Want to Kill Democracy? Keep Silencing Critics—And While You’re at It, Start Harassing Them Too

And to Make Matters Worse, His Family Starts Harassing You...

If you look closely enough, you will see that there is always something to discuss in a small town. Because of that, we will not do a deep dive into our local government today. Instead, we are going to take a closer look at behavior. Let me set the stage for you. Imagine you are expressing frustration about something with your local government—like poor infrastructure or a lack of transparency on projects funded by your tax dollars. Instead of addressing your concerns, the mayor fires back with something along the lines of, "If you don't like it, why don't you run for office yourself?" To make matters worse, his family starts harassing you—posting rude and degrading comments or even whispering and spreading rumors about you due to their ride-or-die loyalty to the family member holding office.

This kind of scenario isn't uncommon in McGuffey and should raise some red flags about how leadership can go wrong. If the governor of Ohio and his family behaved this way, people not only in McGuffey but all over Ohio would be up in arms, demanding he step down. However, in small towns, personal relationships with elected officials like the mayor or council often lead us to excuse this poor behavior, even though it's deeply problematic. This behavior impacts civic engagement and reveals the ethical values—or, in some cases, the lack thereof—of the leadership running our village.

Deflection vs. Accountability

At first glance, when someone tells another person, "Run for office if you don't like it," it might sound like a perfectly reasonable suggestion. After all, democracy works better when elected officials and citizens actively participate, right? But let's pause for a second because, too often, when this phrase is used, it isn't a genuine invitation to run for office. It is used to sidestep accountability so the elected officials do not have to acknowledge or engage with the raised concerns. It allows the user of this phrase to shift the focus back onto the critic and away from the real problem. Essentially, they're saying, "Your concerns about how the government is functioning are not my problem—they're yours."

When this happens, most people feel dismissed. It discourages citizens from voicing their opinions, attending meetings, or participating as they should. After all, why speak up if your concerns are just brushed aside?

The Role of Harassment in Silencing Disagreement

The situation in McGuffey becomes even more troubling when the mayor's family gets involved. Imagine sharing your opinion, which has already been dismissed, only to be bombarded with rude comments and personal attacks from people close to the leader. These intimidation tactics—even if not directly orchestrated by the mayor—are deeply concerning. Harassment, whether from family members, staff, or supporters of an elected official, creates a chilling effect for anyone who disagrees with the current political climate. It makes people think twice before speaking out about problems due to the risk of backlash—not just from the leader but also from their inner circle. This behavior erodes trust in leadership and limits open, honest civic discussions.

What This Behavior Reveals About Leadership

When leaders react defensively and negatively to criticism, it often points to deeper issues with their ability to lead. Are they insecure? Do they lack the emotional intelligence needed for their role? Or are they intentionally trying to silence opposing opinions?

A great leader sees criticism as an opportunity to listen, reflect, and improve. They don't need to agree with every point. Still, they are responsible for thoughtful and respectful responses to valid concerns. Dismissing those who critique them undermines the very principles of democracy and accountability.

The Broader Impact on Civic Engagement

Here's the bigger problem: When leaders dodge criticism by playing the blame game, it discourages people from participating in their local government and has long-term damaging effects on the community. It makes citizens feel like their voices don't matter or that speaking out will result in personal attacks. This creates a toxic government environment with long-term effects, including reduced trust in government, fewer people willing to participate in elected roles, and a lack of diversity in decision-making—issues McGuffey is already experiencing.

Democracy thrives on open dialogue, even when that dialogue addresses uncomfortable topics. Leaders who shut down criticism and refuse to discuss issues openly create the kind of echo chamber we currently see—where only those who agree with them feel safe to speak up.

The Ethics of Leadership and Family Involvement

Leaders have a duty to uphold ethical standards that go beyond what the state has outlined—not just for themselves but also for those in their circle. If family members and friends engage in harassment and retaliation, it reflects poorly on the leader. Leaders must set boundaries to ensure personal relationships don't interfere with public duties.

This can be tricky because leaders must constructively engage with citizens while separating personal and public roles. However, when they succeed, it fosters a positive culture and respectful environment where citizens can safely express their concerns and opinions without fear of retaliation.

Moving Forward: A Call for Ethical Leadership

Criticism is an unavoidable part of leadership, and how our elected offices respond to citizens' criticisms matters. Their responses say a lot about their character and how truly committed our elected officials are to serving their community. Leaders who choose deflection and harassment over dialogue and accountability fail those who criticize them and the people they represent.

For those who might not see eye-to-eye with the critics, here is something to think about. Criticism plays an important role in holding leaders accountable. Pointing out poor behavior and having citizens who promote ethical government practices is necessary for a healthy, thriving democracy that wants to progress and succeed. Leaders and citizens must work together in open dialogue so McGuffey can grow stronger and more connected.

So, the next time an elected official or fellow citizen tells you, "If you don't like it, run for office yourself," take a moment to reflect: Is this an invitation to participate and make a difference, or is it a way to shut down a necessary conversation? The bigger question might be this: how do we advocate for a leader that values accountability and respect for its citizens and government duties? In the end, every community truly deserves leaders who wish to progress, and if the community cannot provide such leaders, should they still be a municipality as is, or is it time to try something different?

I hope this finds the right people and opens some eyes. Make sure to come back next week when I'll return to my regular content and go over the information I've obtained about the McGuffey Park Project. It appears I'm not the only one trying to track down those documents.