Elisa Campbell
So much of politics is about symbols, and I don't like it. I know symbols are powerful - I am an old English major after all - but I also believe in the existence of the real world, a world where climates change and ocean levels rise, people act according to their own values and symbols and perceptions of reality, buildings rot or fall down: a world where there are consequences. Much of what we talk about in our public discourse is symbols that in and of themselves don't have much heft in the real world, although they represent firmly- held beliefs which are often disguised. By discussing them only at the symbolic level, we miss the opportunity to confront our actual thoughts and conflicts, and we avoid thinking about and dealing with the real problems we face.
It's easiest to see at the national level, where so often we get riled up over things like the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The year before that, it was whether to require people attending public schools to recite the Pledge, And we can always fall back on the flag-burning issue. What's really at stake here?
We have equally obfuscating examples at the state and local level. We are in the midst of a governor's race, with the Democratic primary in less than a week, and I couldn't tell you which candidate has a sensible-sounding program for dealing with the fiscal mess the state faces. My union supports Birmingham; the Sierra Club endorsed Tolman; I like Reich's feistiness. I'll vote for whichever Democrat is in the race in November, and Shannon O'Brien is reported to be far ahead in the polls, so the primary vote is itself more symbolic than meaningful. But as both a resident of the "Commonwealth" and a state employee, I find it extremely annoying that no one is addressing real issues. What are the best ways to get our tax base back? What service do we want to the state to provide, at what level, and how do we propose to pay for them? For a couple of decades now wešve lived with the contradictory promises that we can have services and repeated tax cuts. We can't. I can understand, indeed sympathize with, the tax cutters who cite some egregious expenditure and call for cutting to eliminate "waste. fraud and abuse"; I'd put the new courthouse in Hadley on that cut list myself. But, as that project illustrates, that's not how it works. The powerful continue to be powerful, and find ways to fund their pet projects. In the meantime the Juvenile Court in Springfield, we now see in the regional news, has had a leaky roof for years and so much mold and damage that most of the cases have to be heard in another building. It's a disgrace, in addition to being dangerous. In the meantime, with all the reductions in court personnel, I get the impression that people on parole are essentially unsupervised. That doesn't make me feel safer.
But is there any public discussion about how to make our state government more efficient, in the sense of facing up to its responsibilities and taking care of the most urgent problems? No.
Frankly, much of the rhetoric in town seems to me equally unenlightening. Last year, there was the battle over the flags. This year it's the claim that changing our form of government will convert us from a moral and thoughtful democracy to a corrupt politburo of some kind.
Town Meeting feels like democracy. The members all got elected. Motions are made; people debate; often many different views are expressed; then a vote is taken. But over time it has become more a mirage of democratic representation than the reality. Most citizens have no idea how the representative from their precinct vote (or if they are even present for most of the meeting), there are very few contested elections. There is no accountability. Supporters of Town Meeting's continuance say no one bribes Town Meeting members; as far as I know that's true, but there is plenty of behind the scenes lobbying. All of us who've been members can remember times when someone rushed in to vote on one article that they were particularly concerned about and left soon after; but theisr constituents are unlikely to know that, since they get counted as "present" for having come in at all.
It's been over a decade since I voted for all 10 seats that are up each year: there simply haven't been 10 people I wanted to vote for. But since there is rarely a contest, I'm not really "bullet voting": I have no real way to vote against somebody whose positions I disagree with. Town Meeting is symbolic of democratic institutions, but it may not be representing the views of the town well because it doesn't actually know what those views are. We should change our form of government to one where the voters in town can actually elect a government that reflects their ideas. I believe we will then have a government that spends a greater percentage of its time on the most important issues and problems.