One-party rule in Phila. makes everyone a loser

By Al Schmidt

In 1923, after more than 50 years of Republican dominance of City Hall, the Democratic-leaning Record newspaper asked Philadelphians why they continued to perpetuate ruinous one-party rule election after election.

Despite, or because of, the Republican Party's generally unchallenged role in municipal affairs for so long a period, the party had become mired in routine corruption and was unable to solve the mounting problems confronting the city.

The Record concluded that the city's "hopeless addiction to Republicanism" was "what's the matter with Philadelphia."

Philadelphia once again finds itself overdosing on partisanship, except this time the Democratic Party is the beneficiary, though the victim remains the same.

Just as the Record warned nearly a century ago, one-party rule "blights our city, imposes upon it unnecessary burdens of taxation, hampers its development, and enables venal politicians to fritter away its substance to their own personal enrichment."

Though the parade of indicted city officials appears unending, in Philadelphia you must always vote Democratic, so the thinking goes, and the election of a Republican mayor seems unthinkable.

Any Republican candidate must not only run against a Democratic candidate, but also against this widespread straight-ticket mind-set.

Yet governmental virtue is not the monopoly of the Democratic Party. The same desire for divided national government expressed by the overwhelming majority of Philadelphians in November is no less applicable to our city at the present time.

The system of checks and balances we depend on for meaningful oversight is jeopardized by protracted one-party rule.

Do we expect a Democratic supermajority in City Council to keep a Democratic mayor in check? They might debate how high to raise taxes, but never how to reduce spending.

Do we expect a Democratic district attorney and a Democratic controller - our municipal "watchdogs" - to conduct oversight of a Democratic administration in City Hall?

Lately, the only effective oversight has been provided by the city's newspapers, which have championed good government, and a U.S. attorney with his hands full.

Political competition, not criminal prosecution, is how we should hold our leaders accountable.

The good news is that the Republican Party in Philadelphia is rebounding at the grassroots level, thanks to seeds cultivated by its general counsel, Michael Meehan, and the Republican City Committee.

The steady grooming and encouragement of Republican leadership is building a dynamic and diverse farm team from which to draw exceptionally well-qualified candidates.

To break the straight-ticket mind-set, it is the Republican Party's responsibility to provide Philadelphians with a choice, and it is meeting that challenge. The effort will be wasted, however, if voters refuse to consider any candidate because of his or her party affiliation alone.

After more than 50 years of unbroken Democratic control of the mayor's office, it is the appropriate time for Philadelphians to reflect on the quality of their representation in City Hall.

The absence of a competitive political system limits voter choice, promotes an environment conducive to corruption, and harms "we the people" most of all.

Improved representation will occur only when Philadelphians stop overdosing on partisanship and choose to end their "hopeless addiction" to one-party rule.