The popular caricature of a glad-handing, back slapping, puddle-deep, politician is ubiquitous in American politics. The relationship between actual politicians and the voters, however, seems to belie this very popular and intentionally pejorative stereotype. In “real life” it often seems like the politicians who most resemble this picture are also the most effective policy makers. This realization tends to amplify another popular notion, namely that big-time politics and policy making are corrupt, superficial, and not attractive to folks who are willing and able to “roll up their sleeves, work hard, and do the right thing even when it’s unpopular.”In small town America, where elected officials “do the public’s business” for free and have “real jobs” as well, voters have a tendency to reward the candidates who project this anti-politician, pro-business man/woman image of someone who distains the rubber chicken circuit and the photo-ops, while being able to wade into the complexity of policy making with the same sense of professionalism that made them successful in their careers. They tend to embrace the universally popular rhetoric about getting “politics” out of governance more robustly because they really aren’t professional politicians with a material or career interest in holding public office, and they often assume that small town governance actually can be more about policy than politics.
This situation can produce results both positive and negative for small towns, depending very much on the nature of the relationships between and among townspeople, as well as the social and economic pressures affecting these relationships. In small, homogenous communities the “business” of local government, which includes things like public safety, public education, public infrastructure, etc… tends to be done quite well by the “anti-politicians,” for what I think are some obvious reasons all of which center on the shared values and interests of the members of the community. As communities grow, the values and interests of residents tend to become more diverse, and potentially at least, contradictory. When times are good and towns can afford the costs and benefits of diversity in citizen expectations of local governments, political skill remains less necessary for local elected officials, but when times are not good diverse expectations of local governments can transform the honorable skill sets of the anti-politicians into a serious stumbling block to effective local governance.
It turns out that when there is actual politics (i.e. conflict over public policy) you actually need politicians, not doctors, lawyers, and business people. The more influence that a community’s voters have over public policy making, the more you need real politicians conducting the policy making process. Average voters are only too happy to defer to the “best and brightest” whose wisdom and skills confirm their own beliefs and support their own interests. But when these elected officials with impressive resumes say that you have to sacrifice for the greater good, many voters begin to question why they should trust these folks that they don’t really know that well. This means that the trust of voters has to occupy AT LEAST as much attention from elected officials as do the details of policy making or public administration, especially in towns like Longmeadow with a public meeting form of government and the threat of a voter veto of key budget and policy decisions at the ballot box.
When Communities headed by anti-politicians face REAL POLITICAL CONFLICT, it is very easy to foment distrust of elected leaders. One simply has to expose and exaggerate the flip side of Americans distain for the glad-handing pols; elitism and non-responsive public officials and bureaucrats who don’t know us but think they know what’s best for us. When the “best and brightest,” politics-hating elected officials try to explain the “difficult” decisions required by hard times many voters have no reason to trust them anymore than they would the nameless, faceless corporate bureaucrats whose “tough decisions” have impacted them negatively in the workplace. Getting laid off because the survival of the company is at stake –according to decision makers you don’t know and who don’t know you- probably feels similar to losing public services vital to your family in order to stave off the town’s fiscal demise.
The bottom-line is that whatever one does, there most likely is a “professional” way to do it that has garnered this label for a good reason. Mediating among and between voters with conflicting values and interests requires first and foremost, the skills of popular persuasion, not technical competence. People accustomed to “getting it right” through specialized knowledge, hard technical work, and the achievement of clear goals very often behave like fish out of water when tasked with public policy making, simply because such environments often do not have, aren’t even really supposed to have, concrete, measurable goals or objective standards.
This harsh political realization often comes as a shock to folks who were strongly encouraged to “bring their talents to local government.” They become victims of mixed messaging thinking that; “If I was elected because I know how to do what has to be done, then why should I pander to people who don’t.” This sentiment always reminds me of that great monologue by Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. I occasionally half hope public officials would gaze at complaining voters and say “I DON’T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK YOU ARE ENTITLED TO! I have neither the time nor the inclination to justify myself to someone who rises and sleeps under the very blanket of freedom which I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would prefer you just said thank you and went on your way.” This sometimes understandable reaction, of course, fails to account for the difference between generalized promises of competence, courage, and the public interest in a campaign and the actual consequences of governance, which inevitably activate some opposition. The devil is in the details, along with the incentives for political opposition.
Longmeadow is a town at a cross road. Its residents need to decide what kind of politics they want. Do they want a renaissance of consensus about the town’s principles and priorities? Do they want to “professionalize” our form of government so that the political skills of our officials would more likely match the political intensity of our politics? These are obviously big questions that can’t be quickly answered or settled in one election cycle. I do, however, want to recommend to Longmeadow voters that they keep these questions in mind during this spring’s election season.