There’s no rest for the weary.
Many of us haven’t gotten over the national election yet, and we’re about to enter another big campaign: a Democratic primary for Rochester mayor. While Lovely Warren hasn’t announced that she’ll run for a second term, it’s almost certain that she will. And she’ll face at least two opponents: County Legislator Jim Sheppard – a former Rochester police chief – and former television reporter and anchor Rachel Barnhart.
Primaries can be healthy, for political parties and for the public. But I’m very, very worried about this one. On a smaller scale, it could become as emotional and as divisive as what we’ve just lived through. And as racially tinged.
Democratic Party squabbles are nothing new. They seem to be part of the basic character of the party. But with the Trump administration preparing to undercut support for the most vulnerable Americans – many of whom live in urban communities like Rochester – and with Republicans apparently willing to support him, a strong Democratic Party is essential at every level: federal, state, and local.
Democrats will have to try to protect the rights and services we have and find ways to replace what Republican-led governments remove. They’ll have to find a way to engage the broader public in that fight.
That will take leadership, and it will take strength and unity. The last thing this community needs right now is major division among Rochester Democrats. But the division is there. Worse still: it’s predominantly along racial lines.
The racial division may not be apparent to the average Democratic voter, but it’s there. It goes back many years. And it was intensified and brought to a head four years ago, in the Democratic primary that led to Warren’s election as mayor.
In that primary Warren, who is black, challenged the incumbent mayor, Tom Richards, who is white. Warren was backed by her mentor, State Assemblymember David Gantt, and many other local black Democrats. Richards’ supporters included southeast and northwest Democratic leaders, most of them white.
When Warren won, some of her opponents launched an ill-advised independent bid for Richards in the general election. I say “ill-advised” despite having applauded that campaign editorially and having endorsed Richards in that election. In retrospect, I believe that was a mistake, for me, and for the dissident Democrats.
That campaign did great damage to the local Democratic Party, which was already weak, was having trouble raising money, and seemed helpless in the face of a powerful Monroe County Republican organization. Worse, it added to the racial divide in this community. It was a slap in the face of the black Rochesterians who had voted for Warren. It clearly offended black Democratic leaders, activists, and other Warren supporters, and it heightened the serious mistrust between black and white factions of the party.
Now we have the makings of another Democratic primary. And while both Sheppard and Warren are black, many of Sheppard’s backers are the same white Democrats who backed Richards four years ago.
The racial division hasn’t been intentional. The people supporting Sheppard aren’t doing it out of racist animosity. I know some of them, several of them extremely well. Some have fought hard for racial justice for decades and continue to do so.
And there’s absolutely no reason to think that Rachel Barnhart, who is white, is challenging Warren and Sheppard because of their race. (Barnhart’s supporters include Scott Gaddy, an African American who was once a key Warren supporter.)
All three candidates will likely focus on issues in the coming campaign. But it’s a good bet that lying beneath the surface will be the issue of race, no matter how the candidates conduct themselves.
This will be a hard-fought primary election, as the last one was. So far, Warren has some big advantages. She already has substantially more money for a campaign. And she has significant name recognition and visibility. While Sheppard served as Rochester’s police chief for three years, Warren has been in the public eye longer. She was elected to City Council in 2007 and was elected its president in 2010. And as the incumbent mayor, she’ll continue to be able to get more frequent media coverage that Sheppard and Barnhart can.
Warren also has some impressive backers, if the names listed on the invitation to the February 25 Mayor’s Ball – an important fundraiser – is any indication.
Wegmans’ CEO Danny Wegman is honorary chair of the event.
State Assemblymember (and former Monroe Democratic chair) Joe Morelle; developers David Christa, Brett Costello, David Flaum, Ken Glazer, Nelson Leenhouts, Bob Morgan, and the Rainaldi family; Nazareth College President Daan Braveman; Rob and Richard Sands of Constellation Brands; Red Wings CEO Naomi Silver; Klein Steel CEO Joe Klein; ICS Telecom founder IC Shah; Complemar CEO Christine Whitman: all are lending their names (and presumably their fund-raising support and connections) to Lovely Warren’s re-election bid.
None of that guarantees Warren a win, of course. This will be a primary, not a general election. Only Democrats will be able to vote – and only a small percentage of people in all parties vote in their primaries, usually the most committed.
Massive, expensive advertising may not sway those voters. Television ads would be a waste. There’ll be lots of direct mail to the Prime Dems – the Democrats who usually turn out for those elections. But old-fashioned, door-to-door campaigning and phoning, by the candidates and their supporters, will be critically important.
Sheppard also has some important supporters, including numerous unions that are not Warren fans. Construction unions, for instance, are upset with her over her actions related to modernizing Rochester school buildings. And the police union has been upset over police district reorganization and staffing levels. While many union members may live outside the city and won’t be able to vote, they can give money, staff phone banks, attend rallies, and go door to door.
And Barnhart, who was on local television for 17 years and has had a popular online blog, has substantial name recognition. She may not be on TV now, but a lot of people remember her, or at least know her name.
This community has enormous challenges. It’s good for the city, and good for voters, to have elections that force candidates to talk about those challenges and outline how they hope to help overcome them. But right from the outset, this primary is intensifying the rift among local Democrats, possibly destroying what is left of their party.
And while I’m sure none of the three candidates intend this, I don’t see how the campaign can fail to widen the city’s racial division.
I don’t have a favorite in this campaign. I won’t have a favorite until the editorial staff here has interviewed all of the candidates and observed their campaigns. If Sheppard and Barnhart are able to document clear shortcomings of Warren and her administration, fine. If they’re able to show how they’ll do better, fine. If they can show how they can heal the racial division in the party and in the community, fine. But I’m worried.
This is a time when the Democratic Party and progressive third parties need to be building strength, to protect government funding and services that Americans need, protect human rights, protect the environment, and help build a safer, healthier, more stable and peaceful world. The opportunity is there, as the enthusiasm of protesters around the country is showing.
This is also a time when the Democratic Party and progressive third parties need to be building for the future, maintaining and strengthening the interest and commitment of young adults and other new or disillusioned voters.
That work has to start locally. Being united for national elections – as many local Democrats were in the presidential campaign – is important. But we have huge problems at home, and solving them will require unity and strength in local and state parties. Progressives need to increase their representation in Albany, where government action can provide protections that the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress have promised to weaken at the federal level.
Locally, Democrats and other progressives can press county government to help strengthen the city and better fund services for the county’s poor. And they can work to elect county officials who will form a creative, dynamic, progressive county government.
There is enough talent, energy, and devotion to the community in all factions of the local Democratic Party that if they were united, they could accomplish great things. Instead, Monroe County Democrats are getting ready to tear their party further apart. And if they’re not extremely careful, they’ll heighten racial tension and animosity in the community.
I hope everybody involved knows what they’re doing, the risks they’re taking, and the damage they could inflict on the community.
This article appears in Feb 8-14, 2017.
Mary Anna, where is your call for diversity, inclusiveness, open minds? Not one word about anything non “progressive.” We have been going down the wrong road for as long as I can remember. We have had the democrats in charge. Every program they propose ends up making things worse. How can that be? Why can’t the most ” intelligent and educated people” foretell the secondary consequences of these decisions?
Electing another democrat? That’s the real risk. Remember what Einstein said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DOZZt5J5m…
Is the GOP going to bother to field a candidate this year? It’s a shame they don’t bother to nominate candidates for school board and city council, as those are the natural places for a local republican to gain credibility and experience before mounting a run for mayor.
In 1993, Morelle backed Ruth Scott and Bill Johnson at the same time.
In 2005, Morelle backed Wade Norwood and Bob Duffy at the same time.
In 2013, Morelle backed Lovely Warren and Turn Out for Tom at the same time.
So now he’s backing Lovely Warren and James Sheppard at the same time.
Some things never change.
My opinion: If the mayoral race becomes “racially tinged”, it will not be because of Jim Sheppard or Rachel Barnhart or supporters of either one of them.
There is no risk in multiple choices.
Rochester Musician,
The Honorable Dr. Maulana Kaenga teaches us that often we can determine how important “opinions” are — just by the mere fact that everyone has them.
There is NO QUESTION that — thanks, not only to blatant, racist actions on the part of supporters of the “old, white guy” (in his own words) four years ago, but also decades of some of the worst white-supremacist-based-racism in the nation, which lead to the first major uprising, or rebellion (not riot) in a northern city in 1964 — “the mayoral race [already is necessarily, so-called] “racially tinged” — the latter of which is a gross understatement.
Thus, for you to declare that “it will not be because of Jim Sheppard or Rachel Barnhart or supporters of either one of them” — not only exposes your bias, but it also makes clear that you either are not familiar with, or choose to ignore the critical importance of historical context and reality. Surely, you don’t believe that the magnificent 2017 Mayoral Election is completely separate, or occurring in isolation from all of the recent, and historic, racist, political history, and machinations that preceded it — do you???
The Struggle Continues…and 2017 will be the year of reckoning.
http://www.blackpast.org/1857-frederick-do…
Rocket Racoon — DO TELL.
“hedge your bets
to try to avoid giving an opinion or choosing only one thing, so that whatever happens in the future you will not have problems or seem stupid (sometimes + on ) Journalists are hedging their bets on the likely outcome of the election. I decided to hedge my bets by buying shares in several different companies.
See also: bet, hedge
Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed. Copyright Cambridge University Press 2006. Reproduced with permission.”
Yes johnny — Democrats are to the City — what Republicans are to the County.
MALCOLM X EXPLAINS DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLTGvX58mn…
Yes Howard. Once again MX preaches that democrats use black people. BTW, I never thought that MX had such low self esteem.
Yes johnny — Once again Malcolm X preaches that BOTH democrats and republicans use black people.
As it relates to your stupendous statement about Malcolm having “low self esteem” — IN YOUR DREAMS.
Our Dear Brother was not only one of the boldest, proudest, most intelligent beings in all of the U.S, and the world during the 20th Century, but he also had the charisma and talent to help instill the same kind of boldness and BLACK PRIDE in millions of African peoples around the world.
So, back to the drawing board johnny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vkLXFucIR…
Occam’s Razor teaches us that the simpler of two or more hypotheses is likely to be the most correct.
Applying O’sR to the Rochester mayoral contest would seem to indicate that Barnhart’s campaign is predicated on nothing more subtle then the cynical assumption that the African-American vote will be split in the primary, leaving her the victor based on her name recognition and “outsider” (i.e. a total lack of governmental experience) status. Her nearly-successful run for the assembly nomination against incumbent Bronson no doubt helped to add fuel to Barnhart’s new career as a professional office-chaser.
Thomas Wilson:
Louise Slaughter lost four times before she won. Lovely Warren also lost. Were they professional office chasers too? What about Zephyr Teachout?
Besides, if we apply Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is this: Barnhart wants to make the city a better place.
Howard, Five times MX calls himself a victim. FIVE TIMES HE CALLS HIMSELF A VICTIM. A sure sign of low self esteem. And never once does he mention a republican. Please pay attention.
Peter Maurer Careful or you’ll cut yourself on that razor. Just like Barnhart cut herself off from reality by proposing a 50% cut in property taxes.
As to who’s a professional office chaser, I’d say its a matter of timing and offices being sought. Slaughter won on her THIRD try for county legislature over a four year period. Barnhart on the other hand first ran for the state assembly, lost, and then in a matter of a few months did a 180 and is now running for city mayor. Looks like she’s all over any office that opens up.
johnny,
It’s ONLY (SOLELY) because you’re listening and processing from a super-narrow, Eurocentric perspective — that you believe Malcolm’s skillful utilization of the term “victim” is “a sure sign of low self esteem.” You clearly don’t understand his calculated-psychology. If you LISTEN — I mean REALLY LISTEN to the entire 6 minutes and 43 seconds (6:43) clip — you MAY begin to understand (even though I really doubt it) — because honestly, I don’t think you have a reference point for seeing/hearing this any other way than the way you’ve been trained to see/hear it.
You obviously are NOT a good listener, or you would not have made the statement that — “never once does he mention a republican.” Please take your own advice — Please pay CLOSE attention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLTGvX58mn…
Thomas Wilson
Does your candidate actually have a plan to save Rochester, or are they going to remain mute during the length of the campaign? Rachel should be commended for putting forth a rational plan, not pilloried by those wish to maintain the status quo.
People have a right to vote, and a right to run. That’s the system in this country. Sorry, you don’t like it.
Howard, you’re funny. He clearly says he’s a victim and urges his audience to be victims too. No call to rise above it all. Not a leader, unless you want your people to fail. He’s done a great job , unfortunately , and you are pushing the same garbage. Please tell me what you have done to better the black community because I have read a lot of your writing in minority reporter, etc, watched your videos and I see nothing to show you want improvement.
The struggle continues…and 2017 will be the year of success
Some think that Warren hopes to win by having Sheppard and Barnhart split the anti Warren vote. That is possible. But think about this alternative. Perhaps Barnhart hopes to win by having Sheppard and Warren split the black vote. Or maybe Sheppard will win by having Barnhart and Warren split the women’s vote. Any of those scenarios is possible. They simply rely on voters voting identity politics rather than thinking through who most closely supports policies the voter believes in.
Luxembourg: I think the most likely outcome is that Warren will win because Sheppard and Barnhart will split the ant-Warren vote. As much as I like Barnhart, I think Sheppard would have a very good chance of beating Warren head-to-head, but with Rachel in the race, Warren will most likely beat them both.
I agree that Warren will most likely beat both Rachel and Sheppard. I had previously thought that Rachel would choose to support Jim Sheppard in hopes of getting a job in his administration. Maybe she’ll still do this.
So, the Latino (majority Puerto Rican) vote is not even going to be mentioned in this article?
I am not surprised, there are only more than 30,000 of us in the city of Rochester.
I am sick of my people being completely disregarded in this city and its media.
The editorial represents a classic example and study regarding white, super-liberal-fragility; avoidance-behavior, and chronic denial — relative to participation in individual and institutional racism. Instead of fessing-up — the author attempts to shift critical dialogue to the idea that people need to make-up and let bygones be bygones — even when they haven’t completely passed away — AMAZING!!!
johnny,
https://potsdamtopetersburg.files.wordpres…
OK Howard. We don’t understand this black thing. We’ve been asking what blacks want for years. No we don’t under stand your up=down, left=right, hot=cold talk. Your” super-narrow, Eurocentric perspective.” What do black people want in plain English? Or, better yet, what’s stopping blacks from living their life’s dreams? Go for it! Nobody’s stopping you. Why don’t blacks understand that? Nobody is stopping you but yourself.
One of the most inane and needlessly inflammatory pieces of drivel I’ve read in a long while. Over the course of two pages, this is what we learned. 1) Having competition in the race for the mayoral nomination is potentially damaging to the party. 2) Because the candidates are different races (gender is not mentioned), this competition is sure to cause more racial division. 3) If local Democrats could all just get united, “they could accomplish great things”. Thus I suggest in true progressive fashion, your next editorial should propose the three competitors join forces to create a superhero tri-candidacy. That way everyone can be happy, no one will be disappointed, and tremendous progress will be made in the community.
BTW, the terms “race”, “racial”, “racist” are used a dozen times in the editorial, as a warning to all that things could get ugly folks. This in a contest where the incumbent is black, the primary challenger is black, and the new kid on the block is a liberal white woman. Is there no situation anymore that might escape the clutches of City’s unnatural and unhealthy obsession with race politics?