Opinion: Will Conservatives Help Progressives Gain City Commission Majority?

By J. Brent Pichard

Question #1: Why would a conservative Republican stronghold invite three Democrat City Commission candidates to come and ply their political wares, especially when Democrats outnumber Republicans in our town by a 2 to 1 margin?

Answer: Because conservatives are responsible, engaged citizens and because the only choice they will have in August and November is between Democrat candidates.

Question #2: Why would Democrat candidates want to appear before a raucous crowd of political adversaries?  

Answer: Because votes are votes no matter who they come from.  There could be, however, a much bigger reason two of the candidates showed up; a reason that is not so obvious; a reason that may have evaded this Republican crowd.

Such was the setting at the June 11th meeting of Capital Conservatives.  And boy, did the sparks fly.

Commissioner Richardson, the moderate Democrat incumbent, with his recent voting record fresh on everyone’s mind, did face some audible hostility.  Challenger Dot Inman Johnson, with a record as long and storied as Richardson’s, came across as someone with surprisingly conservative views but whose liberal voting record was too far in the past to be a factor.

With few or no negatives in her column, she preached to the choir on a number of issues: looming city deficits; runaway construction costs at the new police headquarters; overdue raises for firefighters and increasing taxes.  Red meat for conservative audiences. 

Challenger Bernard Stevens, Jr., with no political credentials but with a business management background that, for most conservatives, is held in high regard, talked faith, negative trends at city hall, sound fiscal policies plus a pledge to personally run towards city problems – like the homeless issue – with a newcomer’s enthusiasm and determination to find solutions. 

To boil it all down, Commissioner Richardson was received and evaluated on what he is already known to be; while Challengers Inman-Johnson and Stevens were received and evaluated not on their records but rather on what they represented themselves to be if elected to office.  No surprises thus far.  That’s just the world of incumbency with challengers.  But then something very revealing happened.

During closing statements, the scenery changed.  Rather than three candidates each going for the gold individually, the debate morphed into a two-against-one tag team of Johnson and Stevens pummeling Richardson in a well-coordinated attack to put as many arrows into the incumbent as possible.  This raises an under-the-radar question that I believe evaded most of my fellow conservatives. 

And that question is this: Given the current makeup of the Tallahassee City Commission with its three moderate Democrats who are almost always in opposition to the remaining two leftist Democrats, to which side would a newly elected commissioner most likely gravitate?  The balance of power at City Hall hangs on the answer.  Richardson’s leanings are well known.  For the challengers’ leanings, we can only speculate. 

What we may have witnessed the other night was an old liberal past, draped in conservative trapping, from a serious challenger who seems awfully chummy with that unruly duo at City Hall.  Perhaps the purpose was, with Republican help, to not only oust the moderate incumbent, but to pull off a seismic three-vote shift in the balance of power at City Hall – from moderate left to extreme far left. 

For this conservative Republican, give me every day of the week a moderate Democrat majority with which I disagree 75% of the time; to a far-left Democrat majority with which I would disagree 100% of the time.

J. Brent Pichard was born and raised in Tallahassee. He is a USAF Veteran, Retired Real Estate Broker and Bank Trust Officer.