The Chickens Come Home to Roost

TUESDAY'S ELECTION RESULTS show Boston is a tired city. The mood of the city is seen not in the successful tallies of certain "clean" candidates, but rather in the downfall of the city's three leading "anti-busing" (read racist) politicians. Boston is no more amenable to busing then it was three years ago, but after the street-and-beach warfare, the 25 per cent property tax hike and the constant scandals implicating almost every elected city official, Boston voters used the polls to register their disgust more than to signal any change of mood.

A few hacks and demagogues have survived the election; Councilors Albert "Dapper" O'Neil and Frederick C. Langone did retain their seats. But the three losers, Councilors Louise Day Hicks and John Kerrigan and School Committee member Elvira "Pixie" Palladino, each represented a special facet of Boston's malevolent underside. Whether Hicks and Palladino gain the hundred odd votes they need to win in a recount remains irrelevant because, compared to previous elections, this year's results are a clear repudiation of the trinity that stood for patronage and prejudice.

By losing, Hicks--Boston's first lady of racism--proved that old political hustlers are dying out. For decades, Hicks had capitalized on the same prejudices and taken every liberty possible with school committee and city budgets. Kerrigan had always lacked the veneer of civilization that Hicks wore, never refraining from publicly using offensive racial slurs or admitting he exploited patronage opportunities. After the media and the investigative Boston Finance Commission pilloried him last spring over his no-show staff worker, Kerrigan also exceeded the city's level of tolerance. Palladino is the easiest case to explain. She first rode the anti-busing wave into office in 1975 and is now stranded in the low tide of voter disgust.

Voters also rejected the two reform referenda that would have changed the structure of the school committee and city council from its present composition of all citywide representatives to a mixture of citywide and district representatives. Reformers designed the changes specifically to insure black representation on both bodies and greater responsibility to constituents among the representatives by tying them down to set districts. The referenda lost by only a few thousand votes but 32 per cent of the voters--28,000--did not even vote on the questions.

THESE RESULTS, coupled with an understanding of the challengers who won seats and those incumbents who finished high, clearly indicate that Boston voters repudiated their past excesses and reaffirmed their satisfaction with mediocrity. State Rep. Raymond D. Flynn of South Boston won primarily because of his reputation as a "moderate" anti-buser and the name recognition he gained by leading the crusade to eliminate medicaid funds for abortions in Massachusetts. Flynn finished very poorly in the 1975 council race, but with the publicity garnered by his anti-abortion bill, he changed the rules of rabblerousing somewhat, using the issue to get his name in print rather than to create mass hysteria. It would be foolish, however, to discount the campaign help many right-to-lifers gave him.

Rosemarie Sansone finished a creditable eighth in the council race and her campaign became the focal point for reformers. State Reps. Barney Frank '61 and Elaine Noble backed her and she quickly took on the mantle of the proverbial young, fresh face. Her campaign, however, never went beyond a smile and the promise to talk with people. She supported the two referenda questions and sought out moderate reformers, yet not once during the campaign did she offer striking proposals for change. Instead, she presented a flexible image as if she were starring in a replay of the 1976 Carter presidential campaign.

As the first nonwhite to serve on the school committee in 76 years, John D. O'Bryant had to have some substance. O'Bryant has worked as a community activist in education for years and ran a strong but unsuccessful race for the same job two years ago. He may very well be one of the most productive members to serve on that traditional stepping stone to higher office. At a minimum, he will add legitimacy to the school committee's positions, especially when it deals with the federal judge who ordered the busing and still controls the system.

O'Bryant's victory, though, did not result solely from any outpouring of citywide support. A downpour maximized the relative strength of his extremely competent organization that was receiving a critical amount of support from Mayor Kevin H. White's organization. White clearly welcomes any school committee member who will help him shore up his relations with the black community and not challenge him politically.

ANY DAY in which Hicks, Kerrigan and Palladino lose to Sansone and O'Bryant is clearly something of a bonanza for Boston, the referenda defeats and Flynn notwithstanding. And with moderate Councilor James Michael Connolly and School Committee President Kathleen Sullivan topping their tickets, there seems to be a significant improvement. The importance of these results, however, has been overblown. There has been no major change in Boston, only a reaffirmation of the lackluster. Sullivan and Connolly are responsible for no major innovations or progressive actions. They are young, educated, ambitious people who know better than to walk along Broadway Avenue in Southie and scream nigger.

The more respectable winners in Boston all follow this pattern. Councilor Lawrence S. DiCara '71, also swept into office with high hopes and clean garments a few years ago, quickly sold his innocence to the mayor and has played Hubert H. Humphrey to White's corrupt Lyndon B. Johnson. DiCara would like to be State Treasurer and he needs someone's help.

BOSTON'S NEW LEADERSHIP lacks any spark. DiCara and Sullivan have always stood out as promising leaders, not because of any great achievement of their own but because they contrasted so sharply with their less attractive colleagues. Now, without those three agitators, they will have to hold their own. To rise further politically, as both have said they plan to, the new breed will have to either cultivate a following of their own or trade their independence to the heavy-handed White administration. The latter possibility is an unlikely avenue for Connolly or Sullivan who both entertain mayoral ambitions.

Politics in Boston had reached a point where almost any change was bound to be a step forward. The new, uninspired leaders may very well encourage a reform atmosphere that could become a prelude to a major restructuring of the city's government. It is unlikely, however, that they themselves will be the primary forces behind such changes.

Until there is a significant shift in the city's temperament which goes beyond a gut feeling of revulsion for individual politicos, and instead points towards a greater confidence in systematic changes, the city will have to celebrate the funerals of demagogues in place of a political renaissance. --Mike Kendall