Elections aren’t just about policies; they’re also about trust and consent to lead. When candidates hide what they believe to fit the district they’re running in, voters lose the ability to make an informed choice. Democracy shouldn’t run on wishful thinking.

Case study

In Newton, a candidate running for Ward 4 councilor highlights this problem perfectly. Running on a platform of “fact-based decision-making” and “celebrating our diversity”, these are clear appeals to the city’s dominant values. However, his campaign fails to mention his privately-held views (which don’t show up in his campaign materials) which are antagonistic to the transgender community:

Facebook post

The screenshot above is a public Facebook post from March 2024. I have obscured the name to focus on the principles, though the information is easy enough to track down from other sources.

Note: For the purpose of this post, I won’t be discussing the topic of transgender rights itself. It’s a worthy topic to dissect in depth, but that’s not the point here.

How concealment works

Let’s deconstruct the mechanism of concealment in this example:

Framing

In the screenshot above, the candidate doesn’t take a hard stance on transgender rights, rather, they just ask a question about how parents would feel about transgender folks in their children’s locker rooms. In the past, I’ve written about how political actors can signal their alignment by using key words and phrases others in their movement will pick up on. In this way, they’re able to indicate their views without having to defend them.

Selective visibility

These views aren’t explained on his website, in his campaign material, or by those who endorsed him. His public image seems to have been designed to suit the district he’s running in, despite the fact (or owing to the fact) that many voters wouldn’t vote for him if they knew his stance. I certainly didn’t, a month ago when I met him and we discussed his campaign in person.

Credibility by proxy

This candidate has a number of endorsements from a folks on his website who signal alignment with traditionally left-leaning Newton politics. For example, this endorser is associated with ActBlue, an organization traditionally aligned with Democratic and progressive causes. The candidate effectively gains credibility with left-leaning voters by blending in with people who actually hold those values.

The impact of opacity

This isn’t simply about a personal disagreement I have with this candidate’s privately held beliefs. When their policies shape zoning, policing, or school board policy, they affect neighbors and community members who never had a fair chance to consent to them; these positions have tangible impacts on people’s lives. Transparency on these matters isn’t merely convenient, but is in fact necessary for democracy to work as intended. When candidates obscure their intentions, they make it impossible for voters to be informed.

Our responsibility as voters

We have a mandate to be as educated about our choices as possible, even under difficult circumstances as is often the case with local elections. This candidate’s comments were hard to track down, but not impossible. When researching who to vote for, keep this checklist in mind:

  • Check their actions, not just their words
  • Look for policy gaps—judge if they’re intentional
  • Ask them specific questions, and weigh their responses

The takeaway

Democracy can survive bad ideas; it can’t survive secrecy. The only way to keep civic life honest is to ask harder questions, and look for the real answers.