By Carmine DeMarco, Publisher, Dumont Dispatch
When I was growing up - and I'm guessing it's the same now - you had your favorite teams. And you couldn't mix them, and root for two local teams in the same sport. Nope - either you were a Yankees fan, or you were a Mets fan. You were a Giants fan, or you were a Jets fan.

We're tribal that way, us human beings. While we strive for autonomy, individuality, and self-determination, at the same time we have a competing primal need for belonging, for being part of something greater than just ourselves. And part of that is identifying ourselves with groups that share common interests, goals, or beliefs - whether it's being active in the Elks, or being a member of a particular church congregation, or belonging to a political party.

In politics, you are either a Democrat or a Republican (if you are affiliated with a party and not independent or undeclared). At the national level, there are discernable differences between Democrats and Republicans, both real and stereotypical. Democrats espouse "freedom of choice", while Republicans defend the "right to life". Democrats are portrayed as "tax and spend liberals", while Republicans are characterized as right-wing religious conservatives. And so on.

One of the things that always interested me about local politics was that there are political parties operating on a local level. Our candidates for borough government are either Democrat, or Republican. We are asked to vote locally for either a Democratic candidate or slate, or a Republican candidate or slate. But what exactly are the philosophical differences between the political parties at a local level? How exactly do philosophical differences on issues of national or global import come into play here on the streets of our little town - or DO they even?

In Dumont, our municipal government doesn't legislate on matters such as abortion, or same-sex marriage, or defense and military engagements, or public entitlements. Here in town, we're dealing with local matters where it doesn't - or SHOULDN'T - matter what an office holder's political party is. What it comes down to then, is that you're a part of a TEAM. As a candidate or as an office holder, if you're a declared representative of a given political party, you are a member of that team. Yankees or Mets. Giants or Jets. Democrats or Republicans.

Well . . . one problem with belonging to a political "team" can often be blind obedience to the "party line", and falling in lockstep with what the party leaders want and expect of you. An official may be presented with decisions where they are forced to choose between loyalty to the "team" (which got them elected in the first place), and doing the "right" thing for the townspeople - and those two courses of action might be at odds. Perhaps an internal conflict arises, and actions must then be self-justified and self-rationalized to dispel the conflict. But the bottom line is that instead of pursuing that innate human desire for autonomy and independence, government officials who are elected as candidates of a party are beholden - either truly or imagined - to that party's decision makers. After all, doesn't party affiliation and devotion mean playing for that team, and opposing the other; having your team "win", and defeating the other?

But should it be that way on a local level? Should our local elected representatives, who are our neighbors, EVER be pressured to choose (or even to consider) a course that is not in the best interests of our community? From the standpoint of our community, is that the way we want our local officials to be?

I say there should be only one team. And on that team, all the players are working for the betterment of only one thing: our town, our community, our neighbors.

So, here's the premise of this editorial: political parties on a local government level is a BAD thing. What should matter is the individual candidate: their motives, their sincerity, their level of caring, their commitment . . . and their disdain for political pressure and refusal to compromise what's best for the community.

Before we know it, Election Day will be upon us. Will we be voting for individuals - the people we feel care the most about our community, whose motives are genuine and pure, who truly want to do what's best and what's right for our town? Will you take the time to learn about the candidates . . . and will they take the time to reach out person-to-person, door-to-door, to meet you and find out what you want and expect of them?

Or will we simply vote for our favorite teams?