Reading’s Government is Not Apolitical
Major parties play a role in local policy making.
In the runup to the April 5 Town elections, one phrase heard about town was: Politics have no place in Reading town government. True enough, given our Town’s form of non-partisan, semi-direct representative Town Meeting.
However, when some go the next step to suggest that major political party politics have no influence on how Reading town government runs, the assertion becomes questionable—if not naïve or at least a bit disingenuous.
If one were to look at the roster of the local Reading Democratic Town Committee or the Reading Town Republican Committee, one is likely to find the names of individuals who are either deeply involved in, or most vocal about the running of Town government.
Who would have guessed that people interested in politics would also be interested in government?
To be crystal clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong or inappropriate with an individual belonging to a political party’s local town committee and participating in the operation of town government. In fact, local government probably wouldn’t function at all if these dedicated individuals didn’t step up and volunteer their time and energy to the benefit of the entire community.
With that said, the notion that an active member of a political party can successfully avoid directly or indirectly bringing their party’s view and influence to the operations and policies of local government, as is periodically asserted in Reading, not only ignores the entire purpose of a political party, it defies the laws of human nature.
Take a look at the following quote from a press release from the Reading Democratic Town Committee: “The Reading Democratic Town Committee (RDTC) is the elected body shaping Democratic Party activity in the Town of Reading. Activities include public discussions of policies and candidates of interest to the broader community.”
Now, before anyone rushes to judge the Democrats, here is what the Town Republican Committee has to say for itself: “The mission of the Reading Republican Town Committee is to advance the principles of the Republican Party.”
Based on the statements from town political committee’s on both sides of the aisle, it’s arguable that anyone who is a part of one of these committees sees it, at least in part, as their purpose to infuse local decision making with party perspectives.
Hopefully, dear reader, there is nothing shocking about the idea that both of the major political parties view local politics as a way to cultivate new members, develop future candidates for higher office and influence local policy making to match their objectives at higher levels of government.
Reading has a truly wonderful stubborn streak of independent voting but that does not mean it is immune to the influence of political parties. If Reading is really interested in maintaining transparency in the operation of its' government, it is important to recognize that both of the major political parties are, at least indirectly, very active in Reading’s government no matter what anybody says to the contrary.
And, that is totally ok, so let’s not pretend otherwise.
Michael
7:03 pm on Sunday, April 10, 2011
At their best, the two major political parties in the United States--and in Reading--want the same thing: what is best for our nation, our state, and our town. How we get to that place is a matter of some disagreement (to say the least!) Let's hope that people with different political philosophies in Reading can agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable. Too often, national politics-- with all of its bitterness and name calling--can seep into local politics. It's my hope that we can avoid the vitriol and stubbornness that has, unfortunately, come to dominate our national political sphere.
Barry Berman
9:19 am on Monday, April 11, 2011
I agree withthe author that we all bring a political perspective, if not an agenda, to the public forum. But because the issues we deal with here are local, and therfore more personal, my hope is we can keep out the vitriol and rancor that dominate national and state politics. Afterall, is there really a democratic or republican way to collect the garbage or fix a pothole?
LeanstoRight
9:51 pm on Monday, April 11, 2011
Barry: yes, I think there is.
Republicans/conservatives would say these type of services, along with things like police, fire and schools, are exactly the ones that local government needs to stay focused on doing well and at a reasonable cost. Democrats/liberals would agree these need to be done, but might not be so willing to question how and at what cost these get accomplished (that would probably be viewed by them as mean-spirited). Plus the Democrats/liberals would want to try to have local government in addition to these basic services provide an array of extra services. And also at times attempt to get us involved with non-town issues, like trying to have the town boycott companies or even foreign nations that did something they disapproved of).
I have always thought this recent talk that state and national politics have become too nasty and too partisan is really an attempt by Democrats, the party currently with the most power on Beacon Hill and in Washington, to stifle debate. It is OK to have these disagreement (assuming they aren't violent or of extreme language), especially at the national level. We are trying to solve big and important problems and this can't be done without a clash of ideas and through political parties!
I think town politics would be easier to understand for the average voter if it was based on the two main national political parties. It could be even spiced up with some other parties besides the two main national ones!
John
8:41 am on Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Way to go BC, spoken like the teabagger that you are!!! Same guy/gal who equates Reading Commons with Section 8, which leads to more special ed, which leads to more out of district transportation costs. That's just what this town, state and nation needs is more BC's and all of their sarcasm and twisted rhetoric.
LeanstoRight
7:23 pm on Tuesday, April 12, 2011
John,
I have never comment in this forum or anywhere else about Reading Commons and its impact on the town. I actually think is a good development project, though it added more people to town dependent on their cars to get almost anywhere they need to go (I want to see more 'smart growth' developments).
And BTW, I am a moderate Republican, of the Bill Weld type, not a 'teabagger.' You seem to be using that term as a way of stifling debate. I always approach my politics with the old adage that "the truth usually lays halfway in between."