Leadership

Loose Change. That's the term fringe political movements use to describe people who join their organizations or show up to their events, not because such people believe in what the group stands for, but because such people want to be doing something, anything, to demonstrate they care about an issue.

For example, the electoral success of right-wing parties in Europe, such as Le Pen's recent big vote in France, was not made up of huge numbers who agreed with Le Pen's racial views or economic policies. Rather, the French right's exploitative embrace of Europe's difficult immigration issues made voting for Le Pen one of the few ways for French citizens to "make a statement" on immigration. Le Pen's inability to capitalize on his temporary electoral success demonstrates the shallowness of support built on a pile of loose change.

In the US, a coalition of marginal political groups, traveling under the name International ANSWER, tried to take the lead in protesting the recent war in Iraq. While millions of Americans (including our aldermen) found other outlets for opposing the war, many Americans found themselves attending ANSWER rallies and marches where the messages from the podium or on banners and signs seemed to go far beyond the issue that brought them into the streets. To the bewildered and uncomfortable marcher, he or she was at least taking a stand about a war they felt was unjust. To the number-counters at ANSWER, this same person was just another piece of loose change.

To see the relevance of this "loose change" in the current Somerville divestiture debate, think about the outcomes (bad or good) that could come about in the unlikely case that the resolution actually passes this week.

Practically speaking, even if the resolution succeeds, Somerville's mayor has promised a veto. And even if that veto does not occur, or is overturned, the resolution will lead only to a recommendation to the town's retirement fund. And it is unclear if either the managers or participants in this fund are (1) interested in social investing, (2) want social investing to begin and/or end with economic punishment of just one state, Israel, and (3) want to take up the complex issue of social investment simply because an organization with limited ties to Somerville has cynically dressed up their anti-Israel political movement as a drive for socially conscious investment.

If the practical repercussions of the resolution are small, the symbolic impact is massive. One needs only to look at the divestiture movement's own Web site to see how anything looking like success would be communicated throughout the country and around the world: as Somerville official endorsement that Israel is a racist, apartheid state alone in the world deserving of punishment. And we have already seen the impact of this divisive movement on our town, fissures that will take a long time to heal, even if the resolution is voted down this week.

Given the resolution's limited practical potential and vast symbolic downside, we are left searching for where a successful resolution would do anyone any good. And thus we are left with a dozen aldermen, many sincerely concerned about problems in the Middle East, and desiring to do something, anything, to make a statement. Even if they have no electoral mandate to make statements, much less take action on international issues, a "Yes" vote would give our leaders the feeling that they are doing something virtuous, even though the actual effects will be all bad for Somerville and for the Middle East. It would turn leaders trusted to do what's right for our town into a handful of loose change in the pocket of the worldwide boycott Israel movement.

There are times, most times, when we want our leaders to lead, to think about and act on issues on which the rest of us have entrusted them. There are also times when we want our leaders to follow, or at least listen to the people who have elected them more than the few month's preceding an election cycle.

Acting like loose change, however, does not represent either leading or following. It consists of being manipulated into taking harmful action in order to make oneself feel good. Another term for this would be "sucker" and while it would make me sad to see any of our aldermen waste their own money or reputation taking a sucker's bet, having them take such a bet with the reputation of our town, a reputation they are not empowered to sell, was and continues to be unacceptable.