To the editor: De-escalation begins with those who hold the power

How we frame responsibility and fault in a crisis is critical to democracy. It shapes who we hold accountable and what changes we demand.

When we talk about de-escalation, the first responsibility lies with those who are using state force with lethal consequences — not with civilians exercising multiple constitutional freedoms, including the First Amendment rights to speech, assembly and petition, and due process. Equating the two creates a false symmetry and fails to recognize the real power imbalance: one reinforced by armed federal agents whose actions have already resulted in multiple civilian deaths and sparked sustained protests.

There’s also an uncomfortable truth here: Many of the same people in Chester calling for “both sides to tone it down” or implying that both sides are responsible for our current national horrors, would join us in fighting tooth and nail to protect neighbors and loved ones. They would raise hell if armed federal agents showed up in our streets or at our doors threatening our neighbors and loved ones, pulling them from streets, homes, jobs and families. That instinct to protect community is human. That is what we are seeing play out in Minneapolis — people responding to perceived and real threats to their neighbors and loved ones with the only leverage they feel they have.

If we truly want peace, accountability and safety, de-escalation means:

• Holding law enforcement and federal agents accountable for deadly uses of force and violations of constitutional rights;
• Ending militarized deployments that provoke rather than reduce tension and undermine civil liberties;
• Supporting peaceful protest and free expression without stigmatizing people for asserting their constitutional rights

We have to look honestly at who holds power and who is being harmed — and whether constitutional limits on state power are being honored or ignored.

And finally, in regard to Rep. Tom Charlton: I think the woman asked an initial question at his recent meeting at Town Hall said it best. Charlton could have chosen to vote “yay” in agreement with Gov. Phil Scott and the overwhelming majority of legislators and then explained himself to the voters who may stand with ICE or those who see this as a “both sides” issue.

Instead, Charlton chose “nay,” and had to explain that decision to the bipartisan constituents — including our Republican governor — calling for ICE to scale back and de-escalate. I still cannot conceive why Charlton landed where he did. I have tried to look at it from all angles, and I still arrive at the same place: sadness.

My hope is that Rep. Charlton heard the many comments he received at his meeting and in the letters to the editor and comment, and that those gives him pause and an opportunity to reflect on his motivation and intended outcome for his “nay” vote.

Rep. Charlton is a kind and thoughtful human who has shown that he is open to listening and not driven by ego. Perhaps those of us who have been outspoken in our disappointment with his position can help invite that reflection and inform his thinking going forward. Perhaps he would make a different choice upon reflection. Perhaps not. But respectfully communicating, as constituents, our disagreement, disapproval or disbelief in Rep. Charlton’s decision is an appropriate and necessary part of civil discourse and the democratic process.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Anne Henshaw
Chester