In my first post on the mayor’s race back in July, I argued that Marty Walsh represents a game-changing fusion of traditional labor might with passionate social justice progressivism and ideas-driven, pragmatic government.
Since then, in watching and being a tiny part of this campaign, I’ve come to realize that Walsh’s crossover appeal is about much more than representing a set of beliefs many of us share—it’s because he builds the bridges necessary to making this a genuine common ground. He has spent this campaign, and his entire career, turning these relationships into an inclusive and politically productive reality: walking picket lines and empowering vulnerable domestic workers; putting his career on the line to protect equal marriage rights; and taking the lead on innovative legislation around everything from food trucks to family leave.
Like everyone in his district and many people beyond it, I’ve had first-hand experience of the personal style behind this political success. Once, for example, I went as part of a church group to talk to legislators about investing in education. I was the only one from my district, and I felt a bit foolish loitering by myself outside the Ethics Committee office on the fifth floor of the State House. I had arrived without an appointment and was wearing a t-shirt amidst all the suits in that building. Marty soon arrived back from lunch by himself and, upon seeing me, didn’t ask why I was there but immediately invited me into his office. Before listening intently to my prepared pitch, he asked me all about myself and my family, got out of me what our most pressing concerns really are, and made common cause around them based on his own experience. We spent nearly half an hour talking, while his actual appointment, two men in suits, waited in the lobby. That’s the thing about Marty: he invites you in.
I’ve been struck by how consistently Walsh’s policy positions draw on this same relational dynamic. These are what I wrote about in my subsequent posts. Walsh’s proposals draw on the expertise and creativity of people active in those fields rather than on political consultants; and they account for the perspectives of all Bostonians, the powerless and the traumatized as much as the likely voters. These qualities flow from his leadership style, which is one of inclusion and consensus building, never about grandstanding. The roots of his political effectiveness run much deeper than reformist rhetoric.
The relationships that result have formed Walsh’s expanding base of support since the preliminary. I use the term “base” intentionally. Walsh, like every candidate, promises to be a mayor for all the people of Boston. But in winning the right to play that role, also like every other candidate, he will rely on a core group of longstanding supporters. Yet with Walsh, it is hard to tell the core from the periphery. In both social reach and political orientation, the roots of Walsh’s campaign stretch far beyond the labor movement and the Dorchester neighborhood from which he hails. A Walsh victory on Tuesday will not be possible without the enthusiastic support of minority leaders and progressive activists from across the city.
Every minority and female elected official in the City of Boston who has endorsed a candidate has made that candidate Marty Walsh. Also joining his campaign have been a critical majority of grassroots activists from every sphere: social justice, human rights, arts and culture. They have joined him not because he made promises, but because he called on relationships of trust long in the making. These groups and everyone they represent will have unprecedented access in a Walsh Administration—not because he owes them anything but because they have been part of his development as a person and a public official.
What you can expect from the Marty Walsh era in Boston will be an extension of this growth: not a focus on what divides us, but the continual work of relationship building, and an open invitation to join the process.
I listened to the interview Bob Oakes just had with Larry DiCara about tomorrows election. They discussed the election being one of “Old Boston” vs “New Boston” which I whole heartedly disagree with.
If one wants to classify labor or the labor candidate as “Old Boston” then thats fine (I disagree, but ok). And to classify those new to the city as “New Boston” is equally fine.
BUT…what that does is leave the poorer communities and the communities of color behind, again. They are neither, necessarily, part of the labor movement (Old Boston) nor new to the city (New Boston).
Old Boston vs New Boston…the constituencies of Felix Arroyo, John Barros, Charlotte Golar Richie, Linda Dorcena Forry, et al would beg to differ.
To bind the “might” of organized labor with the wider progressive agenda? The might of the union movement and all the allies it can scare up is needed to resist the Scott Walkers and Charlie Bakers with their union-busting plans. You don’t strengthen the opposition to the teabagging impulse by driving downtown liberals out of the coalition with overheated populism. The objective is addition, not addition earned by offsetting subtraction.
By my education and career, I probably look more like a “downtown liberal” than anything else, even though I’m raising my family in Dot. But I don’t perceive anything about Walsh as divisive, the odd “overheated” moment by his supporters notwithstanding. I think most folks perceiving this were already Connolly supporters, taken by surprise by the breadth of Marty’s coalition. One thing I can guarantee is that if Marty wins, he will reach out to former opponents like nobody has ever done before. That’s central to who he is.
“That don’t make a lick of sense”
I am glad that you can concede that Scott Walker and Charlie baker are union busters that must be stopped-why should the BTU be an exception to the unions you are willing to tolerate? “downtown” liberals if they are truly liberal shouldn’t be crossing picket lines but walking them. Walsh will put that coalition together, Connolly will serve his base of affluent parents and do little for the working people of the city. Case closed.
Your statement reminds me of the Phil Ochs song “Love me I’m a liberal”
… If “downtown liberals” want out of the coalition because unions want in… Then they are not very good at being liberal…
Where no one is hectored on the charge of having attended “elite” schools as a “son of privilege” or for being a second generation union member.
Have I seen such a mountain made out of a molehill. It was a fracking 3rd party flier, for crissakes.
For the BSG reference
What’s BSG and how did Ryan refer to it?
They often used the term “frak” in lieu of the other “f” word.
But I suspect there will many in his camp who advocate a less inclusive approach (if the conversation at BMG is any indication.) It seems to me there are at least a few Madame Defarges in the ranks of Walsh’s supporters.
Most Mayoral victors in the past have dealt rather harshly with foes. Whoever wins, I hope we can put the days of Boston politics as blood sport and zero sum behind us.
Class warfare is being waged daily by corporate and business interests against the average person. Claiming that those finally fighting back are “firing the opening salvo” is like pretending Lincoln was the aggressor in the civil war. Claiming Connolly didn’t initiate the class warfare by bashing unions is in the same category. Don’t piss on me and say its raining. Can’t fault Walsh for saying the same thing.
Are waging “class warfare” as Susan Passoni says, but were provoked? In war you need to distinguish your allies who may disagree on a few points, from your enemies. John Connolly is being portrayed as Scott Walker, and that’s inaccurate as well as bad strategy.
But portraying Walsh as Louise Day Hicks’ love child with Jimmy Hoffa ain’t a strategy either.
that Susan Passoni is one of Connolly’s campaign co-chairs?
Please explain the practical difference between Walker’s attempt to strip collective bargaining rights from union teachers and Connolly’s statements that the BPS should implement unilaterally its offer of extended school day without additional pay if it can’t reach agreement with the BTU.
To me the main difference is that “progressives” unite in opposition to Walker, but here half of them engage in apologias for thwarting collective bargaining.
about my ideological purity please at least arrange for a room with stars on the roof.
Let’s talk about anything other than your candidate and what he wants to do.
who just called Walsh supporters “Madame Defarges.”
Come on, tudor. If you’re going to dish it out, you’ve gotta be able to take it.
I don’t see the analogy between “corporate interests” waging warfare on “average people,” on the one hand, and Connolly telling the BTU that he wants certain changes made because it’s in the interests of better education (in Connolly’s view), on the other hand. It is not class warfare to negotiate with public employee unions and demand concessions as part of negotiations. It’s a necessary part of effective governance. The constant refrain on this site of attacking Connolly as anti-union is unfair and overblown. Walsh’s side has unquestionably engaged in class based negativity. Saying that Connolly started it because he raised issues that the BTU doesn’t like is hollow, revisionist history thinly veiled to deflect from what Walsh and these outside groups are doing.
that he wants extended day, and that it should have been done in the last contract by implementing the BPS’s last offer: extended day with no extended pay. The BTU has been on record for supporting extended day, but with addiitonal pay to compensate the additional time.
My wife, a high school teacher in Boston, is in the building by 7:10 on school days and rarely out of it before 5. Then she’s gotta face the commute. There’s more work to be done on most evenings and weekends. She did 12 hours of grading and preparing for an extracurricular yesterday. The idea that teachers like that, barely making enough to survive, can do even more hours for the same pay is laughable.
Grandstanding on implementing such in insulting offer despite the union’s reasonable objection is “anti-union” in my book. And don’t even get me started on Connolly’s own “outside groups,” the identity of which tell me all I need to know. If you don’t think “Stand for Children” and “Democrats for Education Reform” represent “corporate interests” working against labor, you’re willfully blind.
Of course, as you suggest, teachers usually have a lot of work to do outside of the classroom preparing lessons and grading work that is not directly related to the length of the school day and is more a function of other factors the curriculum, the number students and classes taught, etc.
I wonder if it would be possible to set up a compensation system where teaches would get a base pay plus pay for hours in the classroom and number of students taught. Would that make any sense?
I don’t see that at BMG and I think this diary is spot-on.
John Connolly on Marty Walsh:
John Connolly on Walsh endorsers (that would be Charlotte Golar Richie, John Barros, Felix Arroyo, Linda Dorcena Forry, Liz Malia, Sona Chang Diza, Arlene Issacson):
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/11/connolly_walsh_absolutely_beholden_to_political_power_structure
It’s okay if you’re for John Connolly.
also lied in an e-mail today calling the ‘outside groups’ “shadowy” and unknown…. even though we know exactly who they are… the aflcio and affiliated orgs.
nny that this Mr Positive decided to blast away to end the campaign. No words from Tudor, Kevin, et al.
kiyfjc.
I wrote “funny that” but my cell phone ate the fu. :p
seems to think the union money “sticks [sic] to high heaven,” while the DFER people are “much more benign, almost to the point of disinterest.”
This was never about positive or negative. It was never really about outside money. It was always about preferring Connolly over Marty Walsh. Some of the comments from some of these folks have been extremely revealing.
“I’m voting Connolly because Walsh will destroy the city’s bond rating to hook up his union cronies.”
“There’s gonna be a backlash because having an outside group’s stupid mailer calling someone like me ‘privileged’ is so much harder than wondering how to put food on the table.”
“I don’t care who’s actually supporting him or what he stands for, Marty Walsh is “Old Boston” because he’s got an accent and is insufficiently on board with the ‘reform’ agenda.”
I agree that we largely know who is behind the other outside groups that have been funding the campaign, but we don’t know anything about “One Boston”. Do you know something the rest of us don’t? Whoever they are, I will say that the ads they have been running have been uncontroversial, pro-Walsh pieces.
Anyway, I do think that Connolly has gone overly negative in this last week. Probably a mistake.