Why not? There's precedent for non-partisan governance right in our back yard, and whether you agree with the local pols or not, they do tend to get things done.
First there's the Portland City Council, probably all registered Democrats, but who knows for sure? The Multnomah County Commission is another example, again all probably Dems, but the squabbles there have nothing to do with "party platforms" or posturing for electoral advantage (except maybe for Diane Linn.) And who knows the party affiliatons of those serving on the Metro Council? Not me.
Then of course there's my favorite, the Portland School Board. I would assume that at most two of the current board members are Republicans, but I'm just guessing. They certainly get things done, most of which I disagree with, but I can't accuse them of partisan gridlock. (I do accuse them of being unwitting accomplices of the right wing ideologues in the Bush Administration intent on privatizing public education.)
So why don't we de-politicize state government, especially the state legislature, by making it entirely non-partisan? I can think of little of substance that the legislature has accomplished in the last few sessions. Why? Electoral partisan gridlock, pure and simple. If the D's are for it, the R's are against it. And vice versa. It's all about power, not policy.
Over on Blue Oregon, a progressive (not a Democratic blogsite), there has been endless bickering over open primaries, open caucuses, third party access to the ballot, Instant Run-off Voting, and other procedural tactics that boil down to one thing- ridding the legislature of conservative Republicans, especially Karen Minnis. To Democratic partisans, (like frequent contributor T. A. Barnhart) any candidate with a 'D' after his name will do, regardless of policy.
Jeff Bull's "Elevator Pitch" post on Blue Oregon, a challenge to readers to come up with a pithy, 30-second explanation of "what it means to be a Democrat", is an example of the problem with political partisanship. Why should anybody feel compelled to defend a party label? I'm a "registered Democrat" for a number of reasons, mainly so I can vote in party primaries. But "Democrat" doesn't define me any more than does "Green" or "Progressive." I'd rather argue issues, and there are way too many of those to fit neatly into a thirty second spiel.
What we need here is a political reformation akin to the religious Reformation sparked by Martin Luther's challenge in 1517 to the Roman Catholic Church. The Reformation had its downside, sure. There are now innumerable "Christian" sects each defining for its adherents the "true" meaning of Christianity. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is no longer the corrupt and venal political/religious monolith it was before 1517.
Continuing the religious analogy, consider Paul's admonition to the Galatians in 55 A.D:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one... "
So it is, or should be, in the realm of politics. Speaking for myself, in the pursuit of just social policy, I am "neither white nor black, man nor woman, straight nor gay, Swede (my heritage) nor American. Nor, finally, Republican or Democrat!"
I'm a citizen and voter who wants to get rid of Wal-Mart, hand guns, school choice, Measures 5 and 37, and city freeways. There are Democrats out there who undoubtedly disagree, and Republicans, on those specific issues anyway, who see it as I do.
So let's just chuck those parties. And those labels. We can do without them.
Recent Comments