The Importance of Challenging Cynicism Towards the Constituency
Alternatively titled: Indeed, Integrity Does Matter
by Devon Dabney
Whenever the word cynicism is used in relation to politics, it is typical for the conversation to be framed around the voters’ views of their elected/would-be elected officials. The formal term for this is political cynicism and it is defined thusly:
Political cynicism refers to a skeptical or distrusting attitude towards politicians, political institutions, and the political process as a whole. It is characterized by a belief that politicians are primarily motivated by self-interest, deceit, and the pursuit of power, rather than genuinely working in the best interests of the public. Political cynics often view politicians as untrustworthy and prone to making empty promises, and they may perceive the political system as inherently corrupt or ineffective. This cynicism can lead to apathy, disengagement, and a lack of faith in the ability of politics to bring about meaningful change.
In the complex landscape of politics, it is not uncommon for politicians to harbor cynicism towards their voting constituents. Not only do they harbor it, too often, many rely on it. Cynicism related to their voting constituency says, “I can say one thing in one room and the total opposite in the next—because, who’s going to compare notes?” Or, “I can run on/as one thing, but govern or make policy in antithetical fashion—because who’s going to check?” We never seem to talk about this though—or the outworking thereof.
Some politicians may underestimate the savvy and concern of their constituents regarding the alignment of words and actions. This perception, coupled with their existing cynicism regarding integrity, honesty, and leadership capacity, can lead politicians to believe they can break promises and outright deceive voters without consequence.
Take the case of the incumbent who proclaimed a stance against tax raises only to vote in favor of them soon after being elected.
She’s been directing voters to her performance at the one and only forum held for this election. So many contradictory statements made, it took my team several days to collect the receipts (there were no time stamps connected to the questions asked) which elucidate the discrepancies…but they did collect them all. It is disturbing to say the least—that and the offline campaign of disinformation wantonly launched to distract from her utter lack of success as a full time, part time councilwoman. What’s worse, she cannot point to a single thing she has accomplished by way of leadership (as Mayor Pro Tem) or by way of collaboration with other council folks.
In fact, when asked about an accomplishment she is most proud, she had to point to her time on the Rivermont HOA. Nothing could she point to as a councilwoman. When asked about traffic woes and her thoughts/plans for remedy, she had none. She failed to say that, not only does she not have any plans for remedy, she opposes funding a Traffic Master Plan or even a traffic study of the existing traffic flows at all. She didn’t expect anyone to check, perhaps?—or that anyone would be smart enough to know?
She courts support from extreme, divisive political factions—though not openly, but talks about loving all people and wanting to “help people.” Dark actors acting as surrogates for her/her campaign, have attempted to malign my good name to some and insight fear in others. Some have approached me directly, saying that I “had a choice” to run against someone other than my opponent. [I was so disturbed by this that I reached out to her in order to discuss it. Integrity demands that daylight be cast on it. So, I wanted to give her a chance to explain.]
And then, there is the “money power of Johns Creek-North Fulton” said to be influencing all of her decision-making. Who are these people? Are they the representative body known by far too few as “the eighth man on council?” If so, this might explain the comfort my opponent seems to have that she will be re-elected despite having nothing but empty promises to show for her two years finishing the seat of another…or why there is so much gridlock on council.
In these perilous times, and just as we are bracing for another recession, it is crucial to recognize the detrimental impact of cynicism towards the voting constituency. To bridge this divide, it is vital for politicians and citizens to foster open dialogue, mutual trust, and active engagement, ensuring that promises are kept and voters' interests are prioritized.
By assuming that citizens won't check behind them or compare notes, politicians perpetuate a cycle of distrust and undermine the foundation of a transparent and accountable political system. And so, we have to ask ourselves why a politician would assume that citizens won’t check—because there is always a ‘why’ for actions taken, especially in politics.
Anything done in harm to the greater sum, often inures to the benefit of a few. So, we must always ask, “who benefits?” Who benefits from increased millage rates or defunding public safety initiatives while demanding that council fully fund nearly 100 million dollars in projects—at once, or performative diversity nods, or chicken little style budgetary posturing concerning shortfalls? Who benefits from the discord and gridlock on council? Who benefits from dark money whispering in the ears of elected officials?
The Integrity of this sacred process demands that the voting constituency of Johns Creek ask,
WHO BENEFITS?
Comments