By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

The campaigns culminating in the recent special election offer a window through which to view the ongoing transformation of Somerville‚Äôs political culture.  For at least the last three decades, economic forces have been dissolving the city‚Äôs social institutions, producing politics of conflict and unfocused resistance.

Odd as it may seem, the election and what it illuminates have gotten me thinking about peasant wars of the 20th Century– Algeria, China, Cuba, Viet Nam.  Through the lens of cold War ideology, we saw these revolutions as communist threats, rather than as the essentially conservative movements that they were.

Before the arrival of Europeans, these societies enjoyed rich social institutions with extensive rights and obligations among groups and individuals.  While very few of them were wealthy, their relationships to the land and each other allowed all to make a living.  Traditional leaders, who were responsible for protecting these rights and obligations had to choose whether they would do so, or cooperate with the agents of European economic, political, and military power.

Those who allied with imperial forces became wealthy and more powerful than their peers.  Those who fought to defend tradition exhausted their limited resources and became irrelevant.  Extended families, village communities, spiritual authority, expectations of mutual assistance, sexual propriety, respect for elders, subsistence farming and other traditional livelihoods all disintegrated.

The great majority of people of these countries yearned to return to the stability, mutual respect, and more modest, but more broadly shared material existence of traditional life.  Some unemployed professionals from the tiny middle classes, emerged as leaders for change.  They often embraced Marxism as an explanation for their societies‚Äô fates.  But their goals were, in many ways, conservative.  They argued that changes resulting from foreign capital‚Äôs replacement of traditional relationships with market relationships made it impossible to go back to the old institutions.  But they could live according to their traditional values by creating new, more humane institutions.

The West reacted violently to these movements.  But even Vietnam War architect Robert McNamara came to understand that if we had merely accepted as true the literal statements of intent by Vietnamese leaders, we could have accomplished our objectives there without ever having to fight.

The people who are now commonly referred to as ‚ÄúOld Somerville‚Äù have been under siege for decades.  First, the market made factories that provided thousands of well-paying jobs for people without college educations unprofitable.  They closed, and people left, gradually unraveling the fabric of relationships that constitute a community and vitalize the institutions that support, express, and enrich it.  The illusionary lure of the suburbs drew away thousands more.

They were replaced by immigrants, first from Portugal, and then from Brazil, the Caribbean, Central America, and Asia.  Their arrival brought a low level of competition for jobs at the economic margins.  More importantly, their struggle for survival and their cultural differences made the new immigrants unavailable to replace those who had given life to Somerville‚Äôs community institutions.  Tightly-knit neighborhoods, church congregations, fraternal and ethnic organizations, extended families, civic and political clubs, and union locals continued to fade away.

Over the last decade, more affluent professionals have increasingly displaced both old Somerville and immigrants by bidding up housing costs.  Those who have dominated Somerville politics until this point are perceived by many in old Somerville to be of old Somerville. But their policies have not protected old Somerville‚Äôs interests, and in many ways, have undermined them.

Consciously or not, these leaders have become the historical equivalent of the traditional leaders who sided with imperial forces to protect their own power.  In this case, the imperial agents are those who want to realize the greatest return from investing in Somerville at the lowest cost, and then take their profit elsewhere, rather than reinvesting here and strengthening our local economic cycle.  Principally, although by no means exclusively, they are real estate developers. 

Policies crafted to meet their needs have created more new municipal costs than revenues, placing an ever-greater tax burden on homeowners and, indirectly, renters.  Even significant increases in overall residential property taxes cannot keep up with increased municipal costs, so the city is imposing an oppressive regime of increased fees and fines.

Meanwhile, those who would logically play the role of the revolutionary leaders are Somerville residents who would define themselves as ‚Äúprogressive,‚Äù both homegrown and newcomers.  Yet, they have offered no policies that are persuasive of their efficacy to restore community, family, neighborliness, decent affordable housing, and a fair day‚Äôs pay for a fair day‚Äôs work.  One wonders if they feel old Somerville‚Äôs pain.  One wonders if they are listening.