That’s a lively interest in elective posts at
the local level, namely the townships, that has not always existed. There have
been contested races in past primaries and general elections, but not to the
extent that we needed, as a newspaper, to devote that many extra pages of
newsprint to offer their respective statements on why they are running for
office, what they hope to accomplish if elected or, the case of incumbents,
what they felt they’ve accomplished and (looking ahead) what their goals and
priorities will be.
In this neck of the woods, Republicans
generally rule and pretty much have the ballot to themselves, so the results of
this Tuesday’s Primary vote will decide all of those area and local races
except the District 4 county commission seat. The GOP winner will face a
Democratic Party candidate.
As for November, the interest in our
community will be focused on that commission contest along with the District Court
judicial race between two sitting judges, the three candidates vying to be the
next president of the Village of Fowlerville and the six residents seeking the
three open seats on the village council. Both the judicial contest and the
village election will be on the non-partisan part of the ballot.
Of course, those races will be partially eclipsed
by the presidential face-off between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Still, as the late Tip O’Neil (who served as
Speaker of the House during the 1980s) famously said: “All politics are local.”
What happens on a day-to-day basis at our local level of government—county,
township, village, and schools—usually has a more direct impact on our lives
than the decisions in Washington, D.C., although I wouldn’t suggest with that
point that what’s done at the White House and in the halls of Congress are not of
great import. It definitely matters who is elected as our president and who
represents us in the U.S. House and Senate.
But getting back to the upcoming primary
races: A controversial issue that has everyone stirred up is sometimes the
reason for more interest than usual in people running for these offices. While
such motive might cause change or a change-in-direction, it is usually not the
basis over the long term for good government—unless a new slate of candidates
is elected to clean up the mess created by a current regime.
Good government—locally or higher up the
ladder--is more often the result of officeholders working together, exchanging
ideas, and making decisions with the goal of serving their fellow citizens and
improving the condition of their community.
A simple enough premise—one that I’ve seen
as a general rule at the local level, but not as much higher up the governmental
ladder where special-interest groups and ideological loyalty tests compete for
attention during the decision making.
I trust those elected or re-elected in
Tuesday’s primaries and then in the November General Election—like most of
their predecessors—will embrace that premise. My impression is that it is not a
controversial issue that’s motivated so many people to throw their hat in the
ring this election cycle, but (for most of them) a desire to serve and improve.
In any case, it’s a good sign to see the
lively interest in these local and area offices by so many residents—candidates,
their supporters, and voters. It engages interest and offers a variety of
options for consideration. A few proverbial noses might get bloodied, knees
scraped, and feelings bruised during the campaigning. And no one likes to lose.
But competition for elective offices at the local level as well as for state
and national offices—if it’s fairly waged and ethically conducted--is good for
democracy.
Still, it’s all for
naught if you, the voter, don’t vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment