BELONGING TO MANY WORLDS BUT BELONGING TO NONE

AN ONLINE MAGAZINE

| 2007 Archive
| 2006 Archive
| 2005 Archive
| 2004 Archive
| Respond

FROM THE MARGINS | BY PATRICK AZADIAN
Los Angeles Times Valley Edition | Glendale News-Press | March 17 2007

Tunes for different audiences

I used to think "integrity" was a word used by Republicans to discredit Democratic candidates. Maybe it's just my imagination, but Democratic candidates and officials seem to have a tendency for extracurricular activities.

When I think of Democratic indiscretions, I think of Monica Lewinsky, Marilyn Monroe and a certain boat called the Monkey Business. Yet Republican imprudence brings to mind Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair.

The only non-scientific explanation I have for this phenomenon is an obvious one: Republicans are conservative and Democrats are less conservative.

Maybe I have grown up, but I have come to believe integrity does actually matter when choosing candidates.

But how do we define "integrity?"

The best approach to this question is to limit the definition of integrity to the type of issues that are actually relevant to the tasks and obligations of the elected officials. That's the type of integrity check I'd like to do before I vote for a candidate. I really don't care if a certain candidate likes to spend his spare time at the roulette table in Las Vegas. What I do care about is if a candidate claims to be an environmentalist, he is not driving a 12-cylinder German luxury boat to work every day.

The Glendale municipal elections in April will be a good arena for residents to do an integrity check on candidates. One of the things I'd personally like to see is if candidates can publicly stand behind some of the statements they make in tight and ultra-friendly circles.

As the population of Glendale has become segmented in the last few decades, it has become easier for candidates to preach and promise all sort of things to different sections of the population. The hope is that the word will never get out; maybe the candidates will have their cakes, and eat them too.

But as balkanized as our population may seem, it does not mean Glendale residents do not have ties to one another. We have friends, family members, co-workers, employers and employees who come for all races, ethnic groups and of course, the two genders. So the word gets out.

Some of the strategies candidates are using in the upcoming city elections have the potential to chip serious points away from their "integrity tank."

There is the "They are taking over Glendale, let's keep things the way they were," slogan. We all know, deep down inside, things cannot be kept the same as they were half a century ago. We are an evolving city and a dynamic nation. The best we can do is to keep the good elements from the past and keep pace with the times.

Riding the perceived xenophobia wave may help certain candidates win some votes by instilling fear among residents, but what does it say about their character and long-term vision?

I am not suggesting that there is no cultural friction in our city, but creating scapegoats for our city's problems to win votes is not kosher in my book.

There is also the opposite strategy: "'They' are keeping us from being rightly represented in city institutions." This theme resonates well among minority groups and the city's ethnic population. What it does not do is to ask the right questions from the same communities on what they are proactively doing to become better represented in this community. How are they weaving themselves into the fiber of our city's institutions?

Again, I am not suggesting that everything is peachy-peachy and that we have reached the heights of equal opportunity for all residents, but this campaign strategy takes responsibility away from the communities in question and breeds a victim mentality among our youth.

Thanks to the segmentation of our city, a single candidate can play both tunes to different audiences.

Moreover, a candidate can preach the "bringing the community together" in the presence of a mixed crowd.

How will we define whether a candidate has not chipped away too much from his integrity supply during the election campaign?

Here is a sample test: Ask yourself whether the candidate can stand behind their message with a larger and more diverse audience.

If it is the truth and they are willing to stand behind their words, then they should command our respect, regardless of whether we agree with their message.

What would be the alternative? Voting for someone who has opposing messages for different audiences? How do we trust someone like that?

Copyright 2007 Glendale News Press