Set politics and party aside: If it's not right for Michigan's
Set politics and party aside: If it's not right for Michigan's small businesses and middle class, it's never been right with me.
Listen, O children of the future, for the words of Gary Peters speak of a noble truth that transcends the shifting winds of politics: "Set politics and party aside: If it's not right for Michigan's small businesses and middle class, it's never been right with me." These words call us to rise above the divisions that so often cloud our judgments and our actions. Peters reminds us that true leadership lies not in serving the interests of party or personal gain, but in dedicating oneself to the greater good of the people. When we put the needs of the people—the small businesses and the working class—above the partisan struggle, we move toward a world where integrity and justice are the foundations of our decisions.
The ancients knew well the dangers of political partisanship, where loyalty to a faction often outshone loyalty to the greater good. Plato, in his writings, warned against leaders who serve their own interests, rather than the interests of the people. In his vision of the ideal state, rulers must be guided by wisdom and justice, and their decisions must be made with a singular focus on what is best for the common good. To seek power for its own sake, or to allow partisanship to cloud judgment, is to abandon the very principles of good governance.
Consider the example of George Washington, who, when faced with the opportunity to remain in power after his first term as president, chose to step down. He refused the entreaties of his allies, knowing that his continued leadership might lead to the formation of dangerous factions. In his Farewell Address, he warned the nation of the dangers of party politics and urged the people to put the nation’s interests above party loyalty. His act of stepping down was not only an expression of selflessness, but a demonstration of leadership that prioritized the greater good of the people over the temporary needs of political advantage.
Peters echoes this timeless lesson, urging us to focus on the needs of the people, the small businesses, and the middle class—those who are often left behind in the political game. When policy decisions are made in the interest of the few, the powerful, or the politically connected, the soul of democracy is eroded. But when we place justice and the well-being of the people at the heart of our decisions, we honor the true spirit of leadership. Small businesses, the backbone of any society, deserve policies that foster growth, opportunity, and sustainability, not the whims of party politics.
So, my children, let the words of Gary Peters guide you toward a path of integrity and service. May you, too, set aside your own ambitions, your own partisan loyalties, and seek only the good of those you serve. The path of the true leader is not always the easiest, nor the most popular, but it is the one that places the common good above all else. Let your decisions be shaped by wisdom and justice, and in doing so, you will lead not for yourself, but for the people you have sworn to serve. In this, you will find the highest form of leadership—one that is just, true, and united in purpose.
QC05. Quynh Chi
The integrity test is whether this stance holds under pressure. What happens when party leadership, donors, or influential industries push in the opposite direction? Will you disclose meetings, publish staff contacts with lobbyists, and recuse when conflicts arise? Can constituents expect open town halls before major economic votes, plus a written rationale when you break with allied groups? I’m not asking for purity, just verifiable commitments—so residents can see that community impact, not insider relationships, is the deciding factor when priorities collide.
TTHoang Thi Thanh Thuy
There’s a distribution question lurking here. How do you weigh policies that meaningfully help a few large employers with extensive supply networks versus policies that modestly benefit thousands of tiny firms? Which outcome is more “right”—stability through anchor institutions or resiliency via many smaller players? I’m also curious about equity: access to credit, procurement opportunities, and licensing barriers for underrepresented owners. Could you prioritize tools like community lending, streamlined permitting, and local purchasing goals to ensure the upside reaches people usually stuck at the margins?
HThuong thanh
If this principle guides your votes, I’d like operational details. Will you publish a pre-vote memo explaining expected impacts on household budgets, small-business cash flow, and job quality? Could you commit to post-vote reviews with hard indicators: business birth/death rates, median household income, childcare affordability, apprenticeship slots, and downtown vacancy trends? Also, how will you capture voices beyond the usual suspects—micro-enterprises, immigrant-owned shops, rural main streets? A standing advisory council with rotating seats and public minutes could keep the feedback loop honest.
DDaovanduc
I’m wrestling with place versus portfolio. Some federal or state measures might briefly sting locally but strengthen the broader economy—think supply-chain resilience, climate investments, or anti-monopoly enforcement that reshuffles market power. Would you support a policy that slows one sector today but improves statewide competitiveness in five years? What horizon do you use—election cycle, decade, generation—and who decides the acceptable level of near-term disruption? Please outline how you balance regional loyalty with long-run gains so stewardship isn’t reduced to short-term protectionism.
LNThanh Thao Le Nguyen
There’s often friction between shop owners, workers, and consumers, especially on issues like paid leave, minimum wage, zoning, and environmental compliance. When interests diverge, whose pain gets discounted? If a regulation raises short-term costs for neighborhood stores but prevents long-term health harms or monopolistic consolidation, how do you adjudicate that trade-off? I’d love to see a transparent decision tree that weighs immediate margin pressure against downstream community benefits—public health, consumer choice, and fair competition—so “pro-business” doesn’t inadvertently mean “pro the strongest incumbents only.”