Quick!: Name your representative in the U.S. House, your STATE senator, and any two people on your city council! I'd put money down right now that greater than 90% of the people in this country couldn't do it (myself included, incidently). Less Quick!: Name three people that are/were running for president this year. The vast majority can. Why? Isn't our focus skewed in the wrong direction?
Mike's last post got me to thinkin', and that can get scary. "...the politics of the presidential election have always been much more compelling to me than local or international politics." I hear this sentiment quite often. It seems to me that the vast majority of people are way more excited about voting for a president than they are about voting for any other office. To me, this makes little to no sense. Shouldn't people be the most interested in electing offices that will most directly effect their lives? I think that local offices, especially the city council, should be the primary focus of the electorate.
The things that most directly effect our lives are, for the most part, controlled by our local officials. Each city has its own policies governing everything from trash collection to business licenses to property taxes. These are the issues that REALLY matter in our day to day lives, right? Should that vacant lot at the corner be approved for a strip club or a religous book store? Or should it just sit as an empty lot? Aren't most of us really more concerned with "type of people" that are going to be frequenting our neighborhood businesses, driving by our houses everyday, than we are with issues that a president really deals with like what the Chinese think about our import taxes?
The President of the United States does not get to do whatever he or she wants to. They can't just jump into office and get all of the "sexy" issues dealt with (see Bush 43 and is Social Security plans...). Sure, sometimes they can force some legislation through, but for the most part the real law making and policy decisions of the country are left up the legislative branch. Because they are responsible for legislating. It's in the name. The president is ultimately responsible for executing the laws (making sure they are implemented and enforcing them). So why all the fuss and the millions upon millions of dollars to elect somebody that really, truly will hardly effect your "real" life? Why aren't we more concerned with our Senators and our U.S. Representatives? How come turnout is 25% for midterm elections and 70% for presidential ones? I declare (with all my authority) that we should be much more discriminating when choosing elected leaders that are more responsible for being responsive to our needs, that we are more likely to interact with, and are actually responsible for legislating issues that matter to us.
So please, try to be more intersested in voting for the town dogcatcher next time he or she is up for election. If you call and the strays don't get taken care of, vote for the other guy. Better yet, ask the candidates how they plan to implement their new-fangled dog catching initiatives and where the money is coming from. Let's pay more attention to electing the offices that really matter, please?
Local Politics
Posted by Joel on 2/27/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Cannot. But in my defense, I've only lived in Virginia for 5 months. I'll get right on it.
I can't either - Joel, you're two for two. Mostly, because I, as a student, don't consider myself a part of the community in which I live. I consider myself a temporary transplant. I think for most students, thats the case - those of you who have purchased houses and settled down, well you don't have that excuse.:)
Here's the other reason that I don't care about local or state politics. The apathy comes from red tape and run-around. I what really gets done on the local, or even congretional level? Not alot - alot of sitting around, debating, stuff that doesn't seem too important. Congress is basically in a frozen state most of the time.
Whereas with the President, stuff does tend to happen faster and with more impact - for instance, starting wars and blowing things up. So, for those who want change (I'd say that's most of America) the presidential race is more exciting. I guess those who care about the "stray dog issue" - well, to them local politics could take front row.
My Congressman is Wu, but for the other stuff, I'm not sure. I just moved here, after all!
However, I totally agree with you! The vast majority of the decision making in this country happens on the state level. Specifically, state legislatures have much broader authority to affect our everyday lives than the Feds. Congress' authority to make laws is limited to certain areas delineated in the Constitution. (Think interstate commerce issues, mostly). States, on the other hand, have broad, general regulatory power. While it's true that Congress' (and the President's) power has increased drastically since the 1930's, States still have the majority of the legislative power.
As a result, I'm totally into State politics. For all you Arizonans that read this blog (I know there are a bunch) I really recommend reading "Understanding the Arizona Constitution" by Toni McClory. It's a short and interesting read about the document that makes AZ tick, and there's tons of interesting trivia worked into it. I loved it.
Er... I'll step off my soap box now.
Hmmm... Seems like everybody just moved. I've only been here a year and a half. In my defense, though, I'm already disenfranchised with my local political scene. I think that I'm one of 12 conservatives in the county. My city council is made up of democrats, my state senator is a democrat, and my US rep is none other than John Dingell (D). Those of you who watched the most recent State of the Union will know him as the GUY WHO WAS SLEEPING!!! Yes, during the speech. And he was shown on national TV. Brilliant...
So I have no hope of making things more conservative (and thus better) and have to put up with people who think that $5K in property taxes is fair and who are proposing making everybody buy $50 bins for our yard waste (rather than distributing them like they should if they want to make that kind of change; heaven knows there's enough money going into the local govt...). Oh, well.
My Congressman is Jeff Flake (one of the few Republicans I support), my state senator is Chuck Gray (a friend's father), and two people on my city council are Claudia Walters and Scott Somers (not sure how or why I remembered them, honestly).
All I know is that I am incredibly frustrated with the City of Mesa. It's the largest city in the nation with no property tax, and what do you know? We have huge budget shortages every year. I know Mesa is one of the most conservative cities in the country, but come on - there is a very simple solution here, and I don't think it involves firing more police officers.
As Jackson mentioned, the states really do have a great deal of power granted them by the US Constitution. Nearly all of the innovative legislation in the country is started at the state and local level.
In fact, some state statutes become de facto national law. For instance, the strict emissions regulations in California essentially apply everywhere. Auto manufacturers do not want to produce different versions of the same car for the various states, so non-Californians are essentially subject to that California law. The California Air Research Board (CARB) has a tremendous amount of power nationally to propose and enforce environmental legislation.
Another case is Massachusetts' health care program, passed while Mitt Romney was governor, which is (unsurprisingly) quite similar to Hillary Clinton's proposal.
Another state law that I would expect to become nationalized is the Arizona employer sanctions statute. Already several of the Presidential candidates have mentioned employer sanctions as a key part of their immigration proposals.
State and local governments are the small-scale testbeds for statutory innovation. We all should be paying more attention and participating, myself certainly included.
Our two US Senators are Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cronyn. Our Texas House rep is Kirk England. Our US House rep got lost in all the other names on our ballot in 2006 - governor, several heads of bureaucracy, and hundreds of judges (yes, we are "fortunate" enough to vote to retain judges in Texas). City council - you got me! I am working my way down to more involvement at the state level, right now. City will come.
I think it is important to note, that more than voting for an individual, you should also communicate with him once he is in office. Write letters and urge her to vote for or against things that are important to you. Our US Senators have been gracious enough to respond to our emails, defending their positions and thanking us for our involvement.
As for the President, yes his power is checked by Congress, but he is an important figure on the world stage. We do need to choose carefully who will represent us in the eyes of the world. And because voting for President is such a visible event, it is the first event our children notice. My daughter is excited that a girl (Senator Clinton) is running for President. Although I plan to vote Republican, I am going to take her to the Senator's rally in Dallas on Saturday.
By the way, thank you for the forum on politics with both an LDS and a bipartisan perspective. As a stay-at-home mom, I need some way to exercise my brain. The ladies at playgroup were quick to quell the discussion when I tried to bring up politics, and I got funny looks at a ward social when I announced I would vote for someone other than Mitt Romney, good man that he is. And I like that you represent both Democratic and Republican ideologies: I like to hear both sides of the argument, but you can't get much of that from the radio.
Yes, LDS people have both views- but please tell me why people aren't completely alarmed by the fact that Michelle Obama has never been proud of our country---I know I know, someone will have some explanation for it- or even say it isn't true or taken out of context-but people are so stubborn to having their way that they won't even be honest about unbelievably disrespectful comments such as the one she put out. How irresponsible.
Mike put a video from U tube on his blog with Obama talking about the people who said "Yes we can" inspirational yes, but...why wasn't Michelle proud of those who said yes we can in her written speech...this is getting more and more scary.
Again, this is Tricia posting.
Hi Tricia!
I'm not particularly "alarmed by the fact that Michelle Obama has never been proud of our country." For one thing, she's not the one running for president.
For another thing, our country really DOES have a mixed record. There's certainly much to be proud of, but there's also much to be ashamed of. Some people manage to get over the bad stuff and others don't. I wouldn't be too quick to criticize those who don't. The bad stuff is very real. Our nation ethnic cleansed and outright killed an awful lot of God's children--along the western frontier, in the Phillipines, in Latin America, etc. For generations, people were lynched in broad daylight with the tacit approval of the nation. (Joseph Smith was one of these people.) Yes, America is the Constitutional Convention and the Statue of Liberty and D-Day. It's also the Trail of Tears and the Sand Creek Massacre and the torture of thousands of Filipinos and the lynchings of thousands of black people and the torture and murder of thousands of Central Americans. Note that these are not evils perpetrated by rogue elements of the nation, but evils perpetrated by the nation itself, at the nation's instigation or with the nation's consent. (Heck, if you're pro-life, you might add to the list the millions of unborn babies the nation has allowed to be killed.) These are evils for which the nation itself bears moral responsibility.
If we want to take credit, as a nation, for developing a vibrant form of democracy and for liberating western Europe from the Nazis, then we must also accept blame, as a nation, for a considerable amount of evil. Can't have it both ways. Now, I would wager that most Americans are either ignorant of much of the evil or dismiss it too cavalierly. Most of us who try to educate ourselves and then honestly to weigh the good against the bad will probably conclude that the good outweighs the bad. But really, who's to say? How do you weigh Native American genocide against the liberation of Western Europe? What ethical calculus should one use? The enormity and the moral difficulty of these questions ought to give us all pause. I think we should at least be willing to admit that it's possible for people of good will to honestly conclude that, on balance, the nation does NOT make them proud. Michelle Obama might be one of those people.
--David
Well, I happen to know some of this, largely because our city mayor and city council elections are currently happening. It is, I will say, frustrating to no end that I can quickly and easily find our every Presidential candidate's stance on every issue from health care to mayo vs. mustard, but finding unbiased information on my local candidates is an exercise in futility. You have the candidates' own websites (yawn), the local papers' halfhearted endorsements, a few scattered blogs that seems to be all written and read by the same 15 people, and...well, that's about it! We've got major MAJOR issues in my city and I absolutely agree with you, Joel - this shoudl be, and will be, much more important in my day-to-day business than whoever becomes the new Leader of the Free World.
Oh - my Congressman is Jeff Flake, my state Senator is Chuck Gray, and some people on the city council are Claudia Walters, Keno Hawker is the mayor...and I can't name another one, sorry. But I still did better than most! :)
Oh, and I think the reason national politics is more interesting for people is that it's more "talked about". Everyone has it in common, we're all voting for the same Presidential candidates. I don't know what it's like nationwide, but even here in my city, where people really should be paying a LOT of attention to this current race seeing as we don't have enough money to pay the police or fire departments, people just aren't talking about it much, so it feels like there's no one to talk to! Whereas the Presidential race is covered 24 hours a day on 5 or 6 different channels. Of course, that may be a self-fulfilling prophecy of sort, too.
But I do think it's largely because everyone has it in common, so there's a wider net of interest - you're more likely to find someone out there on the web who is thinking about the same issues you are with regard to the Presidential race vs. your city council.
Oh, and I'm sort of wondering how such a large percentage of our comment threads are turning into "Barack Obama Urban Legend Information" festivals. What does that have to do with this post?
Doesn't have alot to do with the post, Rachel, but....that is a really cool statement that David made - I back it up 100%. Thanks for that honesty, David.
BTW, with regards to Michelle Obama's statement, I think she just slipped and said something stupid. She may have meant it, she may have not, but that's just not something you say at a campaign rally in a heated primary race. Barack is way too smart to say something so controversial. She is an extremely impressive lady, and we would be lucky to have her as First Lady.
My favorite "news" story about a First Lady:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34713
My mayor is Steve Berman, city council members are Linda Abbott, Les Prysmik, Dave Crozier, Don Skousen and the liberal lady, but I can't think of her name.
Ok, now to get off topic, I would strongly urge Obama supporters to take David's same logic about being proud of America and apply it to Obama's accomplishments or lack thereof, and the people he is influenced by (pastors, politicians etc). I personally feel there is WAY MORE negative about Obama than there is positve. I honestly am scared to death to have Obama as our president. Beyond being a motivational speaker I have yet to see anything from him that impresses me.
I think that we really should stay on topic in these comment threads. Tricia, that is the kind of thing that you could put in the little chat box on the main page. Don't hijack threads that have nothing to do with what you want to talk about.
Wizzle - I think you are likely dead on regarding the commonality of the national races. Sorry that Mesa is so unwilling to change and take a real look at whatever issues you guys are facing. One of the reasons I was so willing to move from there was the local political scene. Nothing was getting done then, and I guess that nothing is getting done now. I'm pretty interested in what's going on there and would like to talk to you more about it. I just think that local politics is so interesting!
I find that the hard part is getting information on the local candidates and issues on the ballot. We have found that in Texas, as soon as a Walmart moved into a small town, they get a vote on the ballot to remove the dry law in the town (the law that says stores can't sell or serve alcohol). When we lived in Irving, a conservative group got the word out, and the proposition was defeated soundly. However, two years later it was back on the ballot. Walmart won't give up until it wins. When we moved to Wylie, the exact same thing happened: Walmart came in, and one year later, the proposition was on the ballot. This time, noone broadcast it. I only knew because someone at church told me. I searched the web for information, and the only thing I could find were the minutes from an old city council meeting where it was brought up (in PDF format, nonetheless). My mother worked at Walmart at the time, and they were telling their employees to vote for the law! So, the vote came and went. I voted, but hardly anyone did because noone even knew about it. Of course the proposition passed and we now have a whole liquor section in our Walmart.
We had an easier time voting for school board members. City council members aren't too hard. But, usually when there is a vote (like this time when I voted in the Texas primaries last week), there were about 40 different positions to vote for on the ballot. I didn't know about all of that, so I only voted for the people who I already knew and liked what they were doing. That left a lot of people that I didn't vote for because I would rather not vote than accidentally cast a vote for the wrong person.
I think that if there was a centralized place to get information on the candidates and their issues, it would be easier to vote in local elections. Then again, would I trust the information from a "centralized" location? Would it be biased one way or the other?
I think there needs to be a better way to get the info out. The internet definitely helps candidates with small budgets. The biggest part of the problem is that most people just don't care. If they did, the media or some other entity would have the financial incentive to get the info out.
I'm always late to the comment parties. Stupid job.
OK, well, the quiz. I thought my state senator was Karen Johnson but she's the senator from District 18 in Mesa where I grew up. I now live in District 20 (which I didn't know before I looked it up) with John Huppenthal. City council - again, I only know Mesa (Claudia Walters, Mayor Keno Hawker). I didn't even know Chandler's mayor... what kind of political blogger am I? :(
My house rep is HARRY MITCHELL! Woohoo! I was so happy when he beat J.D. Hayworth, that arrogant windbag. Our U.S. senators are John McCain and Jon Kyl.
I actively campaigned for staunch Republican Karen Johnson, by the way, when she was facing a primary challenge from Mary Jo Vecchiarelli, my old, corrupt high school principal.
Debs, welcome to the site, I'm glad you enjoy it and hope you stick around. :)
Joel... sometimes it's gotta be kinda fun being the only conservative around, right? I always enjoyed it when I was the only liberal. Watching people get all red-faced and worked up because you just couldn't understand how WRONG you were... guess it'd get old after a while, though.
Oh, and my governor is Janet Napolitano, until she becomes vice president (fingercrossy).
One of my senators is Diane Feinstein. I voted against her in the last election. And my governor is Schwarzenegger! I bet that all the commentators could have stated that.
Can't name the house representatives. My mayor is Tom Means, but I didn't vote for him either.
Around here the home owners get really into politics simply because of the housing/zoning decisions made by community commissions. For example, a Baskin Robbins closed on a main road about 18 months ago and a ADULT video shop wanted to rent the space. All the home owners in the area stampeded the city meetings and that decision got nixed. They didn't want their kids seeing it every time they drove past on a daily basis.
Also, there isn't enough housing for everyone in the area so any new apartments/condos/town homes being built have to jump through hoops to get approved. Its a real process. Gotta love the housing market in Silicon Valley.
Post a Comment