Freezing Out Dissent in a Community Election

Political figures at the community level often frame criticism of their voting record and policies as “personal attacks” for important strategic reasons. This strategy can serve as a diversionary tactic. It shifts the focus from the objective and substantive issues that interest the community, such as a candidate’s on-the-record statements, voting record or policy positions, to the alleged personal attacks. This can effectively derail discussions or debates about their past and present platforms, actions or decisions.

Candidates may use the perception of being under personal attack to galvanize their base of supporters in the community. By framing criticism as an attack, candidates can rally their base of supporters, strengthen loyalty, and mobilize their supporters to take action. We see this even more frequently now in an era of national polarizing political discourse.

By framing critics of policy and practice as engaging in personal attacks, candidates can attempt to undermine their opponents’ credibility. This can be a way to discredit the policy opposition without directly addressing the criticisms raised against their policies or voting record. This allows a local politician to sidestep accountability for their actions, decisions, or policy positions. When there is so much data and information available to members of the community about a candidate’s record and positions this then becomes an effective political tool.

Although community members may have been exposed on the national level to this messaging, it can be difficult to identify in local community politics. By employing these tactics, candidates navigate the complex landscape of social media coverage, often seeking to maintain or enhance their standing, deflect criticism, and advance their political agendas. Silencing critical policy debates may unfortunately be the result of this form of political messaging in a local community election.

That said, we acknowledge that spreading unfounded assertions or false information about candidates, directors and office holders can have serious consequences. It undermines the democratic process, can unfairly damage individuals’ reputations, and contributes to a toxic political environment.

Promoting informed and respectful discourse supports a healthy democratic process in Oakmont or any community.