November 08, 2005

Working Together

First, let me start by saying that while I am pointing to one person here, I am attempting to do so in a way that provides constructive criticism to everyone out there. Whether you are conservative or liberal, you should take notice of this example.

----
S-Town Mike is apparently up to his divisive ways again. He's gained a bit of a reputation among both sides of the local blogosphere for his rampant divisiveness with those he doesn't agree. Today, it's no different.

Mike writes about tonight's ethics reform town hall meeting (something he supports), but his main point is to attack Tennessee Tax Revolt's Ben Cunningham. He apparently doesn't like the idea that someone he doesn't agree with can sit on the meeting's panel....

Progressives need to take a step back and think very critically about the linkage between ethics reform and Tennessee Tax Revolt that Mr. Cunningham's participation engenders. I know that Mr. Cunningham has taken a personal interest in ethics reform enough to do his own research and make specific proposals via TTR's website. And I respect anyone with renaissance interests and the energy to pursue them.

However, we must not forget the functional service that marrying an unqualified taxation opposition to ethics reform activism provides for Mr. Cunningham's lobby group: it keeps public attention on TTR before, during, and after tax debates; it might even keep the resource pipeline from sympathetic donors and volunteers flowing after tax tempers stop unfraying.

Some great ethics reform ideas have come from both TTR and the TN Center for Policy Research...groups that Mike despise. His supposed hatred for them doesn't allow him to see the positives. This type of attitude only hampers the overall push towards good ethics reform.

Normally having opposing sides come together on an issue would be a plus. Apparently Mike's burn-all-bridges approach doesn't take into consideration the fact that, despite political differences on certain "hot-button" issues, opposing sides CAN come together and work toward common goals...in this case, ethics reform.

Personally, I think it's great when opposing sides come together. Much can be accomplished...but it looks like Mike doesn't see it that way. And again...his use of the word "progressive" is such an oxymoron (especially in this case).

Ethics reform in this state is a vital issue to us all. It's an important enough of an issue that people of all ideological spectrums must put aide their differences and work together. If you don't, then you will only be a liability.

My point is that you should take every opportunity to embrace the opposition if there is an issue you agree on. This can go a long way in building a good reputation for yourself in their eyes and the eyes of the public. When this happens, you gain respect and you are taken more seriously. If that doesn't happen, well...nobody will take you seriously. In fact, people on your own side may even start to distance themselves from you. Who likes someone who is ALWAYS divisive?

Like I said...this goes for ALL sides. Stop being divisive on EVERY issue. That is true "progressiveness."

Update: I just noticed that Bob Krumm wrote about the same thing along with some other good points. Check it out.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

I find it highly interesting that you call Mike divisive, but this guy gets a pass.

Posted by: brittney at November 9, 2005 06:43 PM

Glenn Dean can be divisive, as we all can, but he has reached out to those on the opposite side to work toward a common goal. It may be minor, but the music blog comes to mind. And he has said kind things about his opposition before.

Here you have a situation where Mike has been a proponent of ethics reform (and I applaud him for his past efforts), but when someone he doesn't agree with sits on an ethics panel, he thinks they shouldn't be involved.

Posted by: B at November 9, 2005 06:51 PM