Recently, a local sheriff in Ohio incurred the ire of several of his constituents owing to his ill-advised social media post regarding citizens supporting Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for President. Bruce Zuchowski, of Portage County near Cleveland, displayed quite the audacity when he informed his followers about what to do if Kamala Harris were victorious in the election. He infamously advised people on his September 13th Facebook post to scribble down the addresses of anyone brandishing signs in support of Harris.
Delving into even murkier waters, Zuchowski brought up the contentious issue of Harris’s supposed leniency towards illegal immigration. Exploiting the fears and uncertainty that often lurk around the topic, he embellished his stance with unsightly imagery. Remarkably, he chose the term ‘Locust’ to depict illegal immigrants, and proceeded to state that those supportive of their arrival should be prepared to house them.
Almost predictably, Zuchowski’s comments sparked a flurry of backlash from members of his community. Presumably, his role as the sheriff had some of his followers anticipating more measured and respectful discourse, not one riddled with mocking statements and undisguised partiality. His disgraceful suggestions were perceived by many as a precarious step towards voter intimidation and blatant racial discrimination – quite a disgrace coming from a man supposed to uphold law and order.
Consequently, a striking number of complaints – 59 in total – were filed to the Ohio Attorney General’s office, headed by Republican Dave Yost. Several were against the conduct of the sheriff on the basis of the Facebook post. While it is quite surprising that a person occupying an official position would indulge in such unprofessional behaviour, it seems less surprising that it rattled so many citizens.
Many complaints voiced concerns about the evident implications of Zuchowski’s comments on voter rights and freedom. Some individuals voiced criticism of what they believe to be clear voter intimidation by Zuchowski. These complaints were forwarded to Secretary of State Frank LaRose as they pertained to election-related matters.
Furthermore, hints of fear, discomfort, and anxiety were evident in many of these complaints. Notably, several Portage County residents confessed to feeling threatened or fearful due to the sheriff’s divisive rhetoric. An unsettling comparison was drawn by one resident who likened the situation to the persecution their family underwent in Germany during the Second World War – a horrifying thought elicited by a man of the law.
Despite the considerable backlash and the mounting evidence of his unprofessional behavior, Zuchowski exhibited a remarkable lack of remorse for his actions. Instead, in a subsequent move that can only be read as an artless damage control attempt, he declared that his initial words could have been misconstrued, making sure to mention how he is tasked to protect ‘all’ citizens – a point of duty clearly overlooked when making his initial post.
Just when anyone would expect an apology, Zuchowski continued his derision. He argued that he, ‘as the elected sheriff’, retains his First Amendment rights, much like other citizens. However, he seemed to conveniently forget that his public office adds weight and influence to his speech, potentially making such comments harmful and intimidating.
Zuchowski then entered a realm of political critique, lambasting those who may choose to support candidates advocating for more relaxed border policies, a stance he has shown clear disagreement with. These are the people he curtly referred to as ‘citizens of Portage County’. Demonstration of such overt biases for a man in uniform is nothing short of disturbing.
Continuing his harangue, Zuchowski mockingly tried to warn the supposed ‘liberal-policy-loving’ citizens of the consequences of their voting actions. His words, ‘With elections, there are consequences,’ sound more like a veiled threat than a piece of political analysis. Notably, he made a point to distance himself from being a politician.
Among the many constituents voicing their outrage, there were those who urged for the suspension or removal of Zuchowski from his position. Indeed, the repeated calls for action against him mark the severity of the situation, although Secretary of State Frank LaRose has stated the sheriff’s post did not violate any election laws.
However, even if no formal legal action is pursued, it must be recognized that Zuchowski’s comments were highly inappropriate and unethical. As a law enforcement officer, he is entrusted with the responsibility to keep biases aside and serve each citizen equally – a responsibility tragically ignored.
The abuse of office for mockeries and unchecked political biases leaves a wound in the fabric of public trust that takes a painfully long time to heal. Sheriff Zuchowski’s actions not only reflects poorly on him, but sadly, stains the reputation of the law enforcement community.
In a democracy as vibrant and diverse as that of the United States, it is high time we uphold a standard of behavior for our officials that discourages public deriding and misuse of office. After all, isn’t it the essence of our democracy to protect and respect the rights and freedoms of all, irrespective of which side of the political spectrum one may lean towards?