Instead of talking in circles every election season, what are the questions every local candidate should be willing to answer clearly and publicly?
Things like:
qualifications
priorities
transparency
public records
budget oversight
law enforcement accountability
development and land use
communication with the public
Drop your best question below. Bonus points if it’s specific enough that the answer would actually tell voters something useful.
Mountain Man’s Campfire Thoughts
When the Debate Revealed More Than the Candidate
Every now and then, I wander into town to see what folks are talking about.
Most of the time, I find discussions about roads, weather, ranching, fishing, hunting, or who makes the best green chili. Those conversations usually end with a handshake and a smile.
Lately, however, I’ve been watching a different sort of discussion unfold.
A group of citizens gathered together to talk about accountability, transparency, and what is happening in their county. One topic involved a candidate running for sheriff—the highest law enforcement office in the county.
The discussion began with a simple question:
Does this candidate possess the integrity, leadership skills, judgment, and interpersonal qualities necessary to serve as sheriff?
Now, before anyone gets upset, understand something.
That is a fair question.
In fact, it is exactly the kind of question citizens should ask before they hand someone authority over law enforcement.
Some people believed the candidate’s criminal history raised legitimate concerns. Others believed people can learn from mistakes and deserve an opportunity to move forward.
Both sides had every right to present their arguments.
That is how public discussion is supposed to work.
Unfortunately, something happened that I’ve seen many times before.
Instead of answering questions, some people started attacking the people asking them.
The discussion stopped being about qualifications and started becoming personal.
There were insults.
There was name-calling.
There was ridicule.
There were attempts to intimidate people into silence.
Some even posted personal information and photographs of those they disagreed with.
As I watched, I found myself less interested in the candidate and more interested in the behavior of the people supporting him.
You learn a lot about a person when things become uncomfortable.
You learn even more about a leader.
Now let me be clear.
A candidate cannot control every supporter.
No person is responsible for every foolish thing another person says.
But leaders do have influence.
Leaders set the tone.
Leaders establish standards.
Leaders decide whether to calm a fire or allow it to spread.
What I found most interesting was the contrast.
Many of those raising concerns continued asking questions and discussing the issues.
Many of those defending the candidate continued attacking the people asking those questions.
One citizen even attempted to reason with them.
He publicly explained that the insults, threats, and intimidation were harming the candidate more than helping him.
He pointed out that every hostile comment reinforced the very concerns people were discussing.
It was not an attack.
It was not a threat.
It was not even criticism.
It was advice.
Good advice.
The kind of advice a wise campaign would welcome.
The candidate himself had an opportunity to step forward.
He could have encouraged civility.
He could have condemned the threats.
He could have reminded his supporters that disagreement does not make someone an enemy.
He could have demonstrated leadership.
Instead, nothing happened.
The message was ignored.
When the citizen posted the same message where the candidate would clearly see it, the post was removed.
The citizen was banned.
Now, I am just an old mountain man.
I don’t vote based upon campaign slogans.
I don’t vote based upon yard signs.
And I certainly don’t vote based upon what candidates say about themselves.
I watch what they do.
More importantly, I watch what happens when they are challenged.
Because leadership is not tested when everyone agrees with you.
Leadership is tested when someone disagrees.
Transparency is not proven when people praise you.
Transparency is proven when people question you.
Accountability is not demonstrated by silencing criticism.
Accountability is demonstrated by answering it.
As I sat thinking about all this, I realized something.
The discussion had started as a debate about whether the candidate was qualified.
But by the end, people were no longer learning about his past.
They were watching his present.
And that may be the most important lesson of all.
Every election eventually arrives at a moment when citizens stop listening to promises and start observing behavior.
When that moment comes, people pay attention.
They watch how candidates treat supporters.
They watch how candidates treat critics.
They watch how candidates respond to difficult questions.
And they watch whether accountability is a principle or merely a campaign slogan.
In the mountains, a storm reveals the strength of a tree.
In public life, criticism reveals the strength of a leader.
The wise understand the difference.
-– Mountain Man