Council Candidate Forum Commentary: Political Violence & Political Dialogue

The League of Women Voters of Adams County hosted a city council candidate dialogue on 9/24.

The first question had all the candidates condemning “political violence” in response to the statement that Mayor Kulmann feels unsafe at city events.

The unspoken context of the question is that Kulmann made the claim about safety in regard to her long-running beef with a local protester.

The question did not ask what should happen when an elected official intentionally creates a violation of her own protection order, using city police to arrest a political opponent only for the district attorney’s office to choose not to prosecute a case that wouldn’t hold up in court.

The question also did not ask how transphobic and other anti-LGBTQIA sentiments expressed by council members increase the risk of violence against community members.

If candidates and incumbents want to have an actual dialogue on political violence, by all means. It is clear some do not.

Incumbent and unopposed Ward 1 candidate Cherish Salazar did suggest that more dialogue between council members and residents would help lower the temperature.

Why is a more honest dialogue important?

For one, Salazar is right. Kulmann and her conservative allies consistently dodge engaging their critics in any sort of public, on-the-record dialogue.

A commitment to dialogue would also stand up to the broader anti-democratic currents in our society, such as Stephen Miller declaring free speech by political enemies of the state as unlawful.

As Miller demonstrates, the accusation of political violence can itself become a weapon, rationalizing unconstitutional action against political enemies.

Authoritarianism redefines nonviolent dissent as incitement to violence while justifying its own violence against dissidents as lawful, moral, and necessary.

When candidates condemn “political violence,” what exactly are they condemning?

Which candidates believe, along with Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon, that the state should suppress political speech in the name of stopping political violence?

How do candidates envision democracy and dissent working, and more importantly, where have they demonstrated a public record of engaging productively in dialogue and deliberation across political difference?