Submitted by Susan Guckin
---------------
I am writing in response to Elisabeth Holder’s letter in support of Mary Bartolotta’s candidacy for mayor. After listing reasons to vote for Councilwoman Bartolotta, whom she characterizes as a progressive and a “seasoned politician,” Ms. Holder ominously writes: “If the candidates who support environmental issues and changes to the politics of City Hall engage in divisive politics throughout this summer, we may find ourselves with an outcome that is not what we would wish.”
I have no problem with this sentiment on its own. I share Ms. Holder’s concerns about divisive politics and the election outcome. But I wonder how Councilwoman Bartolotta herself would feel about it being expressed on her behalf. It was, after all, Ms. Bartolotta who just days ago was taking shots at her opponents in the pages of this newspaper. She attacked one as a “political insider” (not to be confused, apparently, with a “seasoned politician”) and another for using “buzzwords like ‘progressive.’”
You can imagine my surprise, then, when I read Ms. Holder’s letter praising in Ms. Bartolotta the same qualities that she belittles in others. And then to call on other candidates to refrain from divisiveness? Who’s being divisive?
I was especially troubled to see Ms. Bartolotta described as a progressive after she so dismissively referred to progressivism as a “buzzword.” Progressive values are the heart and soul of the Democratic Party I believe in; if Ms. Holder shares that belief, she might ask her preferred candidate why she would make such a comment. And as an environmentalist myself, I have to wonder: do those issues truly matter to Ms. Bartolotta either? Or is environmentalism another buzzword?
Before issuing, or heeding, dictums about “divisive politics,” give careful consideration to who is doing the dividing-- and who is benefiting from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment