Dan DeWalt, a frequent contributor to these pages and one of the founders of this newspaper, writes that if he didn't love his country, he "wouldn't spend so much time trying to get it to live up to its purported principles."
WILLIAMSVILLE-Censorship is coming into vogue thanks to the tender feelings of the snowflake Trump administration.
To maintain their fiction of white supremacy, MAGA word warriors are busy excising inconvenient words, phrases, and facts from government websites and documents. No noble deed or achievement, if performed by a non-white person, is immune from being declared "fake" or a concoction of the dreaded "DEI." Questions that may cause some discomfort to a white person are no longer welcome in MAGA-land.
Now that same regressive mindset seems to be infecting some Vermonters' attitudes about Vermont Town Meeting.
In Newfane, some residents has asked the Selectboard to accept resolutions that pertain only to in-town affairs: no more debates about a nuclear weapons freeze, growth hormones in Vermont milk, illegal and ill-advised wars based on lies or, most recently, speaking out against genocide in Gaza and apartheid in Israel.
* * *
When these and other such resolutions have been passed by small-town residents in tiny Vermont, they have had an outsized impact on the world around us. For whatever reason, when Vermont Town Meetings speak, the nation and the world listens.
Maybe it is because the people who bring these resolutions have usually done their homework and are prepared to share factual information and cohesive arguments with their neighbors.
Maybe it is because observers are impressed with the sincerity of reasoning and tact with which these questions are debated or how townspeople can passionately disagree on an issue but still shake hands after the vote, with no personal animosity or harm to town interpersonal relations.
Indeed, the conduct, quality of debate and decorum at Newfane Town Meetings are a perfect example of what James Madison, advocating for the Constitution, described in the Federalist Papers as the ideal for American politicians.
Madison knew that good representatives would need to be well-versed in the subtleties of the issues of the day, literate, and open to persuasion, and they would need to put the good of the nation above all other considerations in their deliberations.
* * *
The politicians who are failing us so miserably in Washington, D.C. and, to a lesser extent, in Montpelier would have benefited from attending last year's Town Meeting in Newfane.
For over two hours (after all the other town business had been debated and voted upon), residents on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian question engaged in passionate, fact-sourced debate.
And over that time period, even as opposing beliefs held firm, appreciation of the value of all the arguments was acknowledged, some degree of compromise was implemented, and after the vote, "winners" and "losers" embraced; we congratulated ourselves on a job well done, and we left Town Meeting proud of our hard work and obvious caring for each other that allowed us to engage in such tumultuous debate without damaging our body politic.
But now, some residents, as well as some members of the Selectboard, want to take away this important means by which we can exercise the maximum possible power and influence that we might have on our world.
They say that Town Meeting should be about only roads and taxes and other matters confined within our town boundaries. They imply that we the people have no right to weigh in on big topics that are under the purview of the professional political class, that big questions have no bearing on our town governance, and that it is wrong to bring important state, national, or international issues up for discussion and vote.
They are in essence saying that we do not merit a podium, our views have no value, and we should stop trying to influence politicians who are treating us and the Earth with such blatant disregard.
If the political class had not stopped doing its proper job over the past few decades, maybe we would not have to weigh in on these issues.
If the trillion dollar wars didn't exact a significant monetary toll on each one of us via federal taxes, then we wouldn't have to pinch pennies to provide our children a decent school that doesn't leak rain or poison them with chemicals.
If local values such as community, mutual respect, care and empathy for our neighbors, and a genuine interest in understanding our community needs were being honored by the political bodies who govern us, then we wouldn't have to take a moral stand to decry their misdeeds that put us in harm's way and are examples of the worst that humanity has to offer.
* * *
In order to disparage this long-standing custom of citizen-generated articles on the Town Meeting warning, detractors claim that it is just a few zealots who are forcing their will on the town.
But, at least in Newfane, 5% of the voters in the town must sign on to any petition for an article to be warned, a significant number that reflects grassroots ground work and a substantial number of citizens who see merit in the article in question.
Getting an article warned and debating it at Town Meeting is a fully democratic process from beginning to end. It makes us better citizens. It requires us to connect with our neighbors. It increases interest in Town Meeting, especially among young people who have drifted away from the tradition over the years.
Let's not spend all of our energy trying to stifle debate, cheapening our own value as thinking persons, and digging a hole that we can hide in as disastrous governmental policies overwhelm our lives and our communities.
Let's instead put our energy into understanding the issues of the day, making our case for or against propositions concerning them, and proudly exercising our rights to be the best citizens that we can.
We and Vermont deserve no less.
This Voices Viewpoint was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.