How to shake up local politics
We need more honesty about what would move us forward as a city, region, and state. That requires a different type of leadership that could create a real reform movement.
Seattle Chamber
Bob Simmons
In the wake of the dull election earlier this month, David Brewster suggested that our region is missing a party of reform, and I agree. Brewster says, “In politics you can't beat somebody with nobody, just as you can't elect reformers if you don't have good candidates or some kind of compelling message.” I also agree with him there, and have a suggestion for candidates. But I don’t think regional leadership needs to come from elected officials of either party.
Instead, three unelected leaders come to mind, Maud Daudon, Joni Earl, and Tom Tierney. Daudon is well known in the local financial community and Earl has led the sometimes politically and financially challenging effort to bring light rail to the region. Tierney has been a mover at the City of Seattle and Port of Seattle and now leads the Seattle Housing Authority. These leaders have had to make things happen not win elections.
Tierney impressed me when he boldly answered an angry constituent complaining about the revitalization of Yesler Terrace by saying, “this isn’t just about your concerns, but also about all the people that will need housing in the future.” Elected officials can’t speak truth to the power of an assembly of angry neighbors without risking their office, but unelected leaders can be much more bold.
A reform leader would have to be warm, personable, very smart, and articulate, and willing to be behind the scenes rather than leading the parade. Bomb throwers need not apply. And such leaders would still able to convey a lefty sense of issues and style — more Gortex than pinstripes.
A party of reform would need someone connected, likable, and maybe even hard to convince when it comes to taking big political risks. Once those risks are assumed, though, the effort would need someone who can be calming to a nervous electorate and convincing to a political and financial community risking their respective capital. The leader would have to be more CEO and banker than non-profit executive director.
Democrats have a hard time taking on labor unions and cutting government. They can do it, but they do so at their peril. Republicans, similarly, have an obsession about limiting taxation and the role of government. Both Earl and Daudon travel comfortably in Democratic and Republican worlds, with Earl leading the regions effort to shift the paradigm on transportation away from the car. Daudon, as Brewster pointed out in his profile, has a history of working in Seattle’s single party world but also with banks and the financial markets.
Both Daudon and Tierney have a history at the Port of Seattle, an 800-pound gorilla that, despite its disappointing current set of commissioners, has been a “get ‘er done” kind of agency. The Port of Seattle is a good example of the kind of heft that will be needed to move the region forward, and, as they say, break some eggs to make the omelet.
What would be the compelling message? Amend the state Constitution! I’ve said many times that our state Constitution, written in the 19th century needs a massive rewrite for the 21st. The changes I think we need aren’t so much bipartisan as they are beneficial to constituencies often at odds with each other, like business, environmentalists, and labor. Amending the State Constitution to allow gas taxes to be used for transit, changing it so that government could lend its credit, and changing our budget based property tax system to allow for Tax Increment Financing are all great examples.
Since each of these are very wonky, complicated, and hard to explain ideas and would require a statewide campaign, a reform party would have to make a gut-level case about why betting on investments like light rail and transit oriented development or using public credit to support private projects are good ideas.
There will be honest disagreement about what a reform effort might focus on. But most people would agree that wrapping old ideas in good messaging isn’t good enough. In an era of climate change, a collapsing economy, and shrinking resources, the words of conservative Margaret Thatcher ring true: “We mustn’t flinch from the realities. It’s easy for politicians to win applause by postponing the day of reckoning. That is only self indulgence and deceit.”
Is this an elitist path forward, relying on big ideas, financing, arcane policy changes, and leadership from the establishment? Maybe. But change takes longer than the gap between elections, and our current system isn’t delivering fundamental change; rather, the system rewards politicians who make promises that can’t be kept. Maybe it’s time to try something completely different.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Nov 22, 5:41 a.m. Inappropriate
Roger Valdez says we need more honesty? He should know. Here's a video of him pushing Referendum 52 (green schools!). Judge for yourself whether Roger practices what he preaches.
http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2010090081&TYPE;=V&CFID;=7908435&CFTOKEN;=53296278&bhcp;=1
Posted Tue, Nov 22, 6:45 a.m. Inappropriate
Roger and Blue Light sitting in a tree
Talking about cred-i-bil-i-ty.
--
Here in a nutshell are the two sides of Crosscut's tired old worn-out idiot coin: the clueless intellectual elitist and the willfully ignorant gomer. Now, in the next cage, ladies and gentlemen . . .
Posted Tue, Nov 22, 11:36 a.m. Inappropriate
my low cost solution to a renewal of the political discourse: open source elections. apply virtual open source development to political barnstorming at the neighborhood/community/district scale. Create a platform to level the playing field. here is a rough sketch of how i might conceive it:
-community platform: widespread access by community members; simple, reasonable criteria for participation; shared resource. so rather than create independent competing organizations and revenue streams, pool resources and create a shared platform for political and intellectual competition at district/community level. in some ways, this is just revitalizing local social political and economic networks. use digital tools.
-the platform operates on discensus rather than consensus. or as i prefer the bazaar model of organization, a term i gleaned from John Robb for my own purposes. in other words, like the farmers market anyone can display their wares within the simple and uniform rules of the market; the people browse and choose. in this way it is the people who drive the dialogue.
-the platform provides the basic structure for idea and policy development. say, a series of workshops, debates, and straw poles where candidates actively work together to develop individual campaigns and initiatives. then actively take it to the people very much in the festival, street-fair, community-hall, farmers market fashion.
the notion that we need a political elites is a failed ideology. It failed when Lenin introduced it; it is failing now. community revitalization is economic development. there is little opposition to the reality that small enterprise creates more jobs than State sponsored enterprise and market distortion. the approach to political discourse I outline has a higher ROI and lower upfront costs. it would also result in candidates of a different quality.
Posted Tue, Nov 22, 1:19 p.m. Inappropriate
Un-elected leaders? Why not emulate Italy and Greece which replaced both prime ministers without an election??? Yeah a dictatorship that's the answer to the problem of politicians listening to constituents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKidMcJFWp8
Posted Tue, Nov 22, 2:14 p.m. Inappropriate
A good start would be to elect the council by districts. Our current "at large" system creates mediocre, rubber-stamp leadership who lavish most of their attention on special interests and a few affluent neighborhoods. At least the rest of the hoods would have someone to call about the basics...potholes, sidewalks, traffic safety, etc.
Posted Tue, Nov 22, 6:20 p.m. Inappropriate
Why not just bring back Paul Schell...another "visionary" who was also tone-deaf to political reality and who conducted himself as if he was somehow "above" the umpleasant world of retail politics. None of the people mentioned in this article are going to be nominated for or elected Mayor in 2013...I'm guessing most voters are ready for someone who actually has some experience in politics (e.g. Burgess, Conlin, or Murray)...let's take a break from well-intentioned amateurs.
Posted Tue, Nov 22, 10:09 p.m. Inappropriate
And how does that address the issue of mediocre, rubber-stamp leadership lavishing most of their attention on special interests? How do different monkeys, even those with political experience, make a difference if you have the same organ grinders?
Current events would suggest that masters of the unpleasant world of retail politics are ruining the chili and a lot of people think it's time to try something completely different.
Posted Wed, Nov 23, 1:02 p.m. Inappropriate
A good start would be to elect the council by districts. Our current "at large" system creates mediocre, rubber-stamp leadership who lavish most of their attention on special interests and a few affluent neighborhoods. At least the rest of the hoods would have someone to call about the basics...potholes, sidewalks, traffic safety, etc.
— jmrolls
All by district; 5 by district and 4 at large; 7 by district, eliminate 2; 7 by district and a city manager. . .
Anything other than actual structural change is window dressing.
Posted Wed, Nov 23, 1:33 p.m. Inappropriate
Don't stop...what would be a recommendation for the structural changes assuming the force applied to the object by special interests is constant?
Posted Wed, Nov 23, 2 p.m. Inappropriate
The official motto for the Age of Denial is: "Too little, too late." Coming soon to a theater near you. Flip the dial and you can see the scenario being played out this week on the Euro zone stage -- Greek tragedy for the modern taste.
Folks will get serious about reform just about one day before the Bastille is stormed, at which point modest social adjustments that might have had merit ten years earlier will fall grievously short of the mark.
Posted Wed, Nov 23, 2:20 p.m. Inappropriate
City of Seattle leadership structure:
1. How useful would Councilmembers elected by district be to you?
2. Compared to actual democracy, is our service quality better, worse, or about the same?
3. Compared to actual democracy, how effective is our service?
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2C8X8HB
Posted Wed, Nov 23, 2:42 p.m. Inappropriate
Fwiw, I would break up the band thusly:
North region divided in 2, east and west
http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/nsc/northregion.htm
Central region divided in 3, east (would include Lake Union), west, downtown
South region divided in 2, east, and west (West Seattle and Delridge)
7
Eliminate 2, hire a city manager.
Eliminate 1 total position, hire an actual manager.
You could break it up into 9 and I think at least two council members would either have to move or run against another incumbent. As far as I can figure, none of them live within walking distance of my walkable neighborhood of the future.
Posted Wed, Nov 23, 2:53 p.m. Inappropriate
So, all by district.
Thanks.
Posted Wed, Nov 23, 3:07 p.m. Inappropriate
I jumped the gun. They all look feasible to me.
Thanks again.
Posted Sat, Nov 26, 11:31 a.m. Inappropriate
I'm interested in knowing who Woofer is, so Woofer if you would kindly shoot me an email, I'd like to interview you about public education as I have a Crosscut comment of yours from awhile back that indicates to me that you are knowledgeable about this issue. Thanks. katemartin@comcast.net
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.