Democrat Alison Holcomb—ACLU attorney and leader of the 2012 marijuana legalization campaign—was billed as a potential challenger to Socialist Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant in 2015. Last week, Holcomb officially declined but not without first making a biting comment concerning Sawant. Holcomb said,
“I respect and appreciate Sawant’s activism, but I don’t think she’s an effective councilmember. In my conversations with constituents, community leaders, and city and organizational leaders over the past several months, I frequently heard that Sawant didn’t invite them to conversation, hear their concerns, or engage with their issues. She clearly has an agenda, but I don’t think it’s District 3’s agenda. So yes, I think someone should run against her.”
Holcomb’s comment comes as just another example of Democrats attempting to create distance between their party and Sawant. But, the reality is that little to no difference exists between Democrats in Seattle and Sawant—the rush to pass the $15 minimum wage by both Mayor Ed Murray and the Seattle City Council serves as a testament to fact.
As SHIFT has reported, it isn’t just Sawant who refuses to invite those with differing opinions to engage in conversation or hear their concerns. Both Democrats and Sawant refused to listen to the concerns of small businesses and small business franchise owners during the $15 minimum wage debate. David Meinert, who owns several Seattle restaurants and bars and was a member of Murray’s Income Inequality Advisory Committee, called the “compromise” process of debating the $15 minimum wage a “charade.” Meinert felt justifiably betrayed by the fact that the proposal business owners agreed to was not the same plan that the City Council “debated” and passed.
The lack of respect for differing opinions and the concerns of others isn’t unique to Sawant—it’s a quality exhibited time and time again by Democrats.
I do like how you follow Holcomb’s jab at Sawant, for allegedly being ineffective, with a paragraph describing just how effective Sawant has proven to be. I guess a shot at your primary hate-object, Sawant, was just too good to ignore. (Also, your fantasy, of two very liberal candidates fighting a long election campaign, has now been frustrated.)
Also, your deep respect for differing opinions — on a matter which passed our Seattle City Council unanimously — is well taken. I’m sure you’ll be eager to consider other points of view here, and not just crank out the same positions all the time, right?
Sawant is like a 17 year old girl : “Let the Boeing workers take over the plant …” Democrat / liberal intellectualism is so far dead , ridiculed ,
and gone !
Brian Hart says
Sorry Tensor, a majority can push any idea through, that’s how HITLER did it. Good ideas, stupid ideas, odd ideas and no ideas, too. This is not by description effective governance or representation. Effective governance and representation means giving until it hurts, not taking until it hurts others. Do you see the distinction, or should I just say that soft and hard socialism are both just a varying degree of the latter. Not that I’m implying that anyone in this matter is so far gone as Hitler, but all tyranny stems from someone’s so-called necessity. It may just go down in history that Sawant was only successful at screwing things up and confusing the issues. Now, do I agree with the article that socialists and democrats are comparably equal in their lack of interaction with opposing interest groups? Of course I do. But I doubt I’d be saying that if they weren’t the only game in town. Am I not pragmatic?
It wasn’t a majority; our Council voted unanimously to implement the $15/hour minimum wage. (If you go back and read actual history, Hitler’s ascension to power was far more of the back-room deal style of politics, like the one which gave us the here-vaunted Senate Majority Coalition for the past two years. Entirely legal, but very smelly.)
This is not by description effective governance or representation.
We in Seattle have a law we wanted, and it violates no aspect of our constitution. That’s the definition of effective representation. Now, we’ll see if the law works as intended, and if it has any objectionable unintended consequences.
If it does, a future city council vote can change the law.
Effective governance and representation means giving until it hurts, not taking until it hurts others.
Well, yes, the entire point of this web site seems to be that the chonic winners of our elections should give the losers everything they want, and expect nothing in return. Why we should do this is never explained.