L to R, Charlotte Golar Richie, Felix Arroyo, Marty Walsh, and John Barros
I don’t live in the city of Boston, but if I did, I’d vote for Marty Walsh on November 5. (This endorsement is only for myself; my esteemed co-editors Charley and Bob have not yet stated their views on this race.)
As with the Fifth Congressional District, there is a very strong field. In this race, two excellent candidates are running. Both are solid progressives on most social issues; both have advanced thoughtful plans on education, housing, and other big issues to move the city forward. And neither candidate is perfect. Walsh’s bill on binding arbitration seems like a bad idea, from what I’ve read of it, and Connolly seems overly solicitous of the education “reform” movement, even as some prominent former boosters of that movement have turned dramatically against it. Also, as I said some time ago, I wish Walsh had handled the question of outside money in the race differently. And, you know, I taught high school for two years before I went to law school, but if I ran for office, it wouldn’t occur to me to portray myself as primarily “a teacher.”
In this unusual case, though, my decision is based largely on endorsements. Boston is a wonderful, exciting, in some respects thriving city. But the “two Bostons” problem that some candidates (especially in the preliminary election) have talked about is a real one. While some parts of the city are doing fabulously well, others are plagued with violence, and are falling further and further behind in other respects. To me, keeping the good stuff that’s happening while not forgetting about everyone else is the city’s biggest challenge going forward.
I’m less worried about the first half of that challenge than I am about the second. The good stuff that’s happening – the development, the new businesses, the emphasis on innovation – that stuff will continue. The forces pushing it are powerful, and they will be listened to by any administration. But the second half is a more difficult proposition. Who is the best candidate on that score?
It’s hard for me to answer that question because, as I said, I don’t live in the city (though I spend a fair amount of time in it), and it strikes me as a question best answered by those who are closest to it. So I am looking to the people who have made it their life’s work to advocate for the parts of the city – especially communities of color – that are at risk of getting left behind. And those people, in large part, are backing Marty Walsh. (Unlike some observers, I’m not interested in second-guessing what’s motivating the endorsements.)
So, in short, here’s how I see the race: Charlotte Golar Richie, John Barros, Felix Arroyo, Linda Dorcena Forry, Sonia Chang-Diaz, Tito Jackson, Oiste, Chinese Progressive Political Association, and other groups representing communities of color, as well as the House Progressive Caucus (Walsh’s current colleagues, it must be said), all want Walsh to win. The Globe and Herald editorial boards want him to lose.
That’s good enough for me.
Unlike the Globies, who today discovered they have grave doubts about the whole concept of endorsements.
Worth mentioning that many of these endorsers also have an influential second layer of activists, leading strong field organizations all tuned up from the preliminary and other recent elections.
that they will refrain from their inevitable editorial endorsing Connolly for his “vision” on “Boston’s troubled public schools.”
It goes without saying that the impact of endorsements is unclear.
Thanks, David.
Endorsements often don’t matter much to me. Most races are partisan, I have a clear position, and it’s usually straightforward identifying who is closer to me.
But with a non-partisan primary like Boston’s, it can be different, particularly, as here, when there are two excellent candidates which most people would consider close on most issues.
Like you, I’m struck by the imbalance towards Walsh among people I would normally monitor around endorsements. (One outstanding player yet to endorse, Ayanna Pressley, certainly has powerfully competing pressures around the race!) I’m pretty disgusted by the Globe’s (and others’) leitmotif that Walsh is a modern-day Curley. I agree that Walsh’s position on the arbitration legislation is worrisome, but he actually spoke up first and skeptically about the proposed police settlement, where incumbent city councilor Connolly baubled at first, claiming implausibly he needed more information. At least Walsh is honest about the legislation. I’m troubled that Connolly is not candid about who he was, who he is now, and economic interests his work as a lawyer advances. I find him a bit too slick, too prone to gushing in modern bromides about unleashing entrepreneurship and how much can be accomplished by rearranging bureaucratic boxes. Connolly appears to be the darling of much of the business community, but the business boys (and girls) will surely figure out how to ride the waves. And, besides, the fundamental forces affecting investment in Boston are not very much under the city’s control anyhow. I’m concerned about more ordinary Bostonians, and believe Walsh understands better their lives and their hopes. He also seems like a man who can grow. He was, by several accounts, not a very attractive young man. But I still admire his bravery–at a time when the consensus around it was not quite so firm as it is today–as an advocate of marriage equality.
We are lucky to have two such fine candidates in the final. I’ve leaned towards the one, then the other. But I’ve decided now for Walsh. It is a hard decision. Most of my friends–like me, Chablis-sipping, brie-munching liberal Democrats from Beacon Hill and Back Bay–will be supporting Connolly, as did many in the primary. (I supported Walczak.) But the recent bolt of Menino’s money people towards Connolly has given me pause. I think we need a clean break from the whole Menino apparatus. It won’t be easy after twenty years. But I believe we’ll have a better shot at it with Walsh.
Thanks for the endorsement. I come from a blue collar background and am an occasional brie muncher and I like where you are coming from. I think Walsh is better equipped to serve as a bridge between labor, minorities, LGBTQ, as well as the business community, due to the diversity of his experiences and the strength of his vision for the city. Connolly is from the upper crust and will serve that community first. That strategy has failed under Rahm in Chicago and it will fail Boston. Better to bring people together and break bread at the table. Walsh will do that.
Capuano just endorsed Walsh. Lynch is going to as well. That grouping is kind of how I feel about Walsh – he has the progressives I love but also some old school people I don’t. I guess I don’t know which one he is more alike, I’m hoping the former.
From Capuano on FB:
is that he’s been with a guy like Lynch on the things where I think Lynch is good (workers’ issues) but not with him on the things where I think Lynch is not so good (social issues).