The 9th Ward & The Irate Society

More people ​“bowl alone” now. But at least in New Haven they also plant community gardens and organize snow-shoveling brigades.

More people register independent of political parties than before. But at least in New Haven they also turn out in lockstep for Democrats even more than they did in the 1960s.

Social media and the culture-war rage machine have people raging at the world, at their neighbors. But at least in New Haven, people of different backgrounds by the thousands ​“run for refugees” and organize to welcome immigrants into the community. 

Something has changed in how people act in unison — or don’t, in New Haven, in America. It’s more complicated, less dire, than the shouting and the pop culture memes suggest.

A Yale student named Elise Williamson decided to try to get a handle on that change by exploring two races for an east side seat on New Haven’s Board of Alders, one in 1963, at the dawn of the national ​“Great Society” to wipe out poverty (with programs hatched in New Haven like Head Start and legal aid); and in 2023. The latter race, independently waged, social media savvy, grassroots rather than candidate-centered, may offer an optimistic model for political organizing in these days of the Irate Society.

A Yale professor named William Miller wrote a book about the earlier race. Williamson wrote a thesis (for Professor John DeStefano, the same guy we referred to as ​“Mayor John DeStefano” for 20 years) comparing that race with the latter race, waged by now-Alder Caroline Tanbee Smith. She wrestled with questions about how politics and organizing for change worked then and work now. Following are edited excerpts from her paper. (You can read the full version here.) See which parts sound right to you, and which may look different.

P.B.

Introduction

In early August of 2023, I first sat down with New Haven Board of Alders candidate Caroline Tanbee Smith to reflect on the progress of her campaign thus far. Smith had made the decision to run for the New Haven Board of Alders, representing Ward 9, earlier that Spring. This was her first venture into any form of political work as a potential holder of public office, and ultimately running uncontested allowed for Smith’s entire campaign to serve as an intentional opportunity for curiosity, exploration, and learning.

We met for coffee, and I asked her point blank what she believed would constitute a success for her campaign. She responded, ​“If I can finish out this campaign with twice as many people already decided that they’re going to run against me in two years, I would consider that a job well done.” Smith continued on, explaining that in her eyes, the mark of a successful campaign is the politically mobilizing effect it can have: empowering residents to take hold of personal agency in their community. 

An alternative ideology can be sourced from virtually the same voting district sixty years prior. In 1966, William Lee Miller published The Fifteenth Ward & The Great Society, another documented successful Ward race that extensively detailed Miller’s experience with local and city politics as a foundation for a larger commentary on the state of American communities at the time.

Miller’s more conventional interpretation and practice of politics at the local level drastically differs from the emerging pattern of community-driven and dictated politics that we see increasing today.

Since Miller’s time in political office, the United States has witnessed a rapid decline in citizen participation in what Robert Putnam refers to as ​“networks of organized reciprocity and civic solidarity.” In his contribution to the Johns Hopkins University Journal of Democracy, Putnam states: 

“Systematic inquiry showed that the quality of governance was determined by longstanding traditions of civic engagement (or its absence). Voter turnout, newspaper readership, membership in choral societies and football clubs — these were the hallmarks of a successful region. In fact, historical analysis suggested that these networks of organized reciprocity and civic solidarity, far from being an epiphenomenon of socioeconomic modernization, were a precondition for it.” 

While much research exists inquiring why this decline in organized forms of community participation persists, the political effects of such a pattern have consequentially impacted the relationship between city residents, and their eagerness to mobilize politically. Such degradation of desire for individual participation in practices of community building attests more broadly to the role and impact of local governance and political involvement in the eyes of citizens.

What worked to politically mobilize communities in Miller’s time now demands a reorienting.

This Thesis hypothesizes that the approach to political mobilization demonstrated in Smith’s campaign more holistically serves her future constituency, by addressing community building from all perspectives of impact, especially those not inherently considered political.

In this case, the ideology of Smith’s campaign considers the consequences of decades of community degradation, urban renewal, and trickle-down public policy decisions that showcase the failures of a sheerly representative, disconnected, party-driven, and prestige-based politics. 

Frame of Reference

The Fifteenth Ward and the Great Society was written by William Lee Miller, an American political philosopher, author, and Professor at Yale University. Published in 1966, it explores the intersection of urban politics and the ambitious social agenda of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society program in the 1960s.

The Fifteenth Ward, a drastically evolving neighborhood throughout the 20th century, serves as the backdrop for Miller’s analysis. Through vivid storytelling and careful examination, Miller delves into the challenges faced by this community, including issues of the time related to poverty, racial inequality, and political representation. Informing and prompting his research is his successful campaign and position as Ward 15 Alder. 

At the time, this ward contained a significantly different demographic and community. Miller’s Ward 15 consisted of a much more homogenous racial and class population makeup, just bordering the 1 – 91 highway ramp we now see bisecting Smith’s Ward 9. A starker divide lines this East Rock Ward at present, with demographically very different communities split between the East Rock and Fair Haven neighborhoods. East Rock, a majority white neighborhood populated by many Yale University professors and faculty members, lies in visible contrast to the working class and immigrant enclave of Fair Haven. Over time, the diversification of Smith’s Ward 9 has resulted in a weakening of a distinct socio-demographic identity to which the Ward’s residents can unanimously relate. 

The 21st century has borne witness to a swift decline in interpersonal community and political engagement, marked by a confluence of societal shifts. Increasingly hectic lifestyles, propelled by technological advancements, a global pandemic, and the rapid change of traditional work structures have diminished opportunities for face-to-face interaction and contributed to drastic declines in traditional community bonds.

Moreover, a sense of political disillusionment, fueled by polarization and a perceived disconnection between citizens and political processes, has led to waning political engagement. Individuals are more often alienated from formal political structures now than ever before, further exacerbating this decline in civic participation.

Often presented in tandem with commentary on the epidemic of loneliness that public health officials today warn against, the entire fabric of social, community, institutional, and political interaction has shifted drastically. 

Political Mobilization & Community Engagement: Miller's Framework

In his chapter on his 1963 election, Miller recounts a common trend in interactions with his future constituents when asking for their vote: ​“Anybody on Dick Lee’s team is good enough for me.” Similar responses echoed the national party divide: ​“The President’s a Democrat, isn’t he?… Well, it would be good to have an alderman of the same party, wouldn’t it?” 

Simultaneously, anti-war sentiments surrounding the Vietnam War significantly influenced local political agendas. Candidates often delineated their positions on the conflict, with constituents demanding transparency and a clear stance on the divisive issue. Local campaigns became platforms for expressing dissent or support for U.S. involvement in Vietnam and national Civil Rights legislation both, reflecting the broader societal discord of the era.

Interestingly enough, it was often such national issues that drove people to local political involvement. Miller elaborates: 

“Almost all citizens have a conscious relation to the civil rights revolution, both in the nation and in the city. Yale people who otherwise ignore the merely local scene, who subscribe to no New Haven paper but only to The New York Times, who testify in Washington but don’t know what Ward they live in in New Haven, suddenly do focus on the city when an issue of civil rights arises.” 

Likewise, grassroots activism and community engagement became defining features of successful local political campaigns. Inspired by the burgeoning counterculture movement, candidates sought to connect with constituents at a personal level, addressing issues directly affecting local communities.

Grassroots efforts, fueled by a desire for change, manifested in door-to-door canvassing, town hall meetings, and community-driven initiatives. These patterns of grassroots engagement have in many ways influenced the manner by which community organizing operates at the local scale today, albeit with noticeable distinctions to be further discussed. 

Nevertheless, local political circles remained quite exclusive and slow to reform in their intentional operation.

The Board of Alders (then called the Board of Aldermen) of Miller’s time was largely consistent of white men of Italian or Irish descent. A certain degree of elitism came with the position, and little conversation with constituents is documented in his book following his election. Over the subsequent decades as diversity and equal rights legislation has trickled into the status quo culture, the nature of identity politics and representation has changed drastically. 

Political Mobilization & Community Engagement: Smith’s Framework

Caroline Tanbee Smith first moved to New Haven as an incoming undergraduate student Yale University, where she majored in Psychology and graduated in 2014.

Following graduation, Smith would remain in the city for the next nine years, going on to cofound ​“an organization called Collab that provides resources and reduces barriers for New Haven residents to start a business and create local jobs — with a specific focus on those that have barriers to entrepreneurship like women, people with lower-incomes, people of color, and immigrants.” She is now enrolled as an MBA student at Yale University’s School of Management. 

Smith came to the decision to run for New Haven’s Board of Alders at the recommendation of numerous friends and neighbors in her East Rock community. Smith describes the obligation she felt to at least engage with these recommendations from her peers and fellow community members, claiming ​“you at the minimum have a responsibility to listen to where they are coming from… why they’re suggesting support for you.”

“Facilitation” was a buzzword for Smith. Smith’s articulation of leadership could be synthesized down to ​‘an ability to facilitate community priorities and goals,’ as opposed to exercising a role as an independent official putting into action externally determined community policies. Smith’s campaign serves as a paradigm for the view of the primacy of the transformative power of engaged and empowered communities. Such a paradigm is a complete reversal of the conventional political strategies of Miller’s view. 

A distinct observation concerning Smith’s campaign events revolved around the title each was given. No matter the type of event, almost everything was publicized as a ​“community gathering,” ranging from barbecues to donuts and door knocking, t‑shirt making, and pickup basketball games.

No official agenda or structure guided Smith’s public campaign schedule, and attending each felt akin to a series of small block parties where it was often quite unclear who was hosting.

The palpable energy at each event wasn’t just about winning an election; it was about fostering a genuine sense of community agency. The campaign, in every iteration of action, was not merely a platform for self-promotion but rather a forum for fostering dialogue and collaboration. Attendees weren’t expected to be just passive spectators; they were active participants in the collective vision for the city and neighborhood’s futures.

Smith was clearly not just seeking votes; she was nurturing a movement that prioritized community leadership and emphasized the transformative power of collective agency. 

Between the announcement of Smith’s candidacy on May 5, 2023, and election day on November 7, 73% of Smith’s Instagram posts celebrated the work of other community leaders, giving a synopsis of the work they are dedicating to the city alongside their name and tagged social media handles if applicable. The remaining posts highlighted the transparency efforts that the campaign was putting into its policy proposals and political activity outside of the city.

Smith published photos and reflections on nearly every campaign event hosted, ranging from basketball drills with local middle and high schoolers, to trivia nights at bars on State Street, to canvassing calls for action and visits with Governor Ned Lamont.

Party Disillusionment & Identity Politics

In the 1960s, local political candidates held much stronger tethers to national party platforms and organizations than their reflected counterparts in contemporary politics. Party organizations played a pivotal role in candidate selection, campaign strategies, and policy formulation at the local level.

Today, the political landscape has seen a shift towards greater autonomy for local candidates, who often emphasize more nuanced and region-specific issues, reflecting a departure from the rigid adherence to national party ideologies that characterized the political scene of the 1960s. 

In the present day, candidates are more likely to foreground their personal identities, such as gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and other aspects of diversity, as integral components of their political narratives. This shift reflects a broader societal awareness and acknowledgment of the importance of diverse representation. Unlike the 1960s, where political campaigns often centered around overarching party platforms, today’s candidates are more inclined to emphasize their unique lived experiences and perspectives.

This shift signals a recognition that voters increasingly value authenticity and a candidate’s ability to relate to and understand the specific challenges faced by various demographic groups within their constituencies.

Consequently, self-demographic identification has become a powerful tool for candidates seeking to connect with voters on a more personal and relatable level, contributing to a more nuanced and diverse political landscape. 

In contemporary politics, voters often expect elected officials to reflect the diversity of the communities they serve, not just in terms of policies but also in personal background and experiences. This shift has broadened the understanding of political representation beyond party affiliation, emphasizing the importance of having representatives who intimately understand and can advocate for the unique needs of interconnected demographic, and often marginalized, groups. The use of self-identification in campaigns has facilitated a more personalized and relatable form of political representation, fostering a sense of connection between constituents and their elected officials. 

Campaign & Governance

Smith throughout her campaign referred to the nature of governance as a conversation. Where ​“all have opportunities to learn through listening” and where ​“the conversation doesn’t end once the votes are counted on Election Day.”

“After Election Day, it’s almost more important to be constantly thinking about how you’re going to interact with your community.” 

In his book, Miller hardly discusses his interactions with constituents following Election Day after he had secured his spot in political leadership. 

Elected officials are now expected to maintain open lines of communication, actively seek feedback, and foster ongoing collaboration with the communities they serve. The emphasis on sustained community engagement recognizes that successful governance is a dynamic process, necessitating an ongoing dialogue that allows elected officials to adapt policies and initiatives to better align with the evolving priorities and concerns of the local population.

Rather than relying solely on charismatic leadership or short-term policy promises, campaigns centered on community agency create lasting foundations for social change.