> SOUTHERN INDIANA — “As an advocate of free speech, I always prefer more speech, not less.”

— State Representative Ed Clere, in The Tribune

•••

Many readers will recall quaint instructional films of the early Cold War era, evocative of television's “Leave It to Beaver,” as in the one where children were going about their daily routines in a tidy classroom, when suddenly a loud whistle was heard. Immediately, the children dropped their books and dove beneath their desks, hugging the floor while wrapping their arms around their heads.

It was no tornado drill. In fact, children were being taught how to react in case of nuclear war. With Commie missiles launched, atomic bombs dropping, and mutually assured destruction under way, our youngsters would stay safe because they knew how to “duck and cover.”

Who'd have imagined that a half-century later, right here in Southern Indiana, politicians would emulate the archaic “duck and cover” drill — and in participatory social media, no less, where hundreds of onlookers can share in their unintended embarrassment.

•••

Backsides currently obscured by protective desktops, these politicians (and certain other community heavyweights) presumably are ducking and covering because of their misplaced enthusiasm for a demonstrably bad idea: The Ohio River Bridges Project (ORBP).

Polls indicate rapidly hemorrhaging public support for the monstrously overpriced project's two spans and Spaghetti Junction refit. Southern Indiana voters are overwhelmingly hostile to the suggestion that tolls on existing bridges be imposed to finance the $4 billion boondoggle. Concerns are being raised as to the role of an extra-governmental, unelected bi-state authority.

In the aftermath of the New Albany city council's wondrous resolution condemning tolls on existing bridges, I decided to canvass local politicians to learn their views on tolling, and to publish these at the NA Confidential blog. Of prime importance are those candidates on the November ballot, whose position on tolls obviously is important for informed voter choice.

Consequently, I was delighted to see that Chuck Freiberger and Ron Grooms (candidates for State Senate, District 46) and Shane Gibson and Ed Clere (candidates for State Representative, District 72) all have campaign pages on Facebook.

Social media sites represent immediacy and two-way communications, something especially valued when it comes to politicians. Once you are a “friend,” or in certain cases “like” a Facebook page, you may post comments and interact. I followed social media protocol, and posted my question at three of the four candidate pages, omitting Gibson, who'd already taken an anti-toll position in his Tribune guest column.

"Can you explain your position on tolls for the Ohio River Bridges Project? Thanks."

•••

After four days, veritable decades in social media time, Freiberger responded:

"I am in support of building and maintaining infrastructure, such as a bridge, to make it easier for Hoosiers to commute to and from work and other daily activities, however I do not agree with placing a toll on the bridge as it is currently presented."

Torturous, but an answer. Also after four days, Grooms passed the buck:

"There is a bi-state bridge committee, appointed by the Governors of Indiana and Kentucky that is reviewing many options to fund the bridges project. When the coalition issues their report, I will have a comment on the Bridges Project."

Throughout, Clere remained silent. Daily activity continued at his Facebook page, certain indication that he was aware of it, but the question remained unanswered. After a few days had passed, I repeated it. Within hours, the purge began.

Both citations of the question were deleted, and I was summarily “de-liked” — in effect, kicked off the page and denied commenting privileges. When I noted this occurrence elsewhere, others went to the Clere campaign page to repeat the question. The same fate awaited them: Deletion, and “de-liking.”

Not only did the Clere campaign opt for less free speech, rather than more, but the intemperate reaction seems to have influenced Grooms to follow suit. After a brief Facebook chat, in which Grooms remarked that he could not possibly decide about tolls until January 2011 — far too late for voters seeking information this November — the entire exchange was deleted. At least I remain a “friend” there.  

Whether poor timing, bad advice, paranoia, or maybe even hubris, I can't say. Right up until the Clere camp rendered me into an Orwellian non-person on Facebook, I'd been under the impression that while not agreeing on every topic, we were agreeing to disagree. My voting decision had yet to be made.  

Of course, unfamiliarity with the proper use of emerging social media might be the culprit, although it would seem that any “advocate of free speech” would grasp that deleting questions and squelching dissent suggests paternalistic, top-down communication between politician and voter, and cannot possibly constitute examples of optimum social media usage.

Muzzling befits Falangists, not Facebook, so call it censorship, or call it rewriting history — I call it inept and self-defeating — and however termed, this insular impulse to eliminate a legitimate question with ill-advised strokes of electronic white-out is worrisome. The question merely becomes more insistent, and fair-minded people wonder: Why hide? Why not just answer it?

In 1962, ducking and covering would not have saved anyone, and in 2010, it should not suffice as campaign strategy for otherwise intelligent, well-spoken candidates who quite plainly know better, but somehow believe they can avoid an issue that is resonating with voters on both sides of the river.

The question remains for both Clere and Grooms:

“What is your position on tolling to build the bridges?”



Roger expects an ambush at today's Bridge Authority meeting. and if it occurs, the carnage will be surveyed at the NA Confidential blog: www.cityofnewalbany.blogspot.com