Local elections turn coarse

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Local elections might be my favorite elections. Traditionally — and often legally — nonpartisan governing bodies like city councils, school boards, county commissioners and township supervisors are the levels of government most in touch and in tune with citizens' daily lives. The candidates are often personally known to the voters. The campaigns are civil and inexpensive. There's not a lot of outside spending or negativity.

Of course, that's been changing.

For many reasons, nonpartisan local elections are getting more contentious, more expensive and less civil. The polarization that has leaked out of our partisan politics and has infiltrated our neighborhoods, workplaces and civic organizations has now come for local offices.

But are disagreements among city councils and school boards really about political polarization? Not really.

Especially in jurisdictions where one political party is more dominant — situations where the voters are choosing from many candidates who hold the same basic party affiliation — division is less about political polarization and more about elected officials' approach to the job.

Some candidates run for office out of a desire to give back. They have deep roots, years of experience and broad relationships. They are thought of as leaders based on past involvement such as owning a local business or coaching a team. Let's call them judges.

Other candidates run for office to enact a predetermined agenda. They may bring lived experience, may represent marginalized voices or may have participated in community organizing as part of an advocacy group. They bring passion and energy to the table. We'll call them activists.

When judges and activists are both elected by voters and then must attempt to work together, conflicts can arise — not because of deep-seeded differences of opinion on policy issues — but due to their differing approaches. Uncomfortable, but the best of all scenarios. A governing body can be most successful with a mix of judges and activists, because like other forms of diversity, the different approaches can become strengths. Too many judges may mean a community doesn't take enough initiative to tackle problems head-on. Too many activists may mean policy is enacted without sufficient consideration of unintended consequences.

Judges have a commitment to fairness and process. They carefully consider all the evidence and make decisions based on the information presented. On the other hand, activists bring personal experiences or outside information to the table. They enter office with a clear agenda and solutions in mind.

Judges' focus on process and data can be seen as stalling. Activists, driven by passion, may overlook political feasibility. Judges value community consensus and compromise, while activists prioritize results.

While there is a stereotype, age doesn't solely determine whether a candidate falls into the category of judge or activist. There are plenty of younger judges and older activists.

A candidate's personal party affiliation doesn't predict whether they will be a judge or an activist, either. Judges and activists can be liberal or conservative. Again, it's not about party, it's about the approach to the job.

When judges and activists, as well as political-action committees and advocacy organizations supporting both kinds of candidates, are labeled as politically partisan, it undermines the challenges faced by nonpartisan races and candidates from various political spectrums. (Of course, the same rule does not apply when political party units make endorsements in nonpartisan races. That's a separate conversation.)

The tension between judges and activists is real, and it's important to examine and overcome it. But successfully tackling those conflicts becomes almost impossible when they're mislabeled as partisan differences. Because frankly, they're not.

When differences are invented, people separate into "us" and "them." Not out of malice, but just because humans are genetically coded to form in-groups and out-groups. On a grand scale, people on the left and the far left (or right and the far right) might be seen as allies. But when division is created, those on the left and the far left (or right and the far right) see each other as opponents.

Instead of highlighting differences, judges and activists will both be successful by focusing on the areas on which they agree, and then working through the process in a way that satisfies both. Because again, we're talking about approaches. Not partisan difference.

Shannon Watson, of Minneapolis, is founder and executive director of Majority in the Middle.