Political Analysis, Punditry, and Gossip

As I write this, we’re flooded with political questions at every level. Internationally, we’re hearing analysis about which parties can support peace (or war) in Gaza and Ukraine, or getting details about the indictment of the President of South Korea, not to mention the non-stop speculation about what incoming US President Donald Trump will do in his first days in office; federally, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has resigned, leaving pundits exploring who will run for Liberal leadership before the general election later this year; provincially, I hear frequently that a provincial election will be called this spring; and even municipally, we’re going through the process of choosing a new councillor to carry out the rest of this term following the death of Councillor Byron Faretis. There’s plenty to talk about.

From the moment I first became involved in politics at the federal level, I remember diving into the deep end of political analysis and punditry, trying to engage in political strategy. In order to know how best to use scarce political resources, I sought to anticipate what political opponents would do; challenge them over suggestions or innuendoes as much as over published policy or passed bills; and otherwise attempt to control or influence the political discussion and narrative, along with all of the pundits and strategists. For some people, this is a full-time job; for me, it was an almost all-consuming volunteer position. Keeping up with the political news, analyzing every press release and tweet, was exhausting but also kind of thrilling.

But was I really accomplishing anything?

There is a place for punditry: a few people who follow all of the political news can condense it into amounts the rest of us can more easily keep up with, and frame it with the necessary context so that we can understand it and even challenge it. But over the past few years I’ve noticed that punditry and “analysis” has eclipsed real news: there’s more commentary available than substance to comment on, and the commentary has gotten more speculative, judgmental, and misleading. I think that’s particularly true in the US, where media is so polarized that social media companies have stopped fact-checking because they deemed it “partisan” (as if facts have party allegiance).

The state of analysis in Canada is almost as bad: pundits have posted dozens of stories about who isn’t running to be Liberal leader, speculating about those who might yet come forward, and effectively getting a head-start on the leadership campaign and the 2025 general election, still months away. Almost all of it is hypothetical, projections based on comments or tweets or assumptions, all conscious of trying not to have the exact same takes as every other commentator and looking for some more obscure detail or perspective to take the issue deeper (and take up more air space).

As soon as Brighton’s council decided to fill our vacant council seat and open applications to residents, I’ve begun to hear from residents. Some have expressed interest in applying to fill the role, and I’m so pleased and proud to see such a strong list of applicants. I can’t imagine that this many people would have stepped forward if this was a by-election process instead of an application process, and I’m encouraged that so many are willing to serve. I have a suspicion that getting a lot of interest in joining government tends to happen either when things are really bad and people are motivated to get involved to change things, or when things have been going well enough that serving in this capacity seems accessible and desirable, and I really hope it’s the latter. But of course that’s speculation on my part!

But most of the comments I’ve been hearing are speculation, and rumours: about who will apply, and who will win, and who will run in 2026. In the absence of local media pundits, we provide our own punditry. Some of it has already taken a negative turn, with people’s assumptions about who will be selected leading to suggestions to others that they shouldn’t bother, or to predictions about what kind of teams will form in the next election, or judgmental opinions about candidates or councillors. These might be valid questions to ask, but speculation and judgments about them goes beyond analysis, strategy, or commentary, into the realm of straight gossip.

I get why people do this. I do this, still, from time to time, though much less than I used to. I think I can see it more clearly now because I engage in it so much less, thank goodness (perhaps because I deactivated my Facebook account, so it isn’t so easy to post opinions to the world anymore!). It can often be a way of getting a sense of control over things that feel beyond our control; it can even make us feel like insiders, or like we’re helping to influence the outcomes of politics. Having sat at the council table for two years now, I can see that it doesn’t accomplish anything other than to distract from the actual work that council is doing and sow division in the community.

Mostly when I still catch myself doing this, I realize I’m trying to explore my own fears about the future. The future remains a thing over which none of us have any control, and speculating about what might happen can feel good, like we’re doing something. But it also reinforces our fears, changes the way we look at our community and the issues we currently and may yet face.

The obvious way that this negative side shows up in Brighton right now is the fact that I’ve heard from so many people that, while they’re proud of those who step forward, they never would themselves — because politics is so negative, people are so awful toward councillors, or council is so removed from residents, or they wouldn’t want people after them all the time. In my experience, this talk about how awful politics are only really happens when we’re having an election (or in this case, appointment process) or if there’s a particularly divisive issue before council.

With very few exceptions, my time on council has not been filled with negativity, rude comments, or hounding by residents. Sometimes my grocery shopping takes twice as long because a resident recognizes me and wants to talk politics; much more often people wave and smile at me, and I’m not always sure who they are, but I’m sure happy to see them! The number of discussions I’ve had with residents about serious matters of policy has been relatively few (unfortunately), and most often very constructive, despite the fact that this term we’ve faced some very important issues and even a few controversies. For the most part, those controversies barely registered with residents (so far as I can tell); and likewise, our successes seem to have barely registered. So it seems that we all carry on with our lives in relative harmony until there’s a contest, and then the speculation begins — and with it, the sense that politics is negative.

So I repent of practicing political gossip under the banner of analysis and strategy. I want to make sure that what I say, particularly here in a blog that’s supposed to inform residents rather than just provide commentary, is factual as well as thoughtful. I want to focus on the richness of a community in which, when one councillor passed away, eleven* residents stepped forward to fill the gap. I don’t have time to think about what might happen two years from now in the next election; instead, I want to work toward ensuring that I’m part of setting up the next term for success through the decisions we make — and the way we talk about — today. If you see me speculating, here or otherwise, please look me in the eye and remind me that my focus needs to be on the work in front of me today rather than on what someone else might have said about what they might do two years from now.

And if you ever feel the urge to speculate on something council is facing, I’m always happy to connect and give an update on what’s going on, or hear from you about your concerns. Then we can have something concrete to talk about.

______________________

*At the time that I wrote this there were 11 applications. By the time it was posted a 12th had been submitted. I have received correspondence questioning the discrepancy, insinuating that I had intended to exclude someone. In the interest of not supporting any rumours, even those that are deeply ironic, I offer this footnote and hope it will suffice.