By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

A statement may be factually accurate, but not true. I may say that you have a hysterical fear of water, but I don’t mention that you’re on top of your house, praying for rescue from a rapidly rising flood. The first fact accurately conveys one meaning. Adding the second fact radically changes the meaning.

Now imagine that I’m unaware of the flood, and the first fact is all that I know about you. Imagine that all you know about me is that I keep repeating the first fact. This will outrage your sense of justice and infuriate you. When you fire back, I will be angered by your ‚Äúunprovoked‚Äù attack, and respond in kind. Whatever one of us says, the other will interpret in the light of his or her beginning assumption and view it as confirmation of that assumption. And so it goes.

These kinds of exchanges have been common in Somerville for years now. Only a small subset of people who grew up here, and a subset of Somerville residents who identify themselves as progressives, get caught up in them. So my calling the respective groups “old Somerville” and “progressives” encompasses far too many people. But it will serve for now.

This war of words recently reached the opinion pages of our two local weeklies. A Feb. 28 Somerville News editorial charged that there was nothing progressive about Progressive Democrats of Somerville and accused them of becoming what they most criticized. A week later, my friend Ken Brociner fired back in the Somerville Journal, likening the Somerville News’ treatment of PDS to Senator Joe McCarthy’s treatment of anyone he didn’t like.

I believe that there are factual elements in both critiques. I believe that both fall short of the truth.

I consider myself to be a progressive and a conservative, a paradox that I will explore in another column.

I like many PDSers. I am inspired by everything in the PDS statement of values. Yet I have been disappointed by how they practice politics.

Too many seem reluctant to engage in serious, respectful dialogue with people whom they see as are different from them. That encourages an impression that they imagine themselves to be better than others.

I believe that all social change comes from building relationships. If you can’t form a relationship with someone different from you, you’re not going to make much of a difference. Few of us these days have a lot of extra attention, and before I make the effort to understand and trust what you are advocating, I need to understand and trust you.

Partly related to this reluctance to engage others is a tendency to substitute ideology for rigorously examining the actual situation.  Progressive ideology may provide an accurate description of how and why political and economic forces produce their characteristic outcomes. But there will always be exceptions that ideology can’t explain; only thorough understanding of the situation can explain it.

When people substitute ideology for the hard work required to obtain that knowledge, they discredit themselves in the eyes of those who have the knowledge and everyone who trusts those knowledgeable people.

PDSers have had some electoral successes canvassing broadly and conducting get-out-the-vote campaigns. But most voters’ only interaction with them is when they call or come to the door every year to ask their neighbors for one thing: vote for their candidate. Thus, they do not build the kind of ongoing relationship networks that can support and keep those whom they elect on the straight and narrow, or respond effectively to serious matters that arise between elections. Recent elections and their aftermath have demonstrated that long-standing relationships will trump the one-time sell.

Past organizations like Somerville United Neighborhoods, Civic Associations, the Taxpayers’ Union, Somerville for Better Government, and CPPAX operated by building relationships. Progressives worked with their neighbors and achieved significant improvements. As the institutions of community have disintegrated, advertising has replaced organizing on all political levels. It is possible that young progressives have simply never experienced this kind of organizing, or experienced institutions in which people from all backgrounds are obligated to know each other.

On the other hand, the name-calling in these pages does nothing to make things better. To quote myself: ‚ÄúFew things are as effective at making someone stop listening as insulting them. Doing so in a public forum hurts more than the victim’s feelings. It undermines mutual trust, discourages participation, keeps us separated, and deepens our sense of collective futility.‚Äù

It’s bad enough to insult one’s neighbors. But ‚ÄúQueen Pat,‚Äù ‚ÄúPrincess Rebeckah,‚Äù and ‚ÄúLittle Carl‚Äù have been chosen by their neighbors to represent them in serious matters that affect us all. And Senator Jehlen, Representative Sciorintino, and Alderman Gewirtz have never engaged in the kind of corruption that characterized certain past Somerville politicians.

By the way, knowing the Somerville News publisher, I know as well that he intended no anti-Semitism by the epithet “Princess Rebeckah.” Attributing this to him is an example of substituting ideology for knowledge.

Nevertheless, debasing political discourse to name-calling prevents us from effectively discussing the serious problems that confront us. And comments in this paper’s News Talk section sometimes suggest that PDSers are unworthy of basic respect because of who they are, rather than meriting criticism because of what they do.

I believe that Mr. Brociner is right to criticize the politics of insult. But he is wrong to label it as McCarthyism. Joseph McCarthy’s intent was to destroy the lives of anyone whom he chose to label as a ‚Äúcommunist.‚Äù He had the authority to send innocents who would not cooperate with his inquisition to prison. He had the power of the state to intimidate employers into denying a livelihood to his chosen enemies.

The Somerville News’ only power is to persuade or insult its neighbors. Doing either is an expression of the freedom of speech that McCarthy sought to suppress. I fear that confusing this with McCarthyism can undermine people’s ability to detect real McCarthyism when it emerges.

There is much that old Somerville and the progressives could learn from each other and accomplish together. So who will reach out first?

I believe that the onus is on the progressives for two reasons. First, the inclusive and participatory politics central to their stated purpose only achieves real meaning in action. Second, they are disproportionately newcomers to a city that they did not build. As my mother taught me, when you are in someone else’s house, you express appreciation and show respect.