Talk about position, not personality

Mark Nicolich of West Amwell
    Recently, there have been a series of partisan letters to the Beacon that are pro-Democratic or pro-Republican — or maybe better described as anti-Republican or anti-Democratic.
   The letters describe the personalities, motives and character of the candidate in nasty and malicious terms. The letters certainly express the writer’s emotional feelings, but they do nothing to promote an understanding of the issues.
   I suggest concerned citizens who send letters to The Beacon limit their discussion to describing the programs, proposals and ideas of their chosen candidate and/or those of the opposing candidates.
   The discussion should also include the writer’s thoughts and opinions concerning the consequences of the candidate’s positions. It is important the discussion should be free of personal invective and abusive censure.
   This is not a call for censorship, but a request for a self-imposed limit on useless emotional abuse and an opportunity to make better use of our public forum.
   I believe, for example, I am better informed when I know a candidate’s position on gun control and the consequences of that position than I am in knowing the candidate is a hunter who can field-dress a mastodon.
   While we are at it, we might also consider doing something positive to combat the frequent malicious e-mails we all get. We have all seen the e-mails forwarded to us by acquaintances, usually from unknown sources, that tell us about exciting tidbits such as who is the real mother of which infant or who wears lipstick or about the candidate’s training at a foreign mosque or how the candidate was the real-life model for the Manchurian Candidate.
   It would be a great public service if we replied to the sender — and all the other people on the e-mail — letting them know spreading lies, circulating slander and bearing false witness is harmful and mean and all the recipient should all adopt the habit of not forwarding any of the trashy e-mails.
   The more ambitious among us could take on the print and broadcast media. When the media devote their space or time to unfavorably covering a candidate’s supposed past religious affiliations or past marital history or other character assassination topics (other than to expose the topics as fraudulent) we should send a letter to the editor or manager expressing our displeasure, demanding more and better coverage of the important issues and threaten to boycott them and their sponsors.
   In the end, the goal is to have enough information about the candidate’s position on the issues so we can judge the reasonableness, consistency and wisdom of the plan. This needs to be done without the extra static that comes from irrelevant personal attacks.
   If we are fortunate enough to have this come to pass, we will have the added benefit of understanding the candidate’s position and be better able to make them keep their promises after they are elected.
Mark Nicolich
West Amwell