Is Ted Downing running for the Arizona Senate seat as an Independent?
Downing, a UA anthropology prof who served two terms as a Democrat in the house in midtown District 28, lost a bid for the Senate in 2006 when he challenged Paula Aboud in the Democratic primary.
Downing wants a rematch with Aboud and is now registered as a Democratic candidate with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office. He’s been traveling the LD28 Democratic circuit as he gathers signatures for his campaign.
But we’re hearing rumblings that he might instead run with no party affiliation.
We called Downing to find out what he’s up to. He replied via e-mail that he was off on an Avatar-like adventure involving indigenous people in conflict with a mining operation, so he wouldn’t be able to call us back until next week to explain his plans.
But he did give us this cryptic tidbit: “…changing Arizona requires more than changing politicians, it requires the people changing how people are represented. I assure you that this theme will grow louder for the 2012 election. I say this by way of
introduction because I want you to understand why I am doing what I do. My decisions are intimately linked to actions that I have taken in the past—inside and outside of politics.”
We’ve talked to some observers who say that Downing may have been considering a campaign as an Independent, but will stick with the Democratic label.
But what if Downing does run as an Independent in the race? He avoids the possibility that he could lose in the Democratic primary, as he did last time against Aboud.
In the general election, he can campaign as having moved beyond politics. He manages to trade on his lingering name ID, pick up Democrats who would have supported him in the primary and might be attractive to Republicans and Independents who don’t know him but want to vote against a Democrat.
It’s an interesting gambit. We’ll let you know more when he hear back from Downing.
BTW: Downing may not be the only Independent in the race. We ran into Mary DeCamp at the Himmel Park Library yesterday, where she was collecting signatures for Dave Ewoldt.
Ewoldt has been a key player in recent Green campaigns for City Hall. He helped Dave Croteau develop his mayoral campaign, which featured an emphasis on 10 Key Values and a plan to make Tucson the waterless composting toilet capital of the world.
Ewoldt has abandoned the Green Party label to run as in Independent this year, even thought it means collecting a lot more signatures. But you can expect him to hang onto the campaign template.
He’s having a meet-and-greet at Woods Library, 3455 N. First Ave., tonight at 6:30 p.m. Mary promises to bring homemade cookies.
This article appears in May 6-12, 2010.
Downing record in the house was interesting. As a student of politics, he went prepared and was insightful in protecting the interest of the people of Tucson. I can see him as either a Democratic or independent candidate. From talking to him, he seems above the current political fray. One wonders if Aboud has her heart in being in the senate given her performance over the last term. Seems like it’s a hard drive up to Phoenix. Paula plays hooky too much of the time. Ewoldt is so idealistic that I wonder if his feet have touched the ground over the past several years. Is it true what I hear that he wants to reduce the Tucson population to less than 50,000? Good grief, how many of us must leave? Where will we go? Best qualified? Downing. Most angry? Aboud. Then there is Ewoldt, candidate moonbeam?
Hi Zookeeper… My problem, if it can be called that, is that my feet are _too_ firmly planted in the ground. I don’t want to reduce the population of Tucson to 50,000. But if people want to talk honestly about sustainability, within which the concept of carrying capacity is deeply embedded, there are some realities that can’t be ignored. The facts on the ground are that we’re running out of water, and that we don’t, in fact, really even have enough to _sustain_ the current population. If the Colorado goes functionally dry (below the intake pipes), our *assured* water supply is 30 days. The latest widely accepted studies are predicting this could happen between 2011-12 and 2020-25. One of the things that worries me is the way the worst-case scenarios from climate models of five years ago, that weren’t expected to occur until 2050-85, keep happening now.
When I was a Boy Scout, being prepared was one of the concepts we had drilled into us.
So, the question becomes how do we, as a community, protect and preserve a dwindling natural resource, for which there is no replacement except in pipe dreams (being blunt in the interest of space here) which are actually sustainable, and for how many people is this possible at what standard of living for what quality of life? And these can all be fairly objectively measured, even within subjective boundaries.
It’s also a fact that 10,000 or more people voluntarily leave the Tucson area every year. Considering the current budget, maybe we should save the tens of millions we’re spending on PR to entice 20,000 or more to take their place.
Now, if you can refute any of that on ecologically sound grounds that obey the laws of physics and doesn’t turn our one and only life support system into a smouldering waste heap, I’d like to hear it.
Better yet, come up with a process, that people can actually do today, better than relocalization which would systemically address the root causes of our personal, social, and environmental ills. I’ll support _you_ as a candidate. The thing is, when relocalization is coupled with the principles of steady-state economics, we could have a technologically advanced society that could actually improve overall quality of life and benefit from the long withheld _promise_ of technology–increased leisure time.
This is not the wishful thinking of an academic or ’60s idealist. This is being put in place in hundreds of communities around the world today, about 50 in the US. My platform is pretty firmly based in science. It’s not my fault a growing number of fields in modern science keep validating ancient indigenous wisdom. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves.
What I’m offering is a pragmatic, viable alternative. Don’t believe Margaret Thatcher.
Hi Mr. Ewoldt. I apologize for having missed your entry. Your campaign effort is intriguing. I still need to know more about your pragmatics, about how you will get the community, Tucson in specific, to turn towards a more resilient community and economy. You’re correct about the water situation, transportation costs make things more difficult given that we’re dependent upon our food supplies from a distance, and having previously lived in a desert community outside the country I find the local efforts of water conservation leave much to be desired. I certainly don’t argue with your analysis of some of the problems we face.
My concern is how one goes about righting the ship as an independent in a state legislature that has largely sold its soul to the highest bidder. The loyal opposition Democrats get caught up in opposing Republican initiatives and, in most cases, invest all their energies in refuting the Republican line rather than involving themselves in addressing our critical issues and proposing relevant solutions. Both parties tend to be monolithic all hewing to their respective party lines and those who get out of step are punished.
As I look around the country and overseas and think about the local food movement, the emergence of local currencies, the creation of local investment opportunities, etc., I find that most innovation is occurring at the local level. Certainly the changes are not occurring in the state legislatures or within Congress nor or such local efforts sponsored or funded by legislative branches. In fact, most legislation rewards the status quo, those in power funding them to correct the egregious mistakes made by those very same people who are in power. Much of our technology is designed to put right the problems caused by previous generations of technology.
I want to pick up on your awareness that there are efforts in a number of places in the USA to address your environmental, energy, and educational concerns. Over the years I’ve advised a number of local groups creating programs in community forestry, formation of cooperatives, direct marketing of agriculture produce, etc. These efforts are generated among local people, often by non-governmental organizations and other civic groups, and are geared to solve the problems of those involved given their resources and capacities. In many cases, the people in the legislatures oppose these efforts or claim them to be irrelevant because they are unrelated to the current political discourse that sets one group against another, that robs from Peter to pay Paul.
All of this said, and I think you can see my reasoning, I believe you are wasting your time running for the legislature. Other than to have a bit of a bully pulpit (limited because of the party structure), the likelihood of you being successful is limited at best. My question to you is why don’t you organize the local community? Why not run for city council, board of supervisors, or even mayor. It’s at this local level where the differences can be made. You can organize local people to engage in practical affairs. Move into a single neighborhood and organize the people, develop a clear program of action that will solve the local people’s problems if they join in and share the load. This is the practicality that I’m interested in. What we desperately need are sound successful examples on the ground so that others will see and gain the courage to step away from the dictates of industrial economics and find their own ways recognizing the existence of the limitations in resources that you spell out.
The legislature will waste your time and given the seriousness of our problems there is no time to waste. Good luck. The old 60s adage is still true, think globally, act locally.