Politics and the Local

This site doesn't deal much with local politics where I live, on the North Coast, Humboldt County, and seldom even with the state of California. There are several newspapers and several web sites that do (SoHum Parlance is very informative about this election.) But I will be chipping in my two cents on California next post, and this time on a local issue that is probably recurring elsewhere.

Here in Arcata we have a city council that is pretty progressive by comparison, so the usual spectrum is weighted that way. There are two seats in contention this time, and a field of candidates that is generally acknowledged to be pretty strong. I frankly haven't yet decided on my second vote for council. But my first vote is going to be for Dave Meserve.

As one of our local papers points out, Meserve is experienced, knowledgeable about local issues and comes to meetings prepared on matters before the council. He also sees the bigger picture and how Arcata fits into it, in key matters such as energy. He's something of a visionary, with a lot of enthusiasm that sometimes gets him in trouble with people who feel he goes too far. Maybe sometimes he does, but he seems pretty practical when it gets down to making decisions.

But what seems most controversial about Meserve, especially with the editor of the Arcata Eye, is that he has brought resolutions before Council on national issues, like supporting efforts to address the Climate Crisis, or in favor of impeaching President Bush. Apart from those who disagree with the outcome of these votes, the objection is to getting City Council involved in issues on a level beyond the city itself. Apart from being a waste of time, it creates a poor image of Arcata in the outside world.

There is an intuitive appeal to this notion, especially when much of the media coverage of Council focuses on these resolutions. And everybody knows of something they wish the City would fix or pay attention to that they aren't. But I've come to strongly disagree with the notion that these resolutions are nonsense.

Beginning with the prelude to the American Revolution, there's a long history of issues of national importance being debated on the local level, and resolutions passed on them, especially when higher levels of government are unresponsive. In the case of impeachment, there is an institutional justification: though it's not widely known, the impeachment of federal officers such as the President can be initiated by state legislatures, and the sense of city councils can contribute to that decision. The impact on this and other issues is political--it provides a sense of what a polity is concerned about, and brings those matters to the attention of state and national legislatures the way no individual or organization can.

The Climate Crisis illustrates this importance. Nations throughout the world recognize this crisis and are struggling to address it. Under Bush, the United States refuses, putting the future of civilization in grave danger. But concerned Americans have refused to be silent or inactive. Right now throughout America, action is being taken within states and through regional partnerships, and by individual cities (this is also happening around the world, partly through the Clinton Global Initiative.)

But to get this action started required political voice and will, and that has come from city councils and similiar bodies on the local level--including many as small as Arcata. The combined power of this should not be overlooked. Arcata was in fact one of the first municipalities to take a stand. Being out in front did subject it to ridicule, but other localities noticed, and many more passed their own resolutions.

So when the names of those localities scrolled across the screen late in Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, there among many was Arcata. And I've never been prouder of the place than at that moment.

Other candidates appear to be running away from this important function. Meserve states that these resolutions should be an addition to taking care of the city's business, not a replacement, and no one I know of is saying that he doesn't know his stuff on local matters. So I'm voting for him, even though he is a Green and I am a Democrat with not a lot of admiration for the Green Party.

I also have to say that anybody who actually serves on City Council gets my respect. I've occasionally watched their meetings as cablecast on the public access channel. Not only are they often mind-numbing, they occur in a room that resembles a concrete bunker. I've seen the actual room which doesn't look as bad as it does on TV, but still, I sometimes wonder what these people did to be sentenced to sit there for hours on end in that grey cement horror, caught between the drone of bureaucracy and the free association of public comment. Hats off to them all.