Anyone who has spent some time observing local politics from the ground level will recognize this story.
There is a controversy - over a tax or a rezoning or a plan to give marshmallow peeps to orphans, it matters not. Eventually, an opponent of the plan will accuse someone in favour of having been paid off.
That this has happened in history is undeniable. But it is far from common.
Many people believe there is only one acceptable point of view, and they hold it. Anyone who disagrees with them, therefore, must be a stooge or a dupe.
So let me provide you with a short list of possible reasons why the person on the other side may hold a different opinion from yours.
? They are just wrong about the facts. It's hard to argue with people who are wilfully stupid, but they are a significant faction of the public. There are, right now, people who still believe the Earth is flat. The Flat Earth Society actually has a website, which means they are connected to the rest of the world via undersea cables, microwave transmission towers, and satellites - all of which are planned and created based on our knowledge of a spherical world!
You can't argue with people whose basic grasp on the facts is so at odds with reality.
? They are biased.
Everyone has biases. We are none of us perfectly rational and equipped with the wisdom of Solomon.
But we all think the other side is more biased, of course.
Sure, bias can skew any debate. We voted for the party that's proposing the plan, so it sounds good.
We voted against that other party, and clearly those jerks are just out to get us!
Is the plan good, bad, or indifferent? How your opponent feels is based on a lifetime of accumulated cultural baggage, and you aren't going to sweep that all away in a minute, no matter how eloquent your argument for free parking on Sundays.
? They just want different outcomes.
This gets down into the "no right answers" territory.
There's a plan to reduce parking downtown, say. One person objects, because how will he find parking for the minivan that transports his three kids, two dogs, groceries, and his daughter's peewee soccer team?
The other person is opposed, because he prefers to walk and bike downtown, and he's tired of almost get-ting run over by flocks of minivans.
Each is arguing from their own interests. No matter what Ayn Rand said, there is no single objectively right way to live and behave. At best, we can say that more people are happy with Plan A than Plan B.
Some people just like different stuff. Some like new buildings, some old, some like tall and some small.
They're trolls. I mean this in the Internet sense, not the monstrous, man-eating ogres sense. They're disagreeing with you not because they really do, or even because they care about the issue, but because they want to bug you. For fun.
The proper response to trolling is to ignore it completely. Starve the troll, and he will depart. Feed him with rants and freak-outs and red-faced yelling, and he will keep poking you.
But money? Money is the least likely cause.
I think it might also help to keep in mind, even if only in the back of your mind, that some or all of the above points might apply to you, too.
So please, stop accusing people of taking money when they disagree with you. Accuse them of being deranged, wilfully stupid trolls instead. It's more polite.
Matthew Claxton is a reporter for the Langley Advance.
