First, I am trying out this speech-to-text dictation software. Please bear with me.
Note: for the full, completed questionnaires, please visit Scott E's Blog here: District 12 Completed Questionnaires
This essay will focus on House District 12
Challengers, not the incumbents who are seeking re-election to the House. There are a couple of mentions of Dr.
Clarence Lam in this post, who is running for the open District 12 State Senate
seat. And Dr. Terri Hill and Eric Ebersole make cameo
appearances, but I will focus on their questionnaires in a separate post…along
with Lam. Mary Kay Sigaty, running
against Lam in the State Senate primary, informed me that “time did not allow
her to participate with my questionnaire.”
I will post the completed questionnaires soon. For right now, the questions the candidates
received can be found at the end of this post.
Before I get too far along, I would like to thank the
three Democratic non-incumbent candidates that took the time to respond to my
questionnaire. In no particular order,
they were Mark Weaver, Jessica Feldmark, and James Howard. But first a few brief words on the other HD
12 candidates…
I have visited the campaign websites of Jonathan “Jon”
Bratt and Malcolm Heflin. While they
both possess interesting qualifications for local office, I do not know either
of them personally. Heflin, at least on
social media, appears to be running a more active campaign than Bratt. I didn’t
hear back from either candidate regarding the questionnaire. Therefore, I am ruling out both of them for
any endorsement consideration.
Dario Broccolino, also unresponsive. Furthermore, he is also supporting Rich
Gibson’s Republican opponent in the State’s Attorney race…which won’t help him
with Democratic primary voters. Pass.
So, assuming votes for both Terri Hill and Eric Ebersole,
that leaves (at most) three options for the third position.
Mr. Weaver’s responses were concise. I think the
progressive instincts are there, at least they were expressed clearly in some
instances. By adding examples and/or
offering solutions on all of the questions, as he did for the Concentration of
Wealth, Gender Equality and LGBTQIA questions, that would have given readers a
better sense of his worldview.
Weaver was vague on the Social Democracy question (in
fairness, some of the other candidates opted to re-frame this query as a social
justice question whereas a logical starting point for a response should tie
into economic matters). Clarence Lam,
Terri Hill, and James Howard addressed the fundamental economic issue, at least
briefly.
Some of Weaver’s responses could have pivoted to
policy solutions, the Class War reply could have been a bit more detailed. The Liberty & Equality and Class War
responses felt a bit reductive.
In short, while Mr. Weaver appears to be at least a
legitimate state legislative candidate, I haven’t seen enough that would
convince me that he is more deserving of my vote compared to the other two
challengers who sent in their completed questions: Feldmark and Howard.
Turning to those two, let us compare and contrast their responses:
Concentration of Wealth (Question 1) and Class Warfare
(Question 5):
First, Mrs. Feldmark combined the Concentration of
Wealth and Class Warfare questions into one mega-question. She argues that the increased concentration
of wealth is “corrosive to our democracy.” She points the finger at “strategy
policy decisions” and (briefly) offers a general path forward, recognizing the
challenges involved with “the role of money in our current political process”
when it comes to bringing about progressive change. Overall, I thought hers was a solid response
but another sentence of supporting detail, on the solutions side, would have
made it a stellar reply.
Dr. Howard offered up a more nuanced approach, stating
that this increased concentration of wealth is “evidence of corrosion to our
democracy” and “corrosive to our society.”
Dr. Howard’s response implies that the corrosion to our democracy has
another cause, with the increased concentration of wealth being a symptom. His was a thoughtful reply but I would have
liked another sentence on the underlying cause (and a little more on how it can
corrode “society” as distinct from our “democracy”) before shifting into the
proposed treatment(s). Further, he flat
out rejected the premise to the Class Warfare question. I disagree with his
perspective on this case. From this
author’s point-of-view, there has been class warfare in this country, it began
before we became an independent nation, the rich and powerful seldom lose, and
they take deliberate and concrete steps to keep it going as it works in their
interests.
Social Democracy (Question 2):
Feldmark: pivoted to discuss “the government’s role
and responsibility to promote social justice.”
Not 100% on point with the intention of the question, but fair enough.
Howard: Noted that the “Nordic countries…can be a
model.” An “A” response, even allowing for the wiggle room in his reply.
Although he did identify himself as a “Third Way Democrat” in an era where the
Clinton and Blair legacies in this regard are being viewed more critically, and
where more traditional left policies and figures (such as Corbyn and Sanders)
are enjoying a resurgence in support.
Racial Discrimination (Question 3):
Both delivered thoughtful replies. I thought Feldmark’s use of the House Bill
512 example was timely and helped ground her argument a bit more solidly
whereas Howard went a bit more Big Picture re: discussing threats to “Civil
Rights-era laws” due to those pushing “political decisions.”
Equality and Liberty (Question 4):
Ideally, I would have liked to have seen someone
articulate a point of view where the promotion of equality, skillfully
implemented, increases effective liberty.
For example, a single-payer health care system that helps prevent
families from enduring intense economic hardships due to exorbitant medical
bills gives such families more control over their destiny, more freedom to pursue
other life and career paths without the fear of crushing debt forcing them to
remain stuck working long hours in the hopes of, perhaps one day, paying off
said bills. Former Deputy Labour Party leader
Roy Hattersley wrote about this (occasional) false dichotomy in his book,
“Choose Freedom.” But yes, there are
times when the equality and liberty principles come into conflict, which
requires sound decision-making…and sometimes a need to strike a “proper balance
between the two” as Lam wrote.
Feldmark’s response, basing “equality” on “equity” and
offering up a mention of “balancing” “negative and positive liberties” was
slightly more meatier in terms of a theoretical framework than Howard’s,
although his response that “it is a core governmental role to ensure everyone
has an equal opportunity to advance and equal protection when they fall” is a
very good speech line.
Gender Equality (Question 6):
Flipping the roles from Question 3, Howard offers up a
compelling and specific present-day example (child marriage) while Feldmark
speaks in broader terms about how “reproductive freedom is not enough without
access to reproductive healthcare.” This
is, as she observes, a tie-in to the effective liberty point raised in the
Equality and Liberty question.
LGBTQIA Concerns/Safeguards (Question 7):
Howard’s answer on “access to resources” and
“enforcement” was more concrete than Feldmark’s stated willingness to “continue
the fight” and “stand up as allies.” Both are important viewpoints, personally,
I found the “policy”-centric response to be a little weightier than the
“values”-focused reply.
So what does this all mean? From a decidedly progressive point of view –
I believe that Feldmark “won” questions 3, 4, and 5. I think Howard “won” questions 2, 6, and
7. Question 1 – as they approach it in
different ways, is darn close to a draw.
In short, we have two excellent candidates in Feldmark
and Howard. Either would make a great
Delegate. Am I endorsing anyone today? Well
that’s a good question.
Hold on.
Hello? Is someone
at the door?
I don’t know, sounds like moaning.
Hello?!
Wait…it can’t be…
Slats???
1) Do you consider the increased
concentration of economic wealth in the United States to be corrosive to our
democracy? If yes, how should this issue be addressed? If not, why not?
2) What are your thoughts on social
democracy?
3) Racial discrimination continues to plague our
nation. This is evident in our workforce (hiring practices, income
disparities, opportunities for advancement, etc…), in the administration of our
criminal justice system, in systemic efforts to disenfranchise voters based on
race, in the relative dearth of substantive environmental protections for
communities where people of color constitute a large percentage of the
population, and in other facets of American life. What steps can and
should be taken to address these issues?
4) Thinking
about the principles of liberty and equality, and this can apply to any given
challenge (fiscal, social, etc…), how can they both be promoted to ensure that
the “unalienable rights” of all Americans are protected?
5) Let’s
assume that something called “class warfare” exists. If so, who has been
winning? For how long? And in whose interest is it to continue the war?
6) Considering
the UN’s sustainable development goals which refer to gender equality as a
“fundamental human right,” how is America performing when it comes to promoting
gender equality and what specific steps can and should be taken to secure true
gender equality in the United States?
7) Many
LGBTQIA Americans have expressed concerns that the current Administration (and
those who view the world similarly) are dedicated to rolling back recent legal
protections fought for, and recognized, in this country. What steps can
and should be taken to safeguard the rights of LGBTQIA citizens to participate
fully in the “pursuit of happiness” stated in our Declaration of Independence?
Stay tuned, as more will
follow(?)
