There is something beautiful about being in the most integrated community in America. In some ways, it represents the best of what our country has to offer. Hang out in front of Lake Merritt on a weekend and you’ll see hundreds of people enjoying themselves.
It doesn’t mean that everyone is some hyper mixed amalgam of each other; it does mean that its pretty difficult to go for a long distance and not find people from different backgrounds, living in the same environment. It also suggests that your family, your friends, your work associates, and your places of community are likely to be ethnically from all over the place.
The more you are involved with other people, the more likely you are to make decisions based on the content of the character and less on the perceptions of others. That’s because it will be harder to find individuals to place into a stereotypical box. There are so many places in this country; heck, in this Bay Area, that you are more likely to catch Ebola than you are to catch a brotha. There is something very calming about walking around and people not being surprised to see one of ‘you’ present.
Yet, there is an ugly side to diversity of this sort: it is the certainty of pissing someone off who is different from you. It can be the saying of an outdated phrase, the introduction of a newcomer who doesn’t recognize the history or contributions of the people already there, the alienation of choice (like having a playdate or birthday party for your child and not inviting the only ‘other’ kid in class), or exercising your particular beliefs that are in direct conflict with someone else’s. In politics, it is the ignoring of a particular group, and it is the inclusion of a group when they want to be left out.
In politics, if you hold a press conference and some ‘ism’ isn’t there, they are going to call you out for not welcoming them. If you challenge someone from that same ism, someone is going to call you a bigot or a racist. Unlike a monolithic, homogenous group—the great state of Vermont, the national Republican Party, the Nation of Islam—you can be insulated and survive if you make a mistake about an outsider, because the group doesn’t have the same visceral concern as the entity being singled out. But try that in Oakland, and you are vilified.
What you do after you make the conflict occur is your measure of character in a pluralistic society. If you chose to make the conflict happen on purpose, because you have the need to stir up change, it is not going to go well for you. Yet there are times when you find out things that you cannot ignore any longer, and you have a moral obligation to address that fight, even if it costs you. That is the sign of leadership.
With that, I am supporting Courtney Ruby as my 3rd choice for Mayor.
Courtney gets the nod for a variety of reasons; she understands the issues, she has demonstrated an ability to work in a complex environment, she has a vision for funding her administration issues. If for nothing else, she took the elected position of City Auditor seriously. In a decidedly union controlled city government, she went after the elephant hiding in the corner of the room under a lampshade and turned on the light. She has discovered millions of dollars being wasted in city government. Ruby actually ran the numbers to find cost savings, $9 million in public works, $2.5 million in parking fees, $3 million in payroll: http://www.courtneyruby.com/do-the-math-oakland/, and has asked for whistleblowers to help expose mismanagement.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how you could be a candidate for Mayor and not try to find a comparative advantage in speaking to the numbers against a mayor that doesn’t understand numbers. There were 20 Mayoral debates over the last 3 months, and very rarely was the issue of the actual financials of the city ever articulated by most of the top candidates. Why? Because the candidates never bothered to get the specifics from the city auditors office. For all of the grandstanding the Mayor and other candidates have had, in the year head start these candidates had on Ruby by entering the race late, only Tuman went to her to ask about the city’s financials.
Far too often, much of the electeds take themselves and not the role of the position to heart. Ruby practices what she preaches. For years, she lived in a rough neighborhood in East Oakland; she joined local community based organizations, and as a single person, she adopted two biracial black boys, all without fanfare.
Challenge: the character she possesses in working behind the scenes, not tooting her own horn, and not defending herself when allegations of racism were levied against her has not served her well in the race for Mayor. Her high road has been interpreted as soft or an admission of guilt. Additionally, serving as the city’s accountant does not translate into serving as the city’s cheerleading chief officer. Ruby needed to make her case to the community, and she needed to be out ahead of the pack; there simply may not be enough time for her to fully articulate herself, despite being elected twice in citywide elections as auditor. Ruby showed her toughness by being the candidate with the most to lose in this race; if she loses, she’s out of office—unlike Libby Schaaf, would could conceivably run for City Council in the At-Large seat in the case of a Kaplan win for mayor (Kaplan would need to give up her seat prematurely, leaving the window for a special election), Ruby has no other place to go. I admire someone who is willing to give up an easy incumbent win and take the chance to lead at a more visible level.
holowe 