Independents Unite!
(If you don’t, you’ll continue to get the kind of government you’re constantly complaining about)

As the talk of county reform continues to heat up, driven by the scandal that won't seem to go away or come to an end, I'm put in mind of a T-shirt I saw a few years ago that read: "I've given up on reality, and am now trying to find a nice fantasy to believe in." And that's exactly what we'd be doing if we think that the county reform plan that has been put forth will solve all of our problems (or hardly any of them, for that matter). The truth is, it might just make the situation worse.

Statistics indicate that in counties across the U.S. that have the one supreme county elected official instead of the three (which, by the way, is the construct in 90 percent of the 3,140 counties — or county equivalents — in the country) indictments have run higher than in counties with three elected officials. Changing from three to one elected official won’t prevent misconduct, and might open the door for more. If 90 percent of the counties in the country can operate efficiently with the system we currently have in place, isn’t that proof there is nothing wrong with the system itself--that the fault actually lies with the leadership?

Nonetheless, we are being bombarded with messages that if we don’t go along with change just for the sake of change, we’re some kind of latter-day political Luddites, horrible citizens that are blocking necessary and good change for petty reasons … and that simply isn’t true.

Only a fool would stand pat and say that we don’t need some kind of change in Cuyahoga County — clearly the joke has gone way past Broadway. But should we allow ourselves to be stampeded into a form of change that would consolidate power in the hands of a few people simply because some other people are accused of forgetting the first maxim of politics: “Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered”?

What exactly would this plan “reform”? Government? Politics? Ethics? Take your pick, or, if you’re not quite sure, then pick all three. What the hell, one answer is as good as the next. Or, is this simply a diabolical scheme (as currently being whispered in Progressive circles), to give Republicans a modicum of hegemony in local politics?

While I’m certainly not wealthy enough to be a Republican, total Democratic dominance of local politics has proven disastrous … just as total Republican dominance proved disastrous in Columbus under Taft, and in Washington under Bush. As the saying goes, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” A two-party system of governance supposedly provides checks and balances against such excesses, assuring that the commonweal always remains paramount in the eyes of elected officials. Now there’s a fantasy if there ever was one.

Looking out for the little guy was supposed to be the job of the Democratic Party, but, if news reports are to be believed, there was a “Family & Friends Program” in place in Cuyahoga County that far surpassed anything offered by any cell phone company. While loyal and dedicated county employees toiled their way up the promotion (and income) ladder, it’s now being charged, family members and friends of family members of political insiders were being rewarded with raise on top of raise, for doing little else but showing up — and they didn’t do that with too much regularity in some cases. You just know that there are a bunch of good county employees out there that are as mad as a bunch of wet hens. But they have themselves to blame, at least in part: voter records show that less than 30 percent of county employees are registered voters. Talk about sloth…

However, solely increasing Republican power in the county and giving them a turn at the hog trough is not the answer; what’s needed is a party of Independents. An analysis of voter roles shows that more people in Cuyahoga County label themselves as Independents than as Republicans or Democrats combined; so why isn’t there an Independent Party? Because of ears. Yes, ears.

Whenever someone over the age of 40 thinks about an Independent Party they immediately think “crackpot,” as embodied in elephant-eared Ross Perot. The problem with his idea of an Independent Party was that it was top down in construct, not bottom up. He couldn’t win the nomination of either of the established parties, so he wanted to start his own party as a way of getting into the presidential game. But what needs to happen for an Independent Party to be successful is that it springs up from the grassroots, not something that is the creation of a wealthy businessman with his own agenda. The states with strong, organized Independents are among the best governed in this country.

In more politically advanced countries three, four and even five political parties exist, representing their constituencies very well: if the political party currently in power doesn’t consider agendas of the smaller parties, they won’t be in power for very long. Coalitions have to be built to govern, and in that manner views, issues and concerns of smaller minorities have to be addressed. This construct prevents a “Tyranny of the Majority” (the title of an excellent 1994 book by Lani Guinier).

By way of example: If true Progressives joined with people of color, under employed (and unemployed) whites, gays and others who remain locked out of the process and have a hard time being heard-- and formed a party to press their demands--no dominant party could ignore them; they could hold (and more importantly, wield) the balance of power.

If this current crop of reformers were seriously interested in fair play, they would have advanced an idea that’s been around for years:: Instead of electing judges countywide (where, if a candidate doesn’t have an Irish or Italian surname they can’t win), we could elect them from state representative districts, thereby assuring that more than one or two of the 34 Common Pleas judges are persons of color—perhaps as many as nine or ten. That kind of inclusion would constitute honest and fair reform. Now, either the designers of the reform plan currently under consideration are (a) stupid, or (b) not really interested in fair and honest reform.

Again, take your pick.

From Cool Cleveland contributor Mansfield B. Frazier mansfieldfATgmail.com

Frazier's From Behind The Wall: Commentary on Crime, Punishment, Race and the Underclass by a Prison Inmate is available again in hardback. Snag your copy and have it signed by the author by visiting http://www.frombehindthewall.com.
(:divend:)