Community Engagement or Political Optics?

There is a difference—an unmistakable difference—between genuine engagement and political convenience.

This weekend, candidates Charmaine Crabb and Karen Gaskins hosted a meet-and-greet at Ed’s Southern Cooking on Woodruff Farm Road. On its face, there is nothing wrong with breaking bread in the community. In fact, when done sincerely and consistently, it is one of the most powerful ways to build trust.

But context matters. Timing matters. And, above all, presence matters.

These same candidates chose not to attend the Courier Eco Latino Newspaper and Davis Broadcasting, Inc. Candidate Forum Series—forums specifically designed to give voters broad, direct access to those seeking to represent them. These were not casual gatherings. They were structured opportunities for accountability, transparency, and meaningful dialogue—reaching far more constituents than any single meet-and-greet ever could.

So, the question must be asked: why show up now, in a more controlled and comfortable setting, after declining to stand before the full community?

For many, this raises concerns about intent. Critics may view such last-minute outreach not as a commitment to service, but as a calculated, surface-level gesture—particularly in the absence of a sustained record of advocacy within the communities these candidates now seek to engage.

Let’s be clear. The Black and Brown communities of Columbus are not monolithic, and they are certainly not naïve. They understand the difference between long-term investment and election-season appearances. They recognize when engagement is rooted in relationship—and when it is rooted in strategy.

A plate of food, no matter how well prepared, is not a substitute for presence. Smothered pork chops and macaroni and cheese may bring people into a room—but they do not answer questions. They do not outline policy. They do not demonstrate preparedness, vision, or accountability.

And voters deserve more than that.

If community engagement only shows up weeks before an election, it invites scrutiny. If candidates bypass platforms designed for public accountability, only to reappear in curated environments, it raises legitimate concerns about accessibility and transparency.

This is not about where you meet the people. It is about whether you are willing to stand before all the people.

The responsibility of leadership requires more than symbolism. It demands consistency, courage, and a willingness to engage—even when the questions are tough and the audience is broad.

Anything less is not just disappointing.

It is disingenuous.

And in a community as informed, resilient, and aware as ours—that distinction will not be missed.