Rule #6: Consequences don’t have to be fatal
NO,this is not the opening of a political book I’m writing. These are some verbatim remarks I’ve heard from politicians around the country expressing their disgust and disdain for those who hadn’t supported their reelection campaigns and vowing to have a long memory about the offense.
This buzz saw of political anger seems to await anybody who backs a losing candidate. What should community leadership do when they put their money on the wrong horse? Should they give up? Sit tight and wait for four years? Hope against hope that everybody calms down?
It is patently clear that the victorious elected officials in this scenario will be mad. But when our community is formulating a strategy for re-engaging with them, it’s important first to distinguish legitimate anger from illegitimate anger. Elected officials annoyed with you because you preferred a different candidate’s policies are exhibiting illegitimate anger. Elected officials annoyed because they faced attacks based on personal grievances and personality beefs are exhibiting legitimate anger.
Which did your community engage in? If you were engaging in personality politics, the relationship is likely irrevocably harmed. But if you were arguing over policy, what reason does the elected official have to stay angry?
Create a free account to keep reading.
