Tweet
GOING TRIBAL DURING ELECTIONS
By Patrick Azadian
Glendale News Press, CA
April 9 2007
I had promised myself to take a break from writing about the elections
after April 3.
And once again, I am breaking a promise to myself.
But one more week and I'll be back at my drab "Can't we (all) just get
along?" routine. Besides, based on the election results, it doesn't
really seem we are all getting along anyway.
Why the bleak forecast?
I am basing my opinion on the most prominent features of the recent
Glendale municipal elections.
The first feature has to do with the lack of support for candidates
with vision and potential for broad support. With the exception of John
Drayman in the City Council race, Mary Boger in the Glendale Unified
School District race and Tony Tartaglia in the Glendale Community
College board race, all other candidates with a solid background and
universal appeal registered below-par results.
Track record, the potential to build bridges, solid goals and the
willingness to run a campaign did not seem to count for much during
these elections - and neither did the late hours spent at their
campaign headquarters by some candidates.
Take Elizabeth Manasserian, for example; she came in with 14.1%
of the votes (pre-provisional). She trailed Todd Hunt by 7.3%.
Nayiri Nahabedian, the pre-provisional winner of one of the seats,
came in at 21.5%, a slim 0.1% advantage to Hunt.
A quick look at Hunt's candidate statement reveals his main credentials
for the position. The first is: "I was born and raised in Glendale
and have lived here for over 40 years." And the second has to do with
his desire to provide all kids in this district the best education
possible. That sounds simple and genuine.
Yet, an unbiased evaluation of his credentials and campaign efforts
compared to Manasserian's and Nahabedian's should conclude that the
latter two were both better qualified for the position than Hunt.
Despite their "quirky" last names, Manasserian and Nahabedian deserved
better.
Then there was Rafi Manoukian. Although some may claim that Manoukian
was a victim of anti-incumbent feelings, and there was a fresh wind
of change sweeping Glendale, the re-election of Dave Weaver puts the
validity of those slogans to rest.
Eric Hacopian, a veteran political consultant who worked on Manoukian
campaign, has said that Weaver "got lucky and he got the right last
name." Whether Hacopian's assessment is correct, what hurt Manoukian
most was the split in votes within the Armenian-American community.
The Armenian community cannot blame the divide-and-conquer phenomenon
on any source but itself. If indeed Manoukian was the candidate who
understood the needs of this particular community best, it was the
community's naivete that was instrumental in his defeat.
This brings us to the next feature of these elections: Chahe
Keuroghelian. At 11.8% of the votes, Keuroghelian showed strong
promise. His campaign resonated well in south Glendale and registered
a 38.6% of the votes at the Church of Perfect Liberty polling station,
south of Colorado Street. With his efforts directed almost entirely
to the Armenian-American residents, it is not difficult to see that
it's unlikely to win elections purely on ethnic votes.
Furthermore, with the exception of Manoukian (20% of the votes at the
same polling location), Keuroghelian was one of the few candidates
who reached out to the south.
Maybe council members and future candidates can do the same. For
someone with Drayman's vision, this should be natural. I won't be
surprised if he quickly reaches out to all segments of our city.
Based on his own statements about having support from across the
spectrum, however, Weaver does not seem to have much work to do in this
department. Voting along the ethnic and socio-economic lines was not
a surprise. What was a surprise was the degree in which candidates'
qualifications were not questioned as long some had the right look and
the right last names. Rewarding candidates who were not as committed
to their own campaigns with our votes did not set a good precedent.
And sadly, that sounds like a case of reverse affirmative action.
Did we all put a little too much emphasis on our tribal instincts? I
think so. But, then again, I could be wrong. Besides, the truth is
not an absolute, but what the majority agrees on.
By Patrick Azadian
Glendale News Press, CA
April 9 2007
I had promised myself to take a break from writing about the elections
after April 3.
And once again, I am breaking a promise to myself.
But one more week and I'll be back at my drab "Can't we (all) just get
along?" routine. Besides, based on the election results, it doesn't
really seem we are all getting along anyway.
Why the bleak forecast?
I am basing my opinion on the most prominent features of the recent
Glendale municipal elections.
The first feature has to do with the lack of support for candidates
with vision and potential for broad support. With the exception of John
Drayman in the City Council race, Mary Boger in the Glendale Unified
School District race and Tony Tartaglia in the Glendale Community
College board race, all other candidates with a solid background and
universal appeal registered below-par results.
Track record, the potential to build bridges, solid goals and the
willingness to run a campaign did not seem to count for much during
these elections - and neither did the late hours spent at their
campaign headquarters by some candidates.
Take Elizabeth Manasserian, for example; she came in with 14.1%
of the votes (pre-provisional). She trailed Todd Hunt by 7.3%.
Nayiri Nahabedian, the pre-provisional winner of one of the seats,
came in at 21.5%, a slim 0.1% advantage to Hunt.
A quick look at Hunt's candidate statement reveals his main credentials
for the position. The first is: "I was born and raised in Glendale
and have lived here for over 40 years." And the second has to do with
his desire to provide all kids in this district the best education
possible. That sounds simple and genuine.
Yet, an unbiased evaluation of his credentials and campaign efforts
compared to Manasserian's and Nahabedian's should conclude that the
latter two were both better qualified for the position than Hunt.
Despite their "quirky" last names, Manasserian and Nahabedian deserved
better.
Then there was Rafi Manoukian. Although some may claim that Manoukian
was a victim of anti-incumbent feelings, and there was a fresh wind
of change sweeping Glendale, the re-election of Dave Weaver puts the
validity of those slogans to rest.
Eric Hacopian, a veteran political consultant who worked on Manoukian
campaign, has said that Weaver "got lucky and he got the right last
name." Whether Hacopian's assessment is correct, what hurt Manoukian
most was the split in votes within the Armenian-American community.
The Armenian community cannot blame the divide-and-conquer phenomenon
on any source but itself. If indeed Manoukian was the candidate who
understood the needs of this particular community best, it was the
community's naivete that was instrumental in his defeat.
This brings us to the next feature of these elections: Chahe
Keuroghelian. At 11.8% of the votes, Keuroghelian showed strong
promise. His campaign resonated well in south Glendale and registered
a 38.6% of the votes at the Church of Perfect Liberty polling station,
south of Colorado Street. With his efforts directed almost entirely
to the Armenian-American residents, it is not difficult to see that
it's unlikely to win elections purely on ethnic votes.
Furthermore, with the exception of Manoukian (20% of the votes at the
same polling location), Keuroghelian was one of the few candidates
who reached out to the south.
Maybe council members and future candidates can do the same. For
someone with Drayman's vision, this should be natural. I won't be
surprised if he quickly reaches out to all segments of our city.
Based on his own statements about having support from across the
spectrum, however, Weaver does not seem to have much work to do in this
department. Voting along the ethnic and socio-economic lines was not
a surprise. What was a surprise was the degree in which candidates'
qualifications were not questioned as long some had the right look and
the right last names. Rewarding candidates who were not as committed
to their own campaigns with our votes did not set a good precedent.
And sadly, that sounds like a case of reverse affirmative action.
Did we all put a little too much emphasis on our tribal instincts? I
think so. But, then again, I could be wrong. Besides, the truth is
not an absolute, but what the majority agrees on.