Need For Coalition For A Better Memphis Extends Beyond Election Season

Primary elections are about a candidate identifying a base and talking about the red meat issues that its members care about. The general election is about broadening the base to appeal to more than the true believers.

Unfortunately, in county elections here, we rarely have the second phase, because districts are so carefully drawn to preordain them to one political party or the other. As a result, there’s normally not even a challenger from the other political party in places like the Republican suburban district or the Democratic urban district.

This is why while there are 13 county commissioners, only three have opposition on the August general county ballot, and political insiders only see a serious contest in one of them.

As a result of the party interests institutionalized by the partisan county elections, candidates normally are frozen in the first phase of a campaign, the part known for its partisan rhetoric, such as every Democrat railing against privatization or every Republican promising to lower taxes.

Unfortunately, because there’s normally no general election where candidates from both parties compete to sell their differing viewpoints, there’s little pressure for most candidates to move beyond the partisan rhetoric to develop substantive plans for Shelby County Government.

We never learn how the Democrat plans to hold down the costs of government if an operational option like privatization is summarily taken off the table. We never learn how the Republican is going to vote against every tax increase while encouraging suburban sprawl.

It was in response to this parallel universe that The Coalition for a Better Memphis was created and why it is such a welcome development. This year, as promised, the Coalition “qualified” candidates running for county commissioners and announced their “grades.”

But, perhaps, The Coalition for a Better Memphis would serve the community’s interests best if it did more than just weigh in at election time. Rather, it could seriously elevate the political debate if it stayed engaged after the election, pressing winners for detailed plans of action.

So far, in the interview process, some candidates have gotten away with offering up the normal hyperboles and vague (if sometimes conflicting) promises. It happens when the questions are general and the grading process isn’t precisely spelled out. (In some races, it was arguable that candidates got the highest grades when they said the least.)

Backers of the Coalition concede that the organization has some work to do before its next entry into the election process, however, it was a promising first step that the Coalition took with the county commissioners’ elections.

Yes, in truth, its impact was probably limited, and there are deep suspicions by some political activists that the endorsements were predetermined. But such complaints were also heard when the Committee for a Better Atlanta – the prototype for the Memphis group – began its work there. The complaints were expected as a byproduct of a political scene that breeds conspiracies by the hour.

That said, for the most impact, the Coalition should make the interviewing and grading process as transparent as it can so candidates and voters understand the context that it’s using to determine if a candidate is answering “right” or not.

Back to our point about the Coalition staying engaged after the election, let it be said that whatever the Coalition can do to stimulate greater interest in local elections and increase understanding of what’s at stake is good. It’s clear that Memphis has a cancerous voter confidence problem. In the county primary elections, the turnout didn’t even manage to break into double digits.

Perhaps, if we want to engage the voters, accountability must become more than just an election cycle issue. Perhaps, the Coalition could truly transform the civic discussion by reporting back to the voters on a regular basis about whether politicians are doing what they promised.

The upside to this is that it would require every candidate who becomes an elected official to offer up specific, measurable plans for the future. It’s would no longer be enough for a candidate to answer a question about economic development by saying that he’s for more economic growth, fine turning tax freezes and looking closely at smart growth. Instead, he would have to say what he would precisely do to improve the use of tax freezes and to make growth financially sustainable.

There are no serious accountability in the process now, and the media do not seem inclined to play this role in a structured way. Here's a vacuum that the Coalition could fill, and in doing it, it would fulfill the full potential of its founding vision.