As results from Tuesday’s primary election continue to trickle in, a reminder is in order for the candidates who advance to the general election: All politics is local.
While catchy slogans (“He works for us”) and national wedge issues can garner attention and — potentially — votes, they are the political equivalent of sugary breakfast cereal. They might be delicious, but they often lack nutrition.
Leading up to the November general election, candidates should focus on local issues and topics that are relevant to the position they are seeking. The Columbian should ask probing questions about those issues. And, most importantly, voters should expect clear and insightful answers to those questions.
In Clark County, the preeminent issue is the Interstate 5 Bridge and proposals for replacing it. But leadership requires more than a strident opinion about light rail or tolls or the need for a third bridge.
If a candidate is opposed to tolls on a bridge, how would they pay for it? Pointing out that the federal government paid for 92 percent of the Interstate 205 Bridge more than 40 years ago ignores modern realities.
If a candidate is in favor of scuttling the project, how would they prepare for the possibility of an earthquake or other disaster rendering the I-5 Bridge useless? What makes them think that leaders in Oregon would be receptive to a third or fourth span across the Columbia River? Why would they be willing to waste hundreds of millions of dollars already spent on planning?
Those questions are particularly pertinent to candidates for the Legislature and for Congress. They have less relevance for Clark County Council candidates; county officials are free to express their opinions about a new bridge, but they have no control over funding or planning for the project.
For those seeking a spot on the Clark County Council, more pressing questions involve a permissible 1 percent annual increase to a property tax levy. It is common for candidates to support increased funding for some items — often police and fire protection — while saying they would not vote for an increase to the property tax levy.
This position is incongruous. If funding is not increased, what kind of budget cuts would they recommend in order to increase spending in a preferred sector?
Meanwhile, growth management and housing present important topics for elected officials at both the state and local levels. How we approach those issues will impact homelessness and the economy for years to come.
For candidates at every level, it is a common trope to suggest that wasteful spending is rampant and they just need to get a close look at the budget in order to fix it — even though budgets are available to the public. This fails to answer an important question: If cutting waste is so easy, why haven’t current officials done it? Voters should expect more from candidates than empty promises and mushy sound bites.
Voters also should reject extremism from either side of the political spectrum. If a candidate insists they will never vote for a tax increase, that suggests an unserious approach that ignores political realities. The public should expect elected officials to weigh the details of each proposal rather than embracing strident ideology.
Tuesday’s primary election in Clark County saw voter turnout of approximately 40 percent. In races with three or more candidates, it whittled the field to two for the Nov. 5 general election. Now, as candidates move forward, they should focus on issues that will truly make a difference in the lives of their constituents and that are relevant to their office.
