Dec. 1, NBC reported that Sherri Lightner was running for San Diego City Council president against Todd Gloria. Lightner would get the votes needed to become the first woman council president from four Republican council members. City Beat and LGBT Weekly reacted strongly with articles I found, in turn patronizing, entitled and strategically misguided.
Dave Rolland leads with the pre-emptory command Stand down, Sherri Lightner. He describes Lightner’s actions as a coup, which is “a sudden, violent and illegal seizure of power from a government.” How can a public election, authorized by the City Charter, which happens once a year, to the surprise of no one, be categorized a “coup”?
The article finds that Gloria is best for the job because he is “accommodating.” Lightner is unsuitable because she is “at least slightly more likely to entertain their [Republican] policy initiatives.” I have no idea how Rolland derived this fine gradation of suitability – certainly not from the candidates’ respective voting records. Neither of them is particularly progressive.
The 2012 Labor Council rated Gloria 60 percent, Lightner 54 percent. Both the Labor Council and Progressive San Diego declined to endorse Lightner or Gloria for their 2012 re-election campaigns.
Unless Lightner has gone even further to the “dark side,” the fact that Republicans are going to vote for her, for whatever nefarious purposes they may have, in itself isn’t particularly damning. All three Republicans voted for Ed Harris for interim District 2 councilmember, and he has been great.
As Rolland points out, the presidency offers Gloria a platform from which to pursue his presumed campaign for Mayor in 2016. But then every decision, every move as Council president will be portrayed as driven by his personal political ambition, and there will be truth in that perception. It is a legitimate topic of concern that this focus on personal ambition may not be the best priority for a president of the City Council.
I don’t think Rolland was being intentionally sexist. But VOSD also thought the article “brings up uncomfortable questions about her having to defer to the current leader, a man who’s had a turn.”
I found Stampp Corbin’s Open Letter to City Council, regarding Todd Gloria, even more troubling. In it Corbin, claiming to speak for the bulk of the LGBT community and, I guess, a good portion of San Diego’s communities of color, threatens all council members who don’t vote for Gloria with the electoral wrath of the aforementioned communities. This is wrong at so many levels:
- It is doubtful that the majority of the LGBT community share Corbin’s eagerness to issue threats and ultimatums on their behalf.
- The presumption that Gloria is somehow “owed” a third term, and the arrogant chastisement against consideration of the talents offered by others, reflects an ignorance about the nature of the position. It is not a sinecure. The Council presidency is intended to be passed around.
- Threatening some sort of gay Armageddon on council members who vote for someone other than Gloria is shortsighted, and has more than a whiff of gay entitlement. The saber rattling is disproportionate to the issue, cannot be supported by actual action and thus weakens the credibility of the community.
If people wish to show support for Gloria, that is great. The boyfriend of one of Todd’s staff is promoting an online petition for people to sign. This is a respectful way of showing support without disparaging the rights of other council members to make their own contribution.
To be clear, I don’t have a dog in this fight. That this battle is between the two most conservative Democrats on the Council raises other, more serious questions. But that discussion is a much longer one. My concern here is the patronizing and entitled nature of the attacks against Lightner. The 2016 election in Council District 1 will determine the partisan balance of the Council. Calling down the wrath of the gays on the current Democratic, female councilmember from District 1 because she challenges the current LGBT president is just not strategically sound. Nor are patronizing admonitions that she stand down for the man.
If Sherri is indeed considering deciding whether or not to seek the Council Presidency, it is not “in turn patronizing, entitled or strategically misguided” to weigh in on why it’s a bad idea. You mention that an excellent Councilmember, Ed Harris was put into position largely by the Republicans on the Council. You fail to mention the punishment that same Councilmember is now receiving in the Republican/Lincoln Club controlled press for his failure to follow the Party line on Belmont Park.
This attempt to oust Todd Gloria from the Council Presidency is likewise a punishment for Todd’s championing of the Minimum Wage/Paid Sick Leave ordinance and an effort to reestablish control over a Council that is showing signs of not falling into line. Supporting them in their efforts will quash those signs of progress (dare I say progressiveness). I can only hope that as Sherri makes her decision, she hears more of these editorials, not less, and she considers the long term effects of this decision for the Council and herself.