When questioning government turns the citizen into the accused
THE HILLSDALE CONSERVATIVES
Truth • Liberty • Local Stewardship
Hillsdale County, Michigan • Oct. 2nd, 2026 • 2¢
Letter to the Hillsdale Conservative’s.
Something has been bothering me about Hillsdale County for a long time.
Everyone sees it. Most people talk about it privately. Very few are willing to say it publicly.
The animosity here is thick to say the least.
Many love the anonymity social media provides, yet cheer when their government takes it from those they dislike. Public meetings/events are getting interesting and not for good reasons.
Not normal political disagreement. Not two neighbors arguing about taxes or an election. I mean the almost immediate, intensely personal hostility that seems to descend upon anyone the moment they find themselves in conflict with local government, one of the institutions surrounding it and even someone allegedly serving from it.
We saw it again this week, multiple times.
The infamous Republican vs Democrat debacle at the fair. (Wasn’t us, we aren’t allowed, no government accountability at the Hillsdale fair.)
No, we did something far worse, some would say, unforgivable.
We published a letter asking for help in a dispute involving a woman and her local government involving her fire-damaged home. She alleged that inspections had been stopped, insurance proceeds remained tied up, demolition was approaching, and she had struggled to get emergency judicial review. (The horror!)
Those are serious allegations local news refused to get involved in. As is every letter we publish here. It’s no secret the News in this County is horrible and to say it has a neutral view would be a lie. We do not claim to be neutral, never have.
These allegations deserve to be heard and should be investigated.
As with all our publications this story has received “mixed reviews” from all the extremes.
And it quickly became the same old thing on social media. Attack the bad person, protect the government and the “good guys.” We can set our clocks by it.
Maybe she has every fact right. Maybe she has some facts wrong. Maybe the Village has documents that completely change part of the story.
That is precisely why we published her side and why government should answer it.
Then it happened, like clockwork.
People did not simply challenge her claims.
They challenged her.
Comments got hateful, I started receiving messages.
She’s a druggie.
Her boyfriend is terrible.
You don’t know these people.
Ask the neighbors.
Their property is a mess.
People are afraid of them.
They were given chances.
You don’t know what kind of person she really is.
One person told me, in considerably less polite language, that I had no idea what a terrible person she was.
(I’m a terrible person as well, depending on who you ask.) Every single person reading this is terrible in someones eyes.
I kept asking essentially the same question:
What does any of that have to do with whether the government acted lawfully?
That question seemed strangely difficult to answer. almost as if it wasn’t even understood.
Put the Citizen on Trial
This isn’t the first time I have watched this happen, or the fifth, or the tenth. I’ve lost count as I’m sure any reasonable person who has made it reading this far has as well. (Even you haters. Hi!)
A citizen raises a question about government.
Instead of answering the question, suddenly we need to investigate the citizen.
Who are they?
What have they done?
Who are they dating?
Who are their friends?
What does their property look like?
What mistakes have they made?
What rumors have people heard?
What does somebody’s father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate have to say?
What do people who don’t even live here or know the person have to say?
Before long, government is no longer on trial.
The citizen is, effective, isn’t it.
And once the citizen has been sufficiently discredited, something extraordinary happens.
People begin acting as though government no longer has to answer the original question, suddenly, government and those serving the citizen are the victim, society itself declares, between the lines.
That is the part that should concern everyone.
Because there are really three separate questions:
Is everything this person alleges factually true?
Is this person someone you personally like or admire?
Did government exercise its authority lawfully?
Socrates Had the Same Problem
This problem is not new.
More than 2,400 years ago, Plato wrote about it in his account of the trial of Socrates.
When Socrates stood before Athens, he explained that his most dangerous accusers were not necessarily the men formally prosecuting him. They were the people who had spent years creating a public image of him.
Plato has Socrates distinguish between the formal accusations and the older accusations that had already shaped public opinion. He says those earlier accusers had been influencing people for years, creating prejudices he now had to overcome in the short time allotted for his defense. Perseus Digital Library
That is remarkably relevant today, eerily even.
Once a community has decided what kind of person you are, evidence starts being interpreted through that reputation.
Socrates even describes people becoming angry with him after their own supposed knowledge had been questioned. Instead of addressing what he exposed, they attacked the man who exposed it. Perseus Digital Library
Two thousand four hundred years later, apparently human nature hasn’t changed much. Perhaps, the Founders of our Country actually understood what they were doing when they designed our Republic.
René Girard Explained What Happens Next
French thinker René Girard described another part of this phenomenon through what became known as the scapegoat mechanism.
Girard argued that communities can redirect frustration and conflict toward a particular person. As hostility gathers around that individual, attacking the target actually begins bringing other people together.
Eventually the community does not merely disagree with that person.
The person becomes the problem.
And the mechanism works because the community believes the target deserves what is happening to them. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
That distinction is important.
A scapegoat does not have to be perfect.
They don’t even have to be innocent of every accusation anyone makes against them.
They only have to become the person onto whom the community begins piling everything else.
And once that happens, a dangerous sentence begins appearing:
“You don’t know what they’re really like.”
Maybe I don’t.
But that still doesn’t answer the question.
Suppose Every Rumor Is True
Let’s conduct an experiment.
Suppose every nasty allegation somebody has made about this woman is true.
For the sake of argument, give her critics everything.
Suppose she’s difficult.
Suppose her boyfriend is difficult.
Suppose the property has looked terrible.
Suppose she’s made awful decisions.
Suppose every neighbor dislikes her.
Now answer four questions:
What power did the government exercise?
Where did that power come from?
What process was legally required?
Was that process followed?
Nothing about her answers any of those questions.
If the Village acted lawfully, it should be able to demonstrate that.
Show us the ordinance.
Show us the inspection record.
Show us the notices.
Show us the statutory authority.
Show us the proceedings.
Show us what happened.
If her story is false, records should expose it.
Government does not need gossip when it has law and documentation.
A Good Government Should Welcome This
This is where I think Hillsdale County has lost its way.
A good government should welcome scrutiny.
Not because government never makes mistakes. Government is made up of human beings, so of course it makes mistakes.
Good government welcomes scrutiny because it should be willing to show its work.
Someone acted illegally?
Fine.
Here is the law.
Here are the minutes.
Here is the order.
Here is the record.
Here is what we did.
Here is why we did it.
Read it yourself.
That should be the response.
And if government discovers it was wrong?
Correct it.
That is not weakness.
That is what accountable government looks like.
Criticism is not an attack upon legitimate government.
Criticism is one of the mechanisms through which legitimate government demonstrates that it is legitimate.
A government confident in its conduct answers criticism with evidence.
An unhealthy government culture answers by discrediting the critic.
Now Look Around Hillsdale County
This is where this becomes much larger than one house in Waldron.
We have watched controversies repeatedly become personal.
Look at what happened surrounding the Hillsdale County Fair. (In honor of Fair week)
The Fair Board president was also Hillsdale County Undersheriff Nathan Lambright. During the 2025 dispute, a Fair Board meeting was moved into the Sheriff’s Department. Residents attempting to attend were excluded, and Sheriff Scott Hodshire subsequently warned residents about potential trespassing consequences. Hillsdale Conservatives documented those events extensively, although some of the legal conclusions drawn from them remain allegations rather than adjudicated findings. Hillsdale Conservative Network
When residents disputed Fair membership decisions, the Fair later reversed course after consulting counsel and told previously rejected people that they could apply for membership. Hillsdale Conservative Network
The Fair Board president was also the undersheriff, Fair governance became intertwined with the Sheriff’s Department, and law enforcement authority entered what had begun as a dispute over participation in a community institution. Hillsdale Conservative Network
And now the county sheriff himself faces one count of misconduct in office and one count of obstruction of justice stemming from allegations that he disclosed information connected to an active criminal investigation. He pleaded not guilty, and those charges have not been adjudicated. Radio Hillsdale
Look at Stephanie Scott. A township clerk persecuted for doing her duty.
I could list examples all day.
These matters are not all the same.
One does not prove another.
They should not be mashed together into one giant accusation.
But they do raise a broader institutional question that Hillsdale County should be mature enough to confront:
What happens when the people responsible for checking one another are also friends, colleagues, political allies, board members, relatives, or longtime associates?
That does not automatically mean corruption.
Small communities inevitably contain overlapping relationships.
But it creates a serious risk.
The Insider Gets Credibility. The Outsider Gets Investigated.
Think about the imbalance.
An official says something happened.
People assume the official probably knows what he’s talking about.
A citizen says something happened.
“Well, what’s her background?”
“Who’s her boyfriend?”
“Why doesn’t her family like her?”
“What kind of house does she keep?”
“Has she ever used drugs?”
“Did you talk to her neighbors?”
Why is the citizen’s entire biography suddenly evidence?
And why isn’t the government’s authority being subjected to at least the same level of scrutiny?
That is the culture I am talking about. And it is ripe here in Hillsdale County.
It doesn’t necessarily require ten people sitting around a conference table conspiring against somebody.
Sometimes institutions learn to defend themselves almost automatically.
An official says someone is a problem.
A friend repeats it.
A relative explains that there is “more to the story.”
A neighbor provides another allegation.
Someone who works with government confirms that the person is difficult.
Then someone else decides there must be a good reason government is treating them this way.
Soon the original question disappears completely.
What did government do?
Nobody remembers.
Everyone is too busy discussing the citizen, building the mob.
And Sometimes the Response Is Deliberate
We should also be honest about something else.
Not every redirection of scrutiny is accidental.
Moving a meeting is a decision.
Excluding someone is a decision.
Changing procedures is a decision.
Changing rules is a decision.
Calling law enforcement is a decision.
Threatening enforcement is a decision.
Refusing to answer criticism is a decision.
Those actions can be documented and examined without pretending we can read every official’s mind.
What requires greater caution is claiming that every official involved shares secret motives.
We don’t need to prove that, although the evidence is mounting.
The public record is enough to ask the more important question:
Do government institutions and the people surrounding them respond to criticism by answering the substance, or by making the critic the problem?
Watch closely enough and people can answer that question for themselves.
Hillsdale’s Unofficial Court
Hillsdale County seems to have developed an unofficial court system.
There is no judge.
There are no rules of evidence.
There is no discovery.
There is no cross examination.
You simply question the wrong institution and suddenly somebody has a cousin who knows you.
Someone knows your ex.
Someone heard something from your neighbor.
Someone knows what you did 12 years ago.
Someone knows the “real story.”
Some random stranger starts spreading rumors.
Anonymous accounts spread hate like wildfire.
And before government has produced one statute explaining what it did, the citizen has already been convicted in the court of public opinion.
Socrates would recognize the place immediately.
“But You Don’t Know This Person”
No.
Maybe I don’t.
And that’s the point.
I shouldn’t have to.
Government does not obtain additional authority over people I dislike.
The Constitution does not contain a good-person exception.
Due process does not belong exclusively to responsible homeowners.
Free speech does not belong exclusively to polite people.
Equal protection does not belong exclusively to people with spotless reputations.
Property rights do not disappear because somebody’s neighbors can’t stand them.
The entire concept of rights becomes meaningless if those rights only apply after the community decides that you deserve them.
Popular people rarely need someone to stand up for their rights.
Unpopular people do.
People Are People. Government Is Government.
I said something in one of those conversations that I keep coming back to:
People are people. Government is government.
People are allowed to dislike each other.
People can refuse to associate with someone.
People can think their neighbor is obnoxious.
People can think I’m obnoxious and worse.
Quite a few apparently do.
“I don’t even disagree.”
That’s life.
Government is different.
Government carries authority that ordinary citizens do not possess.
Government can tax you.
Government can fine you.
Government can arrest you.
Government can regulate your property.
Government can initiate proceedings that may ultimately result in your property being taken or demolished.
That is why government operates under law.
And government officials don’t get to substitute personal judgment for legal authority simply because the person standing across from them is unpopular.
Take Away the Names
Maybe this is the easiest way to think about it.
Take away Charity Wooten’s name.
Take away Scott Hodshire’s name.
Take away Nathan Lambright’s name.
Take away Abe Dane’s name.
Stephanie Scott’s
The dreaded Jon-Paul Rutan “scary, I know”
Take away mine.
Take away the political parties.
Take away who goes to which church.
Take away who someone’s father was.
Take away who somebody has known for 30 years.
Take away every rumor you have ever heard.
Then look at the government action.
What happened?
Who authorized it?
What law authorized them?
What procedure applied?
Was it followed?
Can government produce the record?
That is accountability.
Everything else is noise.
This Isn’t Just Hillsdale
And before anyone gets too comfortable believing this is merely another Hillsdale County problem, look around the country.
Americans increasingly seem to believe in constitutional protections most passionately when their own side needs them.
When government targets someone we like, we demand warrants, hearings, transparency, due process and strict compliance with the law.
When government targets someone we despise, the first question becomes:
“Well, what did they do?”
That is how principles quietly become preferences.
The standard changes from:
Government must obey the law.
to:
Government must obey the law when dealing with people I believe deserve protection.
Those are not remotely the same principle.
And no political faction is immune to that temptation.
The Test
The real test of your belief in individual rights isn’t what you do when government comes after your friend.
That’s easy.
The test comes when government comes after somebody you cannot stand.
Someone rude.
Someone irresponsible.
Someone whose politics you despise.
Someone who has made terrible decisions.
And someday, the community may stop approving of you.
Someone your friends tell you deserves everything coming to them.
Can you still ask:
Did government follow the law?
Because if your answer depends upon who the person is, then you don’t actually believe in rights.
You believe in privileges for people you approve of.
And someday, the community may stop approving of you.
The Animosity Everyone Sees
That brings us back to Hillsdale County.
The animosity is real.
We all see it.
Maybe instead of participating in it, we should start asking why it appears so quickly whenever someone challenges an institution or person with power.
Maybe the next time someone tells you:
“You don’t know what this person is really like.”
Ask them:
What does that have to do with whether government followed the law?
If government was right, the evidence will show it.
If government was wrong, someone’s bad reputation will not make it right.
And if our institutions are healthy, they should welcome that examination instead of fearing it.
Because a good government does not need citizens to trust it blindly.
It earns trust by opening the books, answering the questions, following the law, admitting mistakes, and correcting them.
Most importantly:
A government that is right should never need the public to hate the person questioning it.
The test of a free society is not whether we protect the rights of people everybody loves.
Nobody needs courage for that.
The test comes when the person standing alone is someone the whole town has already decided to hate.
And that is exactly when the rest of us should stop asking whether we like them and start asking the only question that matters:
Did government obey the law?
in liberty,
Lance Lashaway
Leave a Reply