Harvard already has two overtly partisan town committees (I am chairman of one), each of which has members—some of whom serve on town boards, each of which endorses candidates of a specific party, each of which promotes a general view of the role of taxation and government in achieving societal outcomes. We are near the end of a highly-charged midterm election cycle, reflected last week in correspondingly partisan endorsements of opposing candidates. Thus, news of the formation of Common Ground Harvard (CGH) caught my eye. The advent of a truly nonpartisan group seeking true common ground seemed appropriate and timely, and it was with high hopes that I visited the nascent website to learn more.
There, I discovered that “common ground” and “nonpartisan” must mean different things to different people. CGH endorses Democratic candidates, both on its site, and via letters to this paper such as that from a CGH member last week. CGH members are variously known to support increased taxation and an increasingly invasive role for government, e.g., currently, via rushed adoption at a Special Town Meeting of the “stretch energy code.”
With the turf at one end of common ground being thus staked out under a “nonpartisan” flag, I considered forming a group to stand guard at the other end, but quickly realized we already have such a group, albeit without the nonpartisan flag: the Harvard Republican Town Committee. I concluded that forming a parallel organization billed as being “grassroots and nonpartisan” would be redundant and misleading. I have, however, formed Common Sense Harvard as an editorial platform from which to contemplate Harvard’s common ground. Interested residents may learn more at www.commonsenseharvard.org.
Bill Barton
Prospect Hill Road
