Scary progressives launch preemptive invasion of Bellingham
The Washington Bus rolls into Tacoma Saturday morning (details here,) to doorbell for Tacoma City Council Candidate Marilyn Strickland, and you can be sure that the local righties will be all aghast at the “out-of-towners” and “special interests” invading Tacoma to influence their precious “non-partisan” election. (Don’t the smiling young folks in the picture above look scary?)
This is a theme that has grown quite popular with Republicans throughout the region this campaign season, as they watch their political prospects steadily shrink. When the Bus made a trip up to Whatcom County a couple weeks back to doorbell on behalf of County Council candidate Ken Mann, local Republicans flew into hysterics, launching a whisper campaign warning of a “National Socialist Organization that is Supported by Hanoi Jane Fonda.” On Mercer Island, where my ex-wife, Maureen Judge is running for City Council, wide-eyed righties stand up at candidate forums, frantically waving Progressive Majority print-outs, a la Joe McCarthy and his “list” of known communists. In Bellevue, incumbent Councilmember Phil Noble unsuccessfully pleaded with the 48th District Democrats to withhold their endorsement of his opponent Keri Andrews, claiming it would be an inappropriate intrusion into their non-partisan race. (Noble is so non-partisan that he gave a second contribution to Republican Jane Hague… after her drunk driving incident was made public.) And of course in the region’s marquee race, Republican Dan Satterberg has made non-partisanship the central theme of his campaign for King County Prosecuting Attorney, even promising to lobby to officially change the office to non-partisan, should he be elected.
Why the fearful reaction to progressive organizers, and the sudden public embrace of non-partisan ideals? Because in a region where Republicanism has been discredited perhaps more thoroughly than anywhere else in the nation, these nominally non-partisan races are the only chance most Republicans have of ever holding public office.
Non-partisanship has become the last refuge of political losers.
After twelve years of corrupt congressional rule, an inept and contemptuous Bush administration, and the collapse of the Eastside GOP, the red “R” has become a scarlet letter few Puget Sound Republicans are eager to wear, and the growing chorus of protestations against the politicization of non-partisan offices should be understood in this context. For decades conservatives have dominated these local races using the cloak of non-partisanship to hide their very partisan agenda, resulting in a virtual Republican lock on councils and school boards in otherwise Democratic districts. Ironically, the grassroots tactics employed by organizations like Progressive Majority and Washington Bus are largely those that were pioneered by conservatives decades earlier.
In fact, non-partisanship has always been a lie… a sham… a fiction, in which even the most casual observer could generally pick out the players without a program. We all know who the liberal and conservative justices are on the state Supreme Court, and we’re usually pretty damn sure about party identification. Likewise non-partisan councils and school boards throughout the region routinely factionalize along ideological if not party lines. Party identification reflects the candidate’s values and judgment, and it is not only dishonest, but fundamentally undemocratic to hide these labels from voters.
It has oft been written that our nation’s founders were uncomfortable with the notion of political parties, but they created this framework nonetheless, and in so doing helped create the greatest political, economic and military power in the history of the world. While America may not have invented the notion of “the loyal opposition,” it was here that it reached full fruition, for by institutionalizing a public debate in which endless argument is embraced as patriotic dissent rather than a treasonable act, our nation has managed to achieve a degree of political stability that is the envy of people everywhere.
Indeed, it is not less partisanship that is needed, but more… a truth self-evident in the familiar groans of self-described independents and third-party fantasists who routinely complain about the lack of difference between the two major parties. Of course, at the policy level, nothing could be further from the truth, but the general failure of Democrats to forcefully distance themselves from the conservative rhetoric that dominates public discourse, only sows such confusion.
Politics, like the law, is an adversarial process, and if one side is less dedicated to winning than the other, then the entire system fails. The Republican brand is tarnished for a reason, and GOP fortunes deserve to be punished accordingly. If we meekly allow them to tear off their scarlet letter and masquerade as non-partisan, we will be doing ourselves and the electorate a great disservice.
David, you sound like an angry white man who rants and raves all day long
The sad part is you make all us normal Ds look crazy with your diatribes
How does “your new best friend” Richard Pope feel about non-partisanship?
Gee, Goldy…Maureen Judge sounds like a real nice person! Too bad you lost her civilizing influence.
Yet, sometimes the baggage of being associated with “progressives” is more than some voters wish to carry.
Scarlett Letter is an interesting theme for this thread. More like a reminder that the Red Menace was indeed a menace. And efforts to overly politicize fixing potholes or whether left turn should be allowed off a certain street strikes municipal voters as shrill and missing the point of city government.
If so-called “progressives” hope to seize control of certain city councils in order to force impeachment or withdrawal from Iraq…ain’t gonna happen!
Having spent time at beaucoup city council meetings in nearly as many different cities, aside from rancor over Tent City 4, the stuff on the agenda is as dry as 10-day old toast.
What’s next? Politicizing a race for water commissioner?
The Piper
I have to disagree a tad on this one, Goldy. I don’t think we need any more partisanship of the kind exhibited by the Republican-controlled Congress prior to this past election cycle. It was a partisanship that fostered a very unhealthy form of uniformity that was devoid of any kind of diversity, and it would be equally harmful if Democrats did the same thing.
I know people were expecting the Democrats to do way more than they have since taking control last November, but I’ve been willing to cut them a bit of slack on that score. I think they’re consciously not going down the same path that the Republicans took out of respect for the institutions themselves.
Ideally, and it’s going to be very difficult to regain this given the way Republicans have behaved over the past couple of decades, we’d have much more collegiality within Congress while preserving the expression of a diversity of views that is necessary for the development of sound policy.
There’s a difference between unity and uniformity. The latter is the true ideal toward which we should all strive. The former is vile, vicious and pernicious–better, in terms of liberty, to have no government at all than to have the kind of government that accepts only a single point of view.
Great post, Goldy:
I not only want to see the end of nonpartisan races in this state, I want to see the end of nonpartisan registration.
Goldy,
I mostly agree with the post. City council positions and the like should not be characterized as nonpartisan. On the other hand, I believe judicial positions should remain nonpartisan, even if only in name. Confidence in the judiciary is shaky already given the right’s ceaseless and, of course, unmerited jabber about “liberal judges.” Even if promoting a fiction such as the nonpartisanship of judges is necessary, I think retention of judicial positions as nonpartisan is wise. No Republican would ever accept the edict of a judge who put himself or herself on the ballot as a Democrat, and the rule of law requires some adherence to respecting judicial edicts.
@4…Ivan…
What’s next…single party registration?…Then a single party state?
BTW…Washington doesn’t ask people to register by party, period! During a primary, you’re only asked which party’s ballot you prefer, and you can choose whichever you want or none at all.
The theory behind non-partisan municipal races is that the issues normally associated with municipal politics don’t lend themselves to any left-right analysis; sidewalks have not political ideology.
The Piper
@3…DJ…
Unity versus uniformity. Unity is acting in concert for a common purpose toward a common goal or good. Uniformity is externaly enforced conformity to the standard of another and not subject to being changed or altered by those against whom it is enforced.
Unity allows for diversity, uniformity doesn’t. Unity is voluntary, uniformity is coerced.
Thoughts?
The Piper
The original scarlet letter was “A” … then “R” … and now “N” …
Of course, it’s not at all surprising that Republicans are now masquerading as “non-partisan” candidates for this, that, and the other thing. After all, they masquerade as Democrats (and even dogs … hell, even as Roger Rabbit) on this blog; as we’ve seen on HA, they’ll do anything to keep people from finding out they’re REPUBLICANS. Which, after all, is understandable; who wants to be identified as belonging to the party of Ted Bundy?
@9 See, e.g., #1 above.
Hey wingnuts! Here’s a clue for you. A “Democrat” is someone who VOTES FOR DEMOCRATS!!! If you vote for the likes of Motherbeater Irons, Roadkill McGavick, Shrub, the Dinosour, Rubberstamp Reichert, et al. — YOU ARE NOT A DEMOCRAT!!!
Any questions?
You have to spell things out for these retards or they don’t get it.
@2 Hey dimwit, “Scarlett” is a character in a novel/movie, “scarlet” is a color. Just tryin’ to help you out there, good buddy.
@3 “I don’t think we need any more partisanship of the kind exhibited by the Republican-controlled Congress …”
I respectfully disagree. We need a TON of partisanship until the GOP pigfuckers are paid back in full.
@5 “No Republican would ever accept the edict of a judge who put himself or herself on the ballot as a Democrat”
That’s what the National Guard is for.
I’m a dyed in the wool Goldwater Republican, and I haven’t been able to vote for a Republican since that poisonous troll Richard Nixon occupied the white house and turned a place of somber, ponderous, and upright thought into a goddam bowling alley!
And him pounding on the goddam piano in front of the TV cameras, trying to sing ‘Proud Mary’ ….
It was pathetic!
I can still see that pursed, persimmon-like lip structure of Nixon as he (with stilted and stetorian voice), sang: “…Big Wheel keep on toinin'”
It was enough to turn your stomach!
Imperial Presidency, my ass!!!!!
Here’s what happens when people think they can ignore judicial edicts. http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?i.....ndTypeId=4
Our last Imperial President shortly after resigning. He was a liar and a crook and the world is a better place without him.
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/im.....58769x.jpg
@7 “Thoughts?”
You can no longer plead ignorance or insanity against the charge of being a wingnut. It is now clear that your wingnuttiness is deliberate and premeditated.
@13…RR…
Thank you for the correction…
The Scarlet Letter wasn’t worn by Scarlett O’Hara, though she desparately sought to qualify; it was worn by Hestery Prynne with the hypoctirical Rev. Dimsdale keeping silent.
There’s a long tradition of non-partisan municipal offices in this state. Any attempt to hard-partisan city councils with party labels will be resisted by just about every elected official of either party from the governor on down.
Most city councils are driven to consensus decisions by the nature of their organization and authority, which are specifically set out in and regulated by the RCW. You want partisan city races? Olympia is where you’ll have to go to get them.
Goldy is an East Coast guy, or so I’m told, and on the East Coast even dogcatcher is elected with a party label. That’s not how it’s historically worked out here.
The Piper
#21 — Well, get ready — cause here we come.
@21 “The Scarlet Letter wasn’t worn by Scarlett O’Hara, though she desparately sought to qualify; it was worn by Hestery Prynne with the hypoctirical Rev. Dimsdale keeping silent.”
No, it was worn by Hester (not “Hestery”) Prynne; and whatever Scarlett O’Hara desperately (not “desparately”) wanted, it surely wasn’t being the community pariah.
@21 “Goldy is an East Coast guy, or so I’m told, and on the East Coast even dogcatcher is elected with a party label. That’s not how it’s historically worked out here.”
We’re not Ohio or Florida either, and some wingnuts have a hard time accepting that.
@23…RR…
Late in the evening, and my spelling suffered.
Scarlett wanted desparately (better?) to do it with Ashley Wilkes even as she went through a serious of three husbands. To get Ashley, Scarlett would have defiantly worn the Scarlet Letter…
@24…
As a dyed-in-the-fur westerner, RR, do you want to see East Coas politics imported to the West? And lose your initiative and referendum rights?
The Piper
Piper asks: “As a dyed-in-the-fur westerner, RR, do you want to see East Coas [sic] politics imported to the West? And lose your initiative and referendum rights?”
Hey, Bagman, might I intrude on this discussion? (The only reason I accord you any respect, or refrain from the profane address you deserve, is your fondness for drone tones on various instruments.) I’m as Northwestern as a guy might be–born in Alaska, but schooled entirely in the state of Washington, and having lived on both sides of the Cascades. I would give up the horseshit of initiatives and referendums in a minute. Representative democracy does not mean direct democracy. Direct democracy requires equally informed voters. That ain’t gonna happen. I think initiatives are appropriate only with regard to state constitutional issues, not budget or policy issues. Moral issues, if you will. I don’t want the man on the street who pays 15 minutes to any given issue (aka Tim Eymann) voting on the state budget.
Piper @ 7,
Very good. You’re learning. Now, which term best describes the way Republicans have ruled this country over the past 6 years and Congress during the 12 years between 1994 and 2006? Is the unprecidented secrecy of the Bush/Cheney presidency more conducive to unity or uniformity? When Bush said, “I am the decider,” is he expressing a unifying ideal or is he demanding uniformity?
Oh, and what about this concept of a “unitary executive”? Would it not be better described as “uniformity executive”? Please justify your answers with cogent arguments. In this course, you get down-graded for shallow witticisms.
My master got her first job as King County Elections Director in 1986, thanks to her “BS” degree on her resume’!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ue13m.html
Goldy;
Another thing to keep in mind is that the more someone protests that their race should be considered “nonpartisan”, the more people should check out just who’s funding it.
Marilyn Strickland is really cool and has been endorsed by the Sierra Club. Nice to see you supporting a candidate that will make sound environmental choices in office.
…or perhaps non-partisan have it right and focus on all their constituents rather than only the fraction that are in a particular party.
….and maybe….just maybe….some non R and non D people are attracted to non-partisan races.