|
|
|
I don’t live in Virginia, New Jersey, or New York’s 23rd Congressional District, but I’m thrilled at election the results in all three — Republican and Democratic wins alike.
Why? Because they show that local democracy is still viable in a country that’s trying very hard to kill it.
Political parties, advocacy groups, and we in the media tried very hard to “nationalize” these elections — to make them about Obama, about health care, about the direction the country is taking, about the future of the Republican Party — about everything except the local issues.
This is increasingly common. Local races are being flooding with campaign dollars and media from outside the voting community (be it local, district or state).
The funding organizations — from liberal to conservative — are trying to prove a point. Maybe that point’s about abortion, maybe about winning the next election, maybe about party discipline, but whatever it is, you can guarantee that it has absolutely nothing to do with the local issues at stake.
President Obama, campaigning for Jon Corzine, had no interest at all in who would more effectively clean up New Jersey governance. Right-wing Tea Party groups campaigning in New York’s 23rd district didn’t care if the candidate they supported actually represented the district.
Local democracy was an impediment to their agendas — and so they were determined to uproot it.
The more that happens and the more every local election becomes a supposed referendum on a national or cultural issue, the less ability local communities have to govern themselves.
This election proved that local democracy still has a pulse.
Voters in New Jersey, who support Obama as a president, rejected him as an arbiter of local control, voting instead to pick the governor who best represented their views (and, not coincidentally, was less negative in his advertising and has likely been less corrupt as a public official). Go, New Jersey.
In Virginia, voters chose the candidate who most spoke to their concerns. Go, Virginia.
And in New York, the voters of the 23rd resisted tremendous pressure (from outside their district) to select a candidate (from outside their district) who was running because he represented a national ideology, not because he cares about their local issues.
Instead, they crossed party lines to pick a local who will actually represent them in the Congress. Let’s hear it for New York.
I don’t live in Virginia, New Jersey, or New York’s 23rd Congressional District, but I’m thrilled at election the results in all three — Republican and Democratic wins alike.
Why? Because they show that local democracy is still viable in a country that’s trying very hard to kill it.
Political parties, advocacy groups, and we in the media tried very hard to “nationalize” these elections — to make them about Obama, about health care, about the direction the country is taking, about the future of the Republican Party — about everything except the local issues.
This is increasingly common. Local races are being flooding with campaign dollars and media from outside the voting community (be it local, district or state).
The funding organizations — from liberal to conservative — are trying to prove a point. Maybe that point’s about abortion, maybe about winning the next election, maybe about party discipline, but whatever it is, you can guarantee that it has absolutely nothing to do with the local issues at stake.
President Obama, campaigning for Jon Corzine, had no interest at all in who would more effectively clean up New Jersey governance. Right-wing Tea Party groups campaigning in New York’s 23rd district didn’t care if the candidate they supported actually represented the district.
Local democracy was an impediment to their agendas — and so they were determined to uproot it.
The more that happens and the more every local election becomes a supposed referendum on a national or cultural issue, the less ability local communities have to govern themselves.
This election proved that local democracy still has a pulse.
Voters in New Jersey, who support Obama as a president, rejected him as an arbiter of local control, voting instead to pick the governor who best represented their views (and, not coincidentally, was less negative in his advertising and has likely been less corrupt as a public official). Go, New Jersey.
In Virginia, voters chose the candidate who most spoke to their concerns. Go, Virginia.
And in New York, the voters of the 23rd resisted tremendous pressure (from outside their district) to select a candidate (from outside their district) who was running because he represented a national ideology, not because he cares about their local issues.
Instead, they crossed party lines to pick a local who will actually represent them in the Congress. Let’s hear it for New York.
Sadly, the election of 2009 will not make national interest groups any less willing to try and turn local elections into referendums on national issues. Local democracy is still very much under siege. Each election cycle, millions more dollars are spent to suppress democracy than are spent to support it.
If we do not adopt campaign finance reform laws, then the principle of local control, however exulted in principle, will be lost to America in practice.
I’m afraid that’s likely. But in the meantime, I’m celebrating a win for democracy writ small.
Benjamin Wachs writes for the Messenger Post in Canandaigua, N.Y.
