I suppose this requires me to clarify my definition for leadership, which is a minor challenge given that we collectively lack a consistent definition for the skill. This shortcoming often becomes apparent to me during an election because the coverage seems incapable of providing information about a given candidate's leadership qualities, particularly in comparison to other considerations such as endorsements, accomplishments, or positions on key issues. I think it would be hard to find a voter who dismisses the importance of a candidate's leadership skills, but the way election coverage presents information suggests voters have little interest in weighing leadership skills as part of their decision. The campaign websites in this mayoral race reinforce my hunch - it's hard to find any reference to leadership skills on either site, with the closest thing being the odd mention of having demonstrated leadership in a prior role.
This is slightly puzzling to me because I think a lot of voters, particularly those who have been generally untouched and unconcerned by the coverage of the election, would find it helpful to know more about the type of leadership a candidate would bring to the mayor's office. In fact, the only consistent piece of information that seems readily available about the race is how Boston will soon elect both its first woman and first person of color as mayor, which, in addition to being slightly disrespectful of Mayor Janey's interim term, also implies that the point of voting this year is not to participate in the city's democratic process but rather to collect a participation trophy for being seen at the ballot box on a historic day. What I mean by this outburst is that since I suspect a lot of observers may initially have a hard time distinguishing the candidates, the lack of clear information about their contrasting positions may discourage unmotivated voters from showing up to cast a ballot, particularly in an off-cycle election. It may be instructive to look at CNN.com's summary of the preliminary round, which could be the only thing an outsider might know about the race. The summary cites the following differences in the candidates - race, the fact of Essaibi George being more "police-friendly", and their endorsements. How many undecided voters are going to make a decision based on those factors? And if these voters remain undecided, how likely are they to vote?
And yet, perhaps this problem is somewhat unavoidable. I realized something just last week about the race - I don't think I'll vote in another election at this level of government where the two final candidates seem to share so much common ground over key issues. One illustrative example starts in the first paragraph of Wu's campaign website, which states a commitment to "closing the racial wealth gap". Essaibi Geroge's website requires some scrolling to get there, but it does come up - she'll "fight back against economic inequality". If your singular concern as a voter was to have a mayor committed to addressing inequality, well, what do you make of those examples? I'd probably stay home, too. I guess the more appropriate response here is to dive deeper into the details, where eventually one candidate will distinguish herself from the other, but I don't think too many voters have much interest in getting that far into the specifics, preferring instead to choose a candidate based on clear ideological signals. In other words, what we have in the mayoral race is a little different from the stupefying simplicity of two-party politics, which has conditioned me to expect that if I support one candidate, then I'm supposed to consider any opponent to be more fit for a prison sentence than a term in the same office.
I guess the lingering question here is that if all of the above is true, then how have I managed such a clear decision? Well, there is no magic answer, it came out of some time spent in those pesky details, and although it wasn't anything specific in those details that caught my eye, the process ultimately helped me to my conclusion. What emerged in my examination was a trend that suggests something of a contrast in leadership philosophy - Wu seems interested in solving the problems that need to be solved, whereas Essaibi George is more inclined to solve the problems that can be solved. I know some people don't consider this to be much of a distinction, but from my perspective it's the kind of detail that can shape two entirely different approaches to leadership.
Take one of the more popular talking points, setting free the "T", which is Wu's proposal for fare-free transit. This isn't such a big distinction from Essaibi George in an important way because her website mentions "decreasing the cost of transportation... for disadvantaged groups". Given that a single subway ride costs $2.40, the difference between Wu taking it down to $0 and Essaibi George finding some middle ground between those fares doesn't seem like a massive distinction at first glance. But if you look further into the question, you can find some interesting moments from the campaign regarding Essaibi George's skepticism over the fare-free proposal. In a recent debate, Essaibi George asked point-blank - "who's going to pay for that?" I'm tempted to say that if the price is $0, then no one pays, but instead of being a smart-ass I can instead point out the obvious - if fare-free isn't working, we can always just start charging people again. The status quo has left the "T" in a staggering amount of debt, with quite a bit of anxiety surrounding the discussion of its financial future. So why is a mayoral candidate pushing a platform of same old, same old, as if things will suddenly change in 2022? It's not like our transportation situation was in great shape before the pandemic, either, so a return to the good old days isn't going to do much good. The broader point is that the "T" example highlights the main distinction between the two candidates - one is going to try a bunch of things, failing at most, while the other is going to succeed with a much smaller agenda. It's not surprising at all that the CNN summary would point out Essaibi George's position on police reform since it's a common topic of discussion in both national and local politics. However, I'd like to clarify something about the position - isn't it easier to keep the money in the police budget if you don't have any other ideas for reallocating the dollars? Maybe the right answer to the earlier question is that the police would pay for those $0 subway rides.
It's as if Wu's plan is to try twenty-five things, succeeding at seven, while Essaibi George is looking to go three for four. Or maybe, it's like both candidates want to go for a hike, but Wu is picking the trail that leads to a higher peak. There's probably a time and a place for each approach, and I guess the ability to know which is the right fit for the moment is my definition of leadership. Ultimately, there is no one right way to demonstrate leadership, no single set of skills that will apply to every situation, but it's clear as I look back on a decade in this city that too much has changed about daily life to expect much of the status quo. The way I see things these days, I'm much happier to go for those seven successes, knowing that such a plan would bring failure eighteen times more frequently than going three for four, hoping that those seven wins outweigh the effects of failing those other eighteen times. To me, it's the right moment to emphasize the number of successes rather than the success rate. What is so good about life in the city that we should avoid taking risks to build a better future? I think the definition of leadership that fits this situation describes Michelle Wu, and that's why I'm voting for her in this election.
