Chong’s populism offers mere posture instead of a program

You finally find yourself wanting to help out Charlie Chong; not vote for him, necessarily, just help him make the mayor’s race more interesting by tying together the obviously disconnected strings of his campaign.

The avowedly “populous” cause almost always wins elections in Seattle and nothing sells better than those old salted chestnuts, “neighborhood values.” So Chong’s single theme of neighborhoods-versus-downtown not only has some points in its favor, it also could be a winner.

The trouble is (there actually are several troubles), once Councilman Chong gets past his visible irritation with the city government in which he serves and states his insistence on fighting population growth, his campaign pitch simply unravels.

What’s he against? “High-density development and high traffic congestion,” he told a Rotary Club gathering this week.

Sure, but what’s he going to do about it? Well–while the listener sits poised, waiting for something specific–Mr. Chong offers one generality after another. First he repairs to one city’s comprehensive plan (which, in fact, calls for more housing), then criticizes the difficulty people have getting building permits (“We’re falling behind in building houses.”), and then allows that “We’re going to face some years of higher prices, and there’s not much we can do about it.”

If there’s not much we can do about it, what’s the point of all this fuss? Is populism just a posture instead of a program? Apparently so.

Paul Schell deserves tougher competition, though it must be tough enough trying to conduct a prize fight where the other guy throws a single punch and leaves the ring. What Schell does, of course, is point out his own record on behalf of neighborhoods a couple of decades ago when he ran the city’s Department of Community Development, his success as one of the current port commissioners who actually lowered the port’s tax rate, and his promises to get Ballard and West Seattle their own police precinct stations and to treble the city’s neighborhood matching grants. He pledges a post-election affordable housing summit and, as a former UW Dean of Architecture, he probably will put on an illuminating show. In other words, Schell has a neighborhood program.

Maybe he won’t get elected (pundits are always supposed to hedge their predictions, so here’s mine). Maybe the mere incantation of “neighborhoods-versus-downtown” is enough to pull off a surprise landslide for Councilman Chong.

But, if that’s so, shouldn’t there be some substance that follows the Chong mantra?

Maybe there isn’t more substance because the candidate just doesn’t have any. First comes the sound bite, then the silence. On the other hand, perhaps he is trying to hold together an unlikely left-wing/right-wing coalition that would fall apart if either wing found out what the other was expecting.

There is, for example, dangerous evidence that such disintegration already is at hand. You hear him vent the curious idea that the city should repeal its ordinances restricting aggressive panhandling and public urination. That, of course, alienates the right–and most of the rest of the population, for that matter. (It’s not an accident that the author of the ordinances, City Attorney Mark Sidran is running unopposed.) Chogn also opposes mandatory drug testing for city employees. So, having appalled most of the right wing, Chong comes out against the handgun bill, and that loses the left wingers. Noticing that there is still the center to offend, he states his opposition to the recently enacted Regional Transit Authority (RTA).

As Winston Churchill once told a waiter, “Pray, take back this pudding, it has no theme.”

But perhaps, you say, Charlie Chong’s populism is more about style than substance or consistency. He comes off as a nice enough guy. Couldn’t he just be expressing an attitude about listening to the voters for a change?

Sorry, listening to the voters is just what Charlie Chong isn’t doing. There is a long parade of aggrieved neighborhood and citizen groups who have invited candidate Chong to public appearances only to have him avoid them. Nobody can make every meeting (let alone fill out all the voluminous questionnaires), but the Chong campaign has ducked more than its share.

There’s no noticeable discrimination in it. The candidate avoids business and labor alike, a number of community councils int he North End and a number of Central Area and South End groups, too. This is populism without facing the people.

Not only did Paul Schell deserve a tougher opponent, so did the voters. We are in exciting times that could lead to a more civilized manageable city. We need a mayor who is prepared to think hard about how to achieve better transportation and affordable housing, but we also need a chance for the electorate to deliberate on the various policy options.

A mayor, in the end, is like any elected executive; he mainly leads by example and exhortation. Schell has thoughtful ideas on transportation, housing and , for that matter, schools, streamlining city services, regional cooperation and much else. But what kind of mandate can he claim if all he is debating is a phantom populist with a cardboard platform?

So, you are left trying to think how Chong could have played this differently. And you also are left with some advice for Paul Schell: If such a weak opponent can still get as much support from alienated citizens as Chong does, you should make sure that a Schell administration tries to speak to the concerns of those folks, too. Somebody should.