I’ve pondered before why progressives in Whitewater do well in big-issues elections (president, governor, referenda), but show no similar strength at the local level. Someone wrote back and suggested that at the local level, perhaps maintaining incumbency meant more to most politicians than ideology.
That may well be the reason, but if so, then it suggests a limit to progressives’ gains in Whitewater. They may win on national and state votes (as I am sure they will this fall when Whitewater will choose Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain), but their views have less local traction.
What does it say, too, about progressives’ views that in purely local matters, they look like any other self-preserving office holder? In the end, if they aren’t expressing a local alternative, is being on the left in Whitewater little more than voting on CNN headline issues (however important), and offering no distinctive, local political position?
(The same could be said in Whitewater if, for example, ‘opportunity conservatives’ — those in the tradition of former U.S. representative and VP nominee Jack Kemp — were ascendant. They’re not, and more traditional, less growth-oriented conservatives have eclipsed in them in GOP. Progressives are the more relevant case simply because they’ve had a string of successes carrying Whitewater on state and national races.)
If one were to look at local officeholders who would describe themselves as liberals or progressives, I don’t think one would see a different, substantive take on local policy. More likely, I think they’d seem like other office holders on the center or right. If ‘think globally, but act locally’ is a progressive saying, then I’m not sure it’s distinctive in town.