Before most off year elections, I often hear that political partisanship has no place in local politics. I’m told that we should chose candidates based on local issues, and not where their political affiliation lies. But I beg to disagree.
It’s understandable that partisan politics, even and especially on a local level, can be off-putting for many. Much of what passes for debate and argument in today’s politics is driven by division and personal destruction. However, perhaps the biggest reason that people are turned off by politics is because the issues and debate often seem irrelevant to them. Many people feel that political parties manipulate them because they’re often asked to make hasty choices based upon labels such as “Democrat” or “Republican.”
But the truth is, political divisions are inherent in all political discourse. In Michigan, where I was born and lived until 15 years ago, most municipalities did away with partisan elections decades ago. This, however, did not end of partisan politics in those municipalities. The void left by political parties is now filled with alliances, coalitions, and confederations that are not transparent to the typical voter. Even worse, by their very nature, voters created their own quasi-parties based on racial, ethnic, and religious lines. Without political parties, we default to creating our own political apartheid, making local politics even more off-putting, and voters become even more confused by byzantine schisms within their communities.
Needless to say, it was refreshing when I moved here and found that I could vote for individuals that I could bond with on issues that were grander than the office they sought. When I first moved here, it was good to know that then South Nyack Trustee Tish DuBow was a staunch supporter of women’s rights and that Thom Kleiner once worked advocating for consumers. It was obvious to me that these people shared my core values, and it made it easier for me to vote for them even before I got to know both of them personally.
I understand that most people don’t live their lives identifying their values as being “blue” or “red” just as most people aren’t staunchly religious or secular, pro-management or pro-union, pro-development or pro-environment; we all fall somewhere on the spectrum on many issues.
However, for the people that are politicians, I don’t believe they compromise themselves by aligning and remaining loyal to a party, whether that party be the Democratic, Republican, or Independence Party. I think they do the voters a service by defining not only how they stand on current issues, but by giving their constituents an guideline on how they will respond to matters that nobody has yet considered.
I understand, however, that many people long for a politics where we have real vigorous disagreements and debates about the issues and where party affiliation is not part of the debate. They like politicians that don’t insist on having a monopoly on what is right or wrong, and don’t demonize our political opponents and their followers.
Barack Obama has asked that politicians extend themselves beyond partisan politics by espousing a “fair minded” approach to public service. He believes in a philosophical approach to politics that understands that truth and certainty are not the same thing. It is a philosophical approach that ultimately has as its goal the pursuit of the common good. It’s politics that espouses cooperation above competition. This is how politics should work on all levels, not just the local level.
However, it is also true that President Obama has had to take up the mantle of party leadership when his “common good” politics is attacked by ideologues and hate mongers. The uncomfortable truth is that not everybody, politicians nor citizens, play by these rules and to defend the common good, a politician must often fall back on the comfortable principles and parameters of the political party.
Though there are pros and cons to party politics, they are an indelibly etched part of the American story. Yes, one party may be the only check on the other, but consider how much time, energy and treasure has been wasted in the pursuit of destroying the other side out of spite.
John Adams said it all in 1801, in a rarely seen letter to a friend, bitter over his loss in the election of 1800, where candidates actually campaigned for the first time.
“Clouds black and gloomy hang over this Country threatening a fierce tempest, arising merely from party Conflicts, at a time when the internal and external Prosperity of it, and the national prospects in every other respect are the most pleasing and promising, that We ever beheld. I pray Heaven to dissipate the Storm.”
Adams was so sore because a “press leak” revealed that Adam’s supposed Federalist Party colleague Alexander Hamilton had declared him unfit. After Jefferson’s partisan pals in the press made this public, Adams saw the beginnings of a complex and bitter party rivalry that would only continue and worse.
Let’s face it, there are serious pitfalls with party politics. Undeserving candidates can receive votes along a party-line ticket simply on momentum. Fear of reprisal may prevent endorsements that cross party lines and voters may hesitate to seriously consider candidates on the issues.
Parties are wonderful however, as a vehicle for newcomers to get involved in politics without reinventing the wheel. The parties are all set up to recruit candidates, get them on the ballot and support them with existing organizational “machinery”. The local-national dynamic works well to multiply the power of those that share generally overlapping philosophies.
I have hope personally though, that as information-sharing and technology race ahead, we may one day conduct politics more a la carte, creating personal profiles based on issues-based preferences and less on party affiliation. This way candidates could come to us for our votes instead of us having to settle on one of them.