I don’t usually take Tom Mountain too seriously but, perhaps given our overall political climate, his latest TAB column got under my skin.
Mountain’s column begins, earnestly enough, reminding us that Newton is indeed home to many Republicans and that the rest of us in our little bubble have not necessarily been welcoming to neighbors or our kids’ classmates whose parents enjoy Rush Linbaugh, Howie Carr and Sean Hannity.
She’s in the political closet because she’s learned that Newton is not inclusive to her kind. She believes that the PTO is not welcoming to someone of her political persuasion. She feels threatened by the lack of political diversity in the city. She’s fearful that her children will be targeted by the PC thought police. And she’s spent many a sleepless night worried that she’ll lose her job if word of her Republican status gets out.
But Mountain has never been able to avoid the same smug name-calling he always feints to be so sad about. He lambasts Newton’s “white liberal privilege” and Newton “teachers who dress like Hillary and preach like Obama,” a statement that’s both sexist and racist. (Really Tom, how should female teachers dress?)
He’s right when he writes about the need for more political tolerance and less hypocrisy in our community. We need that now more than ever. And as chair of Newton’s Republican party, he’s in the perfect job to set the right tone and example. (Although, ironically, did you notice how Mountain never mentions all the Charlie Baker Republicans who live in Newton? I suspect that’s because Tom doesn’t genuinely tolerate those sorts of Republicans.)
But mostly Mountain blows his argument when he suggests following his advice would allow “liberals [to] truly feel good about themselves, which, after all, is really what matters to them anyway.”
It would be great to have leaders in Newton that could steer us from mimicking the vitriol that divides our nation. But this chair of Newton’s Republican Party will never be one of those leaders.
@Greg: Hear, hear.
I thought Tom had dropped the caustic shtick in favor of a kinder, gentler approach. I’ve heard him say as much (although I’m not sure he’d agree with the use of the word “shtick”). This column just sounds like he’s looking to start a fight.
There is a good argument hiding under his arrogant bullshit. I can feel the pain of being a republican in a place like Newton. But yeah, he did blow it big time.
I’d just like to say that I have never worn a pantsuit to school. Ever.
@Jane: If you don’t wear pantsuits to work which PC Thought Police approved tactic do you employ to ensure that the children of closeted Newton Republican parents know that you don’t accept them?
As a card carrying member of the PC Thought Police, I’m more than pleased with the job we’ve done of making sure everyone in Newton is tolerant of all those “different people”.
(For all you conspiracy theorists out there, this is a joke.)
The most vocal and high profile leaders on the right in Newton are also the least thoughtful and most inflammatory, at least in the last 17 years I have been here. It is a shame.
Tom’s comments seem to me to be making a serious point in a tongue-in-cheek style. The hate spewed by progressives towards those who disagree with them is amply evident on this blog. It’s simply unimaginable to them that any intelligent person could have an alternate point of view on any PC issue.
Folks, your close-mindedness and hyperbolic nastiness is really frightening. As difficult as it was, we got through Obama, without the vitriol we see against Trump (and Republicans), who isn’t even president yet.
@Barry: I disagree with this..
I think there’s been tons of vitriol directed at Obama, including for seven-plus years from Birther-In-Chief Donald Trump.
But I generally agree with rest of what you said.
Mountain does raise a serious point but my point is as chair of Newton’s Republican party he needs to drop the the snark and his own name calling.
Either be a flame throwing TAB columnist or GOP chair but you can’t be both.
Mountain’s tone and approach certainly does not reflect an approach or tone the Newton Republican business leaders that I interact with regular on a regular basis through my day job favor. And his antagonizing approach to what I would call Charlie Baker Republicans who live in Newton is also totally inappropriate for a party leader.
Amen to that Barry!
It was satire with a ring of truth to it.
Why is everyone so angry and defensive of Tom’s column if there isn’t some truth to it?
From my latest Facebook post:
Today I came across an opinion piece by Tom Mountain, who is a long-time Newton resident and Chair of the Newton Republican Committee. Mr. Fountain’s premise is that there isn’t enough inclusivity within Newton’s political circles, which has real world, negative implications. That’s my takeaway at least, and here’s why I agree. I encourage you to read this entire post to see if you do, too.
Character and perspective are developed through experience. How we see the world and communicate with those within it is all relative to what we’ve been through to get where we currently are. As many know, I was born and raised in Newton. But I also come from a different background than the vast majority of others who were born and raised in Newton. I was born to a teenaged mother with a middle-school education. I’ve never met my father. I was raised in public housing and on welfare. When I was a teenager, my mom was sentenced to nearly three years in prison, which gave me a less than 1% chance of graduating from college. I helped raise my little brother through some tough times that I wouldn’t wish upon my worst enemy. Through it all, however, I overcame my surroundings because I was fortunate, every step of the way, to be afforded with the opportunities and tools that I needed to develop the values and character necessary to overcome any hurdle thrown in my path.
Over the past few months, I’ve been meeting with many residents from all different backgrounds to hear directly from them how our government can work better. I’ve also been meeting with past and present elected officials, city employees, and other individuals who are involved in the political process. Here’s what is abundantly clear: the political climate in Newton is broken. At face value, the progressive Newton establishment stands for inclusiveness and progressiveness. In practice, however, I’ve found the lack of political courage to be deeply, deeply disappointing. For example, behind the scenes, I have many prominent Newton residents strongly supporting me. However, zero of them will do so publicly because they literally and legitimately fear retaliation by the political establishment. This problem is so bad that the vast majority of Newton’s political establishment won’t even like my Facebook page. Here I am working hard to communicate how we can solve issues such as affordable housing, lead testing in public housing, closing the achievement gap for Newton’s demonstrably poor, making sure no Newton student goes to bed hungry or without heat in the winter; and yet disappointingly, most in Newton’s progressive political establishment won’t even take the first step of listening.
It doesn’t end there. Not only is there a palpable fear of retaliation – go ask former city employees what happens when you disagree with the Mayor on something – but people like Greg Reibman, president of the Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce, take it even further. For example, rather than do his part to reverse the cycle of negativity in Newton politics, Mr. Reibman went out of his way to write about me in a defamatory way on his blog (Village14). Rather than welcome me and my ideas into the conversation, which Mr. Reibman has never done, he chose to take action designed to further promote the divisiveness and lack of inclusivity that is holding our community back from reaching its full potential. How are we to move forward?
Using the word “inclusive” to describe ones self doesn’t mean that he or she prescribes to it. As a believer that actions speak louder than words, I look to how we consistently treat others different from us. Based on my interactions with Newton’s political establishment, thus far, I’m seeing the exact opposite of what I believe in, which is treating everyone equally and with the respect that they deserve. However, because I also believe that each and every one of us can play a valuable part in leaving our community better than we found it, it is my hope that rather than be a part of the problem, more of us develop confidence in the fact that we can choose to be part of the solution if we work together.
To those of you who agree, thank you for giving me hope that we can and will do better.
@Barry: “we got through Obama, without the vitriol we see against Trump” Seriously, Barry? No other president has been subjected to the vitriol directed at Obama, solely because of his race. Birtherism, calling him a Muslim, a monkey. Even Michelle wasn’t off limits – a public official in WV recently referring to her as “an ape in heels.” Certainly Trump has received vitriol, but much of it is directed at his own behavior: shameless misogynistic and racist comments, referring to the size of his genitals during a primary debate, not revealing his tax returns, cozying up to Putin. Yes, there is a difference.
Ann: Well said.
“No other president has been subjected to the vitriol directed at Obama”
Someone must have missed out on the Bush years…
@Leopold: you seem to have not read my whole sentence, which ended : “…. solely because of his race.”
Ann,
I don’t think you get the point. Most public figures are victims of irrational critique by some people. Trump, not yet president, has mass demonstrations against HIM, where vile names are directed at him. Here in this blog we have discussed phsychological counseling for even elementary school kids whose parents brainwashed them with fear that Trump is the epitome of evil.
But this is the “progressive” mindset. You see it in Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, vicious opposition to Israel on college campuses, and on and on. Mass hysteria like this is crazy and to me is frightening, because with such people there are no gray areas, no compromise, no respect, and absolutely no intelligent critical thinking. Just slogans and sound bites.
Tom Davis: Nice post.
I don’t see what Tom wants us to do…
.
Avoid homework and curricula about multiculturalism?
Not teach black history in February? Women’s history in March? (BTW, my bleeding liberal heart would love to see this … we just need to include the story of all Americans in American history, and a change in world history to address, well, the world, and not the world through the eyes of colonialism… but I digress)
Avoid parents talking politics with teachers on school grounds?
Avoid parents talking to other parents about politics, whenever in a group larger than two?
Dissolve the PC thought police so they can’t ‘target’ Republican children?
Avoid teachers commenting on physical characteristics or public behaviours (such as pantsuits or speaking with a cadence commonly associated with preachers)?
Don’t steal lawn signs, or deface property (a.k.a. smash windows) when it belongs to a party you disagree with? (Agreed. I will even extend this magnamity to the jerk in a Hummer who cut me off while sporting a “Yes on 1” bumper sticker.)
.
So here’s my stand: we should teach children about the actual world they live in, and the actual people in it. This includes people that may not look like you, worship like you, have as much money as you, or be attracted to the gender you’d expect. This includes both the great (throwing off monarchy, attaining near universal sufferage, atomic fission and the atomic bomb) and shitty (slavery, redlining, blaming gays for AIDS, atomic fission and the atomic bomb) things our country has done. This includes a world history that really is a world history.
.
And as for letting my kid play at a republican house? It depends. Are you going to try teach him that all of “those people” are “like that”? Are you going to question his eventual orientation because he openly cares for his younger brother, his favourite color is teal, and he is obsessed with “cute things” like pikachu and baby penguins? In short – will associating with you make him think less of himself or others? Because if it will; no I wouldn’t let him over. (Although your kids are still welcome at mine).
.
A Trump sticker on the table means that you cared more about something (trade agreements? Marginal taxation rates?) than preventing a person who routinely dishonours contracts, degrades other human beings through direct insults and mocking charactures, and has bragged about sexual assault on camera be president. I can’t explain that – I’ll tell my kid that good people can believe wrong things (see Abe Lincoln’s racism), but as long as you’re not trying to convince him of it, go ahead. Goodness knows your kid might stumble across a fundraising plea from Amnesty International or Planned Parenthood buried in the mess on my dining table.
.
People are people. I have no problem with republicans, just many of their ideals. So, Tom, if you and your kids are ‘elated’ and ‘looking forward to watching the inauguration in school,’ then good for you. If you want us all to hide our political signs, fine. I’ll even throw in not discussing candidates in public – it’s gauche. But, if it’s a question of what ideals we should hold and teach? Let’s discuss that. In public. Loudly and often. Because you didn’t mention that once in you column… almost as if you were ashamed, or don’t quite want to own up to the Republican ideals.
(That’s OK. According to the current party platform, the best source of those ideals I know of “We [Republicans] do not support the U.N. Convention on Women’s Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, as well as various declarations from the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development.” I wouldn’t want to talk about that either.)
Wow, Anne is really filled with hate for her stereotype of a “Republican”. That’s what I was talking about.
Nice deflection, Barry.
Those who say Tom Mountain’s piece is written “tongue-in-cheek” either aren’t familiar with its definition, missed his meaning or are among the “closeted Republicans.” He is not being humorous – he means precisely what he says. Admittedly he couches his message within absurd situations but his title and his choice of words ring loud and strong. It’s written precisely to ridicule the Trust Act itself by comparing its function to the plight of republican PTO mom’s, republican children forced to learn multiculturalism in school, republican kids whose liberal friends’ moms refuse play dates, and closeted republican PTO mom’s need for safe places at their children’s schools.
These closeted republicans, who voted for DT, who get their news from Hannity, Limbaugh, and Alex Jones, must fear the terror of being exposed just the same as those who fear for their safety in our country now. (There, that’s tongue in cheek.) They fear the loss of friends – not the loss of life, not deportation from the only country they know and not being put in internment camps or deported because of their religion.
The new and improved republicans, conservatives who scoff at our constitution, who distrust the government unless it favors them, who are creating a charter school bubble and who want to police religion believe differently than my many republican friends. They get hugs.
@Barry
.
I work with an out-and-proud Trump supporter; it’s fine because at work we mainly stick to work. If you stick to the issues that are at hand your political beliefs will inform what you advocate for. For example, what should the PTO support? I thought Burr having the Chinese Dragon Dancers and the field trip to Newton’s Chinese Community center was great, but if that’s too much “multiculturalism” for a “republican mom” she’s free to suggest other activities.
.
Also, what should I assume about a Republican’s beliefs and world outlook? I’ve read the Democratic platform – and it corresponds well with my beliefs – so yes, I identify as a Democrat. I would presume that someone who identifies as a basketball fan would know the rules, and a Celtics fan could name the current and some historic players and team rivalries.
.
You choose what identity you put on in public. If you’re “out and proud” as a republican; then I assume that you agree or sympathize with the Republican platform. Including that marriage should be between a man and a woman (pages 11, 12, & 31) and that we should construct a wall along our whole southern border (pg. 26). If this doesn’t represent you-as-a-Republican, perhaps you should rething your public support of this party
Anne,
You mistake my opposition to knee-jerk progressivism as support for the Republican Party. That’s because you live in a black and white world with no gray areas. If I don’t support everything you feel you must support, in the way in which you do, then you place me on your enemies list. I feel bad for you, but I feel worse for the US, because you vote. Your narrow-mindedness in this regard is evident in everything you write.
This may surprise you, but the US is not made up of pure Democrats and pure Republicans, at least not if one thinks about one’s personal opinions on issues.
Barry – I agree that issue-by-issue that it isn’t which is why I focused on issues that a straw-republican might support. If this “republican” opposes all of the issues in the platform (and I confess I haven’t read the MA Republican platform) then why are they identifying as such?
And I don’t think that the ways of supporting something are different from support. I’d like to think that everyone in MA is proud that our public schools are the best in the nation, and united in doing better where even being the best isn’t good enough (Springfield comes to mind.) I don’t think that more charter schools are the way to accomplish this – in fact, I think that they will defund the existing public schools – adding some higher-performing schools at the cost of lowering overall performance is (I believe) a red-herring to defund and destroy private schools. I actually attended a lovely brunch where friends, friends-of-friends, etc. debated the propositions for three hours! I think that my views might have swayed some to vote “no,” and the views of the lady who had taught at a charter in another state (and how well she felt it tailored to the student’s needs) might have swayed them to vote “yes.”
Disagreeing on the way to accomplish something (e.g. better schools) can be real disagreement. Because the different ways of getting there are _different_ and have both different outcomes and side effects.
To go back to the article, I don’t think that anyone’s going to lose their job for their political affiliation, but if they repeatedly insist that a gay woman stop referring to her wife as her wife because “marriage is between a man and a woman” … then there’s an argument that they’re behaving in harrasment of/discriminatory behavior. If I were HR of that company, I’d want it to stop, yesterday, because it could open the company to lawsuits.
One of my neighbors has a lawn sign with a train that says “TRUMP” on it and the slogan “Get on board or get run over.” He certainly has a right to have a sign like that, as it is constitutionally protected speech. But his neighbors, some of whom complained to me about the sign, have every right to think he is a jerk. And to say so.
Tom’s piece was a well written, thoughtfully biting, and at it’s core, factually accurate in terms of how the non-most folks in Newton are treated. If he had watered down the piece to avoid the possibility of offending any human, it would not have had the impact.
Compared to the bluntness of the president-elect I think Tom’s piece was downright soft and cushy.
@Charlie: Please tell me that you’re not suggesting that Donald Trump should be the baseline for determining how offensive something/someone is.
@Gail-LOL…. not baseline…more of a benchmark.
btw… in my comment at 12:12p today above, it should have read “how the non-most liberal folks in Newton are treated
Provides more clarity.
Meanwhile, might I suggest a new topic of the difference between how the 2 best funded mayoral candidates are at odds with each other on the sanctuary city topic?
Charlie,
Point me something that sets out Scott’s and Ruthanne’s positions on sanctuary cities, and I’ll be happy to add a post. Good topic to discuss.
Every 4th of July and at the Upper Falls Village Day in September, I make it a point to leave the Democratic City Committee’s booth and move over to where the Republicans hold court. We share a lot of disagreements and have a lot of laughs. The fact of the matter is that I know and really like many of Newton’s most vociferous Republicans because I’ve worked with them on several local or village issues where their conservative views and my progressive stands seem to dovetail. There are such issues, believe me. I also listen carefully to Jim Cote, the City’s only self identified Republican who has a lot of real life experiences I do not. Jim is another guy you can debate things with and have a good laugh with at the same time. Jim has done a lot of work with Jimmy Carter’s “Habitat for Humanity”. He’s got some ideas about affordable housing in Newton and I’ve asked him if he would share them with the Newton Highlands Area Council in the not too distant future.
No, I haven’t gone over to the GOP. Far from it. I’m one of the organizers for a big rally we are going to hold on Sunday, January 15th from 1-3 PM at the Scandinavian Living Center. My guy Bernie Sanders is a key national organizer, but Hillary’s Newton folks, the Newton Democratic City Committee and other groups are also in on the action. Rallies like this will be taking place across the Country on the 15th. They are a first step in organizing a strong grass roots campaign to turn back what are clearly going to be major assaults on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA and various critical programs that serve American’s veterans and disabled persons. Put it on your calendar and I’ll post more details in a few days.
I meant to link to this a few days ago, it’s a Joe Battenfeld column in the Herald that quotes Tom Mountain threatening not to help Charlie Baker with his reelection campaign in 2018.
As I’ve said before, I bet there are more Charlie Baker Republicans in Newton than Donald Trump Republicans. So why is Tom the Newton GOP Party Chair?
It would be great to hear from some local party activists about this.
@Sean-
Scott is publicly with the Mayor on retaining the current policy. I believe Ruthanne is a co-docketer of the Sanctuary city proposal. It strongly supported by the NDCC and appears to almost have enough votes to pass, although several of the votes appear tepid, at best.
I fully support Mayor Warren’s position on working within the current structure. It is a gutsy position for him to take.
To vote for the Sanctuary city proposal might seem like a humanistic vote, but it puts the residents of Newton at a public safety risk, it will mean the loss of 12 million dollars in federal aid (3MM for our schools), it would be in direct violation of the oath of office our public officials take (supporting the US and MA Constitutions), and it would tie the hands of our dedicated law enforcement professionals.
The more the public learns of this, the more the public will support the Mayor, Council President, Police Chief, and the bulk of our professional public safety officials.
It’s a rare moment that I agree with Charlie, but this public battle over the wording of an ordinance hurts the very people it purports to help. Both groups writing ordinances are on the same side. Making a public controversy of this will only raise the anxiety level of those who don’t feel safe.
As I read the latest proposed ordinance, everything in it is happening now and has been for years. In fact, every city department goes above and beyond the ordinance to assist immigrant families in need. It would have been a nice gesture if the ordinance never acknowledged this.
I’m troubled that the sponsors of this ordinance may not have asked for information from the police, municipal, and school departments to find out what is already being done to assist immigrant families. If this step had occurred, I suspect the proposed ordinance would have acknowledged the extensive efforts to assist families.
The ordinance includes this sentence that refers to policy – not people – and in the process, leaves the impression that the police don’t know the policy or are not following it, which is simply not the case. : “Due to the City’s limited resources, the complexity of federal civil immigration laws, the need to promote trust and cooperation from the public, including immigrants, and to attain the City’s objectives, the City Council finds that there is a need to clarify the communication and enforcement relationship (even in the face of the Newton Police’s outstanding community policing policies) between the City and the federal government.”
Just to clarify, the city has engaged employees in anti-bias work for over 15 years and does so on a ongoing basis.
Mountain is not the only Trump republican in Newton. Check the social media of your friends and neighbors and their true colors come out. Question them about the great wall of Texas or grabbing women and paling up with Vlad Putin and they throw out red herrings or defriend you.
@Anonymous: That’s not my point. I know a number of Donald Trump supporters in Newton. My point is that Tom Mountain should either be a flame-throwing TAB columnist, Howie Carr-wanna be, party activist or he should be the party chair of all Republicans in Newton. Not both.