There were a number of factors that lead me to signing up to run for Benton County Commissioner. Some were the classic motivators, like people who outright asked me to run. But most of what got me to sign on were things I observed myself, as part of just watching our county government operate.
What sort of things? Well, things like our deep blue county going in with a bunch of deep red counties to sue the state of Oregon - to sue the state of Oregon over a policy that our own County Commissioners actually endorsed when it was put in place. Things like a budget process that seems to have its priorities all twisted up - giving a half a million dollars to a museum that does not need the money, while simultaneously stiffing groups that needed funds for children's health and education, animal control, etc. I went to meeting after meeting of the County Commissioners, and was always the only member of the public there - there seems to be little to no public oversight of what our County Commissioners do.
Where there is no oversight, there cannot be much accountabiliy. And indeed, I haven't been able to detect a great deal of public oversight on the county level here.
I was reminded of all this in reading a column by Thomas Edsall in the New York Times last week. It's titled, What Motivates Voters More Than Loyalty? Loathing.
Here are the opening lines of the column:
Hostility to the opposition party and its candidates has now reached a level where loathing motivates voters more than loyalty.
The building strength of partisan antipathy - "negative partisanship" - has radically altered politics. Anger has become the primary tool for motivating voters. Ticket splitting is dying out. But perhaps the most important consequence of the current power of political anger is that there has been a marked decline in the accountability of public officials to the electorate.
Now, let's apply this idea to our own local political scene. In Benton County, roughly a third of voters are registered as Republicans. In other words, in any given contested election, if local Republicans get only Republican votes, they are unlikely to win. Almost as many voters here are registered as unaffiliated as Republican, and the largest pool of voters are registered as Democrats.
In other words, in a straight up, D vs. R election, the Republicans can't win. The flip side of that, at least for the last couple of decades, has been that the anointed Democrat can't lose. And, taking that one step further, if you can't lose, you don't really have to worry about being accountable, do you? Especially not when there is also an ever-growing negative partisanship in the populace.
So, how do we get to a place where our Democratic elected officials are suing their own state over a policy they agree with, and are cutting funds for children's wellbeing from the budget? Because there's precious little accountability here, and, thanks to negative partisanship, voters can tell themselves things like, "Well, I might not like what they did - but at least they aren't Republicans!"
Of course, this distorted perspective helps people gloss over the fact that their Democratic representatives are behaving more like Republicans. (Maybe that even counts as a twisted sort of bipartisanship in some people's view?) I see it as a form of bait-and-switch, myself. Voters are getting the short end of the stick, our policies are suffering because of it, and the whole system gets bogged down with dysfunction.
If nothing else, I hope to bring a little clarity back to the governing process. I am a progressive; I will govern like a progressive. I believe the health and education of our children is more important than, say, a museum; that is how I will vote. I am a progressive because I believe in making progress.
Very much related to this, I also intend to bring some accountability to our local county government. As I say, I am running as a progressive, and will govern as a progressive. If I do not govern that way, I urge you to call me out on it. If calling me out does not work, and get the results you expect, I urge you to recall me, or run against me yourself. You will know what you are getting if you vote for me. There will be no bait-and-switch.
Finally, in terms of negative partisanship...Well, like a man once said, there it is. It's hard to deny its existence or influence. It's a toxin in our political system, and that's a big part of why I am running as an unaffiliated, nonpartisan candidate. I intend to speak to your hopes, and inspire you, regardless of your political affiliation. Just as I am running to represent you, I am wanting you to vote for me, the person - not just some familiar, comforting letter that comes after my name on a lawn sign. In short, I'm counting on the power of good ideas to carry me to victory in November.
What sort of things? Well, things like our deep blue county going in with a bunch of deep red counties to sue the state of Oregon - to sue the state of Oregon over a policy that our own County Commissioners actually endorsed when it was put in place. Things like a budget process that seems to have its priorities all twisted up - giving a half a million dollars to a museum that does not need the money, while simultaneously stiffing groups that needed funds for children's health and education, animal control, etc. I went to meeting after meeting of the County Commissioners, and was always the only member of the public there - there seems to be little to no public oversight of what our County Commissioners do.
Where there is no oversight, there cannot be much accountabiliy. And indeed, I haven't been able to detect a great deal of public oversight on the county level here.
I was reminded of all this in reading a column by Thomas Edsall in the New York Times last week. It's titled, What Motivates Voters More Than Loyalty? Loathing.
Here are the opening lines of the column:
Hostility to the opposition party and its candidates has now reached a level where loathing motivates voters more than loyalty.
The building strength of partisan antipathy - "negative partisanship" - has radically altered politics. Anger has become the primary tool for motivating voters. Ticket splitting is dying out. But perhaps the most important consequence of the current power of political anger is that there has been a marked decline in the accountability of public officials to the electorate.
Now, let's apply this idea to our own local political scene. In Benton County, roughly a third of voters are registered as Republicans. In other words, in any given contested election, if local Republicans get only Republican votes, they are unlikely to win. Almost as many voters here are registered as unaffiliated as Republican, and the largest pool of voters are registered as Democrats.
In other words, in a straight up, D vs. R election, the Republicans can't win. The flip side of that, at least for the last couple of decades, has been that the anointed Democrat can't lose. And, taking that one step further, if you can't lose, you don't really have to worry about being accountable, do you? Especially not when there is also an ever-growing negative partisanship in the populace.
So, how do we get to a place where our Democratic elected officials are suing their own state over a policy they agree with, and are cutting funds for children's wellbeing from the budget? Because there's precious little accountability here, and, thanks to negative partisanship, voters can tell themselves things like, "Well, I might not like what they did - but at least they aren't Republicans!"
Of course, this distorted perspective helps people gloss over the fact that their Democratic representatives are behaving more like Republicans. (Maybe that even counts as a twisted sort of bipartisanship in some people's view?) I see it as a form of bait-and-switch, myself. Voters are getting the short end of the stick, our policies are suffering because of it, and the whole system gets bogged down with dysfunction.
If nothing else, I hope to bring a little clarity back to the governing process. I am a progressive; I will govern like a progressive. I believe the health and education of our children is more important than, say, a museum; that is how I will vote. I am a progressive because I believe in making progress.
Very much related to this, I also intend to bring some accountability to our local county government. As I say, I am running as a progressive, and will govern as a progressive. If I do not govern that way, I urge you to call me out on it. If calling me out does not work, and get the results you expect, I urge you to recall me, or run against me yourself. You will know what you are getting if you vote for me. There will be no bait-and-switch.
Finally, in terms of negative partisanship...Well, like a man once said, there it is. It's hard to deny its existence or influence. It's a toxin in our political system, and that's a big part of why I am running as an unaffiliated, nonpartisan candidate. I intend to speak to your hopes, and inspire you, regardless of your political affiliation. Just as I am running to represent you, I am wanting you to vote for me, the person - not just some familiar, comforting letter that comes after my name on a lawn sign. In short, I'm counting on the power of good ideas to carry me to victory in November.
Here's a fresh example of ways that governing bodies push off the ability of people to possibly hold them accountable. Last night was a City Council meeting. The meeting started at 6:00 PM. I wanted to make a public comment, so I showed up at 5:45 PM to sign up for that.
ReplyDeleteAll good, right? Oops! Wrong! There was a nice fellow overseeing the sign up sheets, and he informed me that there would be a public hearing before the Council took public comment. At that point, he said he estimated that they wouldn't get to the public comment period until 8:30 PM. It was also clear that it could wind up being even later.
A two or two and a half hour wait (or more) just to give a maximum of three minutes of public comment? That's ridiculous. I had just gotten home from work shortly before then, and hadn't even had dinner yet.
Even when I was on the fairly backward Port Angeles City Council in Washington, we knew enough to put public comment first, front and center. If you're an elected official, you must get feedback - face-to-face, look-you-in-the-eye feedback - as much as possible. To arrange things so as to make that difficult is discourteous and counterproductive. It's dishonest to invite people to come speak to you, then make them wait (and wait) and wait to do so.