This endorsement is one of the most difficult to make because, based on this author’s personal, professional and procedural experiences with Speaker Fox, he is unlikeable on all counts. In the spirit of full disclosure, when a written appeal for help on a personal level as well as a statewide plea for any continuing aid, or consideration thereof, was sent to Speaker Fox, the result was a rather snide and condescending letter. To his credit, Fox did take the time to personally sign the letter. Woot.
On the other side of the spectrum, independent Mark Binder is very likeable. Binder is soft-spoken, thoughtful and seemingly diplomatic. Both are very intelligent and exceptional communicators in spite of their opposing methods of expressing their respective messages. The white-hot, spotlit issues staged in this particular political drama are 38 Studios, pension reform, education reform, pay-day lending and gay marriage. Binder has the advantage on all of these.
However, the reason he holds the upper hand is because he has never had to deal directly with the decision making that comes from the Democratic-Republic system of being an elected lawmaker. His campaign has been run primarily on pointing out the failures of his opponent. To his credit, there are many to point out.
38 Studios was/is a massive cocktail of economic woe and, in spite of many others dipping a straw in that scorpion bowl, Fox was left holding the empty glass and the state will be feeling the fiscal hangover for a long time. To maintain the metaphor of blame, the EDC was definitely behind the bar along with then Governor Carcieri and possibly more nefarious influences like Jon Brien and ALEC.
Pension reform can be looked at as a mathematical necessity over the long term in spite of Fox and Raimondo’s bullying methodology. This reform is now headed to the courts who may or may not decide its legality and validity. Fox could have avoided this by using his position of authority to encourage more diplomacy and negotiation with those who suffer the economic repercussions of broken statutes, rather than ignoring the requests for more time, talk and less speculation of Fox’s caving to the “last place aversion” psychological influence of the private sector and the bond market.
There is no question that Rhode Island’s public education system requires a massive overhaul. Pages have been filled with discussion on what is wrong and how to fix it. Suffice it to say, Fox is affiliated with RI-CAN. This organization has questionable means of achieving admirable motives. Better public schools? Yes please. Systematic elimination of teachers unions in order to publicly fund corporate charter schools? No, thanks.
Gay marriage? Of course it should be legal. And an openly gay man in the most powerful position in Rhode Island’s General assembly who does not, when given the opportunity to promote a progressive agenda and make a stand for his own, unfortunately, disenfranchised minority … well? I suppose there is only one thing to call that: a politician.
Gordon Fox is a politician. He is an effective politician. He is an opportunist. He is a pragmatist. He knows how to attract power and to attach himself to power. Gordon Fox gets things done. He seems to embody the adage of more is lost by indecision than by wrong decision. He says the right things and, maybe, most of the time, he means it. In Tony Kushner’s Pulitzer Prize winning play Angels in America the fictionalized, historical character of Roy Cohn (a gay, lawyer working in high-level politics) talks about politics in a way that is brutally honest. Roy says, “This is… this is gastric juices churning, this is enzymes and acids, this is intestinal is what this is, bowel movement and blood-red meat – this stinks, this is politics, [Joe] the game of being alive.” Perhaps this is too harsh a statement. Probably so. However Gordon Fox understands that to be successful at politics, it helps to be a politician and, often, that means making enemies and unpopular decisions. Sometimes Gordon Fox is not nice. But, again to quote Kushner’s character of Cohn, “Do you want to be nice, or do you want to be effective?”
Mark Binder is very smart. He is very creative. He is very contemplative and diplomatic. Gordon Fox is effective. My endorsement for Representative in House District 4 goes to Gordon Fox.
This election is highly unusual for progressives. Mark Binder would obviously make a better state representative. That is hard to dispute. On the other hand, losing Gordon Fox would probably result in a much worse speaker.
But there is another consideration. Binder’s run has moderated a lot of Fox’s hard-right stances, something that will have deep consequences for Fox. Progressives, who hold more sway on the East Side than anywhere else in the state, have either stayed out of this race or supported Fox. So Fox now knows that his reelection depends on keeping progressives from fielding a challenger much stronger than Mark Binder. But for Fox to stay scared, he needs to win by a very small margin. A 20% margin for Fox would undo much of the good Binder has done. The best result for progressives is for Fox to win by as thin a margin as possible.
The question for the progressive voter, then, is whether Fox is safe enough that the benefit of voting for Binder outweighs the risk of Helio Mello becoming Speaker. Personally, I think Fox’s position is strong enough that a vote for Binder is probably the right decision. But without polls it is hard to tell. I could easily be wrong.
You use the example of Roy Cohn to make a point? If that doesn’t speak volumes I don’t know what does?
I have to thank Samuel Bell for pointing out the one reason for hoping Fox will win. This is the first time I’ve read that Helio Mello would fill the void in Fox’s absence. The logic behind “progressive” support for Fox seems to be that he has to behave as Helio Mello would if he is to keep his position as speaker and maybe there will be some windfall benefits. I wish someone would elaborate on how much different the next legislative session would be if Fox loses. No blogger or news reporter has been specific about that. Really, exactly how much difference would it make? The importance of a Fox win has been driven home by insiders who hint at things that no one has really elaborated on. I suppose it’s a little late in the game for someone to come along and provide insight.
I think it is very unfortunate that things have come to pass this way. The one thing no one mentions is the disparity which exists in the 4th district. Glaring differences exist dependent on which side of Hope St. one speaks of. The impact on a whole district where there should be unity should be more of a concern among the pandits who write about these things in my humble opinion. Maybe if Fox wins a challenger will emerge next time around who will have the support of both the progressive community and the minority community in the next election, whose support for progressive policies is more in synch with what the word “progressive” means, when not co opted by those who have more in common with Rockefeller Republicans than progressive Democrats. After looking at the way organizations like R I – CAN have fielded candidates along with the influence of other special interest groups like the gambling lobby, etc. who are flush with cash, I don’t think one should be hopeful. In the 4th district, it seems like there is a divide and conquer strategy being used to exploit differences in the demographics between the Mt. Hope – Wayland/Blackstone neighborhoods with the Summit neighborhood feeling the squeeze in the middle. I see the divide and conquer strategy used to exploit differences throughout the “school reform” movement. It’s the oldest game in the book.
Regardless, I believe it is the neo-liberal elements of the Democratic party who fear they will feel the greatest impact from a Fox loss. How is it the Democratic party always snookers people into these situations where the bargain to be made is a devil’s bargain? It seems very obvious how badly we need an alternative to the two traditionally established parties, especially in R I where things are hardly ever what they seem on the face of things.
I’m going to vote for Binder and hope for the best.
Dear Mr. Jacobs.
Thank you for the nicest un-recommendation I’ve received.
Let’s look at effectiveness…
Gordon Fox has been incredibly effective in pushing an agenda that has nothing to do with the best interests of his constituents or the taxpayers (Auto Body Bill for one). He’s been effective at ramming through ill-conceived late night legislation (38 Studios and the merger of the Office of Higher Education and Board of Regents). He has blocked bills that are important to voters in his district (Gay Marriage, Payday Lending).
When no one else in the state of Rhode Island called him on using a state employee to run his political campaign, I was effective in putting a stop to it.
So many people in this state claim that they want the government to work better…
I have run a highly successful hardball Independent progressive campaign against the sitting Speaker of the House on a budget of about $10,000.
I ask for your vote.
- Mark Binder
It’s incredible how many progressives here feel the ends justifies the means. I’ve just never seen anyone articulate it so well. You’re willing to gamble with a characterless politician in the oft chance that he can retain his leadership position. God help Rhode Island.