I had two thoughts upon receiving this Jake Auchincloss mailer. Auchincloss should never have sent it. And, his very language is argument that he should have sat this race out.
As the image shows, Auchincloss makes a very specific claim. Among the candidates in the Democratic primary for the 4th Congressional District, he is the “right leader to fight back” when “Donald Trump attacks Planned Parenthood.”
That he is the right leader to defend Planned Parenthood is a bold claim for a man to make in a race with four women candidates. It’s bold given that one of the women in the race, Ihsanne Leckey, has publicly disclosed that she is a survivor of sexual violence and had an illegal abortion at 17. It’s bold given that one of the women in the race, Jesse Mermell, held a senior position at the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and earned endorsements from Planned Parenthood Action Fund and NARAL Pro Choice America. The evidence he provides of his commitment is that he learned the importance of reproductive care from his doctor parents. Add, then, that it’s bold given that one of the women in the race, Natalia Linos, is a physician herself.
There’s also the inconvenient fact that Auchincloss was a registered Republican when the state party platform was anti-choice. The national party has been anti-choice since before Auchincloss was born.
The word “leader” says a lot. On a very specific issue where he has no meaningful life experience or demonstrated commitment, he claims some generalized notion of leadership that, presumably, trumps Leckey’s trauma, Mermell’s prior senior leadership and advocacy, or even Linos being a doctor and not just the child of physicians.
It’s really hard not to see this as (white) male privilege: the confident assertion of leadership on any issue, in the absence of any specific experience or credentials.
To be sure, Auchincloss didn’t choose reproductive freedom as a key issue in the race. The Mass Women Vote PAC’s ads targeting Auchincloss and Alan Khazei as threats to reproductive freedom pushed the issue to the forefront in a race where candidates had already been claiming their progressive bona fides and targeting women voters. So, one can understand that Auchincloss felt he needed to assert his pro-choice-ness, even if he has no concrete evidence to demonstrate it and his opponents so obviously do.
Unfortunately for Auchincloss, his use of the word leader raises a larger question: should he be the leader in a fight for reproductive freedom? Not only is he asserting that he would be the best leader, he’s asserting that he’s entitled to be the leader. But, on issues of reproductive freedom, shouldn’t he step aside and let women lead the charge?
As a white man, I get it. Auchincloss is a smart, capable, confident, ambitious guy. In his heart of hearts, he probably thinks that he’d just be a better congressperson. It’s not his fault that he’s white, male, cis-hetero, affluent, impeccably educated, credentialed, and connected. Everyone — women, people of color, the less affluent, the oppressed — will benefit, across the full spectrum of issues, having him as an ally, as their champion.
But, if he wants to be an ally, he probably needs to understand two things. One, being an ally means recognizing that there are people with life and professional experience that would make them more effective on some issues than he would be. Two, being an ally means helping to create leaders of people who don’t have his advantages, in this case by getting out of the way.
Yes, reproductive freedom is just one of many issues, albeit a very important one. But, by asserting a generalized claim to leadership on this issue and in the absence of any compelling positive distinction on other issues, he’s exposed his candicacy as, basically, a candidacy of privilege.
With a little over a week to go, Auchincloss isn’t going to withdraw. I hope that one of the women wins. I’ve voted for Mermell, largely because she and Leckey are clearly the most progressive of the women and Mermell is particularly good on housing/land use and transportation.
I like Jake. He’s smart and thoughtful. He’s been a very good city councilor. And, I’m pleased that he came around this term to support a women for City Council President. It gives me no pleasure to critique him.
We just don’t need another straight, white dude in Congress.
Too much negativity to address. Being a man should not disqualify you to fight for women’s rights. Jake has always been pro choice.
He has run a positive campaign and has had to endure the harshest negative attacks from some who sling them while knowing in their heart that they are just not true. Not sure how those will live with themselves. Some say that is just politics and I should “grow up”. Everyone has a line and for me I’ve watched it being crossed several times in this political season. I have said from the start that we as Democrats were so fortunate to have so many good, qualified candidates running but that Jake is a cut above.
The Boston Globe agreed that Jake was the right choice and endorsed because they interviewed each candidate and came away seeing what half the City Council and 8 of the most progressive women on the council have seen…the most capable, prepared representative who will be able to fight and also work collaboratively to be successful in DC.
All the candidates are basically in agreement on the issues so the negative attacks have been quite personal out of desperation. It’s been ugly and sad. Just ask yourself why those who interview Jake and those who work with Jake are such staunch supporters. It’s because truth about him is in getting to know him and actually working with him. Those who are buying into the negative campaigning don’t truly know Jake and are missing out on a truly pivotal opportunity to send someone to congress that wants to bring this country together by working in a bipartisan way, yes bipartisan, a word that should not be dirty but encouraged as the way back to a more perfect union.
Some indisputable facts- Jake was the first elected official to endorse Ruthanne Fuller for Mayor. He is supported by City Council President Susan Albright, School Committee President Ruth Goldman, and 9 other elected women in Newton. This is far more than any other candidate, because he’s been a tremendous ally to women in politics. Jake is the most qualified candidate for Congress.
Councilor Greenberg,
Thanks for joining the conversation. The support of women on the City Council certainly complicates the issue. I have now spoken to President Albright, so I do not know her thinking, but I do know that Councilor Auchincloss did not support her run for President in the fall of 2017, when his support could have made the difference.
Councilor Rick Lipof – I’ve been researching the race extensively. Since you’re a fellow public servant and have used that platform to enhance your endorsement of Jake, have you also publicly acknowledged that Jake has invested in your real estate projects? If not, this seems like a significant conflict of interest:
Link to your 377 Commonwealth Ave real estate project on Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office: http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/CorpWeb/CorpSearch/CorpSummary.aspx?sysvalue=8pjGik.sbVweF7j4TyxF2I1bgK5nptgbG9_YAn8IeT0-
Link to Jake’s FEC financial disclosure report with 377 Commonwealth listed at the top: https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial-pdfs/2019/10029767.pdf
As taxpayers I believe readers here have the right to know as I imagine this investment would also have an impact on how you vote the issues that matter to us on a day-to-day basis.
It seems most of the powerful figures in Newton have endorsed Jake—AKA they have endorsed one of their own. Having grown up in Newton people told me my entire life that I live in a bubble, but why doesn’t anyone pose that question to our city leaders?
Among my circles—young people, LGBTQ people, people who rent instead of own, people who work hourly, people who lost jobs due to the pandemic, people of color who are not influential figures in Newton—the vast consensus is anyone but Jake.
While it’s possible that our city leaders genuinely know more about this district than voters, it’s also possible these powerful figures are out of touch with the needs of the powerless working Newtonian.
Paul Sweeney, that’s pretty incredible. Well done.
My thought is that this is really about the relevance of personal experience in representation. What I got from Sean’s post above is that several candidates have relevant personal experience on a particular issue, which makes it difficult to take seriously a claim of “leadership.”
This baseline idea is one of the reasons I’m supporting Jesse Mermell. I find her experience on a number of topics compelling in a way that I don’t get from the other candidates. This is particularly true when you look at areas like Fall River, which are experiencing a 23% unemployment rate. Jesse grew up in an area that was left devastated when the local factories closed. These ideas aren’t abstract to her, they are real and personal.
When I combine her lived experience with her leadership skills, progressive values, and her ability to get things done, I conclude that she’s the best in a very good field of candidates. We have some great choices in the MA-04 both of people who can serve today and who can go on to serve in other capacities.
When the smoke clears on this, I look forward to seeing how the remaining candidates take on local leadership and work to make a difference.
Paul and Michael. No gotcha here gentlement. This is all public information as you see and anyone could see.
If you need to know……As Jake and I work closely together as City Councilors and even sit side by side in the chamber, we have become friends as well as colleagues. Jake expressed to me an interest in real estate just as I was buying the Commonwelath Avenue property and I offered to have him invest in a minority position. He is one of three owners. Jake’s analytical skills have been an asset to the development and its been fun to collaborate on something outside of politics with my good friend. The development of 7 condominiums is in BOSTON, not in Newton or the District for that matter. Part time elected officials have day jobs and this part of my business has no conflicts. I chair Land Use for the City and know when to recuse myself if there is a conflict. No conflict here. End of story. Not sure what the story was to begin with. Colleagues, friends and business associates can support each other in running for congress. Jake to me happens to be all three to me!
Rick, thanks for taking the time to explain.
@ Rick – totally understand the investment. It’s public record in hard to find databases – I don’t think you or he has ever discussed it publicly or acknowledged that your relationship includes an element where he is an investor in your business. In a newspaper piece, if the Wall Street Journal covers News Corp and Rupert Murdoch, they will call out the business relationship there, in an abundance of caution. You have posted endlessly that Jake is born to lead. Nowhere have I seen that you have said, “Jake is a business partner of mine” until now, when specifically asked. Oh well, I know you’ll say nothing to see here, and this isn’t scandalous or anything, just disappointing that this relationship wouldn’t have been more adequately called out at some point. I’m not saying Jake bought your endorsement, but as an investor in your business, it cheapens it a bit in my eyes. To each his own.
First of all, I’m just shocked someone reads the mailers anymore. I haven’t in years. I do save them, shred them, and use them as art decoration for my kids. They are super colorful! Said the same thing about the city councilor races. So much paper. So little point….
Second, this is a lot of posts about Jake again. Jake and pot policy. Jake and mailers/true advocate/representation. Jake and an email that went awry. All in the last day or so. We get it. Folks who run the blog/post threads aren’t voting for Jake! Folks who post threads certainly have that right, but I’d be far more interested to know which candidate Greg, Bryan, Paul and Sean are supporting, and why. Clearly it isn’t Jake. That’s fine and all, but in a field so large, who DO you support? Why?
Third, I’ve come around to ranked voting. This race kinda calls out for it. I’d be interested in hearing the negatives as well as the positives. How has Maine found it?
I have a couple of questions. If Jesse is great for cities like Fall River, why didn’t the mayor of Fall River endorse her?
Chris Zannetos has created a lot of jobs.
Paul Sweeney for President! Amazing Find!! Rick, that should have been disclosed, end of story. It’s so unprofessional.
Fig, I’ve said before that I am supporting Jesse, who has earned her stripes in a variety of positions over the years. We disagree on some issues, but I trust her judgment, intellect, and coalition building strengths. She’d be a great member of Congress.
That being said, I think that we are blessed with a number of strong candidates. I appreciate Jake’s and Becky’s work on the Council; Alan’s accomplishments, and the others’ attributes. I don’t see how we can go wrong in this race.
My post today about the Councilor’s email had little to do with Jake and more to do with people’s reaction to the vehicle used.
Agree on ranked voting!
@Fig – I’m still genuinely undecided, and for the record I agree that the endless candidate-bashing, particularly of one candidate, has not showered Village14 in glory. All the more happy for me to be staying out of the back and forth.
Any affordable units at 377 Commonwealth Ave?
@Fig: Yep. There’s a lot of threads here about Jake Auchincloss.
But here’s the reality: Most of the news in this campaign has been about Auhincloss. It’s not a Village 14 invention, it’s what most of the media (and especially the Globe, but not just the Globe) has been covering.
He’s also the candidate the other candidates talk about more than any other. (For example, see how often his opponents mention him here.)
And yes he’s a Newton guy on top of that.
But really, right or wrong, this is where the focus has been.
There are some very telling reasons why Jake is endorsed by ten of his City Councilor colleagues (8 female), who work with him up close. We see his research, fact-finding, tackling and leading on issues including housing, climate change, women’s rights. Voting against him because he is a “straight, wide dude” if he’s the best qualified is ridiculous. Becky is a smart and honorable person, and is endorsed by 4 current City Councilors (all male). There are some very intelligent, experienced and honorable candidates in this race, but Jake has the chops for this job. No matter the outcome of this race, I expect we endorsers would continue to work well with Jake and/or Becky in either the CC or Congressional roles.
This is not a statement about who I’m voting for in this election. I think most of the candidates would make fine representatives in Congress. Rather, I’d like to challenge the following thinking from Councilor Kelley:
How can we achieve gender or racial parity in D.C. if we always choose the straight, white dude because we think he’s the most qualified? Often the reason people are the most qualified is because they’ve had the most opportunity. I would vote for a Black woman who is less qualified than the other candidates as long as I thought she’d be a strong, effective voice in Congress. Short term, I can’t see another way to have the demographics in Congress match the reality of the country.
“white dude”, not “wide”!
@Gail: Exactly.
Well said, Sean. Claiming the mantle of being the best “leader” almost makes me nauseous at this point. So much entitled, white male thinking.
And yes to ranked choice voting.
Maybe I am nuts, but if I needed open-heart surgery I would only consider the surgeon’s qualifications, not their race and gender. Others are free to select their surgeons however they wish.
@all: We cannot send ill prepared people to Congress period. Doing so affects everyone in the district and is an insult to working people that need representation.
The political parties have to do a better job in identifying and assisting qualified people to seek these offices. Congress is there to represent the people and if a person is not capable of doing so, then that person should start at a lower level and work their way up. Just because someone wants to run on some agenda is not a reason to send them to Washington. Seek out prepared and ready people, they exist, and boost their candidacy. Thinking potential candidates don’t exist is more racist than anything else that can be said.
Gail you’re comment has good intent, but shows the privileged liberal white mindset.
Jim,
I don’t think you read Gail very carefully. She did not propose sending an unqualified person to Congress. In fact, she was very clear: “I would vote for a Black woman who is less qualified than the other candidates as long as I thought she’d be a strong, effective voice in Congress.”
She’s literally saying she’d rather see a qualified Black woman than an apparently more qualified white man, because it is easier for a white man to accumulate the trappings of being qualified.
@Jeffrey Pontiff: Me too but we’re electing a representative, not a surgeon.
Rick, Andrea, and Jim,
I note that none of the three of you wrestle with Jake’s claim of leadership on the issue of reproductive freedom — the “best” leadership — in a field with a woman of color with very specific lived experience and a senior leader and advocate on the issue and a doctor (which is only relevant in as much has he claims his leadership flows from learning about reproductive freedom from his doctor parents).
As I’ve written in the past, simply commenting here doesn’t obligate you to answer follow up questions. But, if you feel inclined, I would love for you to explain, in your words, what would make Jake the “best leader” on reproductive freedom given these particular women and their experience.
@Sean Roach on August 24, 2020 at 6:08 pm : Well, it seems that you (too?) are not reading for understanding. Among Jim’s important words was “qualified”. Not a big stretch to assume that you and Jim and I all define that term differently.
For my part, someone isn’t qualified on account of schooling, identity group, etc. “Deserving” or “worthy”, isn’t “qualified” …
One is qualified for a particular set of tasks, challenges, and issues that I anticipate coming to the fore or that I will precipitate imposing themselves on the candidate. Qualifications such as “smart”, “nice”, “experienced”, etc. are non-sequiturs in my calculus of qualified enough for my vote. As with Donald Trump in 2015 .. that he had a certain kind of business experience did not IMHO qualify him in the particular for being the country’s CEO.
Jeffrey,
This is going to fry some neurons, but, the whole “best qualified” to render medicine and race is complicated. According to a recent study, Black babies do much better when they have a Black doctor.
@Jim Cote, to be fair, in this race, I would say that almost all of the candidates could be considered “qualified” for the job. Frankly, if you plucked any of these candidates out of this district and dropped them in any of a number of other districts around the country, they would be the most qualified candidate in the race.
With that being the case, then Gail’s statement stands. We have an opportunity (maybe it’s an obligation) to help balance the gender bias in Congress. If we look at the big picture, then we need to focus on the voices that go underrepresented in Washington.
The most under-represented demographic in Congress are people not completed a bachelor’s degree: 4% vs 66% in general adult population. Should that be fixed? On the other hand, people with military experience are tremendously over-represented there. So whatever category you take, Jake just would add to bias in Congress.
I am not voting for Jake simply because I am not a fan after his handling of Northland, not because he’s a white male. I am voting for Jesse because I like her position on most issues, not because she is a woman.
We talk such a strong game about how progressive we are here in Newton, yet we continually push one group down in order to prop another one up. Never though this Asian dude would feel bad for white guys.
Being better people… building a better society… is not a zero sum gain sport.
Matt, your candidate supports defunding the police. Doesn’t that disturb you?
@Chuck Tanowitz on August 24, 2020 at 9:21 pm: A well-asserted tone deafness to an essential part of Jim’s point. “Qualified” in the eyes of at least some voters isn’t observed as a bar, isn’t required as a minimum or threshold standard, isn’t measured as a level. Instead, the term is closer to what Human Resources people speak of as “fit”. Multi-faceted, situation-specific, etc.
“Gail’s statement” as a statement about and by Gail. “Gail’s statement stands” is about you. You might choose to subscribe to the view she expressed. But the degree to which neither it nor you spell-out what is meant either by the “requirements of the job” or the “distinctive characteristics of the candidate’s expected performance in that job” makes that short hand insistence closer to lessons in catechism .. closer to political advertising .. closer to litmus tests, than a neo-classical engagement of political discourse on the town green.
I (and I suspect Jim) prefer to think more critically about what I prefer in each aspiring leader. I voted for Mayor Fuller. Not because she was (is?) a woman, not because it was “time”, not for any reason other than I though and think her the better qualified candidate. (though articulating each facet of that, here and now, would be a digression).
IMHO.
Actually, I wasn’t making a statement as much as I was posing a question to a city councilor. Starting with the assumption that most Newton elected officials believe that Congress should more closely represent the demographics of the country, how do we get there if we aren’t willing to vote for people who might have less “qualifying” experience? Many women and people of color haven’t been given the opportunity to gain the experience that might be afforded to a white male.
This question doesn’t necessarily apply to this particular race. I don’t know enough about all the candidates to know how much opportunity they were born into. I do know that a city councilor said, “Voting against him because he is a “straight, white dude” if he’s the best qualified is ridiculous,” and I’d like to hear how she thinks that statement jives with achieving racial and gender parity in D.C.
I’ll take it in a slightly different direction than Gail. Because we have a white-centric, male-centric, hetero-centric notion of experience and leadership, not only do we miss women, people of color, LGBTQ folks because they didn’t get the opportunity to get the white-dude merit badges, we miss the fact that the lived experience of women, people of color, and LGBTQ folks should be considered important experience. For instance, how can Congress make legitimate laws about women’s reproductive freedom when 84% of Congress is men?
Let that sink in. Eighty-four percent. Just 16% of the folks in Congress are (or have been) directly affected by the rules they write regarding women’s bodies. That should outrage every last thinking person.
Councilor Auchincloss claims leadership on a topic on which he lacks essential lived experience. He hasn’t even been in the trenches as an ally to those with lived experience. On the page on which he claims leadership, the best he can do — the absolute best argument he can make — is that his mother and father are doctors.
So, please don’t talk about how selecting women, people of color, and LGBTQ candidates on the basis of identity is lowering the experience bar. Maybe it’s the white men who have the low bar. Not maybe. It is the white men who have the low bar. And, there really is no better example of how low the bar is for white men than the absolutely absurd claim that Jake Auchincloss is the best leader in this field on reproductive freedom.
Galling.
@Gail and Sean: Great thread, but you lose focus of representation. The 435 members of Congress are there to represent their district and Joe Kennedy was not elected to balance or unbalance national statistics. Our representative could be anyone due to the diversity of the district, whereas some parts of the country clearly need to change. We see this in NYC where in the past 2 years, the Democrats replaced representatives who obviously no longer mirrored the residents of the district. This is what elections are for and it works.
“…how can Congress make legitimate laws about women’s reproductive freedom when 84% of Congress is men?”
Absurd.
How can Congress make legitimate laws about people with end stage renal disease when N% of Congress is free of it?
How can Congress declare war when N% of Congress has no military experience?
Gail makes an excellent point. Particularly when you consider that our district is one of the more progressive in the country, then for those who care about having gender equity in our Congress, it is even *more* incumbent upon us to vote for women and people of color to compensate for the districts where voters do not care about such matters and so will continue voting in straight white men, election after election.
(PS I am supporting the one woman of color candidate in #MA04)
Letter to the Tab:
https://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20200824/newton-letter-not-supporting-auchincloss
ICYMI Sean, Ruthanne Fuller was a lifelong registered Republican until 2008 when she first ran for public office in Newton. Give the kid a break, he is as much of a Democrat as Mayor Fuller is.
My only comment on the pro-life/pro-choice ” quarrel is the mother of birth control Margaret Sanger instigated the Negro Project in 1939. Can you spell E U G E N I C S ?
https://bit.ly/3lm7goI
Jake Auchincloss is by far the best candidate to represent the MA 4th. For every issue he addresses he uncovers the underlying issues before building a policy position. He focuses on market-based policies that are self-managing and require minimal government intervention. He does not support policies where the government is choosing winners and losers. He does this despite the fact that some of his policies are quite unpopular politically.
His carbon tax and congestion charge policies would sharply raise the cost of using private cars, and provide a more stable source of funding for public transportation. These transportation policies would also make clear that the cost of using a single passenger private car for transportation is always more expensive than using public transportation. Policies like his transportation policy have both environmental benefits (40% of air pollution comes from transportation), and efficiency benefits for the many who have to or elect to drive anyway. Jake’s transport policies allocate costs to the system so that it is self-adjusting to provide the best benefits to everyone regardless of whether you value cost, time, or environmental benefit the most. They also happen to be pretty unpopular politically, because most people in Newton focus on a single element – cost of driving, as opposed to how their actions impact the entire transport system.
Jake has also spent a number of years focused on housing policy. He is in favor of transit focused development like Trio in Newtonville, Northland at Needham and Oak St, Riverside, and Dunstan East. All of these muli-family housing developments achieve multiple objectives. They provide lower cost housing options, something Newton sorely lacks. They enhance transit oriented development so as to minimize the strain on infrastructure. They provide a substantial increase to Newton’s tax base so that Newton can afford to maintain its existing services despite rising costs.
Jake also reaches out to all of his constituents. He has numerous endorsements from the Fall River end of the 4th, including Fall River Mayor Paul Coogan, and although not in the 4th, New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell. During his time on Newton’s city council he has regularly briefed his constituents with frequent emails on the issues of the day, opposing views, his policy position and why.
I have carefully considered all of the candidates, and have taken cold calls or attended small outreach events of five of them. Based on those learnings, Jake is the best combination of skill, knowledge, experience, empathy and consistency among the eight Democratic candidates. Both my wife and I will be voting for Jake.
JJSTERMAN,
You raise a very interesting point. I wouldn’t vote for Ruthanne if she were a candidate in this MA04 primary. A congressperson’s job is much different than a mayor’s (or governor’s). Her Republican past would be a liability v. Mermell’s, Leckey’s, Cavill’s more consistent commitment to progressive values.
Likewise, depending on the field, I might support Jake to be mayor (or even governor), where his progressive track record might not matter quite as much. He’s a smart guy, he’s capable. I just want someone more reliably progressive in Congress.
Also, Jake has served
toursin Afghanistan and Panama, he’s athree-termthird-term city councilor, and he’s a father and husband. He’s not a kid. I think it’s fair to hold him to adult standards.Sean, not to split hairs, but I thought a tour of duty in the military involved combat conditions:
“For military personnel, a tour of duty is usually a period of time spent in combat or in a hostile environment. In an army, for instance, soldiers on active duty serve 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the length of their service commitment.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_of_duty
There hasn’t been combat in Panama for decades.
Paul,
I was not aware of the distinction. Thanks.
My word, by the way, not how Jake described it.