The state senatorial race in the Southern Brooklyn Chinese district has been heating up with intense competition.
Reports reveal that over 2,000 campaign signs were lost in one camp, while others resorted to sticking posters on second-floor balconies to prevent vandalism. A video circulating on WeChat on Tuesday showed a heated argument between an elderly man distributing flyers and a woman, followed by a physical altercation reminiscent of gladiators with a young man. Upon hearing snippets of “Republican” and “Democratic,” onlookers could only speculate on the unfolding drama.
The disputes and confrontations raise questions of right and wrong, highlighting the complexity of political campaigns where one video or party’s account may not offer a complete picture. It’s important to note that the actions of overzealous supporters do not necessarily reflect the candidates themselves.
These “battle of the signs” are not unique to the Chinese community. In 2023, complaints were filed with state authorities and the police in New York over stolen or damaged campaign materials, with laws citing the theft of campaign materials as “unfair campaign practices” or “acts of political sabotage” — however, due to lack of evidence, many cases were left unresolved. This goes to show that even in the midst of intense competition, the law may fall short at times.
The heightened involvement of Chinese Americans in politics raises the question of whether the maturity level of political engagement can also be elevated.
Politics inherently involve differing viewpoints. The value of democratic politics lies in allowing for diverse opinions without the need to conform to a singular ideology. While this principle is well understood, it’s intriguing that individuals can act rationally as observers but tend to become steadfast in their beliefs when directly involved. In times of urgency, trying to impose personal truths on others may be perceived as “for their own good.”
This mindset may sound familiar to many — “scolding is a form of love, not loving enough results in a kick.” However, political debates are not akin to disciplining family members, and politics should not involve dictating neighbors to adhere to one’s beliefs. When positions shift from “who I support” to “how dare you support them,” escalating to snatching flyers, removing campaign signs, or physical altercations, it jeopardizes the everyday relationships within the community.
Mature public discourse can be sharp in perspective without raising voices, and it can be confrontational while solely discussing viewpoints without attacking the individual. When someone becomes visibly agitated, shouting loudly, and full of hostility — the focus shifts from the argument to emotions, losing sight of the essence of the discussion, contradicting the initial intention.
True maturity doesn’t imply devoid of emotions but rather entails respecting the free will of others even when staunchly believing in one’s correctness. Just as even God, when trying to save people, can only advise and guide, waiting for hearts to change without enforcing change; shouldn’t we leave room for choice when communicating with one another?
The active participation of Chinese Americans in politics is commendable, yet what everyone hopes to see is respectful and issue-based competition rather than resorting to vilification. Beyond the outcome, there is a greater expectation for post-election collaboration, setting aside differences and working together to advocate for the best interests of the Southern Brooklyn Chinese community.
This endeavor is challenging yet immensely valuable. If one day we can transfer this skill back to our families, workplaces, and communities, politics would undoubtedly become more civilized, and interpersonal skills could take a leap forward together.
Politics can be passionate, positions can be clear-cut, but neighbors need not become enemies.