Vote the Rock
I enjoy my polling place. It's down in the old Thaddeus Stevens trade school, but in one of the newer buildings, vintage circa 1964, that reminds me of my old elementary school. It's all run by the same ladies who run the AME church suppers around the corner from my house, and you catch a cheery, merry spirit when you walk into the room.
It was all local elections this time, and I mostly voted for Democrats. In most cases, that's because my neighborhood of the city is so overwhelmingly Democratic that all the political leaders there I know and have had dealings with are Democrats. Anyone seriously seeking local office in my ward will come up through the Democratic Party, so that's where the better, more capable candidates are. Republican candidates in the Seventh Ward tend to be fringe-dwellers or one-issue zealots. On the county level, that's reversed.
Party ideologies matter little and a voting booth choice is a question of personalities and mojo. And you have to solve some mental geometry: Let's see, Candidate X is running for city council to be a watchdog against Mayor Y. I think that's a good idea, but I am voting against Mayor Y, so voting for Candidate X would be a waste of a seat, but do I really expect Mayor Y to get beat just because I vote against him ....? It's a good thing they don't let you drink on election day.
Yes, I voted against Mayor Y. He's a good man; he's one of the nation's leading experts on Civil War artillery, and down on his farm he routinely unlimbers one of his cannons and invites people to take turns blowing up old cars. When I was researching a Civil War book, long before I lived in his town, he somehow found out about it and sent me some invaluable information on the 3-inch ordnance rifles that were forged in Phoenixville, Pa.
He's been a good mayor, too, for two full terms. The city's really turned around; crime is down, a new baseball stadium is up and running, and there's been a rebirth of downtown businesses. None of this is exclusively his doing, but he also didn't screw it up.
Yet it seems like he's running out of ideas. He's become more and more embroiled in personality conflicts. The Democrat they put up against him this time is more than just political cannon fodder; he's a defense attorney who actually seems to have a clue about what he'd do if he won the election.
The Democrat has made some concrete proposals about taxation, neighborhood policing, incentives to development. They're good ideas. To each of them, Mayor Y has said, "well, we looked into that a few years ago, and decided it would never work." So, I say, let a new guy take a whack at it and maybe find a way to make it work.
All of which made me think back to two years ago, when I felt somewhat like that about the situation on the national level. Bush and Kerry had similar ideas about the issues I cared most about, especially the Iraq War. Bush had built up so much ill will on the global level, that simply electing a new man into the White House would have broken any number of logjams, at least temporarily. Further, there was a reasonable chance that Kerry, trying the same policies, would actually get them right.
But in that case, the tie went to the incumbent. The difference? The great number of people who insisted that the election was a referendum on the entire idea of overthrowing Saddam. And Kerry's inability or unwillingness to distance himself from that position. Nobody here is saying the baseball stadium shouldn't have been built. It's a question of how to get the best use out of it.
And the idea of smirking Michael Moore waddling triumphantly into the inaugural ball and scarfing up all the hors d'ouvres.
Voting would be so much more sensible if politics weren't involved.
It was all local elections this time, and I mostly voted for Democrats. In most cases, that's because my neighborhood of the city is so overwhelmingly Democratic that all the political leaders there I know and have had dealings with are Democrats. Anyone seriously seeking local office in my ward will come up through the Democratic Party, so that's where the better, more capable candidates are. Republican candidates in the Seventh Ward tend to be fringe-dwellers or one-issue zealots. On the county level, that's reversed.
Party ideologies matter little and a voting booth choice is a question of personalities and mojo. And you have to solve some mental geometry: Let's see, Candidate X is running for city council to be a watchdog against Mayor Y. I think that's a good idea, but I am voting against Mayor Y, so voting for Candidate X would be a waste of a seat, but do I really expect Mayor Y to get beat just because I vote against him ....? It's a good thing they don't let you drink on election day.
Yes, I voted against Mayor Y. He's a good man; he's one of the nation's leading experts on Civil War artillery, and down on his farm he routinely unlimbers one of his cannons and invites people to take turns blowing up old cars. When I was researching a Civil War book, long before I lived in his town, he somehow found out about it and sent me some invaluable information on the 3-inch ordnance rifles that were forged in Phoenixville, Pa.
He's been a good mayor, too, for two full terms. The city's really turned around; crime is down, a new baseball stadium is up and running, and there's been a rebirth of downtown businesses. None of this is exclusively his doing, but he also didn't screw it up.
Yet it seems like he's running out of ideas. He's become more and more embroiled in personality conflicts. The Democrat they put up against him this time is more than just political cannon fodder; he's a defense attorney who actually seems to have a clue about what he'd do if he won the election.
The Democrat has made some concrete proposals about taxation, neighborhood policing, incentives to development. They're good ideas. To each of them, Mayor Y has said, "well, we looked into that a few years ago, and decided it would never work." So, I say, let a new guy take a whack at it and maybe find a way to make it work.
All of which made me think back to two years ago, when I felt somewhat like that about the situation on the national level. Bush and Kerry had similar ideas about the issues I cared most about, especially the Iraq War. Bush had built up so much ill will on the global level, that simply electing a new man into the White House would have broken any number of logjams, at least temporarily. Further, there was a reasonable chance that Kerry, trying the same policies, would actually get them right.
But in that case, the tie went to the incumbent. The difference? The great number of people who insisted that the election was a referendum on the entire idea of overthrowing Saddam. And Kerry's inability or unwillingness to distance himself from that position. Nobody here is saying the baseball stadium shouldn't have been built. It's a question of how to get the best use out of it.
And the idea of smirking Michael Moore waddling triumphantly into the inaugural ball and scarfing up all the hors d'ouvres.
Voting would be so much more sensible if politics weren't involved.
