Page Two
Deconstructing the endorsement process, and more thoughts on the power of protest and principled dissent.
By Louis Black, Fri., April 18, 2003

Endorsements are decided on in a number of ways, though consensus is always the mandate. Sometimes we don't even do interviews; candidates, after all, are running on their record and statements. If it is a two- or three-person race with very strong candidates, we may do separate interviews with each. Usually, we prefer to talk to a manageable group of candidates. This time, for example, City Council Place 5, with seven candidates, was divided into two sessions.
More often than not, individually we go into the endorsement process with some assumptions, both positive and negative. The interview itself is important but not the sole deciding factor. By now most candidates are familiar with the Chronicle and slant their answers to satisfy us. Talking to four or so candidates for an hour reveals only so much. Community record, previous activities, other community leaders' feedback, and many other factors are considered. Sometimes our choice is quickly agreed upon; often there are long discussions including many digressions (talking about the strengths of a candidate whom we know we are not going to endorse or the weaknesses of one we are).
Many years ago we were wowed by our interview with a candidate we did not know. This person had family connections with the progressive community. At least one of the members of the editorial board had strong differences with the incumbent. We endorsed the challenger, who was elected. Some time later, we realized our mistake and offered a retraction -- a politically meaningless but symbolic gesture. It was the last time we indulged in an endorsement based solely on an interview.
One of the best interviews we ever had was when Eric Mitchell ran for re-election to the council. We had often disagreed with Mitchell's votes and public comments. The endorsement meeting was confrontational and aggressive, but Mitchell was blunt, clear-spoken, and didn't care at all whether we agreed with him. Given his track record, it was unlikely we were going to endorse him, but the interview sure gave us second thoughts. Then he clearly misrepresented some of our discussion, reminding us of our problems with him.
This year was relatively easy. Both Raul Alvarez and Danny Thomas have turned in strong council performances. In the mayor's race, we leaned toward Will Wynn but were interested in what the other candidates had to say. They were more vague than specific, and each had a mantra they repeated, such as "running the city like a business." Wynn gave difficult, sometimes unpopular answers to questions but had the most realistic and specific ideas as to what kinds of change the city would undergo over the next years.
Place 5 proved the most difficult. There were seven candidates; we liked them all and found four strong possibilities. We were disappointed by the way some had responded and surprised by others, challenging some pre-interview conceptions. We had several long discussions and made a number of phone calls to different civic leaders. Margot Clarke emerged as a clear choice; we liked her answers, convictions, and track record.
Robert Singleton said one of the reasons he was running was that often candidates he agreed with changed when they got on the council. They change, however, not by being corrupted, but because wielding power is a lot different than criticizing those who do. An elected official's constituency is the community -- not just like-minded activists -- and the reality of the law, budget, and city's structure become crucial factors. The worst politicians are those who place ideology over compromise, cooperation, and practicality -- for an illustration, look to the Texas Legislature.
As would the liberated Iraqis, exercise your rights. Vote.
Fundamentalists such as the 9/11 terrorists are not protesting this country's foreign policies. They hate the present and fear the future in favor of some idealized past. The enemy is our core values, freedom and equality -- freedom of religion, speech, media, thought, and political participation; equality of all regardless of sex, sexual preference, family, or economic class. The terrorists struck this country, a symbol of the threatening, ill-defined future, in favor of a religiously centered past -- politics, society, commerce, and life cleanly defined by religion and administered by clergy strictly adhering to sacred texts.
This perception is probably right. Barring a major historical disruption, militaristic catastrophe, or political perversion, the world-over social evolution is toward freedom and liberty. This is neither steady, tidy, easy, coherent, obvious, nor swift. It is not without setbacks and violent reactions. The preferred human condition, however, is clearly in favor of personal rights and power.
Ironically, outside of deity-specific characteristics and prescriptions, the American far right does not disagree with the undesirable vileness of this brave new world. Both offer the same solution of aggressively deconstructing the present and resurrecting the (imagined) past, where everything was more morally centered and less socially corrupt. Let's not be even so politically limited: 9/11 was also a protest against modern consumer culture, and in this country -- on the left, on the right, in the middle -- people agree. Hollywood movies, television programming, fast food, trendy clothing, rap music, commercial advertising, and so on are as troubling to much of our society as they are to the world's community. Which abates neither their pervasive growth nor impact.
The consequence of any action in history is rarely obvious. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't even over; it is ridiculous to suggest that any conclusions have been reached. Lest the above sound like an argument in their favor, it isn't. It is just to suggest that history may be on freedom's side, even if we have no idea how it works.
Accepting the most benign and loving explanation of the invasion doesn't point to a direct road to a democratic, stable Middle East or 21st-century world. Some obvious questions remain. Do any good deeds go unpunished? In a democratic Middle East, won't the most powerful political force be conservative and fundamentalist? Wouldn't looking at our own country offer proof that those who privilege the past are politically potent? What was the impact of the reports of people marching in the streets of America to protest their government's actions -- not resorting to masks, guns, or bombs and not arrested, assassinated, beaten, or imprisoned -- when broadcast throughout Iraq and to totalitarian governments around the world? If the war really is and was intended as a liberation, than did not the largely peaceful protests serve as an inspiration to liberty, rather than encouraging our enemies? In societies where people are scared to criticize the government to a neighbor, spouse, or child, would not this image promote rather than attack our ideals? At home, is there not a great threat to core American values from those who claim patriotism demands obedience and agreement rather than free thought and vigorous principled disagreement? Just a bunch of questions, but when name-calling is replacing debate, they do seem painfully relevant.