Paraphrasing the Bible verse Luke 12:48, John F. Kennedy once said “To those whom much is given, much is expected.” At 43, he became the youngest and the 1st Catholic President of the United States. He also became the 1st President born in the 20th Century, and his ascendancy represented the best and brightest taking center stage in leading America forward. Kennedy was well aware of his elite, privileged position within his community and the moral obligation to service that his state required.
Martin Luther King Kennedy’s contemporary and a giant in the African American community, was hardly the financial elite in either black or white comparisons for the time. Yet King was the third generation of black preachers, and he himself obtained a PhD from Boston University.
King and Kennedy, coming from different sides of the track were both able to prove their standing by articulating their positions on governance; they were deep thinkers, and understood that people wouldn’t follow them simply because they were rich or well educated. Further, they matched the rhetorical by establishing themselves in their respective communities with credible records of years of public service before assuming the spotlight and higher organizational leadership, a tradition that continues today in the Democratic community as with Obama. Finally, they showed a reverence to the giants of the past, and were able to be catapulted into the American consciousness because old school people believed in them, counseled them in the ways of the past, and remained an integral part of their advisory teams, even when they had transitioned leadership to the youth.
With that, I will not be voting for Bryan Parker.
Illustrating the promise of America, at age 43 Bryan Parker launched a candidacy that represents the potential of blacks when they work hard. Parker is part of the new wave of educated African Americans, with a distinct difference that may or may not present an advantage: his management experiences and leadership development did not come from service. Parker imagery plays off of the notion that professional achievement with the association that professional management, particularly in technology, will transform Oakland. It is the moderate Republican election blueprint in a decidedly left of center Democratic city.
With the tactical plan of incorporating social media and online marketing to make for regular, cheap outreach to the younger voters, the Parker team jumped out ahead of everyone. He was the 1st candidate in the field of 15, and raised more money than all of the other candidates combined by June 2013. He was able to show the power of organization, and pointed to his knack for innovation as singling himself out as a different kind of candidate. Like many technology driven leaders, they try to show the efficacy of what technology can offer an organization.
Almost 18 months later, what Parker’s candidacy frequently represents instead is the ugly side of the dot com generation: uncontained ego, lack of truth, accept-a-disjointed-vision-because-I-say-so, the request for support because I personally have been successful (and therefore know what I’m doing), people don’t matter, winning by any means does.
This campaign illustrates they have a penchant of wanting to be first rather than wanting to be right. He is the paparazzi among journalists in the 2014 campaign.
Take for example, last winter. In an overnight maneuver, Parker placed hundreds of campaign signs around the city, months ahead of any other competitor. Strategic, yet a campaign violation. Because of the speed, clandestine nature and the manner in which the signs were posted, it was clear that it was a professional job and not the work of any grassroots, volunteer team. It was a calculated move to garner name and face recognition. The additional, most disturbing problem was that the signs were illegally placed. All of the signs were on city, state, federal, county, and military property, and none were at businesses or the residences of voters. They were placed in dangerous intersections and freeway onramps, places visible for safety thoroughfares, but targets to reach high traffic areas for commuters.
Of the top candidates, his platform is the most incomplete. Two of his three major platform positions involve schools and education— a play to families, but limiting in real value when you realize that the governance of the school district and the management of the city are two distinct systems with different leadership in place.
The area that should be a position of strength for Parker—economic growth—suffers from a lack of vision, and a real awareness of what is happening in the area. http://bryanparker.org/policy-platform/ In the Economic development platform, there is a goal of 20,000 jobs (last year it was 10,000) by 2020. When we go through the plan, we discover that 16,000 of these jobs are directly attributed to the Port of Oakland, a place the Parker knows very well is most influenced by the Port Commission (to which he currently serves) and not the efforts of Oakland city government. Moreover, over 21,000 jobs were created in the Oakland-Hayward-Fremont area just from September 2013 to September 2014. Not a real ambitious goal of creating 6,000 jobs in 6 years for the largest city in the Eastbay for a job creator.
While serving on the Workforce Investment Board, and later becoming the Board Chair, he not only didn’t create jobs, but was on the watch when Oakland had to return $600,000 to the federal government because the WIB couldn’t create jobs as mandated by the federal grant. If Parker wants to create the fastest jobs possible, he clearly isn’t speaking to the African American community or an unskilled labor force. Fast jobs come in two ways: high tech and fast food; the former that can’t get, and the latter they don’t want.
Since graduating from college 20 years ago, Parker hasn’t held a position for more than 3 years in any company; perhaps a laudatory climb in technology, but a treacherous sign in leadership and governance. People want you to show you can stick to something, and seeking a job that would be your longest commitment is not a good thing.
The 2000 pound gorilla in the room is the black political community. Parker cannot escape the obvious; the old school doesn’t see him as loyal, and there doesn’t seem to be anything he won’t do to enrich himself. There are several unanswered questions out there about Parker as a person, and his relationships, and his civic engagement, yet he won’t answer them. The lack of social graces and lack of historical knowledge (and reverence) is adding to the narrative. Mayor Jean Quan confidant Sandre Swanson convinced her to remove a progressive black female from the Port Commission and appoint Parker. She did. Two months later, she found out that Parker had lied to her about his political aspirations, and was running against her. I don’t care about lying to Quan; that is a part of the game these folks play. It is about the older, disappearing black generation giving him a shot to obtain experience, it’s about trust, and it’s about respect for someone that goes out on a limb to support you, particularly when you’ve done nothing to warrant that support.
Too much about this campaign speaks to outsider—not of the political system, but of Oakland altogether. No Oakland roots; no Oakland family, no significant contributions to the community as a whole. Over 2/3 of his contributions are from outside the area, and most of his endorsements come from outsiders. Even when you look at the internal endorsements, they come from groups like the Oakland Chamber of Commerce, a group that until 6 months ago, had an Executive Director for 17 years that lived 2 counties away. When the #1 cheerleader for Oakland business doesn’t even live in the county, or the next one, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that they don’t really have Oakland in their veins.
The real credible nod comes from African American clergy—until you read between the lines and realize that he was not only selected as a distant 2nd choice (nearly tied for 3rd ), but the only African American candidate chosen by the clergy. This was a mercy nod to Parker. If he didn’t make the cut, it would have amounted to an unprecedented move for the black church not to select any black candidate; and would have sent ripples in the black community. Thus, they were forced to make that vote.
Hours after the announcement, Parker’s campaign went public and stated that they were the black Pastor’s choice in Oakland. By the afternoon, they had been called out by the clergy, and pulled the endorsement letter.
We expected more out of Parker; perhaps because the young elite black community knows him and anticipated he would understand our tenuous position in the 16th largest black city in America; perhaps because he said he understood business, development, and job creation but provides no solutions; perhaps because he is more likely to cite the merits of Mitt Romney than he is MLK. I think it’s because he is not a part of the 99%, and we are not accustomed to someone black without real passion for the traditional downtrodden in urban America. For the last year, Parker has shown a penchant to ignore them; dozens of posts about Oakland, with no references to the disadvantaged; a facebook page that displayed pictures of Oakland, with no pictures of East Oakland, and a smattering of scenes that included blacks. We expected him to be more black, and it ain’t happenin’. This isn’t for the obvious reason that he is black; it is for the notion that someone who pledges an African American fraternity, is a returning member of 100 Black Men of America, attends an African American church, and is the Chair of the Workforce Investment Board, you’d expect him to relate to the critical challenges of education, crime, business development, gentrification, and political coalitions through osmosis. There is a real reason why Parker saw no endorsements or political lift from his involvement in these institutions; they don’t trust him….and to represent my interests at a local level, neither do I.
holowe 