ARE YOU READY FOR THE TSUNAMI

by Alex King

Is a Blue Tsunami coming in November? Or perhaps a Red Wave? Either way, I have a question for those who feel that one outcome is preferable to the other. If the values represented by the party system are so important that we include them in presidential elections, then why are those symbolic party letters not printed beside the names of candidates in every election? Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, members of the Mountain Party, etc. Is that information not beneficial to know, even when it comes to voting for town councils and school boards, which are in most cases nonpartisan elections? We are concerned about which party-affiliated ideologies will guide the decisions made for us at higher levels of government. Yet somehow, when it comes to those who determine outcomes locally, it hasn't seemed important enough to know if they align themselves with a particular party. These elected officials have influence over the future of our communities and education systems, but we are content to ignore their political allegiances, which would reveal to us where they align themselves on key issues. Much of it is a guessing game, leaving us to vote for those who may base decisions on ideas that we personally oppose. I think this needs to change. I'm not taking one side or the other (although I am in favor of far more options than Republicans or Democrats). I'm only suggesting that there is a profound hypocrisy to claiming that party affiliation is important for centralized governance but not worth the trouble when determining local leadership. Why is it that such value systems-and that is exactly what the parties serve as-are not universally applied? I have heard as argument to my point that party systems are divisive. Some contend that party elections for councils and school boards would only cause a deeper divide in our smaller communities. Yet many who protest my point, who do not want a partisan system affecting them locally, also fail to push back when decisions are taken out of the hands of local leaders. We increasingly hand choices over our lives to distant forms of government that hinge on partisan politics, and then we scratch our heads and wonder how even the most mundane of topics has become so political. It may seem like a stretch to suggest that localizing the party system will help to resolve the current frictions of representative democracy. Still, I think it will be a well-played maneuver for anyone who wants to see more accountability in government. If issues are identified as partisan locally, as they are at the county, state, and national levels, then those issues will become of clearer interest to those at higher levels who are supposed to serve the ideas of that party. What we define more locally-and within closer proximity-should therefore have a greater ability to permeate other branches of government. Some who read this may oppose the idea because they despise partisan politics or already identify with a party that is marginalized in their area. However, there are other benefits to the measure I'm suggesting. Because the prominent ideologies linked to Democrat, Republican, and third-party affiliations will be tested at closer proximities, we will be able to see the results for ourselves. If the successes or failures of a community are linked to a party, we will be able to test and even challenge those party ideas locally, creating concrete examples for when and where certain methods succeed and fail. Consider just how many state officials, for instance, will have to become more invested in smaller communities because failures of a more localized party system may reflect poorly on themselves, thus hindering their own elections or reelections as a result. They will-assuming they want to succeed in their own politicized endeavors-be compelled to pay more attention to the individual communities within the districts they claim to represent. Other than writing this column, I am not yet sure how to begin the process of making that change happen. I've had several enlightening conversations with the folks at the West Virginia Secretary of State's Office, and I'm sure they will be helpful on this matter as well. I stand by the idea that an increased level of participation in our system is a way to resolve much of the tension we feel when it comes to higher forms of government. If we are to embody freedom and create a better society for those who come hereafter, then we can no longer allow the entropy and erosion of our system to continue. We must be clever, get involved, and work together on ideas to create a better system of checks and balances.