Inclusion—Philadelphia Style

While USA Today (the national newspaper) reports "After years as a ‘dirty word’, poverty a campaign issue again", Philadelphia voters recently declined the opportunity to elect a mayoral candidate who promised to focus on 'cutting poverty’.

Instead, the people from the City of Brotherly Love decided to promote Michaal Nutter, the Democratic candidate whose plan for economic opportunity doesn’t even use the word poverty at all. (In this city, the winner of the Democratic primary is quite likely to be the next mayor, except in years when the D is considered a lightweight and the R is socially progressive.)

Perhaps there were other forces at work in the election (OK probably, even) – but the early favorite in the race, Congressman Chaka Fattah, made cutting poverty the centerpiece of his campaign, and proposed to pay for the cost of local programs by selling the city-owned airport.

Councilmember Michael Nutter, who prevailed after months of playing underdog in the race, chose to argue that mayors cannot resolve matters of economic inequality by themselves, noting that it should be a concern for our national government. A few considered this position something of a dodge – and conveniently a dig at the Congressman’s “experience”. But, Nutter has reportedly pledged to support the efforts of the local Workforce Investment Board to develop a community plan for increasing residents educational attainment and skill levels.

The community leaders in workforce and education released a new report entitled “A Tale of Two Cities” just six weeks before the election on May 15. The first page of the glossy book reveals that this is no “anti-poverty” effort, but a campaign to ensure that no one is left behind for the lack of education or training. The report uses social inclusion language right up front.

There are two Philadelphias growing further and further apart. One is prospering in the new economy; the other is falling behind. The promise of our future can only be realized if Philadelphia moves forward together.

Perhaps USA Today and the US Conference of Mayors – whose plan to promote a poverty agenda is covered by the reporter in the national paper – could consider the outcome of this small pilot initiative in one of the nation’s poorest urban places. Voters in other places might also prefer the candidate who uses inclusive, not divisive, language – a candidate who focuses on all of us, not us and them.

It’s probably not so much that the candidates in the Philadelphia race had different goals for economic opportunity and social justice, but rather that they had different ways of explaining these visions to the voters.

That’s not a mere question of strategy or campaign tactics.

These days, developing the right communications strategy for your policy goals may mean the difference between empty talk and a chance to implement the well-developed and shared policy agenda of progressives.

Note: Perhaps, just perhaps, I overstate the role of the poverty agenda in this campaign. But from what I hear, people noticed the difference.