By Stephen Knight
Well, local elections are over, and it is tempting to spend this entire column speculating as to why they concluded as they did. My counterpart, Jason Zandri, wrote about the low turnout as a factor, and perhaps it was. But not running a candidate for mayor and not articulating a single reason that the seven politically motivated Charter Revision questions should receive a yes vote were far larger factors. Add to that a general discontent in the state and nation over how government is performing under the Democrats and you have a “perfect storm” that led to the lopsided results.
Instead of dissecting the results of this election, let’s look at two basic themes spelled out by both parties and virtually every candidate. If you put aside the Charter Revision questions, there were really no huge issues separating the parties, but every candidate did campaign on two basic premises: 1) they would govern the town with fiscal prudence by applying their expertise and experience; and 2) they think Wallingford is a wonderful place to live and they want to do their part to keep it that way.
Theme one— fiscal prudence: This touchstone of local government is part of Wallingford’s political DNA, and candidates for public office here know it, be they Democrat or Republican. The theme for this election was no different from others in that regard. Our town is, frankly, an oasis of municipal fiscal sanity in a sea of irresponsible government spending. Our voters’ wish list is very short: provide basic services efficiently, govern honestly and fairly, and keep taxes reasonable.
Wallingford voters are skeptical of, and will not elect, politicians promising all kinds of expanded town services. There have been attempts to influence by one group or another with promises to build this facility or offer that service, but those efforts have not borne fruit at the ballot box. In this election, the only promise made — and made by every single candidate— was to continue the legacy of careful, almost parsimonious oversight of our tax dollars. Part of that was the economy speaking, no doubt, but most of it came from knowing what Wallingford voters expect to hear.
Theme two — Wallingford as a great town to live in: Now I know that it is boilerplate politic speak for people running for office to refer to their town as a great place to live. Fair enough. But as I listened to the thirty candidates for local office at the League of Women Voters Forum held in October, I was struck by their statements of genuine affection for the town in which they live and the good fortune they felt in living here. They weren’t talking about the government; they were speaking of the town and, by extension, the people in it. A part of the Wallingford voters’ evaluation of a candidate is based on how well that person understands the special sense of community that residents here so value and what that candidate will do to protect it. All thirty of them, in one way or the other, sought to assure the electorate that “they get it.”
Every election has its own unique signature, because the people and the issues are constantly evolving. This one was unique in several respects as was discussed at the beginning of this column. However, these two themes are the threads that knit all Wallingford elections together. The people carrying out the duties of elected officials will change. I am confident that these two building blocks of our town government will long remain.
Tags: election, Voter, Wallingford