September 8, 2006
What He Says, What He Does
Last night the Social Action and Membership Committee at CBE, along with co-sponsorship from Park Slope Jewish Center, Union Temple, Brooklyn Heights Synagogue, Old First Reformed Church, and Park Slope United Methodist Church, hosted a candidates forum for the 11th Congressional District seat being vacated by incumbent Major Owens.
Candidates include, in alphabetical order, State Senator Carl Andrews, City Councilwoman Yvette Clark, Chris Owens (the congressman's son) and City Councilman David Yassky.
I had the impression that the race would be won be either Yassky or Owens, each of whom seemed to be aware that a dynamic had emerged in which they were the favorites. And as was clear by the huge turnout--easily more than 300 people--this is a critical race in the broader context of the country going through a deep period of political self-examination. Every seat counts at such times in history and that was apparent last night.
So I want to reflect on one sliver of history: Park Slope in the early 21st century. Because I thought the differences between Chris Owens and David Yassky were perfectly illustrative of this small place in time we call home.
And I'd sum it up by saying that Chris Owens had the red-meat lines like "If you can't stand up to Bruce Ratner, how are you going to stand up to George Bush!" (big applause from the congressionally disenfranchised) and David Yassky gave me the overwhelming impression of someone who will simply get things done.
This dynamic emerged quickly in the debate and for any student of political journalism out there, there's a story in how this is, to some degree, the dilemma the Democratic Party faces. In going over my notes from the debate, I found it fascinating that Owens' rhetoric matched perfectly with the kind of doctrine that one trips over walking down the street in Park Slope--blanket opposition to the war in Iraq, blanket opposition to the Atlantic Yards Development, and blanket opposition to George Bush. Each legitimate positions in their own right, but as stated last night by a candidate who wants to serve in Congress, each without any real action plan or past experience to demonstrate an ability to do something about--except deliver speeches.
Now, delivering classic speeches from the left side of the aisle on Capitol Hill may serve a purpose--it could be a rhetorical strategy employed by the Democrats to shore up the left in general across the country. Okay, I get that.
But what I found disturbing, just beneath the surface, was the denigration of fighting for compromise, which IS the art of politics, in Owens' critique of Yassky. Two things revealed that.
One, as distinct from the red-meat line about not standing up to Bush if you can't stand up to Ratner, Yassky calmly explained how he fought developers as a city councilman and wrought huge concessions on the Brooklyn Waterfront Development as well as introducing hybrid taxis to the city's fleet (I know, I'm a nerd).
In other words (and here he was supported by Clark and Andrews) you do negotiate in politics, you do compromise in politics, and Yassky knows how to do it, has done it, and will continue to do it. It's not red-meat rhetoric, which, given the scorched earth politics of the last 6 years, Democrats are hungry for--but is it good for your health?
Two, on the issue of whether or not the candidates supported impeaching President Bush, I found Yassky's answer to be the most compelling. Again, playing to the crowd, the three other candidates each said immediately they'd support impeachment. The crowd, oddly, was mildly excited. One would have expected more rabid anti-Bush fervor.
But Yassky's answer was practical and courageous. Sure, it's tempting to want to do it. But after years of being locked out of Congress and with a chance to take over the House, do we want to use our time and agenda to impeach the President or do we want to put forth positive ideas and a real vision for health care, jobs, taxes, national security, education. You get the point. It was a unique answer.
The practical trumped the rhetorical, which isn't always the case in Park Slope.
So in this sliver of history, an internal community dynamic emerges among those who call themselves Democrats which very well may be at the core of many races across the country as people go to the primary polls next week and general election polls in November.
Is it the fiery rhetoric of progressive politics or simply getting it done?
Walking home I thought: how many sermons have I delivered in my career, laden with values and inspiration, but not delivered on the actions they strive for?
What's the measure of a man: what he says or what he does?
So close to Rosh Hashanah, I know how to answer it for myself as a religious person. It's interesting to apply it to politics as well.
-- Andy Bachman
Posted by lumi at September 8, 2006 6:32 AM