I have been a Republican since I was old enough to vote. The first president I voted for was Ronald Reagan. Although my core values are rooted in traditional Conservative beliefs, I could hardly be considered a hardcore Conservative by either side.
North Smithfield’s elections are non-partisan, which does not mean you have to stop being a Republican or a Democrat when you run for office, it just means your affiliation isn’t declared or listed on the ballot. When I was first elected, I quickly understood why this is such a good policy. There is no Democrat or Republican way to run a small town like ours.
There is no Democrat or Republican way to support our schools, support our veterans, and support our seniors. There is no Democrat or Republican way to make sure our residents have safe clean drinking water, paved and plowed roads, and open space. There is no Democrat or Republican way to support our police and fire departments. The work that goes into making a small town a great town can only be done by putting identity politics aside and working with whoever else the people elected regardless of party lines. If one councilor voted for Trump and another for Harris – which I believe has happened – you quickly have to learn to work together for the benefit of the residents.
Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way. The leadership of the North Smithfield Democratic Party believes in creating divides along party lines. With election season around the corner they have made Representative Newberry and me – two Republicans – favorite targets for their personal attacks.
The North Smithfield Democrats, led by Paul Jones have been organized for a couple of years and all we know about them is they like to personally attack people they disagree with. Members of this group, Elizabeth Hammond and Kevin Carriere, have come to Town Council meetings telling lies and half-truths, but they offered no solutions or suggestions regarding real issues.
The North Smithfield Democrats claim “our page isn’t about politics as usual,” but that is exactly what they are about. Do they offer any ideas, or tell us what their platform is? Do they tell us what they will be looking for in candidates they support? No, they only offer more identity politics, and don’t we get enough of that already at the national level? We know very little about this group and what they stand for; I’m not even sure they know. And who are they exactly? Why not put names to their website, to take ownership of opinions? Do they lack the courage of their convictions and instead choose to hide behind an anonymous identity?
The tragedy that occurred at Lynch Arena in Pawtucket may be one of the worst things to happen to this town. What did they do when I offered a moment of silence for the victims of that tragedy? They made it political and criticized me for doing it, calling it a political stunt. This upset many residents who were actually there and appreciated the council taking a moment in memory of the victims and survivors.
This is not your parents’ Democratic Party. Their leadership consists of far-left progressives who are completely out of touch with most North Smithfield residents. Their politics do not even align with the state Democratic Party, and their morals do not align with most Americans. They are no different from the progressives at the national level.
They play identity politics because that is all they have to offer. And when I respond to them, they come to council meetings to complain about how mean I am. When you are a member of the North Smithfield Democratic Party, hurt feelings are more important than actual issues.
At a time when national politics has driven people further apart, we need people who can collaborate and unite others. The last thing we need is an organization whose sole objective is to pull people apart and create a divide where none exists.
John Beauregard
North Smithfield Town Counci
This is for Mary Poppins, Pat, Oops, Kerri, Republican, Confused et al. Written many years ago, but even more relevant today. Owning your words really shouldn’t be that hard if you have any integrity whatsoever, but we all know better:
https://callnewspapers.com/only-gutless-cowards-hide-behind-cloak-of-anonymity/
Mr. Guertin & Mr. Galano –
I appreciate that Mr. Beauregard’s letter raises concerns about political division in our community, which is something many residents likely share. While I partially agree with some points made in his letter, I disagree with several points made in both of your comments.
Having courage is not conditional on attaching one’s full legal name to comments in a public forum. Throughout history, many writers have chosen to use pseudonyms. Authors such as Mark Twain, George Orwell, Lewis Carroll, and J.K. Rowling have done so. Writers often adopt pen names to maintain privacy and to separate their professional, family, and personal lives from their public writing.
The same reasoning can apply to online discussions. Someone posting under a pseudonym may have professional limitations that make public political commentary risky. For example, teachers, police officers, and government employees can face disciplinary action or accusations of bias and conflicts of interest if their personal political opinions become publicly tied to their professional roles. Choosing not to publish one’s full name online is often a matter of prudence, not shame.
Anonymous speech has also been part of American political debate since the founding of our country. The essays now known as The Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, were published under the pseudonym “Publius”. These essays helped explain and advocate for the ratification of our Constitution. Their critics, the Anti-Federalists, did the same, publishing under names such as “Federal Farmer”, “Cato”, and “Brutus”, arguing for protections that ultimately helped lead to our Bill of Rights.
In other words, pseudonymous or anonymous political speech is not new, nor is it inherently cowardly. It has long been part of American public discourse. Using a pseudonym can also help keep the focus on the strength of an argument rather than on the identity of the person making it.
I agree with Mr. Guertin that the First Amendment should be valued and defended. However, that freedom also includes the ability to speak under a pseudonym when professional responsibilities or personal boundaries make that the more prudent choice. Writing under a pseudonym should not discredit a commenter. Whether someone signs their name to a comment does not determine whether their argument is valid. An argument should be evaluated by its reasoning and evidence, not the identity of the person presenting it.
I also agree with Mr. Beauregard that there is no Democrat or Republican way to run a town successfully. Local government works best when people focus on practical issues rather than national party divisions. In fact, I appreciate North Smithfield’s nonpartisan elections for that reason. I wish Burrillville adopted a similar approach across the board for Town Council and School Committee, so that voters could focus more on local issues than on party labels.
However, I do think Mr. Beauregard’s article would be stronger with more specific examples. Several of the claims made about the North Smithfield Democrats are broad generalizations. Statements suggesting that their leadership consists entirely of far-left progressives or that they are completely out of touch with most residents are serious claims, yet the article provides little specific evidence to support them.
For example, Mr. Beauregard writes that the group “only offer more identity politics”, but no specific instances are given. He also states that Ms. Hammond and Mr. Carriere came to Town Council meetings, told lies and half-truths, and offered no solutions. I wish Mr. Beauregard had provided specific examples from those meetings so readers could better understand what occurred. Without examples of what was said or how the discussion unfolded, readers are left with a broad accusation rather than a clear explanation of the events.
Like Ms. Poppins, I am not personally aware of the specific “personal attacks” referenced in the article. If specific incidents were described, particularly regarding the criticism surrounding the Lynch Arena tragedy, it would help readers better understand Mr. Beauregard’s concerns. For example, it would be helpful to know what specifically occurred after the moment of silence was offered, who criticized the gesture as political, what specifically was said, and at which Town Council meeting this exchange took place. Providing those details would allow readers to better understand the situation and evaluate the concerns being discussed.
Generalizing an entire group of people based on the actions of a few individuals risks creating the same kind of political division that the article warns against. Providing specific examples would make the argument clearer and more constructive for readers.
I found it interesting yet ironic that Mr. Beauregard begins his article by emphasizing that there is “no Democrat or Republican way” to run a town, noting responsibilities such as supporting schools, veterans, seniors, safe drinking water, roads, and public safety that transcend partisan labels. I strongly agree with his sentiment. Yet later in the article, he repeatedly frames the North Smithfield Democrats’ leadership as a unified ideological group of “far-left progressives” who are out of touch with most residents and believe in creating division among party lines. By characterizing an entire group in partisan terms, this article reintroduces and reinforces the very kind of identity politics it initially warns against. If the goal is to move beyond partisan divisions at the local level, it would be more productive to focus on specific actions and behaviors rather than applying broad ideological labels to an entire organization.
Constructive discussion at the local level works best when claims are supported with clear examples and when disagreements are addressed with evidence rather than assumptions and generalizations about entire groups.
– Earnest Bronco
While I appreciate your thoughtful commentary “Earnest Bronco”, please consider the following observations:
* In your comparison of the literary works of Mark Twain, George Orwell, Lewis Carrol and others to the digital diarrhea we are often subject to from the unidentifiable musings of “Mary Poppins”, “Oops”, “Kerri” and others, you are essentially sullying the works of giants of the written word, while validating and enabling the simple-minded musings of those who lurk in the internet shadows. Is that your own personal false equivalency, or perhaps AI’s? Alas, your cyber wall will enable your anonymity, so we will likely never know.
* Don’t the public political comments of most anyone subject them to risk? Business owners, employees, civil servants – anybody can face the wrath of those online commandos (and more) in disagreement, and potential repercussions. It takes guts to put your name to your words – online anonymity only provides the ability to write what you do not have the mettle to stand behind.
* Speaking of anonymous digital aggression, accountability basically flies out the window when you hide behind a pseudonym. Perpetrators have no fear of the ramifications of cyber-bullying or harassment, and in fact are only emboldened to attack further. It’s quite curious that you finish your comments with: “Constructive discussion at the local level works best when claims are supported with clear examples and when disagreements are addressed with evidence rather than assumptions and generalizations about entire groups.” In reality, constructive discussion works best when claims are supported with the names of people who aren’t afraid to stand up for what they believe in, and quite publicly stand behind their words.
You also write that “An argument should be evaluated by its reasoning and evidence, not the identity of the person presenting it.” Well I assure you that my arguments here will be discounted by some simply because they are attached to my name. You “Earnest Bronco” do not bear a similar burden – how fortunate for you.
Tony Guertin
Mr. Guertin –
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment. There are just a few points I want to clarify.
You suggested that my reference to writers such as Mark Twain and George Orwell creates a false equivalency between literary figures and anonymous internet commenters. This was not my intent. My point was not to equate the quality of writing in comment sections to literary giants. It was that the use of pseudonyms itself has long been a legitimate part of public discourse, whether in books, newspapers, or modern online forums. They are often used for privacy, safety, and to separate public writing from professional and personal lives. For example, even in early American political debates, Founding Fathers such as Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote under a shared pseudonym “Publius” in The Federalist Papers. In fact, anonymous political speech has been recognized as an important part of American free expression. In 1995, in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, Justice Stevens, writing for the Supreme Court, affirmed anonymous political writing as an “honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent”, noting its importance as a “shield from the tyranny of the majority”. (https://time.com/archive/6924080/doing-tom-paine-proud/)
And as you mentioned, “my arguments here will be discounted by some simply because they are attached to my name”. This is exactly why many early American political writers used pseudonyms; to focus debate on the arguments themselves rather than the identity of the author, to avoid personal political attacks, and to encourage readers to evaluate ideas on their merits. This meant readers had to evaluate the arguments themselves rather than relying on the reputation of Hamilton, the authority of Madison, and the political standing of Jay. Anonymous political speech in America was not just tolerated, but was used by some of the most influential political writers in our country’s founding era, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists, to focus debate on ideas instead of identity. The principle of anonymous speech is therefore not new and has useful purposes, even if the quality of modern online commentary varies widely.
You also make the argument that attaching your real name to a statement requires courage and creates accountability. I understand how that perspective can create transparency, especially in standing behind one’s own words. However, there are people who use pen names but still stand behind their own words. For example, across social media platforms and websites, users often operate under pseudonymous usernames, yet they can still build followings, establish reputations, and face moderation or bans for misconduct. Posts on NRI NOW are similarly moderated.
Additionally, many people choose pseudonyms not out of fear, but out of prudence. Teachers, town employees, and, as you mentioned, nearly everyone from business owners to employees to civil servants, can be at risk of repercussions for public political comments. Choosing not to publish one’s legal name online does not automatically mean someone lacks the courage to stand behind their ideas. The real test of conviction is not simply attaching a name to a statement, but whether someone is willing to engage with opposing viewpoints and defend their ideas with reason and evidence.
You also suggest that anonymity undermines constructive discussion because it reduces accountability. While anonymity can certainly be abused, I would argue that the quality of a discussion depends less on whether someone signs their name and more on whether their arguments are supported with reasoning and evidence. A comment made under a full name can still be unconstructive, just as a pseudonymous comment can raise legitimate questions or arguments. Furthermore, a badly written comment can still have valid points and arguments, while a well-written comment can have faulty reasoning and logic.
I believe constructive local discussion depends on the substance of what is said rather than solely the identity of the person presenting it. Whether someone writes under their legal name or a pseudonym, arguments should ultimately be judged on their reasoning and evidence.
– Earnest Bronco
“Divisive politics have no place in town government”
Proceeds to let his supporters call residents cowards, completely ignoring his own plea to stop the personal attacks.
Proceeds to hijack a June 2025 town meeting with a symbolic, locally powerless resolution against state gun laws instead of focusing on actual municipal jurisdiction.
Proceeds to protect a local quarry’s zoning violations and vote against groundwater protections, prioritizing a business’s bottom line while the rest of the taxpayers are left doing the actual math on a $9 million police station bond.
The call for unity is pretty loud for someone whose actual voting record shows a clear preference for validating partisan talking points over doing the real municipal work. If anyone is being played for fools here, it’s the local taxpayers. Must be an election year.
JB is acting the same way as the disgraceful current president with zero class or dignity. John criticizes anyone who is not a republican like his cult hero and cannot accept any ideas that are not his beliefs whether they are good or bad. Maybe his attitude stems from his bully police training or he lacks the ability to critically think and accepts something as fact just because it has been said enough times. John acts in his best interest and not the interests of the community. Just look at the quarry issue, John had a pre written prepared motion to mediation because that is what his campaign contributors told him to do so they can continue to affect taxpayers properties and health. Second shall we remember the Nike issue that made NS a national laughing stock. Third the junkyard that could have been denied a license legally but John stood up and said they could not deny the license aka a lie. Fourth the backroom solar array deal that has been a disaster. I personally welcome new ideas and candidates of high intelligence, dignity, and character. Take Mr. Carriere for example he has a PHD from Georgetown University is well spoken and appears to take a facts based problem solving approach. Mr. Carriere original letter was well written and spoke of an issue on how some politicians treat others and now we get this undignified letter criticizing a group because that is how his cult leader treats others.
Can you provide a single example of a personal attack, John? Personal meaning like they insulted your baldness, or your business, or your family, or your inability to spell Counci? Sounds like they aren’t personally attacking you. Sounds like they’re holding elected leaders accountable to their actions? That’s not personal. Stop being bad at your elected position. Have you tried that?
John has the courage to admit his failures. In fact he will sit down with you and tell you to your face. That’s a rare quality today. Unlike the people on this comment thread who are to ashamed of their own name. Always being cheeky with the usernames always quick to attack. Go talk to the guy he’s made himelf available for a decade. If you have an issue in town call him up discuss and I guarantee he will give it a shot to help you.
Everything is so sensationalized its ridiculous. Members of our community witnessed horrifying acts of violence.
Also members of our community acted in heroic ways. He chose to acknowledge these people and gets attacked for it? Complete insanity. He then goes on to write a letter to tell everyone to chill and the same people drudge up the same talking points that have already been beaten to dealth. The irony is palpable.
Currently writing this on vacation from Vietnam. Some of the folks back home sure make the communists over here look like republicans.
John Beauregard should not be holding office in any town, and his lackey “Tiny Curtain” should be censored. Those two are hilarious!
JB is right and I am seeing a lot of cry babies posting here just proving his point. You Progressives are so sensitive.
North Smithfield’s least capable culture warrior strikes again, with a tone so deaf that it embarasses us on his behalf
Are you complaining about John, or someone else? Please help me understand.
You may not agree with John’s opinions and commentary, but please acknowledge that he at least has the courage of his own convictions to put his name behind his words – unlike “Confused” (which may well be descriptive but is hardly personally identifiable) or, for that matter – the North Smithfield Democrats.
Who exactly are these people, and why don’t they tell the readers exactly who they are? They both endorse and attack politicians behind the veil of anonymity; isn’t that basically gutless? John has signed his name to his opinions – I am asking the North Smithfield Democrats to do the same on their Facebook page and website.
While I am neither a Democrat or a Republican, I firmly believe those who herald the First Amendment (like I do) should stand behind it bravely and openly – not anonymously and cowardly.
Tony Guertin
North Smithfield
Dude admits to not knowing who they are, but then claims he knows two of the members. Sounds like he just wants to claim anyone who against him is clearly a deep state operative instead of just recognizing he’s wrong.
I hope no one is donating to the NS democrats fundraising efforts. If you are, check the campaign finance facts on former candidate Paul Jones, you will see he is in debt from his unsuccessful campaign against incumbent Newberry. If he can’t even manage his campaign donations, why or anyone he supports should be able to hold an elected positions beyond anyone’s comprehension.
We all love the use of others names while posting Tony and John when it does not follow the cult narrative. Real facts instead of lies and false truths show a psychology of cults. Childhood cult behaviors that show a need to “always be right” often stem from a fragile ego, learned defensiveness, or a desire for control. Key behaviors include arguing over small details, insisting their memory is perfect, interrupting, being short-tempered when losing control, and strict adherence to routines. If you look at John’s letter he mentions I have been a Republican since I was old enough to vote. So when others speak with facts the cult behavior lashes out with unfounded accusations, claims and interruptions.
This is coming from the Nike guy who embarrassed the town nationally.
“Divisive politics have no place in town government”
*Proceeds to pass legislation about banning Nike*
*Proceeds to have hardline conservative views*
*Proceeds to attack other republicans who are moderates*
*Proceeds to support fellow hardline conservatives*
*Proceeds to bring national politics to a small town*
Must be an election year for the amount of back pedaling this letter is providing. Trying to take the high road and failing, who knew…
It goes both ways the Republicans local are the same as the national Republicans.
Comments in your letter will continue the two party divide aka the country divide. How about worrying about the needs of the people, the economy and using diplomacy on all levels of government.
“Divisive politics have no place in town government”
*Proceeds to write a letter filled with divisive politics*
Wow, that’s rich commentary coming from you! Pot calling the kettle black! Please!