While much of the nation (or the small percentage that actually gives a shit about who governs us) focused on the victory of corporate scuzball Terry McAuliffe over batshitloonitarian theocrat Tom Cuccinelli, the results of Boston’s mayoral race are also encouraging. Here’s why:
Boston will be one of the rare major American cities to have a labor leader serve as mayor.
When you think about how many people, especially in cities, are union members, the incredible dearth of labor members as elected officials is particularly telling. As Kevin Cullen noted (boldface mine):
If there was a message, both explicit and subliminal, in all the debates and some of the news coverage, it’s that the city’s unions and unions in general are peopled by greedy, unreasonable, insatiable Bolsheviks who would gladly make Boston go the way of Detroit as long as they can get Bunker Hill Day off.
Funny, but I don’t know union workers who think like that, but then I’m in the tank….
The Globe and the Herald editorial pages can’t agree on what time it is, but they agree on the danger of electing a mayor who is a union activist.
It’s perfectly legitimate to ask if Marty Walsh would be beholden to unions, especially given the amount of money that unions have given his campaign, but both candidates should have been asked just as often if they’d be beholden to developers or law firms or any number of other monied interests.
Or education reformers for that matter.