A "Give Your head a Shake" Moment

I’ll concede that when I wrote the piece in The Hamiltonian entitled Candidates Who Won’t Answer Questions Are Telling Voters Something, it was born out of frustration.

The source of that frustration? A genuine “give your head a shake” moment as I contemplated what true leaders are—and, perhaps more importantly, what they are not.

They are not those who hide behind carefully crafted campaign strategies designed to answer questions only when it is convenient.

They are not those who are unwilling—or unable—to handle difficult and complex questions. They are not those who engage in verbal gymnastics to avoid answering a question, revealing more about themselves in the process than a straightforward answer ever could.

If you are seeking to be our mayor, one of our city councillors or one of our school board trustees, step up and be heard.

Hamiltonians do not suffer fools easily, and they have had enough of political craftiness—and I use that term loosely. They want authenticity. They want people who are unafraid to lead and who do not hide behind their campaigns. They want people who understand that endlessly repeating the mantra “I’m listening” is no substitute for eventually standing up and saying what you actually believe.

Leadership requires having a position. It requires defending it. It requires answering difficult questions when the timing is inconvenient and the answers may carry political risk.

So, let’s hope that when Hamiltonians cast their ballots, we elect leaders—not merely politicians.

 

Behind the Scenes

Sometimes I wish I could share some of the things that happen behind the scenes at The Hamiltonian—particularly when we reach out to candidates with questions. Without identifying anyone, here is a small glimpse into that world.

Some candidates perform remarkable verbal gymnastics to avoid answering a simple question they believe may not reflect well on them. In doing so, they often fail to recognize that the avoidance itself creates a far worse impression. If someone cannot answer a straightforward question during a campaign, what does that tell voters about how they might respond when facing difficult decisions in office? Do we really want elected officials whose first instinct is to evade rather than be forthright?

Then there are the truly bizarre responses—most of which never appear on The Hamiltonian. Every so often we receive an answer that leaves us wondering how the individual concluded they were ready to seek public office in the first place.

Occasionally we encounter candidates who are unexpectedly combative. The hostility seems disconnected from the question being asked and difficult to understand. Once again, it naturally raises questions about temperament and whether the individual is well suited to represent the public.

We also receive submissions  with spelling mistakes, poor grammar, or careless errors. We do not edit them. We publish them as submitted because they tell voters something important. Attention to detail matters. Care in communication matters. If a candidate cannot be bothered to carefully review material they know will be published, voters are entitled to draw their own conclusions.

Running The Hamiltonian requires constant judgment. We generally err on the side of providing Hamiltonians with information rather than withholding it. Sometimes that information arrives polished and professional. Sometimes it does not. Either way, it offers voters a window into the people asking to earn their trust.

Our role is not to protect candidates from the consequences of their own words or actions. Our role is to provide Hamiltonians with the information they need to make informed decisions at the ballot box.

Cal

In a Past Life

A Drink with Then Premier Mike Harris

We Can Do Better Than This

It often pains me to read the nature of some of the comments posted on Facebook in response to articles shared by The Hamiltonian.

A few recent examples illustrate the point.

When we published our review of Mayor Andrea Horwath's first four years in office, we expected mixed reactions. The Mayor has both supporters and detractors, and healthy debate is part of any democracy. What troubled me, however, was not the disagreement—it was the volume of deeply personal and, at times, cruel attacks directed at her.

To be clear, I am not on anyone's side in this mayoral race. Had those same comments been directed at any other candidate or public figure, I would have felt exactly the same way.

Another example arose when we shared mayoral candidate Ejaz Butt's interview in our Before the Ballot – Questions for Hamilton's Next Mayor series. While many readers engaged thoughtfully with his responses, some comments were unmistakably rooted in racism. There is simply no place for that in our city—or in our humanity.

The final example undermines what could otherwise be meaningful discussion. We often receive insightful, thoughtful, and well-reasoned comments. Then, in the final sentence, the writer adds something like, "I'd never vote for that fool," or another unnecessary personal insult. In that moment, the value of the entire comment is diminished and never appears in The Hamiltonian. 

Political campaigns are, by their nature, passionate. People care deeply about the future of their community, and they should. But there is a profound difference between challenging someone's ideas and attacking their dignity.

We can disagree vigorously without demeaning one another. We can criticize policies without ridiculing people. We can expose flaws in an argument without resorting to racism, insults, or personal attacks. If we want better politics, we must also model better citizenship.

Cal

Coincidence?

 Interesting terminology. Probably just a coincidence?

And it Begins....

As I predicted, it has already begun: the dirty—and at times absurd—side of municipal politics.

Over the past few days, social media has once again reminded us how quickly context can be discarded in favour of ridicule. A video clip (the socket puppet one) involving mayoral candidate Scarlett Gillespie has been selectively presented to invite mockery rather than understanding. Anyone who views the full context should recognize it for what it is: a manufactured controversy that deserves no attention.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to be the last time we see this kind of campaigning. As election day draws closer, expect more edited clips, misleading narratives, half-truths, anonymous posts, and personal attacks designed to generate clicks rather than inform voters.

Hamilton deserves better.

Our city faces serious challenges—housing affordability, public safety, infrastructure, taxation, economic growth, and the future of our neighbourhoods. Those issues should define this election, not schoolyard-style political gamesmanship.

Voters should be skeptical of sensational social media posts, verify information before sharing it, and judge every candidate on the strength of their ideas, their leadership, and their ability to govern—not on contrived attempts to score cheap political points.

The campaign is just getting started. If this is any indication of what lies ahead, voters will need to be as discerning as ever.

Why You Should Read Before the Ballot- The Candidate's Guide

When Teresa and I first discussed the concept behind the Before the Ballot series, our goal was simple: to create a fair, non-partisan forum where every candidate would have an equal opportunity to answer questions. Those questions would not always be easy, but they would always be fair.

As our discussions continued, they naturally evolved into another important topic: candidate readiness. Over the years, we have watched many well-intentioned people seek public office only to fall into avoidable traps. Some of those pitfalls become obvious once you stop to think about them. Others are far less apparent and are only understood through experience and an appreciation of the good, the bad, and the ugly realities of running a municipal election campaign.

That is why Before the Ballot – The Candidates' Guide became an essential companion to the interview series. Its purpose is to help candidates present themselves at their very best by sharing practical insights, lessons learned, and strategies that can make a real difference during a campaign.

At The Hamiltonian, we want Hamilton to be led by the strongest possible representatives—not simply by those who happen to be the most experienced campaigners.

If you are running for office, or if you are supporting someone who is, I encourage you to take the advice offered in Before the Ballot – The Candidates' Guide to heart. Even experienced candidates can benefit from stepping back, considering a different perspective, and learning something new. Our hope is that this guide will contribute, in some small way, to a stronger and better-informed municipal election.

Cal

Photos Ops and the Years between

I understand why candidates for political office attend community events, shake hands, meet people, and have their photographs taken. Campaigns are, after all, about introducing yourself to voters.

But does it impress me? Not particularly.

What often strikes me is how carefully staged many of these moments appear. A candidate standing with volunteers at a food bank, smiling with seniors at a community centre, or posing beside a local charity can sometimes feel more like a campaign photo opportunity than a genuine act of community engagement. Voters are perceptive. They can usually tell the difference between someone who showed up because an election is around the corner and someone who has been showing up all along.

It also raises another question. Where were these candidates during the previous four years?

Were they volunteering in the community long before they decided to seek office? Were they attending neighbourhood events when there were no cameras? Were they advocating for causes that mattered, helping local organizations, and building relationships simply because they cared?

The most meaningful photographs are rarely the ones taken during an election campaign. They are the ones that reflect years of consistent involvement, quiet service, and genuine commitment to the people and communities a candidate hopes to represent.

Campaigns come and go. Character is built in the years between elections.

Pic of the Moment

 

Jeb Bush and I, after having lunch.