I went to a 194th state representative district candidate event last week at Roxborough Memorial Hospital. It made clear to me why, when we decide which candidate to support, we progressives have to get out of the habit of looking at the elaborate questionnaires candidates produce and focus on what their history tells us about where their heart is.
Sometime in the next two years, the person who wins this election is going to have to make a decision about a new piece of legislation before him or her. It might be late at night and there won’t be time to call some advisor to find out what is the right thing to do. There won’t be time to determine whether the legislation violates a core ideal of Democrats or progressives. The next representative for the 194th district is just going to have to use his or her judgment and experience to come to a quick decision.
Everything I saw last week convinces me that I want Lou Agre making those decisions, not the other leading candidate, Pam DeLissio.
DeLissio seems like a nice woman and a competent person. She’s had what seems to be a substantial career, first as a non-profit administrator and more recently as a small businesswoman.
But she has had no real experience in politics and no connection to progressive or labor based movements of any kind. We have no reason to think that, deep in her heart, is a commitment to using the government to provide the communal goods we need or to create a more just political community.
DeLissio is well prepared and knows that the hot button progressive issues are. So she, like the rest of the candidates, is predictably progressive on most issues.
It’s when she’s not fully briefed, however, that she puts forth troublesome ideas.
For example, a since corrected draft of her NOW Questionnaire said she was open to considering the privatization of social security.
Her Neighborhood Networks Questionnaire said she was open to limiting third trimester abortions to cases in which the life of the woman or fetus is in danger.
And at the candidate forum, she made some troubling remarks about taxes, parks, and the state liquor stores.
When all the candidates were asked where they would cut spending or raise taxes to reduce the budget deficit, DeLissio spent almost all her time talking about creating “efficiency” in the state budget to reduce spending. Only at the very end did she mention creating a tax on the extraction of gas from the Marcellus shale.
Having been stung before for her support of privatizing the state stores, DeLissio backed away from an outright endorsement of doing so last week. But that is where she wants to see us go. It didn’t seem to matter to her that we would lose 4000 good union jobs or that underage drinking is 20-40% lower in PA than in neighboring states that have private liquor stores. (And while none of the other candidates would say this, I’ll point out that because our state stores could expand to sell other regulated substances, I suspect we have a better chance of legalizing marijuana in this state than in any other place east of California.)
When it came to taking care of the parks, even though she is running in a district that includes Wissahickon Park, DeLissio said that “government can’t do everything” and that we should rely on greater private efforts to make up for what government can’t do.
On all these issues, Lou Agre is on the correct, left side. He’s adamantly opposed to privatizing social security. He is against all restriction on abortion. He wants to close corporate tax loopholes, tax the Marcellus shale, reform sale taxes, and take other steps to raise the revenue we need to provide the goods and services we should expect from government. And, given that both he and his kids grew up in Wissahickon Park, taking care of it is clearly among those goods and services that Lou thinks government should provide.
But, as I said, it’s not just these specific issues we should be concerned about. It’s where Agre and DeLissio are coming from.
Lou is a long time labor organizer who has been involved in progressive politics his whole life. That life shows us where his heart is—on the side of the poor, working people, and the middle class. Someone with DeLissio’s background in the private sector would have to have spent time doing progressive politics to have arrived at a similar world view. DeLissio has not done so.
I’m not saying that progressives and labor unions are always right. But I want a state representative whose default position is to support the progressive and labor point of view, not one who is unsure or, even worse, instinctively takes the side of business before a political adviser tells her it is a bad move.
The endorsements received by Lou and DeLissio reflect the difference in their world view. Lou has been endorsed by all the AFL, by the most progressive unions in the state—SEIU, AFSCME, UFCW—and by the building trades. DeLissio has been endorsed a couple of politicos—Mayor Nutter and Brett Mandel—who for all their support of procedural reform have never been champions of social justice or labor.
For some progressives, Lou is not the ideal candidate, mostly because he is a ward leader. I’ve been one of the leaders in Philadelphia in trying to reform the Democratic party. So, given a choice between a candidate who is strong on both social justice liberalism and good government liberalism and one who is good on only one of aspects of liberalism, I’d go for it all. But in this race, none of the candidates are good government reformers. DeLissio’s candidacy would be a joke without the support of Kathy Manderino, Mayor Nutter, and Nutter’s 52nd ward.
Lou runs his ward in a way that reflects the views of committee people and supports progressive candidates most of the time. And Lou’s leadership of a ward bigger than thirty or so Pennsylvania counties, as well as his labor connections, will give him an unusual amount of clout for a first term representative. That’s something even a good government reformer should be able to understand.
Let me say a few quick words about the other candidates. Bill Morris, whose campaign slogan seems to be “I’m Speedy Morris’s nephew” is a charming fellow who might have a political career in front of him. But he’s clearly out of his league in terms of his knowledge of the issues. Keith Newman, who posts at YPP, is a teacher who has some excellent ideas about education reform that I’m sure anyone who wins the race will draw upon. But beyond that, he has little distinctive to offer the district. Josh Cohen is a former City Council staffer. He clearly knows the details on a wide range of issues, has progressive instincts, and is working hard knocking on doors. But he’s also made some strange choices in terms of which issues to put forward in the race, such as reform of motor vehicle laws and the long term pension crisis. That, plus his youth and lack of name recognition will hurt him.
So, to my mind, Lou Agre is the clear progressive choice in this race.