Michelle Wu has been taking some heat for her decision to support Bill Linehan to lead the Boston City Council. Linehan is not a favorite in progressive circles, but that’s exactly why I think Michelle made the right decision. Now, Wu, one of Boston’s most promising progressive leaders has made herself an indispensable part of the next council president’s team and positioned herself to be a clear voice for our values.
As much as it pains me to say it, progressives don’t rule the world. In fact, there are many people in Boston who do not consider themselves progressives. It’s true, you can look it up. Sometimes we have to work with other people.
The wrangling for votes for city council president largely happens behind closed doors. It’s hard to know what happened for sure, but it’s unlikely that Wu’s vote was the deciding one. There are thirteen councilors, but since Charles Yancey usually votes for himself there are only 12 votes in play. According to press reports, there were two candidates vying for support from the more progressive, younger wing of the council with Linehan claiming sole ownership of the bloc of old guard councilors. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where Wu’s vote would have been useless to the two young councilors and incredibly valuable to Linehan.
Aside from the political calculation, Michelle has shown that she’s going to do exactly what she said she would during her campaign. In many ways, Boston is a divided city and the only way to overcome divisiveness is through inclusion. Instead of fighting to isolate and take power away from those with whom she disagrees, Michelle has chosen to work with the other side, hoping they can learn a little from her and she can learn a little from them. I think that’s admirable and speaks to a quality that is sometimes lacking in politicians.
So, my fellow progressives, let’s give Michelle Wu some slack here. Bill Linehan’s not going to undo marriage equality while Mayor Walsh is away for the weekend.
I remember a time, not so long ago, when Michelle Wu and many of the #standwithwu folks were working hard to help Elizabeth Warren knock off Scott Brown. If I remember correctly (and I do), Scotto’s claim that it was better to have him in the Senate working with Mitch & the boys to craft less shitty legislation was a way better strategy than maintaining control of the Senate with Elizabeth Warren being just another boring old Democratic vote.
Yeah, Scotto was dumb. And we all laughed at how dumb he was. Because come on- in what world are we better off electing someone who promises to make sure the shitty legislation his side wants to pass might, just might, maybe, hopefully, sorta, could be a little less shitty? Especially when the alternative is electing someone we know shares our principles, values and priorities and will be able to, ya know, get the shit done we want done.
So the idea that Michelle Wu is some bridge-builder is ridiculous. Michelle Wu had a choice- there was a clear, defined and well understood group of five- O’Malley, Jackson, Pressley, Zakim & Baker. Those five were operating essentially as one voting block. That was a well-known fact. Inside and outside of the building. O’Malley & Jackson both wanted to be President (
AND ISN’T IT WEIRD HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT TO BE PRESIDENT WHEN IT’S A PURELY PROCEDURAL POSITION?
But I digress- The sides were clearly defined. Michelle made a choice to support Linehan.
For progressives, the idea that Wu with Linehan as President is a better deal than Wu with O’Malley/Jackson as President is an asinine notion. And any progressive attempting to pass it off as such should be ashamed.
Bill Linehan, not Michelle Wu, will be sitting in the big chair. He will decide on committee chairmanships. He will determine which hearings and ordinances live and die. He will decide how vigorously to challenge the new mayor on policies and programming.
The people defending Michelle’s decision are doing so out of a personal loyalty, and I can’t fault that. But there is no question that progressives- and Michelle- would have been better served if she had aligned with the other group.
Because if you’re gonna call bullshit on Scott Brown and his bipartisanship, you need to do the same here.
Obviously the city is not comprised solely of progressives. But all the more reason to put in place a solid progressive like Matt O’Malley for president when the opportunity is there. Guys like Bill Linehan already have enough influence as it is in this city. As a self-described progressive, Wu had the chance to promote her agenda with a president friendly to it. Instead, she has chosen to put in place a president hostile to many of her ideals. And the reason is what exactly? It’s still not clear. That Bill Linehan understands the “structure” of the Council better? Matt O’Malley is the current chair of the Government Operations committee so at minimum he understands city government and the council as much as Linehan. O’Malley also has a strong progressive record but has worked many times with his more conservative colleagues – he just got 90% or so of the vote in West Roxbury, a more conservative neighborhood, so he’s clearly a bridge builder. You can rationalize this to no end or try to explain it, but in the end it’s a completely unnecessary move compounded by an explanation that does not square with the current reality. It’s very strange.
I agree with Kevin and support Michelle’s vote. It’s not clear that O’Malley was the other choice and I think he is fantastic and should be Council president, mayor, governor…however he wants to serve us. Michelle cast a consensus vote and worked together with her colleagues to elect a president for this term. When the council is effective it’s when members work together to highlight issues that need fixing. If she had decided not to work with her colleagues and immediately drew arbitrary lines with fellow members who all share similar views, I’d be concerned.
The other choice was indeed Matt O’Malley (still is since the vote is in January). The Globe has reported this and other outlets have as well. Wu is Linehan’s 7th vote. Without her, he is unable to get the majority as it stands, unless someone else then flips to Linehan I suppose. Even if O’Malley couldn’t get to 7 (after McCarthy flipped on him), she could prevent Linehan from getting 7. Then the Council could probably end up with a compromise candidate suitable to all sides. Instead she has sided with the most conservative councilor. The only explanation I can see is she wanted someone like Linehan who is not going anywhere versus the popular O’Malley who just got the most votes ever for a district councilor, because she sees him as more a threat to her for a future position perhaps.
In my opinion, Michelle’s letter to supporters this afternoon is actually quite well crafted, trying to show her taking the high road as bridge builder, as many of her remaining supporters have pointed out.
The problem is that the disagreements and criticisms of Linehan aren’t really nuances of policy that can be hashed out over lunch at Amrhein’s on W. Broadway. The problem with Bill Linehan is that he’s a practicing bigot. You can’t debate the nuance of bigotry with people and come to some kind of “grand bargain” compromise between the two wings of the Council. Great, maybe she’ll soften his vehement anti-bike position. What about his track record of homophobia, misogyny, and racism? Whats the compromise there?
[To be fair, evidence provided of my criticism of Councilor Linehan: http://bit.ly/18EepXN | http://bit.ly/1hNGwsT | http://b.globe.com/19DnVrt ]
As much as it pains me to say it, progressives don’t rule the world. In fact, there are many people in Boston who do not consider themselves progressives. It’s true, you can look it up. Sometimes we have to work with other people.
Thank you Kevinf
it seems to me basically beside the point. As I said in my promotion comment, I am all for finding common cause when possible, but I don’t think that’s the same as voting for a worse candidate for president over a better one. Maybe that’s not what Michelle did – maybe she really thinks Linehan is the better candidate. If so, I’d like a more convincing explanation than the one on her Facebook page, which is pretty standard issue pol-speak.
I intended a thumb up not down.
David,
While I don’t agree with everything Sue O’Connell says in this post, it provides possible explanation of what Michelle and her supporters of this decision are thinking. From mysouthend.com:
Wu belongs to no one
by Sue O’Connell
Contributor
Wednesday Dec 11, 2013
COMMENTS (0)
A practical progressive makes her first move
It breaks my heart that I’m not a fan City Councillor Bill Linehan, (D2). By all accounts he is an affable, likeable man and he has an intricate knowledge of how things work in the City of Boston. It’s a knowledge earned, not from books but on the ground. Linehan has served the city in many capacities for many years. Linehan, however, rarely displays qualities of leadership (still marches in South Boston’s discriminatory St. Pat’s Parade) or an understanding of the changing face of Boston (he tried to bump Sen. Linda Dorcena Forry from the St. Patrick’s Day Brunch)-so I’m not a fan. But if I wanted to know how something in City Hall worked, he would be my go to person.
Newly elected City Councillor Michelle Wu, (At Large) of the South End, announced this week that she is supporting Linehan for Council President. Wu won with the support and passion of the legions of “New Boston” voters. To say her supporters are apoplectic about her support of Linehan might be an understatement.
The campaign for City Council President is a game of master chess. I have been, on many occasions, mystified by how the alliances form and how the winner gets elected. But make no mistake, it’s an important position. Keeping the Council on track and functioning is imperative.
Word is that Council Tito Jackson (D7) was lobbying for support to be Council President. And it was expected that Wu would support Jackson-he is a qualified candidate. But she didn’t. Instead of supporting an ideaology or being partisan, Wu seems to be acting in a practical way. Linehan, with his intimate smarts on how this city works, could be just what the council needs-especially with the election of Mayor-elect Marty Walsh, the first new mayor in twenty-years. Linehan’s lack of leadership, ironically, may also allow more dialogue among councillors.
Wu presented herself as a no-nonsense, get-it-done candidate with progressive values. Nothing about her support of Linehan changes that. And, perhaps, just perhaps, her support will change him.
Below is Councillor-elect Wu’s facebook post on the issue
{can be found on Wu’s FB page}
Linehan’s marching in the St. Patrick’s Day parade is an endorsement of discrimination. Sue has been one of Linehan’s harshest critics, so I am at a loss to explain the above-written excuses.
compromise when you have to, win when you can. This decision appears to fail in both regards.
Progressives never claimed to rule the world or to rule Boston. We were led to believe by Wu herself that she was a progressive champion. We canvassed and phone banked and rallied for her. When your first act is capitulation, it’s fair to ask who you are really.
There are definitely strategies for getting those who disagree with you change their positions. But if your strategy is to increase their power and prestige, imagining that is a path to their hearts, then you will surely be disappointed.
In fact it’s such a foolish strategy, that someone as smart as Michelle, and someone as smart as Kevin, would have to know just how ridiculous it is. Which is why it’s a good line, but not in any way credible.
First, I’d love more information on Linnehan’s actual voting record. So far from what I can tell the biggest knock against him is that he still marches in some stupid parade which has a long tradition in Southie, but has become a pariah in recent years because they haven’t caught up with the times on inclusion, yet the courts have said they have the right to decide what they do in that regard. I would prefer this debate be about something more substantive than that. Matt O’Malley is a friend of mine so I would love to see him get the gavel, but the treatment I’ve seen of Wu does strike me as a bit Tea Party-ish in the purity department.
And I support it because we are finally emulating their better tactics such as making our representatives explain their votes, vote the way we expect them to, and stop betraying their base. If we had a left pressure point that exerted as much influence as they did do you think we would’ve caved on the public option? On the stimulus? On regulating Wall Street? On gun control? Groundhog Day for progressives should finally be over and I am sick of our leaders getting scared of their own shadow.
The only credible explanation is that O’Malley didn’t have the votes he thought he had, in which case Linehan is the inevitable one and time to throw support early his way to not antagonize. Or something else entirely-but David is correct that Wu could better explain her reasoning. I invite her and her supporters to do so here.
It’s not just about the parade. (Though, as we’ve gone over, the legal right to march in a discriminatory parade does not make doing so morally acceptable). David Bernstein posited earlier this year that Linehan raised the St. Patrick’s Day breakfast issue with the specific goal of boosting turnout among Southie’s xenophobes.
What’s at stake here, as people point out above, is the entire policy agenda. It’s who chairs every committee, what gets to the floor, and much more. Anyone who’s complained about Bob DeLeo should see the importance of that (yes, I get that the City Council has less power than the House). We’re also talking about elevating to the No. 2 spot in Boston a guy who was seen as politcally “alone” just a month ago. I’d like to know what kind of deal she’s getting.
And “Tea-Party-ish in the purity department” is when you have a policy goal for a bill, and you get 85% of it without giving anything up, you vow to primary those in your own who vote for the bill as sellouts. This is nothing like that. People really have to learn the distinction between standing up for core principles when it really counts and the “Tea-Party.” In my opinion, our desire not to be like them leads us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I don’t live in Boston, but as I read your post, Wu broke a logjam to support Linehan instead of aligning with the progressives, who she (in theory) supports.
How exactly does this benefit anyone except Wu? The notion that this gives her a voice with Linehan is arguable, I suppose, but it seems to me her willingness to calculate her vote — her first vote? — rather than forward her conviction sends a much more powerful message of capitulation. Not compromise, capitulation. Was there even a progressive discussion about unifying behind a candidate?
In poker, I once read, you have to establish yourself as a force early on. Maybe that’s the logic? Wu established unpredictability, and ambition.
But this is not poker, it’s politics, which involves coalition building, This is too clever by half. At best.