Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Local Litmus Tests?
I read with some interest David Hoggard’s excellent article in the News and Record this morning and found myself agreeing with him. Where are the voices of reasonable moderation in our local city and county government? I have addressed this before myself (and been chided). But I wondered as I considered David’s example, whether there was still, even in his mind, a subtle litmus test at work in defining what is or isn’t reasonable and moderate. For example, and not that I’m running, but what about somebody like me, who has a different kind of mix of traditional democratic and republican takes on various issues than what David posited. I’m a strong environmentalist with a passion for bio-diversity and clean air and water and the endangered species act (far left democratic), yet I am pro-life (republican). I am pro-planning as to local development (democratic) yet pro-business as to taxes (republican). I am a traditionalist on marriage (republican), yet very concerned that we protect and care for our poorest and neediest members (democrat). I am profoundly passionate about education (democratic), yet thinks our system is way too centralized (republican) and have a thing for vouchers, especially for our poorest communities (far right republican). Yet, all in all I think I am a consensus builder (a moderate), and would approach things in a civil give and take manner. My question maybe to David is, given what is known about someone like me (or Joe G), is there a place for us at the “moderate” table in local politics? Or is there a non spoken litmus test really in this fairly left leaning town?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Especially considering that a number of the issues you cite aren't within the law-making purview of local government, I'd say there is definitely a place for your kind.
"Your kind"
Hmmm. That's interesting.
There are aspects to all the issues I cited that are within the purview of city and local governments and school boards, and of course, there are another host of issues I could have cited, but then someone may have made a snide comment about how many words I used in my post. The question remains. Maybe "your kind" answers it.
That was toungue in cheek, Joel.
I don't think the endagered species act, reproductive rights, marriage or school vouchers come under the purview of local government.
Roch,
OK, I confess, I was being touchy...sorry..."your kind" = tongue in cheek. I get it now.
Pro-life issues do sometimes come to bear locally as in school or hospital policies about parental involvement and consent regarding minors and the like. Local governments can pass consent laws that can then be challenged in the state or federal courts. I do not know what laws exist in NC to prevent such from happening.
Marriage issues come to bear say in terms of the extension of marital or spousal benefits to non married partners.
Whereas the ESA itself may not be a matter of local legislation per se, the well being of endangered and non endangered species certainly is, as in how we develop our county, what kinds of habitats we preserve, to what degree we choose to protect our water supplies, enforce clean water and clean air codes already in existence, etc., etc.
The local county could choose in cooperation with the state of NC to pursue some kind of voucher arrangemnt for the most critcal areas. It may (or may not be) possible to totally acheive that without state approval, but an appeal could go to the state from our county.
David,
Thank you for commenting, and for including me with the purple people. I like purple, particularly when accompanied by orange, as in Clemson orange! :)
One day I might like to try a run at local office, if the Rev. thing doesn't disqualify me!
Joel
spcoon,
Yeah, that's pretty much what I do now. I am unaffiliated. I was just working off David's interesting article, which I agree with. Joel.
Oh. Well, if you see it that way, then I'd say no.
Roch,
See what what way?
Joel
That all those issues you mention are the responsibility of local government.
Look at the people who win local elections. They are not people who look to use local government to make a statement on big issues. I think candidates who try to run on large ideas don't do well locally.
Roch,
I think you're twisting things around.
I was agreeing with David Hoggard's point about needing people who do not approach issues from a staunchly one sided direction - as with the examples he cited. I tossed out several examples of how I myself am neither a democrat nor a republican. I could have tossed out many more examples. One could posit a person who was the opposite of me on every issue, but therby still "all mixed up" in terms of traditional party categories, and such a person would still fill David's definition of "purple" I would think just fine.
Anyway, you said that the particular issues I cited did not have bearing locally because local legislation did not/could not bear upon them. I simply showed that local decision making could bear upon these issues. I hardly was outlining a personal agenda or list of priorities for local politics, or a platform were I to run for office. I was just answering a question, or responding to a challenge so to speak. I don't think that using local elections as a way to make statements on national issues is appropriate or politically wise either. However, I do think, say with the environment, that the very best chance we have of making headway in that strident politically charged arena is locally where it's not theoretical, where everyone has to deal with the consequences of bad policy. So, whereas I agree that one should not "use" the local arena to push for national agendas, there is yet wisdom in the old adage of "think globally, act locally."
I think the Environment is the best example you offer, Joel. Local policy can reflact a care or disregard for the environemnt -- from recycling programs to alternative fuel fleets to public transportation.
Joel, two recent wedge issues are abortion and gay rights. Could you vote for a candidate that was pro-choice, or who supported civil-unions and an extension of benefits to homosexual partners (like Greensboro is starting)? What if they supported one issue, but not the other?
Jim,
I assume two things in your question. First, that the candidates are local, and second that by support you mean "vote for." I'll answer the question with that being what I think you mean, and then broaden the answer.
First, I would want to see a broad range of issues and the candidate's views on the range of issues. So it is possible I could vote for a candidate who supported extension of benefits to homosexual partners, depending on the rest of the picture. If, somehow, and I can't imagine how (and this goes back to Roch's comments earlier) the local assemblies (as opposed to state or national) got to vote on gay marriage itself, and our candidate supported that, then, no, I doubt I could vote for that candidate no matter what the mix of views otherwise, but I am just saying I doubt. If such a vote were a foregone conclusion either way, and if othewrwise I really liked the candidatee views, then maybe. As to a candidate suporting the killing of unborn children, that would be harder. However, my take in recent years (decades) is this. The state of the law is what it is, so there is not much one can do or not do, so it does not much matter really. Even stating one's posiiton is kind of pointless as one does not have to vote on it. But if a local candidate found this to be a real passion, and, for example, was in his or her platform committed to making sure those anti choice Neaderthals were not going to make headway in any kind of restrictions whatsoever (age, parental consent, etc), then I would have a hard time voting for that person.
As to voting for national candidates, both of these issues become more important.
As to working with fellow politicians in office, then it's a whole different deal still. I think I could potentially work well with folks who represent both views on a range of issues. It's not much different than being on denominational committees with people who have a range of views on various issues.
If the person you put forth were part of a total package of very consistently left leaning views (very blue), and if they were shrill and condescending about things, it may be harder, but I would imagine being able to work with them on the issues that still concern us both.
I prefer David's purple to reds and blues.
Joel
haeq
Jim,
I've been pondering your question even more...
Even if we were to imagine that every candidate were to qualify under David's criteria of "purple," that does not mean that every voter would be inclined to vote equally for every candidate. If, as I posited before, there were a "purple" candidate whose views were a mix of blue and red, and totally opposite to my views at every point, I would likely not vote for that person.
However, I would still like persons like that on our county and city councils and school boards. So I don't think the question of who we might vote for in the privacy of a voting booth is what David was getting at, or what I was getting at in wondering about litmus tests.
For myself, I would welcome into the mix of local politics folks whose views were as you described. I am just tired, as David Hoggard seems tired, of the never ending log jams caused by two well definned groups towing some definitive party group line, and further divided by the antics of certain individuals he named.
Plus, I think that knowing how a person works is as important in coloring them purple as knowing just where they stand on all the various issues. I believe that all politics, in order to be efective, involves give and take, mutual respect, civility, usually compromise, and often dealing or horse trading. Personally, as I was long ago nailed by Mr. Sun, I am a consensus type person, but I realize that in the rough and tumble of local politics consensus sometimes is too elusive. But I like people who work toward that goal.
I know, say, thinking of the environment, that I can sit in a room of people who disagree with me on every imaginable political, social, religious, and moral issue and work with them to save a river bottom (don't know if the opposite is true).
So, look, for real, our community is a mix of people of all kinds of views. I may not vote for everyone in the privacy of the voting booth, but I could work with almost anyone. And I want to see our local councils really working working well, effective, committed toward problem solving, pragmatic, civil, respectful, grappling in mutual repect and not public posturing through the really difficult issues where there are serious differences of opinion to strike reasonable compromises and solutions. That's what I want to see. What we have now is a joke.
I understand that you only get one vote, and have to decide who you think is best. I live in Winston, and am not all that knowledgable about local politics, but I do see some of the animosity in Greensboro, and agree that it does not help anything.
Also, consensus is a good goal, but it rarely happens, and is rarely truly needed. Often times you should at least be able to agree on a goal and disagree about the best method of achieving that goal, or what adverse effects are acceptable in achieving it.
What are the local or national issues/elections you see as important? I know the bond votes, but what else? It is 3 months from election time, but I think it is easier to talk about concretes than in abstracts.
Jim,
I will confess that my first desire locally is less an issue than to see a city and county council that works well and are not an embarrassment to our community. What that will take I don’t know. So, really, it is not an issue per se for me that is first on the list of concerns. It is a leadership that acts like adults and works with integrity and selflessness for the common good. With one or two exceptions I’d start from scratch…but I won’t say what the exceptions are!
As to issues….
I’d have to think long and hard…so don’t hold me to this…off the top…here is a start, from the blue side! I’ll do the red side later…
Education….I think we need to shake up and maybe break up the top down test driven top heavy central office Gestapo here in Guilford County…how I am not 100% sure…I’d like us to raise teacher pay…and I’d like to see the kids in the worst performing areas have real choices provided by vouchers…
Development….I think we need more planning to control or channel development and sprawl….I’d like to see our council stand up to developers at some point…it’s all so haphazard and without any reference to traffic patterns, aesthetics, open spaces, wildlife, etc.
Public Safety….I’d like to see us raise pay for police officers and firemen and women and EMS folk etc., and would like to more of them out there…why do these folks have to risk their lives for such pitiful salary and thus be more greatly tempted by bribes and corruption…
Homelessness….I’d like to see a re-institutionalization of the truly mentally ill so they don’t end up starving under bridges.
Well, got to get home…more later…
I figured on your first topic, and it is not a hard one to nail down. Strong leadership to address both sides that use overblown rhetoric and that is able to get both to the table, calmly.
I pretty much agree on the 3 listed (maybe would word or address #3 differently), but they all relate to increased spending, which, at least for governments that can't borrow their brains out, has a wicked stepsister. You picked 3 hard ones, but that just means a fun challenge.
typo - "it is a hard one to nail down"
Post a Comment