Leadership without labels

A new national political movement has been launched in recent weeks that seeks to change the tone of politics. The group, called "No Labels," believes that there is no need to give up party labels but that they should be put aside in order to move the country forward by doing what is best for America.

As of this past November, nearly 30 percent of the electorate considers themselves to be independent of either party. Neither party can win an election without capturing these voters, and significant resources are invested to woo them each election cycle. In the truest sense, these voters are already "No Labels" adherents, as they vote for the person they believe will best represent them.

In many ways, the same can be said of those we elect to local office. You will notice that no party affiliation appears on the ballot for candidates for local office. This is by design: Inherent in city politics is the idea that party labels themselves mean nothing. There are no party policy positions on most of what local elected officials have to deal with every day, outside of the big-picture philosophical ones, such as when and how to raise taxes.

The partisan divide that we experience at the national level and, to some extent, at the state level just doesn't apply to local governance. There are no committee assignments made based on which party is in charge. There is no system of seniority that rewards those who happen to have outlasted their contemporaries. At the local level, candidates are free to represent their constituents, not their party.

This is, I think, as it should be at all levels of government. And that is the argument behind the No Labels movement. The focus is on moving us forward, not forwarding the agenda of the party.

There is much more that unites us than separates us, and this is particularly true in our cities.

A recent Gallup poll offered some insight into what citizens consider important in a community. The top four answers were social offerings, openness, aesthetics and education. Social offerings consist of arts and cultural opportunities. Openness refers to whether the community is a good place for different groups of people. Aesthetics includes the overall physical beauty of the community and the availability of parks, playgrounds and trails. Education is the quality of the local colleges and universities and public K-12 education.

These items affect our attachment to our community, and their rankings haven't changed in the three years that the survey has been conducted.

Noticeably absent is any mention of politics, much less political party.

According to the report, there is "a positive correlation between community attachment and local GDP growth." So while the items normally associated with community - jobs, the economy and safety - are not among the top reasons we choose to live where we do, the result is that in those places where the citizens feel a part of the community, we get those things.

Probably without realizing it, our local elected representatives have embraced some of these drivers of community attachment. The benefit is a more involved community. Together we create a sense of place, which gives our community its unique identity.

At the local level, we expect our "No Labels" elected representatives to do what is best for all of us, without any regard to political party. There was a time when those elected at the state and national level also put constituents before party - and a few still do. It would benefit us all if they adopted the model of putting us first.

Vivian Paige writes about local politics and other topics at blog.vivianpaige.com. E-mail: blog@vivianpaige.com.