Blogs bring down Dunn.
Joey wins, Democracy loses.


The problem with the Dunn situation is that we have is a closing image of an elected official who is not stepping down in disgrace, a la Nixon boarding the plane, but an amiable public servant who has been personally attacked at every turn…

Now please correct me if I am wrong, but I see that the biggest problem many people had with Dunn was his municipal growth policy. For what it is worth, I personally do not agree with giving developers added incentive to develop an area beyond the profit they will receive in selling the finished product. I disagree with that as much as I disagree with the Bush Administration’s decision to pay the energy companies to develop new energy ideas that they can then profit off of. To me, you are just subsidizing the wealthy’s business plans while minimizing their risk.

However, that is a little off topic. What we have here is an elected official that made an unpopular decision with his constituents. Now instead of holding him accountable for his decisions at the polls, he is instead personally attacked and slandered. He has gone from a developer’s politician, as opposed to a people’s politician, to a sympathetic figure.

Some blogs, and I think we all know which ones, have taken this amazing new medium and tried to pass it off as something it is not. They have also managed to hijack what was already a contentious tone and made it worse. What began as an amazing debate about elected officials and a strong showing of democracy in action has instead turned into vulgar scribblings on a bathroom wall.

The community has allowed a vocal minority to dictate the tone and direction of local government in Salisbury. How does this announcement by Dunn make life better for those in Salisbury if he is only going to be replaced by someone of the same ideology but thicker skin? The debate has gone from right and wrong, to drawing up sides. …

Local government is based on a structure of representational democracy. The people are not to make every single decision, but to guide their elected officials towards a specific destination down the road. IF the citizenship does not like direction that the government is going, they have the right to vote that representative out. Now some may beg to differ (and both conservatives and progressive liberals have both taken umbrage to my beliefs on this matter), but I do not believe our country’s system of governance cannot withstand the populace voicing an opinion on every matter. In politics and the business world (as well football, ahem Mr. Gibbs), it has been shown that delegation by committee does not work.

Now that does not mean that the populace should be inactive outside of an election, they should always be there to keep the politicians honest. I believe it is the part of the minority to voice their opinion on record and document the direction the majority has taken. If you are right in the end, when the time for reckoning approaches, the best way to unseat the majority is to confront them with their own words and actions, to which they will have no response.

In that regard, if you disagree with Dunn: voice your opinion, make sure your representative is aware of your views, fully comprehends the issue and understands the ramifications of their decision. If there is illegal actions or pay-to-play issues that need to be addressed, then by all means address them in the correct legal manner.

However, in the end if there is no illegal action being taken by the representative, you should lick your wounds and wait until the tides turn. To me that is where the blogs have done an amazing job in creating a forum to engage and inform the community. Make sure that everyone knows the aspects of the important issues and where they believe mistakes have been made.

Unfortunately in this circumstance, bad actors have come into play. The debate has been hijacked by certain individuals who do not care about the causes, only the players. They do no care about the governance, but those who govern. We are now faced with a popularity contest of the worst regard that was non-existent a few years ago, that now has elected officials dropping out, not because the electorate has rejected their leadership, but because personal attacks have become too much. How is it good for democracy that discourse has been replaced by baseless accusations and bullying? Why are the minorities in the minority party allowed to dictate who is acceptable of praise and who is deserved of scorn?

It should be evident to even the silent observers that the opinions on certain individuals can change with the wind and can be turned on. If this is allowed to continue, who will want to subject themselves to that level of unbalance scorn? The community will have to settle, when before it was allowed to choose.

There has already been rumblings of discontent, but there needs to be a decision that is made about these blogs- will they bill a tactic to educate and galvanize the public or will they be a tool to ridicule those whom you disagree with? There needs to be an eradication of the negativity on these blogs, from the blogger to the commenters to those who read without remark.