Don’t make Miami mayoral vote a presidential litmus test 

 In next week’s runoff for mayor, Miamians face two high-quality candidates, a rare but welcome choice. 

Unfortunately, national forces that include the president and the Democratic National Committee are bent on transforming a vote on who can best lead Florida’s premier city into a referendum not on the direction of Miami but on the governance of the nation, which is a most unwelcome intrusion. 

In a nonpartisan election based on local issues, our nation’s two major parties have coopted the voting by deciding that one candidate is a surrogate for President Trump and the other is a surrogate for anti-Trump forces. That shoves the needs of Miami into the shadows. 

Miami Today has never endorsed a candidate, and we’re not starting now. That’s a private decision for intelligent voters – and frankly, either candidate for mayor would be a fine choice. 

But what we will endorse wholeheartedly is that voters look not at whether they want to support or reject Mr. Trump but at whether Eileen Higgins or Emilio Gonzalez is most likely to lead Miami as it should be led to benefit its residents and taxpayers into the future. That’s why we’re not mentioning which one the president has endorsed or which is the darling of the Democratic National Committee – because in a Miami city election that doesn’t matter. 

Local governments in this county are nonpartisan, and that’s especially important in the politically charged atmosphere that has made Washington a dysfunctional battleground. 

Look instead to Miami-Dade County as a good example. Commissioners there often disagree on major issues, but not along political party lines. The name-calling that pollutes Washington is absent. Work is collegial. 

Miami’s city hall has long been tempestuous. Yet even there the divisive force has not been party but the personalities of elected officials. 

The invasion of national politics into city hall is inappropriate, especially since the two mayoral candidates are among our best in years. 

Mr. Gonzalez and Ms. Higgins both check all the boxes for quality. They’re smart. They know the territory, having served well in government here. They know the constituents. They’ve held business and government leadership roles. They understand big local issues. They’re well-intentioned, honest, decent and reasonable – people you’d like as neighbors. 

If we were endorsing candidates – which we will not do – we could point to either as a great pick. 

With those attributes, a candidate choice should be based on which seems most likely to do what you want on issues that are vital to you, and how they will deal with the public and other officials – that is, can they play well with the other kids in the sandbox? 

What should not be factors at all are those that the national political machines put forth. For service at a nonpartisan city hall, it really doesn’t matter how the candidates stand on Venezuela or Cuba or the United Nations or Obamacare – they have no role in any of these, which are national level concerns. 

Nor does it matter how they regard the president or the presidency. Putting that first, as is happening through no fault of the candidates themselves, minimizes the vital job of Miami mayor. 

The mayor’s big role is to guide the city to deal with opportunities and problems. What can we do to build the local economy? What face should we be showing to the world? How do we help beleaguered residents? Most important, what is the vision of our city for the next decade and beyond? 

Our mayor must be a big-picture picture spokesperson, sell that vision to the public and other elected officials, and do it with relatively few formal powers. 

On paper, Miami has a weak mayor who can veto legislation but can’t vote on it. The mayor can name a city manager but needs a commission buy-in. The mayor proposes a budget but the commission decides. And the mayor can declare a state of emergency – a power we hope the next mayor need not exercise. 

With these few formal powers, the mayor will need wisdom to pick targets and battles but should always strive to lead from the bully pulpit. It’s a tightrope act. 

The mayor also should help focus commissioners. The mayor gets no vote, so he or she must forge alliances, because the mayor cannot dictate anything. 

In sum, the mayor must be a savvy and caring spokesperson who can build a following not by power but by persuasion. 

None of these leadership duties includes representing a political party or national policy. That’s why the intrusion from political Washington is so unwelcome: it distracts from what’s really relevant in city hall. 

As one example of how a mayor can steer a community for good or ill, think of how the city long has fumbled stewardship of its facilities – look at neglected Miami Marine Stadium or giveaways of the city’s only golf course or the Olympia Theater. 

The candidates should be focusing on such big local issues where they can make a difference. Warping our election into a presidential referendum is a divisive and extraneous issue in which our candidates become mere puppets of Washington. 

What a pity. We’ve finally got a legitimate choice on Miami’s future under good leaders. Don’t let that fall victim to a national battle that, while vital to our nation and the globe, should not be fought at city hall. It’s the wrong venue and the wrong players. 

The post Don’t make Miami mayoral vote a presidential litmus test  appeared first on Miami Today.