Labels go the Salem way
Taking partisanship out of local politicking is a refreshing change.
It doesn’t take a politician of a certain flock to decide whether backyard chickens make fit neighbors. Nor must a city council member draw upon Republican or Democratic ideology in fighting the cable company for better service.
So it’s no surprise that members of the Salem City Council are ready to enshrine their independent custom into law. As long as anyone can remember, men and women have placed their names for election before fellow Salemites without declaring a political party.
September 28, 2012 - 6:19 AM
I get your point, but I think it is terribly naive and frankly, too little and too late. IOW, this makes no difference other than allowing people to vote for candidates they might not agree with not having any idea they are doing so. A conservative and a liberal will still govern and decide differently, absent the R or D or I or L. Sure, anyone can “cross party lines” and that should be encouraged and applauded when it is for the better or greater good. There is no blood oath except with Norquist, but the idea that people have to work to know a candidate’s core beliefs or that a candidate is not measured by any standard is just dangerous (relatively speaking). If the Roanoke County fight against “Agenda 21″ is not evidence enough, I cannot imagine what is. We need to know what we are getting and party choice or self labels matter IMO. Even locally.
I can see the value of grouping specific candidates when they represent a voting block on certain major local issues (eg. Victory Stadium several years ago). It’s a nice shorthand for people who care about an issue but have a terrible memory for individual names. However, those local-issue voting blocks rarely conform to national party labels in a straightforward manner. I think labelling “Republican” or “Democrat” just confuses the issue when it comes to local elections.
It is so “goody-goody” to be against party labels. Unfortunately, this editorial has two-party myopia all over it. Who seriously thinks zoning decisions would defy “strict adherence to a party platform”? Neglecting the fact that party platforms are never strictly adhered to and are not as important as the overall commitment of a party to serve the needs and visions of its members, I believe a Green Party candidate would be very unlikely to agree to business-oriented up-zonings that threaten residential areas or public lands. In recent months and years, Salem has up-zoned unnecessarily, and the recent up-zoning of the portion of the original Oakey Field currently used as a parking lot to “Light Manufacturing” was beyond what Salem’s own Planning Department recommended. The most likely party to blindly promote any “pro-business” decision: the GOP. I believe voters have a right to full disclosure of party affiliations or lack thereof. In any case, this is a non-issue because parties rarely run council candidates in Salem, which makes me wonder why Salem is making this move. It reminds me of another phony issue: voter fraud by false identity, which is non-existent but is being “solved” by stringent voter ID laws, which of course benefit one (very pro-business) party.
This is part & parcel to the intensifying drumbeat rationalizing the “archaic” 1st Amendment.
No one is required to claim a party affiliation. No one is required to vote along such affiliation.
Whether candidates & voters wish to associate as such is (for now) up to them.
Who has the right/authority to say otherwise? The RTEB?