There's a mismatch between the Seattle area's dependence on global commerce and its political system. Jim Vesely made that point well in his Sunday column in The Seattle Times:
The city is run by representatives of two major and influential cohorts: neighborhoods and highly specialized interest groups. That may fit a less-competitive era, but if this region is going to need every brain and every molecule of stamina, it must have a much higher caliber of contestants for public office.Those candidates would be knowledgeable on the Shanghai school methods, on the bridging of both space and dollars for transportation, on the depth of connections between here and Chile or China. Only a few are.
That's why whenever council members venture away from the narrow into the broad currents of national or state policies — or even pro sports — they appear woefully parochial, despite representing one of the most-dynamic and exuberant city-states on the planet.
So what's the recipe for change? The fact is that voters select representatives who most clearly speak to their interests -- and in Seattle that's usually neighborhood issues. By definition, candidates speak about those issues to the media. Instead of bemoaning the lack of ideas, I'd like to see The Seattle Times promote wider perspectives.
For starters, the news pages should examine the benefits of Gov. Gregoire's trade-promotion efforts and her groundbreaking meetings with British Columbia's premier. Why not demand that representatives learn from the rest of the world on issues like transportation? At least ask leaders what they learned about transportation from their recent trip to Japan.
Even the opinion pages could help. It would be fascinating to hear the questions that Vesely asked and the candidates' responses. Why not post those online?