Really? You’re Not Fooling Anyone

Let’s stop pretending.

In cities across America, we cling to the comforting fiction that certain offices are “nonpartisan.” City council. School board. Mayor. The ballot arrives without an “R” or a “D” beside a name, and we’re told this is proof that ideology has been left at the door.

But in heavily partisan communities, that label is little more than cosmetic. You’re not fooling anyone.

Nonpartisan elections were designed to elevate potholes over party platforms, zoning over ideology, school budgets over national culture wars. In theory, they were meant to encourage civic problem-solvers rather than partisan warriors.

In practice, voters know exactly who you are. Political organizations know. Past donors know. Advocacy groups know. Churches know. Labor groups know. Social media knows. And in this digital age, your “nonpartisan” campaign announcement does not erase years of ideological alignment.

When you step into a majority-Democratic district with a conservative platform — or into a majority-Republican district with a progressive one — you are stepping into a political ecosystem that already understands its identity.

The absence of a letter on the ballot does not erase the ideology behind the campaign.

In majority-Democratic communities, conservatives often frame themselves as “common-sense independents.” In majority-Republican communities, progressives do the same. But voters in highly engaged districts are not confused. They interpret your positions through the lens of national politics — whether you like it or not.

You may say you’re focused on infrastructure. They hear your stance on taxation. You may say you care about schools. They hear your philosophy on curriculum. You may say you support public safety. They hear the national debate echoing behind your words.

Even moderate candidates get sorted into ideological boxes. That sorting shapes fundraising, endorsements, turnout and viability long before Election Day.

There’s another strategy some try — aligning with the dominant party for the sake of survival. History shows that political realignments do happen. Working-class voters shift. Suburbs shift. Generations shift. But in deeply entrenched urban Democratic seats or solid conservative strongholds, structural advantages matter.

Political relationships matter. Trust matters. Authenticity matters. When a candidate’s history doesn’t align with their current label, voters sense it. And in communities where political memory runs long, that perception can be fatal.

Because here’s the truth: people can disagree with you and still respect you. What they rarely tolerate is being misled.

Candidates often try to bridge ideological divides by focusing on hyperlocal concerns — roads, small businesses, neighborhood parks and animal care and control. And in lower-profile races, that approach can work.

But in today’s climate, the national shadow looms large over local politics. High-stakes issues filter down. Voters see patterns. They connect dots.

The partisan divide is not always loud — but it is present. And in districts with a clear majority identity, the electorate tends to defend that identity. This is not an argument for ideological purity. It is an argument for transparency.

If you are conservative, say it. If you are progressive, say it. If you are moderate, own it. But do not assume that removing a party label from the ballot removes the convictions behind your platform. Removing party affiliation from the ballot does not remove ideology from the campaign.

Voters, donors and political organizations are increasingly sophisticated. In most cases, they know where candidates stand — and they vote accordingly.

In today’s political climate, particularly in communities with clear partisan majorities, running under the banner of “nonpartisan” while carrying a defined ideological identity rarely escapes notice.

The ballot may be blank. The politics are not.