In this politically divisive era, I attended a really refreshing event Tuesday night.
The Newton Republican City Committee invited three Democrats — state Sen. Cindy Cream, Rep. Ruth Balser and Rep. Kay Khan – to meet with them at the Emerson Community Center.
And they accepted.
And although GOP City Committee Chair Tom Mountain’s invitation to his members was certainly divisive, the event turned out quite differently.
It began with Mountain presenting a rather rambling history of famous Newton Republicans; followed by ten-minute presentations from each elected leader, outlining their legislative agenda and goals; followed by an hour or so of questions, answers and – almost always – civil back and forth conversations.
Even though the 40 or so attendees included a half dozen or so folks wearing bright red Make America Great Again hats and even though there were substantive disagreements on issues – immigration, guns, abortion — the speakers all received warm rounds of applause. Other than one fellow who stormed out because he didn’t like Balser’s denial that she didn’t support infanticide, everyone was pretty cool, calm and collected.
Unlike a recent Land Use Committee meeting (go to the 1:58 mark here), there was no shouting, no hissing, no boos.
To their credit, the Democratic lawmakers didn’t pander or seem to water down their answers.
And to their credit, the attendees shared their perspective and their concerns and then listened to what their guests had so say.
It was frank, respectful and encouraging. I learned things from both sides. I suspect others did too.
Here’s hoping it becomes an annual tradition.
I attended a Republican City Committee meeting this fall to speak in favor of the allowing retail cannabis shops in Newton, and had the same experience. The group was extremely polite, welcoming, and a number of people stayed to chat after the meeting. I, too, found it a refreshing change from the contentious land use meetings and hearings, where rude behavior is all too common.
I’m very happy this event turned out well. I give our legislators credit for showing up and speaking their views.
Believe it or not, most people are pretty darn reasonable and can often agree to disagree nicely.
I hope that this event will inspire
the residents of Newton who talk a good game about tolerance to behave in a tolerant manner when the opportunities present themselves.
Newton may be at, or near the top of many lists, but being tolerant is not one of them.
@Greg
Given your hatred of Tom Mountain,
it’s refreshing to see you write something positive about something
he organized or was involved in. I appreciate you being open minded about the event.
Thank you for that.
@Paul Green: Tom can be quite cordial and affiliative in person but he takes a much more combative and confrontational approach in writing and at public meetings. He’s like two different people.
It did not surprise me that Senator Creem and Representatives Balser and Khan acquitted themselves well or that the Republican audience was polite and responsive. I was pretty certain that would be the case. I’ve worked with Republicans on some issues where we are on the same page; not many, mind you, but some important ones. We like each other. They are puzzled how someone like me who seems so friendly and reasonable can hold so many left wing views. For my part, I am totally perplexed at how these otherwise sane and decent folks can hold some of the views they do. The fact of the matter is that the more we get to know each other beyond the political rhetoric, the more we realize that there are some fundamental values we all share.
Having attended the meeting (back of my head, short guy, in the photo), Greg is quite accurate. By far, the most questions and disagreement were over immigration, where the three state legislators conveyed essentially that there is no, nor should there be, distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration (illegal immigration being merely a civil infraction rather than any criminal illegality).
Particularly interesting was both Sen. Creem’s and Rep. Balser’s responses to questions of the impact of a continuing open U.S. border and their endeavors to make Massachusetts a sanctuary state. Both legislators cited that their drive in this area stemmed from their sensitivity being Jewish, that many Jews (like their ancestors) were so fortunate to arrive in the USA, but then were blocked from entry after the early part of the 20th century, especially during the holocaust where FDR and the U.S. Government refused entry to Jews fleeing death from Nazi occupied Europe.
I explained there was a massive difference between those seeking asylum from torture and death like the Jews of Europe, and those (many many millions more) currently from Latin America seeking primarily better economic opportunities — and what it means to the current citizenry (many objecting) essentially to have no border as to those currently arriving (at least in the Republican view) illegally. The legislators respectfully listened, perhaps being their first time PERSONALLY confronted on this issue. At the same time, there is no expectation they’ll revise their positions (which from my perspective is OK because it’s the ticket to Trump’s re-election in 2020).
That’s the type of people I remember.
I agree. It was a refreshingly civil meeting and I didn’t expect it to be when I saw the invitation.
@Jim Epstein — what makes you think that people from Latin (and Central) America aren’t trying to escape torture and death?
And Jim, I’m sure you realize that there were a significant number of Jews who immigrated to Boston decades prior to the Shoah, probably the majority of Boston’s Jews, many looking to escape persecution, but also looking for better opportunities for their families.
Good for our reps for serving their constituents. I’m glad to hear the meeting was civil, and I trust that most of the people there are good people, but reportedly there were fascists in red hats in attendance and others who tolerate and support Trump. I do not believe they deserve to be treated with any civility.
Adam, those Jews who immigrated decades prior to the Shoah, came as legal immigrants.
In this discussion, the issue is coming as illegal immigrants but then claiming asylum.
In those days, they just showed up at a port of entry and had alien status until declaring intent, sometimes a decade or two later, and applying for citizenship for their entire families. Those were different rules, but that’s entirely the point, and just one reason why it’s hypocritical to defend this administration’s treatment of immigrants as an American Jew.
All four of my grandparents were born in Ireland between 1848 and 1861; yes that’s the truth. Well before 1864 when Ireland first began conducting formal government sponsored census campaigns and before the ending of our own Civil War. They came to this country sometime in the mid 1870s and landed in Boston instead of New York because the fare was cheaper. There was a US customs official on the dock and he essentially wrote their names in a ledger which made them immediate citizens. The Democratic ward boss was also there to register them to vote and get them lodging, food and jobs.
There’s a lot of talk today about how immigrants had to “earn” their citizenship, but my grandparents got it just by surviving the Atlantic crossing. My dad’s folks wanted to forget Ireland and become assimilated Americans very quickly; not so on my mom’s side. My grandfather on her side never acknowledged his American citizenship and there’s no record he ever voted. The cellar of his home in the South End was a secret hiding area for stored rifles and other pieces of military equipment that were on their way to being shipped to Ireland for various rebel activities including the Easter Uprising of 1916.