Archive: Opinions

EditorialAs an independent voter I hadn't attended political meetings until I started covering them for the Star.  So last year was the first Democratic caucus I attended, and it was something of a disappointment.  Committee members desperate to find candidates asked me whether I would run as soon as I walked in.  They didn't actually know who I was.  When I explained that I was there as a journalist and am not a Democrat they told me that doesn't matter.  I wasn't sure whether or not they were joking, especially as the meeting progressed and they considered nominating candidates who probably didn't want to run, desperately trying to reach one who had declined to run at the last moment on their cell phones, and finally nominated a 'place holder' candidate in case they could get someone better later.

So I went into this year's caucus with low expectations, but found myself favorably impressed.  This year Lansing Democratic Committee Chairman Greg Lawrence took a practical approach to the dearth of candidates: accept that we don't have candidates for every position, but do the best we can for the ones we have.

Not only that, but in stark contrast to last year's desperation to get anyone -- please anyone!!!! -- to run, the three candidates who were considered this year weren't just given a pass.  Each one was asked hard questions about where they stand as Democrats, how they would work with the Republican majority in Town government, and what their philosophical and practical approaches to challenges in the Town will be.  "As a Democrat, why should I vote for you?" Ted Laux asked Town Supervisor candidate Scott Pinney.  "If someone comes to us as a Democrat, even if it is someone I don't know, I at least have some very broad sense  of what that means," Pat Pryor told Town Councillor candidate Hugh Bahar.  "Saying that you're part of the Independence Party -- I don't know what that means."

When Pinney declined to be specific about parts of his platform he was taken to task for not telling Democrats what they would be voting for.  Connie Wilcox was grilled about her party affiliation and how she stands on core Democratic philosophy.  While the discussion was heated at times, people clearly wanted to know what their candidates believe, and how they would represent their own values if endorsed.

Irene Tyrrell, a life-long Lansing Democrat, and mother of candidate Wilcox, told me that years ago things were different, that there wasn't such trouble finding and keeping Democratic candidates.  This is a problem many municipal entities face today.  Look at the trouble Lansing has finding candidates for school board and fire commissioners and Village Trustees.  My theory is that Lansing is generally run well and thriftily, so there is low enthusiasm for change.  That is certainly true in the Village, and except for bones of contention such as the now-defunct sewer project (which the Town Council unanimously tabled because it was going to be too expensive) I think it is true in the Town as well.

Given that, and especially in light of last year's experience, I was impressed that the 18 Democrats in the room were not willing to give up their beliefs and ideals just to get some warm body to run.  And while they had the opportunity to at least endorse candidates for both open Council seats, they chose not to do so.  I am not saying it is laudable that they didn't endorse a certain individual.  But I am saying that they asked the hard questions and decided that individual doesn't fit the mold of a Lansing Democratic candidate.

To me this is politics at its best.  Ask hard questions, find out what a candidate really stands for and will really do, vote for a vision of Lansing you believe in and the people who can make it so.  As a non-Democrat I was the only one not allowed to speak (Bahar, also an independent, was allowed to speak after he was nominated and a special vote to let him speak and answer questions was taken).  I simply observed, and I found the process fascinating and impressive.

Lawrence led with a soft voice, but well thought out arguments, saying that going forward with what candidates they could nominate, supporting them and getting them introduced to the public as soon as possible would go farthest in promoting Democratic values in the community.

Or I could put it another way: a candidate in the hand is worth two in the Bush!

But perhaps I shouldn't -- governance is no joking matter.  Wednesday night it was handled seriously and thoughtfully.  With all the brouhaha in National and State politics, it was refreshing to see politics focussed on substance and working the way it is supposed to.  After everyone had their say, they put it to a vote and decided to move forward.  That is what America is supposed to be about.

----
v3i30