A few weeks ago, there was a viral social media video of a young man calling out New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani about a pothole.
The young man noted in the video that the mayor said he would fill potholes yet here one remains. Later the same day, the pothole was filled. There were many voices around the quick response by an elected official to the concerns of a constituent — a responsive government.
Some social media responses to many of these videos of New York’s mayor questioned how a first-term, first-year mayor is able to gain such popularity in and outside of New York City? For some, it was the potholes being filled.
Imagine if we did not have to drive or ride in a car on our city streets or highways while weaving around potholes and broken asphalt like you are dodging bananas, shells and bombs in MarioKart.
As you are in the car weaving around potholes and broken asphalt, ask yourself, what are your tax dollars doing? Who are we paying to do a job being unfulfilled?
If you want to be dismissive, you may just refute with insults of democratic socialism or the Democratic Socialists of America as a party or anything other than an elected officials responding to the needs and concerns of a voter. And, that the concern was not a “cultural war” issue to create division. The concern was something to benefit all, a public service matter — a pothole.
Yet, the issue is more than a pothole. The issue is leadership. Leadership, in government departments and agencies or in non-profit or in corporate, moving quickly to address an issue that has been blaring in front of all of us. There was movement, without delay, to address the issue.
What does this tell us about what we have accepted from non-responsive leadership?
We have accepted leaders responding slowly to address uncomfortable or challenging issues that take thought, conversation and disagreement. We have accepted leaders waiting for the proper talking points to respond — such as “thoughts and prayers.” We have also accepted when those leaders say “this is not the time” to have a discussion about such issues. When is the time to have the discussion?
Yet, this is why these individuals are in leadership, to address such challenges.
In our government, especially in recent weeks, there has been an intensive focus on DSA candidates and DSA elected officials. On the one hand, the focus is about their platform and which primaries these candidates choose to participate — running in primaries against Democratic candidates and seemingly not running in historically Republican districts/states.
This is not the focus here, though.
This focus is on the conversation such candidates, responsive candidates, are providing as they are talking to voters. These candidates, regardless of their political party, are responding to the challenges voters have complained about for years and decades. Finally, these voters are being heard and seen with more than just talking points. Some candidates are demonstrating empathy and understanding — with solutions to address the issues rather than decades-old recycled sound bites.
These candidates are not talking about “fighting” for voters. These candidates and elected officials are talking about getting results. “Fighting” is performative. “Fighting” means someone will make an effort, big or small, to performatively address an issue. Usually, this performative effort addresses the surface level concern as opposed to systematic challenges. There will be a speech or partnership with an organization to create the appearance of addressing the voters’ concerns, however the concerns are not truly addressed.
The Peach Pulse
Become a founding subscriber
Get PeachPol’s exclusive Georgia political reporting and analysis — and lock in your founding subscriber rate as long as your subscription remains active.
The “fighting” also reflects that there is an opponent. These candidates/elected officials create an opponent to continue with the performance while the rest of us continue to go without policies and actions by government entities to fulfill their mission. The performance can be a distraction and misdirection. If the candidate/official is fighting someone, then that means another person is in the way and preventing progress. And, if we are fighting, we do not have the time or energy to address substantive matters.
There are too many commonalities for us to have these artificial differences.
Responsive leaders find the common elements that bring us together while leaning into challenges and disagreements. Responsive leaders understand we all have something to gain when we work together. Responsive leaders respond to the needs of the masses rather than the wants of the few.
Responsive leaders are also brave enough to react regardless of political expediency. Or if they are a lame duck executive. Or if it is an election year.
Responsive leaders turn an organization into one that is of service rather than simply being in service.
Over the last few election cycles, political commentators have discussed how lies and empty promises have gotten voters to vote against their own self-interests. Maybe, the lies felt comforting because at least someone was addressing the issues in the voters’ hearts and on their minds. Increasingly, perhaps, some voters have not been seen by those begging for their vote during an election then abandon them after being elected. So, voters tried something different because, at least, someone was speaking directly to them.
And yes, this is performative.
Perhaps, let us all try something innovative.
Let us see what would happen if elected and appointed officials were actually working on behalf of the voters. Let us see what would happen if government leaders were responsive to the masses of people who vote.
Then, just maybe, more people will be more civically engaged.
What if elected officials and candidates for office did the right thing because it is the right thing?
What if the voters elected those candidates for doing the right thing? What if doing the right thing was not about a political party — rather, the contract we request for someone who wants to represent the people?
What if having these candidates in office helped to address systematic issues? What if these candidates helped to repair our faith in a functioning republic?
What if responsive leadership was an expectation instead of an anomaly?
Tammy R. Greer has a PhD in political science and teaches public policy.
Want sharper Georgia political analysis in your inbox? Become a founding subscriber to The Peach Pulse.
