Mario Cuomo, the late, great governor of New York, once famously observed that “You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose.” More recently, our own retiring Congressman Dwight Evans — whose seat is currently being vied for — has advertised himself as belonging to (an ever-dwindling?) “governing wing of the Democratic Party.”
Listen to the audio edition here:
Given the state of current local political discourse, both perspectives would require revision today, because hardly anyone seems to care about governing anymore. Nationally, we crossed this Rubicon long ago. Politics has become a cynical game of grandstanding, of playing to the base — the common good be damned. Now local politics, once the last bastion of pragmatism, seems to be swinging in that direction, too.
I first started ruminating on this new type of trickle-down last fall, when State Senator Malcolm Kenyatta trekked on foot from Philly to Harrisburg to protest proposed SEPTA cuts. He chronicled the stunt on social media the entire way, culminating in a press event outside the statehouse — also known as the very building where he works. He was playing pundit, in other words, essentially protesting himself.
Kenyatta is a likeable fellow with a compelling personal story, but his act for the digital audience drew me to inspect his actual legislative record, which largely consists of speaking to the already converted; bills co-sponsored include the Protection of Minors From Conversion Therapy Act; the Let Us Pray in Peace Act (protecting houses of worship from ICE), and the Protect Pennsylvania’s Academic Freedom Act (prohibiting colleges or universities that take state money from entering into compacts with the Trump administration).
There’s nothing inherently wrong with Kenyatta’s priorities. But what’s striking is the absence of any serious effort to persuade those who might not start out already sharing his values. It’s another example of the rise of echo-chamber politics — even as polls show that independents are the nation’s fastest growing voting bloc and that a plurality of Democrats “hold middle-of-the-road views across many of the most contentious issues in national politics, including immigration, crime, transgender policy, and DEI,“ according to the conservative think tank the Manhattan Institute.
Welcome to the age of pander politics, where performative gestures matter more than delivering real results for a cross-section of constituents. Who needs to problem-solve when you can rack up likes on social media and hits on local TV news by scoring cheap political points?
Consider the examples of late. There’s our aforementioned congressional race — where you’d be forgiven for concluding that the office being sought sits somewhere in Gaza; City Council’s embarrassing spectacle before the Philadelphia School Board over its facilities plan, and Council’s anti-ICE legislation. In all three cases, leaders like Cuomo and Evans — who sought consensus and treated others with respect — would barely recognize the conduct of today’s officeholders, who seem to become more like Trump even as they deride him daily.
Gaza comes to Philly
Let’s start with the desultory congressional race. Progressive State Representative Chris Rabb, whose performative legislative record makes Kenyatta’s seem downright centrist, has been endorsed by The Inquirer even as he has injected accusations into the campaign against Dr. Ala Stanford, insinuating she is beholden to Israeli lobby money — flirting with old blood libels of Jewish influence.
Let’s keep this real: Chris Rabb and others who have labeled Stanford “AIPAC Ala” don’t really think she would be disloyal to American interests if elected. (The connection is tenuous, by the way; AIPAC, the Israeli lobby, has supported the pro-science Super PAC that is funding Stanford TV commercials, though it has also funded candidates who run against the very same Super PAC, as in Illinois’ 9th Congressional District race.)
Really? We’re to believe that a physician candidate backed by a pro-physician PAC — and supported by Evans and former Mayor Michael Nutter — is not so secretly an agent of Israel? Beyond its cynicism, that’s classic Trump-style politics: question motives instead of debating ideas.
Welcome to the age of pander politics, where performative gestures matter more than delivering real results for a cross-section of constituents.
The real question for Rabb, Stanford and State Senator Sharif Street (a Muslim who hasn’t himself followed Rabb’s divisive lead) ought to be: What solutions do you have for what ails the city, and what in your record suggests you can get them passed? On that front, the campaign has been notably devoid of new ideas. Get ready for progressive heads to explode: If the central challenge facing Democrats is to win back White and Black working class voters, most of the ideas these last few years designed to do that have come from the other side.
Yes, he’s odious and a threat to democracy, but give the orange devil his due: Trump has brilliantly appropriated policies that were once the province of Democrats. His Trump Accounts, (essentially highjacking the baby bonds policy long pushed by Senator Cory Booker); his no taxes on tips; his dollar-for-dollar school choice tax credit; his TrumpRx prescription drug discount website; his recent executive order broadening access to retirement savings for workers — taken together, even if incompetently implemented, they say to what was once the Democratic base: I’m with you. Moreover, they represent new and innovative ideas. Have you heard anything new from our congressional candidates?
Instead, we’ve gotten superficial debate over use of the word “genocide,” familiar talking points about redistribution, and broad agreement that ICE needs to be abolished. (As if the agency, rather than a lawless administration, is the problem.) The closest thing to a genuinely interesting proposal came when Stanford casually mused about limiting the power of ward leaders. That would represent actual political reform — but reform has gone out of fashion now that divisive national politics has cascaded downward into local life.
Council declares war … on the School Board
Once upon a time, elected officials proposed solutions to problems, and you — the voter — said yea or nay to such ideas at the ballot box. How quaint. Recently, we witnessed the new paradigm, when members of City Council publicly berated and threatened the volunteer members of the School Board over its vote to shutter 17 schools. The fulminating Council members, playing to the TV news cameras and social media virality, did so without offering an alternative plan of their own.
Particularly disappointing was the virulence of Councilmember Isaiah Thomas, usually a voice of reason. Security had to stand between him and the Board members while he and his colleagues kept interrupting the public meeting. “After you vote for this, we’re calling for your resignation,” Thomas yelled. “Vote for it, and it’s your last vote.”
When Thomas intervened again, Board Chair Reginald Streater had it exactly right: “You’re setting a great example for our children.”
A City Hall insider reports that Council President Kenyatta Johnson is considering heeding Thomas’ call to sue the Board, while the Councilman floats turning the appointed Board into an elected one. Thomas’ conduct is objectionable not just because it models incivility, but because it perpetuates the perception of politics as permanent combat. Fighting for the sake of fighting has become the norm. What’s missing is the harder work of governance: bringing opposing factions together, finding common ground, rallying diverse interests around a plan, and then managing the tedious, painstaking work of implementation.
This is no defense of Superintendent Watlington or the School Board — I’ve already outlined the superintendent’s political shortcomings. But what’s remarkable about the public fight over the Board’s vote is how shortsighted the conversation is.
The real question for Rabb, Stanford and Street ought to be: What solutions do you have for what ails the city, and what in your record suggests you can get them passed?
Shouldn’t we be widening the aperture of our lens beyond this school closing or that school closing, as painful as those may be, to ask a larger question: How do we educate a generation of kids for a dramatically changing workforce? If Mississippi can figure that out, why can’t Philadelphia? There, education reform has become known as the Mississippi Marathon — not, as commonly referred to, the Mississippi Miracle.
That’s because they’ve learned that, going from last to nearly first in the nation in literacy and math over the last decade had nothing to do with magic. Even more than pedagogy, that turnaround stemmed from sustained leadership, high standards, classroom discipline and teacher coaching. Rather than work on a plan along those lines here, we’ve got City Councilmembers berating School Board members who get paid not a single penny.
Is Thomas, who has tussled with the mayor, frustrated because, as one insider notes, “he’s been sidelined by Cherelle”? Maybe, but that’s no excuse for the spectacle we witnessed. The School Board voted for a plan. If you oppose it, skip the public petulance and come up with a better one.
The ICE follies
Last month, led by progressives Kendra Brooks and Rue Landau, Council adopted some of the nation’s most aggressive local restrictions on ICE. The legislation doubles down on Philly as a sanctuary city; among other provisions, it bans law enforcement agents from wearing masks and prohibits ICE from using city property for immigration enforcement. In the wake of ICE’s heinous acts in Minnesota and elsewhere, there were loud cheers; “This legislation shows that Philadelphians are not afraid to stand up to the Trump administration,” Brooks said.
There are two problems with that argument: One political, one legal. The political? Council’s action may not deter ICE so much as invite escalation. While other big city mayors have poked the federal bear and prompted the type of marauding surges seen in Chicago and Minnesota, Mayor Parker has been smartly strategic not to react to Trump as Trump would. She’s called us a “welcoming” as opposed to a “sanctuary” city.
She has, in her circumspection, governed. A pragmatist, she understands that taking on ICE might just endanger the very population progressives are trying to protect. Still, yesterday she caved and signed the legislation into law. Meanwhile, her initial instinct has already been borne out; just this week, Republican firebrand Rep. Jim Jordan’s House Judiciary Committee, no doubt aware of Council’s provocations, sent letters to DA Larry Krasner, Sheriff Rochelle Bilal and Police Commissioner Kevin Bethel “demanding information on their offices’ sanctuary policies that prioritize criminal and illegal aliens over American citizens and threaten public safety,” as per the committee press release.
Who needs to problem-solve when you can rack up likes on social media and hits on local TV news by scoring cheap political points?
The legal problem is even simpler. City Council likely lacks the authority it claims. Sure, Landau has said Council’s law department approved the legislation. But the Constitution of the United States kind of disagrees; Article 1, Section 8 in particular, which grants to Congress authority over immigration. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that immigration is a federal responsibility. So: No city ordinance need apply. What, moreover, are the chances that this Supreme Court will overturn all those precedents?
Landau, Brooks and their allied activist groups got their headline and feel-good moment. But it was just another example of pyrrhic politics — symbolic victory masquerading as governance.
Of course, the performative pander isn’t unique to politics. Remember when Bryce Harper showed up on opening day wearing a garish jacket featuring the colors and logos of every Philly team? Sports has its panderers, too. It’s just that when Harper does it, it’s charming. Because we hire him to entertain us, not to solve our problems.
MORE ON CITY GOVERNMENT