Here’s a thought, or question, or idea or dream.
Might Oklahoma City mayor David Holt be the man to save us?
Though a third mayoral term is available to him, he’s offering signs of greater ambition, even as he’s mastered the art of not appearing that ambitious at all, choosing the role of good steward, instead.
He can be both.
In August, Holt penned an op-ed for the New York Times under the headline “I’m a Red-State Mayor. Diversity is Not Reverse Bigotry,” which could not be more anti-current Republican electoral thinking, statewide and nationally, if it tried.
The twist, of course, is Holt happens to be a Republican.
“I’m a lifelong Republican who believes in meritocracy,” he explained in the Times, “but meritocracy cannot be exclusionary.”
Here, here.
So that raised his profile, which ain’t nothing.
Holt also, since June 22, is president of the United States Conference of Mayors, an organization designed to make mayors be better mayors, each plugged into their contemporaries in other cities, creating all kinds of positive outcomes of which we’re unaware; yet also an organization that tends to not move political needles, though Holt seems to be giving it a try.
Playing host to more than 40 mayors of all political stripes at the bombing memorial in downtown OKC — the Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum, if we’re being precise — the conference approved this declaration against political violence and for mutual respect, a declaration you can watch Holt, surrounded by those other mayors, deliver here.
Here’s the heart of it:
• That political violence in any form is unacceptable and should be met with the harshest condemnation and penalties. We will condemn those who use or condone political violence, and will seek full accountability for their actions, even if their political position was one with which we agreed.
• That even in a pluralistic society, those things we have in common still far exceed those things that make us different. We will seek ways to inject our shared humanity into debates, even when those debates are emotional (especially when those debates are emotional).
• That civility matters, because it is a reflection of our respect for our shared humanity. We will refrain from referring to those with whom we disagree by anything but their preferred name, and if they have a title, we will use it.
• That dehumanization is the rhetorical device that has paved the way to the worst atrocities in human history. We will refrain from referring to those Americans with whom we disagree as “enemies” or as “evil” or with terms that imply they are less than human in any way.
• That we each deserve to be treated as individuals. We will refrain from imputing the actions or statements of one person or group to everyone we perceive to be in agreement with that person or group’s political positions.
• That there is no issue within the confines of the American experiment – outside of insurrection or war – that is truly existential, and we will refrain from apocalyptic political rhetoric.
• That truth matters, especially when false information contributes to unnecessary outrage and emotion. We will refrain from spreading false information and will correct and condemn the spread of false information, even when it originates from a person or group whose position is one with which we agree.
• That everyone participating in the American experiment is motivated by the same thing – a better life for all of us. Unless there are serious allegations to the contrary, we will refrain from questioning the personal motivations of those with whom we disagree.
• That not every thought has to be expressed out loud, especially on social media. We will use social media responsibly and with restraint.
• That we are humans first, Americans second, and partisans last.
It’s a manifesto of decency, is what it is.
No, not everybody has seen or heard it. In fact, the video of Holt’s recitation of it, in real time — 4:20 p.m., Thursday afternoon — had been seen only about 1,300 times.
What it can be, though, is a beginning, a playbook, a guide to be referenced again and again, to be made known, to be associated with Holt, to be issued as a challenge to future political rivals to sign onto, because who’s against a political re-dedication of the Oklahoma Standard?
It’s what any of us might struggle to live up to, but what all of us should wish we could.
So, here’s the thought, question, idea or dream.
Though there’s no hurry, Holt should not seek a third term as Oklahoma City’s mayor, he should instead run to be Oklahoma’s next governor, and because he’s become a man of the left, whether he likes that designation or not, he should not run as a Republican because he’d never get through the primary.
Nor should he run as a Democrat because, though he might stand a chance, he wouldn’t stand a good one. Instead, what he ought to do, when the time comes, is declare his run as an independent from the start.
There’s a fourth option, but were it not to work …
Holt could enter the Republican primary and, stealing votes from Gentner Drummond, hand Charles McCall — the worst — the Republican nomination, and then declare his independent candidacy, making the Democrat in the race irrelevant and the only real opponent McCall, who, as noted, is the worst. That would mean knee-capping Democrat Cyndi Munson, but if it means delivering Oklahoma from one-party political rule, even fueled by an independent, so be it.
It could also make McCall governor, so maybe don’t break the glass?
Having been a Republican all this time, it would buy Holt credibility beyond his purple Oklahoma City constituency, the one that’s allowed him to win two mayoral elections by better than three-to-one margins.
The chance to remind state Republicans why he was in their party to begin with, and how his values haven’t changed so much as those of latter-day frauds in Republican clothing have, making salt-of-the-earth Oklahomans their victims, is a tactic unavailable to the Democrat running for the same office, in whose voice it would only be accusatory toward voters required to win.
Even running as an independent would change our electoral dynamics because you know there’s swaths of Republican voters (and legislators) who are also tired of everything politics have become in our state and the nation, and though they may not be ready for a Democrat, they might be ready for Holt, who spent eight years representing District 30 in the state senate as a Republican before running for mayor.
Just by his name being on the general election ballot, the choice no longer binary, the choice no longer one with grand canyons in between, the temperature would lessen.
Bye chance Holt wins, his agenda would become easy.
What does public education require? Let’s do it.
What kind of transparency do voters really want? Let’s do that.
Raise the minimum wage? If it’s an 80-20 issue, and it likely is, let’s do that, too.
Of course, the state can coexist with the tribes, right? Yes, do it.
Do we want experts or cronies in the governor’s cabinet? Experts, do it.
I’m just spitballing here, but imagine.
And should legislative Republicans remain insufferable, so be it. At least they’ll be exposed, eventually nudging them back toward the center more than they’re being nudged now.
For Dems like me, constitutionally against voting against a fellow Dem, Holt’s emergence would also make current legislative Dems more powerful and future legislative Dems more plentiful, all things another Republican governor would not.
It’s an idea.
We’re a great state that chooses the wrong people over and over again.
But David Holt is a righteous dude, leading a city that loves him, who stands a real chance if he makes the right choices.
Here’s hoping he takes it.
If you know him, put this in front of him.
Tell him he can claim the idea his own.
I would support him in a heartbeat. I have been a fan since I first "met" him at a UCO conference back in the early years when he was in the OK senate. Told a friend that day that he was going to be a true servant of the people and his star would be on the rise. He has not disappointed.