Is the Working Families Party really the path to progress in Philadelphia?
Sep. 27, 2019
If you haven't heard by now, in that location's a mini-progressive revolution afoot in Philadelphia. Because we are, effectively, Moscow on the Delaware—long a corrupt one-political party town, in which Ds outnumber Rs by an phenomenal 8 to one ratio—we've reserved two seats since 1952 on Metropolis Quango for non-Democrats. Those seats accept been held by Republicans, the party that—in cynical commutation for the crumbs of patronage—long ago ceased to truly compete politically.
Prefer the audio version of this story? Mind to this article in CitizenCast beneath:
Well, at present comes the news this week that, over the last three months, two candidates from the progressive Working Families Party have surpassed expectations and raised more than funds in accelerate of Nov'southward ballot than the Republican candidates for those seats.
Pastor Nicolas O'Rourke took in $88,000 and Kendra Brooks nearly doubled that; both out raised incumbents Al Taubenberger and David Oh, as well as GOP challenger Dan Tinney, since June.
Moreover, the Working Families candidates have wrung up impressive endorsements. Councilwoman Helen Gym angered the Democratic establishment by endorsing community activist Brooks—thereby urging voters to finer pull the lever against at least one of her Democratic colleagues. (Each voter gets five votes for the seven at-large seats). Even Elizabeth Warren got in on the act, endorsing Brooks the solar day before the national Working Families Party endorsed her presidential bid. And a host of Philly progressives have jumped on the Working Families bandwagon, amid them Land Reps. Elizabeth Fiedler, Chris Rabb and Malcolm Kenyatta.
Most political insiders—the keepers of conventional wisdom, which nearly ever turns out to be wrong at some point—say the Working Families Political party candidates still confront long odds in Nov. That may be, but clearly in that location is an free energy backside their candidacies that the establishment ignores at its peril. All of which raises the question: Is the ascent of the progressive Working Families Party here (it's had quite a lot of electoral success in New York) a skillful thing for Philly? Does what they're selling, idea-wise, fit what Philly ought to be in the marketplace for? And, critically, will even more of a leftward local swing amount to smart politics in a purple country with a Republican legislature?
"Instead of using polarization equally a technique," Berry said, "we take to footstep into conversations and stay in those conversations rather than stepping in and stepping out."
Let's accept that terminal question starting time. Two weeks ago, citing the strangely similar political stylings of Larry Krasner, Phil Murphy and Donald Trump, I wrote about the new amateurism that has come to ascertain our politics. Officeholders abound who would rather be right than effective, who adopt the easy scoring of rhetorical points on Twitter to the harder act of moving the needle on seemingly intractable bug. When Gym endorsed Brooks—whom she'd long known and been allied with—it may take been another instance study in naive politicking. Gym has rightly railed against Republicans in Harrisburg for underfunding our schools; but it's infinitely harder to secure said funding increases from the Rs who command the state coffers if you're explicitly trying to decimate what'due south left of their party locally.
Ever-thoughtful Country Representative Chris Rabb ain't ownership that argument. "I'd be surprised if my Republican colleagues in the state legislature fifty-fifty know we have Republicans on Urban center Council," Rabb, a passionate progressive, told me when I asked him to walk me through the rationale of his endorsement. "I doubt the Republicans on Quango even take a relationship with the Republicans in Harrisburg, because they have no ability and too because they're too liberal. The Republicans in Harrisburg are more Tea Party-aligned."
For Rabb, the Working Families Party endorsement was a no-brainer born by and large of ideological alignment. "I ran every bit a progressive, and we need more than qualified progressives in public service," he said, ticking off the list of issues he and the Working Families Party take in common— Medicare For All, a $15 minimum wage, criminal justice reform; all issues, of course, that volition decidedly not be adjudicated at the city level.
Besides, Rabb argued, endorsing O'Rourke and Brooks sends a much-needed message: "Progressivism doesn't necessarily equal white liberalism," he said. "Here you lot accept two qualified black progressive candidates. Liberalism no longer has to exist the province of white people."
Rabb forcefully makes the case for change, merely his argument lacks grounding in the realpolitik of our local story. That's understandable; in the age of Trump, everything, at every level, has go about the large, dividing line bug, which explains the slogan of Brooks' candidacy: Republicans Out, Working Families In.
Just are nosotros really to believe that, if only nosotros could rid ourselves of Al Taubenberger and David Oh, we wouldn't accept the trifecta of challenges we currently face: The worst poverty in the nation, a ballooning murder epidemic, and middling job growth? In fact, the cities that are flourishing nowadays—from Oklahoma City nether Republican pragmatist David Holt to Stockton, California under African-American artistic thinker Michael Tubbs—are ones that eschew the great ideological split up for practical problem-solving. (Tubbs' experiment in Guaranteed Income, he'll tell you, was originally a Richard Nixon thought).
Brooks, in particular, has a great personal story. She was raised in Nicetown and was a teenage single female parent working a low-wage job who ultimately worked her way through college and got an MBA. She became a citizen activist, leading the fight confronting Mastery Charter Schools—the stellar turnaround lease operator—taking over her neighborhood unproblematic school. But she's not running on her biography and then much as ideological talking points that could employ to Anytown, USA, consummate with redistributionist jargon—as if in that location's anything left in Taxadelphia to redistribute—and nods to identity empowerment.
"There is plenty of wealth in this state and this city," Brooks writes in her questionnaire for Reclaim Philly, footing zero for local Social Democrats. "Our problem has never been if nosotros take enough money, but instead if our elected officials have the political courage to check the powers of the 1% and to demand funding for resource for poor and working people. As a City Councilperson, my task would be to demand the 1% pay their fair share for fully-funded schools and affordable accessible housing for all, while also making certain that nosotros pass laws that protect working people from corporations and ensure fairness and nobility at work…As a councilperson, I will always look for laws that lessen and abolish white supremacy and patriarchy in our system, and that uplift Black and Brown people, women and gender non-conforming people. To me, this starts with fully funding our education arrangement, [and] ensuring accessible affordable housing for all people."
Okay, and so Brooks may sound like an SNL parody of progressivism, with all the correct buzzwords arranged just then, but let's stipulate that, in general, she lays out laudable goals; abolishing white supremacy and patriarchy are good things. Even so: How you become well-nigh achieving such goals is what politics is actually most. And ideological rigidity has always been a prescription—ironically—for perpetuating the status quo, not challenging it.
In full general, Brooks lays out laudable goals; abolishing white supremacy and patriarchy are proficient things. However: How y'all become about achieving such goals is what politics is actually about. And ideological rigidity has always been a prescription—ironically—for perpetuating the status quo, not challenging it.
Brooks' activism work bears this out. Back in 2014, she led the parents at Edward Steel Uncomplicated in rejecting Mastery's takeover. "Local control" was the mantra; in that location was much celebrating when Mastery backed out, not wanting to aid where information technology wasn't wanted. This despite the fact that Mastery would have brought in excess of a million dollars in privately raised grants to the schoolhouse and 21 boosted full-time staffers. Information technology's now 5 years later and, according to the database schooldigger.com, Steel performs academically better than just 0.8 pct of elementary schools throughout the commonwealth. What's the point of all that activism if the kids y'all purport to serve are, five years on, notwithstanding not getting the instruction they demand?
This is non to question Brooks' motives. Her intent is pure and her story is uplifting. Just it is to suggest that trying to square national progressive values with local on-the-ground realities can often unintentionally double down on the same-one-time, same-old. Think, after all, nigh the many means nosotros distort progressivism in Philly. If you back up Larry Krasner'due south criminal justice reform, equally I do, do you have to sign on for the dissing of victims and reduced sentences for murderers? If y'all support the union movement of the 20th Century for edifice a vibrant middle class and an economy that was the envy of the globe, do yous accept to turn a bullheaded eye to the thuggery and shady political dealings of Philly labor? If you lot support early education funding and the refurbishing of city playgrounds, do you have to exist for a revenue enhancement on sugary drinks that disproportionately hits poor and working class families?
Too often, progressives in Philadelphia are progressive in theory simply. Across the country, local political leaders who don't seem obsessed with the donning of team colors are the ones leading their cities boldly into the 21st Century. They're principled, merely pragmatic, focused on building coalitions to solve problems. Rather than lob political shibboleths, rather than exploit grievances and resentments, they seek out mutual ground. Case in point: Republican Mayor Richard Berry of Albuquerque, New Mexico, whose two terms expired a couple of years ago. Berry, the first Republican to serve as Albuquerque mayor in xxx years, was impossible to pigeonhole. He cutting spending and shrunk the size of regime at the aforementioned time that he increased economical development, housed the homeless, and bolstered transparency in government.
The key, he one time said in an interview with the Yale Schoolhouse of Management, is listening…and then seeking common footing, even when it's uncomfortable. "Instead of using polarization as a technique," the then-Mayor of Albuquerque said, unknowingly offering advice to the likes of Brooks and O'Rourke in modern-twenty-four hours Philly, "we have to pace into conversations and stay in those conversations rather than stepping in and stepping out."
In the coming weeks, I'll be spotlighting local leaders who come up from Drupe's political lineage. In their book The New Localism, our late chairman Jeremy Nowak and Bruce Katz famously proclaimed that "the future belongs to the problem-solvers." Permit'south scrub our fractured politics and shout out a new generation of New Localism leaders.
Analogy courtesy Lucy Ferry | Kendra Brooks photo courtesy Sahar Coston-Hardy | Nicolas O'Rourke courtesy O'Rourke For Philly 
Source: https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/working-families-party-philadelphia/
0 Response to "Is the Working Families Party really the path to progress in Philadelphia?"
Post a Comment