Friend, neighbor, and decades-long progressive activist Mike Tabor, has a thing or two to say about Tom Hucker and my view of Tom Hucker. Mike’s points are at least as worthy of consideration as mine. Here’s what he has to say:
Keith,
I’ve been haunted by your condemnation of Tom Hucker reducing his entire career to that easy word, “bully”. Taking cues from Heather Mizeur at her first televised Governor’s debate, he could be more polite and modest. Yes, he could have run at large, but that was his decision. However, a lifetime of effective commitment to social justice can’t be dismissed, discounted and written off that easily by some of his neighbors who don’t necessarily hold office.
Rather than using the term “bully”, an easy disparaging term, how about “passionate”, “angry”, “impatient”, “insistent”…think about it, if I were a foot taller, all of those descriptions might fit me, or you! And what’s the alternative? Let’s face it, Terrell North, as good as he is and would be, unfortunately doesn’t seem to have the apparatus to win the seat. The other alternative is Barclay, the pick of conservative Dems (and the Apple ballot choice) and other moderate voices. We can’t afford to lose that seat.
Do you picture Barkley giving Marc Elrich the “second” he needs (and so eloquently pleaded for at the recent Progressive Neighbors forum) on issues like rent stabilization on the County Council? Yes, it would be good if Tom was less provocative, and maybe he’ll grow into a more diffidence as he continues to mature in office.
Perhaps we need more progressive Dems with the passion Tom has. I don’t think we should be so ready to write off Tom and his lifetime of good work.
Michael Tabor
My reply to Mike’s comments:
I did not mean to reduce Hucker’s career to one characterization. The totality of the good he has done exists, is worthy of praise, and Mike is right to remind us of that. Mike’s also correct that Hucker would be a far better partner to Elrich on council than Barclay. The very fact that Barclay must be stopped argues pragmatically for supporting Hucker.
But to toss off bullying, just because the bully is on your side, is a cop-out: bullying means intimidating, harassing, threatening retribution. None of Mike’s proposed euphemisms accurately describes Hucker’s behavior. Letting Hucker off the hook is reminiscent of the classic: “He’s a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”*
Well, guess what? I have a philosophical issue with SOBs. But it’s not just about ideals. Bad behavior has real costs. At the least it introduces unnecessary friction into relationships, making progress come at higher costs. At the most, it creates toxicity or scandal sufficient to bring down the perpetrator and any chance of progress. Think Christie, who killed the entire brand of “centrist” GOP with his nasty hubris. Think Spitzer, whose different expression of hubris destroyed him and set back his agenda. Supporting those who engage in bad behavior is risky.
I totally get why Mike supports Hucker on his record. I understand a pragmatic decision to vote for the guy who can stop Barclay. This year, though, I’m rebelling against politics as usual, just a wee bit. My vote is going to the best person for MoCo D5: Terrill North.
*The “he’s our son of a bitch” line has been attributed to several potential authors about several potential unsavory characters. Here’s a brief discussion from Washington Monthly.
–Keith
