Exceptional
Jane Castor and
American Exceptionalism
LGBT is not a qualification.
Woman is not a qualification.
These are genetic characteristics, inscribed on a human’s
chromosomes at conception (or, in a religio-metaphysical sense, since the
conception of the heavens). Make no mistake, there are social and cultural
experiences—from micro aggressions to ill-diagnoses—that derive from these
characteristics. There are historical and political realities—from suffrage to
glass ceilings—that derive from the marginalization of people that share these
characteristics. There are quantifiable economic injustices—from lower pay
scales to higher imputed tax rates—for Americans that share these
characteristics. Because of the manifest realities derived from these
characteristics, it’s natural to share similar responses to the institutionalized
inequities that stand as implicit headwinds to full realization of America’s
broadest, least wholly fulfilled directive: equal opportunity.
No wonder we have come to celebrate the stories of Americans
who have overcome. American exceptionalism is more than the belief in America
as exceptional among nations, it’s also about exceptional Americans. We
celebrate heroes like Abigail Adams whose intellect and force of personality influenced
Founders at America’s birth. We celebrate heroes like Deborah Gannett who
bravely impersonated a man so she could fight in the Revolutionary War. We
celebrate Eleanor Roosevelt whose
indomitable spirit became the conscience of America even as World War
raged. We celebrate Mary McLeod Bethune whose fierce intellect and bold
leadership led to the creation of one of America’s great colleges.
And Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg and
Condoleeza Rice.
We celebrate their exceptionalities—their independence from
their characteristics—because they are derived from their individualism: from
their unique, American experiences. They move beyond their genes, beyond the
systemic inequities in opportunity and shine a mirror back on America and our broader
exceptionalism. Even as they are disrupters, they are heroes deeply woven into the
fabric of our national pride.
Our evolution as a nation is not merely a series of
mutations, but rather how we pass on our best experiences—individuals
overcoming—from one American to the next.
Contrary to the basic tenet of identity politics,
characteristics and experiences are not synonymous. The latter is derivative of
the former. A genetic characteristic is not a qualification. When we reject the blinders of identity politicking that
would dilute American exceptionalism, the broader (non-woman, non-LGBT)
electorate can see similarities—individual exceptionalities overlapping exceptional
experiences—instead of superficial differences.
I would diminish her extraordinary record as a public servant
to Tampa were I to call attention to Jane Castor’s gender or sexuality as drivers
of her exceptionality.
I may overstate her significance to the wider American culture,
were I to place her in the pantheon of ultra-great Americans I describe above,
but I would also diminish her extraordinary record as a public servant to Tampa
were I to call attention to Jane Castor’s gender or sexuality as drivers of her
special exceptionality.
But maybe not.
Though not necessarily visionary on issues of global importance
like climate change or Tampa’s potential leadership in multinational commerce,
she has the administrative skills to sustain Tampa’s steady progress. Her
thirty years of continuous service—an exceptional rise from beat cop to police
chief—to Tampa attests to her commitment. She understands, as a parent and as a
leader, that building stronger communities makes safer communities. During her
tenure as police chief, major crime in Tampa dropped by more than sixty
percent. She knows, from the street-level that if Tampa residents can grow
businesses and work in the neighborhoods where they live, that they have a
vested interest in that community’s success. She knows that infrastructure
matters, as a practical tool of
supporting commerce, but also as a source of pride in our home and how we
present ourselves to visitors from around the world.
In today’s political climate, the ability for a candidate to
focus on the right message is, in itself, exceptional.
Local politics is local, and Jane Castor has resisted the
temptation (adopted by some other local political opponents) to nationalize her
campaign with unnecessary tropes about issues that are neither local nor
appropriate to our needs.
Exceptional, now.
To the same extent that female and LGBT aren’t
qualifications, neither are white and male disqualifications. Mr. Straz’s
experience and life story are, themselves, exceptional and he should be congratulated
on those. As a successful businessman, well-intentioned diplomat, and prolific
philanthropist, he has proven that his commitment to community is
unquestionable.
In his conduct of this campaign he has also proven to be
slightly out of touch with what Tampa needs right now. His attacks on Jane
Castor fall flat upon the ears of those who have witnessed the steady and
sustainable trajectory of the city; Castor has been a dependable leader through
this period. Straz’s populist-pandering and policy flip-flopping hearken a
cross between Donald Trump and Charlie Crist, a brand of non-ideological rhetoric
that chases polls and political opportunism. Perhaps there is a place and a
time where Mr. Straz’s trans-local, anti-establishment message will be
appropriate. Now is not that time, and Tampa is not that place.
Therefore, I have chosen to support Jane Castor, not because
she’s part of the LGBT community and not because she’s a woman, but because she
is the most qualified—exceptional— person for the job of Tampa Mayor right now.
Comments
Post a Comment