May 13, 2008
I often think El Paso resembles Baghdad in its politics.
Now, some of my friends think this is overstating it, and they point to a place like Juarez, where there is real shooting taking place. But I'm going to stick with this. El Paso is very tribal, and the tribes do not trust each other. There is a sort of provisional authority, but it has a hard time winning the hearts and minds of those on the ground.
This comes most clear whenever there is an election.
In District 3, where a measly 3 percent of eligible voters cast ballots, Emma Acosta and Naomi Gonzalez represent opposites. A young political newcomer against a veteran of city politics, first as a 30-year city employee and then as a candidate for a different City Council seat. A "progressive" against a candidate with a steadily hardening populist tone.
That is fairly clear.
But then the tribal politics gets murky. Is state Rep. Norma Chavez supporting Acosta? But what about the fact that Acosta's treasurer is Queta Fierro, of the old guard, whose standard bearer, state Rep. Paul Moreno, was taken out by Marisa Marquez. Chavez, of course, was the only high-profile politician in the city to support Marquez, more and more vocally as the race wore on.
When Chavez and state Rep. Joe Pickett have a love-in with Paul Strelzin for more than a couple of hours Monday morning -- and Chavez makes a point of saying that the only candidate for City Council District 3 to call her was Acosta -- political antennae tune in. Same with former city Rep. Larry Medina, who called Strelzin to defend Acosta this morning. One of Medina's key supporters is working with Acosta, as well.
City Rep. Susie Byrd, of course, is supporting Gonzalez, as is the Citizens for Prosperity PAC, which represents mostly Republican donors who on a local level support many of the initiatives of Byrd and her fellow "progressives" on City Council. The senior progressive is state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, with whom Chavez has been at odds. But both receive campaign funding from many of the same Republican donors.
***
This gets to the definition of "progressive," a term thrown about quite a bit locally and nationally. Nationally, the term replaces "liberal," a policy definition that very few politicians at the national level would willingly embrace, although those with more knowledge than I note the distinctions between "liberal" and "progressive."
At a local level, however, progressive hearkens back to the 1920s, when the term meant that political, civic and business leaders were willing to invest in physical and civic infrastructure -- roads and bridges, water and sewer, parks and libraries, schools and museums.
They did this because they were trying to build an empire, and they believed in El Paso.
I wrote an article about the 1925 City Plan a few years ago. [article] That plan, never fully implemented -- for example, it called for removing the railroads from the center of town, a discussion still under way -- was called progressive.
It wasn't unanimous. Some opposed it, because they didn't want zoning, they didn't want municipal debt, they didn't want to provide civic amenities to people who could not afford amenities themselves.
And there was this. Quoting from the article:
"The planners wrote a document against which the present of El Paso can be measured. They were imperfect, afflicted with some of the blind spots prevalent then (and some would argue now, as well). For example, in a discussion of Chihuahuita, a neighborhood that still exists by the foot of the Santa Fe Bridge, they wrote of the 'Mexican districts':
" 'Merely as a reservoir of labor, skilled and unskilled, the districts known as 'Mexican districts' are essential to the city's economy. As a foundation stratum of workers the Mexican element on El Paso is far superior to the corresponding stratum in the eastern, northern, and southern cities. The people naturally have facility to learn the technic of many industries with special ease and rapidity. Given the right training and industrial opportunity, they quickly surpass the production records of many other races in like work.' "
***
Such commentary, patronizing and ultimately self-defeating, was a reflection of its time. It points to an underlying weakness -- the failure to develop all of El Paso's human capital, a nearly blind belief in brick and concrete over adobe -- that I believe played a role in preventing some of the more visionary aspects of the plan truly coming to fruition.
We're still living with the results of that failure, and it taints every conversation about what might be possible in El Paso. In all respects, these words, from the plan's introduction, could have been written yesterday:
"Nature and a tremendously energetic citizenship combine to afford El Paso opportunities for unique development, with possibilities unsurpassed by any other community in America.
"There is no reason why El Paso should not be, and cannot be, a city of striking distinction among cities, a city so attractive for permanent residence and for transient visits as to make a name for itself nationally famous."
So here we are, 75 years later, having a civic conversation about these very words, and this very potential.
A civic conversation, but not always a civil conversation.
***
I have occasion to speak with political observers, activists, lobbyists, and/or operatives from time to time.
Monday morning, here is what one of them told me:
"The grassroots are buzzing.
"They don't care if El Paso is great or not.
"They just want to have a barbecue in their back yard and watch the Cowboys game. They don't give a rat's ass about light rail, toll roads, a spaceport, or just in time manufacturing."
Also, there is resentment by Medina, mayor pro-tem under Mayor Ray Caballero and a supporter of Caballero's progressive policies, toward Byrd and others who were mentored and brought along by Caballero and Shapleigh. That resentment also has been expressed by Chavez.
So that is where we are.
Some people want to push the city and region forward, even if it risks some social stability, even if someone makes too much money while the powerless suffer.
Some people want to protect what little they have, even if it risks a continuing decline of our economic status and civic infrastructure, even if someone makes too much money while the powerless suffer.
Others straddle the line, and personal and political considerations come into play.
Quite a quandary.
Meanwhile, in District 3, there is a clear choice, even if very few seem to care enough to vote.
What do you think?