On March 7, St. Louis will choose its next mayor. Technically, voters will choose their respective party nominees in a primary election on March 7, with the mayor to be chosen from among these nominees in the April 4 general election, but no one doubts – even in this upside-down political season – that the Democratic nominee will be the city’s next mayor.
It is a crowded candidate field, which our editorial board has narrowed down to four major candidates, for the clarity of our readers, based on electability, leadership and the quality of their ideas. These four candidates, all Democrats – Antonio French, Tishaura O. Jones, Lyda Krewson and Lewis Reed – all were offered an op-ed on our editorial page, in strict rotation. If they all stay on schedule, before the March 7 primary election each will have had four commentaries printed in this paper since filing opened. Also, each week in our Political EYE column, we are asking all four candidates the same question at the same time, then printing their answers in the order received. We implore the public to read these candidate commentaries and these responses in the EYE, for they are very revealing of the candidates’ positions and the quality, depth and range of their thinking.
As anyone knows who is paying attention, only one of these major candidates, Krewson, is white. Given the historical pattern of voting in St. Louis – mostly along racial lines – the conventional political wisdom suggests that this primary election was hers to lose once the field had been cleared of other major white candidates. We simply don’t know what or whether arrangements or agreements were made with Gregg F.X. Daly, who has endorsed her, and Sam Dotson, who has not yet endorsed anyone, but anyone with practical experience of electoral politics suspects that arrangements or agreements were made. It has been reported that a similar secret meeting was convened, to clarify and narrow the field of black candidates in this race. In fact, we can confirm, there was such a meeting, though clearly it did not succeed in clarifying and narrowing the field.
With Donald Trump – unbelievably – installed as United States president, citizens are frequently hearing (Barack Obama, for one, keeps saying) that the future of our democracy is in our hands, more now than ever before, and if we don’t participate in our democracy as never before, we may lose it. That is also true here in St. Louis.
The polls released to date show more voters are undecided than committed to voting for the consensus white candidate. Moreover, these same polls show that the aggregated votes of the three major black candidates dwarf her vote total. Though Krewson has adopted the call for “racial equity” that defined the Ferguson Commission, we can’t recall any time prior to this election that she appeared in our newspaper standing for racial equity. Her endorsement by the police union and call to put 300 more police officers on the streets – and 300 future police pensions on the city’s budget – was enough to make many doubt how thoroughgoing her pledge to greater “racial equity” as mayor would be. When she did not attend a candidate forum devoted to youth issues at Harris-Stowe State University, an icon in the city’s black community, we believe Krewson rendered dubious a claim to being a change candidate on the issue of racial equity. In any case, the next mayor needs to have credibility across the entire city.
St. Louis needs strong, fresh leadership committed to substantial change. There must be a shift from an old, unresponsive political order that has failed to capitalize more fully on the city’s unique strengths. Our next mayor should consider best practices in other cities, many of which have less competitive advantages than St. Louis, but have done a better job of addressing common problems than we have. That is why we thought that Jones’ travel at taxpayer expense for relevant meetings and conferences in other cities was worth defending (especially given that her major opponents for mayor all approved her travel budget and have their own taxpayer-provided expense funds, crucial facts that only we have reported).
As we move close to March 7, it is essential that we all take a very close look at all of these candidates. Look at their record of innovation and performance in their current positions of leadership, as well as what they promise they will do as mayor in a rapidly changing, highly competitive environment. We need to know more about their plans for improved public safety, increased economic growth and job creation at all levels, as well as a prudent future use of public subsidies. It also is important for the voters to know who is supporting and funding their campaigns and what that support implies.
We need to select the candidate who is most likely to help lead this city and region toward greater racial equity. This city needs a new generation of leadership, unbound by the remnants of the city’s deeply inbred, divisive politics. There will certainly not be an appropriate redressing of the grievances of our most marginalized population if the city remains trapped in a status quo that has never served the overall city very well. We cannot continue old politics and expect new, different results. Who is the candidate most likely to lead this city and region toward greater racial equity and – therefore, given the enormous waste of potential in our underdeveloped black community – greater prosperity? This is the question we must all ask and answer in the short time ahead, then vote accordingly.
