Birthright Candidacy: Why "born & raised" isn't always better for city council.

In May 1867, as he reflected on his recent 5-month tour of Europe and the Holy Land, Mark Twain wrote "Nothing so liberalizes a man and expands the kindly instincts that nature put in him as travel and contact with many kinds of people.” His observations became the basis for his book The Innocents Abroad, published in 1869, where he expounded on this idea, writing “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts.  Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all of one’s lifetime.” 

A few of our candidates for city council (and a decent number of the more vocal Facebook political voices) tout that they were “born and raised” or are “life-long residents” of Melrose, selling that as if it’s a unique qualifier that instills in them a deeper commitment for, or a more concerned/qualified perspective on the needs of the city.  The question is: does "vegetating in their one little corner of the earth for their lifetime" impair their ability to govern effectively in an interconnected, changing world?  Let’s unpack this.

There are certainly pros to being a lifelong local. Candidates with deep roots might have a nuanced understanding of the community's history, its challenges, and the unique fabric of its social and economic landscape.  They may have a broader network of contacts within the community, which can facilitate engagement and communication with constituents. And a lifetime of living in a place can foster a deep emotional connection and a vested interest in its long-term success, leading to more committed decision-making.  But is it possible that living amongst an acre of trees for so long blinds someone to the needs of the entire forest?

Lifelong residents running for city council may lack the ability to bring fresh perspectives and different experiences and viewpoints that can challenge established norms and offer innovative solutions to persistent problems. Further, candidates that have lived elsewhere for longer periods of time often have broader exposure to various community needs, having lived in different settings and observed diverse approaches to governance.  In addition, lacking deeply embedded community history, they may observe problems with more objectivity, which can lead to more impartial and effective decision-making. 

Considering the uncharted financial and political climate we find ourselves in, a responsible voter must ask themselves "can a candidate like this bring new and innovative ideas and solutions to unprecedented city issues, or are they interested in working towards preserving the nostalgia of their youth?  It would certainly seem to be the case with one particular councilwoman who started a petition to fight the “deemphasis” of Halloween in Melrose public schools (not preventing kids from wearing costumes, as was widely stated) when they opted to focus on more general fall festivities to be considerate of families who did not celebrate Halloween or could not afford costumes for their kids. It also seems to be the case for those who fought to keep the racist Native American imagery of the high school mascot.

Why is this relevant? According to Tufts Professor Brian Schaffner, author of the book Hometown Inequality: Race, Class, and Representation in American Local Politics, “There’s also the incumbency advantage, which exists at all levels of government, but is especially powerful in local politics, where a lot of how people vote is just name recognition.” White, wealthy people are more likely to serve as local officials… And they make decisions that more often align with the concerns and preferences of white, wealthier residents than with those of people of color and poorer residents.” 

This reflects what happened in both cases cited above; locals fighting to keep a past alive because it is woven into the fabric of their self identity and that of their families, at the expense of our marginalized residents who deserve to have their views represented in a real, equal way, not as an afterthought of "if you don't like it, you don't have to do it". In a city where 80.5% of the population is white (according to the latest U.S. Census data) and the majority live in financial comfort there is a real question of whether or not these candidate's history in the town is less ‘established roots in the community’ and more ‘ball-and-chain’, keeping them from the growth that is necessary to defeat the "prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness" Twain talks about. Can they separate themselves from their local identity to help lead a city that requires problem solving outside of the city limit box they never left? Some of these candidates (and residents) have work to do.

Residential longevity is a red herring; a ploy that pulls on the reflexive heartstrings of voters who care more about how a candidate looks and presents themselves and less on their substance. It’s a tactic used like name recognition from families with generations of descendants who never left. These traits go a long way with older, wealthier, and yes…white…voters, all the things Melrose is known for.  It’s the first card in a game of three-card monte: "I am one of you", played next to the "fear of change" card, and finally the "they are to blame" card; "they" being anyone who wants to change the town of their romanticized memories. You can see that exquisitely on any Facebook Page discussing the override, where some life-long resident will inevitably point out how "they" want Melrose to be Somerville, or Cambridge, or North Malden and many others will like that comment. And just like the ball in the card game, the actual truth is never under the card you think it is because the game is rigged and they'll move the ball to suit their outcome. It’s a con that responsible, issue-driven voters shouldn't fall for.