Representing

I am an elected Democratic Party official for both my local ward committee (the fightin' 27th!), and on the Pennsylvania state committee for the Philadelphia portion of the 8th senatorial district (but not for the portion that extends into Delaware County--cryptic party rules around here). I have lived in both my local ward and the 8th senatorial district for the vast majority of my adult life, and I absolutely love it. In fact, one day, when I have enough money saved up, I would like to buy a home so I can spend the rest of my life here. My desire to put down roots was one of the reasons I started running for local party office--I want to be engaged with my neighborhood.

Still, no matter how long I have been here, and no matter how long I want to stay, anyone familiar with the Philadelphia portion of the 8th senatorial district would know immediately that I am not exactly "representative" of the area. A quick perusal of the district demographics shows that it is over 65% African-American, is about 20% white, about 12% of residents speak a language other than English at home, and it has a median household income of only $24,000 a year. As much as I love it here, sometimes I wonder "why on Earth am I an elected representative for this district?" I represent it at state committee meetings, but I don't, as people often say when discussing diversity, "look like the district." At all.

I won my seat through a write-in campaign last year after realizing that no one else was even on the ballot for the slot. I only received about 200 votes, and virtually all of those were in five divisions (precincts) near my home. It is not as though I won through some sort of overwhelming popular mandate. Even had I been on the ballot, and as such received maybe twenty thousand votes, it is not as though most of the people in the district would have even known me. Even though it is one of the most Democratic areas in the entire country, with Democrats typically receiving about 90-92% of the vote in general elections, you won't find a more low-information election than campaigns for Pennsylvania Democratic committee in the Philadelphia portion of the 8th senatorial district. As demonstrated from the empty slots on the ballot, this is a race no one cares about, no one spends money on, and virtually no one campaigns for in any way, shape or form. To be absolutely truthful, the fact that this is a low information election is why I am in office.

Here is another bit of honesty. When I am at state committee meetings, or engaged in work related to the state committee, I actually feel like I am representing the progressive netroots (or, at least, the progressive reform movement in Philadelphia) rather than the Philadelphia portion of the 8th senatorial district. This probably isn't a good thing. I think my blog posts on MyDD generated about four votes for my campaign: the rest were achieved simply by canvassing friends and neighbors. It also probably does not help the residents of my district, since low-income, urban minorities are underrepresented in virtually major institution in the United States. However, I arrived at political maturity, if I may call it such, through the progressive netroots. It is a political scene with which I am intimately familiar, and which I am often asked to represent. It is my political logos, and it forms the dominant portion of the perspective I bring to almost any political table.

I bring this all up because it was swirling around in my head both during recent discussions on diversity and the blogosphere here on MyDD, and during the recent discussions that have arisen about race and the Philadelphia mayoral election (see here, here, and here for some background info on the recent events in Philly). Sometimes, I feel as though when the former subject comes up, people talk to me and give me advice as though I am some sort of alien from another planet who needs to understand that something called "race" is a factor in earthling politics and culture. I don't mean that in the sense that I am an expert on the subject (I most definitely am not) simply because of where I live and where I am an elected party official. Rather, I mean it in the sense that I feel often times when this subject is discussed among progressives, a few well-worn, abstract axioms and terms are thrown around that get a lot more complicated when moving from theory to application.

For example, had I not run for, and won, my write-in campaign (which was, by the way, the first ever successful write-in campaign for state committee in Philadelphia), as chair of the Philadelphia Democratic Party, Congressman Bob Brady who would simply appointed someone to fill the slot after the election. In all likelihood, he would have appointed an African-American progressive to do so. After all, even though he is the "boss" of the remaining, hollowed-out shell of the Philadelphia machine, he really is a liberal. I think he might even have recently joined the Congressional Progressive Caucus. In fact, until Steve Cohen took over for Harold Ford in Tennessee, Brady was the only white congressman representing a majority-minority district in the entire country. As such, it should come as no surprise to anyone that he would have appointed, in good liberal fashion, someone who "looks like the district." This situation is further complicated in that I actually personally convinced about forty people to write-in my name, roughly half of whom were African-American, by telling them that if they did not vote for me, that the machine would appoint whoever it wanted. My basic pitch was a series of variations on the following line: "the machine has abandoned you, so don't let them represent you." It worked, too. However, while the machine did abandon the district by leaving five out of six ballot slots blank, by many principles of diversity that progressives--including myself--hold, whoever the machine appointed probably would have done a better job of "representing" the district than I do.

At the end of this post, I don't have any clear, tight conclusions. This isn't a topic that facilitates easy answers. I should note that even though I sometimes imagine that other people could do a better job representing my district, I don't actually feel the least bit bad about holding my state committee seat. On the contrary, earning my seat via an original six-day campaign, joining in the silent revolution, representing the neighborhood I love, and taking further ownership over the Democratic Party I fight for makes me quite proud. I guess I just wanted to share how I think about topics related to diversity from time to time. Translating ad hoc grassroots activism--which is still a pretty good way to describe the progressive, political blogosphere--into actual political results that match up with perfectly progressive principles isn't the easiest thing in the world. And that goes for a lot of issues besides just diversity. We have virtually no resources at our disposal, and we are making this all up as we go along. Even though many of us "A-list" and "big box" bloggers are often viewed as institutional forces unto ourselves, I hope that is something people remember as we slog forward.



Display:


Re: Representing (3.00 / 1)

Chris,

You will always represent your district better than someone appointed by the machine.  The reason is simple: you went out and asked for the votes, and you got them.  You owe your position TO THE VOTERS IN YOUR DISTRICT, and if you don't represent their needs, they will throw you out of office.  Compare that to someone appointed by the machine.  That person would owe his/her position to the machine that appointed them, and on close questions, would always side with or represent the machine.

It is always a better to have a representative elected by the voters rather than appointed by the machine.  Don't sell yourself short.

Now if you want to do an EVEN BETTER JOB of representing your constituents, get out and talk with them, listen to them, interact with them, etc.  Even though they have their day-to-day lives, and you have yours, and what you do is probably very different, you will have much more in common with them than you think.

And please stop calling them "low information voters".  That is an insult.  Your district is full of low participation voters, for whatever reasons they choose, but they are far from low information voters.

Allen


by Alan on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:34:40 AM EST

Re: Representing (none / 0)

I referred to them as low information voters as far as the Democratic state committee went. Most people don't even know what that is. I didn't know myself until a week before the election.
by Chris Bowers on Thu May 10, 2007 at 11:55:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Representing (none / 0)

Chris.,..

The obvious/easy answer would have been to recruit someone else who "looked like the district" but shared your perspective to run as a write-in candidate.  


by p lukasiak on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:39:31 AM EST

Who and how are you representing? (none / 0)

The question that needs to be answered is whether or not you are doing the job you were elected to do, no matter how you got elected. Are you organizing the local Democratic Committee? Are you registering people in your district to vote? Are you encouraging people in your district to become activists? Are you in fact representing the Democratic Party to the people of your community? Because when you use the Republican frame about Democrats to minorities, that; "the machine has abandoned you, so don't let them represent you", you had better be able to prove by measureable example that what you have to offer is better. Otherwise, by preventing the liberal, pro-labor, Bob Brady from appointing someone, who according to you, would have done a better job at representing the district, you would be the one who has abandoned the progressive movement.

If, in fact, you have helped to develop the local Democratic Committee, and increased the number of registered Democrats in your district, and have brought neighborhood people into the  ranks of the Democratic organization, you are representing your district, and should be proud of your contribution to the progressive movement.


by jfoster on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:53:59 AM EST

Re: Representing (none / 0)

Really interesting account. You're doing a good thing and I'm sure you do it well.

You probably should meet more of your neighbors and maybe can get some of them to follow MyDD, use  internet more, and become more interested in political issues.

Who's going to win the primary and is that a good outcome?

Homer  www.altara.blogspot.com


by Homer on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:00:38 AM EST

Thanks for Your Service (none / 0)

I am sure that some of your neighbors appreciate your service.  And more would if they knew about it.  

Next time, just recruit  a couple of diverse candidates to fill the other slots.


by Hellmut on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:23:22 AM EST

about theory in practice (none / 0)

Chris, the benefit of looking like the district is also much more solid in theory than in practice- err, praxis.

You're on the state committee. Your "perfect duties" are to help direct the party and make sure your district isn't getting screwed. I think the "netroots perspective" is probably a good thing for your district -- unless they call a central committee vote to pick the final plank in the platform and you vote for net neutrality over minority education programs. But that's a highly implausible situation, and I'm sure you'd make the right decision.

Now, what else would a really kickass Democratic Party Official do? As jfoster said, he would register voters and encourage local activism; and as lukasiak said, he'd get someone who "looks like" the district to run with him next time (maybe get 5). Your job isn't to "represent" the district as much as to empower it.


Progress is Personal | PCCC
by msnook on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:46:52 AM EST

same stream of consciousness (none / 0)

Chris, you talk of transforming the Democratic party (the silent revolution), and changing the way campaigns are run (adwatch, strategy memo), but if you really want to take this "bottom up" thing and kick it up a notch, figure out how the perspectives of the netroots and the open left can help to transform the way regular people interact with the party and with campaigns.

I've long said that every single campaign staffer on every race, top to bottom, should have to canvass and make phone calls for a few weeks over the course of the campaign. The same could be said for the netroots, (think how well you and all the other netroots leaders could apply all your counter-conventional wisdom to person-to-person political contact!) so I leave you with this analogy: Campaign worker : canvassing/phone-banking :: leader in the open left : ???

(P.S. I'm not saying you have to do all the work. I'm doing my best to help rethink field by walking through it in my netroots shoes, and we've had some great discussions and brainstorm-threads led by seasoned field organizers from the diaries. But you guys are really good at leading an expeditious critical discussion, and as far as the list of "things to rethink from the netroots' perspective", field might be real near the top.)


Progress is Personal | PCCC
by msnook on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:45:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Think of yourself as a catalyst (none / 0)

I don't think you need think of yourself as anything, mark you: you won the seat fair and square, you didn't do anything to prevent anyone else running - what's to complain about?

The voters in your district, if I understand things right, have been abandoned by the machine, except that they treat it as a rotten borough for providing offices for their own hacks.

I'm no goo-goo; but breaking up this little game by working hard and playing by the rules doesn't seem to me reason for heart-searching.

You admit yourself that you're a write-in pioneer: well, if it turns out that your constituents prefer to vote for skin tone rather than competence, they know what to do, because you've shown them how.

And what's so wrong in a white guy representing a majority black district any way? After all, there is at least some chance that, in two years time, a black guy will be representing a majority white country...


by skeptic06 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:54:06 AM EST

Re: Representing (none / 0)

Chris,

people like you are agents for political change. The important thing is not that you have the same skin pigmentation nor belong to the dominant ethnic group that comprise the majority of your district but that you serve to further the interests of the population.

This distinguishes you from machine politicians that are primarily interested in advancing their own careers. As such, even if they have a liberal bent, they kow tow to the dominant interest groups - usually the corporate sector - out of fear of bringing their wrath upon them or not receiving the campaign contributions necessary to win elections.

You are a breath of fresh air. Rock on.


by carter1 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:53:24 AM EST

Re: Representing (none / 0)

I agree : fresh air.  Your writng is vulnerable, honest, and your sense of justice and decency is wonderful. I so much appreciate what you have to say.

The elephant in the room is there because we don't know each other very well--especially across class lines.  How many people have been in the homes of working poor or been to a funeral of a boy killed on the streets.  I am not saying that anyone should run out and do that.  I am just saying that if we make the effort to get to know each other, in any real way that presents itself, the myths, fears and judgements may fade away.  You are in a great position to do that.  Guilt is useless.  Use this opportunity to build your understanding of others.  You will end up a better human being and a powerful spokesperson and probabaly open the door for others in the process.  great post.


by aiko on Thu May 10, 2007 at 11:26:23 AM EST

Descriptive versus Interest Representation (none / 0)

Chris,

It was the descriptive representation argument that gave us minority-majority districts, which, on a policy perspective, has been a disaster for minorities.

By packing minority voters into one district, it actually dilutes their influence on the party and government over all.

Now, only minority Democrats care about Affirmative Action enough to go to the wall to support it.

IE: Which is better for African Americans? Being 75% of the vote in one district, or 25% of the vote in three districts?

Represent the "interests" of your constituents, the rest will take care of itself.


by Nazgul35 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 12:38:13 PM EST

Re: Representing (none / 0)

I'm in West Philadelphia just outside your ward.  A couple of thoughts.

Realistically, you "represent" progressive urban politics to the netroots more than you represent the majority of your constituents to the Democratic Party in the city and state-wide.  That's okay.  As long as the party machinery just grinds along, you can be part of it and report from the inside, and take advantage of the fact that "low information" will keep you there as long as you care to continue.

And looking at the mayoral race (the primary, which is the only election that counts this time) -- with Nutter and Knox cross-cutting racial and ethnic lines, maybe race isn't everything.

If and when there's a real contest for your position, then you can decide what sort of representation you want to provide.

Somewhere in the blogosphere recently someone was making the point that the Republican party is de facto the "white male" party, and by default the Democratic party represents what it can scrape up (as a voting constituency) from the rest.  If we apply your logic to that scenario, you can see how quickly it falls apart.

Okay, I dug it out: It's in the comments to Mark Schmitt's recent piece in TPM Cafe, "The Real Case Against Mark Penn."  The pivotal anti-GOP constituency is "lower-income, primarily urban, heavily black and hispanic, younger, and largely female voters..." The whole piece and comments are relevant to your angst, I think.


by kofu on Thu May 10, 2007 at 12:41:12 PM EST

Maybe You've Heard Of Nancy Pelosi??? (none / 0)

In fact, until Steve Cohen took over for Harold Ford in Tennessee, Brady was the only white congressman representing a majority-minority district in the entire country.
Okay, so the data is from 2000, but:


Dist/Rep            Pop    White   Non-White
08 Nancy Pelosi  617,094  305,251   311,842

My initial poking around has failed to turn up racial data for the post-2002 redistricting, so this could well have changed.  But I've got good reason to believe that Pete Stark and Zoe Lofgrin both represent minority-majority districts, and that there may be one or two others in the California delegation as well.  Of course, California's electorate continues to be significantly whiter than its population.  But we're a minority-majority state now, and the margins just keep growing.

So I'm wondering:

(1) Chris, where did you get your info?
(2) Does anyone else know where to get current district breakdowns by race?


by Paul Rosenberg on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:10:34 PM EST

Re: Maybe You've Heard Of Nancy Pelosi??? (none / 0)

You can find it for most states here:

http://www.ourcongress.org/race/Pennsylv ania/

Just click on a state in the movable map, and then click on the static, colorful map of that state when it appears below. That will give you the minority precertange of each district in 2002.
by Chris Bowers on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:16:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pelosi's District: 57.1% Minority! (none / 0)

Thanks Chris!

Just as I thought.

White Dems from California, and the minority percentages they represent.


CA 07: Miller  56.8%
CA 08: Pelosi  57.1%
CA 12: Lantos  51.8%
CA 13: Stark   61.6%
CA 16: Lofgren 68.1%
CA 17: Farr    53.7%
CA 23: Capps   51.3%
CA 27: Sherman 55.1%
CA 28: Berman  68.6%
CA 29: Shiff   60.9%
CA 36: Harman  51.6%
CA 51: Filner  78.7%

So, that's 12 just in California.

Actually, there's one more--a Republican, David Drier 55.1%, CA-26, who's looking better than ever as someone who deserves a more serious look to get rid of.


by Paul Rosenberg on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:15:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Drier (none / 0)

What's he doing representing a majority minority district? We need to target his ass.

... there's gotta be a reason...


Progress is Personal | PCCC
by msnook on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pelosi's District: 57.1% Minority! (none / 0)

Wow. Well, clearly, the stats I heard must have been talking about majority-minority districts with either African-American majorities or African-American pluralities.

And yeah, someone take out Drier. Please.
by Chris Bowers on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:27:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are many (none / 0)

There are three Anglos who represent districts where the majority is Latino (Gene Green in Houston, Bob Filner in San Diego, and Howard Berman in Los Angeles). Also, Neil Abercrombie in Hawaii represents a district that's majority Asian.

If you throw in districts where nobody is a majority but Latinos are a plurality, there's also Steve Pearce in rural New Mexico, Joe Crowley in the Bronx, and Zoe Lofgren in San Jose. Plus, there are three districts where there is a Latino plurality but a black representative (Charles Rangel in Harlem, Maxine Waters and Diane Watson in Los Angeles). Nancy Pelosi and Pete Stark's districts have a white plurality (for now).

To answer your second question, go to the Census Bureau's website, go to American Fact Finder, click on 110th Congressional districts, and that'll give you population numbers based on the 2000 census. The most recent edition of Almanac of American Politics should also have that information (except for the Georgia and Texas redistricts).


by Crazy Vaclav on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:58:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are many (none / 0)

Ooops, you probably mean you want 2005 numbers. Go to 2005 American Community Survey (which is an estimate, not actual count); from there, for some reason, you can get the data according to 109th Congressional districts, not 110th, so everything's current except Georgia and Texas. Interestingly, Nancy Pelosi's district has gotten whiter, not less white (43.6% in 2005 instead of 42.9% in 2000); guess that's gentrification at work for you. But you're absolutely right about Pete Stark's district, which has gotten a lot less white (from 38.3% in 2000 to 30.4% in 2005), and now has an Asian plurality (28.1% in 2000 to 35.4% in 2005), making it the only district outside of Hawaii to have more Asians than anyone else!


by Crazy Vaclav on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:09:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are many (none / 0)

Ya, and I believe that Lloyd Doggett's district is majority Hispanic, as well, as per DeLay's plan to make the Texas democratic party a Hispanic party.


"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:12:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Representing (none / 0)

is more than skin deep.

Hillary Clinton looks like me but she does not represent me, because she does not share my values, listen to what I think, or stick up for me when it matters.


by Sadie Baker on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:38:15 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.