[
The article below, since slightly revised, was first submitted to the Boston Globe shortly after the results of Boston's mayoral primary were announced. I thereafter re-submitted the proposed op-ed twice but the Globe's editors have never even acknowledged receipt. I am concerned that Boston's most influential newspaper has now also succumbed to identity politics and "political correctness" masquerading as "wokeness." The effect of the effort to view politics exclusively through the prism of race does not help to build progressive coalitions but, instead, alienates potential allies.I strongly recommend Todd Gitlin's 1995 classic,"The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America Is Wracked by Culture Wars."] On September 2, 2021, the Globe's editorial board enthusiastically endorsed the candidacy of Andrea Campbell to become mayor of Boston. In its editorial, the Globe waxed rhapsodic that "she radiates a sense of urgency, a palpable hunger to confront Boston's hardest, most politically fraught challenges - its uneven school system and a law enforcement system that has lost the trust of too many residents." While the Globe's editorial board spent considerable space criticizing former Mayor Walsh's failures, it said little about any significant experience or qualifications Ms. Campbell possessed that would prepare her to be chief executive of this city. Apparently, what mattered most to the Globe's editors was the fact that "No matter who wins, history will be made: Boston will elect a mayor who identifies as a person of color for the first time in its history."
Before, during and after its endorsement, many of the Globe's columnists spent a significant amount of time chronicling the fate of minority candidates. In the Globe's September16th edition - two days after the primary - Stephanie Ebert lamented the failure of the electorate to nominate a black candidate. Columnist Shirley Leung complained about outside, "right-wing" money supporting Annissa Essaibi George, but not a word of criticism was spoken about the role of other outside PACS whose money fueled the campaigns of the other mayoral candidates, presumably for less than altruistic purposes. In the letters to the editor in that same edition, a non-Boston resident who lives in the lilly- white enclave of Weymouth was given space to vent about the disappointment of the black community and how racist Boston is.
In that same edition, Jeneé Osterheldt opined about the difference between the Old Boston vs. the New Boston and remarked that Essaibi George "is the only the only candidate with a real sense of scandal in this campaign due to her husband's capitalistic slummy practice and questions surrounding her complicity." If Osterheldt's ad hominem attempt to blame a woman for her spouse's behavior is acceptable journalism, does that make Andrea Campbell somehow personally responsible for the fact her late father and two siblings were felons? I think not. The attempt to now depict Annissa Essaibi George, who spent fourteen years as a teacher in the Boston Public Schools and was a member of the generally progressive Boston Teachers Union, as a reactionary or some kind of troglodyte will do little to heel the racial divide.
The following day, in its September 17th edition, Renée Graham observed, "On Nov. 2, voters will elect the first woman and first person of color as its 55th mayor. In a city where white men traditionally hoard political power, the significance of that should not be undersold. Yet the fact that three viable Black contenders went 0 for 3 in a five-person race will sit sour for a good long while."
Throughout the primary and to the present, a number of Globe columnists have repeatedly emphasized the importance electing a person of color as if pigmentation were in any way correlated to progressive policy positions. Those who think so should consider the cases of U.S. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and radio bloviator Larry Elders of California. While it is also true that the past mayors of Boston were all white men, few who have studied Boston politics closely would contend that the municipal policies advocated and implemented by administrations of Kevin White Raymond Flynn, Tom Menino and Marty Walsh did not differ substantially - and for the better - than those of John Hynes and John Collins.
Finally, the emphasis of Globe's columnists upon "blackness" as an essential political trait and the considerable space given to the WAKANDA II effort smack of the kind of corrosive identity politics that has contaminated so much of today's American politics. What would be the reaction of the Globe's editorial board if a number of prominent Boston residents publicly insisted that we needed to elect a white person as mayor?
One wonders why it hasn't occurred to the Globe's editorial board or many of its columnists that there is an alternative, perfectly reasonable, non-racist explanation why none of the three black candidates for mayor did not qualify for the final election: Outside of their respective communities, they were largely unknown. Two of the candidates, acting Mayor Kim Janey and Mayor Janey and Andrea Campbell, were district councilors who had held elected for three and five years respectively and the third, John Barros, had never held elective office but had worked in the Walsh administration. By contrast, the two finalists, Michelle Wu and Annissa Essaibi George, served as at-large councilors who had long track records of participating in community meetings and supporting local community initiatives as a result of which they gained favorable recognition and became known to voters in neighborhoods throughout Boston.
I have been involved in progressive politics my entire life and remain a committed supporter of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren but, as a veteran of many progressive movements, I know that one can't advance progressive polices without first building a broad-based coalition. Racially-divisive remarks - especially at a time when the black population of Boston is declining and not increasing because of outward migration- is unlikely to help build that coalition.
The Globe's editorial board and columnists - few, if any of whom, I suspect are residents of the City of Boston and therefore have chosen not to participate in the civic life of this cosmopolitan city - ought to be more circumspect about lecturing the rest of us about our politics. Many of us - including my wife, a retired Boston Public School teacher, and I - chose to make Boston our home and to raise our families here, despite having other options, because we recognize the value of living in a diverse, culturally- rich and dynamic city.
Condescending comments by the Globe's editorial board and columnists who "do not have a dog in the game" inevitably create a backlash that is inimical to the idea of progress. Progressive ideas, untainted by racially-divisive calls to identity politics, abound. One undeniably progressive policy that the Globe's editorial board ought to consider supporting, given its current professed concerns, is metropolitanization.
The voluntary annexation of cities and towns such as Quincy, Newton,Milton,Brookline, Wellesley, Weston, Dover, Hingham and the other nearby suburbs would,over time, help to deliver death blows to NIMBYism, parochialism and reduce racial and economic inequality and segregation. It would also simultaneously expand Boston's tax base, allow for the development of comprehensive zoning laws and land use planning, enable the creation of broad-based public transportation and traffic policies, expand access to quality public education for every child, and provide valuable human and financial resources that would enable Boston to better confront the many challenges that are the collective responsibility of the entire metropolitan community.