Mouseland: Another Case for Ben Jealous

Tommy Douglas, as the Premier of Saskatchewan, helped bring into being "the continent's first single-payer, universal health program."

One of his grandkids, a fellow by the name of Kiefer Sutherland, hosted a short video that brought to life one of Mr. Douglas' best-known speeches that featured a fable known as "Mouseland." 

I hope I am not too on-the-nose here, but I hope my readers will recognize Governor Hogan's rather feline qualities...in the context of this parable.  Below is a link to the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqpFm7zAK90

In solidarity.



 

Calvin Ball for County Executive

Thank goodness that I don’t have to pen 600 words on the Great Campaign Sign Placement Scourge of 2018.

Today, I want to focus on why I support Calvin Ball for County Executive.

First, a few words on the incumbent, Allan Kittleman.

For those expecting a sound thrashing of Mr. Kittleman, you will not find that here.  It is difficult to summon up much in the way of indignation (righteous or otherwise) when you are talking about the Nickelback of county executives.  This author believes we have seen his best and it’s mediocre. 

For example, I (like Kittleman) support the growth of a vibrant Downtown, but I don’t believe (unlike Kittleman) that tax increment financing is a proper mechanism for doing so.  TIFs are supposed to be used for blighted areas and I have yet to find blight in and around the Mall (near Nordstrom, perhaps?).  So in this case, the TIF as proposed by the County Executive seemed like a developer giveaway.  Ball and the County Council worked to improve the legislation to help ensure that the public would realize more benefits.

I too want a safe Ellicott City and I concur that we need to expedite the process whereby a genuine solution is implemented.  But the flood mitigation proposal supported by Mr. Kittleman and Councilmember Jon Weinstein seems like an expensive ($50 million) rush to adopt a plan that won’t resolve the core issue of high, life-threatening floodwaters pouring down Main Street.  I believe Dr. Ball is more committed to finding a real solution, not a plan that appears to offer only a false sense of security.     

The common thread in both of these cases seems to be a lack of transparency, where despite the protestations of Mr. Kittleman to the contrary, only a select few have a "seat at the table.”

Dr. Ball has demonstrated a collaborative working style that is more likely to ensure a thoughtful, public debate of the issues that Howard County will face in the years ahead. Combining that with Ball’s views on immigration and on promoting housing diversity, he offers a vision of a more inclusive Howard County.

Since I moved to Columbia several years ago, I have seen both Mr. Kittleman and Dr. Ball out in the community and heard their words regarding County priorities.  I believe Dr. Ball is more likely to be committed to adopting public policies that are animated by a sense of fairness and “the common good.”  This applies to finding equitable solutions to school overcrowding, development, and investing in our people through strong community services while making our County a better place for small business owners to operate.

It would be too easy for some to shrug and say, “they are both neoliberals” or “they will both advocate for public policies with which I will disagree from time-to-time.”  The reality is that, in my opinion, one is more likely to lead while adopting an open, consensus-seeking governance style while the other, having had the opportunity to do so for four years, chose a comparatively opaque approach.  Behind closed doors, it is difficult…if not impossible… to determine if people were truly put above politics. I believe a Ball Administration will be more transparent than the current one.  People will know exactly where Ball stands, and Ball will reach out to the people, all of the people, to hear their voices.

This is why I support Calvin Ball for County Executive.

   

Developing News - District One

I was at the coffee shop, wearing my Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez t-shirt (Made in the USA!) when a gent across the table asked me, “Are you from New York?”

Remembering my apparel choice, I looked up and replied, “Oh, no…I’m just a supporter of her campaign.”

He paused for moment.  “Well,” he began, “I am not a fan of her politics…”

I quickly scanned my environment for something I could weaponize, for defensive purposes, just in case this chat went south in a hurry.  The coffee was definitely not scalding. Not an option.  My laptop mouse was wireless so I couldn’t use it as a garrote.  My halberd was in the car.  Guess it’s Krav Maga time…fascist blood, clean-up in aisle 3.

Wait, this coffee shop doesn’t have aisles. None of them do!    

But he continued, “but I do like how she raises money from small donors.  There is too much special interest money in politics.”

I nodded.  The likelihood of fisticuffs breaking out seemed somewhat lower.  “Yes, there is,” I responded, “and she definitely stands against the greater concentration of wealth in our society, so her campaign is ‘people-powered.’  It has to be.”

Although we probably had different definitions of "special interests," he indicated assent with my statement.  But we both recognized that was the only common ground we would find on that topic.  I went back to my emails and he to his reading.

This exchange, which happened three weeks ago, drifted back into my mind today.  You see, I read about the $5,000 check that Raj Kathuria’s campaign received from a donor employed by Greenwood Hospitality, a company which “is engaged in the acquisition, repositioning, and management of full-service and select-service hotels.”  Interesting.  That single donation, which was received on 5/20/18, accounted for 58% of the Schedule 1 contributions that the Kathuria campaign received in that filing period (Pre-Primary 2 Gubernatorial, May 16, 2018 – June 10, 2018).  It looks like the same donor (same name & address, but showing an occupation of “retired”) gave Kathuria’s campaign a total of $700 in three separate donations in an earlier campaign finance reporting period (as listed on the 1/10/2018 Annual Report).  

This donor and Mr. Kathuria are the two resident agents named on the Articles of Incorporation for a Limited Liability Company whose stated purpose is to be a “Real Estate Holding Company.”   And according to a letter that has been posted online, this company is seemingly looking to develop a plot of land right here in Howard County.

Now, many Republicans and Democrats have taken developer money to help fund their campaigns. That doesn’t necessarily make them stooges to those interests. Such donations, legal and properly reported, don’t in and of themselves present a prima facie case of corruption.

My position is apparently nuanced insofar as I don’t believe that all developers are evil, nor is all development bad. That said, if I were a candidate for County Council, I wouldn’t accept their contributions (note: I can’t imagine they would be that interested in cutting checks to such a campaign).  And I wouldn't be trying to develop parcels while running for the Council.

My point is this:  some voters care very deeply about this issue, and this includes Republican, Democratic, Unaffiliated, and other party voters.  So if you live in County Council District One, and you want a candidate who doesn’t accept developer money, only one Council candidate fits that description: Liz Walsh.

Something to keep in mind as we approach Early Voting season…

In solidarity.

Communications Watch: Burt Macklin and the BoE Race

Of course, I am referring to Danny Mackey.  But for some reason, whenever I hear his name, I have to shift off the default setting of envisioning Andy Dwyer sporting an FBI jacket and Special Agent shades.

By all accounts, he (Mackey) is running a relatively serious campaign for the Board of Education.  It is important to note, from the outset, that I am not voting for him. 

His campaign is worth writing about insofar as it offers a communications case study in doubling-down on what is perceived to be a core attribute.  In this circumstance – his youth.

That is a risky strategy for three main reasons: 

1)    It is inward-looking.  I know he is capable of discussing broader systemic issues that actual voters are actually concerned about. But I think too often his policy-focused narrative can be muffled by banging on about his youth.  Average voters, especially for down-ballot races, usually focus on (at most) one or two characteristics and/or policy stances for each candidate.  This can also occur with top-of-the-ticket campaigns.  In 1997, if you knew that Jim Gilmore was running for Governor of Virginia, you probably were aware that he favored “no car taxes.”  If you were particularly attentive, you might have known that he also had a proposal to hire more teachers.  And that, for many VA voters that cycle, was about it.  You don’t get many chances to make an impression, and you want your most prominent messaging to be compelling & memorable.  If one were to develop a word cloud featuring the words and phrases voters most often associate with Mackey, “youth” would certainly be up there…and I don’t know how many voters are going to cast their ballots based on that attribute alone.        

2)    Mackey’s narrative, in some ways, draws him perilously close to the positioning occupied by the Student Board Member.  Some voters might not be swayed by a candidate who is conveying the idea that he can best connect with students and their needs given that he, himself, was fairly recently a student of the same school system.  Isn’t the Student Board Member ideally situated to be such an advocate? Some voters might think a student advocacy-centric sounding narrative might be too limited in scope for a non-Student Board Member, given the range of issues facing public schools.

3)    It invites the specter of having to explain away the “inexperience” argument.  In the unfair-but-this-is-the-world-in-which-we-live-category, by talking about his relative youth, some voters will wonder (sometimes aloud, sometimes not), is he ready for the responsibility of holding such an office? Does he have the life experience to prepare him adequately for the role?  Given the importance of our public schools within our community, voters may have reservations about young candidates, no matter how knowledgeable they may be.  Granted, we have had “elder statespersons” on the Board who have been solid, mediocrities, and abysmal failures.  That said, his lack of gray may be an obstacle for some voters…particularly with a midterm electorate, which tends to skew somewhat older compared to presidential election cycles.

   

There is little doubt that Mackey sees this messaging as a primary point of differentiation from the other candidates.  And he has tried to make it more resonant/relatable by talking about “approachable leadership.”  For what it’s worth, I don’t believe that his youth inherently makes him more “approachable” than other Board members/candidates. 

And I do wonder what some students would think about his political affiliation.  Yes, some folks would probably deem it a plus, but others would not.  If it was widely known, would that impact his “approachability” among some?  Perhaps.  His pics alongside Hogan and Kittleman may lead some to question his education priorities.

Bottom line:  I think Mackey’s messaging obscures his advocacy background. This is one of the primary reasons why I don’t see him finishing in the Final Four in 2018. 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.