Boulder's progressive crisis
Published in the Boulder Daily Camera, 11/4/15
I'm sure that many of us enjoyed watching the Republicans clash during last week's debate. Whatever our politics, we should all welcome hearing the arguments for and against different strategies of governance, especially when presented in the local theater of a nationally televised debate.
Still, there's no denying that political debate sometimes gets genuinely ugly. Donald demeaning Carly's looks a few weeks back was a real "ouch" moment when many of us started to wonder if maybe the cynics are right — we aren't so much in the middle of a political debate as a political crisis. Some of what goes on in today's politics just isn't right.
While the national narrative is that it's the Republicans who like to brawl ugly these days, they're not alone. Right now, Boulder's progressives have a lot of dirty laundry on display over some very local issues.
For years, Boulder progressives have been driven by three themes: growth limits, social justice, and the environment. What's become clear is that the first two pose inherent conflicts.
It all started around 50 years ago when Boulder decided to chart its own version of the American dream by trading local growth for the chance to keep Boulder's small-town feel and natural beauty. Out of this came greenbelts, open space, and restrictions on development. These have served our city well and made Boulder a wonderful and attractive place to live.
AdvertisementThat's also the problem. The unintended consequence of these policies is that, as Boulder got nicer and new places to live here got scarcer, Boulder housing became more expensive. It's not hard to understand how limiting growth might create a community of affluent Baby Boomers raised on "Mork & Mindy" who got here early and have no desire to leave. Add to that Boulder's business boom from techies who like nice places to live and you have a town with more aspiring residents than room.
So, here we sit today in a lily-white Boulder full of rich people — not too much of an exaggeration. Yet, partly because of our university and government labs, we are steeped in progressive politics. Watch the news and you know that today's progressives are focused like a laser beam on social justice, which, in Boulder, translates to more ethnic and economic diversity. That poses an existential problem — the types of things we would now have to do to make Boulder more diverse are exactly the kinds of things that Boulder progressives have been fighting for years, and the conflicts are simply irreconcilable.
This election was when these undercurrents finally became open wounds. Well, that's a little mild. This election was when progressive politics in Boulder blew up.
The focal points of this conflict were Amendments 300 and 301 that were an attempt by many of our most "progressive" citizens to stop most progress in Boulder in a very permanent way — by rewriting our City Charter. In fairness, these folks were trying to ensure that the things that made Boulder a place people want to live were firmly cast in stone; middle-class and racial diversity aspirations be damned.
Other progressives in town, especially those without houses or looking for better job opportunities, understood that these amendments might destroy their hope for a future in Boulder. Furthermore, the amendments flew in the face of progressive orthodoxy, which preaches the virtues of centralized government in planning for the good of the community. These amendments sought to take control of Boulder's future away from local government while showing utter disdain and mistrust of our elected officials, almost all of whom were avowed progressives.
As we marched toward the election, the schisms became wider and the conflict more intense. At the crescendo, we found long-standing progressive and former City Council member Steve Pomerance taking legal action against the Chamber of Commerce for the chamber's public opposition to the amendments. In what progressive world would Mr. Pomerance's legal contortions to keep informed opinions out of the public eye ever be justified? None, I hope, but it happened right here in Boulder. Ugly politics.
While some of us might lament the loss of our local political tranquility, that would be a mistake. The world is a better place, and Boulder will be a better town, when we find and confront the conflicts between our dreams and the choices we make about how to achieve them. Nothing great is ever easy to keep. Welcome to Boulder.
I'm sure that many of us enjoyed watching the Republicans clash during last week's debate. Whatever our politics, we should all welcome hearing the arguments for and against different strategies of governance, especially when presented in the local theater of a nationally televised debate.
Still, there's no denying that political debate sometimes gets genuinely ugly. Donald demeaning Carly's looks a few weeks back was a real "ouch" moment when many of us started to wonder if maybe the cynics are right — we aren't so much in the middle of a political debate as a political crisis. Some of what goes on in today's politics just isn't right.
While the national narrative is that it's the Republicans who like to brawl ugly these days, they're not alone. Right now, Boulder's progressives have a lot of dirty laundry on display over some very local issues.
For years, Boulder progressives have been driven by three themes: growth limits, social justice, and the environment. What's become clear is that the first two pose inherent conflicts.
It all started around 50 years ago when Boulder decided to chart its own version of the American dream by trading local growth for the chance to keep Boulder's small-town feel and natural beauty. Out of this came greenbelts, open space, and restrictions on development. These have served our city well and made Boulder a wonderful and attractive place to live.
AdvertisementThat's also the problem. The unintended consequence of these policies is that, as Boulder got nicer and new places to live here got scarcer, Boulder housing became more expensive. It's not hard to understand how limiting growth might create a community of affluent Baby Boomers raised on "Mork & Mindy" who got here early and have no desire to leave. Add to that Boulder's business boom from techies who like nice places to live and you have a town with more aspiring residents than room.
So, here we sit today in a lily-white Boulder full of rich people — not too much of an exaggeration. Yet, partly because of our university and government labs, we are steeped in progressive politics. Watch the news and you know that today's progressives are focused like a laser beam on social justice, which, in Boulder, translates to more ethnic and economic diversity. That poses an existential problem — the types of things we would now have to do to make Boulder more diverse are exactly the kinds of things that Boulder progressives have been fighting for years, and the conflicts are simply irreconcilable.
This election was when these undercurrents finally became open wounds. Well, that's a little mild. This election was when progressive politics in Boulder blew up.
The focal points of this conflict were Amendments 300 and 301 that were an attempt by many of our most "progressive" citizens to stop most progress in Boulder in a very permanent way — by rewriting our City Charter. In fairness, these folks were trying to ensure that the things that made Boulder a place people want to live were firmly cast in stone; middle-class and racial diversity aspirations be damned.
Other progressives in town, especially those without houses or looking for better job opportunities, understood that these amendments might destroy their hope for a future in Boulder. Furthermore, the amendments flew in the face of progressive orthodoxy, which preaches the virtues of centralized government in planning for the good of the community. These amendments sought to take control of Boulder's future away from local government while showing utter disdain and mistrust of our elected officials, almost all of whom were avowed progressives.
As we marched toward the election, the schisms became wider and the conflict more intense. At the crescendo, we found long-standing progressive and former City Council member Steve Pomerance taking legal action against the Chamber of Commerce for the chamber's public opposition to the amendments. In what progressive world would Mr. Pomerance's legal contortions to keep informed opinions out of the public eye ever be justified? None, I hope, but it happened right here in Boulder. Ugly politics.
While some of us might lament the loss of our local political tranquility, that would be a mistake. The world is a better place, and Boulder will be a better town, when we find and confront the conflicts between our dreams and the choices we make about how to achieve them. Nothing great is ever easy to keep. Welcome to Boulder.
