About Connections: Love it or hate it, history is a map. Those who hate history think it irrelevant; many who love history think it escapism. In truth, history is the clearest road map to how we got here: America in the 21st century.
In the last election for Stockbridge Selectman, Don Chabon ran unopposed. In Berkshire County, some running for city councils and village boards run unopposed. It appears that, again this year, the candidate for Stockbridge Select Board will run unopposed.
There is a paucity of candidates. It is a kind of political anemia. It is not good for us; the voters deserve a choice. It is not good for democracy. In order to maintain a robust democracy, we need people who consider it an honor to serve and want to compete for that honor.
Recently 4,000 young people were asked if they would consider running for political office; 89 percent said “no.” That finding is the basis of the book “Running From Office.” The authors, American University professor Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox, maintain dysfunction in Washington, D.C., turned young people off in historic numbers.
Lawless says, “The high school and college students we interviewed have grown up only amid the dysfunction that currently characterizes the political system…this is really the first generation where that’s the case.”
Researchers maintain dysfunction is a result of two factors. Polarization is stronger than ever before in our history. Concomitantly, effectiveness, measured by legislative productivity, has decreased.
The ambition to run for office is a function of anticipated rewards such as respect and effectiveness. If, instead, potential candidates anticipate criticism, stalemate and discord, why would they choose to run?
So what happens if 89 percent of potential candidates choose not to run? What happens to the 500,000 elected offices in this country? Will they go unfilled? Will only one person run unopposed for each office? If so, will the voters no have choice and, therefore, no real function? Will the one who runs be the best suited for the job?
What sort of person will run? A person more interested in personal power, more cynical, more confrontational; a person who is less interested in positive change and the public welfare? In short, will the character of our leaders change?
Without competition for elected office, we can lose more than the character of our elected officials; we can lose the balance in our political system.
I remember the first college lecture I attended. I do not remember the professor’s name, but I remember what he said:
“American politics is a rubber band, pull it too far to the left and it will snap back; pull it too far to the right and it will snap back. The productive center is maintained by the vying of the parties, not by any one party alone.”
Since 1856, there have been 16 presidential elections in which there was no incumbent on the ballot. In 11 of the 16, the voters selected the opposing party, that is, the party that won the last presidential election consistently lost the next. It was a uniform pattern over 160 years. It is a pattern unbroken by the presidential election of 2016.
Every eight years, voters alternate the party to which they give a chance at the presidency. Similarly, voters alternate the party to which they give control in the legislative and executive branches. That is, generally, voters give the president’s party the majority in the legislature in his first term, and then give the opposing party the majority in his second term (or possibly his second two years).
Voters seem to know that the “productive center is maintained by the vying of the two parties, not by any one party alone.”
The Federalist, an online magazine that deals with the philosophical underpinnings of politics, calls it “The Natural Equilibrium of the Two Party System.”
That equilibrium protects us from radical politics either too far left or too far right. That equilibrium is demonstrable in an election by more than one candidate and in governance by compromise between elected officials.
In little villages like Stockbridge as well as on the national stage, there should always be two candidates for each position. The voters should always have a choice and never have to settle for a single candidate.
