I’m currently teaching a course about political extremism and polarization. Part of the course involves taking the temperature of public discourse to understand what’s contributing to our political moment.
This part shouldn’t surprise anyone: our political moment is characterized by anger and frustration.
The quality of public discourse has measurably declined and we’re more likely to consider those with whom we disagree enemies. It seems as though every political issue includes well entrenched camps to fall into, and there’s less and less space for reasonable disagreement.
Anger and frustration obviously have negative effects. We’re mean to each other, search for scapegoats, and take comfort in simple solutions to complicated problems.
But there’s a wrinkle here.
Sometimes there’s a good reason to be angry and frustrated.
When you look at the long list of problems that face Sault Ste. Marie and compare them to the seriousness with which they’re treated in the halls of power, it’s not an encouraging status quo.
I’m not talking about funding announcements, photo opportunities, press releases, and carefully crafted talking points.
I’m talking about the actual rolling up of sleeves and doing what’s right, not what’s personally or professionally convenient.
The less than encouraging part is that there’s an entire world out there that’s encountered the same problems before. There’s also a corresponding archive of good research to rely upon for public policy.
On the campaign trail, there’s been an unfortunate tendency to discount legitimate forms of anger and frustration. When that happens, we run the risk of diminishing the importance of an issue just because we don’t like someone’s tone.
It’s something that people with relatively little power know all too well. Completely legitimate complaints can get brushed aside with ease because they’re not voiced in the language of those who actually have power.
In this context, the race for Mayor in Sault Ste. Marie is an interesting one.
I think it’s notable for the stark contrast between insiders and outsiders.
We have two insider candidates, Donna Hilsinger and Matthew Shoemaker, and three relative outsiders, Ozzie Grandinetti, Tobin Kern, and Robert Peace.
Most people expect ‘the Shoe’ to fit, but it could be a tight one.
Local polling is less statistically valid than one would hope, but it can give us a simple snapshot.
Plus, the polls are often wrong.
In the end, it usually comes down to who has the best ground game, connecting with people that are motivated to vote and will actually show up.
That said, ‘the Shoe’ has a number of political advantages that render him relatively more immune to the anger and frustration that’s been brewing for years.
First, Shoemaker has been closely connected to other political insiders for years.
I’ll spare you the details, but those that closely follow the political scene will know that he’s an avid Liberal supporter, closely connected to other avid Liberal supporters, and enjoys a corresponding base of support. The same is true of his predecessor (assuming he wins the election, of course).
Second, Shoemaker has developed a favourable media perception.
Local media has offered no shortage of sympathetic coverage of him over the years, sometimes bordering on fawning. He’s relatively young and has been a fount of policy ideas to put forward, especially in the context of his fellow council colleagues, so let’s say that he comfortably falls into the category of ‘headline friendly.’
Third, Shoemaker has the support of some major power brokers in the city.
Although the language to describe the phenomenon may vary - ‘the elite,’ ‘the old boy’s club,’ or ‘the 1%’ - it’s really just a loose collection of deep-pocketed business owners that are more likely to see their interests reflected in municipal policy than us. They might also make their interests explicitly known to local policymakers from time to time.
I should emphasize: this is not a conspiracy.
People who study politics spend lifetimes connecting the dots between the interests of various political actors (corporations, lobby groups, unions, etc.) and public policy outcomes.
In a local context, it’s easy to point to a number of decisions that have been made by previous councils that have primarily advantaged the interests of the few over the interests of the entire community.
Fourth, Shoemaker has the advantage of a campaign premised on change, but not radical change.
Even when radical political changes are attractive to voters, they can also seem scary or unpredictable. So, Shoemaker represents the incrementalism that doesn’t run the risk of frightening anyone.
Finally, Shoemaker’s campaign is also premised on competence, having amassed a wealth of previous political experience.
Given the paltry accomplishments of the previous council and numerous policy hiccups, that claim to experience may ring hollow for some. That said, he’s in good company of previous councillors that have dedicated significant time to the gig and have some accomplishments under their arm as a result.
Even if ‘the Shoe’ fits - and I’m making no assumptions here - political outsiders are necessary, too.
Cynics will be tempted to think that they’re primarily motivated by their own ego and ambition, but that could easily be said about any candidate.
Instead, we should think of outsiders as symptoms that something isn’t working right.
Outsiders show people that aren’t normally represented in politics that the system can potentially be responsive to their interests. Even if those that desperately want political recognition fail to see their candidate elected, their voices are heard, albeit modestly and momentarily.
Importantly, outsiders can significantly shift the policy agenda.
They can speak about issues that run the risk of being ignored and challenge insider candidates to take them seriously. In a sense, they put issues out in the open that are too easily swept under the rug.
Similarly, outsiders are arguably more free to speak the truth because there’s less at stake for them.
They present opportunities to point out the inconsistent and hypocritical positions of insiders, because the latter have an established base to appease (and outsiders may not). If the truth (sometimes) hurts, outsiders may be more willing to take the risks associated with accountability and transparency.
Outsiders also provide us with valuable opportunities to see media bias in its full glory.
One of the major reasons that municipal policymaking standards are so low is the local media ecosystem. The latter is supposed to act a watchdog, but it’s usually content to reprint press releases (selectively, of course) and help ambitious politicians further develop their brand (probably unconsciously).
Much like the City, it rarely tries to educate people about public policy.
If it rolled up its sleeves and started comparing Sault Ste. Marie to what’s happening in other communities, people would quickly realize how poorly public institutions are performing across the board.
Despite this, outsiders dare not pick a fight with the media.
Unless you have an effective way around the media to connect with potential voters (i.e. social media), picking a fight with the most powerful gatekeepers of information is akin to political suicide.
In the big picture, I care less about the people in charge than the culture, policies, and practices that guide public decision making.
Ironically, if Shoemaker eventually delivers what’s expected by many, we’ll have seamlessly transitioned from one well-connected lawyer and Liberal insider to another.
That’s because the political personalities at play are often cut from the same cloth and form a revolving door between politics and other sources of local power.
Therefore, it’s much more important to ensure that those holding public office are acting with honesty and integrity.
The real challenge for the next Mayor will be transforming a political monoculture at the City into something that’s more responsive to constituents, and especially more consultative and transparent in its decision making.
It’s an imperative that transcends political differences, so there’s really no excuse to drag one’s feet.
Further, there’s a diverse coalition of people speaking loudly and clearly about the need to do things differently.
Let’s hope the new Mayor is listening.