Note: The following expresses the opinion of Thomas Essel, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Ye Olde Journalist.

In 1938, author Stephen Spender was the subject of several vitriolic attacks from George Orwell, who called Spender, among other things, a “parlour Bolshevik.” Spender resented the insult. Later, after briefly meeting Spender, Orwell withdrew the attack, which caused a confused Spender to inquire of Orwell, “…I am puzzled as to why when still knowing nothing of me you have attacked me; and equally puzzled as to why when still knowing nothing of me, but having met me once or twice, you should have withdrawn these attacks.” Orwell responded:

“Even if when I met you I had not happened to like you, I should still have been bound to change my attitude, because when you meet anyone in the flesh you realize immediately that he is a human being, not a sort of caricature embodying certain ideas. It is partly for this reason that I don’t mix in literary circles, because I know from experience that once I have met & spoken to anyone I shall never again be able to show any intellectual brutality towards him, even when I feel that I ought to…”

As he usually did, Orwell makes a valid point here. When confronted with people whose ideas and actions we disagree with, we have two choices (three, if you include ignoring him or her): either you set up your opponent as an abstraction to be used as an intellectual punching bag, or you can engage with them personally, but as a consequence realize that they have valid reasons for their beliefs, just as you have for yours. Both of these choices have their merits and particular uses. I bring this up, because I have chosen to take the latter path in my dealings with Springfield City Councilmember Justin Burnett.

Firstly, it should be remembered that it was Justin Burnett who expressed a desire to mend fences. After rescinding his resignation, Burnett said in a press release, “We don’t have to fall prey to the incivility that is crippling both our state and national politics. Let’s fix this—together.” As I said before, I agreed wholeheartedly with that sentiment, though at the time I took it with a healthy dose of skepticism. In my article Same Old Politics? I hope not, I wrote, “if Burnett can maintain the maturity and conviction shown in his latest statements, we could see a real shake-up in city council. People truly are tired of partisan politics; if Burnett can follow through and find his stride, he may yet prove to be just what the doctor ordered for city council. I don’t expect him to become a bleeding-heart liberal like myself, but a move towards the center should be welcomed by everybody.” I made this statement in response to Burnett’s actions, who could have easily rescinded his resignation and issued a statement saying he was going to fight for conservatism, or was refusing to back down, or some of the other typical political posturing we see from conservatives like Kristi Fulnecky. However, in what was at the time an out of character move, Burnett didn’t do that, which was, in itself, a telling and hopeful sign.

The second point to consider is the political reality of the entire situation. Like it or not, Justin Burnett is on city council, not you or I. Newspaper criticisms and Op-Ed debates can only be effective to a point, and at the end of the day it is still Burnett who holds the political power. After rescinding his resignation, Burnett said in an interview with KOLR 10 that criticisms of him played a role in his decision to resign, but he later decided that resigning was “the easy way out.” This told me two things: one, that the criticisms had worked, and two, that Burnett was at the very least willing to entertain the idea that he can be wrong.

Taking all this into consideration, I decided that criticizing Burnett in the press had outlived its usefulness. Any further attacks on my part would certainly have been popular and fun reading, but presented before me – before all of us, really – was that rarest of creatures: a politician who can be reasoned with. Faced with these facts, I decided that further attacks in the press could only serve to further polarize the political landscape, thus wasting a genuine opportunity to actually accomplish something concrete.

For the above reasons, I reached out to Burnett and we decided that meeting for coffee and conversation was the best way forward. I won’t comment on our private meetings because I told Burnett that they would be confidential. The only thing I will say is this: Burnett isn’t as bad as people, including myself, have made him out to be and, also, I genuinely like the guy. In the last month, I like to think that Justin Burnett and I have become friends. That does not mean, however, that we suddenly agree on everything. There are plenty of issues we disagree on, though most of those issues fall outside of Burnett’s political influence, so they are pointless to bring up here. To end, I will paraphrase Dr. Cornell West’s comment about Ralph Reed: Justin is a friend, “he’s just wrong about a lot of things.” I have no doubt that Justin will return the sentiment in kind.

In the near future, I plan on addressing further concerns people have and also what I view as a regressive, unhelpful attitude coming from many on the political left in Springfield.

 

Image: Justin Burnett for Springfield / Facebook