A commentary of this writer’s recent remarks of disillusionment with political blogging disappointingly demonstrates exactly the arguments this writer was making. It supports the notion that many Progressive Labour Party (PLP) representatives and their supporters prefer to shoot the messenger rather than discuss the message. It supports the suggestion that many incorrectly believe that the only reason anyone would criticize today’s PLP is because they are prejudiced, while also supporting the incorrect belief that bias is only acceptable when it originates from a pro-PLP source. It is this Us vs. Them mentality that does nothing to move Bermuda forwards and is one that too many are being sucked into. It causes us to lose focus on what actually matters and has caused many who actually do care about real issues, including this writer, to feel tired, saddened and disillusioned by Bermuda politics for it shows no signs of abating.
In an update of my ongoing disillusionment with Bermuda’s political spectrum posted on Monday I suggested:
[The PLP and it’s support base] is more interested in attacking the messenger than rationally discussing and debating the message, at which point one begins to wonder what the value of attempting to deliver the message really is.
While my remarks unfairly generalized out those good people in the PLP, they were epitomized by 30 Strong, a writer of the PLP’s youth blog. In his commentary, rather than focusing on debating what was said, 30 Strong paints false and invalid assumptions upon my character:
… in my opinion, [Denis] never really tried to see the good the Government was doing because he was prejudiced against them in the first place.
30 Strong’s opinions in this regard are completely incorrect and support the suggestion that anyone who criticizes today’s PLP will be attacked as prejudiced, often times by individuals like 30 strong who utilize a PLP sanctioned medium to express such views and do so while hiding behind a pseudonym.
As proof to the contrary of 30 Strong’s opinion, he is invited to meet or speak with PLP Member of Parliament Michael Scott who can attest to the fact that a significant amount of this writer’s time and services were provided at no cost or expected compensation to the Telecommunications Ministry during Mr. Scott’s tenure in hopes of assisting our government and our island. This directly contests 30 Strong’s view that of this writer’s supposed long standing prejudice against the government.
Without basis for his conclusions, 30 Strong continues:
[Denis’] disillusionment with politics is more-so because the PLP won.
Again, 30 Strong would be best to educate himself by reviewing pre-election day remarks regarding expressed disillusionment prior to stating his assumptions. It isn’t the specific victory of the PLP that has turned many off, but instead the victory of Us vs. Them attack based politics and it’s continuing climate; of which members and supporters of both parties are guilty.
In spite of the the examples provided above which attest to the contrary the assumed prejudice painted upon this writer, 30 strong continues in his attempts to project bias by seeming to suggest that critics should evenly focus on criticizing UBP members as equally, as often and as harshly as PLP members regardless of circumstances. This while not placing any such requirements on those who are pro-PLP. Indeed, should you decide to disobey and break laws simply because you don’t believe in them and happen to express pro-PLP bias despite the laws being the child of this government, well, you just might be senate material.
While ignoring that as incumbent, the PLP inherently attracts more attention to their actions, 30 Strong’s example goes no further to prove his case when he suggests:
A Denis Pitcher that criticizes Mark Pettingill just as harshly as he criticizes Lovitta Foggo will be much more highly regarded.
Truly focusing on bettering our island isn’t about winning popularity contests or getting high ratings, is about standing up for what is right. This writer makes all attempt to do so by calling out those who in the opinion of this writer are wrong or do wrong. However, being that Mr. Pettingill has never been written of on this blog, it is a large leap to consider that this writer should be endowed with some sort of omnipresent superpower that allows him to track his every word and action. Indeed, comparing focus on Mr. Pettingill to Ms. Foggo is weak when considering that Ms. Foggo was a candidate in the constituency of this writer and thus was of specific focus and attention.
Indeed, even when 30 Strong attempts accusation of not having criticized the UBP as harshly, this writer maintains that when aware, he lays criticism when criticism is due. Such an example exists when one reviews the criticism made of UBP Deputy Opposition Leader Patricia Gordon-Pamplin when she created a spectacle by launching a preemptive and public emotional attack on her husband. In this instance this writer went so far as to question her ability to handle herself in other situations and questioned her viability as a potential leader of our society, an opinion criticized as overly harsh by numerous UBP supporters.
30 Strong’s commentary of this writer’s recent remarks of disillusionment with political blogging disappointingly demonstrate exactly the arguments made. Thus, my dear reader, you can now look back on this time that has now been wasted defending the character of this writer that could have been spent rationally discussing and debating real issues. You can see that if you choose to question the intentions or motives of our leadership you will have dirt thrown at you in hopes that it will stick. Indeed, you can see that as a thinking individual your thoughts are only warranted when they agree with expectations and otherwise you will be accused of prejudice and bias as you are painted as the enemy. It is this mentality that overshadows real issues and impedes real discussion. As long as it does it will keep us from moving forward and will enshrine failure in our future regardless of the intentions of good will expressed by our leaders. This is the very reasoning why some question the value and energy required to debate issues important to our future when debate is neither desired nor welcome in the ‘new Bermuda’.