I appreciate this article as a plea for everyone to return to civil “civil discourse.” We are all entitled to disagree and we all have our own perspectives and agendas accordingly.
In our current political climate, I appreciate the throwback to the Federalist faction (note, not the political party) of Madison and Hamilton (and Jay). Even though both had polar opposite views on interpreting the Constitution of which both were championing, they and their opposing Anti-Federalists engaged in article writing and civil discourse to achieve their goals. This is what is celebrated in the history of our democracy, not the base cat-calling that happened in parallel to the intellectual debate.
As a teacher of American history and celebrator of democracy, I applaud the effort to return to this type of political battling.
Whether I agree with your politics or not, Shaun, I appreciate your effort to return to civility. I appreciate reasoned different points-of-view.
Thank you for this, Audrey. This is precisely the sort of democracy I was hoping to praise, revivify, and foster in the face of the demagogues who have hijacked the discourse — and I’m glad we aren’t alone (even if we disagree)!
Oh yeah, the downside of not having Miyares there protecting Trumpism while pretending he doesn't know the guy. And getting voted out as a result. Even with Republicans withholding evidence of a potential crime by his opponent for 3 years - because they'd rather have it as an election tool than see justice served. Though it put one of their own and his family at risk.
So the downside of getting rid of that, however questionable the replacement?
Shaun's back.
Whenever I feel bad for the peregrinations I utilize in my missives that so many despise, I can always comfort myself that there is someone who does it more, and is even more obtuse and wandering, were that possible.
And yes, it is funny - this ideal that VA Democrats should not do any gerrymandering here because it is not the Virginia Way - when Virginia Republicans at every level have shown their own unquestioning loyal support for a national system where that nationalism has had so much of an impact on Virginians.
Their jobs, their rights, their taxes, their economy, their dignity, their decency.
How dare they presume to fight back?
The nerve.
Anyway, I guess it's true that every bright bit of sunshine has a dark lining....sigh.
Part 1 comment: I'm reading Shaun Kenney's article through the lens of what's going on with the recent 22401 LOCAL COUNCIL election: ONE-PARTY dominance by the local Democrats, who have divided the city into political tribes by using a blue piece of paper.
The contentious endorsed FDC ballot. which, yep, was effective in getting their candidates elected, so the LOCAL candidates didn't have to knock as many doors as the NONPARTISAN candidates did to listen to a DIVERSITY of residents. Not just stay in their political 'bubble' that there could be two sides to an issue that residents want to hear.
We used to be a 22401 city in which we got along with others and didn't even know which political party a Councilor belonged to.
No longer.
I couldn't even talk to a walk-up voter at the LOCAL VOTE NONPARTISAN table at the corner of Wolfe and 601 Caroline St without having the FDC Vice Chair yelling out 'not true. NO!' on every sentence I was trying to speak during my quiet explanation to the voter on the choices for LOCAL NONPARTISAN candidates.
That is until I turned my phone video on her, which shut her up right quick.
Part 2 of Comment re: Shaun Kenny's article (Reader: Refresh. Click blue 'Expand Full Comment' at bottom):
So I looked up what Federalists would think of the local ONE PARTY RULE on Council:
Federalists would view local ONE PARTY RULE in Fredericksburg as a manifestation of factionalism, a "dangerous vice" that threatens the public good and the rights of the minority.
They would argue that such a concentration of power could lead to an "overbearing majority" that sacrifices justice and the rights of other citizens to its "ruling passion or interest".
Hence, all the 'virtue signaling' that goes on with these types on the Council and Planning Commission dais, instead of sticking to the black/white language in the board doc. e.g, 'Are the Performance Agreement Standards for 8-12 DATA CENTERS at 'Celebrate Virginia' ready?' Heck no! but 'they' feared developer Stack Infrastructure would pack up their marbles and leave their Goliath game. so they rushed their vote through. On an "aggressive' timeline-- their own words.
'Is the ADU/Accessory Dwelling Unit Text Amendment ready to pass?' Heck No! unsafe conditions, no egress window in the basement ADU, etc.
Key Federalist arguments include:
Inherent Dangers of Faction: James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, described factions as an inevitable result of human nature and diverse interests, but warned that they are a "mortal disease" of popular governments. He would see a ONE-PARTY COUNCIL as a single, dominant faction.
When 'a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens' (Margaret Mead) go to the public comment mic, they are dedicated individuals who are pointing out the other side of the issue, e.g, in a planning document. However, Councilors cast dispersion on this public engagement (as in the text messages by Jason Graham and Vice Mayor Frye).
We don't want to hear any more sob stories that the young ones just have too much stress in their lives so they can't show up or even send in a written comment.
We engaged residents were young once. We put our babies in snugglies and juggled them as we spoke at the mic. Brought the coloring books and sat the kids down in the pews. covered them with a blanket to sleep. Instead, the Ward 3 Councilor says we're 'fearful' of change.
Nope, we (a lot of specialists, and yes retirees from NoVA jobs in Land Use, stormwater mgt, engineering, attorneys, realtors, developers themselves) hear the comments made on the dais and say: 'They didn't read their docs. They have no idea what they're talking about'.
e.g, the Planning Commissioner Chair 11-12-25 TWO way street conversion mtg saying that only box trucks make deliveries in downtown Fredbg and
'They are double parking!
and that needs to be Enforced!
and get FPD to give out the Tickets!
You can hear the NOs on Regional Web TV from those who showed up in chambers to shut down that nonsense braying. Local residents Bill Kertsos (General Store) and Gordon Gay said in their public comments, ~'try it. The big fleets won't come back to FXBG to deliver because tractor-trailers have a price point they need to meet. Give them a ticket? They won't be back'.
Tyranny of the Majority: The primary concern with a majority faction is its ability to "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens" under the guise of popular government.
2-25-25 DATA CENTERS out near the Wegmans. Residents were 'socialized' (brainwashed, FOIA/Freedom of Info Act emails with involvement by Councilors Frye, Gerlach, Holmes) prior to this Council vote to believe that the revenue would go to the public schools:
'It's for the Children! It's for their Future!'
Not one of those 'virtue signalers' up on the dais talked about the children and families, who are historically marginalized with inequity in the apartments in 'Celebrate Virginia'. These children will be surrounded on 3 sides by DATA CENTERS and their chronic 24/7 noise.
NoVA news reports that children are getting headaches from living near DATA CENTERS and struggle to sleep at night.
The 12-9-2024 General Assembly JLARC report states: DATA CENTERS belong in the industrial zones. Not near residences. We don't know what the long-term effects are.
Need for Checks and Balances: Federalists advocated for a large, DIVERSE republic with a system of checks and balances and separation of powers to mitigate the effects of factions. They relied on the 'multiplicity of interests' in a large sphere to prevent any one group from dominating.
Refinement of Public Views: Federalists believed that a representative government, especially at a larger scale (national level), would "refine and enlarge the public views" by having a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom and patriotism would prioritize 'the public good' over local or partial considerations. They might argue that LOCAL ONE-PARTY RULE bypasses this intended filtering mechanism, allowing narrow interests to prevail.
Residents shouldn't have to go to the mic to present the other side of a LOCAL issue. for the Public Good.
When 22401 had NONPARTISAN elections (as cities in Virginia are supposed to do), we heard both sides.
e.g, The dangerous, substandard roundabout on Telegraph Hill, near the Fred Park townhouses. There's still a townhouse with the black plastic and duct tape on its corner where a vehicle lost control of its turn on the roundabout and rammed into the side corner of it, damaging the gas line too, so evacuation.
Former Councilor and NONPARTISAN, MATT KELLY, known for his extensive homework into studying all angles of an issue, showed us that there was supposed to be a safe Pedestrian Plaza there on Lafayette Blvd. The blueprint drawings show a wide plaza linking Fred Park and other residents to walk across with strollers, kids on bikes, to the National Battlefield.
but cheap developer didn't want to do it.
Role of Federalism: Madison noted that LOCAL matters are naturally looked after by state and local officials with smaller constituencies. However, he also indicated that a "rage" for certain "improper or wicked projects" (such as "an equal division of property") is more likely to taint a particular district than an entire state or the Union. This implies a federalist preference for the state or national level to serve as a check on LOCAL excesses.
A Federalist would view the current ONE PARTY RULE in Fredericksburg with alarm, seeing it as a classic example of popular government's vulnerability to an "interested and overbearing majority" that could lead to instability and injustice.
So, enough of trying to take out the residents who are speaking up at the mic, providing 'reality-feedback'. Enough of certain Councilors putting them in the category of 'fearful'. Just because the TRUTH and FACTS are not in their ONE PARTY RULE 'bubble' is no reason to shut down discourse and citizen engagement.
e.g, Planning Commission Chair Durham 1-11-2023 shut off mic at 3 min) ; Mayor Devine Jan 2024 inaugural chastising-lecture speech (Regional Web TV).
Other Councilors' words pre-election of the residents speaking at the mic as 'fearful' are telling of how they feel being Young Bloods who in their paternalistic style, 'know what's best for us' peasants and 'the city', yet mix up their facts and are confused on what developer application they're even talking about.
[They need to look in the mirror: they ain't spring chickens themselves].
Those of us who speak at the mic and send in written comments are all about Change. Sensible Growth. Trust. Transparency. Balance. OPEN GOVERNMENT.
ONE PARTY RULE: does not tolerate diverse perspectives. e.g, shown by the Councilors' body language on Regional Web TV when one is offered when there used to be some NONPARTISAN representation of 'the other side of the issue'.
ONE PARTY RULE: degrades the collaborative relationships important for regional problem-solving. e.g, Spotsy and Stafford taking the larger chunk of traffic congestion monies based on the criteria of 'population' rather than 'most congestion' (FXBG) when the cheaper, agreed-upon Bridge Option was yanked out by the city in its TOD/Technology Overlay District for DATA CENTERS near Fred Nats.
ONE PARTY RULE: Increased risk of corruption: Without a strong opposition to challenge the status quo and ensure transparency, there is a higher risk of corruption and abuse of power. Lawsuit by resident (settled) to object to the Ward 3 Council appointment and the city not releasing the names/resumes of other applicants until 28 min before Susanna Finn was sworn in. Hiding behind closed doors at the FPD station on Cowan Blvd for appointee interviews instead of previously being 'sunshined' in Council chambers to the public on Regional Web TV.
ONE PARTY RULE: shifts towards radicalism: Candidates in a one-party-dominant area may only need to appeal to their most ardent supporters, potentially leading to more extreme policy positions rather than focusing on the broader, practical issues that matter to most residents, such as trash pickup or infrastructure maintenance.
So be prepared for the introduction of the elimination of single-family zoning in 22401, similar to Alexandria, as the Fred Democratic Committee members attending the 8-11-25 FDC mtg were 'socialized' to in a position paper (3-page, single-spaced) read out loud to them on 'Zoning & Racism'.
ONE PARTY RULE: A significant number of voters are effectively unrepresented.
Note: Life long Democrat. There's a faction of LOCAL Dems who do not support that lousy FDC endorsed ballot on LOCAL candidates for Council, School Board and constitutional offices because it is the cause of the division in Fredericksburg.
Curiously, all of this talk of democracy and the fact that our Founders abhorred democracy and warned us of the dangers, instead founded a constitutional REPUBLIC. Every state is guaranteed a republican form of government, not a democracy.
The Constitutional Debates of 1787, as recorded by James Madison, show the antipathy our Founders had for democracy and the care they took, in the writing of the Constitution, to ensure we have a REPUBLIC.
Why are we pounded with the "our democracy" propaganda? Because it contains the word Democra[t] and it subconsciously acts on the voter to support it.
Show us the word "democracy" in the Constitution. I'll show you the word "Republican":
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” Now, why would the Founders denote a “Republican Form of Government” instead of a “Democratic Form of Government”? Were they imprecise in their wording? Were they ignorant of the two forms, or perhaps they were fully aware of the two and knew the strengths and faults of both? Which is more likely?
When they are grabbing you off the street and out of your home, and throwing you in a concentration camp, then talk to me about Democracy.
Curiously, you left out the disclosure that Shaun Kenney is senior advisor to and former communications director for the now lame-duck Republican attorney general of Virginia. Here's the official press release about Kenney's promotion in the AG's office--with Kenney himself listed as media contact: https://www.oag.state.va.us/media-center/news-releases/2866-may-16-2025-attorney-general-miyares-announces-leadership-appointments
I appreciate this article as a plea for everyone to return to civil “civil discourse.” We are all entitled to disagree and we all have our own perspectives and agendas accordingly.
In our current political climate, I appreciate the throwback to the Federalist faction (note, not the political party) of Madison and Hamilton (and Jay). Even though both had polar opposite views on interpreting the Constitution of which both were championing, they and their opposing Anti-Federalists engaged in article writing and civil discourse to achieve their goals. This is what is celebrated in the history of our democracy, not the base cat-calling that happened in parallel to the intellectual debate.
As a teacher of American history and celebrator of democracy, I applaud the effort to return to this type of political battling.
Whether I agree with your politics or not, Shaun, I appreciate your effort to return to civility. I appreciate reasoned different points-of-view.
Thank you for this, Audrey. This is precisely the sort of democracy I was hoping to praise, revivify, and foster in the face of the demagogues who have hijacked the discourse — and I’m glad we aren’t alone (even if we disagree)!
Oh yeah, the downside of not having Miyares there protecting Trumpism while pretending he doesn't know the guy. And getting voted out as a result. Even with Republicans withholding evidence of a potential crime by his opponent for 3 years - because they'd rather have it as an election tool than see justice served. Though it put one of their own and his family at risk.
So the downside of getting rid of that, however questionable the replacement?
Shaun's back.
Whenever I feel bad for the peregrinations I utilize in my missives that so many despise, I can always comfort myself that there is someone who does it more, and is even more obtuse and wandering, were that possible.
And yes, it is funny - this ideal that VA Democrats should not do any gerrymandering here because it is not the Virginia Way - when Virginia Republicans at every level have shown their own unquestioning loyal support for a national system where that nationalism has had so much of an impact on Virginians.
Their jobs, their rights, their taxes, their economy, their dignity, their decency.
How dare they presume to fight back?
The nerve.
Anyway, I guess it's true that every bright bit of sunshine has a dark lining....sigh.
Constitutional order should prevail, but when the Virginia attorney general also succumbs to the siren song, it's pretty discouraging.
Part 1 comment: I'm reading Shaun Kenney's article through the lens of what's going on with the recent 22401 LOCAL COUNCIL election: ONE-PARTY dominance by the local Democrats, who have divided the city into political tribes by using a blue piece of paper.
The contentious endorsed FDC ballot. which, yep, was effective in getting their candidates elected, so the LOCAL candidates didn't have to knock as many doors as the NONPARTISAN candidates did to listen to a DIVERSITY of residents. Not just stay in their political 'bubble' that there could be two sides to an issue that residents want to hear.
We used to be a 22401 city in which we got along with others and didn't even know which political party a Councilor belonged to.
No longer.
I couldn't even talk to a walk-up voter at the LOCAL VOTE NONPARTISAN table at the corner of Wolfe and 601 Caroline St without having the FDC Vice Chair yelling out 'not true. NO!' on every sentence I was trying to speak during my quiet explanation to the voter on the choices for LOCAL NONPARTISAN candidates.
That is until I turned my phone video on her, which shut her up right quick.
Part 2 of Comment re: Shaun Kenny's article (Reader: Refresh. Click blue 'Expand Full Comment' at bottom):
So I looked up what Federalists would think of the local ONE PARTY RULE on Council:
Federalists would view local ONE PARTY RULE in Fredericksburg as a manifestation of factionalism, a "dangerous vice" that threatens the public good and the rights of the minority.
They would argue that such a concentration of power could lead to an "overbearing majority" that sacrifices justice and the rights of other citizens to its "ruling passion or interest".
Hence, all the 'virtue signaling' that goes on with these types on the Council and Planning Commission dais, instead of sticking to the black/white language in the board doc. e.g, 'Are the Performance Agreement Standards for 8-12 DATA CENTERS at 'Celebrate Virginia' ready?' Heck no! but 'they' feared developer Stack Infrastructure would pack up their marbles and leave their Goliath game. so they rushed their vote through. On an "aggressive' timeline-- their own words.
'Is the ADU/Accessory Dwelling Unit Text Amendment ready to pass?' Heck No! unsafe conditions, no egress window in the basement ADU, etc.
Key Federalist arguments include:
Inherent Dangers of Faction: James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, described factions as an inevitable result of human nature and diverse interests, but warned that they are a "mortal disease" of popular governments. He would see a ONE-PARTY COUNCIL as a single, dominant faction.
When 'a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens' (Margaret Mead) go to the public comment mic, they are dedicated individuals who are pointing out the other side of the issue, e.g, in a planning document. However, Councilors cast dispersion on this public engagement (as in the text messages by Jason Graham and Vice Mayor Frye).
We don't want to hear any more sob stories that the young ones just have too much stress in their lives so they can't show up or even send in a written comment.
We engaged residents were young once. We put our babies in snugglies and juggled them as we spoke at the mic. Brought the coloring books and sat the kids down in the pews. covered them with a blanket to sleep. Instead, the Ward 3 Councilor says we're 'fearful' of change.
Nope, we (a lot of specialists, and yes retirees from NoVA jobs in Land Use, stormwater mgt, engineering, attorneys, realtors, developers themselves) hear the comments made on the dais and say: 'They didn't read their docs. They have no idea what they're talking about'.
e.g, the Planning Commissioner Chair 11-12-25 TWO way street conversion mtg saying that only box trucks make deliveries in downtown Fredbg and
'They are double parking!
and that needs to be Enforced!
and get FPD to give out the Tickets!
You can hear the NOs on Regional Web TV from those who showed up in chambers to shut down that nonsense braying. Local residents Bill Kertsos (General Store) and Gordon Gay said in their public comments, ~'try it. The big fleets won't come back to FXBG to deliver because tractor-trailers have a price point they need to meet. Give them a ticket? They won't be back'.
Tyranny of the Majority: The primary concern with a majority faction is its ability to "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens" under the guise of popular government.
2-25-25 DATA CENTERS out near the Wegmans. Residents were 'socialized' (brainwashed, FOIA/Freedom of Info Act emails with involvement by Councilors Frye, Gerlach, Holmes) prior to this Council vote to believe that the revenue would go to the public schools:
'It's for the Children! It's for their Future!'
Not one of those 'virtue signalers' up on the dais talked about the children and families, who are historically marginalized with inequity in the apartments in 'Celebrate Virginia'. These children will be surrounded on 3 sides by DATA CENTERS and their chronic 24/7 noise.
NoVA news reports that children are getting headaches from living near DATA CENTERS and struggle to sleep at night.
The 12-9-2024 General Assembly JLARC report states: DATA CENTERS belong in the industrial zones. Not near residences. We don't know what the long-term effects are.
Need for Checks and Balances: Federalists advocated for a large, DIVERSE republic with a system of checks and balances and separation of powers to mitigate the effects of factions. They relied on the 'multiplicity of interests' in a large sphere to prevent any one group from dominating.
Refinement of Public Views: Federalists believed that a representative government, especially at a larger scale (national level), would "refine and enlarge the public views" by having a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom and patriotism would prioritize 'the public good' over local or partial considerations. They might argue that LOCAL ONE-PARTY RULE bypasses this intended filtering mechanism, allowing narrow interests to prevail.
Residents shouldn't have to go to the mic to present the other side of a LOCAL issue. for the Public Good.
When 22401 had NONPARTISAN elections (as cities in Virginia are supposed to do), we heard both sides.
e.g, The dangerous, substandard roundabout on Telegraph Hill, near the Fred Park townhouses. There's still a townhouse with the black plastic and duct tape on its corner where a vehicle lost control of its turn on the roundabout and rammed into the side corner of it, damaging the gas line too, so evacuation.
Former Councilor and NONPARTISAN, MATT KELLY, known for his extensive homework into studying all angles of an issue, showed us that there was supposed to be a safe Pedestrian Plaza there on Lafayette Blvd. The blueprint drawings show a wide plaza linking Fred Park and other residents to walk across with strollers, kids on bikes, to the National Battlefield.
but cheap developer didn't want to do it.
Role of Federalism: Madison noted that LOCAL matters are naturally looked after by state and local officials with smaller constituencies. However, he also indicated that a "rage" for certain "improper or wicked projects" (such as "an equal division of property") is more likely to taint a particular district than an entire state or the Union. This implies a federalist preference for the state or national level to serve as a check on LOCAL excesses.
A Federalist would view the current ONE PARTY RULE in Fredericksburg with alarm, seeing it as a classic example of popular government's vulnerability to an "interested and overbearing majority" that could lead to instability and injustice.
So, enough of trying to take out the residents who are speaking up at the mic, providing 'reality-feedback'. Enough of certain Councilors putting them in the category of 'fearful'. Just because the TRUTH and FACTS are not in their ONE PARTY RULE 'bubble' is no reason to shut down discourse and citizen engagement.
e.g, Planning Commission Chair Durham 1-11-2023 shut off mic at 3 min) ; Mayor Devine Jan 2024 inaugural chastising-lecture speech (Regional Web TV).
Other Councilors' words pre-election of the residents speaking at the mic as 'fearful' are telling of how they feel being Young Bloods who in their paternalistic style, 'know what's best for us' peasants and 'the city', yet mix up their facts and are confused on what developer application they're even talking about.
[They need to look in the mirror: they ain't spring chickens themselves].
Those of us who speak at the mic and send in written comments are all about Change. Sensible Growth. Trust. Transparency. Balance. OPEN GOVERNMENT.
ONE PARTY RULE: does not tolerate diverse perspectives. e.g, shown by the Councilors' body language on Regional Web TV when one is offered when there used to be some NONPARTISAN representation of 'the other side of the issue'.
ONE PARTY RULE: degrades the collaborative relationships important for regional problem-solving. e.g, Spotsy and Stafford taking the larger chunk of traffic congestion monies based on the criteria of 'population' rather than 'most congestion' (FXBG) when the cheaper, agreed-upon Bridge Option was yanked out by the city in its TOD/Technology Overlay District for DATA CENTERS near Fred Nats.
ONE PARTY RULE: Increased risk of corruption: Without a strong opposition to challenge the status quo and ensure transparency, there is a higher risk of corruption and abuse of power. Lawsuit by resident (settled) to object to the Ward 3 Council appointment and the city not releasing the names/resumes of other applicants until 28 min before Susanna Finn was sworn in. Hiding behind closed doors at the FPD station on Cowan Blvd for appointee interviews instead of previously being 'sunshined' in Council chambers to the public on Regional Web TV.
ONE PARTY RULE: shifts towards radicalism: Candidates in a one-party-dominant area may only need to appeal to their most ardent supporters, potentially leading to more extreme policy positions rather than focusing on the broader, practical issues that matter to most residents, such as trash pickup or infrastructure maintenance.
So be prepared for the introduction of the elimination of single-family zoning in 22401, similar to Alexandria, as the Fred Democratic Committee members attending the 8-11-25 FDC mtg were 'socialized' to in a position paper (3-page, single-spaced) read out loud to them on 'Zoning & Racism'.
ONE PARTY RULE: A significant number of voters are effectively unrepresented.
Note: Life long Democrat. There's a faction of LOCAL Dems who do not support that lousy FDC endorsed ballot on LOCAL candidates for Council, School Board and constitutional offices because it is the cause of the division in Fredericksburg.
Curiously, all of this talk of democracy and the fact that our Founders abhorred democracy and warned us of the dangers, instead founded a constitutional REPUBLIC. Every state is guaranteed a republican form of government, not a democracy.
The Constitutional Debates of 1787, as recorded by James Madison, show the antipathy our Founders had for democracy and the care they took, in the writing of the Constitution, to ensure we have a REPUBLIC.
Why are we pounded with the "our democracy" propaganda? Because it contains the word Democra[t] and it subconsciously acts on the voter to support it.
Show us the word "democracy" in the Constitution. I'll show you the word "Republican":
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” Now, why would the Founders denote a “Republican Form of Government” instead of a “Democratic Form of Government”? Were they imprecise in their wording? Were they ignorant of the two forms, or perhaps they were fully aware of the two and knew the strengths and faults of both? Which is more likely?