<aside>
</aside>
Publication Date: June 17th, 2025
Part 1 of 3
<aside>
In Brief: Hudson’s Democratic mayoral debate changed no minds but revealed much. Kamal Johnson led with attacks and self-congratulation; Joe Ferris countered with restraint and principle. Style dominated substance. Character was the real contest.
The event left the city disappointed and divided. Two Hudsons faced off; one loud and theatrical, the other quiet and disillusioned. Theatrics replaced policy. Trust eroded. Whatever unity remained was further fractured.
</aside>
The conceit of political debates is that they change minds. They rarely do. Most voters arrive with fixed allegiances and leave with them intact. Yet debates sometimes yield something more lasting than persuasion: they reveal character.
Such was the case in Hudson’s Democratic primary mayoral debate between incumbent Kamal Johnson and challenger Joe Ferris, a dispiriting exchange that nonetheless told voters much, if not about policy, then about temperament and the town’s dueling cultures of loud grievance and quiet dignity.
The format was familiar. The dynamic quickly descended into theatre. Mr Johnson opened not with vision but with vitriol, launching into personal attacks before the first question had even been asked. His approach remained combative throughout, dismissing his opponent’s record, avoiding policy detail, and appropriating every municipal improvement as his own. It brought to mind Donald Trump’s infamous declaration: “I alone can fix it.” In Kamal’s case, “I literally just built three parks.”
Mr Ferris, by contrast, appeared nervous at the outset. He stumbled occasionally and searched, sincerely, for phrasing. But unlike his opponent, he refrained from personal attacks. He remained composed, courteous, and firm. Even when denied the basic decorum of debate—interrupted, accused, mischaracterized—he responded with restraint. In an age when politics rewards volume over discipline, his demeanor felt oddly dignified.
This is not to say Mr Ferris did well, or seized the opportunity to show residents why his neighbors and friends all admire him. The format did not allow for extended point and counterpoint or detailed exposition. Nor did either candidate offer meaningful policy specifics. No clear positions were articulated on crime, housing, fiscal health, or employment.
What viewers witnessed instead was posture and projection. The absence of substance, though regrettable, placed character at the forefront.
And both characters shared their stories verbally and non-verbally. Mr Johnson projected grievance, cloaked in combative action, not leadership. His tone was prosecutorial, his facts loosely tethered. He invoked the city’s progress as proof of personal success while disclaiming responsibility for its stagnation. Mr Ferris, by contrast, acted as though public trust were something to be earned, not assumed. He seemed determined to resist the modern instinct to attack, even when attacked. The contrast in style and instinct was striking.
The spectacle surrounding the mayor’s abrupt personality shifts—hat on, hat off—became a surreal meme in its own right, a kind of civic theatre by costume change. Online, users gleefully noted how removing the cap seemed to drain Kamal of his brash charisma, revealing a deflated, oddly deferential figure. With the hat back on, the swagger returned, along with his trademark evasions and monologues. It was ego by accessory, machismo stitched into millinery. As one editor quipped dryly, “If you ever have the misfortune of dining with Kamal, insist on the Kamal without the hat.”
If there were an old-school Republican still residing in Hudson she might have quipped, as Joe should have if he wanted to prove the point “Are you better off today than you were six years ago,” one of Reagan’s best lines. But Joe, the ever pragmatic progressive, did not connect emotionally, unlike Kamal, who is more at ease on stage and clearly, to his credit, at his best when standing up for his “community,” even if that means insulting and attacking the majority of city residents.
Reactions in the room and online suggest that while few minds were changed, some hearts were moved. One Common Sense reader from the British Isles remarked, not entirely in jest, “Not since Brexit have there been so many unchallenged lies.”
Another, a decades-long Hudson resident and former supporter of Kamal in the Third Ward, was more blunt: “Kamal’s dramatic exit from the stage was very disappointing. I now want him gone more than ever. He was rude, arrogant and inappropriate at times. He could have shown up to be the big man and either apologise or acknowledge his mistake regarding why Joe was in Brooklyn.” Joe Ferris spent much of Covid in Brooklyn assisting very ill family members through Covid.