Editor:

The history of journalism is tied to the desire of people to know the
news; hear about events that affect their lives. Newspaper publishing
in particular has been closely tied to politics, as publishers have
aligned themselves with one viewpoint or another, and used the power of
their medium to advance certain agendas.

It goes against reason, then, to see a newspaper column actually
discouraging people from participating in the political process. There it is, though, in the Jan. 11 issue of [the Sentry],
where Ward Peck gives five reasons why Maine’s caucus system does not
affect the presidential nomination process. What a shame on the legacy
of journalism, and shame on [the Sentry] for publishing such nonsense.

Peck’s perspective is both short-lived and shortsighted, based on one
experience with a caucus, in 2004. From this he concludes that caucuses
are “dumb” and that Maine, for reasons not worth repeating, is some
electoral backwater. If he had done his homework, Peck would know that
the caucus originated as participatory democracy, where people do not
just mark ballots, but actually discuss matters and candidates at hand
at a local level. This notion of discussion and debate to influence a
political outcome is a refreshing alternative to the waves and waves of
TV announcements, grandstanding and sound bites that drive campaigns
today.

If Peck is “disoriented” by the caucus process, perhaps he should do
more than provide flippant reasons for dropping out. Thoughtfulness is
required. As it is in journalism. Based on his views of the electoral
process, he may want to consider a different career.

Jonathan Hutter

Scarborough