I’m dropping out of the twitter echo chamber on the Michelle Wu discussion. It’s hard to express yourself in 140 characters without resorting to insults and enough of that. I plead guilty to helping to crowd out other important policy discussions in our fair city.
The first confession – as a member of Ward 15 Democratic Commitee, I voted to endorse Michelle Wu, but I didn’t vote for her, deciding instead to throw my support to four other candidates I have worked with personally and professionally and trust to make informed decisions on the social, racial and economic justice issues I care about. You might be surprised.
The second confession is that as a long time lobbyists for the poor, the elderly and the disabled communities I have always counseled my clients that they must learn how to work with elected and appointed policy makers they don’t like personally, or who don’t share their personal values, or who have voted the wrong way on a number of issues they care very much about, or who are rude and unwilling to meet with advocates or special interest groups they don’t agree with. That means Governors and Secretaries and persons in the bowels of the bureaucracy. That means Legislative Leadership and newly elected legislators and their staff. Come to think of it, especially their staff. No buts….
Why? Because the key to persuading every elected or appointed policy maker is creating a “Hero Opportunity” for them to champion issues that will make a positive difference in the lives of a critical mass of their constituents….and get credit for it.
Why? Elected and appointed officials want to get credit for winning positive change that makes a positive difference in the lives of their constituents so their constituents will know they are effective at winning in the policy arena and they will vote for them or they will get reappointed and their boss will get reelected.
Why do we want anybody we don’t like to get credit for championing a change that s/he should be doing anyway cause it’s right thing to do and why do we want to help her/him get re elected? Because we need to build a majority of support in the entire political arena to win the policy change we want. Our representative democracy demands power sharing among the three branches of governments at all levels and within each branch.
Here are the four questions to answer when designing a winning plan and make it happen.
What do you want? (What policy or program to change and how to change it.)
Why do you want it? (Research documenting how your solution will produce positive change)
Who has the power to give it to you? (Identify elected and appointed decision makers in the administrative, judicial and legislative branches of Government who have jurisdiction over your proposed solution. Power is shared via comprises and coalitions at every level of government and inside every branch as well, and both elected and appointed officials fight for it within each branch. The majority usually wins in the legislative branch, most times in the administrative branch. In the judicial branch the constitution always wins.)
How do you get access to and influence those decision makers to give you what you want? (There are lots of choices —from traditional contract lobbying to grassroots mobilization to direct action. Respectful disagreements actually build mutual trust. Insults from and to single issue purists build mutual disdain.)
In a comment on another post, I reported I was advising my clients,
Organize your Boston members to sit right down with Councilor Elect Wu and share with her your specific issues and recommended solutions and ask her to be your champion with her colleagues to be.
It’s perfectly ok to tell her you are disappointed in her support of Counselor Linehan for President but you hope she will be able to facilitate a meeting with him and some folks from his district to ask for his support on your issue. It would be wise to avoid character assassination of her or Counselor Linehan. Disappointment is tough enough.
Of course they should have the same constituent meetings and take the same requests to other Councilors: the sooner better than later.
I was not surprised that many of my clients, who are actually very accomplished advocates, all of whom had met and been charmed by Michelle Wu, were very disappointed in Michelle’s decision to support Councilor Linehan for City Council President. These folks had never met or had a positive encounter with Linehan and only knew what had heard or read in the paper about the St Patrick Day March kerfluffle and the fact that he beat the progressive Suzanne Lee who they had met.
I was a little surprised to hear from many others who had met Wu and heard or read the same things about Linehan, but had had a positive encounter with Councilor Linehan about worker issues or elderly services or public transportation for instance. These folks thought Councilor Linehan was pretty smart to recruit Wu for his 7th vote and they hoped she “gets something out of it, and, a nanosecond later, “maybe we should make sure it’s us!” So I think they will take advantage of Michelle Wu’s promise to listen to her constituents concerns about her commitment to Linehan and talk to her about their issues before the city as well.
Now I don’t know if Michelle Wu will switch her vote or not, but I doubt it. I think meeting with her about your issue and expressing disagreements in a respectful way is a win win strategy for advocates who need to build a majoritarian constituency for their issues in the Boston City Council. And it’s good for a whole City Council.. And come to think about it, for the Mayor elect as well.
I honestly think that folks who are organizing now to make Counselor–Elect Wu’s life “so much worse” that she will be forced to switch her vote or they will never vote for her again are good people who care a lot about building a better Boston. We not-so- simply but very strongly don’t agree on tactics.
Judy,
I whole-heartedly agree that working with people with whom you may have personal issues, or political concerns based on their opinions of other issues is a critical part of advocacy for your issue. I also agree that some of the Wu back and forth is annoyingly personal, and obviously people committed to her life being “so much worse” are not actually focused where they should be focused.
But, on the other hand, a President Linehan will make it harder to make change on a number of important issues than a President O’Malley or Jackson. And I think that is why you are seeing such a breadth of opposition to Councillor-elect Wu’s position. Much of the backlash has not been about making Wu’s life “so much worse”. It’s been about opposing a vision for Boston that includes Bill Linehan as CC president.
As you make clear, twitter is a terrible forum for nuance, but I am hearing and seeing lots of other responses to Wu that go something to the effect of, “I like you, I voted for you based on your compelling message of an inclusive Boston and I’m disappointed in your decision.” That strikes me as totally appropriate and frankly an important part of civic engagement. I’m glad people are speaking up.
I don’t want this public discussion to get annoyingly binary, where one side hates Wu personally and they want to make her life worse by making a mountain out of a mole hill and the other side is reasonable and strategic. That isn’t actually true.
Is it possible that the campaign to encourage her to change her vote could make her politically uncomfortable? Sure. This is an overwhelmingly unpopular decision, and I am sure that it is uncomfortable to have many of your supporters upset with your decision.
Councillor-elect Wu has decided to own the consequences of her decision, and should have no legitimate concern that people and groups that disagree with her are letting other residents of the City of Boston, or – in the case of organizations like Mass NOW – letting their memberships know about the decision.
This is an important discussion, and as a resident of Boston, the CC president matters to me. I have reached out to a number of folks on the council (FWIW…) to express my opinion of this issue because that is what an engaged citizen does.
I appreciate your effort to bring this back to the issues – they are what matters, but I don’t want us to lose sight of the fact that this is an issues-based decision with potentially far-reaching consequences.
… I just assumption. Your assumption. Bill Linehan as CC president might be unmitigated disaster or it might be revelatory and redemptive. The point is, neither you nor I know which way, for certain, the choice will go. Michelle Wu has had the advantage over me of having met Linehan and, if she’s anything like the politician she’s made out to be, has already sized him up. If she is a representative then her vote, whether you like it or no, is your representation.
Then why don’t you let those consequences play out, before passing judgement?
As a long time lurker – I didn’t expect a downrate to sting so much! but I’ll get over it.
First: You’re right – I don’t know exactly what Bill Linehan would do if he becomes president, and I’d go so far as state that I strongly believe that Linehan, with Wu in his coalition, will be better than Linehan without Wu in his coalition.
I can, however, conjecture, based on his stated positions and accomplishments, vs. those of O’Malley or Jackson, that his power to assign committee chairs, assign bills to committees and more of the soft power of ‘setting the tone’, I would prefer an O’Malley or Jackson presidency. Because their values are more in line with mine.
I’m kind of confounded by your argument of, “let this play out”. What I think those opposed to Wu’s choice of Linehan are doing is saying, “we are upset with your choice, we think you should change your mind.” This is the same thing I’ve done (and encouraged others to do) on any number of issues.
I really hope I’m wrong about Linehan, electeds deserve our respect and I hope daily for their success, but… I’d frankly rather that Wu supports someone who had more of a track record of sharing my values.
RE: own the consequences of her decision. I wish I had some control over the consequences of her decision and I was the one deciding what was playing out or not, I don’t have that power. The consequences are that people across the city are upset, and they are letting her know.
You stepped in on a contentious issue and you’re up 4-1. You’re doing better than some of us.
Just a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to go to a progressive event where Governor Patrick gave a speech. Far from just cheerleading or thanking the crowd, he challenged them.
Organizing doesn’t stop when the elections end, he said. People need to get better at challenging even those they’ve most closely supported, if an important issue is at stake.
He said that knowing that he was asking people to make even his life a little more difficult from time to time — to challenge him to do better.
Expressing disappointment is powerful and needed. But it’s important for people to remind politicians that they often have time to change their minds — and that changing their minds due to concerns expressed by constituents and supporters is not an act of weakness, but rather demonstrating an ability to listen.
Counselor elect Wu’s staff is reaching out to many groups who met with her during the campaign, including a couple of my clients. The staff person is very specific about wanting to learn more about a couple of their proposals so they can help. And of course the Counselor Elect is happy to discuss her reasons for supporting Counselor Linehan for City Council President.
While I assume you agree with me that they should take advantage of this offer to talk about their issue currently before City Council I wonder if you could suggest a script for them to express something more than their “disappointment” with her decision about supporting Linehan.
And I wonder if you would suggest a script for their answer when she says thank you for being so candid with me. Let’s plan to meet again soon, maybe every several months or so and after a year of working with me on your issue let’s talk again about my effectiveness and abilities to serve you as at large city counselor. ( I did not just made that up, but I have heard it a hundred times and never been able to muster up a satisfactory answer.)
The “something more” is to talk about their issue, and to express, beyond “disappointment,” the concern that Friendly voiced above: “a President Linehan will make it harder to make change on a number of important issues than a President O’Malley or Jackson.”
“And thank you for being willing to hear us out. Like we said, we have concerns about Councillor Linehan as president, and we would be remiss in our responsibilities to our constituents and to you if we didn’t share them with you.
“We’re looking forward to working with you on [ISSUE] and we’re confident you will be effective as a city councillor.”
Still looking for variations of a script to offer folks preparing for the meeting to advocate for their issue and express their feelings/opinion/disappointment/anger (and all the variations in between) with her early commitment to vote for Linehan and make her accountable to champion their issue at the same time.
I keep telling them that she has publicly committed to listen to everybody and try to make them understand why she made this decision, and her staff is the one who called them to ask them to come in about their issue but they are nervous about managing two contradictory messages. So am I.
Ironically I’m afraid all the folks who are the most worried about the prospects of a Linehan Council Presidency are the ones most unwilling to speak up.
I will not be in the meeting– learned the hard way that policy makers like to say “Judy will tell you how hard it is to win something like this” right after I’ve spent hours coaching them that our ask is doable.
It’s nothing more or less than a place for people to have a voice, and, sometimes, effect change. No replacement for in person advocacy. But also can be more powerful than many realize. To dismiss outcry because it’s happening on twitter seems to miss a big point. Politicians, particularly local ones and ones with claims to being in tune w/ the grassroots, can productively use Twitter as a place to solicit and get feedback from citizens. But it’s not easily disciplined by message machinists, and you’ll get pile-ons and insults mixed in with true/valuable feedback. Just as you would with emails and phone calls. Or blogs.
Just ask twitter how it can be influential!: