Dear Mr Editor,

I appreciate your determination to call things fairly, with an eye to apportioning responsibility for bad and good behaviour wherever they happen to fall.

I appreciate the sensitivities that must be in play when you are the only newspaper in a politically divided society.

But sometimes the effort to be fair leads to false equivalencies. Your editorial this week on “overheated rhetoric” (Declare your independence from overheated rhetoric, June 10) is a case in point. You condemn both parties — PLP and OBA — for an unseemly clash while extremely significant Government reforms are moving forward in the areas of health, energy and the legal system.

I guess the thinking is that it takes two to tango, but if you are determined to call it like it is, then I’d like you to consider this point of view: the One Bermuda Alliance is not the instigator or the perpetuator of the decline in public dialogue that your editorial addresses.

For sure, there is something larger at work, something in people’s character that has been unleashed by the advent of social media — the free expression of intolerance and condemnation without consequence is a cheap thrill easily gained.

But at the same time, you can’t ignore the Opposition’s role in feeding a take-no-prisoners approach to our political life.

From the start of the Government’s mandate, the Opposition, without a moment of serious reflection on why it was no longer the government, has been embarked on a relentless campaign of disinformation and distortion to drag down and undermine almost everything the OBA Government is doing.

The intent echoes that of the Republican party in the United States, whose Senate leader Mitch McConnell said his aim was to make Barack Obama a one-term president.

Mr McConnell’s statement suggested his party’s political interest was more important than the national interest that was expressed through the election of Mr Obama. You could say the same for the Opposition’s approach to politics here in Bermuda.

So where does it come from, this bloody-minded approach to politics? Certainly, Opposition Leader Marc Bean’s extreme and threatening language, and all that it reflects, is an important influence. But let’s not overlook the former premier, Ewart Brown, who clearly continues to influence his party’s approach to politics.

What is that influence? Just a few weeks ago, Dr Brown sent a message to OBA Senator Vic Ball in which he spoke about the approach being taken to “the removal of your government. No guns, no bloodshed, no physical attacks … just a sustained programme of information, disinformation and criticism must be acceptable”. Hmm. A sustained programme of disinformation? Things start falling into place when you take that on board.

So while I appreciate your call for both political parties to raise the bar — and I’m sure the OBA is good with that — the point has to be made that this low point is not the OBA’s doing. It’s sort of like a school student trying to get his work done while another keeps throwing spitballs at him. What would you do?

Jake, Paget