Pip: This site covers the kind of local civic drama that actually matters — where a name on a sign stops matching what’s happening inside the building.
Mara: Today we’re looking at a pointed piece from twshortt about whether a local business alliance has drifted from its founding purpose. Let’s start with the question the post puts directly to the RSBA.
The Radcliff Small Business Alliance has lost its way. It must return to its founding mission, undergo serious reform, or close its doors.
TW Shortt
Co-founder, Radcliff Small Business Alliance
The RSBA was created after the former Radcliff Chamber of Commerce was absorbed into a countywide chamber. At the time, critics warned that Radcliff and the northern end of Hardin County would lose their local business voice. They were assured that nothing would change.
They were wrong.
Continue reading
By T.W. Shortt
Radcliff Small-Business Owner, Former Radcliff City Council Member, and Community Commentator
As new leadership approaches, Radcliff has an opportunity to build on recent progress and confront the challenges that have waited too long.
Every community has its share of opportunities and challenges, and Radcliff is no exception. After forty years as a small-business owner here, I have watched our community grow, struggle, adjust, and reinvent itself more than once.
With a new mayor taking office in the coming months, along with the possibility of new members joining the City Council, Radcliff is entering another important period in its history. New leadership creates an opportunity to recognize what has worked, acknowledge what has not been done, and decide where we want to go next.
Continue readingBy T.W. Shortt, former Radcliff City Council member and local business owner
I have a strong interest in local government, particularly the relationship between the executive branch and the legislative body.
In smaller communities, people sometimes expect mayors and city councils—or judge-executives and magistrates—to agree on everything. When disagreements arise about spending, development, policy, or other public matters, some citizens become uncomfortable and view the conflict as evidence that government is not functioning properly.
An eighth-grade civics lesson could clear up much of this confusion.
Continue reading
By T.W. Shortt, Former Radcliff City Council Member and Local Business Owner
We are now a little more than 90 days (about 3 months) from the November 3 general election that will determine who serves as Hardin County judge-executive and as mayor of Vine Grove and Radcliff.
This election presents an unusual and important moment for our community. Both candidates for mayor of Vine Grove—Pamela Ogden and Selena Hudson—are women, guaranteeing that the city’s next mayor will be a woman. The same is true in Radcliff, where Toshie Murrell and Terry Owens will face each other in the general election. For the first time, Radcliff and Vine Grove are certain to elect women as their mayors in the same election.
Regardless of the results, women have already become a powerful and increasingly visible force in Hardin County’s political, business, and civic leadership.
This development reflects a broader change that has been taking place for years. Women now hold prominent positions in local banks, nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, government agencies, and civic organizations. They serve as presidents, executive directors, board chairs, elected officials, principal brokers, and senior administrators.
The important question is not simply whether women are gaining political influence. The larger question is what this change tells us about Hardin County, its voters, and the qualities people now expect from their leaders.
Philosopher Nel Noddings argued that caring requires attentiveness to other people, their relationships, and their circumstances (Noddings, 2013). Her ethics of care provide a useful way to consider leadership.
Effective leadership requires more than authority, technical knowledge, and the ability to issue orders. It also requires listening, understanding competing needs, maintaining relationships, and recognizing how public decisions affect individual lives.
These qualities are not exclusive to women. Men can be caring and cooperative leaders, just as women can be firm, demanding, and decisive. We should not assume that every woman or every man will lead in a particular way.
Behavioral research suggests that women, on average, may sometimes be more likely to use cooperative, accommodating, or relationship-centered approaches when addressing conflict. However, those differences are modest. Leadership style is also shaped by personality, experience, culture, professional position, and circumstances.
The advancement of women appears especially visible in public agencies, banks, schools, and nonprofit organizations. These institutions often have established procedures for hiring, promotion, board appointments, and professional advancement.
Private business ownership can present different challenges. Starting, purchasing, or expanding a company often requires access to capital, property, professional networks, family resources, and a willingness to accept financial risk.
Many family businesses have traditionally passed from father to son. However, succession from father to daughter is also part of Hardin County’s business story.
One local example is Kim Shortt, principal broker and owner of T.W. Shortt Realty–Property Management. The company was established by her parents, T.W. and Andra Shortt, and later passed to their daughter. Today, it manages properties for owners and investors located throughout the United States and in other parts of the world.
Her experience illustrates how a family business can successfully pass from one generation to the next while placing a woman in its principal ownership and leadership position. It also reminds us that women may be more prominent in Hardin County’s private business community than public attention sometimes suggests.
The increasing number of women in leadership should not change the standards by which leaders are judged. Women should not be elected, appointed, or promoted simply because they are women, nor should they be overlooked because of their sex.
Every leader should be judged by the same standards: integrity, competence, sound judgment, fiscal responsibility, accessibility, courage, and results.
Hardin County will soon have an opportunity to observe this transition through city halls, public meetings, budgets, economic-development decisions, businesses, and community organizations.
The rise of women in leadership is an important development. What matters next is how they lead.
Reference
Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education (2nd ed.). University of California Press.
By T.W. Shortt, Co-founder of the Radcliff Small Business Alliance
A new Radcliff Business Alliance is being planned for launch in early 2027, with one clear purpose: to provide an independent voice focused specifically on Radcliff businesses and Radcliff’s commercial future.
The original Radcliff Small Business Alliance was created after the Radcliff Chamber of Commerce merged with the Hardin County Chamber of Commerce. That merger left Radcliff without an organization devoted primarily to its own business community. Local business owners and community leaders, working with city leaders, helped establish the Radcliff Small Business Alliance to fill that gap thirteen years ago.
Its mission was Radcliff.
Over time, however, the organization’s attention appears to have shifted toward broader countywide programs, nonprofit activities, seminars, and workshops. Some of those efforts may be worthwhile, but worthwhile activity is not always mission-centered activity.
Radcliff’s barbers, restaurant owners, shopkeepers, brokers, contractors, service providers, and entrepreneurs deserve an organization focused on the challenges they face every day—vacant storefronts, rising costs, declining traffic, business visibility, and local development.
The proposed Radcliff Business Alliance will return to that basic purpose. It is being designed as a simple, volunteer-led network with no dues, no paid staff, no paid leadership, and no unnecessary bureaucracy. Its priorities will include promoting local businesses, encouraging residents to buy locally, supporting commercial corridors, and strengthening cooperation among people invested in Radcliff’s future.
An organization cannot be everything to everyone without becoming little to the people who need it most.
Radcliff does not need another countywide organization. It needs a focused local alliance that remembers why it exists.
Please stand by for additional details concerning the mission, volunteer leadership, participation, and official launch of the Radcliff Business Alliance in early 2027.
By T.W. Shortt,
Former Radcliff City Councilman and Local Business Owner
The primary purpose of local government, whether at the city or county level, is public safety. It is not the government’s only responsibility, but it is the first. Roads, recreation, economic development, and community events all matter, but none of them should take priority over protecting lives and property.
In Radcliff, there is often a great deal of attention placed on what I call the four P’s: parties, picnics, parades, and pancakes. There is nothing wrong with community events. They bring people together and help build civic pride. However, those activities should never distract from the community’s basic public safety needs. Considering the level of crime being reported in Radcliff, along with concerns about police staffing, emergency response, and the demands placed on public safety personnel, it may be time to shift the focus.
At the Hardin County level, public safety must also remain a primary concern. The proposed 2026–2030 Emergency Fire Services Strategic Plan is a move in the right direction. It recognizes growing call volumes, simultaneous emergencies, aging fire equipment, limited staffing, and the pressure created when a small group is expected to serve a large and growing community.
One of the largest proposals is an estimated $8 million emergency services building in Glendale, with approximately $6.5 million expected to come from state funding. The plan also calls for establishing the Hardin County Fire System, adding paid weekday firefighters in key districts, beginning replacement of fire apparatus in 2028, and creating the county’s first full-time, 24-hour paid fire crew by 2029.
The planning phase is critical. Without a plan, every incident becomes a shock and a surprise. Government then finds itself reacting from one emergency to the next instead of working from an organized system with clear priorities, staffing goals, equipment schedules, and funding needs. Without that preparation, emergency management can begin to look less like organized county government and more like goat roping—everyone moving at once, but no one certain who is in charge or where the effort is headed.
Judge-Executive Keith Taul deserves recognition for his leadership in this area. The judge-executive serves as the county’s chief executive officer, comparable to a mayor but on a countywide scale. Working with the members of the Fiscal Court, the judge-executive plays a leading role in planning, setting priorities, coordinating departments, and preparing the county for future needs.
Fortunately, Judge Taul brings years of professional experience in which planning, organization, and leadership were developed and tested. That background is especially valuable when county governments must look beyond the next meeting or the next emergency and prepare for what Hardin County will need five, ten, or even twenty years from now. Every member of the Fiscal Court is also responsible for studying the plan carefully, asking tough questions, and supporting the necessary public safety improvements.
This plan is not yet final, but it gives Hardin County direction and provides a standard by which the public can measure progress. Planning does not solve every problem, but it identifies weaknesses before the next crisis exposes them. A serious county government should not wait for an emergency to reveal what it failed to prepare for. It should establish priorities, assign responsibility, and make sure the people, equipment, facilities, and funding are in place.
Hardin County is growing, and its public-safety services must grow with it. Community events are worthwhile, but the government’s first duty remains the protection of life and property. This strategic plan is an important first step, and Judge Taul and the Fiscal Court should be encouraged to continue advancing it.
In her June 26, 2026, The News-Enterprise syndicated column, S.E. Cupp, titled “Who Cares About Housing?” Certainly Not the President” argues that President Trump has failed to address America’s housing challenges by not supporting recently proposed federal housing legislation.
The column illustrates a common misunderstanding about where the real obstacles to housing affordability lie.
While federal policies can influence mortgage financing, tax incentives, and lending regulations, the greatest barriers to affordable housing are found much closer to home. Local governments determine whether housing can be built through zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, permitting requirements, infrastructure planning, development fees, density restrictions, and approval processes. These decisions directly affect the cost, quantity, and speed of residential construction.
Describing America’s housing market as a single, national “housing crisis” oversimplifies a much more complex issue. Housing markets are local. Communities experiencing rapid population growth face different challenges than rural counties or smaller cities. One-size-fits-all federal legislation is unlikely to solve problems that vary significantly from one community to another.
The recently proposed housing legislation contains provisions that may have merit, but it is difficult to argue that it would increase housing affordability without addressing the local regulatory barriers that often prevent new housing from being built in the first place. It risks becoming another piece of legislation that allows elected officials of both parties to claim progress while producing only modest practical results.
Real improvements in housing affordability will come when local communities carefully examine their own land-use policies, encourage responsible development, streamline approval processes where appropriate, and create an environment in which builders can deliver more housing at prices that working families can afford.
Before assigning blame to Washington, we should recognize that many of the most effective solutions begin at city halls, planning commissions, and county fiscal courts across America.
TW Shortt
Radcliff, Kentucky
By T.W. Shortt
Former Radcliff City Council Member
Hardin Local, the local podcast and media platform operated by Phil Taul, did Hardin County voters a real service leading up to the May 19, 2026, primary election. It gave candidates a place to speak directly to the public, on camera, in their own words. Hardin Local reported that it offered candidates in contested races a free interview opportunity and made the candidate videos available to voters.
That matters.
In local elections, voters rarely get the benefit of major televised debates, large editorial boards, or wall-to-wall newspaper coverage. More often, citizens are left with yard signs, campaign cards, Facebook posts, and word of mouth. A serious candidate interview gives voters something better: a chance to see how a candidate thinks, speaks, prepares, and responds when asked basic questions about public service.
One of the most important races in Hardin County is the race for Mayor of Radcliff. The primary narrowed the field to two candidates, Toshie Murrell and Terry Owens. According to Hardin Local’s posted primary results, Murrell received 862 votes, and Owens received 857 votes, a five-vote difference at the top of the field. The general election is scheduled for November 3, 2026.
That narrow result alone should get every Radcliff voter’s attention.
During the interview process, the moderator gave the candidates the perfect opening question: tell the audience your “why” for seeking this office.
That is a good question. It is fair, simple, and open-ended. It gives a candidate room to explain personal motivation, public service, love of community, experience, and vision. It allows voters to hear whether a candidate is running out of ambition, concern, frustration, duty, or a sincere belief that he or she has something useful to offer.
But here is the problem: there is a difference between a personal “why” and a governing “why.”
A candidate can love Radcliff and still not explain how Radcliff should be governed. A candidate can have years of city council experience and still owe voters a clear statement of what needs to change, what needs to be protected, and what needs to be improved. Personal affection for the city is commendable. Public service is honorable. Experience matters. But the mayor’s office requires more than good intentions, warm feelings, or a résumé.
It requires direction.
For a race this important, the “why” question should not be treated merely as a personal introduction. It should be the doorway into a four-year agenda.
What has the candidate learned from serving on the city council? What areas of city government need tightening up? Is public safety adequately staffed, supported, and prioritized? Are streets, drainage, code enforcement, housing, business development, and city services moving in the right direction? Is Radcliff doing enough to present itself as a strong, orderly, business-friendly community next door to Fort Knox?
Those are fair questions. They are not attacked. They are the ordinary questions citizens should ask anyone seeking executive leadership in city government.
The mayor of Radcliff is not simply a ribbon-cutter or ceremonial figure. The mayor helps set the tone for the city government. The mayor works with the council, represents the city to citizens, speaks to outside investors, and helps shape the public image of Radcliff. The person elected mayor will have influence over how Radcliff is seen, how Radcliff is managed, and how Radcliff moves forward.
That is why voters need more than “I love the city.” They need more than “this is the next step.” They need more than biographies. They need an agenda.
Hardin Local may offer another opportunity for candidates to speak to voters before the November general election. If that opportunity comes, both candidates should take full advantage of it. They should come prepared not only to explain why they want the office, but what they intend to do with it.
There must be some meaningful difference in how these two honorable candidates would govern. If there is no difference, voters are left to choose based on personality, name recognition, or habit. That is not enough for a city to face real decisions about growth, public safety, infrastructure, business development, and quality of life.
There is no reason for a serious candidate to be afraid to make a clear case for herself. In fact, that is part of leadership. A candidate for mayor should be able to say: here is what I see, here is what I believe, here is what I would focus on, and here is how I would measure progress.
Congratulations to both candidates for advancing the general election. That is an achievement.
Now comes the harder part.
Give the voters something solid to hang their hat on.
In Chapter 27 of Introduction to Political Philosophy, Barracca emphasizes that economics and politics are inseparable forces shaping modern society. This foundational idea frames the relationship between classical liberalism and Marxism. Economic power, Barracca explains, is never separate from political life, and Karl Marx’s work remains one of the most enduring critiques of that relationship.
Marx believed that classical liberalism—despite its promises of freedom, equality, and individual rights—was protected by a system of inequality rooted in capitalism. His critique targeted both the economic structure and the political institutions that, in his view, reinforced those inequalities rather than correcting them.
This tension between political ideals and economic realities continues to influence American politics today. Democrats typically present themselves as advocates for the working class, while Republicans tend to prioritize individual liberty, limited government, and free-market values. In many ways, this divide echoes Marx’s central challenge: are political rights enough, or must genuine freedom include economic security as well?
Marx’s first major criticism concerns what he called “formal” versus “substantive” freedom. Liberal democracies guarantee rights on paper, but Marx argued that these rights remain hollow for individuals lacking the economic means to exercise them. The legal right to own property, for example, has little value to someone without the resources to acquire any. Without material conditions that enable individuals to exercise their rights, freedom remains theoretical.
The second criticism focuses on the concentration of economic power. Marx believed capitalism naturally funnels wealth and influence into the hands of a small group of owners. Although liberal democracies hold elections, he argued that the wealthy shape political agendas in ways that protect their interests, creating an illusion of political equality. In practice, economic domination often overshadows political rights.
Marx’s third criticism is his concept of alienation. Under capitalism, workers become disconnected from the products they create, from the meaning of their labor, and even from each other. Work becomes merely a means of survival rather than a fulfilling activity. Because the products belong to someone else, and the labor is repetitive and controlled by others, Marx viewed alienation as a deep social failure—one that classical liberalism ignored in its focus on property rights.
Despite raising legitimate concerns, Marxism faces several well-known criticisms. One common objection is that Marxist systems tend to reduce incentives. Without private ownership or market rewards, the motivation to innovate or increase productivity weakens. Historically, societies that eliminated market competition often struggled to sustain long-term economic growth.
Another major criticism concerns political freedom. Because Marxism requires extensive state control and the abolition of private property, attempts to implement it frequently produced authoritarian governments. In seeking to end economic inequality, they often suppressed dissent and undermined democratic institutions—creating new forms of oppression.
A third objection is that Marx reduces society to economic categories. Critics argue that he overlooks cultural, religious, moral, and personal influences that also shape human identity. People are more than their economic class. By focusing primarily on economic structures, Marxism struggles to account for the complexity and diversity of modern life.
When evaluating whether I lean more toward Marxism or classical liberalism, my position remains firmly on the side of classical liberalism. Growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, Marxism was viewed with deep suspicion, and that cultural context shaped my early outlook. Yet my adult life—especially decades spent in business—confirmed my belief that classical liberalism, with reasonable regulation, best reflects the economic realities of American life.
Its emphasis on private property, individual liberty, and free markets has supported entrepreneurship, innovation, and personal responsibility. Marx raises valid concerns about inequality and power, but classical liberalism offers a more practical and freedom-centered framework for modern society.
Chapter 27 highlights Marx’s three core criticisms: the limits of “formal” freedom, the concentration of economic power, and the alienation of workers in capitalist systems. These critiques reveal real tensions within liberal societies, yet they do not persuade me that Marxism provides a workable or desirable alternative. The United States mixed economic system, grounded in classical liberal principles, remains the most stable and morally sound approach—protecting individual rights while allowing government to address market failures. It offers the balance Marx never fully acknowledged.
Terrell Shortt
Eastern Kentucky University
November 19, 2025
