If I am a voter interested in not electing a terrible person into office, am I really a part of the cancel culture? I mean, bear with me for a minute:
Do I want a person who is willing to repeat any lie representing me in office? No.
Do I want a self-serving person representing me in office? No.
Do I want a gullible person who easily believes wild and baseless conspiracy theories representing me in office? No.
Do I want an overtly racist person representing me in office? No.
Do I want people who hide behind virtues rather than embodying them to represent me in office? No.
If not wanting terrible people in office is spun and branded as cancel culture becoming a rallying cry for folks interested in holding public office, aren’t we in fact encouraging terrible people to run for office? As voters, isn’t close examination of a candidate’s character a positive thing to do as we go about selecting representatives our representatives?
If getting behind a person surrounded by scandal and controversy is now a virtue, are we not sending the message that scandalous and controversial are character traits that are desirable in our representatives. Where do we draw the line? I think we are at the edge of a very slippery slope for our democracy. Sometimes a disruptive force can be very positive in achieving progress, but the key word in the statement is progress. What if all a person brings to the table is disruption?