Civic engagement and local democracy in action--

Democracy in action, or at least a brave facsimile thereof, was the highlight of the evening in Littleton. The recent furor over intemperate and intolerant remarks made my one of the selectmen (and tacitly approved by the others on the Board) resulted in hundreds of doughty local residents, business owners, and other concerned parties attending the Select Board meeting last night, rain and work night be damned.

I did not attend in person, but I have been following the issues and the conversation avidly; I spent much of the early part of this morning watching videos of various speeches. A good friend of mine stopped by last night and gave me her impressions about the meeting as well. I'm pragmatic enough to understand that the input is unlikely to change the hearts and minds of the select people. They are an entrenched, all-white, all-straight committee, led by truly neo-conservative ideas. That said, when one of the speakers said that the remarks made by the select person represented the feelings of the "silent majority" that was proved untrue.  

Which, to my mind, is a win for democracy, if nothing else. Our own personal beliefs are just that--personal. While they may guide our understandings of the way the world works, when we step into the public arena, and we accept a leadership role, then we need to take into account the wishes and needs of the entire community. That was the true issue last night; not religious conviction or the value of public art, although those were the topics at hand. What is the role and duty --the commission-- of a public servant? 

We do not live in an autocracy (as yet, anyhow), and certainly not a theocracy. The people who choose to run for public office are there to debate and consider issues that affect health, life, safety-- not whether a representation of a flower with a multi-colored background represents a part of the population that they are uncomfortable acknowledging publicly. The argument: the painting on this private property was sexualized. HUH? The select person went on to say in the newspaper that she does not support art that is sexualized--whether homosexual or heterosexual. But I can bet that if there was a painting of Adam and Eve clad only in fig leaves or strategically placed vines on a public wall, she'd clearly refer to it as ART. And with value. So-- yeah. I would agree that art that depicts human sexual activity of any sort probably should not be publicly flaunted, but again, if it's private property, then we run up against the first amendment. And I'll back the amendment. We have folks in town with huge "F*ck Biden" flags whipping along from the backs of their trucks--and no objection has been lodged by the BOS. 

--and then there's the white supremacists that are coming to town to "crash" the Pride Ride this weekend in support of this select person. She has denounced their support in the paper, but still--it's scary when someone's actions serve as a rallying cry or invitation to such evil people. Words have consequences; it seems to me that we are watching a federal case about just that, aren't we?

Fear of the "other" is a potent agent in our culture. I'm glad that so many diverse people attended the meeting, were respectful, took their turns at the microphone, and aired their thoughts. Now, we'll have to see whether the public's views--the majority-- are actually part of the town governing equation. 

Have a good day, and please vote when you can. Civic engagement is all we have to battle the darkness.

C