Commentary: If You’re Going to Dig a Grave… Dig Two

From where I sit, I’ve seen elections come and go. I’ve watched good people rise. I’ve watched promising campaigns fall apart. But what troubles me most is this: No one has even qualified to run yet. many have announced their intent to run but the deadline to qualify isn't until next month — and already the shovels are out.

Social media has become a construction site for character assassinations. DUI records. Questionable residences. Extensive stays in rehab. Arrests from decades ago. Domestic disputes. It appears everything — and everyone — is open season.

And I can hear my mother’s voice as clear as if she were standing beside me: “If you’re going to dig a grave for someone, you might as well dig two. The other one is for you.”

Now she didn’t quote philosophers. She didn’t reference ancient texts. But wisdom doesn’t need a citation to be true. That saying has been attributed to Confucius: “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.” Others phrase it differently: “He who digs a pit for others will fall into it himself.”

However you say it, the message is the same. Vengeance is self-destructive.  Revenge is a slow poison.     

When you devote your energy to destroying someone else’s reputation, you begin eroding your own. Because the spirit required to launch personal attacks is the same spirit voters eventually recognize as bitterness, insecurity, or desperation.

In local politics, everybody knows everybody. We go to the same churches. Our children attend the same schools. We shop at the same grocery stores. When a candidate launches personal attacks, voters don’t just hear the accusation — they hear the tone. And tone reveals character.

And here’s what many fail to understand: dirt has a boomerang effect. You throw it, and it circles back.

Voters aren’t blind. They can tell when something is being shared to “inform” versus when it’s being shared to humiliate. They know when a post is about accountability — and when it’s about vengeance. And often, the one throwing mud ends up looking muddier than the target.

Especially in a local election. In national politics, people may expect blood sport. But in a community like ours, we worship together. Our children play together. We attend the same funerals and the same fish fries. After the election is over, we still have to see each other in the grocery store.

What kind of leadership divides a community before it even has a chance to be united? Cycles of negativity don’t produce solutions. They produce retaliation. One post leads to another. One accusation sparks a counterattack. And before long, the issues — jobs, schools, public safety, infrastructure — are buried beneath gossip and grievance.

Meanwhile, the community suffers. An election is temporary. A community is permanent. When campaigns turn personal: Friendships fracture. Churches split. Organizations divide. Social media becomes a battlefield. And when the election ends, the scars remain. If you win by burning bridges, you inherit ashes — not unity.

Let me be clear: transparency matters. Character matters. Past behavior matters. But there is a difference between responsible vetting and reckless character destruction. There is a difference between informing voters and inflaming them.

If your platform is strong, you don’t have to weaken someone else’s name to strengthen your own. If your ideas are solid, you don’t need a shovel.

My mother’s wisdom wasn’t just moral — it was strategic. Digging graves takes time and energy. And the deeper you dig for someone else, the more you risk losing your own footing.

So here’s my humble advice from this pew: Run on your vision. Stand on your record. Speak to the future. Let voters decide based on ideas — not innuendo.

Because when the ballots are counted, the community will remember more than what you promised. They’ll remember how you behaved when you could have chosen better. And in leadership, character isn’t just what you reveal about your opponent. It’s what you reveal about yourself.