It’s election day (go vote!) and I have a few thoughts to share:
Over the past few weeks I’ve gotten a crash course in Camden politics, from the debacle of the Southern New Jersey Chamber of Commerce scheduling a debate that working residents couldn’t attend, to their capitulation to livestream the debate, to their broken promise to make the video available to the public (something we, thankfully, anticipated). I’ve watched as politicians called in their favors and got puff pieces written in local newspapers, as candidates came out of the woodworks to trumpet their achievements at neighborhood meetings, and even watched a calloused play for votes by promising an under the table exchange of jobs for volunteer hours.
Most of all, I came away from the process convinced that each of the candidates for Camden City mayor was deeply flawed. But the question I pose is, what if a deeply flawed messenger has an important message? The opposition to Mayor Dana Redd is united in its criticism of decisions that take away the democratic power of the citizens of Camden City. That populist message is grounded in more than discontent, it is the result of a city that has had the ability to make its own decisions taken away. It is a message that transcends its flawed messengers, and will resonate as other urban residents lose the keys to their own cities.
The Courier-Post made a flawed-messenger case for Dana Redd, arguing that while she had too many connections to “the political machine” (copyright: Juan Rodriguez and Gary Frazier), she had leveraged her relationships for the good of Camden. But watching the debate, as four underwhelming opposition candidates united in their opposition to Mayor Redd’s complicity in giving away power to the county (police) and the state (education), I saw the case for a different set of flawed messengers.
It was Amir Kahn, the most polished (and well-financed) of the challengers, who made the most compelling case for democratic control to be returned to Camden. He asked, how we could look our children in the eye if we did not control our own city? He asked what would we answer when our children asked us why “can’t we police our own city? Why can’t we educate our own city?”
What Councilman Brian Coleman lacked in rhetorical flourish he made up with simplicity and a consistent record. He summed up his opposition to the Metro Police force in a simple sentence: “we have to be involved in the process.”
Compare that plea for democratic empowerment with Mayor Redd, who asserted: “I choose to tell people what they need to hear not what they want to hear.”
Whenever a politician or policymaker promises to know what you need better than you know yourself, a red flag should go up. Certainly, the history of Camden City is such that this claim should be treated with skepticism. There is a deep moral argument to be made that those claiming to “fix” Camden have not always had her best interest in mind; one need only look at the exploitative businesses in the Waterfront South neighborhood to see that vultures are always in the air to pick the carcass of a once proud city.
The rejection of this claim to “know what’s best” is at the heart of the growing activist movement in Camden. Its champions are flawed and trumpet a raw populism that rejects assertions that “the state knows what’s best” while stripping the democratic power of residents to choose. It advocates for simple returns of the democratic process; a return to an elected board of education was the biggest applause line of the entire mayoral debate.
Amir Kahn’s devastating critique of Mayor Redd was that, when the residents of Camden tried to get the Metro Police question on the ballot, the Mayor sued her own residents.
Mayor Redd v. the Citizens of Camden.
There may not be a challenger now capable of upsetting Mayor Redd, or even with the governing experience necessary to improve Camden City if such an upset were to occur, but the flaws of the messenger need not undermine the importance of the message. There is a growing populism that argues for democratic control to be given back to city residents. Residents are asking for the dignity to make the decisions they have to live with.
We will see this across the country if the policy response to poverty continues to be giving away the keys of the city. A populism that extends beyond the boundaries of Camden and transcends the flaws of its mayoral challengers. A populism that looks beyond short-term budget to examine long-term power. And a populism that calls for the dignity to make one’s own mistakes and freedom from the tyranny of others’ best intentions. This populism will have echoes in cities long after its flawed Camden messengers have faded from memory.
Share it!
