Do you know anyone who is happy about the state of our politics and the communication style used in our elections? I don’t either.

It is much more difficult to have discussions with people who have different opinions and/or approaches to issues and problems.

We are grouped into opposite camps.

The attitude of both sides is often ‘my way or the highway.’

The framing of the discussions begins and ends with insults, false narratives and finger pointing that simply reinforces bias.

Many on the political right routinely engage in this manner. So do many on the left.

Guess what? President Trump has been elected twice and lost once for president. Those elections were not landslides. They were not rigged.

Are the great majority of Trump voters fascists, racist, mean-spirited deplorables? No. Likewise, are most of the votes for candidates other than Trump from socialists, anti-Americans, “dumbocratic” free loaders who favor criminals and communism? Again, no.

And both extremes maintain an incessant series of soundbites that drown out discussion.

And as the sides harden, and the rhetoric gets fiercer, chances to move forward disappear.

So how do we get out of this box?

That is the real issue we need to face.

Even in our hyper-partisan times, a majority of voters make their selections based on the challenges facing their lives: the cost of living, health care costs and access, the safety of schools and neighborhoods, the cost and effectiveness of our different levels of government and an overall assessment of our community, our state and nation.

Our political registration affiliation pales in importance to these factors.

Partisanship tells you who to vote for and who to vote against…regardless of where one stands on the issues. In fact, you don’t have to spend any time thinking or talking about issues if you let party affiliation direct how you vote. ‘Don’t burden me with data’ has become the operational reality of rabid partisans.

Even elections for local nonpartisan offices like supervisor, school board, city council and mayor are subject to partisan appeals. While the official ballot doesn’t identity the party affiliation of the candidates, both parties do. Democrats will tell registered democrats who the “endorsed democrat is.” The GOP will tell the Republicans the same.

But our area has benefitted by electing local and even partisan office officials who put their communities above their party. In 2015, two Democratic state legislators (Adam Gray and Cathleen Galgiani) teamed up with two Republicans (Kristin Olson and Anthony Cannella) to end a long-standing state taxation rule that had cost Stanislaus County hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, the county now receives annually over $10 million more in state offset funds than before that work. To date, the county has received a total of $114,606,903 such funds. Our elected leaders put fixing a problem ahead of partisan calculations.

That’s what we need more of, not only in partisan elections, but local elections also.

In 2024, supervisor Mani Grewal led an effort to form the Stronger Valley Political action committee (SVP) to support or oppose candidate based on their support for job development, public safety and government accountably. The genius of SVP rests on its explicit assertion and policy that the political affiliation of a candidate for nonpartisan office is specifically not a consideration for support or opposition of a candidate by the SVP. In the 2024 cycle, the SVP supported 12 candidates (five Democrats, five Republicans, and two Independents; all 12 won.

So how do we keep limit the impact of partisan vitriol and finger pointing in our upcoming election?

First, when assessing a candidate find out where they stand. If they have a record as an incumbent look to see if they have an independent streak in their voting. If they are running for a partisan office but have experience in local office, see if they worked cooperatively with their colleagues regardless of their party affiliations. Check their background to see if partisan loyalty has ever been their self-described principal purpose for running for office.

If a candidate’s discussion of issues consists primarily of personal attacks and ridicule of their opponents, reject them! if he or she seeks to engage voters and even their opponents in a civil discussion, that’s a good sign. Ask hard questions. The response will tell you a lot about the candidate and may also inform you.

None of this is to suggest a go along to get along attitude. But it is important to take back the terms of the political dialogue. The issues today demand sober discussion, not sound bite assaults.

It’s time to move the discussion forward.