A "Safer, Cleaner" Logan Leslie?

Three days ago, the “Issues” section of Cambridge City Council candidate Logan Leslie’s website called for “A Safer, Cleaner Cambridge” characterized by an end to the “coddling” of the homeless. Leslie roundly condemned the “vagrants” and “aggressive panhandlers” that were an “embarrassment” to Cambridge and denounced the political correctness standing between Cambridge and a better quality of life. Within days of enduring withering criticism from progressives at The Crimson, Leslie’s campaign has completely reversed its stance toward the homeless of Cambridge, and quietly removed other conservative language from its platform.
Today, Leslie’s site calls for a meaningful conversation on how to make the city “A More Welcoming Cambridge” and characterizes the homelessness problem as one of apathy and insufficient resources. On other issues, the once vocal campaign has fallen silent. Where Leslie initially dismissed “silly” regulations related to the environment and obesity, his tone is now conciliatory. While Leslie’s lack of compassion for the homeless was an early warning sign to progressive voters, voters of all stripes should be more concerned over the lack of integrity Leslie has displayed in his campaign.
When The Crimson‘s progressives cast a critical eye on Leslie’s stance toward the homeless, he had the opportunity to either defend his positions or consider thoughtfully revising his beliefs. Instead, according to Leslie’s campaign manager, Eric Cervini, Leslie has rolled out plans for a hastily conceived city-wide task force on the homeless. In all likelihood, Leslie’s dramatic shift is not the result of some divine revelation but a political move calculated to win back eroding progressive support. There is little evidence to suggest that Leslie’s anti-homeless attitudes have disappeared overnight and they will likely continue to subtly shape his policies even if the task force became a reality. His offer to nominate Sam Greenberg, one of his critics, as the student chair of this proposed task force is both deeply cynical and irresponsible. If this move is any sign of how Leslie would govern, one can expect a term marked by rash decision making and rampant political patronage.
In communicating with voters, the Leslie campaign has shown a tendency toward subterfuge. Cervini’s op-ed attempts to deflect public scrutiny from Leslie’s relevant political viewpoints to the politics of identity. First, Cervini baits the reader to consider why a “Card-Carrying Homosexual Democrat is Running Logan Leslie’s Campaign,” although the city council race is nonpartisan, and Leslie will have virtually no influence on gay issues. Later, he mentions how irrelevant sexual orientation is to Leslie and his own inability to be married in Texas. After establishing his LGBT credentials, Cervini proceeds to the meat of his argument, that a student representative will help the makeup of the city council better reflect the demographics of the city.
Along the way, Cervini casually distorts and exaggerates arguments against Leslie to suggest that his critics don’t believe Harvard students are entitled to vote in Cambridge. Within two sentences, Cervini is drawing parallels between Leslie’s critics and the antebellum South and touting Leslie’s efforts to defend the student franchise. Leslie’s attempts to register his supporters to vote are framed, not as a political strategy but as a altruistic public service. It’s a sentimental, dramatic, dangerously simplistic argument– in short, the ideal ploy to distract readers from the real issues.
What Cervini forgets (or omits) in his paean to student voting is that representation involves more than mere identity. While having elected officials who resemble us is a symbolic good, the votes they cast are far more likely to effect our daily lives, especially when the position in question requires few public appearances or speeches.  Therefore, our focus should not be on Leslie’s identity as a student, but his ability to advocate on our behalf. The question at hand is whether we can trust Logan Leslie to reliably defend student views, to deliberate before making decisions, and to communicate openly with his constituents. The manner  in which he has run his campaign suggests that the answer is a resounding “no.”