Yes. I think he should be removed from office by being voted out of it, which will require this information to be spread far and wide. Although it might be more effective to sit on it until closer to election time; I don’t know your situation.
Also, what madmonk28 said.
Have you independently verified the information? As others have suggested, it could be a smear job. Remember the vitriol launched at Sarah Palin.
I think your job as a good citizen now is to watch him like a hawk. Investigate his powers and ask for information on how he uses them.
The open racism would be my biggest concern. Make sure he is not allowed to discourage diversity in your community. I would also be concerned about public perception of the community, and whether members of minority groups would feel comfortable buying a home there.
People of conscience must act - in accordance with the dictates of conscience. Doing something underhanded and dirty is wrong, regardless of the impetus.
The bad news is that the “right” response IMO is one which requires a great deal more time and effort. I would suggest getting together a group of like-minded citizens to work together on this.
It’s also important that he is informed of your feelings. He needs to know that his election is not, in fact, a statement of approval for his opinions (and possible intentions). If you value diversity in your neighborhood make sure he knows it.
Passing the information about his views to as many people as possible is a good idea, but I’d cc him. That way he can reply to all and defend himself, if he so chooses. (I predict a Nicholson-style “You’re GD right I did!” response.) Then call a town meeting to talk about what, exactly, you elected him to do.
I think that a politician that has publicized views like these has already made his unusual and disconcerting personal views an element of his performance of his elected post. That is, I agree what matters is what he does, not his views, and posting this stuff is something he does. Posting views like this IS poor job performance for a politician. I think any means of removing him from office at or before the next election are appropriate, provided they are not of themselves unethical or illegal.
And how would you know if he had? People with extreme beliefs aren’t likely to not act upon those beliefs when given the power to do so. Once you have reason to question him it bears investigating.
And, remembering what was proven about Sarah Palin, the complaints could be legit.
Napier said it more coherently than I could have.
How so? Being or becoming a politicial doesn’t mean you lose your rights as a private citizen. If in fact these are his “personal views,” on what basis do they alone, without more, become an “element of his performance of his elected post”?
Again, how so? Especially given that we don’t really know much about what an “elected neighborhood president” does, how to you leap to the conclusion that being a racist homophobic asshole is inconsistent with his duties, so long as his personal views are segregated from his job performance and cannot be shown to impact it? And how can “poor performace” exist automatically? Where, exactly, do you draw the lines for what is acceptable for a “politician” to say, in his personal capacity, and what is not? Is he not entitled to hold personal opinions, or is he just not entitled to state them?
Your dog-catcher could be a card-carrying Nazi, but if that doesn’t adversely affect his performance as dog catcher, there’s precious little basis to complain about his fitness for office.
Well said. I think this is an action. If the guy was going off to Klan rallies and making speeches about how much he hated black people, wouldn’t that be an action as well?
I still think it needs to be proven that it was him who made those postings, but if it was, I don’t see how it’s a smear. It’s something he did.
And if he were, on what basis could you assert he was unfit to do his job? Heck, we don’t even know what the guy’s job really is. What if he goes to the Klan rally but doesn’t say anything? What if he declares his racist beliefs in his church, or at a barbeque in his own backyard?
The whole thing smacks of thought-policing to me, and not in a good way. A private person can believe and say whatever the hell they want – and we should encourage that, so that the assholes are out in the bright light of day. Job-related limits on personal speech should be minimal, especially if the personal speech doesn’t have a demonstrable negative impact on the official’s job performance.
Don’t like him? Don’t elect him next time.
But if it’s politics, isn’t everything up for grabs? Politicians make stupid racist remarks and then often die political death because of it. You’re allowed to not vote for someone for whatever reason you want.
Sure, of course. But the issue in this thread is not merely not voting for the guy next time – which I would be all in favor of. (“Jack Chick? Hmm, have you seen his tracts? He’s pretty hateful and spends a remarkable amount of time damning people to hell. Here’s some evidence. I’m not voting for him and that’s why.”) The issue here is organizing some sort of movement to get this guy removed from office now, based on internet postings, when he was only elected in October. That’s what is giving Ogre pause, and me as well.
You can unelect someone for any reason. Don’t like his tie? Don’t vote for him. But to kick the guy out of office IMO calls for demonstrably poor job performance and IMO holding unpopular views, without more, is not poor job performance. It’s not job performance at all, in fact.
I have no problem waiting in the weeds for the guy, with close scrutiny of every move he makes. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my. Wait for him to fuck up and then hang him for it – fine. But he has to fuck up first.
Hmmm, you’re right. Before the election, that’s one thing, after, though, is different.
Ogre, I think your instinct is correct. This is not something that justifies removal from an elected position. But, I will echo the previous comments that this is a person you should keep a close eye on and see if or how his opinions are coming out in his job performance; then act accordingly, be that at the next election or before, if warranted. I am not suggesting you become a crusader against him or anything, but you may do well becoming a more informed voter about him.
I vote you “right”. In that he, regardless of his possibly despicable personal beliefs, has done NOTHING wrong or in violation so far in carrying out the duties of his office.
So he (presumably) harbors these views. SO WHAT? Would you feel obligated to oust someone who harbored “radically liberal” views under the same circumstances?
As much as I abhore the views the e-mail outlined, I am fully in favor of judging people by their actions, not their thoughts, and of allowing otherwise qualifying individuals to serve an elected or appointed term regardless AS LONG as they don’t allow their views to influence their performance and cause them to violate any law/standards.
To paraprase, I may not agree with your views, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to hold them! DAMMIT!
Suppose this guy DOES act on his racist attitudes. Suppose he systematically acts to exclude minorities from housing or businesses in your community. But as far as you know, he’s doing it “honestly”, out of his own twisted set of values. First of all, is that in itself grounds to remove him from office outside the electoral process?
And suppose his acts ger widely know and he’s elected again? If the majority of your voting neighbors turn out to be equally racist, he is in fact perfect for the job as they see it.
Obviously you and your friends could try a recall, but it would have no real chance, because he was elected on the strength of his evilness.
Is there any other form of legal recourse? I mean, unless you catch the guy taking bribes, simply voting 100% of the time the way white racists would have him vote is not in any way actionable, is it?
Sorry for the hijack, but the questions just popped into my head. I suppose you would have to start up some kind of very public campaign to eventually shame the community into doing the right thing.
These comments are obviously coming from a place much different from my own. As far as I’m concerned, intense, fervent racism and homophobia disqualify everyone from any public office – they are in and of themselves “unacceptable job performance” from a politician.
If there is a democratic way to remove him from office – I see a recall campaign was mentioned – or even if it’s just to begin to campaign against him for the next time, this information should be spread now, unless you think that it should be delayed as a question of optimum timing.
Election campaigns are on-going. The best time to start campaigning against someone you wish to see defeated at the next election is immediately following the previous one.
I am of two minds about this. On the one hand I agree with Ogre, and also with TruCelt that you have to keep an eye on him, and with others who’ve said it’s time for you to find out what a “neighborhood president” is.
On the other hand, assuming the smears are true, the guy is publicly posting racist, sexist etc. crap for all the world to see, and he holds a public office. If you were black and knew that guy was the “neighborhood president,” would you want to move there? I wouldn’t. The Prez is creating a hostile environment for any potential new neighbors as well as existing neighbors. Maybe some of your existing neighbors are gay or have gay children. Someone might legitimately be afraid to live there given the guy’s stated tendency toward violence.
It depends on the grounds for removal from office. Let’s say the guy is actually (U.S.) President Racist-Asshole. The grounds for removal (impeachment) of the president are “conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and midemeanors.” (U.S. Const. Art. II sec. 4.) Are systemic acts to exclude minorities a “high crime or misdemeanor”? If yes, impeach; if no, no impeach. BUT even if grounds do not exist to remove him from office immediately, systemic acts of racial discrimination are illegal and it is highly unlikely he (as U.S. President or otherwise) will be able to simply impose them. Maybe in an area like personal staffing – but discrimination in hiring for racist reasons still nets you a lawsuit (and your employer one as well), it just means you’ll be sued and found liable in your personal as well as your professional capacity. So there are outside limits to what a duly elected racist asshole can actually do to impose his dispicable agenda.
But community standards only get you so far. Even if you’re re-elected to pursue a racist agenda at the local level, you will still find the courts – and possibly federally deployed national guardsmen – standing in the way. Besides, if your voting neighbors are equally racist, they’re not going to recall him from office, are they?
Our semi-fictional racist homophobe may genuinely believe you are disqualified from public office because you are a gay man – that your homosexuality, or daring to post about it on the internet, is in and of itself “unacceptable job performance” from a politician.
And the reason he should not be able to recall you from office for your postings, is the exact same reason you should not be able to recall him for his.
The fact that this is an official, city-level position tells me that there’s probably rules concerning the position. If the position has recall (or no-confidence, or whatever) rules associated with it, then it’d be perfectly reasonable to exercise those rules and recall him. If, on the other hand, he can only be removed from office mid-term through an impeachment process, then no, he hasn’t (yet) done anything illegal (to the OP’s knowledge), and should therefore not be impeached-- But of course, the concerned citizens should watch him closely to make sure that he doesn’t do anything illegal, and throw the book at him if he does.
This is definitely a situation that calls for some research. Find out what he can do, and what you can do about him within the system. And find out what he’s actually doing in his official capacity, and what he has done. Then work from there.