The process is what matters

We find ourselves, yet again, with a special election. I thought I would simply stay out of it this time. No helping with debates. No meeting with candidates. It didn't help that the candidates were largely a similar cast of characters from previous elections. The fact that there are no female candidates for the Democratic party nomination, and only one Latino candidate, is disheartening.

Nevertheless, I am not going to totally ignore my civic duty. After attending two forums and reading the answers to the East Boston Progressive Network candidate questionnaire, there were two candidates who stood out.

Who made the cut?

Joe Ruggiero believes in many of the things that I believe in. He answers many questions about policy issues in the way I’d hope a first time candidate would. He’s running for office for reasons that I can identify with. The takeaway from my conversation with him is that he has a deep well of empathy, something I don’t get in some of the other candidates.

Adrian Madaro also believes in many of the things that I believe in. His understanding of public policy as a tool for addressing social problems is indisputable. His vision for East Boston is very clearly articulated and one I can support. He seemed more comfortable with different groups of people than some of the other candidates.

Before attending the third forum, I admit to having been a bit torn. Each candidate had strengths. Each candidate exhibited different types of naiveté, or at least rookie mistakes in communicating with the electorate.

Why process matters

There are many ways to choose a candidate. I will not choose a candidate based on their family history. You could be related to Adolf Hitler or Mother Teresa and that does not make you an inherently good or bad candidate. We cannot control who we are related to. We can only control what we choose to believe in and act upon. Candidates cannot always control who supports them either. I have previously supported candidates despite the fact that a well-known bigot supports that candidate too. While I pay attention to financial contributors, I’m less interested in who supports a candidate than the candidate’s perspective on the role of government in solving social challenges.

The process by which we come to our choices matter as much as the choice itself. In this election cycle, there seemed to be fewer debates and more forums. The forums that I attended were structured in a way that appeared to have prevented most of the antagonistic behavior that turns people off. The small group discussions, the crowd control, and the provision of translation (however awkward) at most of the forums are an incredible improvement compared to years past.

Equally important, and what really helped me make my decision, was that there were better questions asked in this election. The questions focused on policy issues that a state representative would have to deal with. The forums I attended asked direct questions about what a candidate would do and why. This helped with distinguishing candidates on the issues that mattered to me.

How I made my choice

In the end, the primary basis upon which I chose between these two good men was what they (said they) believe is the role of government versus the role of the “market” in solving social problems. I do not believe that government “has all of the answers.” But I also strongly believe that unregulated markets are dangerous to a free and equitable society. I believe that public institutions should play a central role in addressing social and economic problems. So I have a real problem with the blanket statements that “taxes are too high” or “governments shouldn’t tell landlords how much to charge in their rents.”

I simultaneously believe that we should be judicious in the use of different policy tools. What I want for my neighborhood is an elected official who understands that addressing most public problems and social challenges is really complex. And, as a result of that complexity, there is never any tool that should ever be off the table.

My suspicion is that the negative reaction to things like taxes or rent control is based more on the idea of taxes and rent control, not on an actual assessment of specific tax policies or rent control mechanisms. When given the choice, I’m going to have to go with someone who can demonstrate the understanding that there are policy tools, like rent control, and there is the actual policy itself, like regulation on rent increases by properties owned by investment funds. This is the difference between understanding that a wrench is a tool, but you can select between adjustable wrenches, pipe wrenches, and box wrenches depending on the object you need to turn. You might be able to use a plier, but that might not work as well as a wrench.

In the end

So, in this election, I will be supporting Adrian because he seems to understand this.

I hope that East Boston continues this trend of respectful, civic engagement. It feels like this election was done in a way that allows neighbors to make well-supported choices and make different choices and still be neighbors. We did it pretty well this time around. Let’s keep getting better at it.