Comments

2
Given that her avowedly uber-principled stand didn't actually kill anything, "making the perfect the enemy of the good" might be overstating the case.

I think the greater fear is one of irresponsibility, unaccountability. If Sawant is unwilling to actually sign her name to any compromises that are enacted, unable to vote for anything that fails to reach all of her goals, she is basically excluding herself from the process, condemning herself to irrelevance. The budget was a significant improvement, largely because of a leftward dynamic she claims to embody. If she can't usefully be a part of actually achieving that progress, because she refuses to take what she can get and insists on insulting and denigrating those who make compromises, she's wasting her seat.
3
This is an unfair analysis. The budget is NOT a "left budget." It's substantially the same document as the one Ed Murray sent down to the City Council in September. There have been some small yet valuable improvements here and there, but overall it does not address the deeper problems facing working people in Seattle. Further, this is not in fact making the "perfect the enemy of the good" - her vote isn't preventing the budget's passage. Finally, Seattle has enough reporters and media outlets that prioritize process over substance and personalities over issues. I would hate for the new Stranger to become a clone of those lesser outlets. Focus on Sawant's values and conclusions, not the process bullshit that every other journalist in town will discuss.
4
This actually seems really smart. With such a lopsided vote there's no way it wasn't going to pass. Sawant is basically moving on to the next game - pushing the council more leftwards on the NEXT thing that comes up.



And honestly I'm proud that she did this. The right-wingers are always winning the long game because they pull crap like this. It's good to see the left finally learning from the other side's strengths and adopting them.
5
So she allowed the budget to go forward even though she personally disagreed with it? That sounds like what you'd want out of a minority party. Would you have preferred some tea-party procedural shenanigans?
6
I agree with #2, this is NOT a left budget. It doesn't include the funding requested by the Human Serviced Coalition that would allow them to raise the edges of employees without cutting services, it doesn't include progressive funding options for metro, and it doesn't even scratch the surface of the housing crisis. Of course Licata and the others SAY it's progressive, that's what they want us to believe. But when you actually look at the thing, it's not. Funding for 100 new police officers, but not for improving police accountability our addressing the biggest causes of crime, poverty and displacement? Come on, we all know that's not progressive.
7
@ 2, she has set herself up to cast No votes in situations where taking a principled stand might well result in good bills being voted down. She will look like a huge hypocrite if she doesn't. And she will undercut her own supporters if she does.

It might overstate the case if we focus on this one vote, but not if you look to the future.
8
Sorry, I meant #3
9
I guess I should direct my comment @3 as well.
10
@3



That "process" you seem to hate so much is what the rest of us think of as "actually doing democracy."



I get it that you don't like the fact that elected officials who disagree with each other need to compromise and find acceptable middle ground when they're performing the role of government. But that's not merely the way democracy works, it's why we use democracy to begin with, instead of other systems.



Sawant is grandstanding here, of course, but then that seems to be what her backers want her to do, so I don't really see any cause for complaint.
11
Here's the thing @10, Sawant got a lot accomplished in this budget. The "left" items Eli cites here were done because of her work on the City Council. But she rightly believes that the overall budget is not what it should be. Keep in mind that "process" is actually just one part of how democratic governance works. Seattle pundits seem to ignore this reality, but effective democratic governance involves mobilizing the public, framing the issue, generating activism and pressure, as well as using the "process." Those who rely solely on "process" are those who tend to not reflect or not care about what the public wants and needs, and process-oriented elected officials typically cut deals that don't address problems. That's what Sawant is rightly criticizing.
12
Here's the thing, #11: if her vote simply isn't there for a compromise, even after she "got a lot accomplished" to move the bill in her direction, then there's no reason ever to move in her direction. The council did a lot of what she wanted, and in response she's basically calling them names. So why should they ever again do any of what she wants?
13
You mean, like she signed on to the $15/hour minimum wage proposal, which in and of itself was a compromise over what she originally wanted?



It's so fascinating how liberals who have proven to be so ineffective with their political compromising now want to lecture Kshama Sawant on her "purity"; especially when her tactical opposition actually got things done. This isn't "perfect against good"; this is consistent accountable criticism of a budget that, while a bit improved, still doesn't go far enough. And, it establishes Sawant as an independent who will not be bought into submission. Kind of refreshing, considering the kind of "liberals" we've had who've compromised themselves for personal gain, but at the expense of the people who put them in office.
14
You mean, like she signed on to the $15/hour minimum wage proposal, which in and of itself was a compromise over what she originally wanted?

It's so fascinating how liberals who have proven to be so ineffective with their political compromising now want to lecture Kshama Sawant on her "purity"; especially when her tactical opposition actually got things done. This isn't "perfect against good"; this is consistent accountable criticism of a budget that, while a bit improved, still doesn't go far enough. And, it establishes Sawant as an independent who will not be bought into submission. Kind of refreshing, considering the kind of "liberals" we've had who've compromised themselves for personal gain, but at the expense of the people who put them in office.
15
OOPS....my apology for the double posting.
16
@11

I appreciate the populist sentiment, but there's a reason we use representative democracy instead of direct democracy for a lot of our government— there's nothing more populist than a Tim Eyeman initiative, after all.

You might be surprised at the number of citizens of Seattle — even poor ones — who don't care to be "mobilized," who are mostly comfortable with the the way the city is run and regulated, who don't feel they need their issues "framed" by activists or politicians, thank you very much.

And those people are every bit as much "the public" as your imagined (and remarkably malleable) throngs of oppressed proletariats.

I personally like Sawant, I voted for her for her flagpole issue, plus entertainment value. But I'm not deluded enough to think that her spin on what "the public" wants reflects all of the city's citizens. Or even just its poor ones.

Poor folks -- the bottom 40% or so -- seem to be really stubborn about holding political views of their very own, instead of meekly climbing aboard some raft of ideology floated in by white college-educated political activists.
17
If I wanted this kind of schlock, I'd head over to Seattle Weakly. Dom leaves and the place goes to hell in a handbasket.
18
@5 Does a single member of council have the power to stop the budget from passing, coming up for a vote or otherwise blocking or stalling legislation they don't support?
19
Grandstanding. I can't blame her, though, her supporters seem to eat it up.
20
The Stranger is not what it was.

Sawant's explanation of her vote makes perfect sense (see below). Also, Sanders is incorrect that Sawant voted Yes earlier, only to vote No today. In fact, she voted Yes only on the positive, but relatively minor, amendments to the budget which the conservative majority on the council had allowed to come to the floor. Today she voted No on the budget as a whole.

"There was no serious effort from the majority of this Council or the Mayor to address the massive housing crisis, the severe underfunding of social services, inadequate mass transit and gridlocked traffic, and regressive taxation. There has been no effort to look into addressing the root causes of anti-social behavior seen in the growing problems of crime and public safety.

Next year will be the last year in the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness – yet homelessness is on an alarming rise.

Over a hundred thousand households – more than one in three – are paying more than they can afford in housing costs.

Meanwhile, issues important to wealthy interests like the $1 billion waterfront commercialization project and the highly opaque $300 million police department budgets are barely discussed even though they dwarf the human services budget.

The question is not one only of improvements to the Mayor’s budget – as valuable as these improvements are.

The question is one of the hundreds of millions of dollars NOT being used to address the day to day difficulties faced by working people in this city.

The question is one of the hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue NOT raised from progressive taxation..."

http://sawant.seattle.gov/final-budget-n…
21
The Stranger is not what it was. Sawant's explanation of her vote makes perfect sense:



"There was no serious effort from the majority of this Council or the Mayor to address the massive housing crisis, the severe underfunding of social services, inadequate mass transit and gridlocked traffic, and regressive taxation. There has been no effort to look into addressing the root causes of anti-social behavior seen in the growing problems of crime and public safety.



Next year will be the last year in the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness – yet homelessness is on an alarming rise.



Over a hundred thousand households – more than one in three – are paying more than they can afford in housing costs.



Meanwhile, issues important to wealthy interests like the $1 billion waterfront commercialization project and the highly opaque $300 million police department budgets are barely discussed even though they dwarf the human services budget.



The question is not one only of improvements to the Mayor’s budget – as valuable as these improvements are.



The question is one of the hundreds of millions of dollars NOT being used to address the day to day difficulties faced by working people in this city.



The question is one of the hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue NOT raised from progressive taxation..."



http://www.socialistalternative.org/2014…
22
I take some issue with Eli's characterization of this as as a case of 'making the perfect the enemy of the good' since she a) has no power to stop it from passing and b) doesn't actually want to stop it from passing in the first place. If anything, she's free-riding; using the professionalism and responsibility toward governing the rest of the council is demonstrating as an opportunity for image-making; another brush-stroke in the 'iconoclastic, fiercely uncompromising socialist' self-portrait she markets to voters so successfully. At this point it feels like gilding the lily to me, but I'm not her target demographic.
23
@20, @21

It's hilarious that after all these years, you people are still utterly incapable of resisting the urge to issue a manifesto.
24
I am so glad that at least she is on the people's side. They would drive us straight to our mass graves tomorrow if they could. Thank You Kshama for being so strong!!
25
@20 & rinse and repeat



That sure is some mighty fine hyperbole ya got there...yep, mighty fine!
26
A "you people" coming from "robotslave". That's amusing.
27
Hi,



A somewhat muddled stranger article.

And some thought-provoking comments.

And some laugh-provoking ones as well.



On questions of actual principle, socialists never compromise with anybody.

On questions of strategy and tactics, they do.

The sole yardstick for any action being: Does it advance the socialist struggle, the hope of humankind?



Here's Lenin "On Compromises":

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w…



http://www.socialistalternative.org/

http://15now.org/



Dump the Elephant, Dump the Ass! Build a Party of the Working Class!
28
Fuck the Stranger



Good for Sawant.
29
Boy, she was totally wrong about O'Toole, wasn't she? All those SPD staff who were violating the U.S. Constitution 20% of the time they used force, along with their collaborators, their supervisors, and the rubber-stamping internal investigators: They were shown to the door, right? Identified and reprimanded? Quietly stripped of their ability to harm people? Denounced collectively in a non-identifying manner? Recognized as an area in need of a teensy bit of improvement? Yeah, it's a new day at SPD, all right. Goodbye, status quo.
30
I'm with Sawant on this one. It wasn't like it was 5-4 and a no vote would have caused real harm. Who knows, she may have voted differently in such a case, but she chose to stand on principle in a situation where doing so doesn't hurt anything. You know, kinda like protest-voting for Jesse Spear in a district where the incumbent couldn't possibly lose. The Stranger is surprising me these days with its newfound political caution. I suppose it's still "progressive," "alternative" and all that, but the editorial tone has definitely changed, in a way I don't particularly like.
31
"This is not the first time Sawant has made her perfect the enemy of the good in voting calculations."

Oh, did the budget fail? That's the "good", right?

So maybe her vote wasn't the enemy of "the good" but the ally of the "even better."
32
I support the minor changes to the budget that were made but this "exciting left wing budget" was a shift of about 4 million dollars out of a 4.8 billion dollar budget. A billion is a thousand millions so this dramatic shift moved one thousandth of the budget, with Sally and friends still putting up serious resistance and the mayor lobbying behind the scene against a pay raise for the lowest paid city employees. I find it admirable that she is not dancing around bragging and making a small victory sound bigger than it is. The Mayors budget doesn't really address anything, except giving more cops more weapons and corporate tax giveaways to Paul Allen and Amazon. She is telling people to not be content.
33
Wow, a post mildly questioning Sawant tactics - while still pointed to her accomplishments - really gets a pile on from Sawant stalwarts. The merest whiff of objectivity from a Stranger staffer is the downfall of the alternative press. Weird times...

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.