Earlier today, I received an email from Brett Mandel of Philadelphia Forward. That's hardly big news. I'm on his list and I get at least 4 emails a week from him (or so it seems). I generally read them, click through to his sight check some stuff out and get back to whatever it was I was doing.
This one was different.
Its subject line "View of Philadelphia from Manhattan is troubling" caught my attention. I don't know. Maybe it's because I still care way too much about what people think of me. I also happen to care a lot about what people think of my home city. I reprinted the article he refers to here so you can check it out. In his email, Brett had this caveat for his readers:
While City Journal definitely has a slant, as a publication of the Manhattan Institute it should not be ignored and authors Harry Siegel's and Fred Siegel's take on "Street Cleaning in Philly" (subtitled "Is reform finally coming to a corrupt city?") is instructive for us. Some facts are wrong and some ideas are questionable, but the perception comes through loud and clear. (emphasis mine)
Then I read the piece and realized just how wrong some of the facts are. In fact, I hesitated to post it because of how ridiculously wrong some of it is. However, as much as that bothered me, I couldn't help but have two opposite feelings simulatenously: (1) these Siegel guys are being really unfair, we (the people of Philadelphia) aren't that permissive of our corrupt politicians and (2) or are we?
Aside from lumping all black voters in a group and blaming them for what the authors call an "at-least-he's-our-bum" attitude, they don't specifically target the citizens of the city. They keep their criticism aimed at elected officials that they characterize as "a classic suit in search of an office," "political fixer," and leaving "the city little better off than he found it." These criticisms are precisely about the citizens of Philadelphia - voters and non-voters alike - who, in the authors' minds, are happy to keep putting people like this in office.
It's not as bad as Siegel and Siegel make it out to be. Or is it?
PS. If you don't have the energy to respond with substance to this post, feel free to use the comments section to point out all of the factual errors in the column.
Comments (3)
Oh, for pete's sake, that piece isn't just wrong, it's cheap -- and biased to the point of actual malice (what else to expect from the rightist Journal and the Manhattan Institute?).
And I disagree that this is how "others" see our city -- this is how the Manhattan Institute sees our city, and that's something different.
There's so much that could be written about the expectations on Nutter as he enters office after Street -- and we get this claptrap?
This is just an excuse to beat up John Street and Ed Rendell with a bizarre kind of conservative lionizing of Nutter. Maybe City Journal thinks this is a way to make sure Nutter cuts taxes on his first day on the job or something.
There are errors, yes -- but my favorite line is this:
"To get this far, Nutter has had to navigate the city's zany, rough-and-tumble political culture."
Oh, sure, since he was a city councilman of a decade and a half or so, I imagine that he found that difficult. He was an innocent, facing down Milton Street?!? Please.
Posted by Wendy | August 8, 2007 12:50 AM
Hmmm, in my reading that article from start to finish, and I've been living here in Philadelphia for...uh, maybe too long now...I found it pretty much to be factual from beginning to end. My only astonishment was that it came out of New York City, which as a general rule doesn't know who we are. But this particular article could've been written by a lifelong Philadelphian in my opinion. Furthermore, it seemed to be written by someone who's trying to pull for us rather than shoot us down. At no point did I pause from reading to think what I was reading was so unfair. Or just totally so out of whack. Which, incidentally, I saw often did back when I got Brett Mandel's emails regularly.
So anyhow, that's my take on it. I thought it was a very good article.
Posted by Steve W. | August 8, 2007 4:08 AM
I think the factual part that was wrong was saying that the Loan Shark was following Brady (instead of being sponsored by him).
As a trasfer to Philly, I notice a cynical expectation of failure attached to many aspects of life in Philadelphia, from politics to sports. This is compared to the other cities I've lived in (Boston, NYC, & DC) which have their own pervasive cultural flaws. But believing that Philly cynicism is an innate or permanent element is too pessimistic. Given the size & geographic location of the city, that attitude should be expected.
What's not expected is that the recent incompetence in city government is accepted as the rule. Didn't we just nominate Nutter from a worthy bunch of contenders on a reform platform? This city adopted a new planning code and seems to be accepting that city policies need to change for life to improve.
I'm confident that the city is getting better and that's a fact which is noteworthy. A couple of New Yorkers looking down their noses at another city is not. The cynical attitude is due to change. A Phillies pennant win would expedite the process.
Posted by cs | August 8, 2007 2:10 PM