Sunday, September 19, 2010

Whose City Is It Anyway?

Last week DC ousted its controversial young mayor for an older one. Pundits point to a racial divide, but in my humle opinion, race only offers a superficial explanation of what happened. What really happened was that people decided they wanted a mayor and not a temperamental CEO.

This is not to say that for some voters, this election was a reclamation of sorts. There are a lot of people who hate the changes this city has undergone over the past 12 years. They look at how the complexion of the residents have changed and as such, there has been a shift in policy priorities that benefit those newcomers. Ground Zero of those changes are on display on the "Historic" U Street corridor, in the heart of what was once known as Black Broadway. These days, U Street is easily the most integrated section of the city.

But this piece is not about the things that divide the city, but about how the hotshot young mayor lost to the older guy. Adrian Fenty rode into office on a wave of good press that touted a new era of black leadership that would transform the racial terrain of politics. Because of his interracial pedigree and landslide victory in every ward of the city, he became the poster child of post-racialism...his victory essentially foretold the coming of Barack Obama.

In his run for office, Fenty assembled a coalition that united the interests of residents from all quadrants of the city. He knocked on doors and spoke to people. His person to person style contrasted with that of the establishment candidate who came across as jaded and out of touch. And she lost big. However once in office, Fenty the uniter became Fenty the divider. He engaged in petty disputes with his former colleagues on the City Council. He hired outsiders to head city agencies to clean house and to shake things up. Not that people objected to change, but the mayor and his surrogates had a bad habit of trashing the folks that were fired in the press (yes, I'm talking about you Michelle Rhee). He was oblivious that his choice to skip certain ceremonial stuff that mayors are supposed to attend in favor of competing in triathalons or taking family vacations irked people.

In other words, Fenty was an insensitive jerk.

For a large number of the residents who bothered to vote, Fenty being a jerk was fine as long as the trash was collected and the wait time at the DMV had been minimized. For the other group that despised him, I'm sure Fenty took comfort in the old political adage that if a lot of the people hate you, then you are probably on the right track. Insensitivity is a forgivable character flaw, but when it is coupled with arrogance, it can be fatal.

For example, when the Metro train crash killed nine people a year ago, the Mayor was criticized for missing some of the memorial services. Instead of apologizing, the mayor tersely suggested that he could not be everywhere--and this is from the man who knocked on every door in the city asking for votes. For those voters who insist that empathy from elected officials is overrated, imagine how it would have felt had one of those victims been one of their loved ones.

Another issue that determined how I would vote was the trail of former Fenty supporters. I found it odd that a lot of people who once backed the mayor had nothing positive to say about him and ultimately switched sides. Some would argue that the price of success is the shedding of dead weight, but these were not typical disgruntled ex-associates. Councilmembers whose campaign literature just two years ago prominently featured community photos of them cutting ribbons with the smiling mayor were publicly sparring with him over his autocratic management style. Others stayed conspicuously silent...perhaps keeping to that other adage that if you don't have anything nice to say, then say nothing.

So when Fenty supporters want to blame racial politics as usual, they are simply adding icing to an old cake. Conspiratorial minded folks always see racial animous lurking in the shadows of change. But this is not about "The Plan" or other misperceptions. This was about the real concern that the mayor's preference for competing in triathalons over greeting voters at church was symbolic of which constituent concerns got priority.

The other interesting development in the aftermath of this contest is the petulance of Fenty backers, some of whom are vowing to move to other jurisdictions in a I'll-take-my-stuff-and-go-bak-to-the-suburbs manner. Strange. All this time we thought your decision to live in the city was motivated by altruism for a brighter future. If progress is best measured by how well things work for the haves, then maybe the discontent of the others was spot on--that all of these social improvements came at their expense.

Is that what 'change' really means?

No comments: