of (again) “vilifying” Republicans (and presumably, the Greenwich Patriots). Has the Respondent perhaps missed one of the major points of the coalition letter? Was that former RTC head, along with his co-authors, not instead urging the local Republican party to reclaim its more moderate roots, because of what they perceive as a “clear and present danger” if what they term the ‘right wing’ seizes control of the RTM? There’s no ambiguity there; it’s exactly what they said. But we wouldn’t know that from reading the Respondent’s letter. There’s that pesky discernment thing again.
As for ‘vilification’ and the Coalition Authors’ accusation of a “lack of decorum” by the ‘local far right’: It’s no secret that in the pandemic drama we’ve all experienced over the past several years, a number of e-mails/texts/letters flew in from ‘stage right’ attacking a certain Republican town official for rigorous masking and other Covid policies under Republican governance. The source was local. Virtually swimming in personal vilification; not a pretty sight. Here, we should add ‘well-informed’ and ‘fair-minded’ to those necessary attributes for RTM members.
Maybe the Respondent was not informed. One would hope, however, that members of the RTM would inform themselves, as a matter of habit, before opining and exercising their decision-making authority on one subject or another.
These comments are aimed at viewpoints – not the individuals who hold them – because of what they reflect about important traits for members of the RTM to possess, as our representatives.
These are just a handful of points; there are surely many more. But the Respondent’s letter offers views that, once unpacked, provide insight into the process by which he and like-minded candidates might well arrive at their substantive positions on the RTM – as they decide any number of issues affecting our daily lives in Greenwich. These issues range from the most pedestrian, such as safety measures at intersections, to the most important, including school funding. And these candidates, for whom the Respondent speaks if not directly then surely by implication, are fully entitled to their views. Whether they deserve to bring them to the RTM, whether the judgment and reasoning that engender their views are best for Greenwich, is a question for voters. Here’s hoping we bring our own discernment to the question.
(And by the way: JFK was right.)