Help Wanted: audacious only need apply

Some people think Doug England will be very aggressive in pursuing revitalization strategy. Others think he’s a criminal. One supporter courted my vote by denying past allegations of wrongdoing and relating England’s development expertise. Another suggested that I should vote for England because he’s corrupt and that his inevitable “greasing of the wheels” would do more for New Albany than administration by the book. Either way, it’s England’s time to prove himself one way or the other.

He’s made a lot of promises on the campaign trail already and Randy Hubbard’s potential ability to draw cross-party voters has been noted. One such promise made directly to me was the establishment and official recognition of a crack revitalization team. While that promise included the suggestion that I “should be a part of the team”, I’m more concerned about his other appointments. As Iamhoosier rightly pointed out in a comment on the previous post, England can make serious credibility headway by making clear his appointment and hiring/firing intentions now.

Paraphrasing from NAC as he did consistently during the primary campaign isn’t enough. The audacity to raise issues taken directly from the pages of this blog while speaking with me, the person who in some cases wrote the very passages that filled his crib sheet, as if they were his ideas was somewhat astounding. But audacity, I suppose, is one of the traits for which England is best known. What he ‘s not done, though, is to show how that audacity will be put to practical, specific use. It would be helpful if his redevelopment notions were laid bare in a way that inspired reasonable belief rather than the suspension of disbelief required by so much theatre.

Lack of that audacity is what killed the Garner administration and is damaging the Democratic Party in general. While Garner most definitely aided and supervised several positive developments during his tenure, he never seemed quite willing to take up his rightful, full role as spokesman for new ideas. Several stances taken privately never saw the pages of public meeting minutes or The Tribune. Each time, he declared that he wanted to x or y but the Council wouldn’t approve it. Each time, he should’ve taken the issue to the Council and given the public the opportunity to see for themselves who supported changes and who didn’t and where credit or fault was deserved.

Council answers could’ve easily made certain members the clear “bad guys”, while not requiring what Democratic Chair Randy Stumler once referred to as a party bloodbath. Not asking made Garner the bad guy, seen as performing his duties in secret, a condition that often led to misunderstanding and suspicion even amongst those who would’ve generally supported his proposals had he brought them forward.

Timid fence riding cost Garner personally and continues to beleaguer the party as a whole, keeping it from any serious reform. With abundant opportunity to police their own wayward members, most people of influence in the party chose to work stealthily during the primary cycle, not bothering to garner public support for their actions via transparency. New Albany and Jeffersonville both chose Democratic mayoral candidates with pasts more aggressive than their incumbent counterparts and were willing on the whole to set aside substantial doubts to do it. There’s a certain comfort attributable to readily identifiable action, even if it’s sometimes wrong. Take heed.

It would be unfair to suggest that none of the Democrats’ surreptitious actions were successful. Newcomers Theresa Timberlake and Charlie Harshfield, with the help of the party, both made strong plays for office even under less than ideal circumstances. I would guess that as little as two months ago, most residents of the 3rd district didn’t know who Charlie was and yet, with near zero name recognition and little money, he captured 29% of the vote against both an incumbent and a well-known political veteran with over twenty years of campaign experience, neither of whom were able to defeat him by more than 39 of 502 votes.

As much as I hope 3rd district residents learned some electoral lessons as I have, my hope is even stronger that the local Democratic Party learned as well. Given a legitimate chance, a significant number of people will choose the advancement of issues over personal ties and petty grievances.

Along those lines, I think Theresa Timberlake should run again in the fall as an independent in the 1st district and the party should continue to support her. Though still lacking the fortitude to announce so publicly thus far, it’s hardly a secret that an unusually large number of Democrats and the totality of party leadership are in favor of Dan Coffey’s removal from office. Even a smidgen of Republican crossover would make that a reality. Is honesty impossible in politics? Occasional stray comments from party leaders have indicated that it’s not. Why continue to keep your integrity a secret?

The same can be said for the 3rd district. There’s keen interest citywide in Price’s return to private life. A majority of Democratic voters in the district obviously think so, Republicans think so, and party leadership thinks so. If upon inclusive discussion a suitable independent candidate can be found, are all three groups going to again waste an opportunity in order to maintain allegiance to a word and a symbol that have come to mean very little on the local level precisely because of the existence of candidates like Price in their ranks?

Assuming that John Gonder, Bob Caesar, and Pat McLaughlin survive in the fall, either seat from the 1st or 3rd district in addition to Jack Messer and Jeff Gahan would give Democrats a six member, generally progressive voting bloc on any issue that comes before council. Both seats equal seven, leaving room for legitimate disagreement while maintaining a solid majority.

Democrats may have responsibility to the party but the party is responsible to the city at-large and to the ideals it purportedly represents. Supporting opposition to 1st and 3rd district incumbent council candidates, while unusual, would actually serve to strengthen the local Democratic base and increase revitalization possibilities substantially, giving the party the ability to take full political credit and to redraw its public image from one of malaise to mature leadership. England, too, should consider that prior to any Coffey and Price voter pandering.

The alternative for party leadership and other Democratic heavies is to smile, grit their teeth, and knowingly sell out party principles in order to maintain appearances, regardless of widespread awareness of the harm they’d be doing the city. Their actions from now until November will be extremely instructive as to their level of commitment to the community versus their own potentially misguided self-interests.

Either will reflect on the party for years.

Admittedly, it is in some respects a counterintuitive and audacious choice, but given that so many have already invested their life's worth into homes and businesses in hopeful pursuit of rebuilding the community they seek to serve, it should be a relatively easy one to make.