OP-ED

Parachuting in? Or connected to community?

Posted 10/19/22

In 2022, an interesting phenomenon has appeared in Rhode Island politics.

For some reason, numerous candidates have popped up, asking for votes, when they’ve never been involved in the …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
OP-ED

Parachuting in? Or connected to community?

Posted

In 2022, an interesting phenomenon has appeared in Rhode Island politics.

For some reason, numerous candidates have popped up, asking for votes, when they’ve never been involved in the community. Indeed, in some cases, they’ve barely lived in the places they seek to represent. This might be acceptable elsewhere, but shouldn’t be, here.

Some years ago, I spent a year living in England, studying British politics. One aspect of their system that struck me as odd was the fact that candidates do not have to live in the district they seek to represent. The British even have a term for this. It’s called “parachuting“. It’s when the central party apparatus effectively dictates to the local party who their candidate will be. They frequently drop a favored candidate into a so-called “safe seat”, where the party has an overwhelming likelihood of prevailing. In those situations, the national party will “parachute” their person in. Of course, the local party is often angered by this. But it happens on a fairly regular basis. It’s no surprise that people are often displeased, or even insulted, by this practice.

That’s why, in the US, a candidate must usually live where he or she runs. For Congress, a candidate must simply live in the state, not necessarily the district. Otherwise, though, it’s usually required. The rationale is that a representative should have a real connection to the people being served. So it’s surprising that so many candidates this year seem to have little connection to their community. It’s not limited to one party, either.

A Democratic primary candidate for Congressman Langevin’s seat had only tenuous ties to Rhode Island (and lost). The GOP candidate for Governor has been in the state for mere months. She has many more ties to other states (gets a tax break for a principal residence elsewhere). Yet asks RI voters to support her … Another concern is similar. It’s when people have lived in the district, but have had little or no engagement with the community. We should scrutinize our candidates closely in this respect.

Have they been involved with community organizations? Served on boards of local entities? Volunteered for any nonprofits? Have they been involved with their union or their professional organization? Have they held leadership positions? What exactly have they done, in the community, that qualifies them to be elected to a legislative office?

Have they attended meetings of neighborhood associations, in their areas? Do they know local elected officials, so that they can cooperate and collaborate to bring about positive change?

A candidate asking for your vote should have strong association with the community. Including enough involvement to have a good understanding of local residents and their concerns.

I went skydiving a few years ago, and it was thrilling - a good experience. But a person “parachuting” into a district, or running where he’s had little engagement with the community, is not good. Lincoln spoke of the importance of government “of the people, by the people, for the people”. Being governed by officials from somewhere else – who don’t know us - isn’t wise. We need our elected representatives to come not from the sky, but from our neighborhoods.


Mark McKenney

Warwick

A local attorney, Mr. McKenney is the Democratic candidate for Senate District 30.

op-ed, editorial

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here