What did you do last Tuesday? Maybe you finally started that big paper that’s due on Friday, or caved again and ordered pizza because you forgot to go food shopping again. But whatever the case, I’d wager that for most of us – hell, for most Americans – it did not involve the official purpose of the day – voting. Yes, that’s right, Election Day has come and gone, and aside from a little spread in the DP the day before, it probably would have passed unnoticed around here.

2007 is an off-year, no doubt about it. And, as with any intervening election between very important Novembers, it gets overshadowed by its high-powered camera-loving siblings. 2006 saw a critical set of the midterm elections – the 6^th year election – where invariably the President’s party loses seats in the sixth year of a Presidency. And, as soon as that set of elections came to a close, the cameras in every news studio turned to the search for the next President – and that’s a bit depressing.

There’s very little way around it – primary season now begins two full years before a Presidential election. We can blame this on the 24-hour news cycle, or on overeager politicians, or on our own desires for a political show, but the cause is immaterial – this process is not going away. We now live in a state of perpetual campaigning.

But what’s the problem with a never-ending Presidential campaign? If anything, shouldn’t it at least raise awareness about key national issues and actually engage Americans in the political process? Sure – but only at the national level. By flooding the airwaves with talk of foreign policy and civil rights for two full years, we miss out on the opportunity to talk about local issues. Crime, education, urban planning – all of these inextricably local things simply get thrown to the curb year after year because we’re all too busy worrying about what Turkey is going to think when we say that genocide is a bad thing.

And it’s not just that this obsession with national politics eclipses local issues – it also makes the local politicians start talking like national politicians to play right into the big game. During the week before the mayoral election, Michael Nutter ran an ad encouraging people to vote, and he gave some pretty good reasons – clean up city hall, make the city a great place to live. But the third reason, well, I’m just not quite sure how it fits.

“Let’s show these two *flashes picture of Dubya and Dick Cheney* that they are still accountable for what they’ve done.”

Wait, what? That’s it? Now, I like Mike Nutter a lot, and I am positive he’s going to do some great things for our city, but what in the name of William Penn does that have to do with the city of Philadelphia? All I can think is that some DNC-issued campaign advisor made the suggestion to use Bush’s dismal approval ratings to try to drive up turnout. But think – shouldn’t the content of an ad be at least marginally related to the issues of the election?

It would have made sense if the ad had said, “Let’s show these two that if they’re not going to take care of America’s cities, we will.” Or maybe, “Let’s show these two that there are bigger threats facing this country – Let’s deal with crime and failing education, and stop dumping money on imagined threats.” But no – this ad simply went the OMGWTFBUSHISEVIL route and missed a real opportunity to make a statement about the relation between local issues and national priorities. Such is the nature of perpetual campaigning.

Maybe this isn’t all bad though, you say. Maybe expanding our campaign season to cover every free second between ‘06 and ‘08 gives us the opportunity to really delve into critical national issues and effect some real change. Well, maybe that would work in the land of honest politicians and responsive bureaucracy. But in our country – not so much. It is practically impossible to see real concrete changes that have real concrete effects at the national level. The House and Senate are much too busy passing non-binding resolutions condemning evil and commending good to even try to make an actual difference.

No, instead the real forum for making change and creating an effective and honest government is at the local level. This is where crime is fought and education expanded. This is where the zoning plans are made that decide between putting a park or a casino in your backyard. It’s only logical – local governments have control over those things that really affect our day-to-day lives.

We simply can’t afford to constantly and consistently ignore our local elections. These are the people who actually have the power to knock down crime, to rebuild burnt-out neighborhoods, to actually make the city a better place. If we just mechanically hop in the booth and pull the big lever – or even worse, don’t show up at all – we’re doing more than shirking our philosophical civic duty. We’re pulling the plug on our home.

I know this unwavering focus on national issues isn’t going away anytime soon. I know the media has an audience to cater to, an audience that doesn’t – and shouldn’t – care about repairing mass transit or revamping the zoning code. But that certainly doesn’t mean that you’re not allowed to care about other things.  It doesn’t matter where you vote – there will always be important elections and critical issues. Turn off CNN, read up on some local issues, and vote when it really matters.