- Pennsylvania Among 'Terrible 10' Most Regressive Tax States
- February 4 Non-Partisan Training: HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013: HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Republican Governors Opt-In to Medicaid Expansion
- The Reports of Unions' Death Are Greatly Exaggerated
- Ask Allyson Schwartz to run for Governor
- Mind the gap: Opting Out of Medicaid Expansion Leaves Low-income Families Behind
- Jan. 14 Workshop:HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013; HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Seth Williams on Guns, Jasmine Rivera on School Closures @PFC Meetup Wednesday
- PA Revenue Strong Midway Through Year; Tax Cut Could Have Big Impact
- What to Make of the Fiscal Cliff Deal?
A Real Reform Movement
Submitted by charlesdog12 on Sun, 05/20/2007 - 1:07am.
There has been a lot of talk on this site and the progressive community about the so called “reform” movement. I am a big proponent of such movements because I have always ascribed to what David Cohen said, “We don’t need bigger government, or smaller government. What we need is better government, a government that works for the people.” The question is, how do we create a reform movement that includes everyone, one that includes a broad cross section of the great economic, social, racial, and geographical makeup of our great city?
I would say that the 3 main organizations that are proponents of the so called reform movement are Young Philly Politics, Philly For Change, and Neighborhood Networks. I have been involved in this site since it was just Dan, Ray, Alex, Ben, myself, and Dan’s Mom. I have been involved in Philly For Change since it was Philly For Dean. I, in all fairness, never really got involved in Neighborhood Networks.
These three organizations have created change in our city and have helped energize the progressive community behind reforming government and getting good candidates elected. Yet, I don’t think that that is enough. We have no wins under our belts. Maria was a win for the reform movement, but not by the reform movement, and I think that anyone who knows some of the politics behind that race will agree.
One day I talked to a friend of mine who has been involved in politics in the Northwest for over 20 years. He said that the one thing that people in the progressive community didn’t understand was that all of the progressives that were elected in the past such as David Cohen and Ed Schwartz had institutional support in working class and poor black areas by organizations such as the Northwest Alliance which, incidentally, got Donna Miller and John Myers elected, but that’s a whole other story for a whole other day.
These candidates and the organizations that supported them, stemmed from the Civil Rights and Labor movements, movements that were created because of broad social injustices to people of all walks of life. That was the power behind those machines. While I like and respect all of our organizations, I don’t think that they have a broad enough appeal to create the movement in which we need to create in order to have a real reform movement. Most of our members are educated, professional or activists types, White, and located in Center City, Mt. Airy, and Chestnut Hill. I don’t know about you, but I don’t see a white man in Chestnut Hill with a post graduate degree having much injustice going on in his life.
The question is, how do we create a movement or be apart of a movement that achieves these goals? How do we create a true reform movement that is as diverse as our city? How do we create a movement that includes the people who would most benefit from reform? How can we be educated by them? Yes, I’ll say it again. How can we be educated by them? Because we seem to talk a lot about “educating the public”, which, frankly, is borderline insulting and elitist. I think that we, I as much as anyone else, have a lot to learn from them.
I surprisingly, have no answer for this question. I have advocated in the past, and still do advocate being a part of the Ward structure, which is not why I post this. Even if we were involved in the Ward structure more, we would get more progressives elected, but we wouldn’t be creating the kind of movement in which I think we need to create.
I would like to open up the floor for your ideas on the subject.
Thanks Charles,
I look forward to reading what people who are really knowledgeable about organizing in Philly have to say about this issue - as I think it is absolutely key to "progressives" having a more significant influence.
While I have a very limited knowledge base, I never let not knowing what I'm talking about prevent me from expressing my opinions, so:
I think that progressives need leadership to be provided by labor, existing civic organizations, and black/Latino churches. Those entities have the infrastructure and human and other resources that organizations such as NN and PFC lack. Further, they have established credibility within minority and working class communities. Progressives need to ask such organizations to provide leadership and offer to provide support for those organizations.
Secondly, I think that the focus of progressives needs to be less on candidates and more on issues. Progressive organizations will have limited effect in turning out votes in minority or working class communities for "progressive" candidates if they haven't first made themselves known by connecting and establishing a track record in issues. And by focusing on candidates, "progressive" entities run the risk of actually alienating themselves from minority and working class communities because of pre-existing loyalties to "non-progressive" elected officials.
Instead, focusing on specific issues (while it builds credibility for progressives) doesn't directly challenge those existing loyalties, but motivates communities to hold all elected officials accountable. If a City Councilperson votes in favor of allowing a casino referendum, I don't really care whether they're labeled as a "progressive" or not.
I think that creating a more broad-based movement needs to be the highest order of priorities, and it needs to stay at the top. Creating a more inclusive movement is a very, very difficult thing to do, and it isn't as sexy as supporting candidates (it may not be as likely to attract the attention of the media, for example). But unless focusing on that goal remains at the top of the list, I thinkt the "progressive" movement will always be marginalized to a significant degree.
Leadership
When you talk about Leadership, who is the acknowledged premier political leader in the City of Philadelphia....Who this site refers as the next thing to Satan....Bob Brady, the leader of the premier political action committee. Univ of PA has acknowledged his leadership qualities by awarding him a class to teach. Most of his students are leaders themselves of major companies and young students that want to learn how to lead. Remember if you are not the lead dog, the view is always the same. Why not try and figure out how he has managed to remain the leader of the largest political action committee, with the most diverse membership and keep everyone as satisfied as you can keep self indulgent, self important, and child like constituancy. Most on here will not like this but he has performed magic in keeping the city together and electing candidates that his committee approves. One thing he has learned you cant win them all, but when you dont win, work with the one who does win. Everyone has wants and needs. Find out what they are and work with them. By the way, anyone notice what a sore loser Knox became. I heard him crying all the way in the bahama's where I went on vacation after the election. Maybe I can sell him a tissue consession.
I tried to join the progressive movement
but my application was rejected.
I promise to study hard and maybe next time there is an exam, I can get a passing grade.
Which bureau of
Which bureau of progressivism did you submit it too? Sometimes, that matters. The process seems arbitrary, but to the progressives, it makes a lot of sense.
Ironies
Sometimes, a call from your councilman helps. Funny, isn't it?
Ironic, indeed.
My councilman is a woman and besides that I don't think she likes me because I am too progressive for her tastes. I guess this just won't work.
You sort of said two
You sort of said two contradictory items. First:
and second:
How can you say "include everyone" and list three groups that are typically "rah rah dems crush everyone else"? Plus, I would say these groups do not represent the broad cross section of the City. These groups are good at what they do, but I would find it hard to argue that they are a perfect representation of the City.
The only way to represent a broad cross section is via coalition amongst differing groups that want reform and trying to agree on just the base issues involving reform.
Do you think Independents don't want reform in City Hall? Do you think Republicans don't want reform? Do you think Green Party doesn't want reform? Do you think disenfranchised democrats don't want reform? These are all people that are probably not represented by your three groups.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Serious Thought Is Needed As To What Goals Are
Progressive, like liberal and conservative, is a vague term that can include almost everybody or almost nobody depending on how the word is used. I have greatly reduced my usage of all these words because of the imprecision of their meanings.
I have seen on this site, and phillyblog, a good number of people comment something like the following: I can't wait until we elect some real progressives, so we can lay off a lot of the workers in City Hall, reduce social services and education spending, slash business taxes, and fight the unions. If this is what the progressive movement charlesdog12 has described above is ultimately all about, then many hundreds of thousands of Philadelphians, including myself, will not be very eager to embrace it. This is, in case anyone fails to recognize it, a highly conservative and right wing view of what progressive means.
Part of the problem is that the conservatives have done such a good job saturating the media with their point of view, is that virtually everybody to some degree has bought into at least bits and pieces of the right-wing framework for viewing issues. The neuroscientist George Lakoff has become a Democratic guru by focusing intensely on the interaction between how the brain functions and how the Republicans have succeeded in selling their many of their views to Democrats (i.e. the "death tax," which only affects multimillionaires) who profess to be opposed them. If Democrats want to control the country, Lakoff argues, they first have to control their own minds.
We need to figure out what our goals for government are. We need to understand that government plays an important part in elevating the lives of low-income citizens, and that slashing the role of government adversely affects low income citizens far more than it affects the middle class.
We also need to understand that a plurality of Philadelphia is African-American, and that running a whole lot of white candidates against incumbent African-American elected officials is not the best way to build up trust. If each poster here who advocated for a white candidate against a black incumbent had his way, the number of blacks in City Council would have fallen from 7 to 3, bringing blacks to the level of representation they last had in 1971, and the number of row offices held by blacks would have fallen from 3 to 2. Although any white person may be a superior public official to any given black person, advocating a drastic reduction in the number of black elected officials is not the way to either build up trust of blacks or to encourage the development of voting across racial lines.
So like can only represent
So like can only represent like?
Geez, the females of Philadelphia are really f****d then ...
So, is a "bad" black council person better for the african-American representation than a "good" white council person? As an example, Irv Ackelsberg I am sure most of his work has probably benefited african-americans more than whites. Would that mean him (theoretical for argument's sake) winning over a black council person that has a history eminent domaining poor black neighborhoods for luxury condos would lower the black representation?
So are you advocating that blacks should vote for black candidates to make sure to keep up their level of representation in Council?
Are you also advocating that progressives should use race to their advantage and promote black progressives over white, no matter what their resume?
I thought that is a lot of what this site and progressives have been condemning ... elimination of voting along racial lines and just going for the best person.
I guess there shouldn't be an Asian mayor of Philly anytime soon.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
"elimination of voting along racial lines"
i actually did not know this site had come to consensus on this:
Realistically the only way queer people, people of color, women and others will chose a candidate for elected office without regard to their identity group is if all women, people of color, queers, etc. are given as much privilege as white people, straight people and men,
Individual underrepresented folks may vote for someone outside their identity group, or may not have any other option, but "elimination of voting along racial lines" presupposes an end to racism and an end to privilege that I do not think has come yet.
If white challengers want to win against black incumbments, than they need to figure out how to build credibility in commuities of color. Irv Ackelsberg was probably the best man for this job in this past election--more so than any other white candiate I can think of---and he came up short. Why? Because, as the Charles points out in the post these comments are ebing made in reference to, the "progressive" movement--the people who make phone calls, tell their friends who to vote for, knock on doors etc.--is almost entirely white.
The ward system, meanwhile, is not, which is why Green and Greenlee could make it on to Council.
Well, this site really
Well, this site really hasn't come to a consensus on much except the betterment of Philadelphia. A lot of differing groups have differing views on how to get there.
But, and I may have taken an inaccurate observation, that many many people here were more than happy that this mayoral election seemed to have broken a lot of the racial voting patterns and believed it was a good sign of things to come and a momentum to try to keep.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
RACIAL VOTING
Greenlee was one of the 5 best candidates, experience, the ward structure and ballot position were three of the reasons he won the election. Now is the time to support him and get him to support the positions that you want put forward on council. Let him know what is important to you and what will help him get reelected. After all, that is the most important task of any elected official, getting reelected.
Not exactly
Shhh! No one is supposed to actually admit this.
The correct answer is "serving the public." Or, if you're in an especially florid mood, "serving the people."
I Am Not Advocating Anything More Than Thought
I am not advocating anything more than thought. I support the right of everyone to run to office. I am not calling anybody any names. I am not attacking anybody. I explicitly say that any given white candidate may be better than any given black candidate.
I am just aware that the reform slate did very poorly in black neighborhoods, and that black citizens are a higher and higher percentage of the Democratic Party as time goes on. A winning strategy has to include carrying black neighborhoods.
Bob Brady showed great ability to carry black neighborhoods for Congress, but could not do that this year. Many, many white candidates have carried black neighborhoods in the past, including both my father and myself. So it is not something that is impossible to do, or rarely done.
What is new is the number of black incumbents with white challengers this year. Greg Paulmier was first white candidate for the Democratic nomination for the 8th District seat, when he first ran in 1999, since David Cohen (and two others) in 1967. No white candidate there had previously challenged a black incumbent. This year, two other black incumbents had white challengers for the first time, as did Sheriff Green. No reform slate of which I am aware supported both incumbent black council people at large.
No one said that electing white candidates to replace black incumbents was a goal. No one organized a PAC for all white challengers to black incumbents. No one said there should be fewer blacks in public office. And many of the people working for white challengers to black incumbents supported Michael Nutter for Mayor.
What I am doing is respectfully suggesting that people place themselves in other people's shoes and look at election results. I am also suggesting that people recognize that repeated events are looked at differently from random events. It is one thing to assert that a single black incumbent should be replaced by a white challenger; it is another thing to assert that five black incumbents should be replaced by white challengers; it would be still another thing to assert that all black incumbents should be replaced by white challengers.
The blogosphere is more about individual action than collective action. Any collective action here is premised on individuals making individual decisions. But the strength of this site and phillyblog--openness to political opinions far greater than that of any newspaper--creates an appearance of concerted action when there is not any or not much when various people are making similar arguments with similar effects in different races.
Well, is the issue the race
Well, is the issue the race of the candidate or that a lot of the African-American community doesn't identify with the message?
I think jumping to the conclusion that they won't vote for a white councilperson because of race is bad. Like you say, Brady does well. Why? I would assume because he as viewed as a protector of jobs and a benefactor.
My theory would be the "progressive movement" is not as intune with the mainstream as viewed and an analysis of the platform and how it is pushed would do more good. A lot of the issues are too high brow for the average voter, let a lone the voter in a 50% dropout rate demographic.
I am far from saying to not fight the good fight, but I think there is a bit more to it than just race. A more comprehensive approach to the campaign and ideas will better serve the cause.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
I think the other key point
I think the other key point is that Brady, like Bill Greenlee and a lot of other white candidates who have strong black support, is that they're supported by (and in turn support) lots of black ward leaders and other politicians across the city.
I doubt that your average voter, white, black, Asian, or Latino, knew very much about Bill Greenlee at all, or his issues -- but their ward leaders and committeepeople sure did.
Correct. I didn't say "how"
Correct. I didn't say "how" to deal with the message, but that the message and conveyance is important. The ward leaders assume, with Greenlee's history with Cohen, that he will carry a lot of the same policy ideas. His method of getting the message out to the black community was his past history.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
ISSUE IS NOT RACE BUT CONCENSUS
Brady does well because he can build a concensus. Whites, Blacks, Women, Men, Religion, etc...he is trusted to try and work with all groups, making sure they all get represented. Remember, everyone has wants and needs. They may not get everything they want, but he trys and usually succeeds in getting what they need. Why? Because he is willing to go the extra mile personally to work for what is needed. He got critized for getting State money to settle the Community College strike, but ask the students and facilty if they object to how the strike was settled?
It started in 2004
The reality is that Philly for Change has been successful because it was Philly for Dean. Neighborhood Networks would not exist in its current form, as Stan and Francie Shaw founded it in November of 2004, if it were not for MoveOn. Even Dan has talked about being motivated to start YPP as a result of his engagement in politics post-2004.
I am on the steering committee of PFC, i worked for MoveOn and I am very involved in YPP. I can tell you first-hand that the 2004 election is at the root of all of that.
The fact is that George Bush's national politics has driven the nascent "reform" movement here more than anything else. He is the only one that has gotten 2,000 + local volunteer bodies on the streets to knock doors (which is what you would need to have a real, beginning, impact on an at-large race or mayor's race).
That said, to begin to answer Charles' questions: why was 2004 such a big deal?
I think 2004 was a big deal because a whole bunch of middle-class white people were aghast to see a president who completely ignored their interests and wishes despite massive protest (like going to war) so they organized to stop him.
I think people of color were less aghast, because though Bush has been bad, he is one in a long line of presidents who has ignored the needs, generally, of people of color. Leaving aside race, class oppression has been a hallmark of almost every President (less so maybe for Johnson or Roosevelt, but not really...) and again, though Bush was and is bad, he's not really that much worse than anyone of his predecessors when it comes to screwing working people.
This is not an academic thesis. I am not making a statement about Bush so much as I am explaining people's emotional behavior. Some people volunteered to work in 04 and some did not, and I think a part of the reason that MoveOn and other volunteer based efforts had more white people involved than black in Philadelphia is that Bush's complete indifference to his electorate was more shocking to white people, who are used to being heard, than people of color.
So back to Chuck's questions: how does this "movement" broaden enough to represent a true cross-section of Philadelphia? I agree with DE that labor and civic leaders who have memberships that represent a more diverse group than you'll see on YPP need to be involved. However, the people who are members of organized labor unions or active in civic groups still do not make up the majority of Philadelphians.
Which I guess brings me to this question: are the 80% of Philadelphians who could have voted last week, and didn't--are they smarter than the 20% of us who did vote?
I mean, does voting and politics really make a difference? We talk a lot about elected officials and government and stuff, but who really pulls the strings in our society?
Not just Bush, but the Democrats too
I would add that another motivator for "the 2004 generation" was the sense that the Democrats had either abandoned their role as an opposition party or were fighting the Bush administration so anemically and tentatively as to make little or no difference. The Democrats are pretty feisty in 2007, but in 2002 and 2003, almost everyone seemed pretty acquiescent.
Dean came along as an unlikely small-state moderate turned fire-breathing war critic and promised to represent "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." That got a lot of people fired up, too, tapping into some long-held reservations about the national and local parties, and contributed to the progressive blogosphere's tendency to breathe as much fire onto Democrats as Republicans, functioning as a whip from the progressive left.
Part of the problem though is that while I bet most YPP people and Philly "progressives" are nearly totally sympatico when it comes to progressive issues in national politics, the same demarcations and common interests barely hold up at all when it comes to local politics.
So you have a large group of people with a tremendous amount of energy and a fair amount of optimism, new platforms to say what they think and to interact with one another or elected officials, access to a lot of information, a whole lot of irreverence for (and in some cases ignorance of) most political traditions and the status quo, but little to no common presuppositions about what local government should look like, beyond some general shared sense of governmental reform, economic development, public safety, and social justice.
Oh, and we have a lot of education, but not a lot of money -- so unless a whole lot of us agree and donate a little bit of money and a whole lot of time, we can't really materially help anyone get elected. Sorry about that.
It is a strange, new political interest group -- more like the media (and maybe the churches) in that our influence is mostly verbal, simultaneously high profile and subterranean. Obviously, some of us will work to identify progressive candidates and help them get elected. But ultimately, I think progressives will have arrived in Philly when political leaders ask themselves, "What will those damn bloggers say about this?" -- and try to figure what we want or what we want to hear in the same way that they try to anticipate the needs and reaction of the labor unions, the churches, the FOP, the newspapers. And often, just as with those groups, what exactly it is that "we" want will be something of a mystery.
Organizing before politics
I think the basic answer to your questions is that progressives and reformers need to do more issue based organizing that will develop coalitions with communities that are currently not aligned with us. We're clearly not strong enough to win elections on our own. I used to think that political campaigns could be a useful form of organizing, but as Ray pointed out, that only reaches the 20% of people who actually vote. Issue based organizng can happen all the time and engage a much larger group of people than electoral politics.
It's also easier to build coalitions around issues than candidates.
This is very different from the strategy that I have been advocating for a long time, but the election results made me reconsider a lot of my ideas about how we can make effective change. Right now, electoral politics isn't the primary thing we need to do.
---
Check out my blog!
Voting Makes A Limited Difference
Voting makes a limited difference. When I began studying political science in 1966 at the University of Pennsylvania, I read a book by Robert Dahl--an eminent political scientist as a young man who became even greater as time went on--which had an introductory illustrative anecdote about the imprecise nature of political power.
In a small town somewhere, the richest man in town had no interest in politics. His brother was interested in politics, but had no money or position of political leadership. His driver was a Democratic committeeman. Dahl argued that the driver was the most powerful person politically among the three of them.
Then the richest man town died. He left a lot of money to his brother. His newly empowered brother was now more powerful than the richest man's driver, Dahl concluded.
The longer I served in the legislature, the less confidence I had in Dahl's scenario. It was harder and harder for me to believe that the richest man in town had no real power. If his driver heard of anything harmful to the richest man, he would be likely to discuss it with him. If his driver was asked to help with a fundraiser, he would certainly be expected to ask his employer to do him a favor and buy some tickets. And certainly, none of the politicians in town would want the richest man to spend money to try to defeat them, or to take any business he had out of town.
It more and more seemed to me that having a lot of wealth automatically carried a great deal of power, because one's interests tended to be taken into account by decision-makers to the extent that they were known. If the richest man in town had no interest in politics, it seemed to me that meant that the policies that the town was following were favorable to him and he saw no need to exert himself.
Social movements and elected officials friendly to social movements can create space for meaningful change to help ordinary citizens, but shrewd politicians have felt the need to make sure that the interests of the inherently powerful were taken into account.
The Medicare system, long opposed by the American Medical Association, was passed with provisions guaranteed to raise the incomes of doctors. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 carefully exempted key interests--country clubs, dining clubs, verterans and fraternal groups. OSHA legislation did more for worker safety than any other, but contained killer provisions making the adding of new dangerous chemicals to be protected against a nightmarishly complex and long-term process. And the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been informally renamed the No Labor Rights Board because of the difficulties of organizing unions under it.
Participation in political campaigns makes a difference, but it does not do everything. You have to figure out who your friends and enemies are to participate effectively, and many people cannot do that. And people who support a winning candidate are well advised to continue to talk with that person after the election, because many efforts will be made by vested interests to co-opt him or her if he or she appears to be at all effective.
Anger has to be directed, and not just free-floating. The Republicans for generations have created targets for people to vent their anger at: Communists in the 1930's, labor unions in the 1940's, Communists again in the 1950's after labor-bashing created a backlash for the 1948 elections, civil rights activists, hippies, and criminals in the 1960's, peace demonstrators and "big government" in the 1970's, labor unions, pro choicers and the Soviet Union in the 1980's, corruption and entrenched bureaurcrats and Democrats in the 1990's, and terrorists in the 21st Century. Our constituents in significant numbers get trapped into Republican frames of reference and can be persuaded to hate whomever the enemy of the year is under many circumstances, and not think clearly about who is in the enemy category and who is not.
Political campaigns get people involved, and increase knowledge about politics and government. People who work in Democratic campaigns are more likely to evangelize for the Democratic Party to their friends and family members. For many people, politics is a matter of demonstrating solidarity with those they love, work with, or admire.
Political campaigns are about concepts more than details. Nutter won a victory for change--a victory illustrated with his signature issues of business tax cuts, smoking bans, ethics enforcement, and establishment of a stop and frisk policy in dangerous neighborhoods. What all this means in detail is something that will have to be worked out, and those who are concerned about the rather conservative elements of this platform should thoroughly study the many issues of implementation involved and try to influence the process of implementation.
The most enduring phrase I remember from my law school years was Professor Ron Dworkin's reference to the "continuing conversation we call democracy." Democracy IS a continuing conversation. The blogosphere has enormously increased its scope, and the number of people who can participate, and the information available for participants.
Powerful people are always going to pull a lot of strings in any system that can be devised, but the electoral process is a tool available to average people. I would not recommend that anyone participate ONLY in the electoral process, but nor would I recommend that anyone leave the electoral process. It's an opportunity to have a say, an opportunity most people in the world do not have, but participation in politics is certainly no substitute for having wealth or great economic power.
You Rock Ray!
You Rock Ray!
I have seen this problem on
I have seen this problem on the other end, which is folks in color attempting, with very limited success to build bridges to progressive communities (ok, I mean white and liberal, but I know the term progressive is not so limiting.)
This iteration plays itself out in lockstep. A sample conversation.
Truthtold: Hey, we should get to know those folks in the other part of the district who did not support us last time.
Elected Official: OK, but what's the sense in getting to know people who will never be for me. I haven't done anything to them, but whenever I go to their community I get treated with either condensation or disdain. If there is ever a disagreement we have on an issue, the relationship goes out of the window, and then someone from that community is threatening to fund and run a candidate against me.
Truthtold: I understand that point. But its probably because they don't know you and we don't have a relationship with them, or the prior office holder had a really crappy one. Let's reach out, talk to some neighborhood groups, hold some coffee klatsches, meet and greets, grin and grips, and get to know them. Aside from that, for a pure political play, if you can get some votes in that community it will insulate you from fringe candidates in the base, and may not be bad for fundraising.
Elected Official: OK, but I ran for office to serve poor/middle class/folks of color. They need government a lot more than those privileged folks who only call about minor issues. I don't want to lose focus on the people who I came to help.
Truthtold: True, but in order to govern effectively, you can't have a section of the District throwing hand grenades at you.
Ok, so we go and hold a meeting. It almost always goes well. The people are usually shocked to see the Elected Official there. Committeepeople in that community ask questions, relationships are established.
This is where it goes wrong, again, almost like clockwork. Some issue comes up where the neighborhood activists are opposed to the business community. For the Elected Official's base, the issue is of complete non-importance. It could be the smoking ordinance, it could be some zoning variance, it could be some arcane issue in the State House.
The community says, almost always, if you don't support us on this issue, then we will never support you again. The Elected Official is torn, b/c the business community has a different spin on it.
It's not so much the issue that causes the problem, but the condescending ultimatum that gets delivered. The Elected Official then comes back to Truthtold, "See I told you this would happen. Nothing we do is ever good enough. Ultimately, they would prefer someone from their own community hold this seat. These guys make it so hard to help them." (Lou Agre had the same quote.)
I used to think that this was paranoia, but after having conversations with my Center City, Chestnut Hill, Northeast, etc., friends, and looking at this site, I have determined this is not paranoia, there is a preference to remove most of the African American elected officials. (Not with white candidates necessarily, but remove them for candidates more responsive.) State Rep. Cohen is correct, if the recommendations for progressive candidates were followed, virtually every majority Black district would be replaced with a white challenger. (Which says that the Elected Official was not paranoid.)
So some Elected Officials take the position, let me just focus on my base, and avoid other wealthier, white communities that focus on legislation rather than constituent services. Others take the fact that the "progressive community" doesn't like them as a challenge to try to get them to like the Elected Official. (Politicians really do want to be liked by most people.) Still others, just hire a staff person from that community and let them deal with it.
I don't know if this added anything to the discussion, other than to point out that this issue is one that both sides are giving some thought to.
I am still thinking about the issue, but the first recommendation I would have is reach out to the plethora of African Americans and Latinos who are educated, blog in other venues and think about these issues.
For example, Cherelle Parker, Cindy and Scott Bass, Sonte Reavis, James Elam, Donyale Reavis, Billy Miller, Michael, Williams, Loree Jones, Ray Jones, Frances Fattah, Darwin Beauvais, Leigh Whittaker, Adrienne Thomas, Will Carter, Niya Blackwell, Sharif Street, Solomon Jones, Ralph Collazo, Ray Ortiz, Tony Payton, Chris Booth, Kahiga Tiagha (sorry, if I misspelled), Kobie West, Harold James (not young, but I was struggling to come up with a name from S. Philly), Warren Bloom, Tumar Alexander, Dwayne Lassiter, Robin Tasco, etc. I am leaving a lot of folks out, and don't know everyone. But Tasco, Fattah, Wilson Goode Jr., and others would know many more names than I am including here. (I am not even sure if this is a good list, but I figured I would include some names of folks I see who are active in fundraising or other campaigns.)
People Should Trump Campaign Contributions
Taking the example of a conflict between the business community and neighborhood residents, I would say that generally the perceptions of people living in one's district should trump the need for campaign contributions. This should be true no matter what the race of neighbors or politicians or potential campaign contributors. This is a somewhat idealistic position, but it is good politics as well.
In narrow political terms, it is ultimately much more important to get votes than to get campaign contributions. Many of the legislators defeated for re-election in 2006--none of whom were black-- were tremendous political fundraisers, but their focus on fundraising had distorted their perceptions of their constituency. Constituents should not be seen as a nuisance to be tolerated but as the very reason for one's service in office.
This does not mean that the business community is always to be opposed. Sometimes they can be a very visionary; the establishment of the Convention Center is a good example of this. It does mean that what ever an elected official does for the business community shouild be capable of being justified to one's constituents on its merits. If a request from the business community--or any interest group--cannot be justified on its merits in a convincing manner, it is best not to accede to it.
The people YPP has supported
Seth Williams
Tony Payton
Anne Dicker
Valerie McDonald-Roberts
Derek Green
Maria Quinones-Sanchez
Irv Ackelsberg
Judges:
Ellen Green Ceisler
Angie Roca
Darnell Jones
Joyce Eubanks
Christine Donohue
Doesn't look so white to me. Which is not to say the progressive/reform thing is not too white- it is. But, it is to say that we generally support progressive outsiders, and somewhat longshots (at least in that cycle).
One candidate- my dad, who spent 30 years at broad and erie- would be a white guy replacing a person of color. Three candidates- Seth, Valerie, and Maria- would be people of color replacing white officeholders.
And how about Bill Rieger?
And how about Bill Rieger? White guy, who represented a "majority minority" district. He barely showed up, didnt even have an office in the district, stuffed a piece of paper in his voting thing. And he was continually backed.
Concrete suggestions Truthtold?
I'm curious to know what concrete steps you would recommend for bringing "progressives" closer to the African American community.
Meanwhile, although the blogosphere certainly leaves a lot to be desired as a forum for political organizing, it does have some value; you mentioned African Americans who blog on other venues - can you recommend any blogs in particular that would be worth investigating?
de--what are you asking?
you keep asking how "progressives" can get closer to the progressive community. what do you mean by that?
If you are implictly assuming that most people who identify with the "progressive movement" are white and middle class, as i do, then shouldn't we just say that?
if so, how do black people and white people intersect in politics? well, the ward system already has provided us with an answer. if that's not suitable, then what are we looking for?
the black people i know who are involved in politics and not a part of the ward system can certainly answer for themselves. Dwight Evans and Chaka Fattah being the most prominet among them.
Dwight and the ward system
Dwight was a former Ward leader
Ray, re: what I'm asking
I'm not sure about your question. Do you think I'm avoiding saying something?
It is hard to express everything I'm trying to get at in writing, unless I write a stupidly long post - but here goes.
Part of the whole problem in addressing these issues is language. The term "progressives" is wholly inadequate - because there are obviously minorities and working class folks who hold "progressive" views on many issues. However, as inadequate as it is, when I use the term "progressives," I generally mean white, middle/upper-middle class, reform-minded, leftists (or perhaps also liberals).
Anyway,
I see a number of people who self-identify as "progressives" who are politically active, white, and middle/upper middle-class. I see relatively few members of so-called progressive groups who don't share those attributes - more specifically who aren't white. I think that's pretty odd considering that the City is pretty evenly balanced racially, and given that the City has a lot of working class Democrats.
For the most part, from what I've seen, most of those "progressives" are not involved with the Party ward system. In fact, they are specifically looking for an alternative to the ward system. They tend to vote, but they don't generally feel that the political system in the City meets their needs or those of other communities.
I see that the vast majority of minorities and poor in the City are politically disaffected. They tend not to vote. They also tend not to feel that the existing political system serves their needs. Yes, the ward system that exists is diverse - incorporating working class and minorities - but polls tell us that the diversity doesn't mean that people outside the ward system feel the ward system is effective. I would be willing to bet that the majority of minorities and poor (and perhaps middle and upper class whites) in this City do not know a whole lot about the ward system or how it's designed to represent their interests.
To me, that says that the ward system has clearly failed to do its job. I don't think that all people involved in the ward system are corrupt. I'm sure that most of them are nice folks, who are legitimately concerned about their City. However, the system as a whole has failed. It has no working mechanism for improving itself; that is why Party officials remained Party officials despite the decades long existence of pay-to-play, poor delivery of City services, decisions being made that were disproportionately influenced by specific constituencies, etc., etc., etc.
This situation constantly confuses me. And more than that, I think it's very counterproductive. "Progressives" have a lot of resources: money, energy, time, connections to the business class and academic institutions. They tend to be highly educated (which, while I disagree very much with those posters on YPP who have repeatedly said that education = intelligence or higher qualification for political office, I do consider education to be a resource).
"Progressives" have resources that they could bring to bear on important political issues. But for the most part, they don't really have much direct political influence because their numbers are relatively small.
There are a lot of blacks and minorities in Philly who share many issue-based political objectives with progressives, and they could theoretically benefit from the resources that progressives have.
But a split remains. We have seen evidence of that split in how the recent elections developed (white, "progressive" candidates running against African American "system" candidates, and also in the results of the voting - e.g., DRM being reelected). It just doesn't make sense.
In my own immediate community, I see a lot of politically active "progressives"(mostly white/middle-upper middle class people who have specifically decided to live in community because they value diversity), and minorities and poorer folks split right along racial lines on many issues, even when race/class factors would seemingly be completely irrelevant.
I have seen relatively little progress made by "progressives" in gaining greater diversity in their cohort - despite their recognition that the lack of diversity is a problem both in terms of their authenticity and in terms of their political power. Mostly, I feel, this is because many of those "progressives" have limited life experiences where they've had close contact with minorities and people of other classes. I feel the split endures also because many minorities and working class folks are inherently distrustful of white middle/upper middle-class folks (for a variety of reasons, among which unfamiliarity and a driving desire to not cede political power to anyone else are probably the most significant). Simply put, people are uncomfortable with each other because of a long history of a lack of in-depth contact.
So, my interest is, and has been for a long time, how can these counterproductive divisions be overcome. Mostly, I think they can be overcome through increased contact. Yes, the Dem Party in Philly is a point of contact between whites and blacks; but from what I've seen, it is not a contact point between "progressives" and blacks and/or working class people. And even if I'm wrong about that, my interest is in seeing there be a different point of contact between "progressives" and those other groups, because I think that the Philly Dem Party is a failed system, and when you have folks who are involved in that system who consistently refuse to own up to the Party's failures, and who jealously hold on to power, I think it is not a useful vehicle for bringing about significant change in the City.
again
Dwight Evans. Chaka Fattah.
It's not about the old ward system vs. the new (mostly white) reformers. Some concrete answers to you questions emerged 10 or 20 years ago with the growth of outside-the-party political movements.
I'm not quite getting what you're saying
Yes, I get that Dwight Evans and Chaka Fattah, and other black leaders, developed power through the ward system even after fighting from outside the ward system, and to some degree did so together with support from white liberals.
What answers emerged 20 years ago - and how to they apply to today's environment?
you keep asking
...how progressives, who are mostly white, can engage more African-Americans.
I am saying there are African-Americans--who work outside the ward system--who are doing their own political organizing who don't seem to need white "progressives."
then there is a ward system whose leadership is pretty racially balanced.
therefore--what exactly do "progressives" whose social and ecopnomi justice is weak and ill-formed, offer?
I though I addressed that
I think that "progressives" offer money, contacts to business and academic institutions, influence, visibility, press-friendly profiles, etc.
I'm not suggesting that blacks "need" white progressives. I'm saying that there are synergistic possibilities that can be gained from increased contact.
Certainly, I think that "progressives" have a lot to gain from increased diversity. First, it gives them greater authenticity. Secondly, it gives them access to numbers of voters that can make a real difference politically. Finally, it would just be fun (from my perspective) to have a political vehicle, other than the Philly Dem Party, which I think is pretty much a lost cause until it changes, where "progressives" and minorities and working class folks can stand shoulder to shoulder to demand accountability from their government representatives.
I think a transit rider's union would be a great thing in Philly. But in my neighborhood, I see blacks standing on the corners waiting for buses and whites driving in cars - or to some extent taking the commuter trains (as a very gross generalization). How can something like a transit rider's union get off the ground if the money concentrated in Chestnut Hill and West Mt. Airy and Rittenhouse Square isn't applied to the issue? Yet folks in those neighborhoods would benefit from a better transit system in myriad ways. The power of unifying those constituencies is enormous.
stil does not fly
at the end of the day i hear a lot of white people saying things like you are DE:
But I hear no African-American voices saying the same thing. I do see African-American leaders who have done thier thing outside and inside the party, but the concerns of the white progressives for a diverse movement don't seem to be echoed amongst black folks.
I could be wrong, maybe there is a clamoring for a multi-racial "progressive" movement, but I have not heard it it yet. And I guess that is the place I'd like to start this conversation from--do pleas for diversity from white progressives come off as tokenization or commodifcation of "diference?" If white progresisves on this site even have difficultly acknowledging that racism exists in Philadelphia (as we saw in recent weeks here on YPP), perhaps people of color are not looking to go join a "progressive" movement when the party and outside the party machines at least acknowledge race and offer some form of power sharing.
Actions, not pleas
Progressives need to establish a track record through direct action. To me, it means finding ways to gain leadership from minority and labor organizations.
The obstacles you outline are very real. However, I like to think they aren't insurmountable.
Questions not Action
DE, I don't think we disagree, but I think, as a big part of acknowledging privellege, white people who want to build a progressive movement need to do what TruthTold said some many comments back, and ask people of color alreayd in politics what they want from white folks.
Beyond that, there are organizations that are not involved in politics--but who should own the political process more--who we should talk to too.
NN and PFC both trumpet their involvement in the minimum wage fight--which was great--but it was really PUP and ACORN who made it happen. PFC and NN folks have both gone on to great things since, but what about the leaders at PUP and ACORN? Have any of them run for office or gained more clout with political leaders?
This is the kind of imbalance that is alwys going to occur when we don't just act, but listen and ask questions too.
We are very much in agreement
Maybe, we disagree to some extent on how much "progressives" should be asking blacks in power how progressives can help, and how much they should be asking blacks who are disaffected from the political system. My priority is the later. Yes, I found Truthtold's comments on point. And I hope to hear more about the issue from him, and from LaToya about what can be done about the lack of diversity at YPP.
I also want to point out that progress on transit issues has very closely been tied to labor involvement - which is needed to augment the helpful activism by "progressives."
I agree completely about ACORN and PUP as being key to the discussion.
So does that imply that
So does that imply that "progressives" are out of touch with the AA community?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Three things.
And, I'm really just making a statement and not responding to either Ray or DEII.
First, I don't recall anyone on YPP questioning or acknowledging the existence of racism in Philadelphia.
Second, I think we are doing a lot of speculating as to what people of color want and/or do not want. I agree there may not be a clamouring for diversity in the progressive ranks--on either side. But, everyone here who has ever worked on an issue, political campaign or just plain community work has likely encountered the diversity we all yearn for.
Last, and this is something Ray and I have talked about before--what "movement" are we talking about. I really cannot put my finger on it entirely, what it is, who is involved and what it means. What exactly do we want people to be included in?
These things being said, simply because our blogging life is not as diverse as we would like, the presence or lack of divesity on YPP is not what keeps me logging in. But, the exchange of ideas--whereever they come from. The more diversity the better--but in any case, I'm still going to be unproductive at work some of the time.
Where I need to see diversity (racial and economic) is in practice, i.e., when I work on campaigns, issues or other community activities. I think we have all seen this.
Maybe I am doing some wishful thinking here, but I'd like to think that what binds people of different backgrounds together are ideas and causes. So, maybe DEII is right, we need to focus on issues versus movement.
Right now, I'm working to protect large swaths of South Philadelphia from a destructive force. While our coalitition is not as racially diverse as I'd like, you would be hard pressed to find a coalition as economically diverse as the DRNA that stretches from working class Whitman to some seriously deprived portions of Kennsington. We include gentrified places like Society Hill and Gentrifying places like Fishtown. Our ranks include labor people, artists, professionals, home-makers and business owners. Mostly that is because of the geography we are talking about. But, when the Trump-Site was still involved, there was a very racially and economically diverse group in the MCA doing something similar (in fact, people like Rev. Brown have been instrumental in the formation of Casino Free Philadelphia and have rendered some big time assistance to the DRNA).
Simply put, notwithstanding a "movement", which I do not know if there is one, people in this community are, in fact, gaining credibility with people of so many other communities in practice. That is a good thing--even if it takes 50 years.
Agreed, G.
this whole "progressive movement" thang is incredibly unwieldy.
But I think that the casino situation is the real evidence of a movement if it does exist. And I think that the ability of the "movement," such as it is, to affect sitting politicians re: the casino issue was pretty astounding.
The interesting thing with the casino situation, however, is how despite working class support in some communities, buy-in from labor is a fracturing aspect (as is strategic differences from some "progressives.")
However, those aspects notwithstanding - the casinos situation is exactly what I'm talking about as a way to create a broad-based, real alernative to the existing power structure.
As for speculating about what people of color want or don't want, unless we can get them to participate in greater numbers, that's the lot we're stuck with. I hope that we can create a more inclusive YPP because I think that the blogosphere is a powerful tool that wasn't available to community activists in the past, and I think that YPP's relatively high profile (given the high profile of many of the contributors), is a good place to start.
I don't think, however, the lack of diversity is a reason for us to stop the conversation (and I'm not suggesting that you said it is).
And one more thing - I'm not asking if we should be focusing on issues vs. movement so much as I'm asking if we should be focused on issues/movement vs. campaigns and candidates. I'm sure everyone who reads my comments is sick of that old saw, but I continue to see it as being a key issue.
Better Politics Matters
I'd say that what progressives have to offer at both a local and national level is a politics relatively unadulterated by the arcane hierarchical sensibility of the current party system or other traditional power structures. In the mayoral election, that's what people who DID vote, including both black and white people, voted for. Nutter and Knox did a good job of tying the city's inefficiency and unresponsiveness to these systems and structures. In a different way, the low turnout in a lot of areas was also a rejection of entrenched political power - I don't think that the people who didn't vote really just trusted the current system to work for them, either.
At the council level, the media volume wasn't up high enough for this message to get broadcast, and in some cases the candidates just weren't "right" - at a visceral level - for the electorate; they may not have been people who you looked at and said "this person can get it done for our neighborhood."
So maybe I'd say that the progressive message works, but the messengers often don't. So: who needs white progressives? Fair question. But the unease with the level of responsiveness coming from both the Democratic machine AND from the African-American outside-the-party politicians seems to be pretty real.
BTW: a related and fascinating development
Rev. Jesse Brown may be running as an independent in the 8th district. His politics could be described as "progressive." He is black. He has been endorsed by NN.
This may be where the rubber hits the road
(And cudos to Marc Stier, who apparently endorsed Brown despite having close ties to Lou Agre and having had some very favorable things to say about Brady recently).
Rev. Brown is a
Rev. Brown is a "progressive" through and through. Personally, I have worked with him on the casino issues.
This may be where the rubber hits the road
why is this where the rubber hist the road? can you expand on that DE?
Well, it will be interesting
to see if "progressive" organizations unify behind a black candidate. Will it help establish the credibility of progressives in the black community?
It will be interesting to see how many "progressives" will support an Independent candidate against a Dem Party candidate.
It will be interesting to see if "progressive" organizations are really willing to take the risk of completely alientating themselves from the Philly Dem Party structure.
Suppose Brown wins (I have no idea about his realistic chances, and suspect they might be slim)? Will it be an opportunity for "progressives" to become a more diverse entity?
And bottom line, it is possible that even if Brown doesn't win, the fact that he might get a lot of support from white progressives might help to deal with the racial divisions, because it will be clear that "progressive" and "wealthy white's getting what they want for the mansions district in the 8th" are not necessarily one-and-the-same. I think that often that is the perception among some blacks in the 8th district.
complex
i'd like to point out that i very much identify as a "progressive" and I am really uncomfortable supporting anyone as an Independent. I believe in the Democratic party and I want to reform our local party to better reflect my policy goals for the city.
can't supporting an independent
candidate be part of a larger strategy to reform the dem party in philly?
Dem supporting an independent
As I've said in relation to the Mayoral race, perhaps the best thing which could happen to the local Democratic Party would be for it to lose an election or two. That might provide the impetus for real reform which has, overall, been sorely lacking, Mike Nutter excepted.
-Z
And that is a lot of what
And that is a lot of what progressives are fighting against as well. A candidate doesn't get ward support, but the outside dem candidate seems more appealing than the incumbent. Ward leader says to vote for the incumbent and they do because "they believe in the democratic party" and the party told them to vote against the person they thought was better.
The best way to reform a party that isn't inline with your goals is to support someone who is. If a district is lost to an Independent I can pretty damn well guarantee you that the Dem party will see why it happened and try to absorb the campaign he won with to bring the voters back to the fold.
Why would the party need to change if they know you'll always be in their pocket even if they don't agree with you?
I also get a bit confused on the "I believe in the group of people I want to reform".
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
i love parties
Aaron, i belive in parties. I belive in people coming together, hashing out thier different points of views and forming a party. I like partisan politics. I just don't like how crappy our parties are.
Jesse may be a great guy, but lots of great people running for office based on the strength of their personality with no guarantee of loyalty to a specific set of principles or values unnerves me.
I don't know for sure, but
I don't know for sure, but Jesse is running as an "I" because of a ballot challenge. He is a "D" at heart.
that does not matter
we have a party and we have rules for a reason.
Just throwing it out there.
Just throwing it out there.
That is a pretty hard line on ballot challenges. But, I understand your point.
Guarantees of Loyalty to Principles?
We are getting a little ahead of ourselves with regard to Jesse's possible campaign which is merely in the preliminary talking phase right now as is any role I might play in it. (Although NN is pretty interested.)
But the issue this putative campaign raises is pretty important.
First, you can't be serious that being a member of the Democratic Party is some guarantee that a person is "loyal to a specific set of principles or values?" The first time I read that I broke out laughing. We can't even come up with a set of principles to define "progressive Democrat" and you are telling me that our party has a set of principles or values?
And would you seriously say that changing his registration would tell you more about Jesse's principles than his community and issue activism over the last ten years?
A good deal of the time in political life, party loyalty comes in conflict with principle.
Benjamin Disraeli once summed up the relationship between party and principle this way, in speaking to a junior member of the Tory party he lead: "Damny your principles, stick to your party."
And then there are all the practical reasons why a pincipled person would not take party so seriously.
Suppose Lieberman had won the primary and Lamont had run as an independent, saying that he would caucus with the Democrats if he won. Would you have supported Lieberman in the general?
Would you support a Democrat running against Bernie Sanders?
Weren't you one of the people bemoaning the fact that, because we don't have cross-party endorsements in Philly (except in judicial races) we can't create a working families party in Philly?
My guess is that if Jesse runs, he will do so as an Independent Democrat and will announce that he will caucus with the Democrats and resume his Democratic registration after the election.
running independent
Jesse can and should do whatever he wants. However running as an independent without making an allegiance to a party--even if it is a new party--does not seem like a good model.
It's funny Marc, despite all of the intelligent conversation here, you continue to refer to progressives as some solid bloc of people. Yet NN and PFC still have and have had some pretty big differences. There is, as DE has discussed, little involvement by people of color in either org, and frankly, a progressive voting bloc was not active in just about of the council races in this past cycle.
Doesn't that point to some infrastructural work that needs to be done? Why do we keep putting time and money into electoral races for people who can not win when there are opportunities to work on issues where we can win.
Part of the reason Irv lost is that in the abscence of a third party or someother kind of org, with structured values and principles, he just could not convince enough black voters that he was a good guy.
running for office=self-aggrandizing behavior
The more I think about running people as independents against Democratic candidates, I really think the "progressives" have lost sight of the goals of a true economic/social justice, reform view of the world.
Here is the order of questions I'd like to ask in evaluating what went on in the 8th:
1- What made or makes DRM a bad councilwoman?
2- Why did Irv, Cindy and Greg all run?
3- The majority of the electorate in the 8th put Donna back in. Are they wrong, misguidened or just in stark opposition to the voters who voted for the other three?
I am having difficulty understaning why it makes sense to igore these questions and run someone else against Donna, who will likely lose.
I think finding solutions to the problems raised by this race would take a lot of work and holding DRM accountable over the next 4 years will take a lot of work, so why not get started on that now?
Because elections are not
Because elections are not always about one platform or one party. Sometimes I really wonder how many of you would fair, politically, in a City with two parties and the primary isn't the end of the line.
Maybe Jesse can build a coalition of independents, republicans and dissatisfied democrats to beat DRM? That political campaign is not exactly disgusting to a lot of people.
Several people have said "only if there weren't three people running against DRM, she would be gone!"
Well, this is where they can put their money where their mouth is. Here is another Democrat running against her with no other competition. The problem is, they have to overcome the voters that vote only party.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
A Green party guy is running
A Green party guy is running too.
get real
I find it very hard to belive that Jesse can beat DRM. Even if he could. I can't imagine the ward leaders in the 8th allowing Jesse to stand and run again in 4 years if he won.
That's because there is major work to do--as this entore thread was written by Charles to point out--to mend fences between a lot of groups of people.
Finding one candidate (basically Cindy or Irv or someone else) to run in 2011, holding DRM accountable now, and building credibility with people who trust committeepeople and the party structure--of which there are clearly many in Philadelphia--will all take a lot of work.
Why not focus on that rather than another electoral campaign?
All these campaigns and and all these candidates, I am starting to think ego is trumping action and hard work.
Maybe because there are
Maybe because there are people that live there that don't want another four years of DRM?
Their loyalty is to their home, not the Dems.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
she won
you keep saying that, but DRM won. A lower turn-out general election, asking people to not voet Democratic is going to be equally hard, if not harder, than a 4-way primary.
It's a risk that may pay off in the sense that Jesse may get elected, but I doubt it, and it seems like another six months wasted as the bigger issues that caused the 8th to be as much of a mess as it is-and as many districts are city-wide--loom.
Sam Katz got significantly
Sam Katz got significantly more votes than registered Republicans. Al will get more votes than registered Republicans (not nearly as much I will assume).
And DRM won the PRIMARY. Not the general election. You keep saying it like after the primary, everyone should go home.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Essentially, people have a right to run.
And, there is nothing wrong with them doing it--no matter their race, gender, orientation or other characteristic. Now, whether strategically it makes sense, and entirely different story.
"starting to think...
....ego is trumping action and hard work" ?
people outside of politics have been thinking that for years : ).
No...
The majority of the electorate in the 8th did not re-elect Donna Reed Miller. As I showed elsewhere, she took 32% of the 40% of eligible voters who cast ballots. That works out to 12.8% of the electorate in the 8th supporting her- quite definitely not a majority.
-Z
oh right
ok, i forgot how turnout zooms up in a general election in Philadelphia without a real challenger in the Mayor's race or any state or federal candidates.
It wasn't a "majority", Ray.
It wasn't a "majority", Ray. It was a plurality.
And a ridiculously small plurality at that
The 8th District primary is one of the best arguments I've ever seen for instant runoff voting, but I won't bring that thread over here.
-Z
Too late.
Too late. ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
reforming Dem.party
Ray writes: "I want to reform our local party to better reflect my policy goals for the city."
I agree that a progressive movement working within Dem. party is best chance of changing course in this country--both on national and local level. And for all those on this blog who are looking for a place where blacks and whites are working together it is--warts and all--the Dem. party.
Another reason I question the advisability of Jesse Brown’s run is that we have some state house races coming up where we might be able to make a difference. Many of us are seriously tapped out financially from contributions to mayoral candidates, council candidates, judicial candidates etc. The time, money and energy might be better spent getting ready for those races rather than backing an independent and I think unwinnable run in 2007 general election.
Karen: did you agree with me?
Folks, the primary is truly over. Karen and I agreed on something!
Ray, yes I did agree with you
Ray, yes I did agree with you re. picking winnable races and building the progressive wing of Dem. party.
I also agree that there is considerable overlap in funding base for progressive organizations and progressive candidates. Most of the people I know do both and since we have limited funds, we are always making tough choices-- e.g. should I give 100.00 to NOW or to WOMEN'S WAY or should I give another contribution to Maria? There is just so much money and so much volunteer time to go around.
I think everyone agrees that we had too many progressive candidates in the primary. Next time I think progressives have to be less willing to say “let a hundred flowers bloom” and more likely to take a hard look at the performance of candidates who ran in 2007 primary and did not do well. For example, Irv and Cindy did well enough to be considered serious contenders; Greg did not. Progressives need to put pressure on Greg and his supporters to stay out next time. ( I know, easier said than done; we don’t have the resources the party has to pressure people to stay out of a race.)
Karen, You seem to know
Karen,
You seem to know politics in the Northwest. If Greg wasn't kicked off the ballot, don't you think he would have done well enough to be considered a serious contender?
i don't know the 8th well..
..and I know he's your boy Charles, biut how many times can someone run and lose and still be considered a serious candidate? was this greg's 4th try? 3rd?
It was his 3rd. Look, the
It was his 3rd. Look, the 8th District is extremely complicated, and the first two races were tough because he had David Cohen working against him, and this race was tough for obvious reasons. He made major inroads in that places where he needed to like the 17th, but all that was Null and void once he got knocked off.
My whole point is only to say that if he hadn’t gotten knocked off, I think that he would have done a lot better.
David Cohen Supported Paulmier in 1999, But Miller Won the 17th
David Cohen supported Greg Paulmier in 1999, but an energized Miller campaign, benefitting from Street's coattails, won the 17th Ward in a landslide.
In 2003, David Cohen, chastened by the obvious support in the 17th Ward for Miller, backer her for re-nomination. This helped mobilize the Paulmier campaign, which did much better in the 17th without the support of the party organization than it had with the support of the party organization. Miller only won the ward narrowly in 2003.
Wardleaders and ward organizations influence some votes. But they "control" very few votes. It is ultimately the people who make the decision, as was obvious when Nutter carried almost all heavily black wards without the support of almost all the black wardleaders.
Any successful progressive strategy should neither lionize nor demonize the ward structure.
Mark, Your Dad caucused for
Mark,
Your Dad caucused for Greg in 1999, but from what I understand he backed off of his support at the last minute.
That's Not True
That's just following the myth that wardleaders control the election results. They have some influence, but it is common for candidates to carry wards over the efforts of wardleaders, and Miller's victory in the 17th in 1999 is an example of that.
Hey, what is that smell?
Mark, your dad cut a deal with Donna in 2003 because he thought it was electorally dangerous not to do so. Please don't insult our intelligence.
Greg
If he hadn’t been kicked off the ballot, Greg probably would have done better than 16%.
However, even before that, most people (at least in my part of the district), thought Greg had had two chances and that we needed someone new to take on DRM.
When he got back on the ballot, most committeepeople and activists had already signed on with either Irv or Cindy, and at that point Greg was clearly a spoiler. I don’t think many of his votes would have gone to DRM, so if he had stayed out, it seems clear that either Irv or Cindy would have won.
Think again there Karen. He
Think again there Karen. He got most of his votes in the 12th and 17th. A lot of those are Donna votes.
And there have been a few questions on my mind. Of the people who voted for Irv this year, how many of them didn’t vote for Greg in 2003? Probably not a lot. The second question is, would Cindy have done so well if Fattah were not running for mayor. If you look at the Ward by Ward returns, you will see that the answer is probably not.
And, maybe my scouting was wrong, but I was under the impression that the 9th Ward was split between Greg and Cindy when Greg was still on the ballot, and your Ward leader was pushing Cindy. Is this not the case? I highly doubt that the consensus was that you guys just thought that you “needed someone new” to take on DRM.
And I think that is
And I think that is inherently part of the problem.
No one knows for sure. Too many people think that if someone didn't vote for the incumbent, they will vote for any warm body that isn't the incumbent. Of course that isn't true.
No one can say for sure unless some sort of polling takes place and even then, we saw how accurate anonymous polling is in the 8th.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Greg again
My assumption was that most of those who voted for Greg wanted change and if he had not been in the race many-- if not most-- of those votes would have gone to Cindy or Irv. This may be an incorrect assumption, as Donna does have her supporters, and absent accurate polling we will never know.
You are correct that Cindy would not have done so well if Fattah had not been in race.
The split in the 9th ward (among the committeepeople) was basically between Irv and Cindy—even when Greg was on the ballot. For the ward leader there were divided loyalties between Cindy and Greg. It is true that when Greg was off the ballot the ward leader was pushing hard for Cindy, but he could not get a majority of the committee people’s votes for her, so the upshot was no endorsement in the 8th councilmanic race.
That is true that it was a
That is true that it was a vote for change. But I also think that it had a lot to do with his organizing areas in the 12th and the 17th. He got a fair number of committee people to support him who would have supported Donna otherwise. That’s the only reason I think that this assumption that a lot of Greg’s votes weren’t taken from Donna is probably a wrong assumption.
Yeah Karen
That's pretty much what my neighbors said. And yes - quite a few folks I know voted for Irv but didn't vote for Greg. For a guy who ran so many times - it seemed that no one knew who he was when he was doing his outreach at the R8 stop & didn't connect with folks he chatted with. No buzz.
He also got questioned by a few folks at the stop as to why he didn't do the Liberty City visit & questionnaire like the other candidates had. He told these folks he was more concerned with neighborhood issues than that. Given the people asking lived in the neighborhood (why else would you be commuting to work from there?) and lgbt census lists this area as having the highest numbers of lgbt peeps alongside center city - not the best way to respond.
He filled out the Liberty
He filled out the Liberty City thing the last two times, and they endorsed, wait for it, Donna.
Who did these Irv voters vote for in the last election? Debearry?
Yep - if you don't get an
Yep - if you don't get an endorsement - it's best to blow off the constituents. Who did they endorse this time - wait for it - Irv. He asked. He showed people respect.
The incumbent will always have an edge - but a challenger who doesn't ask everyone for their vote - shouldn't be surprised when he comes in last.
Independents and Progressives
I have long agreed with you that the progressive movement needs a broadly based progressive organization in the city. That made my race and those of other council candidates very difficult. But I ran, in large part, to find potential members of our nascent movement in various parts of the city. And, as everyone will see over the next few years, I found many of them.
Electoral races, in other words, are a useful way of building our movement. And I think an independent Democrat running in the 8th district might be useful particularly in that white progressives would be backing an African American leader with a strong following of his own. That's one way to create a broad progressive infrastructure in the Northwest.
And, as I have pointed out many times, there is a progressive movement in the city despite the lack of a infrastructure or agreed platform or ideology. For reasons I described before, we don't need ideological agreement to build a movement. We need what we have, an overlapping set of ideas that are critical of the status quo. Our disagreements are mostly healthy. And by the way, NN and PFC don't have big differences at all. We are both as divided internally as we are from one another and I can think of no one thing that divides NN from PFC.
Or maybe one, your insistence that age is important, which to be honest, I think is both silly and self-defeating. And I really don't think most of your fellow PFC leaders agree with you on that anyway.
we'll see marc
i guess you have four more years to prove yourself.
Why do you place that in a four-year time frame, Marc?
It seems to me that the goal of creating a broad-based "progressive" organization in the City necesarily stands apart from campaigns for specific candidates because building the movement is not the same thing as building a candidacy.
And further, as we have seen in the last election, in order for a movement to really have weight in endorsing or supporting a candidate, it has to build credibility first. I just don't get how it could work in reverse order.
The Philly Dem Party has some credibility in poor and minority communities (although I think its real level of credibility is frequently overstated) - and it is diverse, although I don't think it is really broad-based (because such a high percentage of poor and minorities are alienated from the Party). So, given that credibility, I think that Ray does raise some interesting questions about the advisability and potential backlash of progressives backing an Independent candidate - but I suspect in the long run that backing Jesse could help more than it would hurt in terms of creating a broad-based movement.
Yes there is a difference
between building a candidacy and a movement and I'm not always sure how they intersect.
These are complicated questions and I look forward to seeing what other people think. As I said, I'm not sure about all of this and I don't know what role if any I'm going to play in Jesse's campaign, if there is one. This is mostly a theoretica discussion at the moment.
And, anyway, given the results of last week, I'm not so sure anyone should be making political decisions on the basis of my advice. Jesse is talking to a lot of folks, I'm sure.
What kind of backlash, and from whom, would be created by an independent candidacy? How would that hurt the progressive movement?
Fundamentally, there is a
Fundamentally, there is a difference in message.
Building a candidacy is a lot of talk about people. Building a movement is a lot of talk about issues.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
No, Mark . . .
You're precisely the person we should be taking advice from--election results notwithstanding.
I think that whatever anyone else thinks, the amount of courage it takes to put yourself--not an issue, but your person, into the realm of public discussion should be recognized.
Progressive should be thanking you for doing what you did. Similarly, they should be thanking some of the other candidates.
winning elections and doing long-term work to create a
more genuine movement for social justice doesn't have to be an either or proposition.
Ray, I respect yr tenor on this forum perhaps more than anyone elses. I agree with yr insistance on recognizing the white privelage generally at play here and that any real change needs to empower the third of philadelphia families living below the poverty level etc. Personally I have trouble labelling myself as 'progressive' b/c I am afraid many 'progressives' don't honor those values as fiercly as I would like.
But I do agree with Marc that there is a progressive movement in Philly and that it is a group of people who can help elect candidates that are critical of the status quo.
I believe electing someone like Jesse can help grow that movement in the same way I saw Anne's campaign bringing people together around a shared vision of independent candidate not beholden to the machine politics in this city and one who is supported by a constituency ready to tackle the more profound and systemic inequalities here.
I agree that real institutional work needs to be done to connect 'progressives' with the people they are supposedly going to bat for and that working outside of the election cycle is necessary but again I don't see it as an either/or tradeoff.
I also have zero loyalty to the democratic party but it is an interesting discussion.
Just beause they don't have to be either/or
doesn't mean that they are necessarily one-and-the-same. And I think it can be very useful to consider where there are differences and what the strategic implications of those differences are.
My fear is that people naturally gravitate to candidate-based politics, sometimes as a result neglecting the issues-based components that may be a necessarily fundamental underpinning of real structural change.
And the advantage of an issues-based approach over a candidate-based approach is that even when you don't have "your" candidate in office, you can affect change: the campaign finance and casinos situations are very interesting lessons in that regard. Logically, it seems to me that you have better chances of affecting change if you are in a position to demand accountability from everyone who holds elected office.
either/or
Aaaron, I agree with you that in the abstract, a movement could emerge and do both issue and electoral work. But we spend so mcuh time discussing these kinds of abstractions and ignoring the relaity. Over the past 6 months, although Brady has tried nobly to engage us in the latest campiagn at PUP on healthcare, both in terms of fundraising, volunteer time and media coverage, the election has dominated--particullary in terms of the media, (and blogs to some extent) elections will always get more attention than issue campaigns.
That said, Aaron, answer my questions:
1- why is Donna a bad councilwoman?
2- why was there a need for 3 peopel to run against her? what caused that?
3- now that she won the primary, and is likely to win the general, how will she be held accountable?
Without at least some cursory attention to these issues, it seems highly unstrategic to me to run someone else against her in the general.
Ray, I don't get why
when you want to do electoral politics it is OK and when other people do it is not OK.
As you know better than most people, I've spent most of the last seven years doing issue advocacy, for transit, the minimum wage increase, inclusionary housing, and before that, for a lot of community stuff in Mt. Airy.
You have spent most of your time doing electoral politics. And, despite my best efforts to get Philly for Change involved in issue advocacy, with regard to the housing issue, they have mostly stayed out of it as well in the last year or so.
If there is an algorithm that determines when is a good time to do one or the other? Is there any real reason to think that an independent candidacy in the eight district is going to undermine the transit, health care, and affordable housing campaigns---which are the three critial issues of the moment, in my view, and to which I hope to return.?
How can we control who runs against whom?
Yes it was a shame that three people ran against Donna--at least if beating her was the goal
But how do you control political ambition? How do you stop four progressives for running for Council at Large when all of them think they have a chance to win or help grow the movement and even though that most of us knew--and some of us explicitly said--that we were undermining our chances by running a large slate of candidates.
Well one thing that would help is if progressive organizations came together and (1) started to look at these elections in strategic ways instead of endorsing anyone who agrees with our ideals and (2) developed a process for nominating candidates (and not nominating candidates) that had some legitimacy.
None of the progressive organizations met the first criteria this time. And because we were separate organizations, we couldn't meet the second one.
I don't know how we move forward in dealing with these issues. But if someone can come up with a good idea, I'd be happy to help move it forward.
Well, you don't want to hear it
but I think one way is to scale down the focus on electoral politics, and dial up the issue-based advocacy, specifically by a concerted effort at strengthening the ties between the "progressive movement" and minority and labor and existing organizing organizations. We need to ask those entities to provide leadership and increase bilateral contact.
Case in point. Efforts in those areas in Germantown could have significantly reduced the need to run ANY candidates in opposition.
ha ha ha
Marc, as long as I have known you, you have been running for office.
I got involved in eelctoral politics as a means to an end, and I think the end has come. The 07 race is over, and other than figuring out how local groups can work with the national ones to build local membership, it is time to switch gears and get the over 80% of all Philadelphians who were old enough to have bene registered to vote engaged since clearly the last election did not bring them in.
In answer to this:
First and foremost, neither Irv nor Cindy ran for a movement--both ran because they thought they could do the best job. Greg ran because he always ran.
Second, the party controls this kind of ambition all the time. What happens is Brady or the Guv tell one potential caniddate or another to back off running and offer them some other role instead.
Third, as for at a-large, as I told you over a year ago, you took it upon yourself to run Council at-large. I applaud you...it's hard to run...but the reason so many progressives ran is because there is no party, there is no centralized organization, there is no agreement even about who is a"progressive." You keep saying this is a good thing, and maybe it is, but the fact is that as long as the "competition" is Ciity Committee, this nebulous structrure is never going to put a voting majority of "progressives" on Council which is the real goal.
Yes electoral politics is great, but it's role in creating social change is limited and frankly it costs a lot of money. And the people who run for office have such nessecarily large egos that maybe they are not always the best judges of objective strategy.
With all due respect, I
With all due respect, I don’t think that “Greg ran because he always ran”. But I know that that’s a hard sell here.
You haven't known me very long Ray.
And if you think all my community an dissue activism was meant solely as a stepping stone to political office, then all I can say is that if more people ran for office like I did--working thirty unpaid hours a week on community and issue activism--the world would be a much better place even if those activists never did very well in electoral politics.
As for centralized organization I said a moment ago that in terms of electoral politics a little more centralization would be a good thing. I guess I'm contradicting myself although I think that here the difference between electoral and issue politics is important. Anyway, this is complicated stuff and its hard to think it through on the fly. I'll think more about this.
I wouldn't disagree that people who run for office are not the best judges of strategy in their races. My own race would certainly suggest that. However, I don't recall anyone who I shared my campaign plan with every telling me that it made no sense at all. I'm still trying to figure out where it made no sense and what my key errors were n thinking it might make sense I've already talked about the strategic choice I made during the campaign that didn't work. I'll post on the other errors of my campaign plan and its execution as I get deeper into analyzing it. If nothing else, I hope that what I learned during my campaign will help other progressives not make the mistakes I made.
Well, out of curiosity, when
Well, out of curiosity, when did the challengers to DRM announce they were running? Was it all roughly in the same time frame?
I would assume a candidate announcing relatively early, say a year out and start lobbying and fundraising for money and volunteers and build support, that it would discourage other challengers jumping in the ring.
It all comes back to campaigning more than 4 months out.
And that is why I don't think IRV (not Ackelsberg ;) ) is a solution. Part of campaigning is driving out, preventing other challengers from going in the ring.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
In response to Marc, (I forgot to hit "reply") Basicially,
the issues that Ray raised.
DRM has support. Charlesdog thinks it's primarily geographical. I'm more inclined to believe that race is a significant variable.
Obviously, the situation is complicated, but I think that already there are some folks who see opposition to DRM from progressives as being a racially divisive issue. Obviously, it is less problematic if progressives are supporting opposition to her coming from a black candidate. One possibility is that progressives supporting opposition from a black candidate can help undermine the perception that opposition to DRM is racially or class based. Another possibility is that it would just add more division to the mix. There is already the impression among some that whites are just out to get DRM precisely because, as they see it, she stands up for the interest of blacks.
Read Truthtold's "coversation" with an African American re: "progressives" that he posted yesterday.
The alternative would be to make opposition to DRM purely issues based. As Ray asked, what is it, exactly, that spurs opposition to her. But not many people are aware of the details of those issues - and I suspect that even some people who oppose her don't really know why they oppose her - but instead oppose her because they are locked into personality-based loyalties: they like her "progressive" opposition. In a sense, I think that Ray makes a good point in that essentially, certainly at least in the eyes of some of Donna's supporters, that verges on race-based politics And I would argue, that if the issues were hammered home, through direct connection between "progressives" and her constituents who lean to supporting her - she would either have to change some of how she does what she does, or she would lose supoort. Honestly, if she changes how she does what she does, I would care a lot less about having different Council representation.
The amount of tax money that has gone into Germantown Settlement, with what I view as insufficient returns, is an issue of viable goverment. People are getting ripped off.
In the end, I'm excited about the possibilities of an Independent candidate running against DRM - but I think that the way that Ray's points intersect with the points Truthtold made yesterday should be a blinking yellow caution light.
If you look at the Ward by
If you look at the Ward by Ward returns, you’ll see that Greg got most of his votes in the 12th (lower Germantown) and the 17th (Olney), which are both predominately Black communities. There are only a few divisions in the 12th that are primarily White.
My point is that the candidate does not have to be Black. The candidate does, however, have to appeal to every part of the district, make him or herself known in every part of the district, and have supporters in every part of the district.
So, what do you think, Chuck
(if I may call you that), about Brown's candidacy?
I'm going to vote for him.
I'm going to vote for him. But I don't think that he has a chance.
Dan used to call me Chuckles
Dan used to call me Chuckles back in the day, so Chuck isn't so bad. Plus, most of my friends call me Chuck anyway.
Donna Reed Miller Without Tears
I’ve been meaning to write a long piece about Donna Reed Miller’s role in the eighth district for a awhile. It is a fascinating story with all kinds of complications that provides an interesting view from which to explore race and class issues in our city (and probably many other cities, too.)
This is not it. But it is a brief sketch for those who want to know more about the Eighth district. Other folks can, I’m sure correct my errors of fill in more.
Donna Reed Mills is as popular in some parts of the district as she is unpopular in others.
She is popular in some neighborhoods, mostly in East Germantown because she does good constituent service for people who really need. People who have had their gas turned off, etc.
I once had a long talk with her about public financing of campaigns, seeking to get her support for it. I thought that if she were to take the lead on the issue, it might help her with some of her constitutents and also make a statement about the kind of Councilperson she could be. Nothign ever came out of the discussion. But during the hour and a half long meeting we had, I saw her take a few calls about constituent problems and really put some effort, personally, into solving them. That taught me an important lesson about what it means to be a district Council member and about why she has the support she does.
She is also popular with some of the folks who worked with her on projects for the district, such as the Lonnie Young recreation center.
I am one of those people, by the way. When I was president of West Mt. Airy Neighbors I had a very good relationship with her. I worked closely with her office to bring a new Acme and CVS to the neighborhood. At other times, she was willing to help us by staying out of an issue. When there was a very controversial issue concerning saving some historic building on Johnson Street, Donna didn’t exactly help those of us who wanted to save it. But she didn’t stand in our way either. I had to work hard to make this happen, but could do so because we had developed a history of working together.
She is unpopular in other parts of districts for a few reasons. The first, is that no one, including her greatest defenders will say that she is a legislative leader in Council. She has not been someone who has worked to introduce the kind of progressive legislation that many folks in the eighth district want.
And then some people in both the northern (Chestnut Hill and Mt. Airy) and southern (SW Germantown, Nicetown, Tioga) parts of the district believe that she has given too much money—and too much unaccounted for money—to folks in Germantown who have not used it well. Or that she has favored certain developers and developments close to her at the expense of folks in the neighborhoods who opposed them. Anti-casino activists, for example, were upset at her support for the Trump casino.
The dispute between Donna and groups in Chestnut Hill and Mt. Airy is to some extent due to class differences with overtones of race as well. But that is not the case with regard to the disputes between her office and folks in Nicetown and Tioga and with anti-casino activists, where most of the leading activists are African American.
To some extent these disputes are also due to the difficulty community groups have in working with her office. In my view, the trouble comes from both directions. Some community groups are distrustful of her. And her office returns the favor. Those of us who have worked with her have tried to overcome these disputes but by now, it is very difficult. Her office is not inclined to forgive or forget any past slights or opposition. And the same is true of many community groups.
And lots of people all through the district believe that her office not been aggressive enough in developing plans and finding the funds to restore Germantown Avenue to its former glory in all parts of the district, from Chestnut Hill to Nicetown. The Avenue clearly is not what it should or could be. The Chelten / Germantown intersection was once the second largest shopping district in the city. It has fallen pretty low and lots of us would like to see it restored (and have ideas for how to do that which Donna has largely ignored.)
I think that you are right
I think that you are right that there are a wide range of problems that people have with her. I think that the number one reason that people dislike her, especially people in Germantown, is because of her support for Germantown Settlement. Pretty much all public money goes into this organization which is nothing more that a place to give her buddies patronage jobs. To give you an idea, 7 Committee people in the 12th Ward work for Germantown Settlement.
Now all this money is given to GS with no accountability. They have done some good, like Manheim Gardens, even though the way in which they conducted themselves was less than ideal. But they have done things to hurt the community. For example, years back, Pathmark was going to buy a building at Germantown and Chelton and build a brand new Pathmark there and provide 400 full time jobs, but Settlement bought the property for offices or something like that. Habitat for Humanity had to leave Germantown because they couldn’t get the kind of funding that they deserved, and the Councilperson would pretty much only give them vacant lots (by tearing the building down) when they did give them anything, instead of working with them to give them abandoned houses.
Now, in all honesty and fairness, I doubt that many of the voters in Mt. Airy and Chestnut Hill even know what Germantown Settlement is. But people all over the district just feel that she has been non responsive to their concerns.
Understand that friends come and go, but with a precious few you should hold on. Work hard to bridge the gaps in geography and lifestyle, because the older you get, the more you need the people who knew you when you were young. ~ Mary Schmich
It will be interesting (to Charlesdog)
Can't seem to remember to hit "reply."
I wonder how it's possible to assess his chances.
If it can be made clear that he doesn't have a shot - then that might change the equation as to whether supporting him is a good "strategic" move, although I would argue that it is a good philosophical move. Pending my finding out more about him, he's gonna get my vote (so that's two, anyway).
A lot of people pull the big
A lot of people pull the big Lever, or, these days, push the big button. I miss the old crappy machines myself.
I don't really feel like I've voted
when I don't hear the big thunk the old machines made.
The big lever is a real problem in a race like the one Jesse contemplates. It is probably the most important reason for thinking it is going to be very difficult to win.
are you supporting Jesse, Marc?
Marc, I am a bit confused by your comments on this thread. Didn't you in fact make a financial contribution to Donna's campaign?
Donna is a ward leader
and I went to an event of hers just as I went to events of other ward leaders. And they all cost money.
Among the ward leaders whose events I attended were a lot of candidates for office or office holdres: Edgar Howard, Marian Tasco, Rosita Youngblood, Elaine Tomlin, and many others.
I didn't endorse any of them.
When Jesse decides what he is doing, I'll decide what I'm doing or not doing in the race and also how active I will be. Let's just say that I didn't hear about it until yesterday and right now I'm intrigued by the idea and am enjoying exploring it with everyone today. It's the first time in a week I've been able to think about Philly politics for more than 30 seconds and writing here is a nice break from the book I've been working on all day (which has nothing to do with Philly politics.)
WHat's the book about?
WHat's the book about? Miles Davis?
Civilization and Its Contents
is the title. The subtitle is "Platonic Reflections on Eros and the Culture Wars"
The central argument is (1) Different views of the nature and power of sexuality underly many of the disputes between left and right on many of the "social issues" most of which have something to do with sexuality, e.g. abortion; (2) left and right actually agree on their understanding of the nature of sexuality but reach different conclusions about hwo best to deal with it; and (3) that this view of sexuality is, in fact, mistaken, and that reading Plato can help us come to a better view of sexuality. This new, old view would show us how to overcome the dispute between left and right, both of which are, to my mind, problematic.
Its more a work of philosophy than public policy--although one essay focuses on connections between ideals and political and social structures. And it deals with questions that perhaps only philosophers enjoys, such as why we can't tickle ourselves and why animals and infants are not ticklish at all.
hmmmm
if animals are not ticklish, why does my dog do that funny thing with his leg whenever I scratch him on his belly???
______________________________
Phillyville
I mostly experimented with cats and goldfish.
Maybe dogs are ticklish.
Or maybe not. Dogs liked to be petted. Its not the same thing as tickling, is it? Does your dog break out into hysterical laughter and ask you to stop, while really wanting to you to keep going?
I think he/she
just really, really likes you.
Donna Miller, a Third Party Run, and Things like that
OK, so, I was not here for most of the day, but here are my thoughts:
1) Ray- why is Donna Miller a bad Councilwoman? First and foremost, her office is corrupt. Period. Her chief of staff is in prison, for using her own office to run tax scams. And as far as I can tell, she hasn't even bothered to apologize, or explain how that happened. She also funded her GOTV operation with $18,000 in last minute contributions from a single developer, who has a series holes along Erie Avenue and in Nicetown. Germantown Settlement, which basically controls all CDC money coming into the neighborhood, stifles positive development all over the district, and is pretty notorious. Community groups in N. Philly have had plans for properties, only to find out that she conveyed those properties to the same developers who fund her, all for the grand total of one dollar.
She does do some good things- like the ex offender thing, like Manheim Gardens, etc- but they seem to have to be handed to her. There is not a lot of energy coming out of that office.
2) A third party run... First, Jesse Brown is a great guy. I would gladly support him, because forgetting whether it is some grand test for the progressive movement, I think he would be a much better City Councilperson than she is. Other people could run, too. In fact, if the Green Party wanted to, and my dad wanted to do it, he could actually run on their ticket. I am not saying he will, or they will offer that, but I think he would be a reasonably viable candidate. I think Jesse can, too. But he has to go through the same process, of introducing himself to a majority of the district, and he has to raise a lot of money. I have no idea if it is possible, but if I lived there, he would get my enthusiastic vote, and he will get the support of my voice, and my feet, if he runs. (But, he is a longshot, no question.)
But, whether he is a Dem or not, I would have no problems supporting him. Forget whether his win is a big test for a 'movement' for a second. 70 percent of 8th District voters voted against Donna. The place is ready for someone new.
3) Donna is really not that popular. She had control of the 17th, 22nd, 11th, and 59th wards. She had by far the most street money, and by far the most people working for her on election day. She has name recognition, in a race a lot of people were not paying attention to... And she got 30 percent. So yes, in East Germantown, she is liked. But, that is one piece of the district. In the aggregate, she just is not popular.
4) DE- as someone who spent a lot of time in my dad's campaign, I have to tell you, although it existed outside the world of NN, PfC, YPP, etc- his campaign did, in fact, have an incredibly diverse group of supporters. However, those supporters and activists that worked for the campaign (like Jesse Brown, for example), did not translate into enough votes. (Maybe that had to do with a first time candidate and a strategy that didn't fit an against the machine run. Maybe that had to do with race. Maybe that had to do with a lot of things.) But, anyway, I was there, and I saw it. It can exist, and it did exist in that race. The bigger question is whether someone without the same connections around the district can replicate it, and whether the activists in those wards can be better used to turn out votes.
Dan, I never questioned the diversity of your Dad's campaign
but I see what I see in my neighborhood. And I've been seeing it since before your dad decided to run.
Time after time I've seen issues break down along racial lines. I saw NN struggle to get a diverse representation in my neighborhood. I'm not saying that diversified alliances are impossible or don't exist. I'm just saying that they're few and far between, and that I think that it is essential to expand them, and to explore the obstacles to expanding them.
So, my feeling is that part of the reason why the diversity in your dad's campaign didn't translate into a larger vote is because of racial attitudes. To me, that is even more salient than DRM's constituent services.
I think it came out wrong- I
I think it came out wrong- I did not mean it like that, and I think I agree with your point- to a point. Sometime, over a non anonymous beer, I can talk about why it did not translate into votes. And yes- race did play a factor.
But, what I am saying is just that there was a candidate of the progressive community, who got the support of basically all the progressive groups, and also got the support of a large number of African-American activists. And he still lost by 1700 votes. Which is to say, coalition building is not enough.
Perhaps,
but I'm not sure that coalition building has been sufficiently explored.
As I've been saying all day, and I'm sure I'll be typing again in the future, I think that necessarily, coaltion building is a much larger initiative than something that can be focused on a campaign.
base building
there is room for more coalition building, but i think the reality in the 8th with Irv or even with Cindy is that the base of people who supported them was simply not big enough. DE, I think you are assuming that organized labor and civic groups and all the other folks you suggest progressives build a coalition are bigger and more powerful than they are.
the reality is that money needs to flow to all of those groups to help them build their own bases in order for there to be anything to coalition with,
which again, takes me back to campaigns. campaigns cost a lot of moeny and it might be better spent goijng directly to ACORN or PUP or Bread and Roses or the Black UNited Fund.
They have a whole hell of a lot more infrastructure
in terms of money and people-power than the "progressive movement."
And I should have been more specific. I don't think that personality-based campaigns is the best context for coalition building. Issues-based campaigns, however, as Gaetano posted earlier, is another story.
they do
but that is a sad state of affairs. all i was trying to say is that almost every spoke in the wheel that should be the progressive movement, in Philadelphia, is weak--compared to other cities.
Our civic life could use improving.
That's where I'm coming from
I'm interested in strengthening civil society in this City. I think that's the tide that will lift all boats.
From public transit, to public planning, to Stop and Frisk, to Casinos, to campaign finance...people need to believe that their opinion counts and that they're heard. We need to demand that our government asks our opinion and involves us in its decision-making processes. In that, we are all coalesced already. (cue violins)
Historically it’s been
Historically it’s been very difficult for council candidates to win without being on a mayoral ticket.
70% of the city voted against Nutter
I get the DRM does not have that much support. But should Tom Knox run as an independent against Nutter because Nutter only got only 30% of the vote?
This fall election is going to be low turn-out. Maybe Jesse has the connections in various communities needed to raise $100,000 or more and get hundreds of volunteers on the streets, and I will buy the whole blog lunch if I am wrong, but is it worth expending energy to support a campaign that will likely not win?
My answer is no. Every individual who could give time or money will have to answer that in their own way. As for Philly for Change, as one member of the steering committee, I will probably advocate that we stay out as PFC has limited resouces and they are probably better spent elsewhere either on statwide judicial elections, making sure Maria has no problems, or on an issue campaign.
And again, going back to Charles original point, I don't see running an independent against DRM as helping to broaden "the movement." Maybe it won't hurt, but I don't see how it helps.
Mike Nutter, in a 5 way
Mike Nutter, in a 5 way race, got 36 percent of the vote. Donna, in a four way race, got 31.
If Tom Knox had won, I would have gladly supported a good third party candidate.
Miller is a bad Councilperson, and I firmly believe that people's lives, and the neighborhoods of the 8th district, would be better with a different councilperson. I get the need to think strategically- but if she is bad, she is bad, and the average person doesn't really care about whether it is a movement or not, especially if she is hurting their neighborhood.
Edit: If you are saying first you want to see whether an indy candidate is viable, however you define that- I understand. But, to me, if they are a good candidate and can do enough to get the support, and we are in a year where there is nothing going on, then I think it is a good thing for the district.
what does support mean?
i know how hard it is to raise money and to staff a phonbank and get volunteers on the doors.
That is why viability matters. If you chose to run for office, you need to be honest about serious you are about winning and how much you can ask other people to do for you.
Because if you can't win, and there has alreay been an interrogation of the opponnent's record (which DRM got in the primary) what value do you add running? Especially if activist and volunteer time is being taken away from more pressing and more winnable causes.
Again, if you are talking
Again, if you are talking viability, then yeah, I understand. But, if they can get that support- volunteers and case-, then whether it builds a movement or not, it is a good thing for the 8th district.
agreed
i agree if Jess can win, it's worth it for the 8th. However, as I said earlier the causes that allowed Donna to win, despite the polling, will still be there in 2011 even if Jesse wins.
Just like with Tony Payton next year, there would still be a battel to be waged.
So, if Jesse can win, great, but with or without Jesse, it seems to me there is still work to be done to avoid a repeat of what happened in the 8th tis year and i have articulated that in a lot of detail above.
These are absolutely the right questions, Ray.
And I don't know the answers right now. Anyway, they are not for me to answer.
Nutter was not a three term incumbent.
If Michael had been a three term incumbent and only 30% of the vote in a primary, that would definitely be grounds for thinking that he is vulnerable.
Dan, Are you saying your dad
Dan,
Are you saying your dad could run on the Green Party ticket for november? I have investigated this already and all the laws I, and an election lawyer, have seen points to the fact you can't run for a minor party if you are registered with a major party. Plus, your dad already ran so the sore loser law applies.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
I am not saying he will, but
I am not saying he will, or the Party would even offer that, but looking at the statute, yes- he could be put on the Green Party ticket. He would have to switch registration.
Section 2911.1 of the
Section 2911.1 of the election code provides that a minor party candidate cannot have been registered as a major party voter at any point extending from thirty days before the primary up to the date of the general election.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
I think that's right. I
I think that's right. I thought that there was a prohibition on double dipping, running in one primary and then signing up for another party and running in their primary.
I also would not recommend running on the Green Party ticket. (Nader brought us Bush, but that's another story.)
The reason is that it would allow critics of Irv to say, "He's not a Democrat." The Big Lever -- and its current incarnation -- allow for a race that does not have a hated Mayoral candidate as a Democrat to have a boatload of people voting for the Democratic party and all candidates.
Just some suggestions.
I don't have the code in
I don't have the code in front of me, but there is a distinction in the law between political bodies and minor political parties, and one of the differences is that minor parties can run candidates of any party registration. However, I don't believe that the Green Party currently holds minor party status in either Pennsylvania or Philadelphia; the petitions that Brian Rudnick has been circulating are definitely those of a political body's candidate, not a minor political party's.
The controlling elections would be the 2006 state-wide races, when the state Dems successfully made the same types of anti-democratic challenges to petitions that many here railed against in March, and the 2005 municipal race, when I don't believe there were any Green candidates at all (perhaps a cross-listed judicial candidate?). In order to still have minor party status, the Greens would have had to have a candidate who pulled 2% of the highest vote total of any candidate in the jurisdiction (ie, even for the 2003 race, Tom Hutt's (Grn 8th Dist candidate) numbers wouldn't be compared to Donna's but to someone like John Green.
http://72.14. 205.104/search?q
http://72.14.205.104/search ?q=cache:XkYynhiXbHsJ:web.greens.org/news /displayarticle.php%3FmediaId%3D3908+pennsylvania+minor+party&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
Seems to say the Green Party has minor party status.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
First, my dad is not doing
First, my dad is not doing it.
But, here is the language for the substitution of a candidate by a political party and by a political party. For a party,
For a political body, the standard is much tougher:
The definition of a political party is found in two parts of the election code. First, the statute makes clear that if a group has been established as a minor political party, as opposed to a body, then the same basic rules of the statute apply:
For a municipal or county election, it would also appear that Tom Hutt’s 6.5 percent established the Green Party as a political party under the statute:
Tom Hutt got 6.5 percent in the last Council race. One possible objection is that the general election proceeding the primary was actually the District Attorney’s race. Given the language says “for any elected candidate in any county,” I don’t think that is a big deal- because the stated purpose of the statute is to help minor parties, and you would be penalizing them because Philly splits their elections. But, Pennsylvania Courts are not always known for proper statutory interpretation.
Dan, we didn't say your dad
Dan, we didn't say your dad was doing, we were just discussing the legality of your dad doing it.
From what you posted, it is about replacements, so in your theoretical, you would have assumed rudnick would step aside for your father to run by green party appointment?
Outside of that, I do not know how your theoretical would work for your father.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
That was just my disclaimer
That was just my disclaimer to any curious onlookers, etc, that he is not doing it.
But yes- for someone who has already run in that election- they can only be substituted, not nominated outright; and it has to be a party, not a 'group' under the code.
Ok. Now we are all on the
Ok. Now we are all on the same page as far as the feasibility issue. ;) I thought I may have been wrong about the law and that you had different case law to go by.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
I have been thinking about
I have been thinking about how progressives (whatever that term means) and other folks (whoever they are) can build coalitions to win electoral office and effect change. I just don't a good enough answer to share, but I have some thoughts. (So D.E. II, I am not ducking your question, at least without thinking about how to answer it.)
A couple of thoughts.
1. Dan, I did not mean to imply YPP was not diverse (although I don't think most of the posters are, but that is a function of blogging generally.) Folks can read the site, just like I did. And, for political conversations in Philly, this is very diverse exchange of ideas. But there is some disconnect b/w the input of ideas, I think, and the "reform movement", which I think that input from broad sources would help. But that's not a critique of the site, NN, YPP, Philly for Change, etc. Just a comment on coalition building.
2. Jesse Brown cannot win the 8th. In a heads up race, maybe. I am not even sure about that. But if Jesse Brown were to run, someone would run against him from Mt. Airy, and I could not see Irv not running. No way you could pass that one up.
3. The Democratic City Committee stops candidates from running all the time. (Lou and Jim Kenney suggested that Bob Brady stayed in the race to prevent Mayor Knox -- I don't know if that is why, but in a heads up race, Mayor Knox it would have been. Most of Brady's vote would have went to Knox.)
4. Donna is popular among enough voters to win a multi-candidate race. That does not mean she is popular among everyone in the Eighth or that kids aspire to be her. But politics isn't a popularity contest completely, its about convincing people to vote for you. The easiest way to do that is to convince people who vote all of the time. Who are many of those folks? Older voters. Who do older voters like to vote for? Incumbents.
5. In my post above, I suggest that the problem of some African American elected officials reaching out beyond their base (to sometimes white liberals) is the only instance where coalition building is difficult. That's misleading. There are politicians who have South Philly support that feel uncomfortable in getting support from voters in the Northeast, and vice versa. So it is more a phenomenon of walking the line, b/w broadening your base, and protecting your flank, by catering to your base supporters.
I'll post later this week, if I can think it through, my thoughts on how coalition building can take place. I will say though it is an important question in every political "movement", in my opinion, as to whether you do just advocacy or electoral politics. My experience is that advocacy works, until you realize that part of the problem is that the elected officials are what's preventing the success of what you are advocating for. That leads most people to focusing on how to elect folks to advocate their points of view. But be careful, that's how pigs turn into humans.
i have been in the odd position
of arguing for an approach for spending resources on an electoral campaign when i spend most of my limited free time invested in the movement building ray that you describe.
for my life that will continue to take a priortiy.
but again i'll come back with the either/or thing. if jesse raises $100k it won't come from the same sources that would spend money on an issue advocacy campaign. the energy is different and the outcome is different. both are tools for that 'something larger' that everyone seems to define differently.
there is a big desire for change in philly across the board which nutter and knox took advantage of, but the 'progressives' did not. it was an issue of messaging and resources. 'progressives' were not able to convince people that they were agents of change. the failing in my mind was that the community wasn't strategic, folks were too spread out over too many campaigns. marc makes a good point as to whether it was feasible or not to have a 'progressive primary' and i don't fault anyone for their work in the primary but it was an opportunity lost. a campaign like jesse's where it is identified by the community as a priority would be an opportunity to work together and build.
ray i agree that there needs to be a strategic approach to this and your basis for the argument that resources could be better spent elsewhere is sound. i just see a potential campaign like jesse's as a vehicle to bring people together in a way that can compliment the issue work. i think it is winnable. but only if enough people are behind it. so i respect that you are arguing against it b/c there needs to be a plan and it needs to be feasible.