I had a chance, along with Mike Robinette, to meet with Gavin Leonard yesterday. Gavin was recently named the Ohio State Director for the Center for Progressive Leadership (CPL). He wants to network in Dayton with progressive groups and wants to help initiate actions that will energize Dayton’s progressive community.

Gavin’s life story is remarkable. In 2006, at the age of 24, Gavin was named by by Cincinnati’s City Beat Magazine as “Person of the Year” in an article entitled, “The Youth Shall Set You Free.” Here are the first several paragraphs:

Gavin Leonard will be the first to say that a baby-faced white boy, which he is, can’t tell you what inner-city black youth need. That’s their job. He’s just a translator.

Leonard has done interpretive work before. Five years ago he was a “bear viewing guide” in the Redoubt Bay Critical Habitat Area, about an hour’s floatplane ride from Anchorage, Alaska, introducing privileged vacationers to the unforgiving realities of the wilderness.

These days he lives and works in Over-the-Rhine, translating the patter of Hip Hop culture and the patois of philanthropy. He’s executive director of a nonprofit corporation called Citizens Organizing Neighborhoods to Regain Our Liberation, better known as CONTROL.

Most of the 100 or so youth who go every night to Elementz, the Hip Hop Youth Center managed by CONTROL, likely wouldn’t recognize the IRS code “501c3,” the financial tool that enables Leonard to translate mostly white money into mostly black art, education and self-empowerment. They only know Elementz is a place where they can go to make music, learn the art of graffiti and enjoy the kind of respect that large groups of black youth assembling at night in Cincinnati almost never attain.

What is remarkable is that the Elemntz, the 501c(3), the vision of effectively impacting urban youth via hip hop — all came from the energies and determination of Gavin Leonard. Gavin put it all together. It is easy to see why CPL chose Gavin to serve as Ohio’s State Director. Gavin is a doer. Every progressive organization, I’m sure, if given the opportunity, would would want Gavin to join their organization and get things done.

I had never heard of the Center for Progressive Leadership before meeting Gavin. Here is an excerpt from their web-site

The Center for Progressive Leadership (CPL) is a national political training institute that develops diverse leaders who can effectively advance progressive political and policy change. Through long-term, comprehensive programs for organizational leaders, political professionals, activists and future candidates, CPL provides promising leaders with the skills, resources, and networks needed to become powerful progressive leaders.

My understanding of the overall vision of the CPL is that CPL wants to move the country in a progressive direction and believes that a key component to accomplishing this vision is the development of strategies to empower individuals to emerge as leaders. CPL, no doubt, would like to find a way to mass produce the leadership of the quality that Gavin illustrates.

It seems to me, education is one long term answer as to how to engender effective leadership. Education has a lot of components but, for our society to flourish, we need a system of public education that develops the leadership potential in every student. We are far far from such education now. I’ve given some thought to the question of school reform, most recently here: Public Schools Need Radical Reform, Educational Leaders Must Answer the Question: BY WHAT METHOD?

“By What Method?” comes from W. Edwards Deming and signals a theory that insists organization, not individuals, is the key to quality. In a sense, it is fair to see our country in systems’ terms — it is fair to see our county as a system that is not working right, that is not living up to its potential. I tackled a systems’ view in my post Why Are We Rich?

CPL’s strategy is to develop and empower progressive leaders with the purpose that these leaders, once in power, will then move the country in a progressive direction. Deming, I believe, would take somewhat the opposite approach, and would say the solution is a systems’ solution — we simply need to make our system of democracy work as it should work. If our system of democracy worked to produce a government of the people, a government by the people, it would also certainly be a government for the people — that is, a government formed via authentic democracy certainly would be a government that enacted progressive ideals. CPL’s strategy to train potential leaders may be a short term solution. But, the long term solution is the vitalization of our democracy.

“Progressivism” to some people’s mind has a negative connotation, just like the word “liberal” has a negative connotation — such is the power of the forces of misinformation. But the same people who object to “liberal” would find the word, “democracy,” agreeable. It seems to me that progressives should emphasize the long view and should see their purpose as vitalizing our democracy. This emphasis might bring a lot more potential supporters into the fold.

Democracy, of course, requires an informed and engaged citizenry. It demands an educated public that exercises independent thought and judgment. Progressives need to advance strategies to help develop a more informed and engaged citizenry.

It is a good goal is to elect candidates who will advance progressive ideas. But it is a better goal to elect candidates who have the capacity and vision to show effective and wise leadership. Leadership is a rare quality. Such leadership emerges through democracy. I said this in my post, Our Democracy Must Be Revived — If We Hope To Achieve The Dreams of Our Wisest and Best: If our democracy was working as it should, and produced democratically committed quality leadership, it is a safe bet that our institutions would become transformed and we would experience revolutionary improvement in every aspect of our lives.

That’s a powerful thought that our society could be transformed through democratic action and it is a thought that progressives need to promulgate and also act upon. Spread the word, we need to make our democracy work as it should. One way to advance the ideal of making our democracy work as it should is to develop, encourage and educate individuals. It was great to meet Gavin Leonard, CPL state director, yesterday. The Center for Progressive Leadership is seeking to develop progressive leaders, and I’m predicting that, with Gavin’s help, the CPL will very positively impact the progressive movement here in Dayton.

Note to Jane Mitakides, Democratic candidate for 3rd District U.S. House seat:

Jane, as the challenger in this race, your central task in this campaign, it seems to me, is to make the case for change. Mike Turner has been our representative since his election in 2002. Your campaign must show that Turner’s job performance is so inadequate that he does not deserve to continue in this privileged position of responsibility and, therefore, that he should be replaced in this coming election.

Oh 3rd Congressional District – Campaign Results

The case for change is overwhelming and compelling, but with 550,000 voters in the District, it is not easy to successfully get the attention of sufficient voters to communicate any message. The message must be powerful and compelling.

Here are some quotes from your web-site:

• As a businessperson, Jane will work to bring new jobs and fight to keep those jobs in the area.
• She will work to lower the crippling costs of health insurance and care so that it is affordable for all Americans and businesses
• She has deep roots in the labor community and will always fight for the needs of hard working families in Washington. Jane will also fight to strengthen the organized labor movement,
• Jane will be a voice for keeping America’s military the best-equipped, strongest, most technologically-advanced in the world.
• She is also committed to providing more funding for education and economic opportunities to veterans when they return home from serving their country. Jane will work to protect our environment and our natural resources in Ohio.
• As our Congresswoman, Jane will make education a priority so that our most vital resource – our children – receive a quality education, allowing them to compete in an increasingly competitive global environment.

These are worthwhile statements, but together they do not communicate a compelling message of the need for change. Your web-site indicates goals you will pursue if elected to Congress, but, I imagine Turner could argue that he certainly agrees with most of your goals — with the possible exception of supporting labor unions — and, I imagine, Turner would probably argue that, in fact, he has been working for the last six years to accomplish these goals.

I saw a bumper sticker that says, “Jane = Jobs.” But isn’t Turner in favor of jobs as well? He is also in favor, no doubt, of apple pie and motherhood. In a debate, if asked about his record about jobs, Turner would certainly be able to muddy the issue. Hasn’t he helped bring jobs to Wright Patterson Air Force Base? Can’t he take credit for bringing some new businesses to the region?

If you assert that “Jane equals jobs,” the burden of explanation falls on you. If you have a plan to create jobs, it is not indicated on your web-site, and if “Jane equals jobs” is shown to be basically an empty slogan, your case for change is ruined. The point is, even for those paying attention, I don’t think it is likely that the issue of jobs will be sufficiently compelling to bring enough voters to your candidacy. And the other issues/goals you state in your web-site, I fear, have the same problem.

Turner should be fired from his job as representative for same reason that a family or business would fire their attorney or financial adviser. You must show that Turner should be removed from his job because he has failed in the job that he was suppose to do. Here is a short list: under Turner’s watch, we have descended into impending financial disaster, we have assumed crushing debt with nothing to show for it, we are much less secure, we are hated around the world, our future has been needlessly imperiled. Your message should be this: After six years on the job, the evidence is clear that Turner has miserably failed in the job that he was employed to do and, therefore, it would be a big mistake to give him another two year contract.

Because Turner has faithfully supported the initiatives of George W. Bush, the failures of the Bush administration belong to Turner as well. As a member of Congress, he has had untold opportunities to investigate, question and obstruct the many disasters imposed by Bush. He has done nothing. Turner’s total support of Bush’s incompetence, therefore, makes him totally responsible. Your message should be clear: A vote against Turner is a vote against Bush.

Your campaign message should be that Turner has made an inadequate and incompetent mess of the job he was suppose to do and, therefore, he should be replaced. In the family business analogy, in which the family consists of all voters in the 3rd Congressional District, Turner was employed to do a job, but he has badly screwed up. His affable ways and long term history in the region, however, means that many members of this 3rd District family, regardless of his screw-up, will want to keep him in the family’s employment and give him another two years contract. Your argument for change must first of all remind everyone what the job of representative is all about. If the job is all about being affable, smiling for pictures for the local media, then, Turner gets a grade of “A.”

You need to direct the conversation to a discussion of how, in fact, the merit of a representative should be judged. You need to consistently communicate a clear message of what it means to be an effective representative — and what steps you are committed to take to assure that you will be effective. You need to establish a foundation, a rationale, that will help voters in the 3rd Congressional District, who tend to vote for Turner because they like his personality, a way to honestly evaluate Turner’s job performance. You need to articulate a vision of the job of representative that Turner himself, if pressed, would agree with.

Let’s start with the fact that it is clear that our system of representative democracy is not working as it should; our system simply is not advancing ideas and measures that are in the best interest of the vast majority of citizens. This system failure is not accidental. Our representative democracy is failing us because our representatives are failing us. Our representative democracy is failing us, in part, because Turner is failing us. Our representatives are not centered on truly advancing the best interests of the general public, but rather are centered on advancing the cause of special interests. Turner is a professional politician embedded in and committed to the flaws of our current system.

In the analogy of the family attorney, the guy we hired to work for us has spent his time helping his wealthy friends. While ignoring the family business, he has secured his own interests. Meanwhile, our family business is going bankrupt. We don’t have sufficient funds to build infrastructure; we don’t have the money to adequately educate our citizens. We don’t have money to prepare for a better future for our children. But, thanks to our representative, money that could have helped solve our problems is awarded to favored corporations and to the wealthy.

Simply put, in order for our system of representative democracy to work as it should, we need representatives who define their job in terms of promoting the general good. We need representatives who define their job as advancing and promoting our historical purpose and foundational ideas as outlined in our constitution. We need representatives who are dedicated to working for freedom and justice for all. We need representatives who will work to promote laws and governmental actions that truly are “for the people.” Turner has failed to do this.

Turner certainly would agree that a representative in his actions should promote the general good and should protect and advance the ideals foundational to our country. He would agree with this general definition of what it means to be an effective representative.

Your campaign message should demonstrate, by using Turner’s record, of how Turner time and again has failed to act to meet the definition of effective representation. I’d hammer several specific issues established in his record, about which there is no ambiguity, and I’d start with the Republican tax cuts for the wealthy. I’m sure that Turner is on record as saying that he favors making the Bush tax cuts permanent. What needs to be hammered into the public’s awareness is the amount of tax giveaway that is going to the very wealthy, how thoroughly Turner supports this giveaway, and how this tax money could better be spent.

According to a report described in a newspaper article entitled “Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says,” printed in the New York Times: “Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000.”

The matter of tax fairness is a huge issue. It is an issue that generates a lot of highly motivated discussion and analysis. A progressive tax structure has been at the heart of our democracy’s tax structure for many years. The argument for the progressive system is an argument centered on an understanding of fairness. The vast majority of voters support the concept of a progressive tax system, but Bush’s tax cuts make our tax structure less progressive, more flat. Turner supports Bush in his tax cutting strategies.

Bush tax cuts have contributed to our growing debt. We don’t have nearly enough money to pay for our nation’s current bills and the aging of the baby boomers means we’ll have many more bills in the future. Bush has driven us into greater and greater debt — over $3 trillion since he took office — and his giveaway to the wealthy is partially responsible. Fiscal responsibility is a huge issue and one that an effective representative would emphasize. But Turner shows no record of protesting Bush’s incredible fiscal irresponsibility. Turner shows no record of protesting reckless congressional spending on wasteful earmarks. The tax cuts to the wealthy is part of this pattern of supporting fiscal irresponsibility.

I’m thinking that this one issue — Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy — could provide the venue by which you could crystalize your entire message. It is certainly an issue that would motivate interest and could capture the imagination of many voters who otherwise may be inclined to vote for Turner.

I see the message your campaign should communicate as three fold: 1) A compelling vision of what it means to be an “effective” Congressional Representative and 2) A plan for how, if elected, you will be “effective.” 3) A convincing analysis of why Mike Turner deserves a grade of “F” on his job performance evaluation and why, therefore, he deserves to be removed from his job as representative for the 3rd Congressional District.