Bet you thought this was going to be a screed against a certain majority component of the New Albany City Council. Dintcha?
Monday night was, instead, a triumph for the reactionary contingent. Oh, it wasn't obvious to the casual observer. The folks out Charlestown Road didn't have a clue that the council that gave them a 9-0 rejection of a Gary McCartin development had just been taken over by what now must be called "The Gahang of Five." (Editor's note: We are not ignoring the 6 votes that put Mr. Gahan into office. But trust us, the gahang is a quintet.)
No, the parade of ignorance came to its conclusion with Monday night's organizational session. The parade started several years ago. It gathered steam as more and more New Albanians saw a reason for hope in a resurgent progressive movement that would not settle for government as usual.
My dad took great stock in differentiating ignorance and stupidity. To call someone ignorant was never, to his way of thinking, an insult. Rather, it was considered a compassionate, if not charitable way of explaining the inexplicable.
Well, the parade of progressives clearly didn't understand that politics is not an intramural sport. It turns out that politics in New Albany is, at worst, a semi-pro proposition, with high stakes and big rewards.
So what did the progressives do when it came to this past year's city elections? They voted. After all, isn't that all that's necessary?
The progressives, for the most part, eschewed the requirements of volunteering, canvassing, financing, and campaigning their asses off for candidates who would represent their interests. In their ignorance, they allowed yet another city election to be captured by the politicians who do the most to keep progress to a minimum.
The parade of ignorance didn't find itself on the losing side so much as it found itself on the outside of the new council. Sure, a minority of the council will take their phone calls. A few others will pretend to sympathize. But for the next four years, the council will be a dead end for progressives.
And if that's the situation four years from now, it won't be because of ignorance. It will be because of stupidity - knowing what to do but refusing to do it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"for the next four years, the council will be a dead end for progressives." Huh? After the first meeting? Because your choice for Council President didn't make it? C'mon! I know you make no secret of your biases, but you are in danger of overlooking the forest for being fixated on a couple of trees. I refer you to the C/J interview with veteran legislator David Karem in today's paper, particularly his quotes: "What you do to get things done is make relationships. Then you can talk to those people and build a case quietly."
. . . "there's a great diversity of membership . . .they've got to remember how an issue affects the rest of the people."
That's pretty much how democracy is supposed to work.
Shadow5 didn't even really address the nature of the council so much as the nature of the progressive "movement" in New Albany.
I think he's right about the progressives being on the outside, though.
The way I read it, this council got elected (maybe one or two exceptions) without any reliance on the progressives. The alliance evident at the first meeting drives that point home.
I join others in seeing most of the new council members handing Coffey a victory, but it doesn't seem like Shadow5 is talking about the council so much as the constituency.
Your pull quote - "What you do to get things done is make relationships. Then you can talk to those people and build a case quietly." - has a corollary, however.
You could just as easily say "It's important to never take a stand until you have the votes lined up. Never speak out publicly, never lead the charge. Things go much more smoothly when the public is presented with a fait accompli. Not every policy idea is equal. Treating them as equal just to make people LIKE you"
Excuse me while I throw up in my mouth.
Relationships are one thing. Principles are another. These are POLICY issues in front of the council, not stylistic questions. I don't want to see my representatives hedging their principles because they want to be liked. Being respected is a much better deal.
After the meeting is the time for making friendships. During the meeting is the time for laying out policy positions.
Ruthanne, I'll concede that your political sophistication is higher than mine. But Karem edges pretty close to calling for less sunshine, less public input, less public exposure of policy ideas.
I don't know why taking a position publicly and discussing these things in the open is inconsistent with building a consensus.
And from what I saw Monday, embarrassing a colleague was very much what was being done.
I stand by my comment. Based on my experience in both the public and the private sectors, collaboration is the path to achievement. We work with people we don't care for personally. Standing on one's principles by continually opposing another's ideas (and, face it, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while) is not only unhelpful, but weakens one's credibiity and degrades into obstinance (think George W. Bush).
My point is/was: dial down the pessimism a notch - at least until this new Administration and Council have had some time to earn a real report card.
And I guess I'll stand by mine.
If McLaughlin, Benedetti, Coffey, Price, and Gahan are a bloc, then progressives are shut out.
I'm saying they are a bloc. Ipso facto, the progressives are shut out.
Ruthanne, you're saying those five do not constitute a bloc. I'd be pleased to read your analysis.
IF those 5 are a bloc. . .shall we wait and see? As a dear old Southern lady said to me: Possess your soul in patience.
I know of no one who would argue that the "bloc" of Coffey-Price-Benedetti doesn't exist.
I've observed closely and feel safe in agreeing that Gahan and McLaughlin are there, too.
I expect many of us had hoped for a better result with those latter two. Some probably held out hope for Benedetti.
I just don't think it's premature to state an observation. Things could change. When they do, Shadow5 will probably be one of those who reports that change.
Is it fair to say you think Shadow5 should have just kept a zipped lip? How long should that proscription last? When, in your opinion, would be the earliest date after which Shadow5 could begin to express an opinion about how the new council is aligned? March? June? Next January?
I'm not sure whether you disagree with the analysis of the blogger or if you're saying the blogger shouldn't be analyzing the council yet.
Thanks for your comments, ruthanne. I don't get a "choice" for Council President, but I wouldn't want to leave the impression that my analysis is based on that vote alone.
Gahan has done everything in his power to evade his duty to redraw legislative districts. He presented a plan where the city-owned municipal utility would be handed over to a non-elected sewer district. He did all of that with the support of Coffey and Price. So yes, I think Gahan would be the last choice of a progressive. He's much more concerned about the prerogatives of the council than he is in making policy in public. Jeff Gahan is no progressive.
That said, I believe my comments are about the "forest," not the trees. They are about the landscape that faces us in 2008, and I just don't think the progressive movement has a reliable majority to support their objectives. I think of it as Las Vegas oddsmaking. City Council can't be thought of as the "home" field for progressives (there's a 3 to 4.5 point disadvantage). On any given issue, five members can be counted on to vote against. Or putting it another way, it's fair to say that gaining a sympathetic ear from a majority of this council is going to be an uphill battle.
Progressives, then, are the underdogs. And we have far too many problems to wait four years. How do we go about changing those odds? Which of the anti-progress bloc can be induced to become sympathetic and how do we lay out a rationale for treating progressives as legitimate New Albanians that the other four will be the champions for?
The philosophical approaches and the ideological approaches that council members bring to the table, informed by their public comments and behavior are the grounds for my "pessimism," as you put it. The last two council members to even use the word progressive were Zurschmiede and Seabrook, the lone Republicans over the past four years.
But back to the point of "Parade of Ignorance," I think it's safe to say that the outcome of the election in November was not affected by progressives acting to support or oppose candidates. They voted, but otherwise withheld their best efforts from the campaigns.
The result is that no council member owes the progressives a thing. Accordingly, the progressives are outside looking in, hoping to cobble together a majority on every single one of their legislative objectives.
I'd sincerely like to hear why you are optimistic that this council offers a progressive vision. I would be happy to post your submission as a marquee item. In fact, if you would like to put something together, I'll post it Monday.
I wouldn't say that I am more "politically sophisticated" than you are. But I have to have hope. I disagree with your analysis. There is reason for hope because it's too soon for a write-off - even for the progressive minority. You wouldn't call a basketball game after the opening tip-off.
Jeez Louise, these people are just finding their places at the table. And with a new Administration, could they have just a teeny tiny honeymoon? There has been so much acrimony the past four years, we all need a little break.
Your observations are yours (and mine are mine) and I know you need to fill up white space. And while a measure of skepticism is healthy, I am only suggesting that we don't need to create drama and rush to judgement until the jury is in. And the progressives, of which I consider myself a member, do not constitute the entire jury for this city. We all know we will never have everybody on board on every issue, but we sure as hell do not want to turn everybody off and end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.
P.S.
I concede the last word to you, as I believe I have explained (if not over-explained) my position on this point and would like to move on.
Post a Comment